Design Category and Service Class Selection

for Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

David Duerr, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers has published a new standard for the design of below-the-hook lifting devices.
This standard defines design requirements for lifting devices used in construction and general industry in conjunction with cranes,
derricks, and other types of hoisting equipment. The standard establishes two design categories and five service classes that define certain
requirements for the design of lifting devices. The design category relates to the expected usage of the lifter and the service class guides
the design with respect to fatigue life assessment. Successful use of this design standard requires that designers, manufacturers, purchasers, and users of lifting devices all understand the meanings of these design categories and service classes and apply that understanding
to the proper specification of lifter design requirements. This paper provides an extended discussion of the design category and service
class definitions and provides guidance to purchasers and users of below-the-hook lifting devices in specifying the correct design category
and service class.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1084-0680200813:243
CE Database subject headings: Allowable stress design; Cranes; Design; Lifting; Safety.

Introduction
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME has
published a new standard for the design of below-the-hook lifting
devices ASME 2006; hereafter BTH-1. This standard defines
requirements for structural and mechanical design and the selection of electrical components for lifting devices used in construction and general industry in conjunction with cranes, derricks, and
other hoisting equipment.
BTH-1 Chapter 2 defines two design categories and five service classes that establish certain requirements for the design of
lifting devices. The design category relates to the expected usage
of the lifter and the service class guides the design with respect to
fatigue life assessment. Although these may appear to be just
design issues, purchasers and users of below-the-hook lifting devices must understand these lifter classifications to assure that the
right product is purchased and that lifters are not used in improper
conditions or service.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an extended discussion
of the BTH-1 design category and service class definitions and to
provide guidance to purchasers and users of below-the-hook lifting devices in specifying the correct category and class.

Design Category
Design Category A is defined in BTH-1 as applicable to lifting
devices for which the magnitudes and variations of the loads
1

President, 2DM Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 9235 Katy

Freeway, Suite 350, Houston, TX 77024-1526. E-mail: duerr@2dm.us
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April 18, 2006; approved on February 8, 2007. This
paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 1, 2008. ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/2008/
2-4347/$25.00.

applied to the lifting device are predictable and loading and

environmental conditions are accurately defined or not severe.
Characteristics of the lifting applications appropriate to the assumptions of Design Category A include lifting at slow or
moderate speeds under the control of an experienced crane operator. The discussion in the commentary paragraphs in BTH-1
Chapter 2 also cites the importance of the lifting device being
well maintained.
Design Category B is defined in BTH-1 as applicable to lifting
devices for which the magnitudes and variations of the loads
are not predictable and where the loading and environmental
conditions are severe or not accurately defined. Characteristics
of the lifting applications appropriate to the assumptions of Design Category B include lifts made under adverse, less controlled
conditions.
Both of these definitions can be cast in terms of work locations
to provide more familiar reference points. Lifting devices used
in construction will often fall into Design Category A. Lifting
operations on construction sites are performed primarily with
mobile cranes and tower cranes. These cranes are capable of accelerating and decelerating a load with great control, the weights
of the items being handled are generally known reliably, the current trend of crane operator certification assures that the operators
will be appropriately skilled, and there is a general sense of care
at work. Even in situations where a lifter is used to make numerous lifts per day, such as in steel or precast concrete erection, the
loads are handled smoothly and the likelihood of extreme overloading, such as from violent impact, is very slight. Unique lifts,
such as the installation of very heavy machinery or process
vessels, are subject to detailed planning and oversight that assure
that the lifting equipment will not be overloaded or otherwise
abused.
Lifting devices used in industrial settings such as steel mills
and heavy manufacturing facilities will normally fall into Design
Category B. Lifting operations in these locations are most commonly performed with overhead bridge cranes. More important
than the type of crane, however, is the type of operation. Lifting

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / MAY 2008 / 43

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2008.13:43-47.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in these industrial settings often requires relatively high speed

