Free rigging calculators: what they do well, and where the answer stops

A free calculator computes and a record proves. The 8 t sling answer here is exactly right; the padeye at the other end of that leg needs five checks the sling calculation cannot reach.

Updated 16 September 2026 · Companion tool: Lifting Lug Calculator

01

Two different jobs, and only one of them is arithmetic

Computing a number is the easy half. Producing something a reviewer can audit without you in the room is the half that takes the work, and it is not something a calculation box can do.

Computing. Give it inputs, get a number. Fast, useful, and for the classical identities in rigging it is genuinely easy to get right. Most free calculators do this well.

Proving. Producing an artefact that says what was checked, what was not, where every input came from, which design route applies, what the allowables are and why, and what stayed outside the validated scope. That is a document rather than a number, and it is what somebody accepts.

Almost every argument about calculators is really an argument about which of those two jobs is being discussed. A free tool that computes correctly is not deficient; it is doing the first job.

  1. 01What are you going to do with the answer?

    Decide something in the next five minutes
    A free calculator, or a pencil, is the right tool. In a meeting, on site, deciding whether an approach is worth pursuing. Speed beats provenance here.
    Hand it to somebody who has to accept it
    A record with provenance, scope and a route. A number with no source cannot be reviewed, and being right is not the same as being reviewable.
    Put it in a lift plan
    A record, and the plan carries its reference. Somebody will read that plan without you available.
  2. 02Does the tool tell you what it did NOT check?

    Yes, explicitly
    That is the single best signal there is. A missing check and a passing check look identical unless a tool says so.
    No
    Then you have to know the check list yourself. Which is fine if you do. It is not fine if the tool is standing in for knowing it.

02

What a free calculator does well

The classical identities, and it does them exactly right. The worked sling calculation below is correct to as many figures as anybody needs.

Two legs at 45 degrees under a 8 t load, which is the single most-searched rigging calculation there is:

  • Inward pull at each lift point: 39.2 kN
Nothing about this is difficult and nothing about it is proprietary. A free calculator, a phone and a pencil all give the same three numbers.

Free tools that do this are worth bookmarking. Sling tension, load angle factors, unit conversion, centre of gravity from component masses, simple beam reactions: all of them are classical, all of them are quick, and none of them needs a subscription.

The limit is not accuracy. It is scope. That leg tension arrives somewhere, and the somewhere is where the engineering was.

03

Where the free answer stops

At the sling. Everything the sling is attached to is a design, and a design is a set of checks against a route with declared allowables.

Lifting Lug Calculator · computed at page render

The padeye at the other end of that sling

The 55.5 kN from the free calculation, arriving at a padeye 45 degrees off its axis with a declared dynamic factor.

Leg tension from the free calculationcorrect55.5kN
Design load after the declared dynamic factora factor the free calculator never asked about63.8kN
Net-section tension11.2%
Double-plane shear-out35.1%
Pin bearing on the lug23.7%
Fillet weld throat resultant80.7%
Governing check: Fillet weld throat resultant (mechanics)80.7% utilisationPass

Every one of these is a check the sling calculation had no way to reach, on a component it had no way to know about. Neither tool is wrong; they answer different questions, and only one of those questions is the design.

Open this example in the calculator
The free answer was one number. The design is 7 checks against declared allowables, on a route that has to be stated.

And this is the same padeye drawn by the tool that checked it, on the leg tension the free calculation produced:

Lifting Lug Calculator

Full sizeOpen these inputs
The lifting lug calculator on this article's inputs. The free sling answer supplied one number on the left of that arrow; everything else in the drawing - plate width, hole and pin diameters, edge distance, weld length and leg, and the lever arm from pin to weld - is a decision the sling calculation never asked about.
The lifting lug calculator on this article's inputs. The free sling answer supplied one number on the left of that arrow; everything else in the drawing - plate width, hole and pin diameters, edge distance, weld length and leg, and the lever arm from pin to weld - is a decision the sling calculation never asked about.

04

Judging any calculator, free or paid

Six questions. They apply to this site's tools exactly as they apply to anybody else's, and the answers are what should decide whether you use one.

Questions to ask of a calculation tool

  1. 01Does it say what it did not checkExplicitly, as a list. A missing check and a passing check look identical without it.
  2. 02Does it name the design route and editionBecause the allowables follow from it, and editions change.
  3. 03Can somebody see where each input came fromA record carries provenance. A results box carries values.
  4. 04Does it refuse where it shouldA tool that produces a number for a case it cannot handle is more dangerous than one that stops.
  5. 05Can the result be reproducedSame inputs, same version, same answer, and the version is visible.
  6. 06Is the output something a reviewer can holdA document with a date, a revision and a scope statement, not a screenshot.

Two of those are worth expanding, because they are the ones that separate tools.

Refusing where it should. A tool that computes something for every input is not more capable, it is less honest. Elsewhere on this site there are worked examples where an engine declines: a Canadian design route with no load factor declared, a shell stress method outside its geometric envelope, a European route above a cycle threshold. Each refusal is more useful than a number would have been, because the number would have been an invention.

Saying what it did not check. This is the one that catches spreadsheets and it catches web calculators equally. A padeye tool that omits shear-out prints exactly like one that includes it.

05

Where this site sits, stated plainly

Because an article like this written by a company selling calculators is worth nothing unless it says what its own tools do and do not do.

