See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314503277

Horizontal lifelines - review of regulations and simple design method

considering anchorage rigidity

Article · March 2017

DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1300444

CITATIONS READS

3 3,158

2 authors:

Bertrand Galy Andre Lan

Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
12 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Classification des sols et sélection des systèmes d’étançonnement pour l’excavation des tranchées View project

Mine Hoist Safety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andre Lan on 10 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics

ISSN: 1080-3548 (Print) 2376-9130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20

Horizontal lifelines – review of regulations and

simple design method considering anchorage
rigidity

Bertrand Galy & André Lan

To cite this article: Bertrand Galy & André Lan (2017): Horizontal lifelines – review of regulations
and simple design method considering anchorage rigidity, International Journal of Occupational
Safety and Ergonomics

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1300444

Accepted author version posted online: 01

Mar 2017.
Published online: 28 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20

Download by: [Bibliothèque ÉTS] Date: 28 March 2017, At: 06:12

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1300444

Horizontal lifelines – review of regulations and simple design method considering

anchorage rigidity
Bertrand Galy ∗ and André Lan
Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), Canada

Among the many occupational risks construction workers encounter every day falling from a height is the most dangerous.
The objective of this article is to propose a simple analytical design method for horizontal lifelines (HLLs) that considers
anchorage flexibility. The article presents a short review of the standards and regulations/acts/codes concerning HLLs in
Canada the USA and Europe. A static analytical approach is proposed considering anchorage flexibility. The analytical
results are compared with a series of 42 dynamic fall tests and a SAP2000 numerical model. The experimental results show
that the analytical method is a little conservative and overestimates the line tension in most cases with a maximum of 17%.
The static SAP2000 results show a maximum 2.1% difference with the analytical method. The analytical method is accurate
enough to safely design HLLs and quick design abaci are provided to allow the engineer to make quick on-site verification
if needed.
Keywords: horizontal lifeline; design method; anchorage flexibility; SAP2000; fall tests; wire rope; deflection

1. Introduction attachment of fall arrest equipment. This type of PFAS

Among the many occupational risks construction work-
ers encounter every day, falling from a height is the most
dangerous. Some specialized occupations, such as steel
erection, are more exposed to fall from height hazards.
In Québec during 2009, over 12,000 falls occurred during
working hours and 13 workers died (representing 21% of
occupational fatalities), making this the third largest cause
of death at work [1]. Moreover, between 2009 and 2011,
70% of working stoppage orders and 58% of infractions
in the construction industry were related to fall protection
[1]. Fall from height is the second accident cause in terms
of economic burden (CAD 388 million/year), just behind
fall on the same level (CAD 417 million/year) [2].
The fall protection strategy consists of eliminating the
fall risk at the source if possible, by planning most of
the work at floor level or by having a structure to pro-
vide protection. If this is not possible, then the primary
option is to use passive collective fall protection systems
such as guardrails or safety nets. A passive fall protection
system does not require any action from the user to acti-
vate it. As a last resort, an active system (requiring some
actions from the worker) such as a personal fall arrest sys-
tem (PFAS) is given to workers. One type of PFAS is a
horizontal lifeline (HLL). A HLL is a system composed
of a synthetic or wire rope, installed horizontally between
two anchors, to which a worker attaches his personal fall
protection system. It provides a continuous anchor for the
allows the workers to have a larger freedom of movement
compared with fixed anchoring points. It increases their
safety by reducing the number of times the workers have to
connect/disconnect their lanyard from the anchorage con-
nector. Once the worker attaches himself to the HLL, he is
protected from the beginning to the end of his tasks.
The basic parameters studied in HLL design are the
maximum arrest force (MAF) in the workers lanyard, the
maximum arrest load (MAL) in the line and the total fall
distance (TFD). The goal is to find an optimum balance
between the TFD and the MAL. Indeed, when the fall
distance increases, the line tension diminishes and vice
versa. A high line tension during fall arrest will obviously
affect the rope diameter but also the anchorage design.
Research on HLLs, both theoretical and testing, has been
carried out since the 1970s [3–5] but there are still some
questions remaining, such as the influence of anchorage
flexibility. Simple, yet safe, analytical tools are very use-
ful to design HLLs for use on construction sites. However,
most analytical methods presented in past studies do not
consider anchorage flexibility, leading to overdesign of the
anchorages.
This article presents a short review of the Canadian, US
and European standards and regulations/acts/codes related
to the design of HLLs used on construction sites and pro-
poses a simple analytical design method for HLLs, taking
into account anchorage flexibility. The article also provides

