See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267610545

A Critical Review of ASME BTH-1-2005 in the Design and Analysis of Vessel

Lifting Lugs

Conference Paper · January 2007

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2007-26071

CITATIONS READS
0 3,140

1 author:

Dennis Keith Williams

DR. DENNIS K. WILLIAMS, P.E.
44 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piping Supports & Restraints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of PVP2007
2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
July 22-26,Proceedings of PVP2007
2007, San Antonio, Texas
2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
July 22-26, 2007, San Antonio, Texas
PVP2007-26071

PVP2007-26071
A Critical Review of ASME BTH-1-2005 in the Design & Analysis of Vessel Lifting Lugs

Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A.
P.O. Box 1336
Matthews, NC 28106-1336
Tel: 704-591-3995
Email: DennisKW@sharoden.com

ABSTRACT analysis of vessel lifting lugs in consideration of current

This paper presents a critical review of the newly
published ASME BTH-1-2005, which is intended to be a
companion to ASME B30.20, Below the Hook Lifting Devices,
a safety standard. The very limited structural design criteria
contained in the latter standard was previously addressed in the
literature by the current author and was compared against the
various national and international regulations, codes, and
standards in regard to the presumed factors of safety inherent in
the designs of vessel lifting lugs. Based upon the criteria
previously outlined and addressed, the current American
National Standard ASME BTH-1-2005 is critically reviewed
and the commentary that is now incorporated in such is
analyzed in an effort to determine the adequacy of the updates
in meeting and exceeding the current regulations in both the
United States and Canada. The statutory and provincial
regulations in both the United States and the province of
Alberta, Canada are also reviewed and discussed with respect
to the too often utilized phrase “factor of safety” (FOS). The
implied implications derived from the chosen FOS are also
outlined.
Exemplar lugs on vessels are defined and the finite
element analyses and closed form Hertzian contact problem
solutions are presented and interpreted in accordance with the
new ASME BTH-1-2005 structural design criteria. These
results are again highlighted against the very limited design
information contained within ASME B30.20. A review of the
author’s prior recommendations made to revise the ASME
B30.20 Below the Hook Lifting Devices safety standard are
presented and discussed in light of the examples and technical
justification presented in the following paragraphs. Contact
stresses that are well known to exist between a lifting pin and
clevis type geometry are also discussed in light of the new
structural design criteria contained within ASME BTH-1-2005.
Additional recommendations are provided for the design and
regulations.
Keywords: lifting lugs, OSHA, below-the-hook
INTRODUCTION
The basic approach of the current study is to first define
the mode of failure against which any design criterion and/or
standard must try to protect during the design phase of a vessel
lifting lug. Second, the approach selects a failure criterion
from those commonly discussed in the literature, such as
maximum shear stress theory, maximum octahedral shear stress
theory, and maximum principal stress theory, that most closely
matches the mode of failure defined in the first step of the basic
approach. Third, the method adopts an “achievable” factor of
safety based upon the chosen failure theory from step two of
the approach and applies the FOS against the respective
“failure” stress. Finally, a well-defined design criterion for
vessel lifting lugs is outlined based upon the basic approach
presented herein and applied to the statutory and provincial
regulations contained within 29CFR1926 (OSHA regulations)
[1] and the Occupational Health and Safety Act of the Province
of Alberta, Canada, which precipitated both the Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) Regulation [2] and the OHS Code
[3].
The purpose of this paper is to provide technical insight
into the applied mechanics evaluation of an exemplar pressure
vessel lifting lug, present a critical review of the newly
published ASME BTH-1-2005 [4], which is intended to be a
companion to the standard ASME B30.20, Below the Hook
Lifting Devices [5], and reflect on the design criteria for vessel
lifting lugs previously proposed by Williams [6]. The subject
lifting lug is one whose design load capacity is 700 metric tons
(approximately 1,544,000 lbf). This load capacity is not
uncommon in the petroleum refinery industry for a number of
specialty types of ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII [7]
hydrotreater vessels. On many project designs, there are at
least two types of imposed design bases for the lifting and

