November 2024

GUIDANCE ON
STABILITY OF LIFTS
Heavy Lift Exchange Forum

G U I DA N C E
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Contents

Disclaimer 2

Introduction 3

Authors 4

Abbreviations and Definitions 5

Primary and secondary suspension 5
Definition of rigging components and geometry (Kaps 2013) 5
Abbreviations 6

Assessing stability of lifting arrangements 7

Overview and comparison of available methods for stability assessments of lifts 10

Aspects to be considered in the stability assessment 14

External forces 15
Slings 17
Friction dependent lift points (FDLP) vs. fixed lift points (FLP) 18
Other aspects to be considered 19

Calculation of sliding and effective inclination angles 20

Flat top 21
Cylindrical 22
Conical 23
Box 24
Other (hull shapes) 24

Calculation examples 25

References 30

Disclaimer
The information provided in this paper is for general information purposes only. All given information, such as
values, methods and factors is provided in good faith. However the authors make no representation or warranty
of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any
such information.
Under no circumstance shall the authors have any liability for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a
result of use of the information or reliance on any information provided.
Use of the information is solely at your own risk.

2
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview This paper contains information about currently avail-
of methods to assess the stability of lifting arrange- able calculation methods, belonging explanations,
ments. It shall allow the reader/user to form a substan- guidance for assumptions on loads and factors, and
tiated opinion about the stability of a particular lifting background information.
arrangement by using the provided methods and data.
Reasons for issuing this document are the gap in the
In the sense of this guideline the stability of a lift / lifting guideline landscape when it comes to lifting stability
arrangement shall be understood as follows: and the lack of comprehensive guidance in this matter.

A stable lift is a lift that remains in a balanced condition,

within a safe margin, when subjected to predefined
disturbing factors.

3
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Authors
The development of this paper has been initiated in the Heavy Lift Exchange Forum.
Contact: [email protected]

Christian Meyer Roel Verwey

Ali Özen

Jan Rüde Karsten Behrens

Per Øystein Alvær Sebastian Becker

Peter Schoenmaekers Iskander van der Wijngaard

Jaco Timmers Peter Jacobs
Marin Ogresta

Sergey Popov

4
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Abbreviations and Definitions

Primary and secondary suspension
FIGURE 1.1

Stable primary suspensions

Level of lifting points

Level of centre of gravity

(CoG)

Definition of rigging components and geometry (Kaps 2013 )

FIGURE 1.2

Potentially unstable primary/secondary suspension arrangement

Transverse centre Transverse Primary Longitudinal

of suspension metacentric suspension centre of
height suspension
Virtual centre
of gravity
Secondary
suspension

Longitudinal
metacentric
height

Centre of gravity

5
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Abbreviations
BFT Beaufort
CAD Computer-aided design
CoG Centre of gravity
FDLP Friction-dependent lift point
FLP Fixed lift point
GM Vessel`s metacentric height
GZ Uprighting lever-arm
HMPE High Modular Polyethylene
IMCA International Maritime
Contractors Association
IMO International Maritime
Organization
ISO International Organization
for Standardization
MBL Minimum Breaking Load
RFQ Request for Quote
SST Static Stability Triangle
SWL Safe Working Load
VCG Vertical centre of gravity

Unless otherwise noted, all units are

metric and in accordance with the
International System of Units (SI).

6
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Assessing stability of lifting arrangements

This flowchart gives the user the guidance to assess the while various suggestions are given, they are by no means
lifting stability of a rigging plan. Various check points and exhaustive. The user should and shall assess the possible
information blocks allow the user to review the created variations to the shown parameters. The next sections
rigging plan, determine its suitability, and create a frame- further clarify the text boxes of the flowchart.
work of boundary conditions. It should be noted that

FIGURE 2 1. Prepare draft

rigging plan
Design approach for safe rigging arrangements

2.
Lifting points friction
YES dependent?
NO

Additional informa- 2.1. Determine:

tion about calcula- 2.4 Conduct friction-increas-
• FDLP type
tion of sliding angles ing / sliding-suppressing
• Friction factor
can be found on measures
• Sliding risk
page 20.
YES

2.3
2.2
Friction-increasing /
Sufficient friction? Revise rigging
sliding-suppressing
(In-house limit)
NO measures NO
possible?

YES NO

3.
CoG above Lifting
YES Points? NO

Optional assessment:
• In-house tools 3.4 Conduct stability-
• Orcaflex 3.1 Assess stability of the Lift
increasing measures
• Others

YES

3.3
3.2
Stability-increasing
Sufficient stability Revise rigging
measures possible?
given? NO NO

YES
Optional: 4. If applicable:
Monitoring of Determine operational limits
operational limits

4.1
5. Prepare final rigging plan Sufficient workable Revise rigging
YES range? NO

