Lifting The Bar

Edition 2 Knowledge - Safety - Reliability

In this edition we compare load balancing

when using chain slings:
• From a single point
• From a ram’s horn hook
• From a stinger
• From a spreader beam
• With a snatch block

Balancing Chain Sling Loads

Despite appearances, ensuring a four legged sling
shares its load equally across each leg is challenging.
As a standard sling arrangement does not contain an
equalising or balancing facility, the laws of physics
dictate that the balance of sling loads are unknown,
resulting in a situation where a set up might work
successfully most of the time, but the potential exists
for a very dangerous situation due to a small change in
the variables.

The apparent way to deal with this in the field then is

to aim for perfect load share through symmetry – trying
to ensure that components are even and are exactly
the same at every leg. However this same reliance on
symmetry means that minor inaccuracies can throw out
the entire rig, again creating a dangerous situation.

In order to deal with this issue, the Australian Standards

address the design of rigging gear and the methods
of rigging in such a way that additional sling legs are
redundant (all multiple leg slings are rated upon two
legs alone). This however does not actually resolve the
potential for uneven load sharing; it just ensures that
Achieving even loading on a sling in the field is challenging.
even with the most uneven load sharing, no sling legs
can be overloaded.

There are a number of potential solutions to the problem, some more effective or fault tolerant than others,
which goes some way to explaining the degree of confusion and folklore out in industry. Because of this, we set
out to examine how some of the more common theories pan out in a controlled environment, and thought we
should share the findings.

To test some of these load balancing ideas, we investigated the load sharing characteristics of five different
arrangements to lift a symmetrical load from four lifting points using a four legged sling. To do this, we set up a
test using crane scales to see what loads were being imposed at each lifting point.

For each arrangement, we hope to achieve an even 25% share of the load. Each arrangement was set up and
lifted using equal leg length slings and then re-lifted with unequal leg length slings. The load in each leg for each
lift was recorded. From this data we can see the sensitivity to load sharing for changes in leg lengths for each
method.
(Continued inside)

Need more information?

Contact your local Nobles branch by calling 1300 711 559
Visit www.nobles.com.au or www.noblesblog.com
A - From a Single Point
This is the classic Four Legged Sling presented in the Australian Standards
which must be designed based on two legs taking the entire load.

When lifted with equal length legs the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 31%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 20%
Even when ideally set up a reasonable discrepancy in sling loads exists.
When lifted with one leg shortened by one chain link the percentage
loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 47%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 4%
An extreme shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length.
This demonstrates why the Australian Standards specify the design of
four leg slings to be based on only two legs taking the load.

Visually, both arrangements looked the same with no visual clues

indicating the degree of load sharing.

This sudden change in load sharing and lack of visual clues is due to the
top suspension of the four legs coming from a single point.

B - From a Ram’s Horn Hook Above & Below: Our testing rig for the lifting arrangement
with Rig-Mate Crane Scales showing the loads on each leg.

This type of arrangement is not specifically discussed in the Australian

Standards and some have suggested it to be a device to aid in load sharing.

When lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%
This is very close to ideal load sharing. When lifted with one leg shortened
by one chain link the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 40%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 10.5%
A major shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length. This
demonstrates that this arrangement does have a major change in load
sharing but is an improvement from the typical single point arrangement.

To the observer each test looked slightly different and small visual clues to
the extent of load sharing could be somewhat recognised and assessed.

When load sharing was optimum the Rams Horn Hook was positioned such
that its tips were equally spaced between the two lugs on the load below.
As the sling lengths changed and load sharing degraded the hook would
position itself so that its tips moved closer to one of the two lugs below
it. The hook would be skewed across the load and the slings connecting
the closer lugs would take an increasing percentage of the load the more
skewed the hook became. However, this visual clue was not immediately
obvious.

This major change in load sharing and difficult visual clue is due to the the
two sets of two legged slings being separated by the use of the Rams Horn Hook. This separation and action is the same principle
as with a Stinger or Spreader Beam but the change in load sharing is much more abrupt because the separation length is very
short.
C - As a Stinger Arrangement
This type of arrangement is not discussed in the Australian Standards and its load
sharing properties are not widely understood.

When lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 27%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%
This is very close to ideal load sharing. When lifted with one leg shortened by one
chain link the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 34%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 17%
A moderate shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length. When lifted
with one leg shortened by five chain links the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 50%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 1%
An extreme shift in load sharing occurs for a major discrepancy in length. This demonstrates that this arrangement does not
have the extreme change in load sharing as for a standard arrangement but is still far from ideal.