1 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

handling equipment. The first of these design bases is an
internally generated or self-imposed design basis. The second
of these design bases is one that may be classified as an
externally generated design basis. For purposes of this
discussion, “internal” and “external” refer to an organization
within the design engineering organization (hence internal) or
to an outside authority having jurisdiction (hence external) [6].
The internal design basis for the lifting lug can further be
defined by either internally generated design and analysis
criteria or by externally generated codes and safety standards.
The internally generated criteria most often attempt to define an
“allowable” set of component stresses that restrict the
computed bending, bearing, and shear stresses within the lifting
lug critical sections as determined by both experience and
empirical data. While there are no uniform set of criteria
amongst the numerous engineering design professionals
throughout the United States and Canada, one guideline that is
often promoted, is the limitation of the bending stress to one
third of the yield strength of the lug material. The additional
component stresses and the associated allowable stresses vary
widely across-the-board, depending on the particular design
engineering group and experience. The externally generated or
imposed “design” standard on lifting lugs often falls on the
limited criteria contained within the ASME safety standard
B30.20 [5] and more recently, ASME BTH-1-2005 [4].
Williams [6] previously addressed and discussed in detail the
“fallback” position employed by many engineering
organizations in attempting to utilize the “design” criteria
contained in reference [5] and the inherent pitfalls of such a
practice, particularly when applied to lifting lugs for large
pressure vessels.
The second major group of design basis criteria originates
from an outside source and most often take the form of
regulatory requirements defined by Federal, State, and/or
Provincial authorities having jurisdiction [6]. Only the
regulations imposed in the United States and the Province of
Alberta, Canada are discussed herein, although the subject
discussion is one that has universal implications. This becomes
even more apparent as fabricators across the globe are
providing ASME Code [7] pressure vessels intended for
installation in both the United States and Canada. The specific
design lifting requirements imposed by the U.S. Department of
Labor, 29CFR1926 (OSHA regulations) [1] are outlined and
the implementation of a 5 to 1 “factor of safety” is also
explored. Finally, the Provincial Regulations contained within
the Occupational Health and Safety Act of the Province of
Alberta, Canada, with the associated OHS Regulation [2] and
the OHS Code [3] are also reviewed and discussed with further
interpretation of a very specific 5 to 1 factor of safety on the
ultimate “breaking” strength of the chosen lug material.
The analysis of the 700 metric ton lifting lug was
conducted in two separate manners as described by Williams
[6]. First, the analysis and prediction of the contact stresses,
the general stress field within the critical sections of the lug,
and the associated contact area between a close tolerance fitting
lifting bolt/pin was performed utilizing the techniques
presented by Timoshenko and Goodier [8] and summarized for
direct application by Young [9]. The lug geometry itself is a
simple clevis type design of uniform thickness as shown in
Figure 1. The second analysis utilized the finite element
method to quantify the effects of the contact stresses within the
lug and also utilized the calculated results to serve as a basis for
the proposed lug design criteria. In this manner, the proposed
lug design criteria achieved two goals. The first ensured a safe
and practical design. The second provided a design that was in
full compliance with the regulatory requirements identified in
reference [6]. A similar comparison is made in the following
paragraphs with the current regulatory requirements defined in
references [1], [2], and [3].
ASME B30.20: BELOW THE HOOK LIFTING DEVICES
According to the foreword provided within ASME B30.20
[5], the Standard presents a coordinated set of rules that may
serve as a guide to government and other regulatory bodies
responsible for the “guarding and inspection” of the equipment
falling within its scope. Furthermore, the Foreword to the
referenced ASME Standard [5] urges administrative and
regulatory agencies to “consult the B30 Committee” prior to
rendering decisions on disputed points. The Foreword
concludes with the protective remark that, “revisions [to the
Standard] do not imply that previous editions were inadequate.”
These items have previously been considered and discussed in
some detail by the author [6].
Within the Introduction to ASME B30.20 [5], the
Standards Committee states that they fully realize the
importance of proper design factors. In addition, the Standards
Committee states that, “[they] will be glad to receive criticisms
of this Standard’s requirements and suggestions for its
improvement, especially those based on actual experience in
application of the rules” [5]. Since the time of publication of
ASME B30.20 [5], a much more detailed set of “design” rules
for below-the-hook lifting devices has finally been issued by
the B30 Committee in the form of ASME BTH-1-2005 [4].
This standard is reviewed and discussed in the paragraphs that
follow herein.
Within the scope of ASME B30.20 [5] is the
“construction” of lifting devices. Some engineers interpret the
700 metric ton lifting lug under consideration to fall within the
scope of the subject Standard [5]. While Chapter 20-1 entitled
“Structural and Mechanical Lifting Devices” [5] does not
specifically categorize the lifting lug under consideration, many
design organizations cite this chapter for use as a design
guideline or requirement. In particular, paragraph 20-1.1.1
entitled “General Construction”, outlines the “design”
requirements for a lifter as follows:
“The load bearing structural components of a lifter shall
be designed to withstand stresses imposed by its rated load plus
