International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter

and heavy wall pressure vessels
Leslie P. Antalffy a, *, George A. Miller III a, Kenneth D. Kirkpatrick a, Anil Rajguru a,
Yong Zhu b
a
Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Houston, TX 77478, USA
b
Fluor China Engineering & Construction Co., Shanghai 201103, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure vessels require special
Available online xxx consideration to ensure that their attachment to their vessel shells or heads do not overstress the vessel
during the erection process when lifting these from grade onto their respective foundations. Today, in
Keywords: refinery and petrochemical services, large diameter vessels with diameters ranging up to 15 m and re-
Bolted top head lifting lugs actors with lifting weights in the range of 700e1400 tons are not uncommon. In today's fabrication
Welded lifting lugs
market, these vessels may be purchased and fabricated in shops dispersed globally and will require
Lifting trunnions
unique equipment for their safe handling, transportation and subsequent erection. The challenge is to
Tailing lugs
design the lifting attachments in such a manner that the attachments provide a safe, cost effective and
effective solution based upon the limitations of the job site lift equipment available for erection. Such
equipment for the transportation and subsequent lifting of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
equipment is usually scarce and quite expensive. Planning ahead, well in advance of the lift date is almost
a mandatory requirement.
Usually, the specific parameters of the vessel to be lifted and the lifting equipment available at the site
will dictate the type of lifting attachments to be designed for the vessel. Once the type of vessel
attachment has been chosen, careful consideration must be given to the design of attachments to the
pressure vessel in consideration to ensure that the vessel and lifting components are not overstressed
during the lifting process. The paper also discusses different types of lifting attachments that may be
attached to each end of the vessel either by bolting or welding and discusses the pros and cons of each.
The paper also provides an example of a finite element analysis (FEA) of a top nozzle, a FEA of a pair of
lifting trunnions and a FEA of welded on lifting lugs for buried pipe. The purpose of the paper is to outline
the effects on the vessel due to different types of lifting attachments in combination with the lifting
parameters. It is not the intent of the paper to provide guidance on lifting lug design.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the thick wall and large diameter thin wall vessels present their
own unique challenges for erection and must be given due
There can be a number of unique challenges in lifting heavy wall consideration in their design for safe and economical lift solution.
vessels onto their foundations. 700 ton hydrotreating reactors and In the U.S., ASME B30.20 “Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices” [1] and
1400 ton hydrodesulfurization reactors, similar to that shown in ASME BTH-1 “Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices” [2]
Fig. 1 are common in refinery service. Likewise, large diameter mandate the rules related to the implementation and design of
vessels such as coke drums, fractionators, FCCU regenerators and vessel lifting lugs.
the like with diameters in the range of 10e15 m and with thinner
walls in the range of 25e50 mm are also common. However, both 2. Lift attachments-bolt on and welded

In the initial pick of a vessel from its horizontal position to its

* Corresponding author. vertical position, two cranes are normally used, namely a top head
E-mail address: les.p.antalffy@fluor.com (L.P. Antalffy). crane and a tailing crane. The attachment to the vessel must be

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
0308-0161/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
2 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. 1. (a) Top flange lugs; (b) Top flange lugs.

properly selected for each lift. The stresses generated in the lifting
device and equipment must be evaluated for the imposed reactions
for the entire lifting process. The vessel designer must work closely
with the project rigging engineer in regard to the types of rigging
equipment and components such as slings, shackles, etc. The lifting
devices are broken down into 2 basic categories bolted and welded.

2.1. Bolt on lifting devices

Bolt on flange lugs are typically used on vessels where the

operating conditions make lugs or trunnions welded to the shell
undesirable. See Appendix A for an example of the analysis of a top
head nozzle and its reinforcement when using a bolt on lifting
device.

