See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245364851

Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel Lifting Lugs

in Lieu of ASME B30.20

Article in Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology · May 2007

DOI: 10.1115/1.2716439

CITATIONS READS

4 808

1 author:

Dennis Keith Williams

DR. DENNIS K. WILLIAMS, P.E.
43 PUBLICATIONS 88 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.

 Journal of
Pressure Vessel
Technology Design Innovations
Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel
Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20
Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A.
P.O. Box 1336,
1153 Willow Oaks Trail,
Matthews, NC 28106-1336
e-mail: DennisKW@sharoden.com
This paper describes a method for evaluating the structural ad-
equacy of various lifting lugs utilized in the erection and up right-
ing of large pressure vessels. In addition, the analysis techniques
are described in detail and design guidelines for vessel lifting are
tendered. The statutory and provincial regulations in both the
United States and the province of Alberta, Canada are also re-
viewed 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. A discussion is presented as to
the applicability of the ASME safety standard B30.20 entitled,
“Below the Hook Lifting Devices” (1999, ASME, New York) and
as to the severe shortcomings of the safety standard in its attempt
to delve into the design of lifting devices, especially when applied
to lifting lugs on large and heavy-weight pressure vessels. Exem-
plar 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 proposed design criteria.
These results are compared against the very limited design infor-
mation contained within ASME B30.20. Suggestions for the revi-
sion and applicability of the safety standard are presented and
discussed in light of the examples and technical justification pre-
sented in the following paragraphs. In addition, the silence of this
safety standard on the very large contact stresses that are well
known to exist between a lifting pin and clevis type geometry is
also discussed. Because of the limited number of repetitive load-
ing cycles that vessel lifting lugs actually experience during the
service life of a vessel, a recommendation is made to either clearly
exclude vessel lifting lugs from the scope of ASME B30.20 or to
specifically include a separate design and analysis section within
this standard to properly address the mechanical and structural
design issues applicable to pressure vessel lifting lugs.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.2716439兴
Introduction
The basic approach of the current study is to first define the
mode of failure against which any design criteria and/or standard
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 23,
2006; final manuscript received September 7, 2006. Review conducted by David Raj.
Paper presented at the 2002 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
共PVP2002兲, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 5–9, 2002.
326 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
must try to protect during the design phase of a vessel lifting lug.
Second, the approach selects a failure criteria from those com-
monly 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 on the cho-
sen 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 on the
basic approach presented herein and applied to the statutory and
provincial regulations contained within 29CFR1926 共OSHA regu-
lations兲 关1兴 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the
Province of Alberta, Canada 关2兴.
The purpose of this paper is to provide technical insight into the
applied mechanics evaluation of an exemplar pressure vessel lift-
ing lug and proposed design criteria in lieu of the limited “design”
requirements contained within ASME B30.20 关3兴. The current
work is restricted to the evaluation of the lug in the vicinity of the
lifting pin. The subject lifting lug of this paper is one whose
design load capacity is 700 metric tons 共⬃1,544,000 lbf兲. This
load capacity is not uncommon in the petroleum refinery industry
for a number of specialty types of ASME B&PV Code, Section
VIII 关4兴 reactor vessels. On many project designs, there are at
least two types of imposed design bases for the lifting and han-
dling equipment. The first of these design bases is an internally
generated or self-imposed design basis. The second of these de-
sign bases is one that may be classified as externally generated
design basis. For purposes of this discussion, “internal” and “ex-
ternal” refer to an organization within the design engineering or-
ganization 共hence internal兲 or to an outside authority having juris-
diction 共hence external兲.
The internal design basis for the lifting lug can further be de-
fined 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 deter-
mined by both experience and empirical data. Although there are
no uniform set of criteria among the numerous engineering design
professionals throughout the U.S. and Canada, it is this author’s