7
Step 1 – Sketch rigging plan Step 2 – Are the lifting points friction-dependent?
As a first step the user shall make a draft of a rigging plan, 2.1 Determine the amount of friction
assessing the general particulars of a cargo item, such as In case there are friction-dependent lifting points in the
the overall geometry, CoG location, weight, dimensions arrangement then the amount of friction shall be deter-
and location of lifting points. In the next steps this set-up mined. This depends on the area and shape of the lifted
shall be reviewed. object at the location of each lifting point and the friction
coefficient between rigging and lifted object.
The initial rigging plan shall be a feasible arrangement
based on relevant expertise and experience of the The amount of friction can be determined based on the
designer. A feasible arrangement is stable, safe to normal load on the contact area, the materials of the
operate, and has an equilibrium state as intended by lifted object and rigging gear, the surface and shape of
the designer of the rigging plan. In order to determine the lifted object, and the material and surface conditions
feasibility the equilibrium state of the configuration shall (dry, wet, greased, contaminated). It can often be derived
be calculated, meaning no motions in the system and all from tables but also be determined by tests. The lowest
loads and internal moments in equilibrium. If applicable, possible friction factor for the given pair of materials shall
predefined disturbing factors are included in this assess- be considered for the assessment.
ment. In the equilibrium state without the presence of
external loads, the combined CoG of cargo and rigging The following considerations shall be taken into account:
is vertically in line with the top pivot point of the system,
typically the crane hook. Further guidance on the stability • Determine friction-dependent lifting point type, for
checks is given in the section ‘Aspects to be considered example:
in the stability assessment’ (page 14). – Sling around cylindrical cargo
– Sling around conical cargo
For arrangements with the CoG above the lifting points, – Sling around box-shaped cargo
reference is made to step 3 of this flowchart. Furthermore, – Other shapes
all rigging items shall have sufficient capacity for the – Flat surfaces (e.g. flat rack)
maximum factored line loads. The arrangement is • Determine friction coefficient:
deemed feasible when the equilibrium state of the – Material combination
arrangement meets the applicable lifting standards. – Surface conditions (roughness, wet/dry)
The following design considerations shall be taken into – Lubricant type and amount of lubricant on rigging wire
account: • Determine sliding risk:
– Sliding angle
• Primary rigging: – Tilted slings
– the longer, the more stable – Presence of obstructions
– suspension angle between 5° and 45° from vertical
• If applicable, secondary rigging: 2.2 Do the lifting points have sufficient friction?
– the longer, the less stable Based on the friction factor and the type of lifting point
– suspension angle tilted outwards (Ref. figure 21) and its geometry the sliding angle can be determined
increases stability (see section 'Calculation of sliding and effective incli-
– suspension angle tilted inwards (Ref. figure 22) nation angles', page 20). The sliding angle describes at
decreases stability which inclination between sling and cargo surface the
• Preference for fixed lifting points over friction- lifted cargo starts to slide. It must always be ensured
dependent lifting points. Pad-eyes and trunnions that this angle is not attained during lifting. It must be
are examples of fixed lifting points. A belly sling considered that slings may already have an angle by
arrangement is friction dependent. design of the rigging arrangement which reduces the
angle at which the lift becomes unstable due to sliding
• Consider response sensitivity of rigging to external of a lifting point.
loads like wind, tugger-loads, etc.

8
 Guidance on stability of lifts

The resulting critical sliding angle shall be used for deter- 3.2 Sufficient stability given?
mining sliding risks of the proposed rigging arrangement. The calculated stability of a lifting arrangement varies
For this risk assessment predefined disturbing factors shall between the methods and shall be evaluated against
be considered as well to cover the full operational range of internal company guidelines.
the lift. The resulting risks shall be checked against internal
company guidelines and project-specific criteria. In case there is not sufficient stability the user could opt
to introduce stability-increasing measures (steps 3.3 and
An iterative loop could be started to reduce the sliding 3.4). This could be done, for example, by elongating the
risk when the system does not comply with the criteria. primary suspension, or tilting the secondary suspension
Additional mitigations, such as increasing the friction or wires outwards (Ref. figure 21). If the reiteration does not
rigging securing measures could be taken, after which result in an acceptable stability of the lift, then the rigging
the user rechecks the outcome (steps 2.3 and 2.4). The concept should be revised (red box ‘Revise rigging’).
limiting tilt angle can be used as criterion later in the
assessment when additional lift influencing parameters Step 4 – If applicable, determine and document
are analysed (step 4.1). operational limits
When the arrangement is deemed stable, the operational
If the maximum tilt angle is deemed satisfactory (i.e. limits could be defined for performing the lifting opera-
smaller than the critical sliding angle) then the user can tion. Various factors can influence the stability of the lift
proceed to the next step. In the worst case, when no suit- arrangement, eventually resulting in a potentially unstable
able set-up can be found with the initial parameters, then condition. Relevant parameters for the operation could be
an overall design change of the rigging could be required quantified, with the results documented in the operational
(red box ‘Revise rigging’). procedure.

Step 3 – Is the CoG above the lifting points? Possible limits to be set:
If the CoG is positioned below the lifting points the lift is
generally considered stable. The user could then proceed • CoG envelope
to the next step. But when the CoG is located above the • Tilt limits
lifting points then the lift can potentially become unstable. • Maximum wind speeds
This is the case when the CoG is positioned outside the • Tugger arrangement and loads
primary suspension and the system cannot find an upright • Maximum wave height, period and heading
equilibrium state when the lifting operation commences. • Crane motions
For more complex configurations with multiple suspensions • Temperature and visibility
– i.e. when beams or spreader bars are used – the stability
of the arrangement becomes even more complex and 4.1 Sufficient workable range
requires a careful analysis. A final check shall be performed to determine if a suffi-
ciently large workable range is obtained for safe execution
3.1 Assess stability of the lift of the lifting operation. In case the operational range is
Various methods are available to assess the stability of a deemed unsatisfactory, the rigging plan should be revised
lift arrangement. An overview and comparison of methods (red box ‘Revise rigging’).
that are widely used in the industry is elaborated in the
next section. These methods have in common that the Step 5 – Preparing final rigging plan
stability of a lift is expressed by a metacentric height, The rigging plan, complying with the selected criteria, will
analogous to the GM in evaluating stability of ships. This be finalized and added to the operational procedure.
metacentric height is the vertical distance between the
(virtual) CoG of the cargo and the suspension point of the
lift – typically the crane hook.

The methods presented here are:

• Visual check of virtual CoG

• Kaps method
• Nikitin method
• Numerical computer simulations

Where applicable, the stability of the lift must be

assessed in both longitudinal and transversal plane, e.g.
in a configuration with a lifting beam and 2 spreaders,
where 2 triangles are created in perpendicular planes.

9
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Overview and comparison of available methods for

stability assessments of lifts
In the following section, four different methods to assess stability
in lifts as listed in step 3.1 of the flow chart (Ref. figure 2) will be
presented and further explained.

1. Virtual CoG concept FIGURE 3

For lifts with a primary suspension only, the stability of
a lift corresponds to the vertical distance between the Illustation of virtual CoG concept
suspension point (i.e. the hook) and the CoG of the lifted
object. The approach is analogous to the concept of
'metacentric height' in the initial static stability of ships.
This method can be used to assess the stability of lifts
with also vertical secondary suspensions. It allows a quick
geometrical assessment of the lifting stability.

The vertical secondary suspension is not contributing to

the lifting stability, therefore the distance s has no impact
on it. A lifting arrangement is stable when the vertical
distance z (lifting point to CoG) is smaller than the vertical
distance v (height of stabilizing triangle). For visualisation
a virtual CoG (G’) can be introduced by shifting the CoG
upwards by the distance s.