2.2. Top or bottom flange lug

Flange lugs are typically welded to a flat blind and bolted to the
top and bottom equipment flange. Heavy wall vessels are prime Fig. 2. Bottom flange lug.

candidates for top flange lugs where the vessel head, nozzle and
flange diameters and thicknesses are sufficient to take the large
usually employed on large diameter thinner wall vessels with sig-
loads during the lifting process without requiring significant
nificant lift loads, such as coke drums and FCCU reactors. Typically
modifications to the existing components. Typical examples of
trunnions are in the range of 1200 mme1500 mm in diameter.
flange lugs are found in lifting heavy wall vessels such as hydro-
Similar to the welded on head lugs, a spreader bar, as shown in
cracking and hydrotreating reactors. In Fig. 1, the top head lug
Fig. 5, is typically used with the trunnions so that the lift load is
utilizes a single and double lifting lug welded to the bolt on lifting
applied vertically on each trunnion.
cover which forms the base of the lifting lug. In Fig. 2 the lugs are
welded to the side of a large diameter bottom cover on a coke drum.
2.5. Weld on lifting devices
2.3. Side mounted top or bottom lugs
Welded on lugs are usually used on towers and columns where
Side mounted lugs are typically constructed of flat rolled plate the choice of lifting lugs is not dictated by operational conditions or
welded to the upper or lower shell section and they extend past the design conditions. See Figs. 3e5 and Appendices B and C for ex-
end of the equipment. Spreader bars are typically used to eliminate amples of an analysis of weld on lift devices.
any weak axis bending of the flat plate. Side mounted lugs transmit
the load to the shell through shear and axial load. Little bending is
created in the shell for this type of welded lug attachment. See 2.6. Skirt tailing lug
Figs. 3 and 4.
Skirt tailing lugs are typically an integral part of the vessel base
2.4. Top or bottom trunnions ring. The lug can be installed between the upper and lower base
rings or can be positioned above the base ring on the skirt. Either
Trunnions (pipe attached to the outside of the equipment) can single lug or dual lugs are provided based on the skirt/base ring
be either used for the top or bottom pick points. Trunnions are analysis. See Fig. 6.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10 3

Fig. 3. Side mounted top lugs.

Fig. 4. Bottom mounted side lugs.

Fig. 6. Skirt Tailing lug.

Fig. 5. Top Trunnions.

2.7. Bottom lift frame

A bottom lift frame is typically bolted to the bottom skirt. Bot- Fig. 7. Bottom lift frame.
tom lift frames can be fitted and reused for multiple lifts. See Fig. 7.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
4 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

3. Design considerations WRC-537 [3] and WRC-297 [4]. For thick vessels, such as those
found hydrocracking and hydrotreating reactors, the existing
The choice of the type of lifting lug to be used for the erection of nozzle neck and head thickness is usually sufficient to take stresses
a vessel is usually depends on many factors including the type of generated during the lift. For larger diameter thinner wall vessels
vessel, amount of dress out, thickness, diameter, weight, site con- the nozzle neck may be required to be thickened as well as utilizing
ditions, erection equipment. The choice of lug is may also be based a thicker circular central head insert plate. The insert plate thick-
on the limitations of the vessel design, including consideration of ness may end up having to be substantially thicker than the rest of
operating temperatures, post weld heat treatment, environmental the head plate. When a thicker head plate is required they are
factors, cyclic service and materials. Each type of lifting lug presents normally supplied with a 4:1 taper at the periphery of the insert
different challenges regarding the implementation of a safe design. plate to match the head thickness.

3.1. Welded on deviceseadvantages 3.5. Skirt stiffening

Unlike bolt on lifting devices, load testing is not required for the When using skirt tailing lugs, the skirt base plate system must
welded on lugs. be evaluated for the lift load and in many cases the skirt base ring

Welded lifting lug can readily be designed, fabricated and will most likely require stiffening in order that the pick load does
installed by fabricators. not overstress and distort the skirt. The skirt and base plate stiff-
ening may also be achieved with a bolt on device. Typical skirt
stiffening configurations are indicated in Fig. 8.
3.2. Welded on devicesedisadvantages

3.6. Device locations

For vessels in cyclic service or cold temperature service is that
the lug should be completely removed and the welded area
The location of the lugs or trunnions is critical when deter-
ground smooth free of any stress risers or defects.
mining the stresses in the equipment (see Fig. 9). If the bending

For elevated temperature service, welded lugs may act as cool-
stresses in the center of the vessel are excessive it might be ad-
ing fins, therefore they must be removed prior to operation.
vantageous to use trunnions and move the top lift point down on

If the vessel is post weld heat treated, the removal of welded
the vessel or move the tailing lug up. Moving the top lift point down
lugs has the potential to damage to the shell which is difficult to
will help reduce the bending stress in the center of the vessel.
repair.