experience that one guideline, which is often quoted, is the limi-
tation of the bending stress to one third of the yield strength of the
lug material 共assuming a one-piece forged design兲. The additional
component stresses and the associated allowable stressess vary
widely across-the-board, depending on the particular design engi-
neering group and their given experience. The externally gener-
ated or imposed “design” standard on lifting lugs often falls on the
limited criteria contained within the ASME safety standard
B30.20 关3兴 entitled, “Below the Hook Lifting Devices.” This pa-
per addresses the “fallback” position employed by many engineer-
ing organizations in attempting to utilize the “design” criteria con-
tained therein and the inherent pitfalls of such a practice,
particularly when applied to large lifting lugs for pressure vessels.
The second major group of design basis criteria originates from
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 1 Lifting-lug geometry
an outside source and most often takes the form of regulatory
requirements defined by federal, state, and/or provincial authori-
ties having jurisdiction. For the purposes of this paper, only the
regulations imposed in the U.S. and the Province of Alberta,
Canada are discussed, although the subject discussion is one that
has universal implications. This becomes even more apparent as
fabricators across the globe are providing ASME Code 关4兴 pres-
sure vessels intended for installation in both the U.S. and Canada.
The specific design lifting requirements imposed by the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, 29CFR1926 共OSHA regulations兲 关1兴 are out-
lined and the implementation of a 5 to 1 “factor of safety” 共FOS兲
is also explored. Finally, the Provincial Regulations contained
within the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the Province of
Alberta, Canada 关2兴 are also reviewed and discussed with further
interpretation of a very specific five-to-one factor of safety on the
ultimate tensile strength of the chosen lug material.
The analysis of the 700 metric ton lifting lug is conducted in
two separate manners. The first is the analysis and prediction of
the contact stresses, the general stress field within the critical sec-
tions of the lug, and the associated contact area between a close
tolerance fitting lifting bolt/pin utilizing the techniques presented
by Timoshenko and Goodier in the Theory of Elasticity 关5兴 and
summarized for direct application by Young 关6兴. The lug geometry
itself is a simple clevis type design of uniform thickness as shown
in Fig. 1. The second analysis utilizes the finite element method to
analyze the effects of the contact stresses within the lug and also
utilizes the calculated results to serve as a basis for the proposed
lug design criteria. The proposed lug design criteria must achieve
two goals. The first is to ensure a safe and practical design. The
second is to provide a design that is in full compliance with the
defined regulatory requirements defined herein. The technical
bases for achieving this two-fold objective are outlined in the
paragraphs that follow.
ASME B30.20: Below the Hook Lifting Devices
ASME B30.20 had its beginning in December 1916, when an
eight-page Code of Safety Standards for Cranes was presented to
the annual meeting of the ASME. Because of changes in design,
advancement in techniques, and the general interest of labor and
industry in safety, an American National Standards Committee
was formed under the joint sponsorship of ASME and Naval Fa-
cilities Engineering Command 共ASME 关3兴兲. According to the
foreword provided within ASME B30.20 关3兴, the Standard pre-
sents a coordinated set of rules that may serve as a guide to gov-
ernment and other regulatory bodies responsible for the “guarding
and inspection” of the equipment falling within its scope. Further-
more, the foreword to the referenced ASME Standard 关3兴 urges
administrative and regulatory agencies to “consult the B30 Com-
mittee” prior to rendering decisions on disputed points. The fore-
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
word concludes with the protective remark that, “revisions 关to the
Standard兴 do not imply that previous editions were inadequate.”
Within the Introduction to the ASME Standard 关3兴, the Stan-
dards Committee states that they fully realize the importance of
proper design factors. In addition, the Standards Committee states
that, “关they兴 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” 关3兴.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the “design” requirements
contained in the Standard 关3兴 and to provide an exemplar of the
application of the suggested rules and some well defined and
quantitative criticisms of the Standard.
Within the scope of ASME B30.20 关3兴 is the “construction” of
lifting devices. Some engineers interpret the 700 metric tons lift-
ing lug under consideration to fall within the scope of the subject
Standard 关3兴. Although Chapter 20-1 entitled “Structural and Me-