What is free here, with no account. A 2D frame and beam finite element pack, in full. Every calculator's methodology page, listing what each check is traceable to and what stays out of scope. Every article, including the worked examples with their engine-computed numbers, and every one of those examples opens in the calculator on exactly the inputs it used.

What is paid. The traceable, issuable report: the record with its inputs, its governing check, its source basis and its scope statement, in a form somebody can accept. That is the product, and this article's whole argument is that the record rather than the arithmetic is the thing worth paying for.

What these tools do not do. They do not invent a formula for a check with no traceable source; a check without one is marked as awaiting a source and computes nothing. They do not supply an allowable stress you have not declared or a design route has not established. They do not decide a load factor for a jurisdiction that has none. And they do not know about your particular vessel, structure or ground unless you tell them.

What that means for you. If you need a number, take it free. If you need something a third party will accept, the record is what you are buying, and you should judge it by the six questions above rather than by this paragraph.

And here is the thing being described, so the claim can be judged rather than taken. This is the record for the padeye above, complete and unwatermarked, in the article rather than behind a form:

padeye-8t-sling-rev-A.pdf

Lifting Lug Calculator · complete, unwatermarked

Open these inputs
Scroll it. The arithmetic in it is public-domain mechanics that any free tool could do; what takes the work is the wrapper - inputs with their basis, every check with the source it traces to, the warnings, the assumptions and the scope.

06

Five ways free tools get used badly

None of them is the tool's fault.

1. A screenshot in a lift plan. No provenance, no version, no scope. It reads as evidence and is not.

2. A number carried forward without its factors. A free sling calculator does not ask about dynamic amplification, contingency or skew, so the number it gives is characteristic rather than design.

3. Used for a check the user did not know existed. The tool answered what it was asked. Nobody asked about shear-out.

4. Two tools with different conventions. One measuring the sling angle from horizontal, one from vertical. The numbers look plausible either way.

5. Treated as validated because it is polished. Presentation and verification are unrelated. The six questions above are the test, and they apply to every tool including this one.

Common questions

Are free rigging calculators accurate?
For the classical identities, yes, and there is no reason they should not be. Sling tension, load angle factors, unit conversion, centre of gravity from component masses and simple beam reactions are public-domain mechanics, and a free tool that implements them gives the same answer as a pencil. The limit is not accuracy but scope: the answer stops at the sling, and the component the sling is attached to is a design with its own set of checks.
What can a free sling calculator not tell me?
Anything about the lift point. On the worked example here, a correct 55.5 kN leg tension arrives at a padeye that then needs net-section tension, double-plane shear-out, pin bearing, pin shear and a weld check against declared allowables on a stated design route. It also never asks about the dynamic factor, so its number is a characteristic load rather than a design load.
How do I judge whether a calculation tool is trustworthy?
Six questions. Does it say what it did not check. Does it name the design route and edition. Can somebody see where each input came from. Does it refuse where it should, rather than producing a number for every input. Can the result be reproduced from the same inputs on a stated version. And is the output something a reviewer can hold, with a date, a revision and a scope statement. The first and fourth separate tools more than any other.
Can I put a free calculator's output in a lift plan?
The number, yes, as long as it carries its provenance and its factors. A screenshot, no. A screenshot has no version, no scope and no statement of what was not checked, and it reads as evidence while providing none of the things a reviewer needs. Put the calculation in the record with its inputs and its basis, and reference that record from the plan.
What is free on Xarpis and what is paid?
The 2D frame and beam finite element pack is free in full. Every calculator's methodology page is free, and so is every article including its worked examples, each of which opens in the calculator on exactly the inputs it used. What is paid is the traceable, issuable report - the record with its inputs, governing check, source basis and scope statement in a form a third party can accept. The argument of this article is that the record rather than the arithmetic is the part worth paying for.

Sources

Every document below is linked at its publisher or regulator. Xarpis reproduces no standard text; where a clause is named, the identifier is given so you can find it in your own copy.

  • EN EurocodesEurocodes: Building the future

    European Commission, Joint Research Centre · free portal

    The Commission's own Eurocodes portal: the structure of EN 1990 to EN 1999, the database of Nationally Determined Parameters, and the second-generation timetable. The standards themselves are sold by the national bodies, but the NDP database is free and is what decides which partial factors apply in your country.

  • ASME BTH-1Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices

    ASME · paid document

    Structural, mechanical and electrical design criteria for below-the-hook lifting devices, used alongside ASME B30.20 which carries the safety requirements. The current edition is BTH-1-2023; Xarpis implements the 2020 edition and says so on every result.

  • 29 CFR 1926.251Rigging equipment for material handling

    US Occupational Safety and Health Administration · free to read

    Inspection and safe-use requirements for chain, wire rope, fibre rope, synthetic webbing, shackles and hooks on US construction sites, including the requirement that rigging be inspected before each shift.

  • HSE lifting equipment guidanceLifting equipment at work: planning and organising lifting operations

    UK Health and Safety Executive · free to read

    The regulator's own plain-language account of what planning a lifting operation means in UK law: who is competent to plan it, what a plan has to address, and how it scales from a routine repetitive lift to a one-off complex one. Free, short, and the closest thing to an official answer to 'what has to be in a lift plan'.

Run the check properly

Reading about a calculation is not the same as being able to hand one over. These tools produce the traceable record.

Something here wrong, or thinner than it should be? Tell us which paragraph and it gets rewritten. Articles carry the date they were last revised for exactly this reason.

Free rigging calculator: what it cannot tell you · Xarpis