*Corresponding author. Email: bertrand.galy@irsst.qc.ca

© 2017 Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB)
2 B. Galy and A. Lan
quick design abaci and a comparison between theoretical
and laboratory results. Finally, the article presents a dis-
cussion on the reliability and use of the analytical method
presented in this study.
2. Review of North American and European
regulations/acts/codes for horizontal lifelines
This section presents a short review of the current stan-
dards and regulations/acts/codes in Canada, the USA and
Europe. For Canada, the case of the three most popu-
lated provinces (Ontario, Québec and British Columbia) is
discussed more thoroughly. First, the safety and health reg-
ulations are discussed and then the applicable standards on
fall protection are presented.
2.1. Canada (Provinces of Québec, Ontario and British
Columbia)
Fall protection is required when workers are exposed to:
• a fall of 3 m or higher (1.2 m if using a wheelbar-
row);
• a fall into operating machinery;
• a fall into water or a hazardous liquid;
• a fall through an opening on a work surface [6,7].
The workers shall be protected with guardrail systems;
if this is not possible, workers shall be protected with
one of the following means: travel restraint systems, fall
restricting systems, fall arrest systems or safety nets [6].
These components shall be designed by a professional
engineer in accordance with good engineering practice,
and shall meet the requirements of the family of fall pro-
tection standards from the National Standards of Canada
[6,8–10].
2.1.1. Ontario
Ontario Regulation 851, Section 85, limits the free fall dis-
tance to 1.5 m, prescribes the use of an energy absorber
that limits the MAF to 8 kN and stipulates that the fall
arrest system shall have sufficient capacity to absorb twice
the energy of the fall [7]. Ontario Regulation 691 pre-
scribes the same MAF. For temporary anchorages, Ontario
Regulation 691 allows dynamic testing in accordance with
good engineering practice in order to verify the capacity of
the anchorage to arrest a worker’s fall. However, for per-
manent anchorages, such dynamic testing is not allowed
because permanent anchor systems have to be installed
according to the Building Code [6].
2.1.2. Province of Québec
In Québec, HLLs are governed by Section 2.10.15 of Reg-
ulation S-2.1, r.4 [9]. This section stipulates that a HLL
shall be designed by a professional engineer or shall meet
the following minimal criteria [9]:
• the HLL is a wire rope with a minimal diameter of
12 mm and with a minimal angle of 1 vertical for 12
horizontal (5°);
• the span between the anchorages is less than 12 m;
• the anchorage breaking strength is at least 90 kN;
• a maximum of two workers can use the HLL at the
same time.
Québec is the only province where a HLL can be installed
without the supervision of a professional engineer. How-
ever, the Québec Safety Code for the Construction Indus-
try basically gives the choice between a design properly
made by a professional engineer and a huge overdesign
if only one worker is connected to the HLL. Experimen-
tal research work [5] showed that even for long spans
(50 m) the maximum arrest load (MAL), which is the peak
force experienced and measured at the anchorage dur-
ing the dynamic test of a HLL, never exceeded 31.1 kN,
with a MAF of 8.5 kN, which is way beyond what can
be expected today because energy absorbers are manda-
tory. With two masses falling at the same time at the
center of the lifeline, the MAL measured was 45.8 kN
with MAFs of 8.6 and 8.7 kN for each worker respec-
tively [5]. Today, in similar conditions, with the mandatory
energy absorber we can expect MAFs around 4 kN for
each worker with a Class E4 absorber, compliant with
Standard No. CAN/CSA Z259.11:2005 [11]. This means
that the anticipated MAL should be approximately 30 kN,
only a third of the minimum anchorage strength of a
HLL not designed by an engineer. Hence, we can see
that the minimal requirements for a HLL not designed
by a professional engineer are very conservative, even for
the case where two workers are connected to the lifeline
simultaneously.
2.1.3. British Columbia
In British Columbia, the fall arrest system components
can comply with Standards No. ANSI Z359:2007 instead
of Standards No. CAN/CSA Z259 [10]. This case is
quite unique in Canada; however, Standards No. ANSI
Z359:2007 and Standards No. CAN/CSA Z259 are quite
similar and most PFAS components meet the require-
ments of both standards. HLLs must be able to sustain
twice the MAL and at least a tension force of 22 kN.
Temporary HLLs can be used if they are manufactured
products installed and used in accordance with the man-
ufacturer’s guidelines, if they are designed and used in
accordance with written instructions certified by a pro-
fessional engineer or if they are designed, installed and
used in a manner acceptable to the Board. However,
permanent HLLs must be certified by a professional
engineer [10].
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE)
2.1.4. Standards No. CAN/CSA Z259
Since the early 1990s fall protection regulations and stan-
dards have evolved significantly in Canada [1], and today