chanical Lifting Devices” 关3兴 does not specifically categorize the
lifting lug under consideration, many design organizations cite
this chapter for use as a design guideline or requirement. In par-
ticular, paragraph 20-1.1.1 entitled “General Construction,” out-
lines 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 ranges that do
not exceed the values given in ANSI/AWS D14.1 [7] for the appli-
cable conditions” [3].
Before proceeding, there are several observations that must be
highlighted concerning the preceding design requirement. First,
the placement of a “design requirement” under the heading of
“Construction” is not consistent with the organization of many
other ASME Codes and Standards 关4兴 in that design criteria are
clearly labeled as such and are also segregated from the construc-
tion 共i.e., fabrication兲 requirements. Second, the design require-
ment contained within the referenced Standard 关3兴 only gives the
engineer a very vague idea 共at best兲 as to which particular com-
puted stresses must be compared against essentially the material’s
yield stress divided by three. Third, the choice of an “allowable”
stress of sorts by the Standard 关3兴 that is based on yield implies
some sort of “failure criteria” 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 criteria
would most likely also imply that the anticipated failure mode
would be one of a ductile nature 共of course assuming the selection
of a linear, elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic lug material兲.
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 uprighted in the field, it generally is there for the remainder of
its intended design life. Finally, the subject design problem clearly
involves contact stresses between a shackle pin and a clevis hole,
which obviously implies very large contact stresses that are highly
localized, which are not addressed by this or any other standard
known to this author. It is these implications in combination with
other regulatory requirements that are explored in some detail in
the paragraphs that follow.
OSHA Rigging Equipment Regulations in the United
States
The U.S. Department of Labor, through the regulations speci-
fied by its Occupational Health and Safety Administration
共OSHA兲, specifies the general safety requirements for rigging
equipment for material handling. Throughout the U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations 共CFR兲, numerous references are made to
slings, wire rope, hooks, shackles, and other forms of material
handling and other forms of lifting equipment 关1兴. In particular,
the regulations that are of most importance during the uprighting
and lifting of a pressure vessel are found in Title 29, Part 1926,
MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 327
Subpart 251 entitled “Rigging Equipment for Material Handling”
关1兴. This and other OSHA Regulations may now be easily found
on the Internet at URL http://www.osha.gov.
Although there are numerous similarities between ASME
B30.20 关3兴 and 29CFR1926.251 关1兴 regarding the inspection of
the lifting equipment 共including, but not limited to lifting lugs兲
prior to use, there exists a striking difference in the “design” cri-
teria for the handling devices. The OSHA requirements specifi-
cally 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
关1兴. 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 关1兴 gives the engineer no
suggestion or proposal as to which particular computed stresses
must be compared against essentially the material’s ultimate ten-
sile stress divided by five. This assumes that the failure load,
however, is proportional to the ultimate tensile failure stress 共or
vice versa兲 in the application of the FOS as recommended by
Boresi et al. 关8兴. Second, the choice of an “allowable” stress of
sorts by the Regulation 关1兴, which is based on 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 predomi-
nant 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 共even though the lug material is most assuredly
classified as a ductile material under ordinary loading conditions兲.
Fourth, similar to the parley on ASME B30.20, 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 very large contact stresses that are highly localized, which
are not addressed by this or any other regulation known to this
author.
Alberta Safety and Health Act Requirements
The Province of Alberta, Canada, through the regulations speci-
fied by its Occupational Health and Safety Act, Regulation 448/83
关2兴, specifies the general safety requirements for rigging equip-
ment for material handling. Similar to the OSHA Regulation 关1兴
previously discussed, within the Alberta Regulation 关2兴, numerous
references are made to slings, wire rope, hooks, shackles, and
other forms of material handling and other forms of lifting equip-
ment. In particular, the regulations that are of most importance
during the up-righting and lifting of a pressure vessel are found in
Part 8, entitled, “Rigging,” paragraph 139 关2兴. This and other Al-
berta Regulations may now be easily found on the Internet at URL
http://www.gov.ab.ca
