EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide

Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

1 Informative

Spreadsheets are protected but without password. End user can freely modify the spreadsheets to
adapt them to your own necessity.
For this fact spreadsheets are provided without warranty of any kind.

The price that end user pay one time for the spreadsheet its only due to cover a little part of the
cost of the time dedicated to build it.

The author has made all possible effort during the compilation of the spreadsheets but there is no
warranty about presence of compilation errors.
Any error that end user will find on the spreadsheet will be corrected without supplementary cost.

The author is not English mother tongue. So it's possible to find, in the guide and into the
spreadsheets, phrases that are not correctly translated. For any correction or explanation contact:

[email protected]

For using correctly the spreadsheets it's necessary a good knowledge of the following matters:

strength of material
mechanical engineering
material science
theory of machine

and at least of the following standards:

EN 13155: 2009
ENV 1993-1-1: 1992
FEM 1.001
EN 13001-3-1: 2013 and related parts of EN 13001
Machine Directive 2006/42/CE
IIW: Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and components

1.1 Guide contents

1 Informative 1
2 Why EN 13155 Annex A.1 2
3 Spreadsheet for verification to the elastic limit 3
4 Spreadsheet for verification against buckling for axial compression and bending 3
5 Spreadsheet for verification of web buckling by shearing 7
6 Spreadsheet for buckling verification of unstiffened plates 8
7 Spreadsheet for bolt connection 10
8 Spreadsheet for welded joints verification 11
9 Spreadsheet for lifting lug verification 12
10 Spreadsheet for checking against brittle fracture 13
11 Spreadsheet for calculation of section properties - Classification 14
12 Remarks 16
12.1 Overall safety factor using EN 13155............................................................................. 16
12.2 Heavy loads................................................................................................................... 17
12.3 Fatigue strength............................................................................................................. 17
12.4 Lifting accessories and Finite elements method............................................................. 18
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

2 Why EN 13155 Annex A.1

The standard EN 13155 is an harmonized standard to the Machine Directive 2006/42/CE and it is a
C-type standard.
So we have that:

-Application of the specifications of a C-type standard on the basis of the manufacturer's risk
assessment confers a presumption of conformity with the essential health and safety requirements
of the Machinery Directive covered by the standard-

From EN13155 for this kinds of lifting accessories:

Lifting beams
C-hooks
Lifting forks

mechanical resistance of load bearings parts could be assessed without static tests.
Besides EN 13155 Annex A.1 avoids fatigue assessment limiting the accessory's life to 20000
cycles. For this scope we have to check the lifting accessory under the following load case:

X SDL 2S W LL

where SDL is the "accessory self weight" and SWLL is the "working load limit", in other words the
maximum load which can be lifted in working condition.
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

3 Spreadsheet for verification to the elastic limit

The spreadsheet perform the verification to the elastic limit typing the calculated stresses. We have
only to choose the steel grade and the part thickness. The admissible normal and shear stresses
are the same defined in EN 13001-3-1 which regards design of cranes.

fig. 1

EN 13155 use the von Mises criterion for plane stress.

4 Spreadsheet for verification against buckling for axial compression and bending

In this case EN 13155 doesn't cover the procedure for performing this kind of verifications but it
prescribes to use ENV 1993-1-1: 1992.

Why ENV 1993-1-1: 1992? Because for dated standards only reference cited applies (see EN
13155:2009 Chapter 2: Normative references).

The choice of the standard (ENV 1993: 1992) for performing this kind of verifications maybe is not
the best because in the bibliography of EN 13155 there is FEM 1.001 - Rules for the design of
hoisting appliances - which prescribes "classical methods" which are fastest and simpler than ENV
1993-1-1: 1992 methods. For example FEM 1.001 refers to the historical standard "DIN 4114" and
for what I know the first edition is dated 1939. DIN 4114 has been replaced by DIN 18800.
But it's only my opinion.

