A lift plan is the crane-specific document behind any lifting operation — the crane make and model, its configuration, the working radius and boom length, the rigging arrangement, the exclusion zone, the sequence of the pick itself. It sits alongside the temporary works design that governs the ground beneath the crane, but it is not the same document, which is why we've written a separate guide to temporary works design for crane lifts covering that governance side in full. This one is about the lift plan itself — and about the single section of it that gets shortchanged more often than any other.
Walk through a stack of real lift plans and the pattern repeats. Pages of careful detail on the crane — capacity charts, sling angles, tag line arrangements, banksman positions — and then, under "ground conditions" or "outrigger matting", a single line. "Crane mats as required." "Matting to be provided by contractor." "Ground to be checked on day." None of that is a specification. It's a placeholder dressed up as one, and it's exactly the kind of gap that turns into a problem on site — not because anyone was careless, but because the lift plan template everyone reaches for was built around the crane, not the ground it's standing on.
That matters because the ground and matting section isn't a footnote to the crane planning — it answers a genuinely different question. The crane sections tell you whether this configuration can lift this load at this radius. The ground section has to tell you whether the ground the crane is standing on will actually take that reaction, at every position it passes through during the lift, without settling, cracking or letting an outrigger dig in. A plan that's rigorous about the first question and silent on the second hasn't de-risked the lift — it's de-risked the half of it that's easier to write down.
What the ground and matting section should actually say
We're not going to run through how to write a lift plan in general — there's no shortage of guidance on rigging, exclusion zones and lift sequencing. The point here is narrower. What should the ground and matting entry actually say, so that it reads as a specification rather than a placeholder?
Start with the crane the plan is built on. Not "a mobile crane" but the specific make, model and configuration — counterweight fitted, outrigger extension, float size — because every figure downstream depends on it. A plan written loosely enough to cover "whichever crane turns up" can't specify matting at all, because it doesn't yet know the load the matting has to carry.
Next, the working radius or radii involved, and the slew positions the boom passes through during the lift. As we set out in our mobile crane outrigger mats guide, outrigger reaction is never a simple quarter-share of the crane's weight — it shifts hard with radius and slew angle, so the leg carrying the most load can change over the course of a single pick. A plan that quotes one radius and treats the matting question as settled has ignored the position where the reaction is actually at its highest.
Then the specific ground location for each outrigger or track position — not a general note about "the compound" but the actual position each leg or track will occupy, cross-referenced to a marked-up drawing. Alongside it, the source of the ground bearing data for that location: a geotechnical report, a trial pit, a competent person's assessment — referenced by name and date, not simply asserted. Our guide to ground bearing capacity sets out what that assessment has to establish, and why a guess is no substitute for it.
That last point is worth being concrete about, because matting isn't one size. Our modular ALIMATS® system is supplied in configurations from 1.34m2 up to 8.07m2, so the honest answer to "what mat goes under this outrigger" is a specific footprint and safe working load for that position — not a generic reference to "mats". A lift plan is doing its job when it names that, the same way it names a sling rating rather than writing "suitable slings".
And this is the part that closes the loop: the mat configuration specified for each position, who specified it and against what figure, and confirmation — built into the plan as a sign-off step, not left to chance — that what gets installed on the day matches the drawing before the crane takes any load. A plan that specifies matting but never checks it was built as drawn hasn't specified anything. It's just moved the gap from paper to site.