the weight of the lifter, with a minimum design factor of three,
based upon yield strength of the material, and with stress
2 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
ranges that do not exceed the values given in ANSI/AWS D14.1
[10] for the applicable conditions” [5].
The author previously noted six observations on the
existing ASME Standard [5] that needed to be addressed in
some detail. These observations are repeated herein for
establishing the basis for review of the complementary
standard, ASME BTH-1-2005 [4], which should have either
provided further design guidance, requirements, or
clarifications to the inadequacies of ASME B30.20 [5] as a
stand-alone document. First, the placement of a “design
requirement” under the heading of “Construction” was not
consistent with the organization of many other ASME Codes
and Standards [7] in that design criteria are clearly labeled as
such and are also segregated from the construction (i.e.,
fabrication) requirements. Second, the design requirement
contained within the referenced Standard [5] only gave the
engineer a very vague idea as to which particular computed
stresses must be compared against the material yield stress
divided by three. Third, the choice of an “allowable” stress of
sorts by the Standard [5] that is based upon yield implied a
“failure criterion” that would preclude the initiation of yielding
within the lug material when subjected to its maximum rated
load. Fourth, the selection of a yield based failure criterion
implied that the anticipated failure mode would be one of a
ductile nature (of course assuming the selection of a linear,
elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic lug material). Fifth, the
utilization of a large capacity vessel lifting lug will typically
only be subjected to a very limited number of “lift cycles”, as
once the vessel is moved from the fabricator’s shop and up-
righted in the field, it generally is there for the remainder of its
intended design life. Sixth, the subject design problem clearly
involves contact stresses between a shackle pin and a clevis
hole, which implies very large contact stresses that are highly
localized. Whether the complementary standard adequately
addresses these contact stresses is reviewed and discussed in
the paragraphs that follow. Furthermore, it is these six
observations in combination with other regulatory requirements
that are explored in some detail in the paragraphs that follow.
ASME BTH-1-2005 BACKGROUND & FOREWORD
ASME BTH-1-2005 [4] was developed in response to the
need to provide clarification of the intent of ASME B30.20
with respect to the structural design of below-the-hook lifting
devices. Since the original publication of ASME B30.20 in
1986, users have requested interpretations of the construction
requirements stated therein, as the safety standard was almost
silent on structural design guidance and requirements.
According to the Standard [4], the level of detail required to
provide adequate answers to the questions submitted extended
beyond that which could be covered by interpretations of a B30
safety standard as previously implied in the previous work by
Williams [6].
ASME BTH-1-2005 [4] addresses only design
requirements. As such, this Standard should be used in
conjunction with ASME B30.20 [5], which addresses primarily
safety requirements. ASME BTH-1 does not replace ASME
B30.20. The design criteria set forth in reference [4] are
minimum requirements that may be increased at the discretion
of the lifting device manufacturer or a qualified person.
While the B30 Committee states that, “Although always
implied, this provision [ASME BTH-1-2005] now explicitly
states that the design of below-the-hook lifting devices is the
responsibility of a qualified person,” this statement alone adds
little (if anything) to the establishment of current safe practices
in the design and analysis of below the hook lifting devices.
This requirement has been established in recognition of the
impact that the performance of a lifting device has on
workplace safety, the complexity of the design process, and the
level of knowledge and training required to competently design
lifting devices [4].
The original ASME B30.20 structural design requirements
defined a lifting device only in terms of its rated load [4]. Later
editions established fatigue life requirements by reference to
ANSI/AWS D14.1. ASME BTH-1 now defines the design
requirements of a lifter in terms of the rated load, the Design
Category, and the Service Class to better match the design of
the lifter to its intended service [4]. The bases of the Design
Categories and Service Classes can be found in Chapters 2 and
3 Commentaries of the design Standard [4]. The inclusion of
commentaries within the Standard [4] follows the pattern of
several other ASCE standards that address the complexities
associated with various applied mechanics applications.
ASME BTH-1-2005 CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
The allowable stresses defined in Chapters 3 and 4 have
been developed based on the presumption that the actual
stresses due to the design loads will be computed using
classical methods [4]. The Standard [4] opines that such
methods effectively compute average stresses acting on a
structural or mechanical element. The Standard [4] further
opines that consideration of the effects of stress concentrations
is not normally required when determining the static strength of
a structural component (see Commentary for paragraph 3-5.2
[4]); however, the effects of stress concentrations are most
important when determining fatigue life. Lifting devices often
are constructed with discontinuities or geometric stress
concentrations, such as pin and bolt holes, notches, inside
corners, and shaft keyways that act as initiation sites for fatigue
cracks. The design Standard then erroneously states and opines
that analysis of a lifting device with discontinuities using linear
finite element analysis will typically show peak stresses that
indicate failure, where failure is defined as the point at which
the applied load reaches the loss of function load (or limit state)
of the part or device under consideration. The design Standard
