EXPERT COLUMN | LEEA
Mind your technical language
buying and procurement professionals to highlight major gaps in product documentation, environmental suitability and safety compliance when purchasing lifting equipment. The same issue from the supplier side was
L
examined in a separate and smaller survey of manufacturers, distributors and technical authors in Australia and New Zealand. Among its findings was an apparent confusion among lifting equipment buyers surrounding technical language, with the most often misunderstood terms being Working Load Limit (WLL) versus Safe Working Load (SWL) versus Minimum Breaking Load (MBL) versus Lashing Capacity (LC). Confusion also extended to FEM duty classifications and configuration-specific capacities. Let us then run through some of these terms, to help provide clarification. The Safe Working Load (SWL) is the maximum load (mass) – as assessed by a Competent Person – that an item of lifting equipment may raise, lower or suspend under the particular service conditions. In some geographical regions the phrase ‘specific application’ is used instead of ‘safe’ but the requirement is the same, so in this article we will use the acronym SWL. The Working Load Limit (WLL) is the maximum load (mass) that an item of lifting equipment is designed to raise, lower or suspend. Referred to as ‘maximum Safe Working Load’ in some standards and documents, WLL is more generally used for lifting accessories, with lifting appliances now commonly marked with a Rated Capacity (RC), which is the maximum gross load that a lifting appliance can lift for its specific configuration. So RC is generally used for lifting appliances in the same way as Working Load Limit is for lifting accessories. The SWL is marked on the equipment and appears in statutory records and will normally be the same value as the WLL (or maximum Safe Working Load) or RC. However, there are circumstances where it may be less.
10 | October 2026 |
www.hoistmagazine.com
EEA’s Procurement Survey, published during Global Lifting Awareness Day (GLAD) 2026, gathered insights from
Ben Dobbs
Technical Committee
Ben Dobbs, head of global standards and legislation at the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA), offers some advice on technical lifting terminology.
may be marked with the reduced SWL for that specific duty. For specific installations where the equipment is portable, the user should provide written instructions to the operative, which include an instruction to use a normally rated piece of equipment – that is where the SWL is the same as the WLL – but of appropriately higher capacity thus achieving the same effective reduction. For an industry, or a definable section of an industry, where the majority of tasks require equipment having a reduced working load then all the equipment should have a reduced working load – that means corresponding to the most hazardous duty.
Making the right choice
Given that WLL or RC is the load value assigned to the ‘maximum’ SWL under ideal conditions (by calculation), in most cases the WLL or RC and the SWL will be the same – though SWL is a variable based on condition of use. Manufacturers design for foreseen conditions of use and rates accordingly. However, based on specific factors – such as size and shape of load, weather conditions as well as wear and tear – the user may decide to reduce the WLL/ RC to a SWL. It does not have anything to with the manufacturer in terms of supply, it is the user planning operations that varies the SWL. If such factors are known and declared to the manufacturer then the equipment made will be rated according to the use with a WLL/RC not SWL.
It may be necessary to reduce the WLL to a lower SWL for hazardous duties. These could be defined by environmental conditions – such as extremes of temperature, high windspeeds – or lifting procedures that may create a likelihood of shock loading or inaccuracy of weight. When such circumstances arise, it is essential that systems be put in place to prevent normally rated equipment being used to its full capacity. While it is the responsibility of the user to take
such steps, consider the following advice: for specific installations where the equipment is fixed permanently in position, the equipment
Survey says WLL is also frequently mixed up by buyers and operators with terms like Lashing Capacity (LC) and Minimum Breaking Load (MBL). LC is the maximum safe force a tie-down strap, chain or lashing system can exert in a straight pull to secure cargo during transport. It is typically rated at half of the equipment’s breaking strength. MBL is the specified load (mass or force) below which the item of equipment does not fail either by fracture or distorting to such an extent that the load is released.
As for FEM (Fédération Européenne de la
Manutention) duty classifications, these define the operational life span, workload capacity and daily usage limits for cranes and hoists. Ratings are calculated using the daily operating time and the load spectrum (the weight of typical loads relative to maximum capacity). This ensures the selected hoist is suited to the operation. Lifting equipment configuration-specific capacities refer to how an item of lifting equipment’s maximum safe load changes depending on its physical setup, geometry or hitch method. The survey’s revelation of the apparent confusion surrounding these vital examples of Lifting Industry terminology, is a further good reason for making reference tools like the LEEA Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Lifting Equipment (COPSULE) essential reading. In addition, as encouraged by LEEA during GLAD 2026: confidence comes from asking – if you are unsure, ask another question.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79