For fracture critical equipment, a welded lug may provide a
source of local stress concentration and flaws. 3.7. On-site environmental considerations

Some shell materials dictate the amount of preheat prior to and As with all lifting lugs, consideration must be given to the timing
during welding that must be carefully maintained. This can be of the lift. Lifts performed during cold spells or cold climates must
difficult as lugs and trunnions are normally welded manually. Many
chrome moly welds have experienced cracking resulting from
incorrect preheat and in numerous cases these have only been
found after the welds have been removed.
When removing welded on lifting lugs great care must be taken
when cutting or grinding near the pressure boundary so that the
thickness required for pressure is not removed. The removal will
require adjacent platforms or scaffolding and, when the vessel is
insulated, subsequent insulation installation after device removal.

3.3. Bolted on deviceseadvantages

A bolt on device readily be removed and therefore does not

impact the operation of the equipment.

The flange lugs also provide a sturdy cover for shipping, and
eliminates the need to cut and/or grind off welded lugs or
trunnions.

Bolt on lift devices can be reused for multiple lifts.

3.4. Bolted on devicesedisadvantages

As required by ASME B30.20 “Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices”,

bolt on devices are required to be inspected prior to each lift and
must be load tested at 125% of the rated load. Because of the
magnitude of the loads, the load test can be difficult to achieve for
heavy walled vessels.
When lifting from a flange vessel and nozzle neck may need to
be reinforced to carry resist the design lift loads. The stresses must
be evaluated for the various combinations of the design load and
this is usually carried out by FEA or using manual calculations per Fig. 8. Typical base ring & lug arrangements.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10 5

adverse wind conditions. The limiting wind speed must be evalu-

ated on a case by case basis and typically is set near 30 kph
(19 mph).

3.10. ASME BTH-1 class

As indicated in a commentary of ASME BTH-1 “The selection of

Design Categories and Service Classes allow the strength and useful
life of the lifter to be matched to the needs of the user. A qualified
person or manufacturer must assure that the Design Category and
Service Class specified for a particular lifter are appropriate for the
intended use so as to provide a design with adequate structural
reliability and expected service life.”
Normally, for the lift of a vertical vessel the Design Category “A”
is considered and the Service Class is considered to be “0”. How-
ever, it is the responsibility of the designer to confirm that the
lifting device is within this category and service. (Category A as-
sumes the magnitude of the applied load is predictable and where
the loading and environmental conditions are defined and are not
severe. Service Class 0 assumes that the load cycles are less than
20,000). Where adverse environmental conditions prevail, the
design conditions must be evaluated and considered in the design.
For most vessels which are a “one time lift” and receive a full
vigorous evaluation of the lift process, these lifts are considered
Category “A”. This category only affects the design margin applied
Fig. 9. Bending moment diagrams for different device locations. to the below the hook lift components and selection of the impact
factor.