15 Standards No. CAN/CSA Z259 have been published.
Standard No. CAN/CSA Z259.13:2016 [12] gives the
design requirements and test procedures for HLLs. Basi-
cally, the minimum strength of a HLL shall be at least twice
the anticipated MAL. Table 1 presents more details on the
minimum requirements for the lifelines, depending on their
material. End anchorage connectors shall resist at least
twice the MAL (but not less than 22.2 kN) horizontally and
at least twice the MAL × sin θ max (but not less than 16 kN)
vertically, where θ max is the maximum angle between the
lifeline and the horizontal during the worker’s fall.
The design temperatures to consider vary between −35
and +35 °C (–31 and +95 °F). Special conditioning is
required before testing in wet and cold conditions. Under
such climatic conditions the MAF of Class E4 absorbers
can be increased to 6 kN instead of 4 kN, and to 8 kN for
Class E6 absorbers instead of 6 kN [11].
2.2. The USA
In the USA, the Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration (OSHA) mission is to ensure safe and healthful
working conditions for workers by setting and enforc-
ing standards. OSHA Part 1926 has a specific subpart for
fall protection: Subpart M 1926.500–1926.503 and appen-
dices. Standards No. ANSI Z359:2007 on fall arrest sys-
tems defines the basic requirements of PFAS components.
Both of these documents are discussed in this section.
2.2.1. The OSHA
Subpart M 1926.502 of the OHS act stipulates that HLLs
shall be designed, installed and used under the supervision
of a qualified person, and shall maintain a safety factor of
at least 2 [13]. As a rule of thumb, OSHA Subpart M App
C and App E give the amplifying factor between the MAF
and the MAL for HLLs as about 6:1 for a 5° sag. OSHA
Subpart M App C also recommends taking extreme care in
the design of HLLs with multiple tie-offs, because the fall
Table 1. Minimum requirements for flexible horizontal
lifelines according to Standard No. CAN/CSA
Z259.13:2016 [12].
Wire rope Synthetic Horizontal
Minimum line and HLL and lifeline energy
requirement in-line fitting in-line fitting absorber
Strength 2 × MAL 2.5 × MAL 2 × MAL
and and and
>28.9 kN >33.3 kN >22.2 kN
Note: 28.9 kN = 6500 lbf; 33.3 kN = 7500 lbf;
22.2 kN = 5000 lbf; HLL = horizontal lifeline;
MAL = maximum arrest load.
3
of a worker can trigger the fall of other workers connected
to the same lifeline. Finally, Subpart M App C recom-
mends testing of installed lifelines and anchors prior to use.
Hence we can see that the OSHA act does not require a pro-
fessional engineer to design the HLL, contrary to what is
mandatory in some provinces of Canada.
2.2.2. Standards No. ANSI Z359:2007
According to Standard No. ANSI Z359.1:2007 [14], a
PFAS using body harnesses must limit the MAF to 8 kN
(4 kN for the sole energy absorber) and the decelera-
tion distance shall not exceed 1.067 m (42 in.). Further-
more, Standard No. ANSI Z359.1:2007 indicates that ‘a
PFAS, which incorporates a horizontal lifeline (outside
the scope of this standard) shall be evaluated in accor-
dance with acceptable engineering practice to determine
that such system will perform as intended’ [14,p.10]. Stan-
dard No. ANSI Z359:2007 specifically addressing HLLs
is currently under development: Standard No. ANSI/ASSE
Z359.17:200X [15]. Standard No. ANSI Z359.2:2007 stip-
ulates that anchorages shall be certified (and designed)
by ‘a qualified person with experience and training in
designing and using horizontal lifeline systems’ [16, p.35].
Furthermore, anchorages shall be capable of sustaining at
least twice the maximum tension developed in the lifeline
[16], quite similar to what is prescribed by Standard No.
CAN/CSA Z259.13:2016 [12].
2.3. Europe
In Europe, Standard No. EN795:2016 [17] defines different
types of anchors. This standard is referred to in the regula-
tions of most European Union countries, sometimes with
national adaptations. Class C corresponds to an anchor-
ing device equipped with a flexible horizontal retaining
cable. According to this standard, the HLL system and
the end anchorage connectors shall resist at least twice the
MAL [17]. More specifically, type C anchors are most of
the time pre-engineered commercially available systems,
similarly to systems certified according to Standard No.
CSA Z259.13:2016 [12]. Type C anchors are certified with
static and dynamic testing. For the static testing of the
type C anchor, all of its elements shall resist to a static
load of 12 kN, increased to 18 kN for the non-metallic
elements without proof of durability. Type C anchor man-
uals shall indicate the maximum deflection and MAL of
the HLL during the fall arrest. Those indications must be
verified with dynamic laboratory testing. Dynamic testing
is conducted with a 100-kg mass and an alpine climb-
ing rope 11 mm in diameter, compliant with Standard No.
EN 892:2016 [18]. The dynamic loading of the HLL sys-
tem shall be a vertical force between 9.0 and 9.5 kN, and
the acceptable range of variation for the dynamic deflec-
tion and MAL is ±20%. It is very interesting to note
that, even for a short range of dynamic vertical force,
4 B. Galy and A. Lan

