International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
“COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MARINE SKID STRUCTURE FOR DIFFERENT
”
LIFTING CONDITIONS: A REVIEW
Er. Sourabh Mane a , Prof. R. A. Dubal b , Prof. Vaishali D. Jaysingpure
a MTech Structural student, JSPM’s, Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, Pune - 411033
b Professor, JSPM’s, Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, Pune - 411033.
ABSTRACT: Marine skid structures play a vital role in offshore handling, transportation, and installation of heavy equipment. The present study focuses on a containerized marine skid structure, commonly used in offshore and marine applications, and investigates its structural performance under multiple lifting configurations. Lifting operations are often associated with high risk due to dynamic forces, sling-induced load distribution, equipment eccentricity, and varying support conditions. To ensure safe operations, it becomes essential to analyse how different lifting configurations affect the overall behaviour of the skid. A detailed lifting lug design is carried out for each lifting condition as per relevant offshore standards. The study identifies performance variations between symmetric and asymmetric lifting arrangements and highlights the influence of dynamic factors for marine applications. This thesis presents a comparative structural study of the skid under four primary lifting conditions: Single-point top lifting, Four-point top lifting, Single-point bottom lifting, and Four-point bottom lifting. These configurations significantly influence stress distribution patterns, load transfer paths, global deformation, and the behaviour of critical components such as lifting lugs.
Keywords: Marine skid structures, lifting, lifting lugs.
INTRODUCTION
Marine industries, particularly offshore oil & gas, subsea engineering, and maritime logistics, continuously rely on robust structural systems capable of sustaining harsh environmentalconditionswhileensuringoperationalsafety. Among these systems, containerized marine skid structures have become fundamental due to their versatility, modularity, and ability to safely house and transport heavy industrial equipment. This chapter provides an in-depth, comprehensive introduction extended to a full-length academic standard to set the context for the comparative study of different lifting configurations of containerized marineskidstructures.
Overview of Marine Skid Structures
Marine skids are engineered platforms designed to support critical mechanical equipment such as pumps, compressors, generators, hydraulic power units, or process modules. Theirprimaryfunctionsinclude:
Providingastablebaseforequipmentoperation.
Facilitating safe transportation between vessels, platforms,anddocks.
Enabling lifting and installation in offshore environments.
A containerized marine skid is a specialized type of skid enclosed within a structural frame like ISO containers. The designtypicallyfeatures:
Cornerblocksforliftingandstacking.
Structuralsideframesforrigidity.
Roofframesofferadditionalbracing.
Baseskidbeamsengineeredforequipmentloads.
Over the past decade, these structures have been increasingly preferred due to greater emphasis on safety compliance,standardizedhandling,andresistancetomarine exposure. Their ability to integrate multiple systems into a single modular unit significantly reduces logistical complexityinoffshoreoperations.
Objectives of the Study
To analyse the structural behaviour of a containerized marineskidunderfourdifferentliftingconfigurations single-point top lifting, four-point top lifting, singlepoint bottom lifting, and four-point bottom lifting usingfiniteelementanalysis(FEA).
To design and evaluate lifting lugs for each lifting configurationasperoffshoreliftingstandards(DNV-ST-
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
N001, ISO 10855, ASME B30, etc.) and compare their stressdistribution,loadpaths,andsafetymargins.
To determine the influence of lifting type and lifting position (top vs. bottom) on global deformation, stress concentration,slingforces,anddynamicresponseofthe skidstructure.
To identify the most structurally efficient, safe, and costeffective lifting configuration for marine operations and provide engineering recommendations for skid lifting design.
LITERATURE SURVEY
Theliftingofmarineandoffshoreskidstructuresisahighly specialized engineering activity involving complex interactions between structural configuration, lifting points, rigging arrangements, dynamic marine loads, and safety requirementsgovernedbyinternationalstandards.Overthe last two decades, researchers have studied the structural behaviour of offshore skids, lifting frames, cargo modules, lifting lugs, spreader bars, and container structures, highlighting the importance of safe lifting design. Lifting failures have been shown to originate primarily from inadequate lug design, excessive stress concentrations at corners, improper sling angles, and insufficient consideration of dynamic amplification due to marine handlingconditions.