address the potential for a brittle fracture failure during lift. Typi-
4. Lug and equipment design criteria
cally a tough material is chosen to prevent facture. For cold climates
the lug may be post weld heat treated to lower the residual welding
Great care must be taken when determining the acceptability of
stress and be fully inspected to minimize the presence of flaws. Full
the “Lifting Device” and the “Equipment”. The design criteria and
non destructive examination (NDE) during fabrication and upon
limitations that are used for the Lifting Device and Equipment are
completion of post weld heat treatment (PWHT) is mandatory for a
not the same.
safe lift.
4.1. Lug or trunnion design
3.8. On-site weight considerations
In the U.S. the design of the below the hook components such as
When establishing the design loads for a lift, the first step is the lug itself, whether it is a bolt on lifting lug, a pair of welded
establish the weight of the equipment to be lifted, In the past this lifting lugs, a pair of lifting trunnions or tailing lugs is based on
usually meant lifting of the vessel without any additional weight ASME B30.20, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices. As commented in
due to the internals (such as packing, trays, support beams) or the Standard, “ASME BTH-1 provides the design requirements for
external attachments (such as insulation, pipe supports, platforms), the lift component. As such, BTH-1 should be used in conjunction
however, today due to the high cost and risk of performing work at with ASME B30.20, which addresses safety requirements. The
elevation, vessels are typically dressed out to some degree. This has design criteria set forth are minimum requirements that may be
resulted in higher lift loads at the job site. In many cases the weight increased at the discretion of the qualified designer.
of the lift will be decided by the available equipment and the access Components meeting the definition of “Below-the Hook Lifting
at the job site. In some rare cases, the lift weight limitation may Devices” are designed in accordance with ASME B30.20 and also
have to be included in the original design of the equipment. ASME BTH-1and these standards are usually used as guides for the
Depending on the method of calculation the lift weight a weight design of lifting components which do not meet the definitions of
factor should be applied to account for the accuracy of the calcu- “Below-the Hook Lifting Devices”. However, for the erection of
lation. Typically a 5e10% factor is applied to the weight based on vertical vessels components required for the lift will normally meet
the lift weight. If the equipment is weighed using load cells, no lift the definition for “Below-the Hook Lifting Devices”.
factor is applied. For the bolt on lifting lugs the design of the lug, and bolting for
bending, tensile, fracture, shear (tear out) and bearing stresses in
3.9. On-site lift considerations the lug components and attachment welds are carried out in
accordance with the rules of ASME BTH-1.
Careful attention must be provided to potential interference The Impact Factor is included in the design category and an
when vessels are dressed out on the ground. Piping, platforms, and additional impact factor is not applied to the lift load when using
insulation may need to be left off so that there is no interference the calculations provided in ASME BTH-1.
with rigging equipment and cables.
Typically wind is not a design consideration during the lift, but 4.2. Vessel or equipment design
wind conditions that may be encountered during lifting and their
effect should be considered. Normally a wind speed limit is set A vessel lifting analysis is required to be carried out as the vessel
above which the lift of vessels will not be undertaken under is being lifted from its horizontal position to its vertical position.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
6 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

The analysis is carried out typically at 10 increments form the

horizontal to the vertical positions. The first part of the analysis is to
determine the load at the top and bottom lift points based on the
specific location (see Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 provides a typical indication of the variation of the unit
load on the top lug and tailing lug as the vessel is lifted from its
horizontal to its vertical position.
The analyses is intended to check the acceptability of each
component during the lift, such components include but are not
limited to the following: nozzle necks, vessel shell, local rein-
forcement, welded on stiffeners etc. The local and gross stresses
(tensile & compressive) and deformations in the shell, nozzle, head,
skirt and base ring must also be checked for acceptability during
the lift process. The main purpose of the check is to ensure that the
vessel shell and skirt will not distort, yield or buckle from the
imposed loads during the lift. Fig. 11. Load per lug versus angle.
Some owners require that the membrane plus bending stresses
be limited to the minimum yield stress (Sy) as specified in Section II During a lift there is a potential for a shock load. This is typically
part D of the ASME Code [6]. The suggested limits shown below for based on the lift equipment capabilities. Based on the historical
local membrane and bending stress at a lug attachment are used to data provided in ASME BTH-1, a suggested value for an actual lift
prevent yielding and distortion, but account for the fact that the impact factor is 1.35. This factor accounts for approximately 97% of
actual material yield is higher than the specified minimum. all category “A” lifts. Many times clients will specify an “impact”
Therefore a 10% increase in minimum yield stress for the allowable factor for their equipment. An impact factor has little meaning
local membrane and bending stress is suggested. The local mem- unless the acceptance criteria is tied to that impact factor. The
brane stress is limited to 90% of yield, however, for most designs the suggested acceptance criteria for local stress determination in the
local bending is the dominant behavior for lifting. These stress pressure equipment is based on using an impact factor of 1.35. This
limits are associated with an actual impact factor of 1.35 which is provides the necessary margin to prevent overload, and the stress
based on the lift historical data included in ASME BTH-1. The levels prevent yielding and any permanent distortion.
allowable stress limits and the impact factor must be compatible to
achieve the desired results.
5. Conclusions