movement to maintain a production schedule and the possibility
of unintended impact loading, both vertical and horizontal, is significant. Material handling is often performed with a get the job
done approach and individual lifts are generally not subject to
detailed planning and oversight.
The preceding paragraph should not be interpreted to mean
that all lifting devices used with overhead bridge cranes must be
Design Category B. For example, maintenance work done on the
equipment inside a manufacturing plant or power station may be
performed using the available overhead cranes. However, such
work is most commonly done in a manner more like that of
construction in which the weights of the items to be handled are
well known and the items to be lifted are moved carefully and
in accordance with established lift plans. Thus, lifting devices
used in maintenance work may reasonably be specified as Design
Category A.
The sole difference between Design Category A and Design
Category B lifting devices is the strength design factor. The
strength of Design Category A devices is based on a nominal
design factor of 2.00. The strength of Design Category B devices
is based on a nominal design factor of 3.00. The higher design
factor for Design Category B was derived to compensate for the
lower certainty with which the peak loads, particularly impact, are
known in some lifting environments.
A Design Category A lifter for a specified capacity will normally be lighter and, therefore, less costly than a Design Category
B lifter of the same capacity and configuration. There is a concern
that some buyers and users of lifting equipment will attempt to
economize by using Design Category A devices in environments
where Design Category B is clearly called for. The result will be
premature serviceability problems and possible structural or
mechanical failures. It is incumbent upon the designers and
manufacturers of lifting devices to properly assess their customers needs and to educate the customers about the reasons for
two design categories and how to select the design category that
is most appropriate for the intended service. It is incumbent upon
managers and foremen who oversee lifting operations to understand the difference between Design Categories A and B and to
select only the appropriate lifting device for the job.
There is one limit defined by BTH-1 for the selection of Design Category A. Design Category A may only be specified for the
design of a lifting device that is also specified to be Service class
0 used for no more than 20,000 load cycles. The reasoning
behind this limitation lies in the recognition that the conditions of
lifter usage that occur in high cycle applications Service Class 1
or greater also equate to the more dynamic conditions that define
the need to specify Design Category B.

Practical Application of Design Category A

The use of a nominal design factor of 2.00 for the design of
construction lifting devices is not new and does not necessarily
represent an unacceptable change in practice. It is noted in the
commentary paragraphs in BTH-1 Chapter 3 that the use of a
design factor on the order of 2.00 was a relatively common practice prior to the first issuance of ASME 2003. However, it is
anticipated that there will be resistance in some industries to a
change from the presently used design factor of 3.00. The following example lift illustrates that the use of Design Category A for
lifter design can, in certain cases, reduce the overall risk in the
performance of a lift.

Fig. 1. Tent structure rigging arrangement

Consider the rigging arrangement illustrated in Fig. 1. The

load to be lifted, a tent structure, is not particularly heavy
15,875 kg 35,000 lb, but due to its size and flexibility, it
must be lifted from 12 points. The crane performing this lift is a
Manitowoc 2250 with the Max-Er 2000 attachment. The crane is
fitted with a 73 m 240 ft boom and is lifting at an operating
radius of 52 m 170 ft. The particular configuration in which the
crane is set up provides a rated load of 26,082 kg 57,500 lb in
the stability range of the load chart. This example lift is taken
from an actual project and the below-the-hook rigging shown is
generally that which was used by the contractor. Some details
have been changed to provide greater clarity for this discussion.
The rigging components used for this lift are listed in Table 1.
The total lifted load to the crane is 21,575 kg 47,565 lb. Of
particular significance are the columns showing the percent of
rated load and the percent of the applicable limit state for each
component during the lift. The percent of rated load is simply the
actual load in the component divided by its rated load. The percent of applicable limit state is the percent of rated load divided
by the design factor upon which the rated load of the component
is based. Applicable design factors are 5.00 with respect to breaking strength for the cranes reeving, the load block, the slings, and
the turnbuckles, 6.00 with respect to breaking strength for the
shackles, 3.00 with respect to yield stress or buckling strength for
the spreader bars, and 1.33 i.e., 1 / 0.75 with respect to tipping
for the crawler crane. Clearly shown is that the critical component
is the crane, which is operating at 82.72% of its rated load, or
62.04% of the tipping load.
Now consider the similar set of values shown in Table 2. All
aspects of the lift are the same, except that the three spreader bars
have been redesigned using the Design Category A design factor
of 2.00. This results in a noticeable reduction in the bars weights,
which reduces the overall lifted load to the crane to 20,725 kg
45,690 lb. In spite of the use of the lower design factor for the
spreader bars, the critical component is still the crane, now operating at 79.46% of its rated load, or 59.60% of the tipping load.
The comparison of the percent of rated load of a crane limited
by stability and a structural component, such as these spreader
bars, requires further examination. The design factor used for the
determination of the rated load of the spreader bar considers uncertainties in the knowledge of the loading and of the calculation
of the strength of the bar. As discussed in Duerr 2008, the basis
used in the development of BTH-1 results in a reliability of
99.95% for Design Category A lifting devices and 99.99% for
Design Category B devices.

44 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / MAY 2008

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2008.13:43-47.

