2200 lbs (1000 kg) Neodymium Lifting Magnet WLL Check
Compare the load with the selected model’s published WLL. Confirm it covers your workpiece and full lift conditions before use.
Published · Last reviewed
Manufacturer WLL Cross-Check
2200 lbs (1000 kg) Lifting Magnet WLL Cross-Check
Compare with the manufacturer WLL for this magnet and workpiece.
This tool performs arithmetic on a WLL you provide. It does not estimate magnet capacity, apply safety factors, or approve a lift.
Core Conclusions and Key Numbers
Mid-layer report summary for rapid decision framing. Every conclusion links to explicit evidence or marked uncertainty.
Start with the published WLL for the exact model
A capacity label is not enough for selection. Compare the target load only with a manufacturer WLL that matches the proposed magnet and workpiece configuration.
HSE says magnetic lifting devices are application-specific and directs users to manufacturer load tables for material type, thickness, and air gap.
2200 lbs (1000 kg) class labels are not guaranteed field margin
Surface condition, orientation, and profile shape can shrink practical margin, so class name alone is insufficient for release decisions.
HSE magnetic lifting guidance highlights air-gap/contact-condition sensitivity and the need for safe operating practice.
No single legal safe-weight shortcut replaces assessment
An arithmetic comparison cannot establish a safe load. Equipment suitability, inspection, operating controls, and the lift plan still need review.
OSHA 1910.179/1910.184 and HSE guidance require recurring checks and documented controls.
A numeric comparison is not a lift approval
This checker compares two entered values only; it cannot validate the WLL row, lift arrangement, local rules, or site conditions.
HSE requires a risk assessment and suitability advice for the intended use of each magnetic lifting device.
Give suppliers the operating duty and workpiece details
Load, material, profile, contact, temperature, orientation, and operating cadence help the supplier identify an applicable model and WLL table.
HSE selection guidance names load mass, material properties, thickness, shape, contact area, temperature, and frequency as relevant factors.
Query class label
2200 lb ≈ 1000 kg
Treat this as a nominal class label. Confirm the actual model WLL for the planned load configuration.
Example manufacturer safety framing
3:1 on one product range
Eclipse states a 3:1 WLL design for Ultralift E. This is manufacturer-specific and is not a user-applied capacity multiplier.
Example market class points
1000 / 1600 / 2000 kg
Observed from IMI PowerLift, Steelmax, and representative catalog tables (accessed Oct 4, 2026).
HSE powered-magnet power-failure controls
>20 kg SWL; controls depend on supply type
HSE says these measures should be considered for equipment outside the standard edition it cites and provided where reasonably practicable. Battery-fed and external-supply controls differ; confirm current UK applicability.
HSE thermal caution signal
~700°C steel behavior warning
HSE notes ferrous materials can cease being magnetic around this temperature.
HSE transport-height control
<=1.5 m (where practicable)
Loaded magnets should move at the lowest practical height; if not possible, enforce extended exclusion zones.
Eclipse Ultralift E1000 published split
1000 kg flat / 500 kg round
Current manufacturer table for ULE1000; a model-specific example, not a rating for other lifters.
Published material-performance downrate examples
~80% alloy / ~70% high-carbon / ~55% cast iron
Ultralift E manual notes these as example performance levels versus baseline ferrous material.
OSHA crane inspection cadence
Frequent daily-monthly; periodic 1-12 months
29 CFR 1910.179(j)(1)(ii) inspection ranges for cranes in regular service.
OSHA alloy-chain thermal limits
>600°F derate; >1000°F remove
29 CFR 1910.184(e)(6) requires WLL reduction and permanent removal thresholds.
LOLER baseline examination cycle (UK)
6 / 12 months
Regulation 9 and HSE guidance set default thorough-examination cadence by equipment class.
BLS private-industry TRC rate (2024)
2.3 per 100 FTE
BLS release published Jan 22, 2026 (Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 2023-2024).
BLS overexertion + bodily reaction context
946,290 cases
Release references a 2023-2024 scope figure; not a 2200 lbs (1000 kg) magnet-specific metric.
Current EU harmonized-standard listing
EN 13155:2020+A1:2025
The listing identifies the current standard reference and scope, not a model WLL or compliance result. Do not turn a product test/design ratio into a user-applied capacity factor.
