Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/245364851
Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20
CITATIONS READS
3 1,518
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 08 December 2015.
Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel must try to protect during the design phase of a vessel lifting lug.
Second, the approach selects a failure criteria from those com-
Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20 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
Dennis K. Williams failure defined in the first step of the basic approach. Third, the
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A. method adopts an “achievable” factor of safety based on the cho-
P.O. Box 1336, sen failure theory from step two of the approach and applies the
1153 Willow Oaks Trail, FOS against the respective “failure” stress. Finally, a well-defined
design criterion for vessel lifting lugs is outlined based on the
Matthews, NC 28106-1336 basic approach presented herein and applied to the statutory and
e-mail: DennisKW@sharoden.com provincial regulations contained within 29CFR1926 共OSHA regu-
lations兲 关1兴 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the
This paper describes a method for evaluating the structural ad- Province of Alberta, Canada 关2兴.
equacy of various lifting lugs utilized in the erection and up right- The purpose of this paper is to provide technical insight into the
ing of large pressure vessels. In addition, the analysis techniques applied mechanics evaluation of an exemplar pressure vessel lift-
are described in detail and design guidelines for vessel lifting are ing lug and proposed design criteria in lieu of the limited “design”
tendered. The statutory and provincial regulations in both the requirements contained within ASME B30.20 关3兴. The current
United States and the province of Alberta, Canada are also re- work is restricted to the evaluation of the lug in the vicinity of the
viewed and discussed with respect to the too often utilized phrase lifting pin. The subject lifting lug of this paper is one whose
“factor of safety” (FOS). The implied implications derived from design load capacity is 700 metric tons 共⬃1,544,000 lbf兲. This
the chosen FOS are also outlined. A discussion is presented as to load capacity is not uncommon in the petroleum refinery industry
the applicability of the ASME safety standard B30.20 entitled, for a number of specialty types of ASME B&PV Code, Section
“Below the Hook Lifting Devices” (1999, ASME, New York) and VIII 关4兴 reactor vessels. On many project designs, there are at
as to the severe shortcomings of the safety standard in its attempt least two types of imposed design bases for the lifting and han-
to delve into the design of lifting devices, especially when applied dling equipment. The first of these design bases is an internally
to lifting lugs on large and heavy-weight pressure vessels. Exem- generated or self-imposed design basis. The second of these de-
plar lugs on vessels are defined and the finite element analyses sign bases is one that may be classified as externally generated
and closed form Hertzian contact problem solutions are presented design basis. For purposes of this discussion, “internal” and “ex-
and interpreted in accordance with the proposed design criteria. ternal” refer to an organization within the design engineering or-
These results are compared against the very limited design infor- ganization 共hence internal兲 or to an outside authority having juris-
mation contained within ASME B30.20. Suggestions for the revi- diction 共hence external兲.
sion and applicability of the safety standard are presented and The internal design basis for the lifting lug can further be de-
discussed in light of the examples and technical justification pre- fined by either internally generated design and analysis criteria or
sented in the following paragraphs. In addition, the silence of this by externally generated codes and safety standards. The internally
safety standard on the very large contact stresses that are well generated criteria most often attempt to define an “allowable” set
known to exist between a lifting pin and clevis type geometry is of component stresses that restrict the computed bending, bearing,
also discussed. Because of the limited number of repetitive load- and shear stresses within the lifting lug critical sections as deter-
ing cycles that vessel lifting lugs actually experience during the mined by both experience and empirical data. Although there are
service life of a vessel, a recommendation is made to either clearly no uniform set of criteria among the numerous engineering design
exclude vessel lifting lugs from the scope of ASME B30.20 or to professionals throughout the U.S. and Canada, it is this author’s
specifically include a separate design and analysis section within experience that one guideline, which is often quoted, is the limi-
this standard to properly address the mechanical and structural tation of the bending stress to one third of the yield strength of the
design issues applicable to pressure vessel lifting lugs. lug material 共assuming a one-piece forged design兲. The additional
关DOI: 10.1115/1.2716439兴 component stresses and the associated allowable stressess vary
widely across-the-board, depending on the particular design engi-
Introduction neering group and their given experience. The externally gener-
The basic approach of the current study is to first define the ated or imposed “design” standard on lifting lugs often falls on the
mode of failure against which any design criteria and/or standard 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-
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication ing organizations in attempting to utilize the “design” criteria con-
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 23,
2006; final manuscript received September 7, 2006. Review conducted by David Raj.
tained therein and the inherent pitfalls of such a practice,
Paper presented at the 2002 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference particularly when applied to large lifting lugs for pressure vessels.