Once again, there are numerous similarities between ASME
B30.20 关3兴, 29CFR1926.251 关1兴, and Alberta Regulation 448/83
关2兴 共AR 448/83兲 regarding the inspection of the lifting equipment
共including, but not limited to lifting lugs兲 prior to use. The Alberta
Regulation, 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
关3兴. AR 448/83 requirements specifically state that the maximum
safe working load of rigging or rigging equipment must not “ex-
ceed…20% of the ultimate breaking strength of the weakest com-
ponent of the rigging.” As with the OSHA regulations, a FOS of 5
appears and is repeatedly echoed throughout this Regulation 关2兴
regarding handling equipment.
The pertinent observations that must be discussed concerning
the preceding design requirement are as follows. The design re-
quirement 关2兴 gives the engineer the latitude to formulate a failure
328 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007
criteria based on the “ultimate breaking strength,” which suggests
at least an ultimate tensile strength divided by five allowable
stress. Again however, this assumes that the failure load is propor-
tional to the ultimate tensile failure stress in the application of the
five-to-one FOS. Second, the choice of an “allowable” stress of
sorts by the Regulation 关1兴 that is based on 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 regulation 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 共supported by a shackle in this case兲 with that of the lifting
hole in a clevis-type lifting lug. The resulting stresses of the great-
est 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 Boresi
关8兴 共Chap. 14兲, Timoshenko 关5兴 and Young 关6兴. 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 关1–3兴. 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 关8兴:
“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 associ-
ated with stresses and strains in portions of the body far removed
from the points of application of the loads.”
Appendix A contains a sample calculation for the
700 metric ton lifting lug contact stress evaluation. The geometric
and material properties are defined within the calculation proper.
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 relatively simple evaluation of the contact stresses con-
tained in Appendix A is not applicable close to the edges where
the contact boundary begins. This sharp interface area can pro-
duce highly localized stresses in excess of 100,000 psi 关8兴 for the
700 metric tons loading under consideration. The depths at which
the effects of the contact stresses are significant range from the
surface of contact 共for the maximum principal stress兲 to an ap-
proximate depth of 1.6 in. 共for the maximum shear stress and the
maximum octahedral shearing stress兲. Nevertheless, the results of
the contact stress evaluation contained in Appendix A 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 ⬃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 关4兴. The second important piece of information is the cal-
culated width of the assumed rectangular contact area. For the
subject design, this width is calculated to be ⬃4.35 in., which
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 2 Lifting-lug finite element mesh
equates to a half angle from top dead center of ⬃30 deg for the
contact area. 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 and the Mystery of the Uli-
mate Factor of Safety
Clearly in the design and analysis of a lifting lug for a vessel
that weighs 700 metric tons, the engineer must have an excep-
tional understanding of the possible ways by which the lug may
fail to perform its function. In determining the possible modes of
failure, the engineer must also establish the failure criteria by
which the design will be judged. In the present study, 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 consid-
eration of a potential dynamic load 共generated as a result of the
sudden loss of tension in a cable or sling兲 that drives the need for
some 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 based on this dy-
namic 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 共i.e., certainly no more than ten times兲. As will be
shown, it is not only the mere specification of a single FOS but
also the failure criterion that determines the ultimate factor of
safety of a given lifting lug design.
Boresi 关8兴 states, “There is considerable but not necessarily
conclusive evidence…that when a member fails by general yield-
ing at ordinary temperatures, the significant quantity associated
with the failure is shearing stress.” Two of the most widely uti-
lized failure criteria that address general yielding include the
maximum shearing stress 共Tresca’s criterion兲 and the maximum
octahedral stress 共von Mises criterion兲 theories. A third criterion to
be considered is the maximum principal stress theory of failure
共Rankine’s criterion兲. Before proceeding, however, the engineer
must remember that in a uniaxial state of stress, the critical “fail-
ure” values for each of the defined theories are achieved simulta-