Ultralift E ULE1000 minimum flat thickness
40 mm
Manufacturer table value for that model only. Other models and workpieces require their own published data.
Tool output
Load compared with entered WLL
Arithmetic pre-check only; no capacity recommendation, generic derating, or lift approval is produced.
Need a Fast Engineering Shortlist?
Send the proposed magnet model, its WLL table, and the actual workpiece conditions for an application-specific engineering review before procurement or pilot planning.
What a Product Listing Does Not Tell You
Compare the marketing label with the model-specific data and application limits before deciding whether an offer is relevant.
| Listing signal | Question to ask | How to check | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| A product headline may foreground a nominal flat-plate WLL. | Does that value apply to this workpiece shape and dimensions? | Read the exact model table for its stated material, profile, dimensions, thickness, and air gap before entering a WLL. | HSE magnetic lifting guidance; see the source table below. |
| A model can publish different WLLs for flat plate and round bar. | Which rating applies to the actual geometry? | Use the row for the actual profile and dimensions. Do not reuse a flat rating for a round section. | Eclipse Ultralift E product data; accessed Oct 4, 2026. |
| Safety-factor and no-power claims describe product design or operation. | Should a buyer multiply the load or derive a WLL from that claim? | No. Use the published WLL for the selected model and conditions; do not turn a design ratio into a user-calculated rating. | Eclipse product page WLL note; accessed Oct 4, 2026. |
Who can use this cross-check
| Profile | Page relevance | Reason | Minimum path |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operations team handling repeat ferrous loads near the 1-ton class | Useful | The checker records load, model WLL, material, profile, contact, movement, temperature, and duty for a supplier review. | Enter an applicable WLL -> compare the two values -> ask the supplier and competent person to confirm the application. |
| Procurement team comparing 2200 lbs (1000 kg) vs 1.6/2 ton offers | Useful | The same entered-load arithmetic can help compare candidate offers when each supplier gives an applicable WLL for the same workpiece conditions. | Compare each offer’s matching WLL table and request written confirmation for the intended lift. |
| Teams lifting mixed-material or uncertain alloys with limited material traceability | Material confirmation first | The checker cannot validate a WLL against unidentified or mixed magnetic properties. | Identify the material and request an application-specific supplier review before selecting a device. |
| Vertical-face, hot-work, or irregular-shape critical workflows | Engineering review | A general WLL entry cannot validate complex movement, temperature, or irregular contact conditions. | Obtain explicit manufacturer confirmation and competent-person review before any lift. |
Method, Evidence, and Source Quality
The checker performs one calculation: target load divided by the WLL you enter. These are the application details that must match the manufacturer’s source data; the tool adds no generic derating coefficients.
Application details to verify
| Application detail | Baseline | Degrade signal | What to verify | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface/contact state | Manufacturer WLL table matches the actual contact condition | Scale, paint, oil, rust, or measurable air gap | No generic factor is applied. Request the manufacturer value for the actual surface and gap. | HSE magnetic lifting guidance and model-specific load tables |
| Load profile geometry | Profile and dimensions match the manufacturer table row | Round/irregular sections or limited contact footprint | Use the WLL stated for that profile; the tool does not infer a capacity from shape. | HSE notes thickness/type dependence; vendor catalogs provide model-level examples |
| Orientation during lift | Full movement path reviewed by the manufacturer | Tilt/turn or vertical-face handling | Obtain application-specific confirmation; no universal orientation-loss curve is available. | HSE warns that unbalanced loads or tilting can cause slippage; no generic loss factor is applied. |
| Temperature exposure | Load temperature is within the selected magnet’s stated limit | Temperature approaches or exceeds a model limit | Compare with the magnet manufacturer’s limit. OSHA 1910.184 temperature limits apply to alloy-steel chain slings, not magnet capacity. | Manufacturer instructions and HSE magnetic lifting guidance |
| Material thickness saturation | Thickness and material grade match the published WLL table | Thin, flexible, or different-grade workpiece | Use the manufacturer’s thickness table. The tool does not apply a generic saturation or peeling curve. | HSE says rated loads are normally thickness-specific; manufacturer tables give model-specific limits. |
| Cycle and shift accumulation | Expected operating cadence is shared with the supplier | Duty differs from the model’s intended application | The tool records lifts/hour and shift hours for review; it does not convert them into a capacity multiplier. | HSE advises suppliers and assessors to consider expected operating frequency when selecting equipment. |