Table 1. Tent Structure RiggingDesign Category B

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Item No.
in Fig. 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Description

Quantity

Weight
each
kg

Crawler crane
Reeving29 mm, 4 parts
55 t load block
32 mm 15.24 m XIP slings
50 t screw-pin shackles
32 t capacity 18.29 m spreader bar
50 t screw-pin shackles
25 mm 9.14 m XIP slings
25 mm 6.10 m XIP slings
44 mm 460 mm turnbuckles
32 t screw-pin shackles
18 t capacity 12.19 m spreader bars
32 t screw-pin shackles
12.25 t screw-pin shackles
25 mm 12.19 m XIP slings

1
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
12

211
921
75
39
1,815
39
30
22
25
20
795
20
6
39

The crane is subject to a similar uncertainty of loading, but the

stability-limited capacity has a lower uncertainty than the calculation of structural strength. Stability is based on the dimensions
of the crane and the weights of its components, neither of which
differ significantly from one crane to the next of a given model. In
the absence of hard data, we can reasonably state that the actual
tipping load of a crawler crane may be on the order of 3% greater
than the tipping load on which the rated load is based. If we
conservatively assume no difference in this tipping load from
crane to crane, then the coefficient of variation and standard deviation of the resistance both become zero. Using these numbers,
the reliability of the cranes capacity can be calculated to be
99.63%, slightly less than the reliability of the spreaders.
This reliability analysis tells us that if both the spreader bars
and the crane were loaded to the same percentage of rated load,
then they would both exhibit about the same reliability. As seen in
Table 2, the spreader bars are loaded to lower percentages of their

Percent
of rated
load

Percent of
applicable
limit state

82.72
34.63
37.56
91.03
24.73
57.95
18.36
46.42
30.99
21.50
12.91
30.25
8.58
22.24
17.01

62.04
6.93
7.51
18.21
4.12
19.32
3.06
9.28
6.20
4.30
2.15
10.08
1.43
3.71
3.40

rated loads than the crane. Thus, the conclusion of improved reliability of the lift overall is correct.
It is also noted that the comparison of the percent of rated load
of a crane limited by stability and a structural component is not
always correct due to the nature of the loading. A transient dynamic load may be sufficient to cause the failure of a structural
component, but will not act for a duration long enough to cause
the crane to overturn. On the other hand, an error in the determination of the static weight of the lifted load will have the same
effect on a structural component as it will on the cranes stability.
As large dynamic loads are very rare when making lifts of this
nature with mobile cranes, static load issues are of greater significance, again making the conclusion of this example valid.
There is an additional consideration that is illustrated by this
example. Crane safety practices in many facilities define the level
of management involvement in the planning and performance of
the lift, in part, by the percentage of the cranes rated load reached

Table 2. Tent Structure RiggingDesign Category A

Item No.
in Fig. 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Description

Quantity

Weight
each
kg

Crawler crane
Reeving29 mm, 4 parts
55 t load block
32 mm 15.24 m XIP slings
50 t screw-pin shackles
32 t capacity 18.29 m spreader bar
50 t screw-pin shackles
25 mm 9.14 m XIP slings
25 mm 6.10 m XIP slings
44 mm 460 mm turnbuckles
32 t screw-pin shackles
18 t capacity 12.19 m spreader bars
32 t screw-pin shackles
12.25 t screw-pin shackles
25 mm 12.19 m XIP slings

1
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
12

211
921
75
39
1,420
39
30
22
25
20
570
20
6
39

Percent
of rated
load

Percent of
applicable
limit state

79.46
33.25
36.00
87.21
23.69
56.52
17.91
44.76
30.99
21.50
12.45
30.25
8.58
22.24
17.01

59.60
6.65
7.20
17.44
3.95
28.26
2.98
8.95
6.20
4.30
2.07
15.13
1.43
3.71
3.40

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / MAY 2008 / 45

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2008.13:43-47.

Table 3. Service Class Load Cycle Ranges

Service
class

Load cycle range

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
1
2
3
4

020,000
20,001100,000
100,001500,000
500,0012,000,000
Over 2,000,000

during the lift. Using the lift classifications defined in Bates and
Hontz 1998, this lift with the Design Category A spreader bars
is a standard lift lifted load less than 80% of the cranes rated
load and can be planned and performed by routine field procedures and personnel. When the Design Category B spreader bars
are used, this lift becomes a critical lift lifted load greater than
18,145 kg 40,000 lb and greater than 80% of the cranes rated
load. In this case, a formal critical lift plan is required, which
may significantly complicate the planning and performance of the
lift.