neously in a simple tensile test.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Tresca’s criterion states that inelastic action in any point in a
part initiates when the computed maximum shearing stress
reaches one-half of the material’s yield strength. Although the
maximum shear stress failure theory is best suited for ductile ma-
terial behavior in which relatively large shearing stresses are de-
veloped 关8兴, for the problem at hand, the maximum shearing stress
would be limited to no more than 32,500 psi prior to the applica-
tion 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, the maximum octahe-
dral 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 either 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 共UTS兲 and
an imposed FOS. In fact, 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 accel-
eration 共i.e., a dynamic load兲 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, 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, that would be tensile in nature and tend to open any
preexisting cracks in the lifting lug material.
Criteria for Consideration in the Design and Analysis of
Pressure Vessel Lifting Lugs
In an effort to more fully understand the stress field within the
700 metric tons lifting lug, a finite element analysis was per-
MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 329
 Fig. 3 Stress-intensity contour
formed. The lug geometry was as shown in Fig. 1, and the refined
element mesh was as shown in Fig. 2. 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 three-degrees of freedom at each node 共i.e., translations
in the x, y, and z directions兲. The 700 metric tons load was evenly
distributed within a 30 deg half angle from top dead center on
each side of the symmetry plane and continued through the thick-
ness of the lifting lug. The chosen contact area was confirmed
independently by the calculations presented in Appendix A of this
paper, which was previously discussed. Several mesh densities
were employed until the stress results converged to within 3% of
the more course mesh density.
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 showing the cal-
culated maximum stress intensities 共i.e., twice the value of the
maximum shear stresses兲, the von Mises stresses and the maxi-
mum principal stresses are included in Figs. 3–5, respectively. 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 combina-
tion. 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 shear stress as shown in Fig. 3 is
⬃40,000 psi 共i.e., one-half of the calculated stress intensity兲.
When compared to the Tresca criterion allowable stress of one-
half of yield 共i.e., 32,500 psi兲, this represents an overage of ⬃25%
without employing any factor of safety. As the distance from the
applied contact load increases, the stress contour reveals that an
overall maximum shear stress throughout the body of the lifting
lug quickly decreases to a value of ⬃13,400– 17,800 psi. In order
to fully evaluate the FOS for this criterion, these values must be
compared to one-half of the yield, which results in a FOS of as
low as 1.82 on the initiation of yield a short distance away from
330 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007
the proximity of the contact load application. 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
strain hardening capacity of the chosen forging material.
The calculated equivalent stress 共i.e., von Mises兲 as shown in
Fig. 4 is ⬃69,194 psi. When compared to the equivalent allow-
able stress of 1.0 times yield 共i.e., 65,000 psi兲, this represents an
overage of ⬃6.5% without employing any factor of safety. As the
distance from the applied contact load increases, the stress contour
reveals that an overall maximum equivalent stress throughout the
body of the lifting lug quickly decreases to a value of
⬃23,100– 30,800 psi. In order to fully evaluate the FOS for this
criterion, these values must be compared to the one times yield,
which results in a FOS of as low as 2.11 on the initiation of yield
a short distance away from the proximity of the contact load ap-
plication. As before, 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 strain hardening capacity of
the chosen forging material.
The calculated maximum principal stress as shown in Fig. 5 is
⬃53,276 psi. When compared to the equivalent allowable stress
of 1.0 times yield 共i.e., 65,000 psi兲, this represents a margin of
⬃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 ⬃16,400 psi. In
order to fully evaluate the FOS for this criterion, these values may
be compared to the one-time yield, which results in a FOS of
⬃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 ⬃5.49 on the ultimate failure load 共assuming totally
elastic response, which is a conservative predictor兲. In contrast,
the calculated minimum principal stress, as shown in Fig. 6, is
found to be approximately −61,292 psi, which is reflective of the
compressive contact stress between the lifting pin and lug hole.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 4 Von Mises stress Contour