the acceptable range of variation for deflection and MAL 3.2. Formulation
is quite high. This is due to the high variability inher- The free body diagram presented in Figure 1 is considered.
ent to dynamic testing and the inelastic behavior of cable The parabolic equation representing the cable sag is given
structures. Finally, the breaking strength of the cable and by Equation (1):
other load-bearing components has to be at least twice
the MAL. wx2
f = , (1)
2T1

3. Simple analytical design method for a HLL where f = initial sag of the HLL at the distance x;
T1 = initial tension in the lifeline; w = linear self-weight
Analysis of cable structures is quite complex under static
of the lifeline; x = distance from the origin.
loading and becomes even more complex when dynamic
Equation (2) presents the sag f1 in Figure 1 (x = L/2):
loading (such as a worker’s fall) is considered. Cables
are highly non-linear structures: they present a non-linear
behavior due to their change in geometry under loading, wL2
f1 = , (2)
and most of the times cable structures present a stiff- 8T1
ening effect due to increasing externally applied loads
[19]. Hence, in order to make a quick, yet safe, design where f1 = initial sag of the HLL at mid-span; L = span
for a HLL, some hypotheses are made to simplify the length; T1 = initial tension in the lifeline; w = linear self-
problem study. Numerous analytical methods have been weight of the lifeline.
proposed to compute HLL deflection and MAL over the The length of the half-parabola can be computed with
years, with different levels of complexity and often lim- Equation (3) [26]:
ited (if any) dynamic laboratory fall testing validation
[3–5,20–22]. A method for synthetic HLLs has been pro-
L w2 L3
posed by Riches [23]. A short review of some of those Sa = + , (3)
methods can be found in Riches [24] and Galy and Lan 2 48T1 2
[25]. This section presents the simplified analytical method
proposed to design HLLs, which is an updated modified where L = span length; Sa = length of the half-parabola;
version of the simplified method proposed by Arteau and T1 = initial tension in the lifeline; w = linear self-weight
Lan [26]. of the lifeline.
During fall arrest, the lifeline elongation is given by
Equation (4):
3.1. Hypotheses T
The following hypotheses are considered in order to sim- ea = , (4)
EA
plify the study of the MAL of a HLL during a worker’s
fall: where A = area of the cable; E = cable Young’s modulus;
ea = lifeline elongation; T = lifeline tension (MAL).
• all components of the HLL are considered to behave
elastically;
• the MAF is taken as 4 kN with an E4 energy
absorber;
• only one worker is considered;
• the worker’s fall is at mid-span because experi-
mental work showed that this was the worst-case
scenario [4,5];
• the HLL has a single span;
• static loading is considered;
• masses of PFAS components are neglected com-
pared with the worker’s mass (100 kg);
• at rest, under its self-weight, the cable geometry is
Figure 1. Free body diagram considered.
approximated by a parabola (instead of a catenary). Note: α = angle between the horizontal and the lifeline under
the vertical force F; ea = lifeline elongation; f1 = initial sag of
the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection;
These hypotheses allow us to propose a simplified, yet con- F = vertical force applied on the cable; L = span length;
servative, design method for HLLs by taking into account Sa = length of the half-parabola; T = lifeline tension
the anchorage rigidity. (maximum arrest load).
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE)
From the free body diagram shown in Figure 1 and
considering infinitely rigid anchorages we obtain Equa-
tions (5)–(7):
F = 2T sin α, (5)
L in Equations (10)–(12). Equation (10) computes the deflec-
cos α = , (6)
2Sa (1 + ea )
and
L
cos α = , (7)
2Sa (1 + (T/EA))
where A = area of the cable; α = angle between the hori-
zontal and the lifeline under the vertical force F; E = cable
Young’s modulus; ea = lifeline elongation; F = vertical
force applied on the cable; L = span length; Sa = length of
the half-parabola; T = lifeline tension (MAL). Then from
Equations (5) and (6) we obtain Equation (8):
F2 F2
T2 = = ,
4 sin α
2 4(1 − cos2 α)
where α = angle between the horizontal and the lifeline
under the vertical force F; F = vertical force applied on
the cable; T = lifeline tension (MAL).
Hence, knowing either the initial tension T1 or sag f1 ,
we can solve the non-linear Equation (8) and find the ten-
sion in the line T. Finally, we can compute the maximum
deflection f2 with Equation (9) [26]:
wL2 + 2FL
f2 = , (9)
8T
where f2 = maximum deflection; F = vertical force
applied on the cable; L = span length; T = lifeline tension
(MAL); w = linear self-weight of the lifeline.
In order to consider the anchorage rigidity, we can
recalculate cos α defined in Equations (6) and (7). Figure 2
Figure 2. Flexible anchorage.
Note: α = angle between the horizontal and the lifeline under
the vertical force F; ek = deflection of the post under the load
T; LA = post length; T = lifeline tension (maximum arrest
load).
5
presents the free body diagram at one anchorage: under line
tension T, the post is going to undergo some straining, thus
increasing the ‘cable length’ by the deflection of the post
under the load T (ek ) compared with the original position
of the lifeline. ek and the new formula of cos α are given
tion of the post under the load applied at its free end – the
deflection is simply the load divided by the post stiffness:
T
ek = , (10)
KA
where ek = deflection of the post under the load T;
KA = post stiffness; T = lifeline tension (MAL).
The post stiffness computed by Equation (11) is derived
from classic equations of structural analysis, for a can-
tilever beam:
3EA IA
KA = , (11)
(8) LA 3
where EA = post material Young’s modulus; IA = flexion
inertia of the post; KA = post stiffness; LA = post length.
Finally, Equation (12) takes Equation (7) and adds the
deflection of the post to the denominator; thus the length
considered in the denominator is the sum of the half-length
of the parabola including the elongation of the cable under
loading plus the post deflection:
L
cos α = , (12)
2[Sa (1 + (T/EA)) + ek ]
where A = area of the cable; α = angle between the hori-
zontal and the lifeline under the vertical force F; E = cable
Young’s modulus; ek = deflection of the post under the
load T; L = span length; Sa = length of the half-parabola;
T = lifeline tension (MAL).
Hence, using the new formula of cos α given in
Equation (12), we can compute the lifeline tension T by
solving Equation (8).
3.3. Solving
The analytical solution of Equation (8) is quite complex
and a mathematical solver is handy. Classic spreadsheet
software like Excel is able to solve Equation (8). A simple
way to do this is to use the solver option in Excel 2010, set-
ting a goal for a cell where the function f (T) is computed
by Equation (13), by iterating the value of T:
F2
f (T) = T2 − , (13)
4(1 − cos2 α)
where α = angle between the horizontal and the lifeline
under the vertical force F; F = vertical force applied on
the cable; T = lifeline tension (MAL).
The next section presents some results and abaci
obtained with this simplified analytical method.
6 B. Galy and A. Lan

4. Results and abaci The MAF considered is 4 kN with a Class E4 energy

4.1. Discussion on general HLL behavior regarding absorber, and the cable is an aircraft steel wire rope 6 × 19
anchorage flexibility of 12.7 mm in diameter ( 21 in.) with a Young’s modu-
lus of 64.8 GPa. We can see that the more flexible the
Figure 3 presents the MAL T and the deflection f2 with
anchorage, the smaller the MAL (from 18.9 kN in the case
varying anchorage rigidity. Flexible anchorages are fully
of a 10-m HLL with rigid anchorages to 16.5 kN when
embedded posts, made of standard hollow structural sec-
using 102 × 102 × 8 HSSs as anchorages). With decreas-
tions (HSSs). The post characteristics are presented in
ing rigidity there is an increase in the deflection f2 : from
Table 2.
(a)

(b)

Figure 3. MAL T and deflection f2 with varying anchorage rigidity: (a) lifeline tension as a function of span length; (b) maximum
deflection as a function of span length.
Note: f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection; KA = post rigidity; L = span length;
MAL = maximum arrest load; T = lifeline tension (MAL).

Table 2. Post anchorage characteristics.

Post’s section Mr (kN·m) I (mm4 ) E (GPa) LA (m) KA (kN/m)

HSS 102 × 102 × 8.0 30.4 3,980,000 200 1.2 1382

HSS 127 × 127 × 6.4 41.6 7,050,000 200 1.0 4230

Note: E = Young’s modulus; HSS = hollow structural section; I = moment of inertia; KA = post rigidity; LA = post length;
Mr = resisting moment.
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 7

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. MAL T and deflection f2 with varying initial sag f1 (KA = 4230 kN/m, Ø = 12.7 mm): (a) lifeline tension as a function of
span length; (b) maximum deflection as a function of span length.
Note: f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection; KA = post rigidity; L = span length;
MAL = maximum arrest load; T = lifeline tension (MAL).