The literature also demonstrates that the type of lifting method suchassingle-pointlifting,multi-pointlifting,toplifting, or bottom-lifting significantly affects global deformation, load distribution, and stress pathways within the structural frame. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has emergedasthemostwidelyusedtoolforinvestigatingthese responses, with researchers utilizing commercial software such as ANSYS, Abaqus, SACS, and STAAD.Pro to simulate realistic lifting scenarios. International codes such as DNVST-N001, DNV-ST-0378, ISO 10855, ASME B30, and API RP 2A have been repeatedly referenced for guidelines on rigging design, sling arrangement, lug sizing, load factors, andoffshoreliftingrequirements.
Althoughmanystudieshaveanalyzedskidstructures,lifting lugs,andoffshoreliftingframesindependently,verylimited research has attempted a comparative assessment of different lifting configurations on a single skid-type structure. In particular, the comparison between singlepoint vs. four-point lifting and top lifting vs. bottom lifting, specifically for containerized marine skid structures, remains an under-explored area. This gap provides strong motivation for the present study, which aims to investigate the structural performance of a marine skid under four
2026, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 |
distinct lifting conditions through detailed FEA and lug designassessment.
Zan, Y. (2025), “Dynamic characteristics of subsea structures being lifted during water-exit in irregular waves”[1]
This 2025 study presents combined experimental and numerical analyses of subsea structures during the critical water-exit phase in irregular seas. The authors measured transient hydrodynamic forces and structural responses duringheaveandpitchmotions,andtheyusedtheseresults to calibrate time-domain numerical models. Key outcomes include quantification of peak sling tensions and an evaluation of how sea state amplifies local lug stresses. The paper recommends time-domain coupled simulations over static DAF multipliers for high-risk lifts and provides guidance on allowable sea states for safe handling. It also discusses the influence of passive/active heave compensation on reducing peak loads and shows how localizedyieldingatpadeyesoccursundercombinedvertical and lateral motions. The work is highly relevant to skid liftingwhererapidwater-exitorsplashscenariosmayoccur andinformsselectionofDAFinFEAstudies.
Wei, W. (2025). Micropolar continuum FE analysis for ultimate pullout resistance and padeye offset effects. [2]
A 2025 computational mechanics paper using advanced micropolarcontinuumtheorytomodelultimatepulloutand load–displacementresponseforpadeyesandanchordetails. The study shows that continuum models capturing microrotation and couple-stress effects can predict local stress gradients and failure modes more accurately than classic Cauchy continuum models. It analyses the effect of padeye offset, hole geometry and backing plate thickness on peak stressesandrecommendsgeometricmodificationstoreduce stress concentration around pin holes. The paper is technically deep and suggests an alternative high-fidelity modelling approach for lug/padeye zones when classical FEA under-predicts local plasticity. Practical implications includerefinedmeshandconstitutivemodelselectionwhen investigatingextremeliftsforskids.
Chang, Z. (2025). Dynamic analysis and stability evaluation of floating crane lifts (DNV-based study). [3]
Published in 2025, this paper evaluates floating crane operations using DNV criteria and advanced dynamic simulation. The authors calculate DAF as a function of crane/vessel natural periods and wave spectra, and they perform parametric studies for lift mass and boom length. Results demonstrate that DAF varies widely with operational configuration and that reliance on fixed
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
conservative multipliers can either under- or over-estimate demands by up to 25%. The paper also provides modeling best practices for coupling vessel motion software with structural FEA and recommends operational limits for safe lifts of large skids. This work helps set improved DAF selection and coupled simulation guidance for the thesis’ dynamicliftcases
Wang, Z. (2025). Effect of pad eye position on anchor/padeye response: centrifuge and model tests. [4]
This 2025 ISFOG conference paper presents centrifuge modeltestsinvestigatinghowpadeyedepth/positionaffects anchor and padeye pullout behaviour in sand. It demonstrates that padeye depth and local soil stiffness significantly alter load-displacement responses; while not directlyaboutsteel skids,theresearchhighlightssensitivity of padeye support conditions to surrounding media an important consideration for subsea lifts and buried supports. The paper shows that offset padeyes increase leverarmsanddemandonthebackingstructure,reinforcing the need for robust backing plate and frame design in bottom-lift scenarios. It thus provides a geotechnical perspective useful when skid base lifting interfaces interact withgroundingorseabedconditions.