The metacentric height can then be calculated as the

vertical distance from virtual CoG to pivot point A (v-z).
Positive values describe a stable lift; the higher, the more
stable. If the distance is negative (i.e. the G' is above the
pivot point A) the lift is unstable.

A sophisticated calculation program may give a deeper

insight. However, the static results at least show clearly that
the primary slings should be made as long as possible while
the secondary slings should be as short as possible.

10
 Guidance on stability of lifts

2. Kaps method
Professor Hermann Kaps has published a paper with a In the following graph, the result of 35 stability calcula-
calculation method following the idea of the 'Virtual CoG' tions based on the Kaps method is shown. It summarizes
concept. Based on a mathematical model, it allows the the metacentric height in metres over the hook load in
consideration of additional factors with impact on lifting metric tonnes for various ‘best-practice-rigging arrange-
stability. The stabilizing effect of the self-weight of the ments’. The graph shows a concentration of metacentric
primary suspension can be considered as well as the height values in the range of approximately 3 m to 15
sling angles of the secondary suspension. The method m. This shall not be taken as a strict limitation but gives
also allows elasticity of slings to be taken into account, a valid overview of the stability of heavy lifts that were
and provides an approach for a 2-crane-lift with different executed successfully and without incidents.
rigging arrangements on each crane.
The metacentric height presented in this method is for
The ’Kaps method’ allows quick assessments of the (initial) the primary suspension. In case of parallel secondary
‘lifting stability’ and is comparatively easy to use and suspension, the result is also valid for the lift object /
well-established in the heavy lift industry. secondary suspension. If gamma > 0, the results are
conservative since the lift object will rotate less than
Addressing potential instability when lift points are below the primary suspension. For gamma < 0, however, the
the centre of gravity, the method offers a quantification opposite is true and the metacentric height calculated
and solutions for secure lifting of delicate cargo units. according this method is not conservative.
Even complex rigging arrangements involving primary
and secondary suspensions can be analysed analytically. For definition of angle � refer to Fig. 21 and 22.

FIGURE 4

Metacentric heights of various performed heavy lifts

20
Metacentric height hT [m]

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Total hook load (t)

11
 Guidance on stability of lifts

3. Nikitin method FIGURE 5

Doctor Yevgeny Nikitin has published papers on stability
of two-chain suspension arrangements (Ref. figure 22). Illustration of a numerical computer simulation in 3D
This method uses the classical Lagrange stability concept
and calculates an envelope for the CoG in which static and
tip-over stability gives a stable equilibrium. This envelope
is called the Static Stability Triangle. The vertical distance
from the CoG to the top of this triangle is a measure for
the response to an overturning moment. The horizontal
distance from the CoG to the edge of this triangle is a
measure for the amount of overturning moment at which
the edge of stability is reached.

For two-chain arrangements with parallel secondary sus-

pensions the results of this method are identical to that of include the rigging arrangement but also the crane and
the Kaps method, for non-parallel suspension, however, ship. Selected criteria (e.g. max. angle, deformations,
there are different results. loads, as well as lift stability) can be checked.

The static stability triangle calculation method only presents 5. Numerical computer simulations - Extended
results for the case that the base of the primary suspension An extensive method has been developed by SAL Engi-
is identical to the top of the secondary suspension; when neering to allow for a comprehensive assessment of lifting
the base of the primary suspension is smaller, the base of stability that considers all relevant aspects like lift point
the stability triangle will also be smaller. The described geometry, friction dependency of lifting points, sensitivity
method only considers symmetrical arrangements. to external forces, stiffness of rigging components and
cargo and, at the same time, provides qualitative and
4. Numerical computer simulation – Standard quantitative information about failure mechanisms.
Specialised software tools (e.g. Orcaflex) allow the The below graph shows the relation between the incli-
assessment of a rigging arrangement considering nation of a lifted object and the resulting uprighting
arbitrary geometries, boundary conditions and physical moment. It is equal to the overturning moment, so
dependencies, and to expose them to loads like forces illustration at the same time shows the inclination that
(e.g. from wind), accelerations (e.g. from crane motions), results from a certain overturning moment.
deformations (e.g. from elongation of slings), etc.
It is further possible to identify collapse points of the
Usually, particular scenarios that are assumed to be assessed lifting arrangements. The kinks indicate sliding of
critical or limiting (e.g. lift-off or set down situations), are lifting slings and resulting collapse of the lift. The different
assessed, and often the calculation model does not only lines represent different friction factors for friction-

FIGURE 7

Illustration of lift stability (overturning moment over resulting inclination)

200,000 — � = 0.09
— � = 0.10
150,000 — � = 0.12
— � = 0.14
100,000 — � = 0.16
— � = 0.18
50,000 — � = 0.20
Moment (kNm)

-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-50,000

-100,000

-150,000

-200,000
Inclination y-axis (deg)

12
 Guidance on stability of lifts

FIGURE 6 Comparison of methods and recommended areas

of application
Illustration of a numerical computer simulation in 2D Methods described under 1. (Virtual CoG). and 2. (Kaps)
allow the evaluation of the initial stability of the lift only.
They do not provide information about the behaviour of
the lift when external forces are applied or the CoG is off-
set, nor do they allow conclusions about potential failure
mechanisms. The Method described under 3 (Nikitin).
gives insight on the stability against overturning of two-
chain suspensions. It provides the initial stability as well
as a range of stability measured by a maximum allowed
tilting angle. Nevertheless the Kaps-method is broadly
dependent lifting points. Also the effect of the asymmetry used within the industry. A direct comparison with the
of the lifting arrangement is visible. also analytical but more complex approach by Nikitin is
given in the Appendix. The methods described under 4
The assessment of lifting arrangements with this method and 5 require a numerical simulation.
is time-consuming and requires specialised software
tools (e.g. Orcaflex) and specific expertise. Its application The below table provides an overview of the introduced
is therefore only reasonable for lifting operations that are methods.
knowingly critical, and a high engineering effort is justified.