Known vs unknown
| Item | Status | Reason | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target load window (2200 lbs (1000 kg) class intent) | Known | Directly inferred from keyword and tool inputs. | Compare with a manufacturer WLL that covers the exact application. |
| Surface/contact quality at production cadence | Partially known | User can input category but real variability can drift by shift. | Capture photo logs and representative test records before release. |
| Exact derating curve by coating thickness and air-gap profile | Unknown | No universal public cross-brand curve found in reviewed primary sources. | Request supplier-specific test data and run site-representative breakaway tests. |
| Material ferromagnetic certainty for each batch | Partially known | May vary by alloy/mix and documentation quality. | Require material traceability in RFQ and incoming checks. |
| Incident reduction attributable to one specific magnet class | Unknown | Public datasets report broad injury burdens, not class-specific intervention effect sizes. | Track pilot KPIs (near miss, handling deviation, downtime) for your line. |
Source map and date scope
| Source | Applied claim | Date scope | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSE: Magnetic lifting devices | Provides UK operational guidance on power-failure controls, application-specific WLL, and operating risks. The HSE page still names BS EN 13155:2003+A2:2009; BSI lists the newer BS EN 13155:2020+A1:2025 edition, so confirm the applicable UK designation separately. | Page updated Oct 29, 2024; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| HSE: LOLER overview | States lifting operations must be properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised, and carried out safely. | Page updated Oct 29, 2024; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| HSE: Thorough examinations of lifting equipment | States default thorough-exam cadence patterns used under LOLER pathway (6-month and 12-month routes). | Page updated Oct 29, 2024; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179 (overhead and gantry cranes) | Defines inspection cadence and operation controls, including avoiding carrying loads over people and not leaving suspended loads unattended. | Regulation text accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.184 | Defines daily sling pre-use checks, <=12 month alloy-chain periodic interval, and >600°F / >1000°F thermal actions. | Regulation text accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| OSHA interpretation letter (Oct 1, 1998) | Clarifies that OSHA references ANSI/ASME B30.20 for below-the-hook lifting device inspections and distinguishes these devices from 1910.184 sling scope. | Published Oct 1, 1998; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| ASME B30.20 catalog page | Describes scope for marking, construction, installation, inspection, testing, maintenance, and operation of below-the-hook lifting devices; current listed edition includes B30.20-2025. | ASME lists B30.20-2025; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| ASME BTH-1 catalog page | Defines BTH-1 as design criteria (structural/mechanical/electrical) used with B30.20 safety requirements; listed current edition includes BTH-1-2023. | ASME lists BTH-1-2023; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| Eclipse Ultralift E instruction manual (PDF) | Provides model-specific flat/round WLLs, minimum material thickness, and manufacturer operating limits. These values apply to this product range only. | April 2025 manual; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| Eclipse Ultralift E datasheet (PDF) | Provides model-level WLL splits (flat vs round), 3:1 safety-factor framing, and temperature range (-10°C to +40°C). | June 2026, Issue 2; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| CDC NIOSH NLE calculator update | States LI > 1 indicates increased lifting-related risk in compatible scenarios. | Published Dec 4, 2024; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| BLS Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses | Provides 2024 private-industry TRC context used as macro workload burden reference, not class-specific magnet efficacy evidence. | Published Jan 22, 2026; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| IMI PowerLift product table | Provides market-visible model points and states WLL as 33% of actual value. | Accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| Steelmax Max Lifter page | Provides examples of 550/1100/2200/4400 lb model classes and 3x test framing language. | Accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| EN 13155:2020+A1:2025 Standard | Standard edition and scope reference. This page does not infer an equipment WLL or a user-applied capacity factor from the standard listing. | EU harmonized-standard listing updated Sep 7, 2026; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
| BS EN 13155:2020+A1:2025 (BSI) | Confirms the current UK-published standard edition and that its scope includes lifting magnets; the public catalogue summary is not the full normative text. | Published Apr 30, 2026; accessed Oct 4, 2026 | Open source |
Standards Boundary and Field Data Additions
The standards and product examples below have different scopes. Use the exact manufacturer documentation and applicable local requirements for the proposed lift.