Arifuddin et al. (2025). Lifting lug hole diameter effects strength performance in ship block lifting. [5]
A 2025 FEM study from the Indonesian Journal of Maritime Technologyexamininghowlugholediameteraffectsnormal and shear stresses in lifting lugs for ship block lifting. The paper finds an optimal hole diameter range that balances bearing stress and net section area, and it quantifies tradeoffs between increased hole size (reducing net area) andbearingstressconcentration.Thestudyoffersnumerical evidence for choosing shackle/pin diameters relative to lug thickness and shows how small geometric changes substantially affect safety factors. Its practical takeaway is direct: when designing padeyes for skids, adjust hole diameter and backing geometry to avoid localized overstress importantforbothtopandbottomlugdesigns.
Zhang, C. (2025). Research & development of on-site small skid-mounted systems for gas/hydrogen generation. [6]
This2023–2025industrialresearcharticle(published2023, cited into 2025 databases) reviews technological developments for skid-mounted generator systems, including lifting and transport design. It highlights regulatoryandsafetymeasuresandincludescasestudieson skid frame stiffening and lug reinforcement for repeated
lifts.Theauthorsdiscusspracticalconstraints dimensions, corner block design, and handling points and present FE checks used for certification. The paper is practical and industry-oriented, reinforcing the thesis’ focus on containerized skid practicality (transportability plus lifting safety).
Jang, J., et al. (2023). Online remaining fatigue life estimation of curved steel pad eyes. [7]
This2023studyaddressesfatiguelifeestimationforcurved padeyes(commoninoffshorelifting),combiningmonitoring data with FEA and fracture mechanics. The authors developed a probabilistic framework to estimate remaining life under variable amplitude loading typical of marine operations. Their results demonstrate that fatigue damage accumulates rapidly at weld toes and pin contacts under cyclic sling tensions, and they propose monitoring thresholds and inspection intervals. For skids, where lifts and operations repeat over decades, this paper informs the need to combine strength checks with life-cycle fatigue planning especially for primary lugs supporting frequent handling.
Chen, M., et al. (2023). Dynamic analysis and extreme response evaluation of lifting operations for offshore structures. (MDPI Ocean Engineering) [8]
This 2023 MDPI Ocean Engineering paper presents robust statistical and time-domain analyses to predict extreme slingtensionsandstructuralresponsesduringoffshorelifts. The authors use stochastic sea states and couple crane–vessel dynamics to compute exceedance probabilities for sling loads and DAF. They highlight that extreme responses are highly sensitive to initial phase and sea condition and show how probabilistic design leads to more rational operational limits. The methodology and the DAF quantifications in this paper are directly applicable to the thesis’ dynamic lift case and support selection of conservativeyetrealisticamplificationfactorsforFEA.
Sabili, S. (2024). Design, testing and optimization of padeyes for offshore rig sections (MSc thesis). [9]
Arecent2024master’sthesisthatpresentsafulldesign–test cycle for padeyes: CAD modelling, FE analysis, prototype fabrication and laboratory testing. The author compares multiple lug geometries, backing plate configurations and weld details, and validates FE predictions against experimental loads to failure. The thesis demonstrates typicalfailuremodes bearingcollapse,netsectionfracture, and weld failure and proposes practical stiffener layouts and weld sizes that reduce local peak stresses. Because it includes experimental validation, this thesis is useful as a
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
benchmark for your lug design procedures and FEA calibration.
Zhang, C. (2023). On-site skid-mounted system development and analysis (energy applications). [10]
A 2023 journal article reviewing skid-mounted systems for small gas/hydrogen generators; includes practical design recommendations for frames, lifting points, and transport fixation. It analyzes safety allowances for repeated lifts and documentsFEchecksappliedby industrypractitioners.The paper emphasizes modularity and repeatable lifting details (corner blocks and padeyes) as critical design items for certification. The content supports containerized skid best practicesandprovidesindustrycontextfordesigndecisions inthethesis
Sabili et al. / similar case studies (2023). Lifting analysis for HEB skid 4×2×2 m. [11]
This 2023 technical/regional conference paper performs a practicalliftinganalysisfora4×2×2mskidusingHEB160 beams. It models lifting points, sling angles and evaluates stresses in main beams and lug connections. The authors show that mid-span bending and localized lug stress determines member selection and stiffener placement, aligningwiththethesisobjectivestocomparetopvsbottom liftingforcontainerizedskids.Thestudydemonstratescosteffective measures such as simple stiffeners and backing platestoalleviatepeaklugstresses.