TABLE 1

Comparison of methods

Virtual CoG Kaps Nikitin Numerical computer Numerical computer

concept method method simulation - Standard simulation - Extended

Approach Graphical Analytical Analytical Numerical Numerical

Excel-based Can be automated Simulation software Simulation software

solution available needed needed

Complexity Low Medium Medium High High

Time effort Low Low Low Medium High

Accuracy Low Medium High High High

(but for most (for specific cases and
cases sufficient) conditions)

Range Initial stability Initial stability Gives initial stability Stability for defined Stability for all angles
only only* and range of static conditions
stability

External forces Cannot be Cannot be Cannot be Can be considered Can be considered

considered considered* considered

Lifting points ‘fixed’ only ‘fixed’ only ‘fixed’ only Characteristics can be Characteristics can be
considered considered

Does not con- Gives metacentric Only considers Efforts for postpro- High efforts on post-
sider stabilising height for primary symmetric cessing and documen- processing to produce
effect of lifting suspension, no arrangement. tation only as much as GZ-curves and to identify
beam weight info on range of Base of primary needed. failure mechanisms and
as well as sling stability. suspension needs points.
Ultimate failure
angles of second- Only consid- to be identical to
mechanism not of
ary suspension. ers symmetric top of secondary
interest.
arrangement. suspension.

*analytical assessment based on Kaps method theoretically possible but not developed yet (June 2024).

13
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Aspects to be considered in the stability assessment

A stable lift is a lift that remains in a balanced condition, The following subchapters highlight an assortment of
within a safe margin, when subjected to predefined disturbing factors and present a way to incorporate them
disturbing factors. into the calculations for rigging stability assessment.

Disturbing factors may include:

• Wind
• Rigging length tolerance
• Steering line forces
• Crane movement
• CoG shift
• Vessel motions
• Friction at the lifting points

14
 Guidance on stability of lifts

External forces from wind

For every heavy lift, the wind is an important factor for the Windforce determination
safety of the operation. Mostly, maximum acceptable For obtaining the force F acting on a body under the blow
limits of the wind speed are set by either experiences or of the wind a well-known equation is used.
stipulated recommendations. For the analysis of the influence
on the stability of lifts, multiple analytical formulas can be p
used to determine forces acting on the lifted structure, F = A � c � �—� � v2 [N]
as well as resulting tilt angles of the suspended rigging 2
arrangement.
A = affected area, or the projection perpendicular to
Wind speed and vertical wind profile the wind direction [m2]
The wind speed information is always related to a refer- c = coefficient of resistance (Reference is made to
ence level above the ground level, usually 10 metres. On values given in literature)
this basis, the distribution of wind speed with increasing More information may be found in DNV-RP-C205 –
height may be estimated by means of the so-called loga- Environmental conditions and environmental loads
rithmic wind profile with the equation: ρ = density of air [kg/m3], temperature dependent,
1.25 kg/m3 may normally be assumed
z v = wind speed [m/s]
z0 �
ln �—
v(z) = v r � �— zr � [𝑚/s] For determination of wind area A, a common simplified
ln �— � approach is to use the full projected area without any
z0 openings. If perforated wind areas behind each other are
affected by wind, the shielding effects should be consid-
v(z) = wind speed in level z above the ground [m/s] ered case-by-case.
vr = wind speed in the reference level zr above the
ground [m/s] For the consideration of wind effects, the hanging load
z = actual level above the ground [m] should be assumed to be in the highest crane position.
zr = reference level above the ground [m] This is generally the position where the bottom of the unit
z0 = level above the ground for v = zero [m] hangs above the hatch coaming or the hatch covers of the
vessel.
The value of z0 depends on the unevenness of the ground
environment. For a moderately built-up port area a figure The total wind force acting on a cargo unit is obtained
of z0 = 0.4 may be used. by adding the forces acting on horizontal sections of, for
example, 5 metres height, for which the wind speed is
taken individually from the above described wind profile.
FIGURE 8
The formula for the total wind force reads:
Wind profile for vr=7 m/s with z0=0.4 m and zr=10 m
F W = 0.001 � Σ ni=1 (0.5 � A � c � p � v ) v
i i
2
i i
2

100 The height of the common centre of wind attack zW above

the bottom of the cargo unit is obtained by:
90

80

zW =
Σ ni=1 (0.5 � A � c � p � vi � z )
i i
2
i
[𝑚]
70

60
Σ ni=1 (0.5 � A � c � p � vi )
i i
2
h[m]

50 This calculation is conveniently carried out by a spread-

40
sheet program. Alternatively, the wind area and centre
of wind attack can be determined by CAD programs or
30
similar.
20

10
It should be noted that the centre of wind-force attack is
normally not identical with the VCG or the geometrical
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 centre of an object. For such cases, the centre of windforce
v[m/s] attack should be calculated.

15
 Guidance on stability of lifts

FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10

Example of compilation of wind force and centre of attack Single crane lift, inclination of angle δ

Wind profile Bft 4

Transverse
centre of
attack

Effects on single-hook lifts

Transverse view Area The inclination of the tackle in Figure 10 is obtained by:

FW
�= arctan �—�
W
Effects of wind attack
Wind force to a hanging cargo unit has the following static The force L in the tackle is increased against the weight W to:
effects:

L = (F W2 + W2)
When handling a cargo unit with only one ship's crane
there will be a slightly inclined pull on the lifting tackle
and a negligible increase of the hook-load. Under the assumption that the wind force F W attacks at
the level of the centre of gravity of the cargo unit, the
When handling with two cranes there will be also an suspension arrangement will be tilted by the angle δ.
inclined pull, but also a re-distribution of hook-loads
caused by the component of the wind in the plane
through both crane tops. External forces from tugger winch
When handling with two cranes it may be that the cargo or steering line
reaches high up between the two crane tops. It may then One of the points differentiates a single lift from a tandem
happen that the point of common wind attack is far above lift is lack of manouevrability of the suspended load.
the centre of gravity of the cargo unit or even above the While during "tandem lift" operations the cargo can be
centre of suspension of the rigging arrangement. In such easily controlled by 2 cranes, single lift operations need
a situation the component of the wind, which is perpen- additional method to prevent undesired movements of
dicular to the plane through both crane tops, will create the cargo. The most effective method is using tugger
an additional tilting of the suspension. lines.

