We have designed a steel beam to use as the anchor point for a fall restraint system. We have designed the steel beam for a 5000 lb static load. The client has asked for a load rating that can be posted on the beam. Should the load rating for this beam be 5000 pounds (static design load) or 310 pounds (assumed weight used by OSHA to determine the use of a 5000# static load) or some other number?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Fall Protection Load Rating
- Thread starter H57
- Start date
JedClampett
Structural
Since the beam is intended to be used for fall restraint, I would stencil on the beam "Intended for fall restraint anchorage per OSHA." I think that any numerical rating would be confusing.
MiketheEngineer
Structural
BTW - OSHA allows a fall restraint capacity at twice the anticipated load. Its in the code now. With a properly designed shock absorbing lanyard you could reduce the capacity to around 2,000 lbs.
We did the testing and submitted to OSHA. Shock loads were always below 1,000 lbs. They bought off on it and made the change many years ago. Yo-Yo's or self retracting lifelines induce even less force.
We use these on all our scaffolds. There are probably no scaffolds that can survive a 5,000 load. We had a lot of "push back from the scaffold mfgs at first. But at 2,000 lbs - we found just about any part on any system could. But only one guy/gal on one piece at a time.
Obviously, if you have a "save" - you may bend some material and it needs to be taken out service and scrapped. A few hundred dollars of material gone is well worth it.
BTW - our people are trained to "tie-off" the minute they leave the ground. Not doing so - will probably get you fired - That is how strong we feel about it. Actually, our people use 2 lanyards - so that they can hook and un-hook as needed. Does this slow them down?? Yes - a bit - but after they get used to it - you would never really notice any loss in productivity. This includes ladders, decks, etc.
We did the testing and submitted to OSHA. Shock loads were always below 1,000 lbs. They bought off on it and made the change many years ago. Yo-Yo's or self retracting lifelines induce even less force.
We use these on all our scaffolds. There are probably no scaffolds that can survive a 5,000 load. We had a lot of "push back from the scaffold mfgs at first. But at 2,000 lbs - we found just about any part on any system could. But only one guy/gal on one piece at a time.
Obviously, if you have a "save" - you may bend some material and it needs to be taken out service and scrapped. A few hundred dollars of material gone is well worth it.
BTW - our people are trained to "tie-off" the minute they leave the ground. Not doing so - will probably get you fired - That is how strong we feel about it. Actually, our people use 2 lanyards - so that they can hook and un-hook as needed. Does this slow them down?? Yes - a bit - but after they get used to it - you would never really notice any loss in productivity. This includes ladders, decks, etc.
Maximum Arresting Force (MAF) for full body harness per OSHA = 1,800 lbs
Typical MAFs for shock absorbing lanyards = 900 lbs
Engineered system safety factor = 2
Worst case = 2 x 1,800 lbs = 3,600 lbs
Typical case (requires control over equipment) = 2 x 900 lbs = 1,800 lbs
I would not publish a load on any of the members for the fall arrest system. It is often more complicated than that. I would consider placing a label on the beam referencing the users back to a drawing with CYA notes on it.
Typical MAFs for shock absorbing lanyards = 900 lbs
Engineered system safety factor = 2
Worst case = 2 x 1,800 lbs = 3,600 lbs
Typical case (requires control over equipment) = 2 x 900 lbs = 1,800 lbs
I would not publish a load on any of the members for the fall arrest system. It is often more complicated than that. I would consider placing a label on the beam referencing the users back to a drawing with CYA notes on it.
MiketheEngineer
Structural
Teguci has hit it pretty right on - based on our testing.
Yes - it is available - once you are a customer.
This forum is not meant for sales - but we are the largest scaffold provider in the US and our name begins with a B.
Yes - it is available - once you are a customer.
This forum is not meant for sales - but we are the largest scaffold provider in the US and our name begins with a B.
When your competition designs to 5,000lbs its a good thing.
Try putting 2-5,000lb loads at the center of a horizontal lifeline.
I will see your 3/4" diameter cable and lower you to 1/2", much less the ridiculous anchorage you'd have to detail (smile).
Try putting 2-5,000lb loads at the center of a horizontal lifeline.