The pre-lift ground and matting checklist
This is the part that should be physically walked and signed off on the day, not read once in an office. Run it alongside whatever lift plan template your organisation uses — it's the section most templates leave thinnest, and the one we'd never want to see skipped before a crane on our mats takes load.
| Check | What to look for | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Ground condition unchanged since assessment | No heavy rain, standing water, frost heave or thaw since the ground was assessed; no new excavation, trenching or services work nearby | Bearing capacity assumed in the plan can be invalidated by weather or nearby groundworks that happened after the assessment was done |
Mat configuration matches the plan, position by position | The size, thickness and layout actually laid at each outrigger or track position matches what the drawing specifies for that position — not a same-looking configuration | Matting sized correctly for one leg but installed under the wrong one gives no protection where it's actually needed |
Correct configuration under the heaviest-loaded leg | The leg nearest the load and nearest the working radius — the one carrying the highest reaction — has the specified matting, not an assumption that all four legs are equal | Outrigger reaction is never split evenly across four legs; under-matting the critical leg is the single most common planning error |
Mats fully engaged and interlocked | Modular mats correctly connected with no gaps, no partial engagement between adjoining panels | A gap or an unengaged joint concentrates load onto a smaller area than the plan assumed, effectively increasing the bearing pressure |
Mats level and free of debris | No packing, spoil, stones or vegetation trapped under or between mats; surface reasonably level before the float or track sits down | Point loading over debris or an unlevel surface can crack matting or tip an outrigger float on contact |
Correct orientation and coverage against the drawing | Mat footprint covers the full float or track contact area plus the margin shown on the drawing, oriented as specified | Undersized coverage lets an edge of the float bear directly onto unprotected ground |
Ground disturbance near the position since the plan was written | No new soft spots, subsidence, recent vehicle movements or nearby loading that could have altered the ground since the assessment date | Ground conditions are a point-in-time assessment; anything that's changed since invalidates it |
Delivery and condition check on hired mats | Mats received match the specification ordered, are visibly undamaged, and — if reused stock — have clearly been cleaned and inspected before this hire | Hired matting should be checked and quality-assured before redeployment; confirming that on delivery closes the loop rather than assuming it |
Drainage and run-off around the position | No pooling water forming against or under mat edges once laid, particularly on lifts running over more than one day | Standing water can undermine ground bearing under and around matting between the check and the lift itself |
Sign-off recorded against the plan, not just verbal confirmation | Whoever checks the ground and matting position records it against the lift plan before the crane takes load — name, time, position confirmed | A check that isn't recorded is indistinguishable, after the fact, from a check that never happened |
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Check:
What to look for:
Why it matters:
Templates are a starting point, not a substitute for the numbers
We've got no argument with a generic template as a starting point — it stops anyone forgetting a heading and keeps documents consistent across a business. What it can't do is stand in for the specific numbers this specific lift needs. A template with "outrigger mat configuration: ______" printed on it is doing its job when someone fills that blank with a size, a thickness and a bearing figure worked out for this crane at this radius on this ground. It's doing the opposite of its job when it gets filled in with "as per site" and reused, unedited, on the next job because it worked last time.
The tell we see most often is the ground section reading word-for-word identically across two lift plans for two different sites. Radius, load and rigging change lift to lift and get rewritten every time without anyone thinking twice — yet the ground section is the one people are most likely to copy across unchanged. That's exactly backwards, because ground conditions are the one variable we'd guarantee is different at every location. Treat the template as the skeleton it is: the headings should repeat, the numbers under them should not.
There's a practical reason it happens, too. The crane sections are populated from a load chart — a document that exists precisely to be looked up and copied out accurately. There's no equivalent single reference for the ground; the bearing figure has to come from an assessment of the actual location, which takes more effort than a chart lookup. That extra step is exactly where a busy planner reaches for the last job's paperwork instead — and it's exactly where we'd want a reviewer signing the plan off to be asking where this job's figure came from.
Who should be doing the checking on the day
The lift plan is written in advance, usually by the Appointed Person responsible for planning the lifting operation. But a plan is only worth what gets confirmed against it on the day, and that's a job for the people physically present — typically the Crane Supervisor overseeing the operation and the Slinger/Signaller working the load, who between them are best placed to see whether the ground and matting in front of them actually match the drawing. We'd trust that pairing over a plan that's simply been signed off in an office.