Service Class
The five service classes for lifting device design address the criterion of fatigue life. The allowable stress ranges for the structural
elements of a lifter are based on the configuration of the detail
under consideration, the stress category, and the specified useful
life of the device in number of load cycles. The BTH-1 service
classes are based on the provisions of ANSI/AWS D14.1-97
AWS 1997. The five classes are defined in terms of ranges of
load cycles to which the lifter will be subjected, as shown in
Table 3.
Service Class 0 applies to lifting devices that will be used
relatively infrequently. Fatigue considerations do not apply to the
design of devices in this class. Service Classes 14 are intended
to deliver devices with progressively longer useful lives. Table 4
shows the approximate useful life in years of lifters designed to
Service Classes 03 based on various numbers of load cycles per
day, 7 days/ week year round. The fatigue provisions for Service
Class 4 are based on a theoretical infinite life. As a further reference point, note that 500 cycles/ day, the highest value in Table 4,
equates to one load cycle every 2.88 min.
The allowable stress ranges defined in BTH-1 assume that the
load cycles to which the lifter is subjected are not all at the full
rated load. The strength design factors and fatigue assessment
requirements of BTH-1 were derived using assumed spectra of

Table 4. Design Life in Years Related to Load Cycles

Load
cycles/day
5
10
25
50
100
200
300
400
500

Service
Class 0

Service
Class 1

Service
Class 2

Service
Class 3

11
5.5
2.2
1.1
0.5

55
27
11
5.5
2.7
1.4
0.9
0.7
0.5

274
137
55
27
14
6.8
4.6
3.4
2.7

1,095
548
219
110
55
27
18
14
11

static and dynamic loadings. These spectra were developed by the

BTH Committee based on typical lifter usage in various industries
and in construction, as discussed in the commentary paragraphs in
BTH-1 Chapter 3. While design based on these spectra is generally appropriate, there will be certain applications for which the
BTH-1 stress ranges must be reduced. This is discussed in the
next section of this paper.
Most lifting devices used in construction and maintenance applications will fall into Service Class 0. Lifting devices used in
industrial and production applications will most commonly fall
into Service Classes 14. Selection of the appropriate class when
designing or purchasing a lifter will depend on the planned usage
and desired life of the device. Regardless of the industry, the lifter
Service Class must be reasonably matched to the use in order to
obtain a satisfactory service life.
The selection of the service class is primarily an economic
decision. In most cases, a lifter designed to the requirements
of the higher classes will be more costly. In exchange for this
greater initial cost, the owner receives a longer useful life. The
owner or user of a lifting device is responsible for inspecting the
device as required by ASME B30.20 ASME 2003. If conducted
properly, these inspections will detect developing fatigue cracks
in their early stages so that the device can be repaired or replaced
prior to the occurrence of a fatigue related structural or mechanical failure.
Current practice in structural steel design AISC 2005 eliminates the use of defined load cycle ranges, instead requiring the
engineer to compute allowable stress ranges based on the anticipated number of load cycles. BTH-1 retains the older practice of
defining classes based on ranges of numbers of load cycles due to
the familiarity of this method in the lifting equipment industry
and the desired compatibility with the requirements of AWS
1997. However, BTH-1 also provides the equations and supporting data to allow calculation of allowable stress ranges for any
number of load cycles and for load spectra other than those used
to derive the BTH-1 requirements.

Deviations from BTH-1 Requirements

Once one understands the bases for the BTH-1 design categories
and service classes, it becomes obvious that there will be situations in which deviation from these requirements may be
necessary to provide an adequate level of reliability or specified
service life.
The only reason to deviate from the design factors associated
with the two design categories should be to use a larger factor.
The nominal design factor of 2.00 specified for Design Category
A is based on assumptions of reasonably well known lift weights
and usage that will not normally result in large dynamic loads.
There will always be some uncertainty of the weight of the lifted
load and hoisting operations always create some dynamic forces.
Further, the design factor also accounts for the approximations
inherent in the calculation methods used in the engineering office
and for normal steel fabrication tolerances. Given the nature of
lifting with the types of cranes, derricks, and hoists with which
the BTH-1 standard is associated, design of lifting devices using a
design factor of less than 2.00 will rarely be acceptable.
One possible exception to this may be in the design of lifting
devices in which all motions are automated and are programmed
to be very smooth and with low acceleration rates, e.g., an automated material handling system. In such a case, accelerations