共PVP2002兲, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 5–9, 2002. The second major group of design basis criteria originates from
326 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Copyright © 2007 by ASME Transactions of the ASME
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-
Fig. 1 Lifting-lug geometry
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-
an outside source and most often takes the form of regulatory ticular, paragraph 20-1.1.1 entitled “General Construction,” out-
requirements defined by federal, state, and/or provincial authori- lines the “design” requirements for a lifter as follows:
ties having jurisdiction. For the purposes of this paper, only the “The load bearing structural components of a lifter shall be
regulations imposed in the U.S. and the Province of Alberta, designed to withstand stresses imposed by its rated load plus the
Canada are discussed, although the subject discussion is one that weight of the lifter, with a minimum design factor of three, based
has universal implications. This becomes even more apparent as upon yield strength of the material, and with stress ranges that do
fabricators across the globe are providing ASME Code 关4兴 pres- not exceed the values given in ANSI/AWS D14.1 [7] for the appli-
sure vessels intended for installation in both the U.S. and Canada. cable conditions” [3].
The specific design lifting requirements imposed by the U.S. De- Before proceeding, there are several observations that must be
partment of Labor, 29CFR1926 共OSHA regulations兲 关1兴 are out- highlighted concerning the preceding design requirement. First,
lined and the implementation of a 5 to 1 “factor of safety” 共FOS兲 the placement of a “design requirement” under the heading of
is also explored. Finally, the Provincial Regulations contained “Construction” is not consistent with the organization of many
within the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the Province of other ASME Codes and Standards 关4兴 in that design criteria are
Alberta, Canada 关2兴 are also reviewed and discussed with further clearly labeled as such and are also segregated from the construc-
interpretation of a very specific five-to-one factor of safety on the tion 共i.e., fabrication兲 requirements. Second, the design require-
ultimate tensile strength of the chosen lug material. ment contained within the referenced Standard 关3兴 only gives the
The analysis of the 700 metric ton lifting lug is conducted in engineer a very vague idea 共at best兲 as to which particular com-
two separate manners. The first is the analysis and prediction of puted stresses must be compared against essentially the material’s
the contact stresses, the general stress field within the critical sec- yield stress divided by three. Third, the choice of an “allowable”
tions of the lug, and the associated contact area between a close stress of sorts by the Standard 关3兴 that is based on yield implies
tolerance fitting lifting bolt/pin utilizing the techniques presented some sort of “failure criteria” that would preclude the initiation of
by Timoshenko and Goodier in the Theory of Elasticity 关5兴 and yielding within the lug material when subjected to its maximum
summarized for direct application by Young 关6兴. The lug geometry rated load. Fourth, the selection of a yield based failure criteria
itself is a simple clevis type design of uniform thickness as shown would most likely also imply that the anticipated failure mode
in Fig. 1. The second analysis utilizes the finite element method to would be one of a ductile nature 共of course assuming the selection
analyze the effects of the contact stresses within the lug and also of a linear, elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic lug material兲.
utilizes the calculated results to serve as a basis for the proposed Fifth, the utilization of a large capacity vessel lifting lug will
lug design criteria. The proposed lug design criteria must achieve typically only be subjected to a very limited number of “lift
two goals. The first is to ensure a safe and practical design. The cycles,” as once the vessel is moved from the fabricator’s shop
second is to provide a design that is in full compliance with the and uprighted in the field, it generally is there for the remainder of
defined regulatory requirements defined herein. The technical its intended design life. Finally, the subject design problem clearly
bases for achieving this two-fold objective are outlined in the involves contact stresses between a shackle pin and a clevis hole,
paragraphs that follow. 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
ASME B30.20: Below the Hook Lifting Devices other regulatory requirements that are explored in some detail in
the paragraphs that follow.