0.53 m in the case of a 10-m HLL with rigid anchorages
to 0.61 m when using 102 × 102 × 8 HSSs as anchorages.
Finally, longer span length means higher MAL. Figure 4
presents the MAL T and the deflection f2 with varying ini-
tial sag f1 . We can see that with low initial sag f1 (high
initial tension T1 ) the MAL is high, especially in the case
of shorter span length. For very long span length, the initial
tension T1 has a low impact on the MAL.
sag f1 . It is worth noting that the smaller diameter steel wire
rope gives smaller MAL (which was anticipated because
its rigidity is smaller). Hence, with a nominal breaking
strength of 57 kN, a 9.5-mm steel wire rope can be a good
option because the factor of safety is higher than 2, the
MAL is reduced and the rope is lighter, which is a huge
advantage for the workers installing HLLs.

4.2. Quick design abaci
Figures 5 and 6 show quick design abaci for infinitely rigid
anchorages and steel wire rope diameters of 12.7 ( 12 ) and
9.5 mm ( 83 in.). With these abaci (or those shown in Figures
3 and 4) it is quite simple to evaluate the MAL T and the
maximal deflection f2 as functions of span length and initial
5. Comparison with dynamic fall test results
5.1. Test protocol
All of the dynamic fall tests were carried out according
to the requirements of Standards No. CAN/CSA Z259.
For most of the tests, the test mass was a wood torso
weighing 100 kg and equipped with a Class A full body
8 B. Galy and A. Lan

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. MAL T and deflection f2 with varying initial sag f1 (KA = ∞, Ø = 12.7 mm): (a) lifeline tension as a function of span
length; (b) maximum deflection as a function of span length.
Note: f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection; KA = post rigidity; L = span length;
MAL = maximum arrest load; T = lifeline tension (MAL).

harness (fall arrest only) and a 1.2 m lanyard with a Class
E4 energy absorber (limiting the maximal arrest force to
4 kN when dry and used at 20 °C). The free fall distance
was 1.2 m and the test mass was dropped exactly at mid-
span. The dynamic fall testing focused on three spans (5,
10 and 15 m) with two steel wire rope diameters which are
presented in Table 3. The varying parameters were the ini-
tial cable sag and anchorage flexibility. Different HSS and
anchorage lengths were used and are presented in Table 4.
The testing matrix is presented in Table 5, where the total
number of dynamic fall tests for each configuration is indi-
cated in parentheses. The test configurations are specified
for the ‘general testing’. We also tested two ‘special con-
figurations’: important initial sag (1 in 5 instead of 1 in 25);
rigid anchorages (W310 × 253 columns) with a 100-kg
steel test mass and a 1.2-m nylon lanyard, 15.9-mm ( 85
in.) diameter, without an energy absorber. A total of 42
dynamic fall tests was carried out. A schematic of the test
set-up is presented in Figure 7.
All of the fall parameters are recorded in real time at a
1200-Hz sampling rate. The MAL is measured with a 44.5-
kN load cell at each end of the line. The MAF is measured
with a 22.3-kN load cell. String potentiometers are used
to monitor the HLL deflection and test mass fall distance.
Finally, the HSSs are equipped with four strain gauges each
in order to monitor any torsion and plastic hinge formation.
The strain gauges are placed at a height corresponding to
the half-width of the HSS from the fixed support. At the
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 9

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. MAL T and deflection f2 with varying initial sag f1 (KA = ∞, Ø = 9.5 mm): (a) lifeline tension as a function of span
length; (b) maximum deflection as a function of span length.
Note: f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection; KA = post rigidity; L = span length;
MAL = maximum arrest load; T = lifeline tension (MAL).

beginning of the fall testing campaign, new HSSs were Table 3. Steel wire ropes used in dynamic fall testing.
used for each test. However, because the results from the
Property Steel wire rope A Steel wire rope B
strain gauges indicated that the HSS remained in the elastic
domain, it was decided to keep the same HSS from the pre- Cable type Aircraft wire rope Aircraft wire rope
vious test for all other tests in order to optimize the fall Construction type 7 × 19 6 × 19
testing program. Material Type 304 stainless Type 316 stainless
steel steel
Nominal diameter 9.5 mm ( 83 in.) 12.7 mm ( 12 in.)
5.2. Experimental results compared with analytical Young’s modulus 64.8 GPa 64.8 GPa
results Section 41.9 mm2 64.2 mm2

In this section we compare the test results with the ana-

lytical results obtained with the simple analytical model the analytical results obtained with a 4-kN MAF, which
proposed in Section 3. First, we compare the HLL deflec- would correspond to a scenario where an engineer is
tion and MAL using the measured MAF in the analytical designing the HLL and considering the nominal MAF of
model (Table 6). The test results are then compared with the energy absorber (Table 7).
10 B. Galy and A. Lan

Table 4. Anchorage characteristics.

Post’s section Mr (kN·m) I (mm4 ) LA (m) KA (kN/m) Anchorage identification

HSS 102 × 102 × 8.0 30.4 3.98 × 106 1.5 708 Post 4
1.0 2388 Post 1
HSS 127 × 127 × 6.4 41.6 7.05 × 106 1.5 1253 Post 5
1.0 4230 Post 2
0.8 8262 Post 3

Note: HSS = hollow structural section; I = moment of inertia; KA = post rigidity; LA = post length; Mr = resisting moment.

Table 5. Testing matrix.

Span length L
Anchorage 5 m (f1 = 0.1 m) 10 m (f1 = 0.2 m) 15 m (f1 = 0.3 m)

General testing
Post 1 – E-1-10 (4) (cables A and B) –
Post 2 E-2-5 (6) (cables A and B) E-2-10 (6) (cables A and B) –
Post 3 – E-3-10 (4) (cables A and B) –
Post 4 – E-4-10 (2) (cable B) –
Post 5 – E-5-10 (2) (cable B) E-5-15 (6) (cables A and B)
Rigid anchorage – E-R-10 (3) (cable A) –
Special configuration
Post 2 T1E-2-5 (6) (cables A – –
and B) (f1 = 0.5 m)
ME-R-10 (3) (cable B) (nylon
Rigid anchorage – lanyard +100-kg steel mass) –

Note: Total number of dynamic fall tests for each configuration indicated in parentheses. f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at
mid-span.