[4] further states that, “This is particularly true when evaluating
static strength.” While the use of such methods is not
prohibited, modeling of the device and interpretation of the
results demands suitable expertise to assure the requirements of
this standard are met without creating unnecessarily
3 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
conservative limits for static strength and fatigue life [4].
These statements and inherent attitudes of the B30 Committee
imply a gross distrust of the capabilities of the finite element
method as a design tool and that the method actually can
“indicate failure.” There is nothing more further from the truth
in that the ultimate determination of “failure” lies with the basic
definition of “failure” as defined the analyst and not with the
tool that may be utilized to calculate stresses and
displacements! In this respect, the finite element method is no
different than the engineer who may still use a slide rule or
calculator to arrive at value for a principal stress, a buckling
load, or a maximum radial displacement.
Chapter 3, entitled “Structural Design” [4] states that the
member allowable stresses have “generally been derived based
on the assumption of the members being prismatic.” In
reviewing the universally accepted failure theories such as
those based upon the maximum shear stress (i.e., Tresca) and
the maximum octahedral stress (i.e., von Mises) [11], there
appears to be no mention of limitations for the use of either
criterion upon non-prismatic members. Quite simply, geometry
of a member cross section does not preclude the use of the
criteria when trying to establish a prediction of either the onset
of yielding or the establishment of a new yield surface in an
elastic-plastic analysis. Such assumptions in the Standard’s [4]
commentary appear to be without technical merit and should be
eliminated from the text.
The Standard [4] explains that an added “impact factor”
over and above the design factors of 2.00 and 3.00 for Design
Category A and B lifters, respectively, is not required to be
applied to the “actual applied loads.” Interestingly enough, the
Standard specifically points out that AISC reported in 1974 that
typical dynamic loads were on the order of 20% of the lifted
load, while the upper bound dynamic load was about 50% of
the same. While these results may be a starting basis for
consideration of the necessity for impact factors, the standard is
silent on the issue of lifting device catastrophic failures in the
field and the lifted load at the time of failure. Simply stated, it
is the failed lifting devices that the Standard should seek to
base the ultimate margin of safety and impact factors upon, not
those that did not fail during lifts. It is most easy to measure an
actual lifted load, but the service failure load under varying
conditions is what the margins of safety and impact load factors
must be based.
The Standard [4] implies that a design factor of 3.00 has
“traditionally been” utilized to safeguard against yielding since
the inception of ASME B30.20. Based upon previous
publications by the author [6], very limited design information
was ever contained in ASME B30.20 [5] and certainly the
design of clevis type lifting lugs could never be assured of
limiting the state of stress below the minimum specified yield
point of the lug material, unless of course the lug was never
utilized in a lift! The Standard does recognize, however, that
“in some cases, it will be necessary for [a] qualified person to
employ design methods not specifically addressed herein.” The
Standard [4] continues to provide some clarification with the
recognition that “some lifter applications may result in greater
dynamic loading that will necessitate higher design factors”
and that “it is the responsibility of a qualified person to
determine when higher design factors are required and to
determine the appropriate values in such cases.” In fact, the
previous recognition on the part of the authors of the Standard
[4] is a clear statement that the applicability of the structural
design requirements are limited and not all encompassing to all
lifting device components, including, but not limited to, vessel
lifting lugs.
In the author’s opinion, one of the most objectionable
statements included in the Standard [4] is that contained in the
Commentary to paragraph 3-1.6, Allowable Stresses, which
states:
“The allowable stresses and stress ranges defined in
paras. 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 are to be compared to average or
nominal calculated stresses due to the loads defined in para. 3-
1.2. It is not intended that highly localized peak stresses that
may be determined by computer aided methods of analysis, and
which may be blunted by confined yielding, must be less than
the specified allowable stresses.”
First, whether the stress analysis of a lifting device is
conducted by “computer aided methods” such as the finite
element method or through the use of closed form solutions,
such as those associated with simple bending and shear stress
evaluations, a definition need be provided by the Standard to
“classify” which, if any stresses are “peak stresses”.
Historically, the ASME nuclear based Codes [7,12] have been
the only ones that utilized a true stress classification hopper
with specifically defined allowable stresses for membrane,
membrane-plus-bending, and membrane-plus-bending-plus
peak stresses. Furthermore, these ASME Codes recognized the
difference between primary and secondary stresses and the
effects of the same on the respective type of failure. The
subject Standard [4] fails to provide this type of stress
classification.
Second, the Standard [4] fails to recognize the importance
of the mature finite element methods in the determination of the
detailed displacement and stress fields in lifting devices. While
the Standard is again silent on this matter and neither provides
guidance either directly or indirectly through reference to other
ASME or Welding Research Council codes and bulletins, stress
classification methods have been utilized for many years in the
pressure vessel industry. Furthermore, during the last decade,
the Pressure Vessel Research Council sponsored some of the