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, OSHA Rigging Equipment Regulations in the United
advancement in techniques, and the general interest of labor and
industry in safety, an American National Standards Committee States
was formed under the joint sponsorship of ASME and Naval Fa- The U.S. Department of Labor, through the regulations speci-
cilities Engineering Command 共ASME 关3兴兲. According to the fied by its Occupational Health and Safety Administration
foreword provided within ASME B30.20 关3兴, the Standard pre- 共OSHA兲, specifies the general safety requirements for rigging
sents a coordinated set of rules that may serve as a guide to gov- equipment for material handling. Throughout the U.S. Code of
ernment and other regulatory bodies responsible for the “guarding Federal Regulations 共CFR兲, numerous references are made to
and inspection” of the equipment falling within its scope. Further- slings, wire rope, hooks, shackles, and other forms of material
more, the foreword to the referenced ASME Standard 关3兴 urges handling and other forms of lifting equipment 关1兴. In particular,
administrative and regulatory agencies to “consult the B30 Com- the regulations that are of most importance during the uprighting
mittee” prior to rendering decisions on disputed points. The fore- and lifting of a pressure vessel are found in Title 29, Part 1926,
equates to a half angle from top dead center of ⬃30 deg for the Tresca’s criterion states that inelastic action in any point in a
contact area. This value is and can be utilized in a more detailed part initiates when the computed maximum shearing stress
finite element analysis of the lifting lug and represents the angular reaches one-half of the material’s yield strength. Although the
dimension over which the lifting load may be applied. 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
Classical Failure Theories and the Mystery of the Uli- would be limited to no more than 32,500 psi prior to the applica-
mate Factor of Safety tion of any FOS.
Clearly in the design and analysis of a lifting lug for a vessel The maximum octahedral shear stress failure theory states that
that weighs 700 metric tons, the engineer must have an excep- inelastic action in any point in a part initiates when the computed
tional understanding of the possible ways by which the lug may octahedral shearing stress reaches 0.471 times the material’s yield
fail to perform its function. In determining the possible modes of strength. In many ductile materials utilized within the pressure
failure, the engineer must also establish the failure criteria by vessel industry, the octahedral shearing stress criterion predicts the
which the design will be judged. In the present study, the modes initiation of yield better and with less conservatism than does the
of failure for the lug must include not only the common static Tresca criterion. For the problem at hand, the maximum octahe-
causes, such as bending, shear, and bearing, but also the effects of dral shearing stress would be limited to no more than 30,641 psi
a dynamic or shock loading due to the lift itself. It is this consid- prior to the application of any FOS.
eration of a potential dynamic load 共generated as a result of the The maximum principal failure theory is one that may be easily
sudden loss of tension in a cable or sling兲 that drives the need for employed to establish either the initiation of yield for a brittle
some form of a FOS to be employed to the applied static load or material or one that may be employed to establish a guard against
resulting computed stress. Furthermore, the selection of a failure fracture through the use of the ultimate tensile strength 共UTS兲 and
criteria for the lifting lug must be predicated based on this dy- an imposed FOS. In fact, even though the chosen material for a
namic load consideration and not the initiation of yield per se, as vessel lifting lug should be one of high ductility and possess good
the lug will only be utilized a very few number of times in its impact properties, the failure mechanism due to a sudden accel-
design life 共i.e., certainly no more than ten times兲. As will be eration 共i.e., a dynamic load兲 in most cases will be one of a brittle
shown, it is not only the mere specification of a single FOS but nature. Therefore, Rankine’s criterion, when modified to utilize
also the failure criterion that determines the ultimate factor of the UTS, provides both an easy to use criterion and one that is
safety of a given lifting lug design. consistent with the expected mode of failure. For the problem at
Boresi 关8兴 states, “There is considerable but not necessarily hand, the maximum principal stress would be limited to 90,000 psi
conclusive evidence…that when a member fails by general yield- divided by the chosen FOS. This also implies that the minimum
ing at ordinary temperatures, the significant quantity associated principal stress must be addressed as a separate matter. This is
with the failure is shearing stress.” Two of the most widely uti- because the failure mode that must be guarded against is one, first
lized failure criteria that address general yielding include the and foremost, that would be tensile in nature and tend to open any
maximum shearing stress 共Tresca’s criterion兲 and the maximum preexisting cracks in the lifting lug material.