Standards scope crosswalk
| Concept | Scope | Boundary | Release rule | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rigging sling controls | 29 CFR 1910.184 covers slings and attachments used with hoisting equipment. | Does not define full structural/mechanical requirements for below-the-hook magnetic lifting devices. | If slings are present, enforce 1910.184 daily and periodic checks, but do not treat that as a complete magnetic-device standard. | OSHA 1910.184 + OSHA interpretation letter |
| Below-the-hook operation standard | ASME B30.20 addresses marking, construction, installation, inspection, testing, maintenance, and operation for below-the-hook devices. | Catalog description provides scope, while full clause text requires standard access. | For US deployment, treat B30.20 scope as a mandatory cross-check lane before final release governance. | ASME B30.20 page |
| Design standard boundary | ASME BTH-1 defines minimum structural/mechanical/electrical design criteria and states it is used with B30.20. | BTH-1 is design-focused; it does not replace operational safety controls in B30.20 or local regulation. | Do not infer operational readiness from design claims alone; request operation/inspection evidence separately. | ASME BTH-1 page |
| UK lifting-operation duties | HSE LOLER overview requires lifting operations to be planned by a competent person, supervised, and carried out safely. | LOLER operation duties are not satisfied by capacity label or purchase documentation alone. | For UK contexts, include operation planning owner, supervision path, and thorough-exam records in release package. | HSE LOLER overview |
Application data points (published)
| Data point | Observed value | Decision impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ultralift E ULE1000 published WLL split | 1000 kg flat section vs 500 kg round section | A “2200 lbs (1000 kg)” label can halve under round-profile conditions, so geometry gate is release-critical. | Eclipse Ultralift E manual |
| Ultralift E ULE2000 published WLL split | 2000 kg flat section vs 900 kg round section | Escalation class still shows strong profile dependency; round-bar assumptions must be explicit in RFQ. | Eclipse Ultralift E manual |
| Material-performance examples in manual | ~80% ferrous alloy, ~70% high-carbon steel, ~55% cast iron | Nominal WLL from mild-steel-like assumptions should not be applied unchanged to lower-permeability materials. | Eclipse Ultralift E manual |
| Transport-height control signal | Loaded magnets should travel low; where practicable <=1.5 m | Even correct capacity sizing can fail operationally if route controls and exclusion zones are not planned. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| Ultralift E model-specific minimum flat thickness | ULE1000: 40 mm; ULE2000: 50 mm | The listed WLL applies to a specific manufacturer model and stated thickness; it is not a universal threshold for other magnets. | Eclipse Ultralift E product data |
Practical control checklist before release
| Control | Minimum requirement | Consequence if missed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Travel-route and people-separation control | Do not transport loaded magnets where a dropped part could injure people; manage routes and exclusion zones. | Execution risk remains even when the entered load is below the entered WLL. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| Loaded-magnet transport height | Move at the lowest practical height, where practicable no higher than 1.5 m. | Greater drop-energy envelope and broader impact zone if release occurs. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| Over-person and unattended suspended-load discipline | Operator must avoid carrying loads over people and must not leave controls while load is suspended. | Crane-operation noncompliance can invalidate an otherwise acceptable class decision. | OSHA 1910.179 |
| Sling pre-use and periodic inspection (if sling path is used) | Inspect sling and attachments daily before use; alloy-chain periodic interval must not exceed 12 months. | Rigging degradation can become the dominant failure path rather than magnet capacity. | OSHA 1910.184 |
Regulatory Triggers and Evidence Limits
This layer converts source text into operational triggers and also marks where public evidence is still incomplete.