4.3. Recommended limitations Many factors must be taken into consideration when making the
selection of the type of lift arrangement to be used for a particular
(1) Local or general membrane stress limited to 0.9xFy piece of equipment. Not only must the limitations of the available
(2) Local or general membrane plus bending stress limited to lifting equipment and/or limited access at the job site be consid-
1.1  Fy ered, but the foremost consideration is first of all the protection of
(3) The compressive membrane stress is limited to the personnel followed by the protection of the pressure equipment
Maximum Longitudinal or Circumferential Compressive against damage during the lift process and subsequent operation.
Stress as defined in ASME Section VIII [5]. Careful consideration must be made of the impact of welded on
lugs or trunnions with respect to the safe operation of the partic-
ular piece of equipment.

Appendix A

The following is an example of an FEA of a top nozzle for lifting

loads. The purpose of the analysis is minimize the thickness and
diameter of reinforcement.
The following criteria are included in this analysis.

Lift Weight ¼ 420,000 kg (925,942 lb)

Weight Factor ¼ 1.03(weighed)
Impact Factor ¼ 1.35
Material Yield ¼ 275 MPa (39.9 ksi)
Design Lift Weight ¼ 5728 kN (1,287,522 lbf)

The flange lug is not modeled but a rigid restraint is assumed

and the loads are applied at proper elevation based on the lug di-
mensions. Two load cases have been evaluated. The first load case is
the full horizontal position which results in worst bending stress in
shell, and the second is in the vertical position when the flange lug
carries the full lift weight. ANSYS general purpose finite element
software is used for the analysis.
The local stresses in the shell are evaluated based on the sug-
Fig. 10. Vessel lifting analysis. gested limits previously discussed in the paper.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10 7

The results are shown in Table A1.1 & A1.2. The stresses at the
juncture are linearized to compare with the 0.9 Yield for membrane
and the 1.1 Yield for the membrane and bending (Material yield is
determined from Ref. [6], typical for each Appendix). As can be seen
the bending is dominant in both load cases.

Conclusion:

The local stresses are all within acceptable limits.

Table A1.1
Summary of Results.

LC Position Linearized results, MPa Defl, mm

Mem. All. MþB All.

1 Vert. 42.3 247.5 205.3 302.5 7.5

2 Horiz. 37.5 247.5 242.9 302.5 8.2
Fig. A1.3. Displacement for Vertical Lift Position (mm).

Table A1.2
Summary of Results.

LC Position Linearized results, ksi Defl, in

Mem. All. MþB All.

1 Vert. 6.1 35.9 29.8 43.9 7.5

2 Horiz. 5.4 35.9 35.2 43.9 8.2

Fig. A1.4. Von Mises Stress for Vertical Lift Position (Mpa).

Fig. A1.1.. FEA Model of Top Head and Nozzle (solid).

Fig. A1.5. Displacement for Horizontal Lift Position (mm).

Fig. A1.2. Top Nozzle and Local Head Reinforcement.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
8 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. A1.6. von Mises Stress for Horizontal Lift Position (MPa).

Fig. 2.1. Typical Trunnion Detail.

Appendix B

The following is an example of an FEA of a Trunnion used for

lifting. The purpose of the analysis is verify the acceptability of a
proposed design.
The following criteria are included in this analysis.

Lift Weight ¼ 606,050 kgf (1,336,112 lbf)

Weight Factor ¼ included in specified weight
Fig. A2.2. Finite Element Model of Trunnion (solid).
Impact Factor ¼ 1.35.
Material Yield ¼ 262 MPa (39.9 ksi).
Design Lift Weight ¼ 818,168 kgf (1,803,752 lbf).
Vertical Load on Trunnion ¼ 409,084 kgf (901,875 lbf).