leading experts in the area of stress classification techniques as
applied to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code to author the
guidelines that were published in WRC Bulletin 429 [13].
These guidelines should have been included by reference, as a
minimum, in the subject ASME Standard [4], recognizing the
widespread use of the finite element method in the design and
analysis of structural and mechanical components by today’s
engineers.
4 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
 The temperature limits adopted in the ASME BTH-1-2005
[4] are based on the experience that the B30 Committee has
amassed. The Standard [4] correctly points out that historically,
tension brittle failures have occurred during hydrotest in
pressure vessels fabricated from low carbon steel at
temperatures as high as 50°F (10°C). Flaws in steel plate
material were the primary cause of these failures [4]. With
tighter production processes, closer metallurgical control, and
better quality checks in current practice, the risk of such failure
is reduced [4]. Thus, the Committee selected the 25°F (−4°C)
temperature as a reasonable lower limit. This lower
temperature limit is also consistent with recommendations
made by AISC (2003). The Committee selected the upper
temperature limit as a reasonable maximum temperature of
operation in a summer desert environment [4]. The Standard
[4], in an attempt to reference some ASME works, states that
data from the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code material
design tables “indicate that some carbon steels have already
begun to decline in both yield stress and allowable tension
stress at 200°F (93°C).” This statement is almost sophomoric
from the standpoint that “allowable stresses” as presented in
Section II, Part D of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code [14] are most often based on some percentage of either
the minimum specified yield strength or the ultimate tensile
strength. Obviously, these material characteristics never
increase with increasing temperature, so therefore the allowable
stresses must also decrease with increasing temperature! Some
materials decline by as much as 4.6%, but most are less than
that amount. A straight-line interpolation between the tabulated
values for materials at 100°F (38°C) and 200°F (93°C) in this
reference gives acceptable stress values that have minimal
degradation at 150°F (66°C). In some industrial uses, lifting
devices can be subjected to temperatures in excess of 1,000°F
(540°C). At these temperatures, the mechanical properties of
most materials are greatly reduced over those at ambient. If the
exposure is prolonged and cyclic in nature, the creep rupture
strength of the material, which is lower than the simple
elevated temperature value, must be used in determining the
design rated load and life of the device. Of importance when
evaluating the effects of temperature is the temperature of the
lifter component rather than the ambient temperature. A lifter
may move briefly through an area of frigid air without the
temperature of the steel dropping to the point of concern.
Likewise, a lifter that handles very hot items may have some
components that become heated due to contact. In an effort to
define these lifting devices metal temperatures, a competent
heat transfer analysis would have to be performed and
interpreted in accordance with the design Standard [4].
OSHA RIGGING EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES
The U.S. Department of Labor, through the regulations
specified by its Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA), specifies the general safety requirements for rigging
equipment for material handling. Throughout the U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), numerous references are made to
slings, wire rope, hooks, shackles, and other forms of material
handling and other forms of lifting equipment [1]. In
particular, the regulations that are of most importance during
the up-righting and lifting of a pressure vessel are found in
Title 29, Part 1926, Subpart 251 entitled “Rigging Equipment
for Material Handling” [1]. This and other OSHA Regulations
may be easily found on the Internet at URL
http://www.osha.gov.
While there are numerous similarities between ASME
B30.20 [5] and 29CFR1926.251 [1] regarding the inspection of
the lifting equipment (including, but not limited to lifting lugs)
prior to use, there exists a striking difference in the “design”
criteria for the handling devices. The OSHA requirements
specifically define that the safe working loads of shackles and
“specific identifiable products” be designed with a “safety
factor of not less than 5”, although the safety factor is not
explicitly defined therein [1]. The FOS of 5 is repeatedly
echoed throughout this and other OSHA Regulations regarding
handling equipment.
As in the proceeding section, there are several observations
that must be discussed concerning the preceding design
requirement. First, the OSHA design requirement [1] gives the
engineer no suggestion or proposal as to which particular
computed stresses must be compared against essentially the
material’s ultimate tensile stress divided by five. This assumes
that the failure load, however, is proportional to the ultimate
tensile failure stress (or vice-versa) in the application of the
FOS as recommended by Boresi et al [11]. Second, the choice
of an “allowable” stress of sorts by the Regulation [1], which is
based upon what is assumed to be a FOS of 5 applied to the
ultimate tensile strength, implies some sort of “failure criteria”
that would be based on a predominant component stress or
computed maximum principal stress when subjected to its
maximum rated load. Third, the selection of an ultimate tensile
strength based failure criteria would most likely also imply that
the anticipated failure mode would be one of a brittle nature
(even though the lug material is most assuredly classified as a
ductile material under ordinary loading conditions). Fourth,
similar to the discussion on ASME B30.20 [5], the utilization
of a large capacity vessel lifting lug will typically only be
subjected to a very limited number of “lift cycles”, for the