5.2.1. Comparison with the analytical results using the
measured MAF
The difference between the measured MAL and the com-
puted MAL varies from –17 to +10% (Table 6), which
means that the proposed simple design method is a bit
conservative (except for rigid anchorages).
Considering the numerous non-linearities involved in
the dynamic behavior of HLLs and the simplicity of the
proposed analytical model, it seems to be an accept-
able estimate. The mean difference calculated without the
‘special configuration’ case scenario shows that the esti-
mate is closer to reality for the 9.5-mm ( 38 in.) wire

Figure 7. Test set up.

Note: f1 = initial sag of the horizontal lifeline at mid-span; f2 = maximum deflection; L = span length; T = lifeline tension
(maximum arrest load).
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 11

Table 6. Comparison of test results with analytical results.

Measured Measured Calculated Measured Calculated

Test Wire MAF MAL MAL Difference deflection deflection Difference
configuration rope (kN) (kN) (kN) (%) (mm) (mm) (%)

E-1-10 A 2.9 12.3 12.6 −2 511 580 −14

E-2-10 A 3.1 12.7 13.4 −6 509 580 −14
E-2-5 A 3.2 13.4 13.4 0 281 300 −7
E-3-10 A 3.2 12.9 13.9 −8 500 570 −14
E-5-15 A 3.5 13.9 14.1 −1 831 940 −13
E-R-10 A 3.1 15.3 13.8 10 433 560 −29
T1-E-2-5 A 3.7 7.3 7.7 −5 621 600 3
E-1-10 B 3.2 12.9 14.8 −15 549 540 2
E-2-10 B 3.1 13.8 15.1 −9 523 520 1
E-2-5 B 3.5 13.8 15.8 −14 276 280 −1
E-3-10 B 3.3 13.9 16.1 −16 520 520 0
E-4-10 B 3.5 12.0 13.7 −14 645 640 1
E-5-10 B 3.5 12.8 15.0 −17 623 600 4
E-5-15 B 3.6 14.1 15.8 −12 834 870 −4
ME-R-10 B 8.1 29.8 31.2 −5 555 650 −17
T1-E-2-5 B 3.7 7.6 7.8 −3 623 600 4

Note: MAF = maximum arrest force; MAL = maximum arrest load.

Table 7. Comparison of test results with analytical results (considering a 4-kN MAF).

Difference with
Measured theoretical Measured Calculated Measured Calculated
Test Wire MAF MAF = 4 kN MAL MAL Difference deflection deflection Difference
configuration rope (kN) (%) (kN) (kN) (%) (mm) (mm) (%)

E-1-10 A 2.9 −37 12.3 15.7 −28 511 640 −25

E-2-10 A 3.1 −30 12.7 16.1 −27 509 620 −22
E-2-5 A 3.2 −25 13.4 15.6 −16 281 320 −14
E-3-10 A 3.2 −26 12.9 16.4 −27 500 610 −22
E-5-15 A 3.5 −15 13.9 15.5 −12 831 970 −17
E-R-10 A 3.1 −31 15.3 16.7 −9 433 600 −39
T1-E-2-5 A 3.7 −7 7.3 8.3 −14 621 610 2
E-1-10 B 3.2 −26 12.9 17.4 −35 549 580 −6
E-2-10 B 3.1 −28 13.8 18.0 −30 523 560 −7
E-2-5 B 3.5 −13 13.8 17.2 −25 276 290 −5
E-3-10 B 3.3 −20 13.9 18.4 −32 520 550 −6
E-4-10 B 3.5 −15 12.0 15.1 −26 645 670 −4
E-5-10 B 3.5 −13 12.8 16.3 −27 623 620 0
E-5-15 B 3.6 −11 14.1 17.0 −21 834 890 −7
T1-E-2-5 B 3.7 −8 7.6 8.4 −11 623 600 4

Note: MAF = maximum arrest force; MAL = maximum arrest load.

rope (−3%) than for the 12.7-mm ( 12 in.) wire rope
(−14%). The mean difference in the HLL deflection is –
14% for the 9.5-mm ( 38 in.) wire rope and 0% for the
12.7-mm ( 12 in.) wire rope. There are five configura-
tions in which the HLL deflection was underestimated by
the analytical model; however, this underestimation was
about 2 cm, which is negligible compared with the other
uncertainties in the computation of the clearing distance
(e.g., worker’s height, harness stretch). For the configu-
ration E-R-10, which is the biggest difference observed
in HLL deflection, the overestimation is about 13 cm,
which seems acceptable to compute adequately the clear-
ing distance, especially because the overestimation tends
to make the HLL safer. Besides this case, the second
biggest overestimation is only 9 cm for a 15-m span
length.
The general observation made for wire rope B (over-
estimation of the MAL and underestimation of the HLL)
is related to the flexibility parameters chosen for the wire
rope (Young’s modulus and steel section). A slightly more
flexible cable (in the analytical model) would give us
results closer to those measured in the laboratory. How-
ever, in a design scenario, the elastic parameters of the
wire rope will not be known exactly. The analytical results
obtained show that a close enough approximation of the
MAL and HLL deflection can be obtained using the real
cable diameter, its construction (7 × 19) and Young’s mod-
ulus of the material.
12 B. Galy and A. Lan