Clause-level trigger matrix (US + UK)
| Regime | Clause | Trigger | Threshold | Decision impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HSE magnetic lifting guidance (UK) | Battery-fed device; SWL >20 kg | Battery charge approaches the release level | For the equipment covered by HSE’s applicability note: warn at least 10 minutes before charge reaches release level, then lock out restart until charge recovers. | Check the equipment type, applicable standard, manufacturer instructions, and site risk assessment; this is not a universal rule for all lifting magnets. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| HSE magnetic lifting guidance (UK) | External-supply device; SWL >20 kg | External power supply fails | For the equipment covered by HSE’s applicability note: provide an external-supply failure warning and standby battery power capable of holding the SWL for at least 10 minutes. | Check the equipment type, applicable standard, manufacturer instructions, and site risk assessment; do not transfer battery-fed controls to this system. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| HSE magnetic lifting guidance (UK) | Temperature of load and magnet | Hot material segments | Ferrous materials can cease to be magnetic around 700°C; use only special hot-work-rated magnets within limits | Nominal class is invalid without a declared temperature envelope and accessory compatibility. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| HSE magnetic lifting guidance (UK) | Transport and exclusion control | Loaded magnet travel path planning | Move loaded magnets at the lowest practical height, where practicable no higher than 1.5 m | If route and exclusion controls are not defined, keep decision in screening mode even when capacity appears adequate. | HSE magnetic lifting devices |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179 (US) | 1910.179(j)(1)(ii) | Crane operations in regular service | Frequent inspection daily-monthly; periodic inspection 1-12 months | If inspection cadence ownership is unclear, resolve it before use; an arithmetic WLL comparison does not address inspection. | OSHA 1910.179 |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179 (US) | 1910.179(n)(3)(vi), (x) | Live crane operation with suspended load | Operator must avoid carrying loads over people and must not leave controls while load is suspended | If operating discipline cannot be guaranteed, release readiness is not met regardless of nominal class. | OSHA 1910.179 |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.184 (US) | 1910.184(d), (e)(3)(i), (e)(6) | Sling condition and heat exposure | Daily pre-use inspection; alloy-chain periodic interval <=12 months; >600°F derate WLL; >1000°F remove from service | Hot-work and rigging-condition checks are gating controls, not optional documentation. | OSHA 1910.184 |
| LOLER Regulation 9 (UK) | Reg. 9(3)(a)(i)-(ii) | Jurisdictional examination schedule | 6 months for lifting persons/accessories; 12 months for other lifting equipment (or written scheme) | For UK deployments, OSHA-only cadence is incomplete and must be mapped to LOLER obligations. | Legislation.gov.uk + HSE LOLER page |
Counterexamples where nominal class still fails
| Scenario | Why nominal fails | Source signal | Minimum safer path |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scrap or multi-piece lift where peripheral pieces are weakly coupled | Part of the load can fall off even if nominal SWL is not exceeded because magnetic flux penetration is uneven. | HSE warns poor peripheral penetration in multi-piece/scrap handling. (HSE magnetic lifting devices) | Treat as engineered special case: trial with containment controls and conservative de-rating. |
| Bundle lifting using transit banding that is not rated for lifting | Load integrity fails before magnet nominal class does, creating dropped-load risk. | HSE states banding must be rated for lifting duties and marked with SWL. (HSE magnetic lifting devices) | Use rated lifting accessories only; reject transit-only strapping for lifting. |
| Mobile crane with magnetic attachment and travel/slewing inertia | Dynamic effects can exceed assumptions behind static class naming. | HSE advises consulting crane manufacturer and possible SWL de-rating or disallowance. (HSE magnetic lifting devices) | Obtain crane-manufacturer compatibility guidance before deployment. |
| Material thickness/profile differs from supplier lifting tables | SWL tables are thickness/type dependent; mismatch can invalidate expected capacity. | HSE notes SWL is normally quoted for specific thickness and material type. (HSE magnetic lifting devices) | Match workpiece thickness/profile to supplier table and confirm by representative tests. |
| Flexible plate with significant droop or overhang | A flexible load may peel away under its own weight during handling, even when its total mass is below a nominal class label. | HSE identifies droop or overhang on flexible loads as a cause of peeling from the magnet. (HSE magnetic lifting devices) | Ask the supplier to review load stiffness, overhang, magnet coverage, and any lifting-beam arrangement. |
Evidence boundaries and open data gaps
| Topic | Status | Reason | Minimum action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier-level model capacities and WLL framing | Verified | IMI/Steelmax/Eclipse publish model ranges and WLL framing, but these are still supplier-specific and cannot be generalized without site tests. | Use as market comparison input only; verify acceptance tests in each RFQ. |
| Full clause-level mapping between B30.20/BTH-1 and local obligations | Pending confirmation | Public ASME pages expose scope and edition status, but full normative clause text is not openly published on the listing pages. | Obtain licensed standards text and complete a jurisdiction-specific compliance crosswalk before final release sign-off. |
| Universal air-gap/paint-thickness derating curve across brands | No reliable public dataset yet | No harmonized open dataset found in reviewed HSE/OSHA/regulatory pages or vendor catalogs. | Request supplier pull-force vs air-gap/coating data and run site-representative breakaway tests. |
| Orientation-specific failure-rate benchmark with public denominator | Pending confirmation | Public sources provide rules and cautions, but not a shared quantitative failure-rate benchmark by orientation path. | Track your own pilot KPIs by orientation transition and set stop criteria before scaling. |
| Class-specific injury reduction attributable to 1-ton vs escalation-path choice | No reliable public dataset yet | BLS/NIOSH provide broad burden context, not causal effect sizes tied to specific magnet class selection. | Treat injury statistics as context; evaluate local outcome data after pilot rollout. |
Boundaries and Decision Limits
This page marks explicit non-go zones and gives a minimum executable fallback path for each one.