Visually each test looked somewhat different and visual clues to the extent of load sharing could be more easily recognised and
assessed. When load sharing was optimal, the top suspension points of the two legged slings were positioned such that they
were equally spaced between the two lugs on the load below.

As the sling lengths changed and load sharing degraded, these points moved closer to one of the two lugs below them. The line
between these two top suspension points would be skewed across the load and the slings connecting the closer lugs would
take an increasing percentage of the load as the skew increased.

This moderate change in load sharing and visual clues are due to the separation of the two sets of two legged slings by the use
of the two legged stinger above. This separation and action is the same principle as for a spreader beam arrangement, but the
change in load sharing is more abrupt because the separation length is less.

D - With a Spreader
This type of arrangement is not discussed in the Australian Standards and its load
sharing properties are sometimes queried in the field.

When lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26.5%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%
This is very close to ideal load sharing. When we shortened one leg by one chain
link the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 29.5%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 22%
A moderately small shift in load sharing occurrs in line with a minor discrepancy
in length. With one leg shortened by five chain links the percentage loads were:

• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 42%

• Lightest Loaded Sling: 9%
A major shift in load sharing occurs in line with a major discrepancy in length. This arrangement does not have the extreme
change in load sharing as for a straight four leg arrangement from a single point.

Visually, clues to the extent of load sharing could be easily recognised and assessed. When load sharing was optimum the

Continued over...
D - From a Spreader Beam (continued)
spreader beam was positioned such that its end lugs were equally spaced between the two lugs on
the load below. As the sling lengths changed and load sharing worsened, the spreader would position
itself so that its end lugs moved closer to one of the two lugs below it. The beam would be skewed
across the load and the slings connecting the closer lugs would take an increasing percentage of the
load the more skewed the beam became.

This gradual change in load sharing and clear visual clue is due to the separation of the two sets of
two legged slings being separated by the spreader beam length. A similar situation would occur for a
single point top suspended lifting beam separating the slings.

E - With a Snatch Block

This type of arrangement is not discussed in
the Australian Standards and is rarely used.
However, this arrangement gives excellent
load sharing properties.
Who are we?
If everything was perfectly set up we would
expect 25% of total sling load in each sling. Established in 1911, A.
When set up and lifted with equal leg slings Noble & Son Ltd (Nobles)
the percentage loads were: are a lifting and rigging
supplies company,
• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26% headquartered in Adelaide,
• Lightest Loaded Sling: 23.5% South Australia, with 15
branches Australia wide.
This is very close to ideal load sharing. When
set up and lifted with one leg shortened by
three chain links the percentage loads were:
We service various
• Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26.5% industries, including
• Lightest Loaded Sling: 22% Mining, Oil & Gas, Cranes
& Lifting, Construction,
Only a minor shift in load sharing occurs despite a moderate discrepancy in length, which makes it an Manufacturing, Defence,
excellent load sharing device for real world situations. The two fixed chain slings control the position Shipping and Transport.
of the load while the wire rope sling and pulley block allow for slight length adjustment to give good
load sharing.

In practice, sling lengths can not have large discrepancies in length as the load will tilt too much as We stock premium lifting
the load sharing process takes place. and rigging gear from
around the world, including
wire rope and acccessories,
lifting slings, chain, hoists

Results & winches, fibre rope and

height safety equipment.
Based on these examples, these options in terms of their ability to load share could be ranked:

• From a Single Point – Worst We design, manufacture

• From a Ram’s Horn Hook and test customised lifting
• From a Stinger equipment, including
lifting beams, jibs, goods
• From a Spreader Beam Assembly cages, and offshore lifted
• From a Multi-Assembly with a Snatch Block – Best equipment.
In terms of using these slings to obtain optimum load sharing the last 3 could be considered as
practical load sharing devices. However, as always, if using these as load sharing devices it still
requires the rigger to set the rigging as close as possible to the ideal configuration and use the visual We can also inspect and
clues just before lifting off the ground to assess the accuracy of his rigging. test your existing lifting
equipment in accordance
with Australian Standards,
and maintain an on-line
Need more information? register via our Tech
Inspect asset management
Contact your local Nobles branch by calling 1300 711 559
Visit www.nobles.com.au or www.noblesblog.com system.