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 on the results of the detailed finite element analysis of
the 700 metric ton lifting lug, the following design criterion is
tendered for consideration. First, in an effort to align the chosen
failure criterion with the most significant mode of failure 共i.e.,
from a dynamic load兲, the maximum principal stress failure crite-
ria should be utilized. Although attempts by the ASME B30.20
Safety Standard 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 of a single
type of component stress 共for example, a bending stress兲 to some
allowable value hardly defines a failure criterion for use in the
current or future design of lifting lugs. Furthermore, applying this

Fig. 5 Max principal Stress Contour

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 331

 Fig. 6 Min. Principal Stress Contour
limitation 共i.e., the one-third yield criterion兲 on the compressive
stresses present in the contact area, simply does not work nor will
it work in a triaxial state of stress. Second, in conjunction with the
chosen criterion, the maximum principal stresses should be calcu-
lated 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 presented in
Appendix A 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 appli-
cation 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 imple-
mentation 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 关4兴 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 for-
ever silent.
Summary and Conclusions
A method for evaluating the structural adequacy of various lift-
ing lugs utilized in the erection and uprighting of large pressure
vessels was presented. The analysis techniques were described in
detail 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 dis-
cussed with respect to the too often utilized phrase “factor of
safety” 共FOS兲. 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 very limited
design criterion given in the current ASME safety standard
B30.20 关3兴 entitled, “Below the Hook Lifting Devices” and may
332 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007
be applied to lifting lugs for large and heavyweight pressure ves-
sels in future design standards. Because of the limited number of
repetitive loading cycles that vessel lifting lugs actually experi-
ence during the service life of a vessel, a recommendation is made
to either clearly exclude vessel lifting lugs from the scope of
ASME B30.20 关3兴 or to address the design aspects in a separate
standard to be developed at a later date. Based on the results
presented herein, it is hoped that a more realistic 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.
Nomenclature
CE ⫽ material constant for contacting bodies
D1 ⫽ diameter of lifting lug hole
D2 ⫽ diameter of lifting 共shackle兲 pin
E1 ⫽ modulus of elasticity for lifting lug
E2 ⫽ modulus of elasticity for lifting 共shackle兲 pin
KD ⫽ geometric constant for contacting bodies
L ⫽ length of contact; thickness of lifting lug
P ⫽ load to be lifted; maximum safe working load
bb ⫽ width of rectangular contact area
p ⫽ load per unit length of contact
␯1 ⫽ Poisson’s ratio for lifting lug
␯2 ⫽ Poisson’s ratio for lifting 共shackle兲 pin
␴cmax ⫽ maximum calculated contact stress
Appendix A: A Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel
Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20
First, we will evaluate the contact stresses in the lifting lug
based upon the one-fifth of the ultimate tensile strength design
criteria contained within the Alberta OS&H Act.
Lifting Cover Contact Stresses, SA-508 Gr 3 Cl 2.
Cylinder in a Cylindrical Socket—Table 33, Case 2c, Formulas
for Stress & Strain [6].
Transactions of the ASME
 Width of rectangular contact area:
bbª 1.60· 冑p · KD · CE bb= 4.354 in

Provides an explanation of Table 33 and the notation used. Stress:

Diameter of top cylinder: D2 ª 8.46· in ␴cmax ª 0.798· 冑 p

Poisson’s ratio for
the top cylinder:
Modulus of elasticity
for the top cylinder:
Diameter of bottom socket:
Poisson’s ratio for
the bottom socket:
Modulus of elasticity
for the bottom socket:
Loading:
Length of cylinder:
D2 · D1
KD ª
D1 − D2
1 − ␯21 1 − ␯22
CE ª + CE = 6.337⫻ 10−8
E1 E2
Load per unit length:
P lbf
pª
L in
KD · CE
␴cmax = 39354
lbf
in2
␯2 ª 0.3
With the UTS of SA-508 Gr 3 Cl 2 of 90000 psi, this is an
acceptable material for the lifting lug.
lbf Note: See Timoshenko 关5兴 and Sague 关9兴 for technique and
E2 ª 29.7· 106 ·
in2 formulas utilized above. 关ASME Paper Lifting Lug.mcd兴
D1 ª 8.543· in
␯1 ª 0.3
References
关1兴 U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
2002, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1926, Safety & Health
Regulations for Construction, Subpart 251, U. S. Government Printing Office,
lbf
E1 ª 27.8· 106 · Washington, DC.
in2 关2兴 Province of Alberta, Canada, 2000, Alberta Regulation 448/83, Occupational
Health & Safety Act, Queen’s Printer for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
P ª 1.54338⫻ 106 · lbf 关3兴 ASME, 1999, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME, New York, ASME
B30.20–1999.
L ª 11.50· in 关4兴 ASME, 2001, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Construction of
Pressure Vessels, Division 2-Alternate Rules, ASME, New York.
关5兴 Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N., 1970, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed.,
KD = 870.768 in McGraw-Hill, New York.
关6兴 Young, W. C., 1989, Roark’s Formulas for Stress & Strain, 6th ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York.
in2 关7兴 AWS, 1997, Specification for Welding Industrial and Mill Cranes & Other
lbf Material Handling Equipment, American Welding Society, Miami ANSI/AWS
D14.1–1997.
关8兴 Boresi, A. P., Sidebottom, O. M., Seely, F. B., and Smith, J. O., 1978, Ad-
vanced Mechanics of Materials, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York.
p = 1.342⫻ 105 关9兴 Sague, J. E., 1978, “The Special Way Big Bearings Can Fail,” Mach. Des.
50共21兲, 113–117.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 333

View publication stats