16
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Tugger lines are steel or HMPE wires which are rolled load, combined with specific hardware, pre-stretched)
on the winch and during single lift operations they are reference is made to IMCA LR009 M237.
connected either directly to the cargo or to the lifting
beam. Usually heavy lift vessels have cranes equipped Existing slings
with tugger winches, but in some cases they can also be Length tolerance for existing slings or grommets might
placed on dedicated positions on the vessel. Positioning need to be considered depending on the amount of use of
of tugger winches on deck can be an advantage as the the sling/grommet since the last length measurement.
position of the winch can be chosen in a way to have bet-
ter control of the cargo during the whole operation, while Sling stiffness
the tuggers on the crane are fixed. Sling/grommet stiffness can also influence the tilt of the
lifted object, especially when slings are not loaded equally
The purpose of tugger lines is to control the suspended (not elongated to the same extent).
load. They are not only used to steer the cargo in a desired
direction, but also to reduce the swinging motion of the For critical cases, a properly documented sling/grommet
cargo created by the movements of the crane and vessel stiffness (E-modulus) or a conservative (low) E-modulus
(swell), or by an external force such as wind. The tugger should be applied/assumed. For steel slings/grommets,
lines act as a damper, preventing the movement of the the default stiffnesses indicated in DNV-ST-N001 Sec.
cargo by pulling the wires with a winch. 16.2.6, and shown in the table below, may normally be
applied.
Using tugger lines needs to be done cautiously as possible
hazards could occur. Applying extreme pulling force to TABLE 2
a suspended load could result in a CoG shift, possibly
decreasing the lifting stability. Extreme loads result in a Typical sling stiffness
tilted rigging, possibly decreasing on tugger wires during
offshore operations have resulted in snapping of the wires. Type of sling Area [mm2] Stiffness EA [N]
Single laid wire π 2 π 2
d 80,000 d
Lifting operations need to be properly planned, with rope sling 4 4
an understanding of which possible loads will arise on Cable-laid wire π 2 π 2
d 25,000 d
tugger lines. Positioning of the winches needs to be done rope sling 4 4
while avoiding the creation of undesirable angles on the Cable-laid wire π 2 π 2
d 25,000 d
wires, which could increase the wire tension. The risk of rope grommet 2 2
a wire snap can be prevented by using constant tension
tuggers. These tuggers are set to a constant tension. The
wire is automatically released when the tension in the The deflection of the lifted object (angular rotation) at the
wire increases, while the winch tensions the wire when it lift point location alters the angle between the sling and
becomes slack. the bearing surface and can influence the stability of the
friction-based lift points.

Slings This effect may be relevant for long and slender cargo with
small stiffness.
Sling length tolerance and stiffness and effect on
stability Belt materials
Uncertainty in sling length can result in increase of tilt of The contact material of a sling determines the static friction
the lifted object. Tilt in turn can bring the lifted object coefficient and thus, the maximum allowable tilt and/or
closer to the edge of stability. Therefore, sling length toler- sliding angle (equivalent to a maximum allowable lateral
ances need to be taken into account for lift arrangements force at the lift point) of a given rigging arrangement. For
that are close to the stability limit. different sling and sling protection materials, the respec-
tive static friction coefficient can vary significantly. Reliable
New slings information might be given by the manufacturer of slings.
Fabrication length tolerance for new-built cable-laid wire Special caution is required when using greased steel
rope products can be found in IMCA LR008 M179. This wire grommets because the friction coefficient cannot be
document states that the length tolerance on slings and reliably determined and approaches zero. For synthetic
grommets is +/- 1.5 d (where d is the sling/grommet slings, a non-representative test shows static friction factors
diameter), and the difference in length between sling/ ranging from 0.03 to 0.15 depending on sling force, belt
grommets of matched pairs does not exceed 0.5 d. material, cargo coatings, temperature and wet/dry/dirty
condition. In doubt, a low-end value of the range shall be
Fabrication length tolerance for high-performance fibre chosen.
slings should be discussed at the time of RFQ (at specific

17
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Friction-dependent lift points (FDLP) vs. fixed lift points (FLP)

As soon as the failure point of a lift point depends on the Types of lifting points
friction between lifting equipment and cargo, or between
lifting equipment components, it is a 'friction-dependent Fixed lift points
lift point'. It must be noted that the friction is needed to In the case of fixed lift points, the accuracy of the location
keep the lifting equipment in its intended position. The is high (within 10 to 15 mm from planned location). It is
lifting force itself is not transferred by friction (at least not common practice to predefine the lift point location on lift
in the heavy lift sector). and/or fabrication drawings. During and after fabrication
or installation of the lift points it is highly recommended
A typical friction-dependent lift point is a sling, slung to perform inspections to confirm the as-built/as-installed
around an object. locations (accuracy within 1 mm). Any inaccuracies can be
measured, and it is possible to adopt the lift arrangement
In cases where the friction between lifting equipment and if required.
cargo has no influence on the failure point or the capacity
of the lifting equipment to stay in its position it is a 'fixed Friction-dependent lift points
lifting point'. With respect to friction-dependent lift points there are
some items which should be taken into account.
A typical 'fixed lifting point' is a pad-eye with a shackle.
The rigging arrangement can be attached to the lifted To install the rigging at the exact required location as pre-
object by means of various types of connections. Basically, scribed by the lift plan can be cumbersome, especially with
these connections can be categorized as either fixed or heavy and stiff slings. Therefore, an offset can quite easily be
friction-dependent lifting points. observed. To avoid large offsets/inaccuracies, it is recom-
mended to indicate lift point locations on the object itself.
Fixed lifting points mounted on lifted objects physically
restrain the attached rigging from any translations. Only When a friction-dependent lift point is used, and the sling
rotations are allowed between lifting point and rigging. is planned to be perpendicular to the bearing surface, slid-
Typical examples are shackles through pad-eyes mounted ing of the sling will occur when friction is overcome due to
on cargo. Or grommets around trunnions or hubs. tilt of the lift object. Due to this, the lift point location will
alter and, in some cases, might not find a new equilibrium
Friction-dependent lifting points do not have physical position that stops the sliding (unstable lift).
constraints with respect to shifting of rigging. The sta-
bility of the rigging solely depends on the static friction When a friction-dependent lift point is used and the sling
between cargo and rigging. For example, this is the is not planned to be perpendicular to the bearing surface,
case when using lifting beams to support cargo during friction is then required to keep the sling in the planned
lifting operations. Or lifting belts applied under cargo, location. The friction needs to be sufficient to resist the
as typically used when lifting floating equipment such above load and take the load from possible tilt.
as yachts and tugs. The friction force depends on the
cargo shape, the types of material, the roughness of the
two surfaces, and the presence of intermediate lubricant
layers (i.e. dry/wet surface).