High-priority limits
- - Unknown/mixed material family: do not release quick class decision without material certainty.
- - Vertical-face handling: treat as out-of-scope for fast permanent-lifter sizing.
- - Elevated/hot material segments: add high-temperature controls before final model lock.
- - Contact-quality uncertainty: require representative breakaway/proof-test records.
- - Inspection-cadence gaps: no release until recurring checks and ownership are documented.
Minimum fallback path
- 1. Keep output in screening mode (do not approve release).
- 2. Collect missing evidence (material/contact/temperature).
- 3. Run controlled pilot with explicit acceptance and stop criteria.
- 4. If risk remains high, switch to alternative architecture before procurement lock.
Comparison and Risk Tradeoffs
Compare alternatives in the same decision frame instead of treating all “2200 lbs (1000 kg)” offers as equivalent. These are review prompts, not ranked capacity or reliability data.
Option comparison
| Option | Capacity band | Evidence to verify | Best for | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent manual magnet (single unit) | Use the exact model WLL table for the workpiece | Confirm material, contact, profile, thickness, and movement | Ferrous-load handling where the manufacturer confirms the task | No mains power during lifting; contact and geometry still matter |
| Electro-permanent or battery-assisted magnet | Check the exact system rating and configuration | Confirm power-loss behavior, alarms, and backup provisions | Applications that need switched operation or integrated controls | Requires a power, control, and maintenance plan |
| Electromagnet + beam/control package | Rate the complete magnet, beam, rigging, and crane arrangement | Review supply, backup, controls, and load distribution together | A lift that needs an engineered multi-component system | Adds power, controls, rigging, and integration requirements |
| Clamp/vacuum/alternative gripping methods | Use the selected device’s rating for the actual material | Validate its grip, release, and failure modes for the task | Cases where magnetic contact is unsuitable and another method fits | Requires different contact preparation and operating controls |
Risk matrix
Planning prompts only. The priority labels are not measured incident rates; assess likelihood and impact for your site.
| Risk | Planning priority | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominal class selected without contact-condition evidence | High | High | Require representative breakaway test records and pre-use contact checks. |
| Orientation changes from horizontal to vertical during handling | Medium | High | Treat orientation changes as boundary-critical and pre-approve engineered method controls. |
| Temperature exposure exceeds planning assumptions | Medium | High | Apply high-temperature process controls and verify accessory thermal limits before release. |
| Inspection cadence drift under production pressure | Medium | High | Bind daily pre-use and periodic inspection tasks to accountable owners and records. |
| RFQ missing material/surface/cycle specifics | High | Medium | Use minimum inquiry template and reject incomplete submissions before supplier comparison. |
Scenario Examples
Each scenario includes assumptions and executable next action, so teams can convert outputs into controlled operational choices.
Scenario A: 980 kg plate vs an entered 1000 kg WLL
- - The supplier table is for the exact flat-plate model and material
- - The actual plate thickness meets that model’s minimum
- - The proposed contact and movement conditions are covered
Result: Arithmetic leaves 20 kg between the entered load and WLL. That comparison is not a suitability decision; the WLL must match all listed conditions.
Next action: Request written confirmation of the exact model/table row and have the site lift plan reviewed before use.
Scenario B: 1180 kg load vs an entered 1000 kg WLL
- - Mill scale and tilt/turn are present
- - The entered manufacturer WLL is 1000 kg
- - Operating frequency is shared with the supplier
Result: The entered load is 180 kg above the entered WLL. The comparison is a stop signal regardless of any other input.