octahedral stress 共von Mises criterion兲 theories. A third criterion to
be considered is the maximum principal stress theory of failure Criteria for Consideration in the Design and Analysis of
共Rankine’s criterion兲. Before proceeding, however, the engineer
must remember that in a uniaxial state of stress, the critical “fail- Pressure Vessel Lifting Lugs
ure” values for each of the defined theories are achieved simulta- In an effort to more fully understand the stress field within the
neously in a simple tensile test. 700 metric tons lifting lug, a finite element analysis was per-
formed. The lug geometry was as shown in Fig. 1, and the refined the proximity of the contact load application. It is recognized that
element mesh was as shown in Fig. 2. The base of the lug was the subject lifting lug design would have a much higher load
fixed against translation in all three coordinate directions, as the carrying capacity than that predicted by this criterion due to the
elements chosen to model the geometry were a three-dimensional strain hardening capacity of the chosen forging material.
solid with three-degrees of freedom at each node 共i.e., translations The calculated equivalent stress 共i.e., von Mises兲 as shown in
in the x, y, and z directions兲. The 700 metric tons load was evenly Fig. 4 is ⬃69,194 psi. When compared to the equivalent allow-
distributed within a 30 deg half angle from top dead center on able stress of 1.0 times yield 共i.e., 65,000 psi兲, this represents an
each side of the symmetry plane and continued through the thick- overage of ⬃6.5% without employing any factor of safety. As the
ness of the lifting lug. The chosen contact area was confirmed distance from the applied contact load increases, the stress contour
independently by the calculations presented in Appendix A of this reveals that an overall maximum equivalent stress throughout the
paper, which was previously discussed. Several mesh densities body of the lifting lug quickly decreases to a value of
were employed until the stress results converged to within 3% of ⬃23,100– 30,800 psi. In order to fully evaluate the FOS for this
the more course mesh density. criterion, these values must be compared to the one times yield,
The results of the finite element analysis were decomposed into which results in a FOS of as low as 2.11 on the initiation of yield
all of the constituent component stresses. In addition, the results
a short distance away from the proximity of the contact load ap-
were also reviewed in light of the three failure criteria previously
plication. As before, it is recognized that the subject lifting lug
defined and outlined above. The stress contours showing the cal-
design would have a much higher load carrying capacity than that
culated maximum stress intensities 共i.e., twice the value of the
predicted by this criterion due to the strain hardening capacity of
maximum shear stresses兲, the von Mises stresses and the maxi-
mum principal stresses are included in Figs. 3–5, respectively. All the chosen forging material.
of the contours reflect a highly concentrated respective combined The calculated maximum principal stress as shown in Fig. 5 is
stress at the geometric discontinuity between the lug hole bore and ⬃53,276 psi. When compared to the equivalent allowable stress
orthogonal outside surface. This is both attributed to the contact of 1.0 times yield 共i.e., 65,000 psi兲, this represents a margin of
load discontinuity and the reality of the geometric/load combina- ⬃18% without employing any factor of safety. As the distance
tion. This area is very small and is not anticipated to reflect the from the applied contact load increases, the stress contour reveals
overall load carrying capacity of the lug, regardless of the failure that an overall maximum principal stress throughout the body of
criterion employed. the lifting lug quickly decreases to a value of ⬃16,400 psi. In
The calculated maximum shear stress as shown in Fig. 3 is order to fully evaluate the FOS for this criterion, these values may
⬃40,000 psi 共i.e., one-half of the calculated stress intensity兲. be compared to the one-time yield, which results in a FOS of
When compared to the Tresca criterion allowable stress of one- ⬃3.96 on the initiation of yield. As stated previously however,
half of yield 共i.e., 32,500 psi兲, this represents an overage of ⬃25% this is not a good predictor of yield and is most well suited for use
without employing any factor of safety. As the distance from the with the ultimate tensile strength in this case. Proceeding on this
applied contact load increases, the stress contour reveals that an basis, these values must be compared to the UTS, which results in
overall maximum shear stress throughout the body of the lifting a FOS of ⬃5.49 on the ultimate failure load 共assuming totally
lug quickly decreases to a value of ⬃13,400– 17,800 psi. In order elastic response, which is a conservative predictor兲. In contrast,
to fully evaluate the FOS for this criterion, these values must be the calculated minimum principal stress, as shown in Fig. 6, is
compared to one-half of the yield, which results in a FOS of as found to be approximately −61,292 psi, which is reflective of the
low as 1.82 on the initiation of yield a short distance away from compressive contact stress between the lifting pin and lug hole.