None of that replaces the governance framework — who's competent to check what, and how the check is recorded — which is exactly what our temporary works design for crane lifts guide covers in full. What it does mean, in practice, is that the checklist above shouldn't live in a folder back at the office. It belongs in the hand of whoever's standing next to the crane before the first pick, because that's the only place it can catch a mismatch before it matters.
That also means it has to be usable in the conditions it'll actually be used in — on a clipboard or a phone, in the rain, in the two or three minutes before a lift starts, not buried on page fourteen of a pack nobody has open on site. If the ground and matting checks can only realistically be done by someone sat at a desk with the full document in front of them, they won't get done at the point that matters. We build ours so the person standing next to the crane can run it standing next to the crane.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between a lift plan and a temporary works design?
The lift plan is the crane-specific document — radius, rigging, exclusion zones, sequence. The temporary works design is the engineering assessment that confirms the ground, or any propping and matting arrangement, can actually carry the loads the lift plan describes. They should reference each other, but they're not interchangeable — and a lift plan that's detailed on the crane doesn't automatically mean the ground side has been designed at all.
Who is responsible for writing the ground and matting section of a lift plan?
In practice it's usually written by the Appointed Person planning the lift, drawing on ground bearing data from a competent assessment rather than generating it themselves. What matters more than whose name is on it is that it's specific — the actual crane, the actual positions, the actual bearing figure — rather than a generic line carried over from the last plan.
Can I use the same lift plan template for every crane lift on a site?
The template — the headings and structure — can be reused. The content under the ground and matting heading cannot. Radius, load and ground bearing capacity are specific to each lift and each location, so that section needs rewriting every time even if nothing else on the page changes.
How do I know what size mat to specify in the lift plan?
Start from the outrigger or track reaction at the working radius and slew position that produces the highest load — not an even split across all legs — then size the mat footprint against the ground's bearing capacity at that specific location. Our mobile crane outrigger mats guide covers how outrigger reaction actually distributes across the legs, and if you send us the reactions we'll help you size it.
Does the lift plan need to specify a mat brand or just a size?
At minimum it needs a footprint, safe working load and configuration sufficient for the reaction calculated — brand isn't the requirement, performance against the numbers is. In practice, naming the actual product being installed makes the drawing-to-site check on the day far easier to do properly, because there's no ambiguity about what "matches the plan" means.
What should happen if ground conditions have changed since the lift plan was written?
The lift shouldn't proceed on the original matting specification without the ground being reassessed. Rain, nearby excavation, or a change in what's been stored or driven over the area can all invalidate a bearing assessment done days or weeks earlier — and that's exactly what the pre-lift check is there to catch before the crane takes load.
Do I need a different matting specification for each outrigger, or is one size fine for all four?
Assuming one size covers all four legs is a common and risky shortcut, and it's the single biggest gap we see in lift plans that are otherwise thorough. Outrigger reaction varies significantly by position depending on radius and slew angle, so the leg carrying the most load may need a larger or more heavily rated configuration than the others — we'd always want the lift plan to specify each position individually.
Who checks the matting on the day of the lift itself?
That's typically the Crane Supervisor overseeing the operation, working with the Slinger/Signaller, since they're the ones physically present and able to confirm the installed matting matches the drawing before the first pick. The lift plan is only as good as what gets verified against it on site.
Is a checklist enough, or do I still need a proper temporary works design?
For anything beyond a straightforward lift on known good ground, a checklist supports the process but doesn't replace a competent ground bearing assessment or, where warranted, a temporary works design. The checklist is there to confirm on the day that what was designed has actually been installed correctly — not to substitute for the design itself.
Can hired crane mats be trusted to perform the same as new ones?
They should be, provided the hire company inspects, cleans and quality-checks mats between hires rather than simply sending out whatever's back in stock — every mat we send back out goes through that process before it's redeployed. It's still worth building a delivery and condition check into the pre-lift checklist rather than assuming it.