The spreadsheet performs the verification for combined axial compression and bending moment.
In the first part we have to insert actions and section properties.
In the "EN 13155-A1-Suite" there is a spreadsheet for calculating plastic section modulus for
common rolled or welded sections (see Chapter 11).
If plastic section modulus is not known for a conservative results we can put the elastic section
modulus.
The verification is applicable to sections of Class 1,2 and 3. The differences among this classes
are defined as follow:

Class 1 cross-sections are those which can form a plastic hinge with the rotation capacity
required for plastic analysis
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

Class 2 cross-sections are those which can develop their plastic moment resistance, but
have limited rotation capacity
Class 3 cross-sections are those in which the calculated stress in the extreme compression
fibre of the steel member can reach its yield strength, but local buckling is liable to prevent
development of the plastic moment resistance
Class 4 cross-sections are those in which it is necessary to make explicit allowances for the
effects of local buckling when determining their moment resistance or compression
resistance

Verification of Class 4 section is not simple because it involves an iterative procedure for defining
the reduced resisting section area.

fig. 2

In the second part of the spreadsheet we have to choose the "imperfection coefficients".

fig. 3

This coefficient could assume four values: 0.21 - 0.34 -.0.49 - 0.76 depending from the buckling
curve. The following tables helps to choose the coefficient and the buckling curve.

Buckling curve a b c d
Imperfection coefficient 0.21 0.34 0.49 0.76
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

Cross section Limits Buckling about Buckling curve

axis
Rolled I or H sections y-y a
h/b > 1,2 and tf 40
z-z b

h/b > 1,2 and y-y b

40 <tf 100 z-z c

y-y b
h/b 1,2 and tf 100
z-z c

y-y d
h/b 1,2 and tf > 100
z-z d
y-y b
tf 40
Welded I or H sections (also with z-z c
flange reinforcements) y-y c
tf > 100
z-z d
Hot rolled hollow sections / any a
Welded box sections
In general any b

Thick welds and

any c
b/tf < 30 - b/tw < 30

U, L, T and solid sections any c

After that we have to define the "Equivalent uniform moment factor", the section class and the
partial safety factor.

fig. 4

"Equivalent uniform moment factor" must be calculated from the following table.
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

Moment diagram Equivalent uniform moment factor M

Ends moments

M, 1.8 0.7

1 1
Moments due to in-plane lateral loads
M,Q 1.4

M,Q 1.3

ENV 1993-1-1 covers other moment diagrams. The table above resume the frequent cases for
lifting beams, C-hooks and lifting forks.
Once inserted the "Equivalent uniform moment factor" we have to define the section class. Class 4
sections are excluded.
The partial safety factor is defined from National Annex. Frequent values are 1.05 and 1.1.
After that we have the result of verification for combined axial compression and bending moment.
Consider that if axial compression or bending moment is not present, the verification is still valid.
Finally the spreadsheet performs verification for Lateral torsional buckling. This verification is
necessary above all for I section beams which have low torsional moment of inertia. The worst
case is when loads are applied above the section shear centre and it always happens for C-hooks
but it could happen also for lifting beams.
Generally hollow sections and box sections doesn't give problems for LT buckling.

fig. 5

For this scope we have to insert the coefficient M,LT from previous table and referred to y axis.
After there is a problem regarding the elastic critical moment. The calculus, based on ENV 1993-1-
1, is generally not simple and takes a lot of time. So the fastest way is to use LT-Beam free
software downloadable from this website:

https://www.cticm.com/content/ltbeam-version-1011
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

Finally the imperfection coefficient for LT buckling could assume only two values: 0.21 for rolled
sections and 0.49 for welded sections.

5 Spreadsheet for verification of web buckling by shearing

EN 13155 prescribes to perform this verification under certain conditions. Generally this verification
is not necessary.

fig. 6

The method used is the "simplified post-critical method" that's valid also for stiffened web. For
further information refer to ENV 1993-1-1.
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

6 Spreadsheet for buckling verification of unstiffened plates

This verification is not mentioned on EN 13155 but it could be necessary for welded box lifting
beams.
I choose the procedure from EN 13001-3-1.

Why EN 13001-3-1? Because it's mentioned on EN 13155 Annex H, because EN 13001-3-1 is

harmonized to Machine Directive 2006/42/CE and is C-type standard.

The method is a simplified approach based on DIN 18800-2 and is fast but for low a/b ratio could
be too conservative. A similar approach is followed by FEM 1.001 which is derived from DIN 4114.
In the first part of spreadsheet we have to insert the plate dimensions, stress actions (derived from
classic theory of beams) and we have to define if "a" edges are both restrained or one of the two is
free. Case A and B stress distribution are defined on the following figure.

fig. 7

fig. 8

After that we have to define manually the safety factors for normal and shear stresses.
EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

fig. 9
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

7 Spreadsheet for bolt connection

Bolt connections are not mentioned on EN 13155. I choose the procedure from EN 13001-3-1.