Again it is recognized that the subject lifting lug design would ria should be utilized. Although attempts by the ASME B30.20
have a much higher load carrying capacity than that predicted by Safety Standard highlights the use of a one-third yield criterion,
this criterion due to the reasons previously stated. there is no single published failure criterion known to this author
Based on the results of the detailed finite element analysis of that can address all of the aspects of the lug design with this
the 700 metric ton lifting lug, the following design criterion is method. In this author’s opinion, the simple limitation of a single
tendered for consideration. First, in an effort to align the chosen type of component stress 共for example, a bending stress兲 to some
failure criterion with the most significant mode of failure 共i.e., allowable value hardly defines a failure criterion for use in the
from a dynamic load兲, the maximum principal stress failure crite- current or future design of lifting lugs. Furthermore, applying this
limitation 共i.e., the one-third yield criterion兲 on the compressive be applied to lifting lugs for large and heavyweight pressure ves-
stresses present in the contact area, simply does not work nor will sels in future design standards. Because of the limited number of
it work in a triaxial state of stress. Second, in conjunction with the repetitive loading cycles that vessel lifting lugs actually experi-
chosen criterion, the maximum principal stresses should be calcu- ence during the service life of a vessel, a recommendation is made
lated for the given working load and lug geometry. The load to either clearly exclude vessel lifting lugs from the scope of
should be distributed over a contact area as determined by either ASME B30.20 关3兴 or to address the design aspects in a separate
an acceptable contact stress technique such as that presented in standard to be developed at a later date. Based on the results
Appendix A or by a nonlinear finite element contact stress analysis presented herein, it is hoped that a more realistic assessment of the
procedure. The resulting maximum principal stresses in the body failure modes and the proper selection of a failure criterion will be
of the lug that are located slightly beyond the area of load appli- further studied and revised as necessary by the ASME B30.20
cation should then be compared to an allowable stress value equal Committee, thereby leaving less to chance for the less experienced
to 20% of the UTS of the lug material. This will be consistent design engineer of rigging and materials handling equipment.
with both domestic and Canadian regulations regarding the imple-
mentation of a well defined FOS of 5 on fracture and ultimate Nomenclature
breaking strength. Finally, the minimum principal stresses should
CE ⫽ material constant for contacting bodies
be computed and compared to simply one times the specified
minimum yield strength of the lug material. This allowable is D1 ⫽ diameter of lifting lug hole
consistent with those specified in other ASME Codes 关4兴 and the D2 ⫽ diameter of lifting 共shackle兲 pin
compressive stresses do not pose the same crack opening hazard E1 ⫽ modulus of elasticity for lifting lug
found in purely tensile stresses. Utilizing this method of analysis E2 ⫽ modulus of elasticity for lifting 共shackle兲 pin
not only achieves a clear utilization of a highly recognized FOS, KD ⫽ geometric constant for contacting bodies
but also addresses the issue of contact stresses about which the L ⫽ length of contact; thickness of lifting lug
Regulations and Standards identified herein have remained for- P ⫽ load to be lifted; maximum safe working load
ever silent. bb ⫽ width of rectangular contact area
p ⫽ load per unit length of contact
1 ⫽ Poisson’s ratio for lifting lug
Summary and Conclusions
2 ⫽ Poisson’s ratio for lifting 共shackle兲 pin
A method for evaluating the structural adequacy of various lift- cmax ⫽ maximum calculated contact stress
ing lugs utilized in the erection and uprighting of large pressure
vessels was presented. The analysis techniques were described in Appendix A: A Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel
detail and design guidelines for vessel lifting lugs were tendered. Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20
The statutory and provincial regulations in both the United States
and the province of Alberta, Canada, were also reviewed and dis- First, we will evaluate the contact stresses in the lifting lug
cussed with respect to the too often utilized phrase “factor of based upon the one-fifth of the ultimate tensile strength design
safety” 共FOS兲. Hopefully, the introduction of a clearly defined criteria contained within the Alberta OS&H Act.
FOS of 5, when utilized with the maximum principal stress failure Lifting Cover Contact Stresses, SA-508 Gr 3 Cl 2.
criterion, will serve as a constructive criticism to the very limited
design criterion given in the current ASME safety standard Cylinder in a Cylindrical Socket—Table 33, Case 2c, Formulas
B30.20 关3兴 entitled, “Below the Hook Lifting Devices” and may for Stress & Strain [6].