5.2.2. Comparison with the analytical results using the
nominal 4-kN MAF
The comparison made in the previous section gives us an
insight into the precision of the analytical model. How-
ever, if an engineer is willing to design a HLL using our
analytical model, he would be using the nominal MAF of
the energy absorber, which is 4 kN in this case. A compar-
ison of this ‘conception scenario’ with the test results is
presented in Table 7.
In all of the cases presented in Table 7, the MAL is
overestimated by the analytical method, which makes it
conservative. The overestimation range goes from 9 (1.4)
to 35% (4.4 kN). The HLL deflection is underestimated in
only two cases (23 and 11 mm, respectively 4 and 2%)
and overestimated in all other cases (with a maximum of
167 mm, equivalent to 39%).
6. Comparison with a numerical model
A comparison with results obtained using a numerical
model has been made. The HLL system was modeled
with SAP2000 [27]. This software was chosen for mul-
tiple reasons: the cable element available in SAP2000 is
a catenary non-linear elastic element. The non-linearities
considered include the rigidification during loading (P–
effects) and great displacements. Furthermore, SAP2000
is structural software commonly used in the industry,
and includes the usual HSSs that are found on con-
struction sites. The cable is subdivided into 20 ele-
ments and its modulus and section area are presented in
Table 3.
Both static and dynamic analyses were conducted with
SAP2000. The static analysis considers a 4-kN static load
applied at mid-span and is made in the non-linear domain
(including) P– effects. The dynamic analysis considers a
static load of 1 kN applied at mid-span and multiplied by
a load function corresponding to the force measure in the
lanyard during the dynamic fall tests. A 5% mass propor-
tional damping is considered for the dynamic analyses. The
dynamic analysis are conducted in direct integration with
the Hilber–Hughes–Taylor α method (α = 0, β = 0.25,
γ = 0.5). This type of direct integration scheme has two
advantages: there is no numerical dampening and it is
unconditionally stable [28].
Table 8 compares the analytical and model results con-
sidering a 4-kN static load applied at mid-span. The mean
difference between SAP2000 and the proposed analytical
method is 0.3% for the MAL (0.5% SD) and 1.3% for the
line deflection (0.6% SD). Table 8 indicates that the analyt-
ical results are as good as those obtained with the SAP2000
model.
Numerical modeling of the experimental dynamic fall
tests was done with SAP2000 Ultimate 16.1.1. The model
is loaded with a 1-kN static load applied at mid-span and
multiplied by a load function that was recorded during the
dynamic fall tests in the laboratory. There are a few differ-
ences between the experimental set-up and the numerical
model:
• the load cells (one at each anchorage and one at mid-
span) are not represented in the numerical model;
• the initial sag is greater in the experimental results
because of the mid-span load cell weight;

Table 8. Comparison of model results with analytical results (considering a 4-kN MAF).

SAP2000 Analytical SAP2000

Test Analytical Ultimate 16.1.1 Difference deflection deflection Difference
configuration MAL (kN) MAL (kN) (%) (mm) (mm) (%)

E-1-10-A 15.7 15.7 0.0 639 643 0.6

E-1-10-B 17.4 17.4 0.0 581 582 0.2
E-2-5-A 15.6 15.6 0.0 321 326 1.5
E-2-5-B 17.2 17.1 −0.6 292 296 1.4
E-2-10-A 16.1 16.1 0.0 623 626 0.5
E-2-10-B 18.0 18.0 0.0 561 562 0.2
E-2-15-A 16.3 16.4 0.6 926 941 1.6
E-2-15-B 18.3 18.5 1.1 831 841 1.2
E-3-10-A 16.4 16.5 0.6 612 621 1.4
E-3-10-B 18.4 18.5 0.5 547 553 1.1
E-4-10-A 14.1 14.1 0.0 713 726 1.8
E-4-10-B 15.1 15.0 −0.7 670 680 1.5
E-5-15-A 15.5 15.6 0.6 974 993 1.9
E-5-15-B 17.0 17.1 0.6 892 905 1.4
T1-E-2-5-A 8.3 8.3 0.0 606 619 2.1
T1-E-2-5-B 8.4 8.5 1.2 597 608 1.8
E-R-10-A 16.7 16.8 0.6 601 610 1.5
E-R-10-B 18.9 19.1 1.0 532 537 0.9

Note: MAF = maximum arrest force; MAL = maximum arrest load.

 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 13

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Comparison of experimental, numerical and analytical results for the test configuration E-2-10-B: (a) deflection as a
function of span length; (b) lifeline tension as a function of span length.
Note: f2 = lifeline deflection (sag at mid-span); HLL = horizontal lifeline; F = vertical load applied at mid-span; MAF = maximum
arrest force; t = time; T = lifeline tension (maximum arrest load).