reasons previously cited. Finally, the subject design problem
clearly involves contact stresses between a shackle pin and a
clevis hole, which obviously implies the existence of very large
contact stresses that are highly localized. It is these very
contact stresses that are still not addressed by ASME BTH-1-
2005 [4], ASME B30.20 [5], or any other regulation known to
this author.
ALBERTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY ACT
The Province of Alberta, Canada, through the regulations
specified by its Occupational Health and Safety Act, Regulation
62/2003 [2], addresses the general safety requirements related
to government policy and administrative matters for rigging
5 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
equipment for material handling. The Occupational Health and
Safety Code [3] specifies all of the mandatory technical
standards and safety rules with which employers and workers
must comply. The Code took effect on April 30, 2004 and
replaced eleven individual occupational health and safety
regulations, including AR 448/83 [15] which was previously
discussed in detail by Williams [6]. Similar to the OSHA
Regulation [1] previously discussed, within the Alberta Code
[3], numerous references are made to slings, wire rope, hooks,
shackles, and other forms of material handling and other forms
of lifting equipment. In particular, the regulations that are of
most importance during the up-righting and lifting of a pressure
vessel are found in Part 21, entitled, “Rigging”, paragraph
292(1) [3]. This and other Alberta Regulations may be found
on the Internet at URL http://www.gov.ab.ca
Once again, there are numerous similarities between
ASME B30.20 [5], 29CFR1926.251 [1], and Alberta OHS
Code 62/2003 [3] regarding the inspection of the lifting
equipment (including, but not limited to lifting lugs) prior to
use. The Alberta Code, however, begins to define the “design”
criteria of the handling devices more specifically than the
OSHA regulations and takes on a different basis for the FOS
than even ASME B30.20 [5]. The Code [3] requirements
specifically state that the maximum safe working load of
rigging or rigging equipment must not “exceed … 20% of the
ultimate breaking strength of the weakest component of the
rigging” if a worker is not being raised or lowered. As with the
OSHA regulations, a FOS of 5 appears and is repeatedly
echoed throughout this Alberta Code [3] regarding handling
equipment.
The pertinent observations that must be discussed
concerning the preceding design requirement are as follows.
The design requirement [3] gives the engineer the latitude to
formulate a failure criteria based upon the “ultimate breaking
strength”, which suggests at least an ultimate tensile strength
divided by 5 as an allowable stress. This assumes that the
failure load is proportional to the ultimate tensile failure stress
FIGURE 1 – LIFTING LUG GEOMETRY
in the application of the 5-to-1 FOS. Second, the choice of an
“allowable” stress of sorts by the OSHA Regulation [1] that is
based upon what is assumed to be a FOS of 5 applied to the
ultimate tensile strength implies some sort of “failure criteria”
that would be based on a predominant component stress or
computed maximum principal stress when subjected to its
maximum rated load. Third, the selection of an ultimate tensile
strength based failure criteria would most likely also imply that
the anticipated failure mode would be one of a brittle nature.
Fourth, similar to the discussion on ASME B30.20, the
utilization of a large capacity vessel lifting lug will typically be
subjected to only a very limited number of “lift cycles”, for the
reasons previously cited. Finally, as with all the other
regulations and standards previously cited, the very large
contact stresses, which are highly localized, are not addressed
by this Provincial Code [3] as well.
CLASSICAL CONTACT STRESS EVALUATIONS
The problem presented by the design of a vessel lifting lug
is first and foremost one created by the Hertzian contact of a
lifting pin (supported by a shackle in this case) with that of the
lifting hole in a clevis-type lifting lug. The resulting stresses of
the greatest magnitude are indeed those created by the pressure
exerted by the pin on the clevis over a limited area of contact.
The Hertzian contact stress problem is treated and discussed in
detail in Chapter 14 the text by Boresi [11], by Timoshenko [8],
and by Young [9]. It is these contact stresses that are not,
however, addressed in any of the Standards or Regulations
previously discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this paper
[1,2,3,4,5]. The only plausible justification for the silence by
these Standards and Regulations on the obvious existence of
the contact stresses may be as explained in the following by
Boresi [11]:
“Most load resisting members are designed on the basis of
stress in the main body of the member, that is, in portions of the
body not affected by the localized stresses at or near a surface
of contact between bodies. In other words, most failures
(excessive elastic deflection, yielding, and fracture) of members
are associated with stresses and strains in portions of the body
far removed from the points of application of the loads.” [11]
Williams [6] previously included a sample calculation for
the 700 metric ton lifting lug contact stress evaluation. The
chosen material for the lifting lug is ASME 508 Grade 3 Class
2 with an ultimate tensile strength of 90,000 psi and yield
strength of 65,000 psi. The lifting lughole diameter is 8.543 in.
within which a pin diameter of 8.460 in. must be inserted. The
thickness of the lifting lug is 11.50 in. The other dimensional
data is shown in Figure 1.
The contact stresses previously cited [6] are not applicable
close to the edges where the contact boundary begins. This
sharp interface area can produce highly localized stresses in
excess of 100,000 psi [11] for the 700 metric ton loading under
consideration. The depths at which the effects of the contact
6 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
stresses are significant range from the surface of contact (for
the maximum principal stress) to an approximate depth of 1.6
in. (for the maximum shear stress and the maximum octahedral