I will see your 3/4" diameter cable and lower you to 1/2", much less the ridiculous anchorage you'd have to detail (smile).
ToadJones,
Sorry for being spunky. My contention with your response is the wasting of other peoples money without due regard (we don't like it when other people do it to us).
There are times when a 5,000lb design makes sense. But we are engineers and have been afforded the use of refinement with a safety factor of 2.
To your point regarding the anchorage, the anchorage of a catenary system (horizontal lifeline being one) will often need to take 6 or so times the vertical load being resisted. Depending on the geometry and loads, the load at the anchorage could be in the 10 to 40 kip range. A reading of OSHA allows laypersons to believe that 5,000 lbs is the magic number and anything designed for 5 kips will provide safety to any kind of attachments (1926.104 comes to mind). Clearly (unless you haven't read it of course) OSHA needs to abolished in its current standard and recodified into something a little more specific and appropriate.
Back to the original post. If I absolutely had to load rate the beam, I would mark it "MAF = 1,800 lbs"
Sorry for being spunky. My contention with your response is the wasting of other peoples money without due regard (we don't like it when other people do it to us).
There are times when a 5,000lb design makes sense. But we are engineers and have been afforded the use of refinement with a safety factor of 2.
To your point regarding the anchorage, the anchorage of a catenary system (horizontal lifeline being one) will often need to take 6 or so times the vertical load being resisted. Depending on the geometry and loads, the load at the anchorage could be in the 10 to 40 kip range. A reading of OSHA allows laypersons to believe that 5,000 lbs is the magic number and anything designed for 5 kips will provide safety to any kind of attachments (1926.104 comes to mind). Clearly (unless you haven't read it of course) OSHA needs to abolished in its current standard and recodified into something a little more specific and appropriate.
Back to the original post. If I absolutely had to load rate the beam, I would mark it "MAF = 1,800 lbs"
Let me be more clear.
If you were to directly tie off to say a D-ring, it was my impression that the D-ring has to resist 5000# load in any direction.
Design of centenary systems is altogether different, this I understand.
Not to be spunky myself, but often times designing something to 5000 lbs isn't anymore expensive than 2000 lbs.
I tend not to try to hit the gnats ass when designing things that directly involve sever injury or death if they fail OR are misused.
If you were to directly tie off to say a D-ring, it was my impression that the D-ring has to resist 5000# load in any direction.
Design of centenary systems is altogether different, this I understand.
Not to be spunky myself, but often times designing something to 5000 lbs isn't anymore expensive than 2000 lbs.
I tend not to try to hit the gnats ass when designing things that directly involve sever injury or death if they fail OR are misused.
msquared48
Structural
Toad:
I have to agree with Teguci here. I commonly use 1800 pounds too, and it is a dynamic, not a static load. I have all sorts of approved proprietary connectors using this figure.
With wood roof trusses, the 5000 pound figure is going to be a
B)(*& to generate an anchor for.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
I have to agree with Teguci here. I commonly use 1800 pounds too, and it is a dynamic, not a static load. I have all sorts of approved proprietary connectors using this figure.
With wood roof trusses, the 5000 pound figure is going to be a
B)(*& to generate an anchor for.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
MiketheEngineer
Structural
Not too many scaffolds or roof trusses - I am well versed in both - would be able to take a 5,000 lb point load!!
Check out a 1.9 x .125 steel tube 10' long or a 2x4x 8' long. Not gonna make it!!
Check out a 1.9 x .125 steel tube 10' long or a 2x4x 8' long. Not gonna make it!!
One issue is that the 5,000 lbs (or whatever number it comes out to) needs to be the strength of the beam, not the safe lifting capacity, so it could be very misleading to label the beam in that way- you may have someone hanging a hoist off of it and lifting 5,000 lbs in the future. If the labeling is specifically desired for fall protection, it would be better to spell out the assumptions made in the design (ie, one person, using model XYZ lanyard, etc.).
msquared48
Structural
I would also add "Please place around neck".
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
MiketheEngineer
Structural
m^2
We tried that. The workers got a bit nervous and OSHA couldn't understand it.
We tried that. The workers got a bit nervous and OSHA couldn't understand it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