Why EN 13001-3-1? Because it's mentioned on EN 13155 Annex H, because EN 13001-3-1 is

harmonized to Machine Directive 2006/42/CE and is C-type standard.

The spreadsheet performs verification for shear resistance and bearing resistance of the bolted
plates. Shear force is relative to one bolt.

fig. 10
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

8 Spreadsheet for welded joints verification

EN 13155 Annex A1 follows the same procedure of EN 13001-3-1. Correction coefficients depend
from type of weld, stress direction is relative to welding axis and weld quality is defined as per EN
ISO 5817 (which replaces EN 25817). Types of weld are described below.

Type T1 Type T2 Type T3

Weld with full penetration or Weld with full penetration or Weld without full penetration
Back-welded Back-welded
Double semi Y-weld,
Butt welded Weld with small web semi Y-weld for T joint
Double semi V-weld, Double semi Y-weld, Double fillet weld
semi V-weld for T joint semi Y-weld for T joint Fillet weld

The figure below shows an example of determination of stresses for a fillet weld where normal
stress is perpendicular to the welding axis and the shear stress is parallel.

F
w
2alr
F
w
2alr
lr lw 2a
a 0.7 min(t1, t 2 )

fig. 11
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

9 Spreadsheet for lifting lug verification

This kind of elements are not mentioned by EN 13155 but they are frequently used especially for
lifting beams. The procedure adopted from the verification has been derived from:

Germanischer LLOYD - Rules IV for the Certification and Construction Industrial services Part 7:
Offshore substation Chapter 2: Structural design Edition 2013

I chose this procedure for the classical approach for calculating stresses which follows a
verification to the elastic limit. The only difference with GL procedure are the partial safety factors
which for EN 13155 Annex A1 depend from SDL/WLL ratio (see table below)

Germanischer LLOYD procedure: adopted safety factors EN13155-A1 safety factors

Partial safety factors: Total safety factors for Depends from the ratio SDL/W LL
stresses:
Total loads: 1,35 SDL/W LL Total safety factor for
Normal stress: 1,45 Normal stress: 1,96 (%) normal stress
Shear stress: 2,16 Shear stress: 2,92 0% 2
Combined stress: 1,25 Combined stress: 1,69 5% 1,95
10% 1,91
15% 1,87
20% 1,83
Note to EN 13155-A1 safety factor
25% 1,8
30% 1,77
a) 0% corresponds to lifting lug which carries working load
only 35% 1,74
b) For pure shear stress the safety factor it's 3 times safety 40% 1,71
factor for normal stress 45% 1,69

fig. 12
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

On the first part of spreadsheet we have only to choose the steel grade and the lifting lug geometry.
Germanischer LLOYD procedure considers a minimum transverse force Fy equals to 5% of Ps. If
lateral reinforcing plates are not present relative dimensions must be 0.
In the second part there is a verifications to the elastic limit for A.1 load case.

fig. 13

Germanischer LLOYD procedure is valid for pin shackle diameter at least 0.95 times lug hole
diameter:

dpin
0.95
d

Which means that lifting lug design is based on pin shackle's diameter.

10 Spreadsheet for checking against brittle fracture

For EN 13155 A.1.4 must be carried out a verification against brittle fracture as per ENV 1993-1-1 -
Annex C or within the table A.3.
For this purpose Table A.3 could be too conservative and so the spreadsheet carries out the
verification with ENV 1993-1-1 Annex C.
In fact Table A.3 limits the thickness to 40 mm and considers loading rate corresponding to R2:

R2 loading rate: Impact loading - Applicable to high strain rate, explosive or crash conditions

Another advantage is that using Annex C it's possible to obtain intermediate temperatures and less
restrictive verification for non critical members.
Spreadsheet restricts temperature range until to -20C. Some discrepancies could be found with
Table 3.2 of ENV 1993-1-1 for large thickness (150-250 mm).
Reduced value of steel yield strength is valid only within Annex C of ENV 1993-1-1.
Table A.3 of EN 13155 restricts plate thickness to 40 mm. This thickness limit could be taken as a
prescription. Same conclusion could be deduced from Table A1 of EN 13155.
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

fig. 14

11 Spreadsheet for calculation of section properties - Classification

The spreadsheet calculates the more important section properties for:

I o H sections
Circular hollow sections
Rectangular hollow sections
Box welded sections

Properties calculated are:

Area moment of inertia

Elastic modulus
Plastic modulus
Classification of section

Classification of section is based on ENV 1993-1-1: 1992 and it's slightly different from
classification made with more recent version of EN 1993.
For web and flange classification under combine axial and bending refers to ENV 1993-1-1: 1992.
EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

fig. 15
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

12 Remarks

12.1 Overall safety factor using EN 13155

Overall safety factor changes from a member to another. Remembering equation A.1:

X SDL 2WLL

and considering as an example a C-Hook we have a slightly difference between safety factor for
bolted connection and pin respect to the bottom of the C-beam.

fig. 16

It's only an example: if SDL equals 7% of SWLL we obtain:

1 1,93
2 2

In general the safety factor varies between the following two extreme values:

SDL
2
S WLL
max S.F. 2; minS.F.
S
1 DL
S WLL

For an extreme case for which is SDL = SWLL minimum value of safety factor equals 1,5.
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

12.2 Heavy loads

In general more heavy is the load and less are the accelerations. Referring to Norsok R002 - 2012
the test load decreases for WLL over 25 tonnes. For example for a 25 tonnes WLL the test load
equals 2WLL, for a 50 tonnes load the test load equals 1.8WLL (90 tonnes).
As per Machine Directive 2006/42/CE:

Machinery and lifting accessories must be designed and constructed in such a way as to withstand
the overload in the static tests without permanent deformation or patent defect. Strength
calculations must take account of the value of the static test coefficient chosen to guarantee an
adequate level of safety. That coefficient has, as a general rule, the following values:

(a) manually-operated machinery and lifting accessories: 1,5;

(b) other machinery: 1,25.

As per EN 13155 individual verification must be carried out with A.1 or A.3 method. Type
verification must be carried out with A.1 or A.2 method.

Individual verification: verification carried out on every item produced

Type verification: verification carried out on one or more samples representative of a particular
design and size of product before it is first placed on the market

Equipment Type verification Individual verification

Lifting beams A.1 or A.2 A1 or A3
C-Hooks A.1 or A.2 A1 or A3
Lifting forks A.1 or A.2 A1 or A3

A.2 method defines a test load equals to 3WLL and the accessory must withstand the to the test
load without collapse - permanent deformation are admitted.
A.3 method defines a test load equals to 2WLL and the accessory must withstand to the the test
load without permanent deformation.
In both cases after the force has been removed the accessory shall be examined for deformation,
cracks and other defects.
EN 13155 doesn't establish a difference based on WLL. So heavy accessories must be verified in
the same way of light accessories. Obviously for a single heavy unit A.3 method could be
expensive.

12.3 Fatigue strength

From EN 13155:

This standard does not cover the hazards related to mechanical strength of structural elements of
attachments designed for more than 20000 lifting cycles.

EN 13155 doesn't take on consideration the load spectrum. So it's like that if the accessory always
lifts the WLL.
Considering a welded detail with a FAT of 40 MPa and subjected to a variation of nominal stress
from 0 to 177.5 MPa in correspondence of the WLL (so for 2WLL maximum stress reach the limit
of 355 MPa) the fatigue life is:

3
c
11720 cycles
Mf

For FAT 180 MPa (non welded component - for more detail see EN 13001-3-1) the fatigue life is:
 EN 13155-A1 Suite - User's Guide
Date 2014/11/01 Rev. 0

5
c
700000 cycles
Mf

Calculus above doesn't take in consideration dynamic factors; spectrum factor equals 1 and safety
factors 1.25. (Another consideration to be made is that for 11720 cycles detail is located in low
cycles fatigue and nominal stress method is not the right approach)
The purpose of calculations above is to make attention on low FAT welded details if they are
subjected to high variations of nominal stress.

12.4 Lifting accessories and Finite Elements Method

FEM method for evaluation of a mechanical resistance of a lifting accessory could lead to wrong
results in presence of singular point where the stress (e.g. the first principal) doesn't converge by
reducing mesh size.
Considering the case of figure below, the first principal stress doesn't converge and reaches a
value that's more than the yield strength of the material. Decreasing the mesh size the discrepancy
becomes more large. In this case could be difficult also to obtain nominal stress

fig. 17

In this case it's important to identify the peak stress and evaluate if it can be a factor of hazard for
mechanical resistance taking into account that structural steel are very ductile and peak stress, in
the most of cases, leads only to a local and restricted plastic deformation. This is valid if the
component works above the transition temperature. For low working temperatures brittle fracture
can occur also for ductile steels, above all in presence of welded detail and high values of the first
principal stress.
Fatigue strength could be evaluate with local stress approach methods (e.g Hot Spot method).