18
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Other aspects to be considered

Lift point location Dynamic effects
The actual lift point location can have an influence on the
stability of lift, depending on the type of lift point. Vessel motions
• Pitching
CoG position • Rolling
The position of the CoG is essential information for design-
ing a rigging arrangement and assessing its stability. How- Crane movements
ever, despite its importance, the CoG position is afflicted • Slewing
with inaccuracies that can be significant – especially for • Booming up and down
complex structures. Often, therefore, an envelope is given, • Hoisting
describing the most extreme possible/expected positions
of the CoG. While the CoG position in the lateral plane can For stability of the lift, the effect of the horizontal
be determined by weighing the structure, it is not practi- loads resulting from all these movements needs to
cally possible to measure the vertical position of the CoG. be considered.
It is recommendable to choose the highest and therefore
most unfavourable CoG position for the stability assess- For the crane movement, the hoisting up/down will not
ment. have an effect on the stability of the lift unless there is
a tandem lift. This can be overcome with the tilt factor
Furthermore, it must be considered that liquids with free described by DNV. Both the slewing and booming up/
surfaces inside the lifted cargo, e.g. fuel or water tanks, can down movements can be translated into accelerations
cause a shift of the CoG (usually to the wrong direction...). from which a horizontal force component can be cal-
culated. For the movement of the ship, it seems more
complicated. If the pendulum time of the lifted object
is larger compared to the pendulum time of the ship's
FIGURE 11 movement it will increase the motion of the lifted object.
This needs to be investigated with a dynamic analysis
Vessel and crane motions
software.

Boom up/down Final remark

The figures for inclinations and sling loads can be neg-
ligibly small but shall not obscure the fact that in reality,
excessively higher values may occur for short periods.
Short-term unsteadiness of wind may produce oscillations
of the suspension with amplitudes exceeding the static
figures by factor 1.5 or more, easily. Wind gusts of BFT
5, which may come within a BFT 4 steady wind, may
Hoisting increase these figures even further. Another effect may
Slewing be the build-up of oscillations by resonance between
the coupled mechanical systems of vessel, crane tackle,
suspension arrangement, and cargo unit. Thus, it will be
wise to at least double the result figures for using them in
Fhorizontal?
a risk assessment.

Pitching

Rolling

19
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Calculation of sliding and effective inclination angles

The sliding angle is a useful property of a lifting arrangement or uneven cargoes, the effective inclination angle is
with friction-dependent lift points (FDLP). It describes, at dependent on the tilt angle α but also on the cone/surface
which inclination α of the lifted cargo it starts to slide. It angle β. It can also be seen that the effective inclination
depends on the friction factor of the materials in use, but angle can be significantly higher than the object tilt α – or
also on the shape of the contact surface. For instance, can even have a different sign to the tilt angle α for certain
the effective inclination angle of a belly-slung cylindrical cone/surface angles β. The following given formulas can
object is significantly different for a conical section. be used to calculate theoretical sliding angles for standard
cases. It must be kept in mind that friction coefficients
Figure 12 illustrates how the effective inclination angle δ can vary significantly; assumptions should be made
for a cylindrical cargo is equal to its tilt angle α. For conical conservatively.

FIGURE 12

Inclination angles for cylindrical and conical objects

�=�–� �=�–�
� = 10 ° – 0 ° � = 10 ° – (–7 °)
� = 10 ° � = 17 °

� = tilt angle �=�–� �=�–�

� = cone/surface angle � = 10 ° – 0 ° � = 10 ° – 7 °
� = Effective inclination angle � = 10 ° �=3°

20
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Flat top
FIGURE 13

Lifting arrangement of a box on a flat rack

FIGURE 14

Lifting arrangement of a crane

Sliding occurs if the downhill force is larger than the friction The formula results to:
force in normal direction.
𝑚 � g � sin(�) > 𝑚 � g � � � cos (�)
With
m = mass [t] The maximum inclination below which sliding of the cargo
g = gravitational acceleration to 9.81 [m/s²] does not occur is determined by:
µ = friction coefficient [-] (depending on surfaces of
cargo and the material of supporting structure) �max = arctan (�)

21
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Cylindrical
FIGURE 15

Cylindrical pile in tandem lift

For the lifting stability of a cylindrical object, the geometry The friction force is then calculated by multiplying the
of the object needs to be considered as the friction force total load with the friction coefficient as well as the incli-
is dependent on the wrap-around angle γ of the sling nation, which results in the formula:
around the object. The wrap around angle is determined
by the addition of the sling angle ϕ where the sling is in
full contact with the cylinder. With the angle of contact
FR,i = F T � �i �cos (�)
usually being 90°, the formula appears as:
The force is then compared to the downhill force, as
�= (90 ° + �) � 2 sliding will not occur if the friction force is larger than the
downhill force. The downhill force is calculated in the
Furthermore, the wrap around angle is translated into the same manner as for the previous case. Finally, the maximum
arc length l, which is needed to calculate the total load in inclination angle below which sliding does not occur is
the slings. determined by:

U FR,i
l=— �� �max,i = arctan �—�
360 FG
For the total load it is necessary to additionally determine Overall, the stability is at risk if the inclination angle is
the line load, which consists of the sling load divided by the larger that just one of the maximum inclination angles
cargo diameter. The total load is assumed to be equally derived from the slings. Similarly, sliding occurs if the
divided into the 4 slings. The sling load is calculated as normal force is larger than only one of the resulting
known with the mass, gravitational acceleration and the friction forces between cargo and sling.
sling angle. With the mentioned components, the formula
for the sling load FS, the line load FL and total load F T for With γ = wrap-around angle [°]
each hook of a tandem lift result to: ϕ = sling angle [°] e.g. of primary rigging directly
on the hook
F µi = friction coefficient for the sling i of the rigging [-]
—G α = inclination angle [°]
4
FS = — α max,i = maximum inclination angle for sling i [°]
cos (�) d = pipe diameter [m]
FG = weight force [kN]
2 � FS FL = line load [kN/m]
FL = — FT = total load [kN]
d l = arc length [m]
U = circumference [m] U= π*d
F T = FL � l
22
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Conical
FIGURE 16

Partly conically shaped pile in tandem lift

In case of a conical section within a cylindrical object as Friction forces are determined by multiplying the total
shown in Figure 16, the cone angle is subtracted from the force with the friction coefficient of the section and the
tilt angle according to the nomenclature in the beginning inclination angle, which, when inserting the new angle �,
of chapter. (see figure 12). Hereby, the resulting inclination results to:
angle results to:
FR,i = F T � �i � cos(�)
�=�–𝛽
Respectively, this procedure is applied to the downhill
The maximum inclination angle �max,i is again calculated force, resulting in the following formula:
as mentioned previously. Additionally, the maximum sliding
angle for the section i is determined by subtracting the FH = 𝑚 � g � sin(�)
cone angle from the maximum inclination angle.
Again, sliding occurs if the downhill force is greater than

the frictions force of either section 1 or 2:
�max,i = �max,i – 𝛽
FH > FR,1 or FR,2
Sliding then occurs if one of the sections maximum sliding
angles are exceeded:

� > �max,1 or �max,2

23
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Box
FIGURE 17 So that the total load results in the line load multiplied by
the length:
Box in belly slings in a tandem lift
F T = FL � lC

The friction force is then calculated with the friction coef-

ficient dependent on the surface material of the object
and the slings:

FR,i = F T � �i � cos (�)

Following the calculations, the forces of friction and

downhill are compared. Sliding occurs if one of the
friction forces from the slings is smaller than the downhill
force FH.

FH > FR,1 or FR,2

The maximum inclination angle is calculated with the

help of the friction forces and the force resulting from the
cargo load:
The forces in the slings are calculated by including the
contact length between the sling and the object lc which FR,i
is defined by: �max,i = arctan�—�
FG
lC = 2 � h + b
For the determination of sliding depending on the incli-
When using a spreader bar, h=0 should be considered. nation angle the max. inclination angles for each sling are
For small angles ϕ, the effect of friction on the sides of a box then compared to actual inclination angle. Sliding does
becomes small. This should be considered by assuming occur if one of the maximum angles is exceeded.
h=0. The line load and the sling load are calculated as
follows: � > �max,1 or �max,2

2 � FS FG With h = height of the object [m]

F=— FS = — b = breadth/width of the object [m]
b 4 lc = contact length [m]

Other (hull shapes)

For other cases, e.g. hull shapes, no analytical formula applies.

FIGURE 18

Ship in belly slings

24
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Calculation examples
Calculation example 1.1: Comparison of Virtual CoG method and Kaps method

FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20

Example rigging with vertical secondary suspension Example rigging with vertical secondary suspension and
Virtual-CoG-triangle

In the following a comparison of the virtual CoG method The Virtual CoG concept uses only the primary rigging
and the Kaps method is shown. To illustrate the risk of height v and the CoG height z to calculate the metacentric
relying on only one method (Virtual CoG method as height of the rigging arrangement. The length and angle
the easiest one) a rigging is chosen, where one method of the secondary rigging, as well as the cargo and traverse
shows sufficient stability while the other does not. The masses, are neglected. The following figure 20 illustrates
reason for that lies in certain assumptions and simplifica- the 'projection' of the primary rigging onto the baseline
tions that are made and result in a neglect of geometrical of the lifting points. As a rule-of-thumb, the Virtual CoG
details, which influence the stability calculations. method classifies a rigging arrangement as stable when
the CoG is located within the red triangle.
The rigging shown above is checked for lifting stability
with both methods for the following values. The effect of these simplifications becomes clear in the
following comparison.
Symbol Value
Results of Virtual CoG method
v 3.86 m
The calculation of the metacentric height with the Virtual
s 14.00 m CoG method results in a negative value of:
z 4.00 m
Փ 64 ° ℎ = 𝑣 − 𝑧 = 3.86 𝑚 − 4.00 𝑚 = −0.14 𝑚
γ 0°
which leads to the conclusion to not lift the cargo with this
Mass cargo 𝑚𝑐 250 t
rigging.
Mass traverse 𝑚𝑇 50 t

25
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Results of Kaps method This results in an increased metacentric height of ℎ = 2.15m

The calculation with the Kaps method gives: without changing any components of the rigging
arrangement, calculated with the Kaps method. The
mT c � s � tan � Virtual CoG method cannot be used for an inclined
h = s �(1 – c) + � � �1 + — � – z � �1 - —� = 0.63 m
mC � �tan 𝜑 + s � tan � secondary rigging.

with The usage of two different methods can lead to drastically

mT sin � �cos � different results, as the following table shows:
c = cos � – �1 + �— � � — �
2

mC tan 𝜑

which leads to the conclusion that the lift potentially can Method used Metacentric height Stable?
be done. Virtual CoG -0.14m No
Kaps 0.63m Yes, but might be
Results after conducting stability-increasing measures
fragile
If one wants to follow the recommended measures to
Kaps with 2.15m Yes
increase the lifting stability, the easiest way is to increase the
stability-increasing
secondary sling angle by rigging the secondary slings closer
measures
to the centre of the suspension. This results in an increased
γ, a decreased φ, and a negligible decrease of 𝑠 (due to the
increase of γ) which is illustrated in following figure.