• the experimental MAL is expected to be a little
higher because the initial line tension is higher due
to weight of the load cells;
• during the fall arrest, the tension in the HLL is going
to unscrew a little the line tensioners, and as a con-
sequence the fundamental period of the system is
going to be a little higher at the end of the test.
For brevity reasons, only an example is provided, but all
of the results compare similarly. Figure 8 shows a compar-
ison of the experimental and numerical results. It can be
seen that the experimental, numerical and analytical results
compare well and that the analytical method gives a pre-
cise enough estimation of the line tension and deflection to
safely design a HLL system.
7. Conclusions and recommendations
This article presents a short review of the standards and
regulations concerning HLLs in Canada, the USA and
Europe. Most of the time in Canada, a professional engi-
neer is required to design the HLL, unless the minimal
requirements of article 2.10.15 of the Québec Safety Code
for the Construction Industry are met. Those minimal cri-
teria are very conservative, especially if only one worker
is connected to the lifeline. Cable analysis is quite com-
plex, especially with dynamic loading, and that is why a
simplified design method is handy. The method proposed
in this article considers a single span cable, a unique static
load applied at mid-span and the anchorage rigidity. The
method proposed is quite simple to use and the equations
can be solved easily with common spreadsheet software. A
smaller cable diameter or flexible anchorages will mean
a smaller MAL. Longer spans come with higher MAL
and higher maximum deflections. Some quick design abaci
were also presented in this article and can be used to verify
or quickly estimate the expected MAL or maximal deflec-
tion. Finally, the results of the proposed simplified design
method are compared with dynamic laboratory fall tests
and numerical modeling. The results show that the analyt-
ical method gives a good estimate of the line tension and
deflection during fall arrest and hence is appropriate for the
design of simple HLL systems. An extension of the calcu-
lation method to take into account multi-span HLL systems
and their simultaneous use by more than one user would be
valuable in the future.
 14 B. Galy and A. Lan
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the technical team from
the structural laboratory of the École Polytechnique de Montréal
for their help in the dynamic fall testing process and the IRSST
for the funding of this research project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The IRSST funded this research project.
References
[1] Sabourin G. Faire tomber les risques de chutes de hau-
teur [Lowering fall from height hazards]. Prev au trav.
2011;24(2):7–14. French.
[2] Lebeau M, Duguay P, Boucher A. Les coûts des lésions pro-
fessionnelles au Québec, 2005–2007 [Occupationnal trauma
costs in Québec, 2005–2007]. Montréal (QC): Institut de
Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail
(IRSST); 2013. (Rapport de recherche, R-769). French.
[3] Centre Technique Industriel de la Construction Métallique.
Câble de sécurité du personnel de montage équipé de cein-
tures avec amortisseurs de chute [Horizontal lifeline for
steel construction workers equipped with safety belts and
energy absorbers]. Suppl à la rev constr met. 1975 March(1).
French.
[4] Dayawansa PH, Goh CC, Wilkie R. Analysis and testing of
a static line system. Melbourne: BHP Melb Res Labs; 1989.
(Report No. MRL/CN8/89/001).
[5] Sulowski AC, Miura N. Horizontal lifelines. Toronto (ON):
Ontario Hydro Research Division; 1983. (Report No. 83-
294-H).
[6] Ministry of Labour Ontario. Occupational health and safety
act – Ontario regulation 213/91 – construction projects.
Toronto (ON): Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2016. Regula-
tion No. 213/91:2013.
[7] Ministry of Labour Ontario. Occupational health and safety
act – R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 851 – industrial estab-
lishments. Toronto (ON): Alberta Queen’s Printer; 2016.
Regulation No. 851:2013.
[8] Government of Alberta. Occupational health and safety
code. Edmonton (AB): Publications Québec; 2009.
[9] Safety Code for the construction industry – S-2.1, r.4. Édi-
teur officiel du Québec. Québec (QC): Queen’s Printer for
Ontario; 2016. Regulation No. S-2.1, r.4:2016.
[10] WorkSafe BC. Occupational health and safety (OHS) reg-
ulation – part 11 – fall protection. Vancouver (BC): Work-
SafeBC; 2013.
[11] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Energy absorbers
and lanyards. Mississauga (ON); CSA; 2005. Standard No.
CAN/CSA Z259.11:2005.
[12] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Flexible horizontal
lifeline systems. Mississauga (ON); CSA; 2016. Standard
No. CAN/CSA Z259.13:2016.
[13] Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA).
Safety and health regulations for construction – subpart M
View publication stats
– fall protection for the construction industry. Washington
(DC); OSHA; 1998. Regulation No. OSHA 1926 – M –
1998.
[14] American National Standards Institute/American Society of
Safety Engineers (ANSI/ASSE). Safety requirements for
personal fall arrest. Washington (DC); ANSI/ASSE; 2007.
Standard No. ANSI/ASSE Z359.1:2007.
[15] American National Standards Institute/American Society of
Safety Engineers (ANSI/ASSE). ASSE Z359 Committee
information – current Z359 standards projects. Washington
(DC): ANSI/ASSE; 2013.
[16] American National Standards Institute/American Society
of Safety Engineers (ANSI/ASSE). Minimum require-
ments for a comprehensive managed fall protection pro-
gram. Washington (DC): ANSI/ASSE; 2007. Standard No.
ANSI/ASSE Z359.2:2007.
[17] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Personal
fall protection equipment – Anchor devices. Brussels; CEN;
2016. Standard No. EN 795:2016.
[18] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Moun-
taineering equipment – dynamic mountaineering ropes –
safety requirements and test methods. Brussels; CEN; 2016.
Standard No. EN 892:2016.
[19] Broughton P, Ndumbaro P. Analysis of cables & catenary
structures. London: Thomas Telford; 1994.
[20] Paureau J, Jacqmin M. Lignes de vie – spécifications,
essais [Horizontal lifelines – specifications, testing]. Cah
de notes doc – Hyg et secur du trav. 1998;173(4):413–428.
French.
[21] Drabble F, Brookfield DJ. Safety of fall arrest systems: a
numerical and experimental study. Proc Inst Mech Engrs.
2000;214(C):1221–1233.
[22] Branchtein MC. Lifeline design: calculation of the tensions.
Proceedings of the International Society for Fall Protection
Symposium; 2013 Jun 27–28; Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Miamisburg (OH): International Society for Fall Protection;
2013.
[23] Riches D. Dynamic performance of horizontal flexible
anchor lines during fall arrest – a numerical method of
simulation. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2000;6(4):521–534.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2000.11076470
[24] Riches D. A review of criteria concerning design, selec-
tion, installation, use, maintenance and training aspects of
temporarily-installed horizontal lifelines. Sudbury: HSE;
2004. (Research report 266).
[25] Galy B, Lan A. Conception des cordes d’assurance horizon-
tales pour la protection contre les chutes de hauteur – mise
à jour du guide technique [Design of horizontal lifelines
for fall protection – update of the technical guide]. Mon-
tréal (QC): Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et
Sécurité du Travail (IRSST); 2016. (Rapport de recherche,
R-902). French.
[26] Arteau J, Lan A. Guide Technique – conception des câbles
de secours horizontaux [Technical guide – design of hor-
izontal lifelines]. Montréal (QC): Institut de Recherche
Robert-Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail (IRSST);
1991. (Guide Technique, T-18). French.
[27] Computers and Structures. SAP2000: user’s manual. Walnut
Creek (CA): Computers and Structures; 2013.
[28] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applica-
tions to earthquake engineering. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River
(NJ): Pearson; 2007.