46 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / MAY 2008

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2008.13:43-47.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

could be accurately calculated and the uncertainties of a human

controller would be eliminated.
There are, of course, lifting environments that require a design
factor greater than the value of 3.00 defined by Design Category
B. For example, lifts made using a floating crane at sea may
require consideration of dynamic loading greater than that assumed in the development of the BTH-1 factors. Structural design
in the United States offshore construction industry is governed by
API RP 2A API 2000. This standard prescribes allowable
stresses based on a nominal design factor of 1.67 and specifies an
impact factor of 2.00 for the design of primary members loaded
by lifting forces for lifts at sea. This equates to a nominal design
factor of 3.33 with respect to service stresses calculated based on
static weight only as is done with BTH-1. Thus, the BTH-1
Design Category B design factor may be considered inadequate
for offshore lifting service.
Allowable stress ranges for fatigue life assessment are given in
BTH-1 Table 3-4 for Service Classes 14. As noted above, these
stress ranges presume that the lifting device will be subjected to
certain typical static and dynamic load spectra over the course of
its useful life, as discussed in the commentary paragraphs in
BTH-1 Chapter 3. BTH-1 prescribes the calculation of actual
stress ranges based on the static forces to which the lifting device
will be subjected due to lifting a load equal to the rated load.
These ranges are then compared to the allowable ranges in BTH-1
Table 3-4. The commentary discussion in BTH-1 Chapter 3 shows
that the combined static plus dynamic stresses that result from the
assumed load spectra are approximately equal in effect on fatigue
life to constant amplitude cycles based on rated load static forces
only.
If the expected use of the lifter will deviate markedly from
these spectra, the designer must evaluate the adequacy of the
specified allowable stress ranges. Consider, for example, a singlepurpose lifter that will handle the same load for every lift. If the
weight being handled is very near the rated load of the device and
the lifting operations will result in some dynamic loading as they
all do, then the BTH-1 allowable stress ranges will not provide
the fatigue life indicated if the stress ranges are calculated based
on the static rated load. BTH-1 Eq. 3-54, shown as Eq. 1, can be
used to determine the probable life based on the actual stress
ranges due to combined static and dynamic loads and the BTH-1
Table 3-4 allowable stress ranges. Alternately, the standard
BTH-1 allowable stress ranges can be reduced for design to produce the desired life
Neq =

SRi
SRref

ni

where Neq = equivalent number of constant amplitude cycles at

stress range SRref ; ni = number of cycles for ith portion of a
variable amplitude loading spectrum; SRi = stress range for the
ith portion of a variable amplitude loading spectrum; and
SRref = reference stress range to which Neq relates. This is usually,
but not necessarily, the maximum stress range considered.

Conclusions
The new ASME design standard for below-the-hook lifting devices defines two design categories that relate to the strength
design factor and five service classes that relate to the fatigue life
assessment. Successful use of this standard requires that designers, manufacturers, purchasers, and users of lifting devices all
understand the meanings of these design categories and service
classes and apply that understanding to the proper specification of
lifter design requirements. Specifications that are inappropriate
for the required application can be wasteful e.g., Service Class 4
for specialized heavy lifting or dangerous e.g., Design Category
A for production steel mill service. Workplace safety can be
maximized and overall life costs of the lifter minimized by specifying the most appropriate design category and service class for
the lifter application. In some services, design using criteria more
demanding than those specified in BTH-1, either a larger design
factor or lower fatigue stress ranges, may be necessary to provide
the desired reliability and fatigue life.

Acknowledgments
The rigging details of the tent structure lift used in the example
were provided by Randy Stemp of Lampson International, LLC,
Kennewick, Wash.

Disclosure
This paper is the sole work of the writer, is not endorsed by
ASME or the BTH Committee, and is not an official interpretation of the BTH-1 requirements. The user is solely responsible for
determining the suitability of the material in this paper for any
particular purpose.

References
AISC. 2005. Specification for structural steel buildings, 13th Ed.,
Chicago.
American Petroleum Institute API. 2000. Recommended practice
for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms
Working stress design, RP 2A-WSD, Washington, D.C.
American Welding Society AWS. 1997. Specification for welding of
industrial and mill cranes and other material handling equipment.
ANSI/AWS D14.1-97, Miami.
ASME. 2003. Below-the-hook lifting devices, B30.20-2003, New York.
ASME. 2006. Design of below-the-hook lifting devices, BTH-1-2005,
New York.
Bates, G. E., and Hontz, R. M. 1998. Exxon crane guide lifting safety
management system, Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association,
Fairfax, Va.
Duerr, D. 2008. Design factors for fabricated steel below-the-hook
lifting devices. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 132.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / MAY 2008 / 47

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2008.13:43-47.