shearing stress). Nevertheless, the results of the contact stress
reveal at least two important pieces of information. The first is
that the average contact stress for the loading, geometry, and
materials of construction defined herein are approximately
40,000 psi. Keeping in mind that this is a compressive stress
and that when compared to a yield strength of at least 65,000
psi, this is far below those levels of bearing and/or compressive
stress allowed within other ASME Codes [7,12]. The second
important piece of information is the calculated width of the
assumed rectangle contact area. For the subject design, this
width is calculated to be approximately 4.35 in., which equates
to a half angle from top dead center of approximately 30° for
the contact area [6]. This value is and can be utilized in a more
detailed finite element analysis of the lifting lug and represents
the angular dimension over which the lifting load may be
applied.
CLASSICAL FAILURE THEORIES & THE ULTIMATE
FACTOR OF SAFETY
In determining the possible modes of failure, the engineer
must also establish the failure criteria by which the design will
be judged. The modes of failure for the lug must include not
only the common static causes such as bending, shear, and
bearing, but also the effects of a dynamic or shock loading due
to the lift itself. It is this consideration of a potential dynamic
load (generated as a result of the sudden loss of tension in a
cable or sling) that drives the need for a form of a FOS to be
employed to the applied static load or resulting computed
stress. Furthermore, the selection of a failure criteria for the
lifting lug must be predicated upon this dynamic load
consideration and not the initiation of yield per se, as the lug
will only be utilized a very few number of times in its design
life (i.e., certainly no more than 10 times). It is not only the
specification of a single FOS but also the failure criterion that
determines the ultimate factor of safety of a given lifting device
design.
Boresi [11] states, “There is considerable but not
necessarily conclusive evidence … that when a member fails
by general yielding at ordinary temperatures, the significant
quantity associated with the failure is shearing stress.” Two of
the most widely utilized failure criteria that address general
yielding include the maximum shearing stress (Tresca’s
criterion) and the maximum octahedral stress (Von Mises
criterion) theories. A third criterion is the maximum principal
stress theory of failure (Rankine’s criterion). The engineer
must remember that in a uniaxial state of stress, the critical
“failure” values for each of the defined theories are achieved
simultaneously during a simple tensile test!
Tresca’s criterion states that inelastic action in any point in
a part initiates when the computed maximum shearing stress
reaches the half of the material’s yield strength. While the
maximum shear stress failure theory is best suited for ductile
material behavior in which relatively large shearing stresses are
developed [11]. For the problem at hand, Williams [6]
previously identified that the maximum shearing stress would
be limited to no more than 32,500 psi prior to the application of
any FOS!
The maximum octahedral shear stress failure theory states
that inelastic action in any point in a part initiates when the
computed octahedral shearing stress reaches 0.471 times the
material’s yield strength. In many ductile materials utilized
within the pressure vessel industry, the octahedral shearing
stress criterion predicts the initiation of yield better and with
less conservatism than does the Tresca criterion. For the
problem at hand, Williams [6] previously identified that the
maximum octahedral shearing stress would be limited to no
more than 30,641 psi prior to the application of any FOS!
The maximum principal failure theory is one that may be
easily employed to establish the initiation of yield for a brittle
material or one that may be employed to establish a guard
against fracture through the use of the ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) and an imposed FOS. Even though the chosen material
for a vessel lifting lug should be one of high ductility and
possess good impact properties, the failure mechanism due to a
sudden acceleration (i.e., a dynamic load) in most cases will be
one of a brittle nature. Therefore, Rankine’s criterion, when
modified to utilize the UTS, provides both an easy to use
criterion and one that is consistent with the expected mode of
failure! For the problem at hand, Williams [6] previously
identified that the maximum principal stress would be limited
to 90,000 psi divided by the chosen FOS! This also implies
that the minimum principal stress must be addressed as a
separate matter. This is because the failure mode that must be
guarded against is one, first and foremost, which would be
tensile in nature and tend to open any preexisting cracks in the
lifting lug material.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE DESIGN &
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSEL LIFTING LUGS
In an effort to more fully understand the stress field within
the 700 metric ton lifting lug, a finite element analysis was
performed and discussed by Williams [6]. The details of the
finite element analysis were also previously described by
Williams [6]. The base of the lug was fixed against translation
in all three coordinate directions, as the elements chosen to
model the geometry were a three-dimensional solid with 3
degrees of freedom at each node (i.e., translations in the x, y,
and z directions). The 700 metric ton load was evenly
distributed within a 30° half angle from top dead center on each
side of the symmetry plane and continued through-the-
thickness of the lifting lug. Several mesh densities were
employed until the stress results converged to within 3% of the
more course mesh density [6].
The results of the finite element analysis were decomposed
into all of the constituent component stresses. In addition, the
results were also reviewed in light of the three failure criteria
previously defined and outlined above. The stress contours
7 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