A 3D solid model is used to verify acceptability of the trunnion

for the defined loading. The solid model includes the trunnion, pad,
shell, and stiffener rings. Contacts are used between the pad and
shell to simulate the correct behavior. Only the vertical lift is
analyzed since this is the critical lift position for the trunnion.
ANSYS general purpose finite element software is used for the
analysis. The pad to shell weld is checked using classic methods.
The local stresses in the shell are evaluated based on the sug-
gested limits previously discussed in the paper.
The results are shown in Table A2.1 & A2.2. The stresses at the
juncture are linearized to compare with the 0.9 Yield for membrane
and the 1.1 Yield for the membrane and bending.

Conclusion

The local stresses are all within acceptable limits.

Fig. A2.3. Trunnion/Pad/Shell Juncture.

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10 9

Weight Factor ¼ 1.125 (tolerance wall thickness)

Impact Factor ¼ 1.35
Material Yield ¼ 262 MPa (38.0 ksi)
Design Lift Weight ¼ 47,028 kgf (103,688 lbf)
Load on Lug ¼ 27,024 kgf (59,578 lbf).

A 3D solid model is used to verify acceptability of the welded

lugs for the defined loading. A beam model is used to evaluate the
lug loads as shown in Figure A3.1. The plate shell model includes
the lug, and pipe shell. Only the horizontal lift is analyzed. ANSYS
general purpose finite element software is used for the analysis.
The welds are checked using classic methods.
The local stresses in the pipe shell are evaluated based on the
suggested limits previously discussed in the paper.
The results are shown in Table A3.1 & A3.2. The stresses at the
juncture are linearized to compare with the 0.9 Yield for membrane
and the 1.1 Yield for the membrane and bending. The ovalization of
the pipe during lift creates considerable local bending stresses at
the lug. This ovalization is not accounted for using classical
Fig. A2.4. Displaced Shape at Trunnion/Shell/Pad (mm). methods of to check local stress at the lugs such as WRC-537.

Conclusion

The local stresses which are above yield for this material are
very isolated to the tips of the gusset plates. The overall membrane
and bending stress are well below the 288.2 MPa (41.8 ksi) limit for
membrane and bending.

Fig. A2.5. von Mises Stress Trunnion/Shell/Pad (MPa). Fig. A3.1. Beam Model for Load in Welded lugs.

Table A2.1
Summary of Results

Lift load Juncture (M þ B) Allowable Reference

409,084 kgf 277.3 MPa 288.2 MPa Figure#4

Table A2.2
Summary of Results

Lift load Juncture (M þ B) Allowable Reference

901,875 lbf 40,200 psi 41,800 psi Figure#4

Appendix C

The following is an example of an FEA of a welded on lifting lug

used to place buried pipe. The lugs are designed to support 800 of
108 in diameter standard wall pipe. Two lugs are used with a sling
angle near 60 . The purpose of the analysis is verify the accept-
ability of a proposed design. Fig. A3.2. FEA Model of Pipe and Lug.
The following criteria are included in this analysis.

Lift Weight ¼ 31,352 kgf (69,120 lbf)

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020
10 L.P. Antalffy et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. A3.7. von Mises Stress on Inside Surface (psi).

Fig. A3.4. Close Up of Welded Lug.

Table A3.1
Summary of Results

Position Linearized results MPa Defl mm

Mem. All. MþB All.

Horiz. 98.6 235.8 242.9 288.2 30.5

Table A3.2
Summary of Results

Position Linearized results, ksi Defl in

Mem. All. MþB All.

Horiz. 14.3 34.2 38.0 41.8 1.2

Fig. 3.5. Displacements e Ovality of Pipe (mm).

References

[1] ASME B30.20, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, New York, New York.
[2] ASME BTH-1-2011, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
[3] WRC-537 (WRC-107), Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to
External Loads, Welding Research Council, New York, New York.
[4] WRC-297, Supplement to Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, Welding
Research Council, New York, New York.
[6] ASME Section II Part D Pressure Vessel Code 2014, American Society of Me-
chanical Engineers, New York, NY.

Further reading

[5] ASME Section VIII Divisions 1, 2 and 3 Pressure Vessel Codes 2014, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.

Fig. A3.6. von Mises Stress on Outside Surface (psi).

Please cite this article in press as: L.P. Antalffy, et al., The design of lifting attachments for the erection of large diameter and heavy wall pressure
vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.020