Calculation example 1.2: Comparison of Kaps

The small change in the rigging arrangement leads to the
method and Nikitin method
following values:

As presented the usage of different methods can lead

Symbol Value to significantly different results. Thus, the Kaps method
v 3.86 m will also be compared to the Nikitin method. For the
s 13.95 m calculation the following rigging is introduced.
z 4.00 m
The values taken for the comparison can be obtained
Փ 60 °
from following table.
γ 5°
Mass cargo 𝑚𝑐 250 t
Mass traverse 𝑚𝑇 50 t

FIGURE 21 FIGURE 22

Example rigging with outwards-inclined secondary Example rigging for inwards-inclined secondary
suspension suspension comparing the Kaps and Nikitin methods

26
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Symbol Value The calculation with the Nikitin method requires few more
formulas and results in the three values α𝑚 – overturning
Case I II III
angle of the rigging arrangement, 𝑧𝑚 – height of the SST,
v 3.60 m 3.60 m 3.60 m and 𝑦𝑚 – width of the SST at the given CoG. Analogously
s 7.50 m 7.50 m 7.50 m to the Kaps method, the distance 𝑧𝑚 − 𝑧𝐶𝑜𝐺 between the
z 1.10 m 1.10 m 1.10 m height of the SST and the height of the CoG is equivalent to
Փ 26 ° 26 ° 26 ° the metacentric height ℎ and represents a measure for the
response of the system to a disturbance. The formulas are:
γ 0° 4° -4 °
Mass cargo 𝑚𝑐 60 t 60 t 60 t A𝐵 = 2 ⋅ 𝑣 ⋅ tan(𝜑) = 3.51 𝑚
Mass traverse 𝑚𝑇 2t 2t 2t
Where AB is the distance between the suspension point
In general, there are three different cases regarding the (usually the crane hook swivel point) and the primary lift
secondary suspension that must be evaluated. These are point on the traverse.

• Case I: The metacentric height ℎ is equal to the result from the

straight secondary suspensions with 𝛾 = 0 °, outwards Kaps method:
• Case II:
inclined secondary suspensions with 𝛾 > 0 °, and inwards ℎ = 𝑧 𝑚 − 𝑧𝐶𝑜𝐺 = 3.72 𝑚 − 1.10 𝑚 = 2.62 𝑚
• Case III:
inclined secondary suspensions with 𝛾 < 0 °. The metacentric height ℎ is equal to the result from the
Kaps method:
For Case I the reduction of the vertical distance s caused
by the inclination 𝛾 is small and neglectable.
= 3.72 𝑚
Vertical secondary suspensions
Case I: 𝛄 = 𝟎°
For the calculation with the Kaps method, the metacentric
height is calculated as before and results in:
= = 1.23 𝑚
2 +1

with =arctan = 25.3°

2
sin

27
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Outwards inclined secondary suspensions Inwards inclined secondary suspensions

Case II: 𝛄 > 𝟎° Case III: 𝛄 < 𝟎°
For the calculation with the Kaps method, the metacentric For the calculation with the Kaps method, the metacentric
height is calculated as before and results in: height is calculated as before:

= 3.97 𝑚 = 1.02 𝑚

The calculation with the Nikitin method again requires The calculation with the Nikitin method now requires an
additional formulas and results in the following: additional differentiation for the conditions 𝜒 > 𝜑 or 𝜒 < 𝜑.
For the given example the condition χ > φ is true and
= tan ( 2 ) = 6.17 𝑚
2 therefore Case III-b gives the results for 𝑧𝑚, 𝑦𝑚 and α𝑚.

= 1.87 𝑚 Case III-a:

2
𝛄 < 𝟎° and 𝛘 < 𝛗

( (
Again, additional formulas are used as per following:
= arctan = 25.3°
+1
with:

= sin (𝛾)= 4.56 𝑚

( ) = 3.51 𝑚

= 7.52 𝑚

2 21 22 = 19.4° + 50.3° = 69.7° with:

1
21 = +arctan = 19.4°
4 2 AB +r tan( + )
2 4

22 = 50.3°

=arctan = 25.3°
+1

( ) ( ) ( )
= = 1.56 𝑚 = 35.6° > 𝜑 = 26°

(CB + r + CD) = 10.82 𝑚

cos( )
= = 9.56 𝑚
sin( 21 )

The distance 𝑧𝑚 − 𝑧𝐶𝑜𝐺 = 6.17 m − 1.10 m = 5.07 m is for

outwards inclined secondary suspensions higher than the
metacentric height ℎ of the Kaps method with ℎ = 3.97 m.
This means the Nikitin method indicates a more 'robust'
system regarding disturbances. Or one could say the Kaps
method is here the more conservative approach.

28
 Guidance on stability of lifts

Case III-b: The distance 𝑧𝑚 − 𝑧𝐶𝑜𝐺 = 1.42 m − 1.10 m = 0.32 m is

𝛄 < 𝟎° and 𝛘 > 𝛗 for inwards inclined secondary suspensions lower than the
For the condition χ > 𝜑 (as given in this example) the same metacentric height ℎ of the Kaps method with ℎ = 1.02 m.
formulas: This means the Nikitin method indicates a much less
'robust' system regarding disturbances. The Kaps method
is here the much less conservative approach.
= 1.42 𝑚
As the above results indicate, the Kaps method seems to
underestimate the stability of rigging arrangements with
= 0.28 𝑚 outwards inclined secondary suspensions. On the other
hand, it overestimates the stability of rigging arrangements
with inwards inclined secondary suspensions. In the
respective case, the more conservative approach should
= 25.3° be used, or results should be double-checked with the
other method. For vertical secondary suspensions both
methods yield identical results.

29
 Guidance on stability of lifts

References
Stability of cargo suspension arrangements IMCA LR008 M179 (2019-April)
Prof. Capt. Hermann Kaps (2013) Guidance on the manufacture and safe use of cable-laid slings and
grommets
DNV-ST-N001 (2023-December)
Marine operations and marine warranty IMCA LR009 M237 (2024-February)
Guidance on the selection, safe use and inspection of high performance
DNV-RP-C205 (2021-September) fibre slings used for engineered lifts
Environmental conditions and environmental loads

Static and Tip-over Stability Analysis of Tow-Chain Suspension Arrangements for Large-Scale Cargo Operations, Yevgeny V. Nikitin, WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs vol 13, pages 101-126 (2014)

Images
BigLift: page 01, 09, 10 | Heerema: page 03 | SAL: page 14, 18 | Jumbo: page 06, 08, 23, 29, 30 | Spliethoff: page 27

30