1 ANSYS 5.6.1
MAR 10 2002
22:00:03
PLOT NO. 2
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
S1 (AVG)
PowerGraphics
EFACET=1
MX
MN
AVRES=Mat
DMX =.014536
SMN =-13133
SMX =53276
-13133
-5754
1624
9003
16382
23761
31139
38518
45897
53276
Y
ZX
700 Ton Lifting Lug Analysis
FIGURE 2 – MAX. PRINCIPAL STRESS
showing the calculated maximum principal stresses are
included in Fig. 2. The interested reader is referred to the
previous work on this subject for the remaining stress contours
[6]. All of the contours reflect a highly concentrated respective
combined stress at the geometric discontinuity between the lug
hole bore and orthogonal outside surface. This is both
attributed to the contact load discontinuity and the reality of the
geometric/load combination. This area is very small and is not
anticipated to reflect the overall load carrying capacity of the
lug, regardless of the failure criterion employed.
The calculated maximum principal stress as shown in
Figure 2 is approximately 53,276 psi. When compared to the
equivalent allowable stress of 1.0 times yield (i.e., 65,000 psi),
this represents a margin of approximately 18% without
employing any factor of safety. As the distance from the
applied contact load increases, the stress contour reveals that an
overall maximum principal stress throughout the body of the
lifting lug quickly decreases to a value of approximately 16,400
psi. In order to fully evaluate the FOS for this criterion, these
values may be compared to the one times yield, which results in
a FOS of approximately 3.96 on the initiation of yield. As
stated previously however, this is not a good predictor of yield
and is most well suited for use with the ultimate tensile strength
in this case. Proceeding on this basis, these values must be
compared to the UTS, which results in a FOS of approximately
5.49 on the ultimate failure load (assuming totally elastic
response, which is a conservative predictor). In contrast, the
calculated minimum principal stress was found to be
approximately –61,292 psi [6], which is reflective of the
compressive contact stress between the lifting pin and lug hole.
Again it is recognized that the subject lifting lug design would
have a much higher load carrying capacity than that predicted
by this criterion due to the reasons previously stated.
Based upon the results of the detailed finite element
analysis of the 700 metric ton lifting lug, the following design
criteria are tendered for consideration, in spite of the more
detailed guidelines presented in ASME BTH-1-2005 [4]. First,
in an effort to align the chosen failure criterion with the most
significant mode of failure (i.e., from a dynamic load), the
maximum principal stress failure criteria should be utilized.
While attempts by the ASME B30.20 Safety Standard [5]
highlights the use of a one-third yield criterion, there is no
single published failure criterion known to this author that can
address all of the aspects of the lug design with this method. In
this author’s opinion, the simple limitation a single type of
component stress (for example, a bending stress) to some
allowable value hardly defines a “failure criterion” for use in
the current or future design of lifting lugs. Furthermore,
applying this limitation (i.e., the one-third yield criterion) on
the compressive stresses present in the contact area, simply
does not work nor will it work in a tri-axial state of stress!
Second, in conjunction with the chosen criterion, the maximum
principal stresses should be calculated for the given working
load and lug geometry. The load should be distributed over a
contact area as determined by either an acceptable contact
stress technique such as that previously presented by Williams
[6] or by a nonlinear finite element contact stress analysis
procedure. The resulting maximum principal stresses in the
body of the lug that are located slightly beyond the area of load
application should then be compared to an allowable stress
value equal to 20% of the UTS of the lug material. This will be
consistent with both domestic and Canadian regulations
regarding the implementation of a well defined FOS of 5 on
fracture and ultimate breaking strength. Finally, the minimum
principal stresses should be computed and compared to simply
one times the specified minimum yield strength of the lug
material. This allowable is consistent with those specified in
other ASME Codes [7,12] and the compressive stresses do not
pose the same crack opening hazard found in purely tensile
stresses. Utilizing this method of analysis not only achieves a
clear utilization of a highly recognized FOS, but also addresses
the issue of contact stresses about which the Regulations and
Standards identified herein have remained forever silent.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
A method for evaluating the structural adequacy of various
lifting lugs utilized in the erection and up-righting of large
pressure vessels was confirmed and reiterated from a previous
publication of the same topic. The analysis techniques were
described and design guidelines for vessel lifting lugs were
tendered. The statutory and provincial regulations in both the
United States and the province of Alberta, Canada were also
reviewed and discussed with respect to the too often utilized
phrase “factor of safety” (FOS). Hopefully, the introduction of
a clearly defined FOS of 5, when utilized with the maximum
principal stress failure criterion, will serve as a constructive
criticism to the design criteria given in the current ASME
Safety Standard B30.20 [5] and the sister standard ASME
BTH-1-2005 [4] and may be applied to lifting lugs for large
and heavy-weight pressure vessels in future design standards.
Due to the limited number of repetitive loading cycles that
vessel lifting lugs actually experience during the service life of
a vessel, a recommendation is made to either clearly exclude
8 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
vessel lifting lugs from the scope of ASME B30.20 [5]. The
creation of a separate standard [4] was published by ASME
subsequent to the original work in 2002 that inspired reference
[6] in an effort to define detailed design standards for lifting
devices. Based on the results presented herein, it is hoped that
a more rigorous assessment of the failure modes and the proper
selection of a failure criterion will be further studied and
revised as necessary by the ASME B30.20 Committee, thereby
leaving less to chance for the less experienced design engineer
of rigging and materials handling equipment.
METRIC EQUIVALENTS
The units utilized throughout this paper employed English
units in all descriptions. In order to aid readers who may be
more familiar with metric units, the following conversions may
be applied to aid in understanding the results presented herein:
1 psi = 1 lbf/in2 = 6.8948*103 N/m2
1 inch = 2.5400*10-2 m
[10] AWS, 1997, Specification for Welding Industrial and Mill
Cranes & Other Material Handling Equipment,
ANSI/AWS D14.1-1997, American Welding Society,
Miami, FL.
[11] Boresi, A. P., Sidebottom, O. M., Seely, F. B., and Smith,
J. O., 1978, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, Third
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
[12] ASME, 2004, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[13] Welding Research Council, 1998, 3D Stress Criteria-
Guidelines for Application, February 1998, Welding
Research Council, New York.
[14] ASME, 2004, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Materials, Part D, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
[15] Province of Alberta, Canada, 2000, Alberta Regulation
448/83, Occupational Health & Safety Act, Queen’s
Printer for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

1 lbf = 4.4480 N

REFERENCES
[1] U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, 2006, Code of Federal Regulations, Title
29, Part 1926, Safety & Health Regulations for
Construction, Subpart 251, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
[2] Province of Alberta, Canada, 2003, Alberta Regulation
62/2003, Occupational Health & Safety Regulation,
Queen’s Printer for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
[3] Province of Alberta, Canada, 2006, Occupational Health
& Safety Code, Queen’s Printer for Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
[4] ASME, 2006, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices,
ASME BTH-1-2005, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
[5] ASME, 1999, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME
B30.20-1999, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York.
[6] Williams, D. K., 2007, “A Proposed Design Criterion for
Vessel Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20,” ASME
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, May 2007,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[7] ASME, 2004, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Section VIII,
Division 2 – Alternate Rules, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[8] Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N., 1970, Theory of
Elasticity, Third Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company,
New York.
[9] Young, W. C., 1989, Roark’s Formulas for Stress &
Strain, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New
York.

9 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

View publication stats