Next action: Do not lift with this WLL. Request a model and load table that covers the actual surface and movement path.
Scenario C: 1450 kg irregular section with no matching WLL table
- - Irregular contact footprint
- - Painted surface
- - 28 lifts/hour and a long shift
Result: No comparison is valid until a manufacturer value covers this profile, surface, and operating duty. A nominal 1000 kg label cannot fill that evidence gap.
Next action: Send the workpiece drawings and duty profile to the supplier for an application-specific review.
Scenario D: 1200 kg load with unknown alloy and hot material
- - Material certainty incomplete
- - Load temperature varies
- - A 1600 kg WLL value was entered
Result: The entered load is below the entered number, but the tool cannot verify magnetic properties or temperature compatibility.
Next action: Identify the alloy and obtain written manufacturer confirmation for the full temperature range before selecting equipment.
Scenario E: 980 kg round bar vs the example ULE1000 round WLL
- - Eclipse lists 500 kg round-section WLL for ULE1000
- - The load is a round bar, not a flat plate
- - This is a manufacturer-specific example, not a universal model rule
Result: 980 kg exceeds that model’s listed round WLL by 480 kg, although it is below the same model’s flat-section WLL.
Next action: Do not use the flat-section rating for a round bar; request a model whose published round WLL covers the load and geometry.
FAQ: 2200 lbs (1000 kg) Neodymium Lifting Magnet Decisions
FAQ is grouped by decision intent so teams can quickly answer execution blockers.
Tool Use and Interpretation
Does this selector replace supplier engineering approval?
No. It accelerates screening and prepares decision inputs. Final release still requires supplier/site engineering validation.
Why does a below-WLL result not mean the magnet is suitable?
The tool compares two numbers only. The entered WLL must match the exact magnet, material, dimensions, thickness, contact, temperature, and lift path before it can be relied on.
What is the minimum data needed before I run this tool?
You need load, cycle rate, shift hours, temperature context, surface state, orientation, profile shape, and material confidence.
Does this tool calculate a safety factor or derating?
No. It applies no generic coefficients. Use the manufacturer’s stated WLL for the exact configuration and follow the supplier’s instructions and local requirements.
Capacity and Boundary Decisions
When should I choose 2200 lbs (1000 kg) class versus 1.6/2 ton class?
Compare each candidate’s manufacturer-published WLL for the same workpiece and lift conditions. Do not choose from class labels alone or infer a size from this page.
Can this page be used for non-ferrous materials?
No. The selector assumes ferromagnetic lifting context and marks unknown/mixed material as boundary-critical.
How does temperature affect the WLL comparison?
The tool records the load temperature but applies no threshold or derating. Check the selected magnet’s stated operating limit and get supplier confirmation for the actual range.
What if my workflow includes vertical-face handling?
Vertical-face handling is treated as out-of-scope for quick permanent-magnet sizing and should trigger engineering-level review.
Execution, Risk, and Procurement
What should be included in the RFQ package after running this page?
Include load spectrum, cycle profile, surface/shape/orientation details, temperature range, and required proof-test evidence.
How do I avoid choosing only by price?
Use a weighted comparison with reliability, boundary tolerance, and evidence quality gates before considering commercial terms.
What should I do if the load exceeds the entered WLL?
Do not lift with that candidate. Ask the supplier for a model with an applicable WLL table or review another handling method with a competent person.
Why does the page separate 1910.184 from B30.20/BTH-1?
Because sling checks and below-the-hook device standards are not interchangeable. You need both rigging controls and device-standard evidence before final release.
Can this page be used as a compliance certificate?
No. It is decision support. Compliance obligations still depend on applicable standards, procedures, and documented inspections.
Next Step: Send an Inquiry with Complete Decision Inputs
If the load exceeds the entered WLL, stop using that candidate. For any result, include the manufacturer table and complete workpiece conditions so engineering can confirm the application.
Minimum inquiry package
- - Maximum load and the exact model WLL table row being considered.
- - Surface condition and profile geometry examples.
- - Orientation path (horizontal / tilt / vertical segments).
- - Temperature range and cycle/shift cadence.
- - Required proof-test and release timeline.