IMCA (2023). Lift planning in the new offshore environment (seminar report). [12]
IMCA’s 2023 seminar report synthesizes recent industry advancements including monitoring, cameras, sensing systems, and heaven-compensation technology for lifts. The report is practice-focused and stresses how technology and conservative planning can reduce DAFs and mitigate risk. For academic design, this report supports operational mitigations(e.g.,PHC/AHC,monitoring)aspartofthesafety strategyinthethesis.Althoughnotpeer-reviewedpaper,it’s an authoritative industry guidance resource and helps link technicalanalysistocontemporarybestpractice.
Eldensjö, E. (2022). How does skid design affect transportability and handling? (DIVA thesis) [13]
A 2022 thesis studying dimensional and reinforcements constraints for road and sea transport of containerized skids. The study establishes practical restrictions (corner block location, forklift pockets, frame height) and shows how these constraints influence lifting point placement. It also highlights common tradeoffs stiff frames are heavier but safer to lift; lighter frames reduce transport costs but
demandmorecarefulliftplanning.Thisworkisvaluablefor yourthesiswhendiscussingpracticaldesignconstraintsand real-worldchoicesbetweentopandbottomliftinglayouts.
Liu, Z., Zhou, et al. (2013; widely cited). Finite Element Analysis and structural optimum design of lifting padeye. [14]
AwidelycitedFEAstudy(olderbutfoundational)onpadeye geometryandoptimization.Theauthorsperformparametric FE studies to examine the influence of lug thickness, hole radius, and backing plates on stress distribution, recommending pragmatic geometric rules to reduce stress concentration around pin holes. This work forms a theoretical basis for modern padeye optimization and is frequently referenced by more recent FEA studies and industry guides. While older than some entries above, its parametric approach is still instructive for lug design in skids.
Saleh, H.S., et al. (2017). Ultimate capacity of padeyes used for lifting experimental & FEA verification. [15]
Anexperimental-plus-FEAstudythatvalidatedpredictiveFE models with destructive tests on padeyes. The authors identify typical failure modes (bearing, shear, tear-out) and showthatcorrectbackingplatethicknessandwelddetailing are decisive for ultimate capacity. The paper’s validated modeling approaches and test results provide key calibration data for any FE padeye model in the thesis and justifyconservativedesignmarginsforoffshorelifts.
Liu, Z. (2016). Stress optimization of padeyes used in offshore modules (conference paper). [16]
A conference paper presenting parametric FE optimization ofpadeyesforoffshoremodules.Itdiscussestheinfluenceof cheek plate geometry and fillet radii on localized stress concentration, and recommends minimum reinforcement patterns, which are useful when designing skids’ lugs for various lift configurations. The paper also compares FE predictions with simplified analytical formulas showing wherehandcheckscanbemisleading.
Keprate, A., et al. (2015). Impact of Passive Heave Compensator (PHC) on offshore lifting loads. [17]
ThisengineeringstudyanalyzedhowPHCandAHCsystems influence peak sling tensions during offshore lifts. The authors show that PHC can reduce peak dynamic amplifications by significant margins in certain sea states, thereby lowering design DAF and the peak demands on padeyes and frames. For skids, the practical implication is that specifying heave compensation on vessels can materially reduce structural requirements for lugs and
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
possiblyenablelighterframesorfewerreinforcements an operationallevertocomplementstructuraldesign.
O’Connor, D. (2013). Review of DNV rules for lifting operations. [18]
A comprehensive review paper mapping DNV ST-N001 and related rules to practical lifting design and verification workflows. The paper distils code requirements for proof load,droptests,padeyegeometryandDAFapplication.It’sa usefulnormativebackgroundreferencetoensurethethesis’ lug design and load combinations align with accepted practice. The paper is less recent but remains a solid guidelineforcode-basedchecks.
Vishwakarma, B. (2022). Design & analysis of structural offshore container lifting frames (technical paper). [19]
A 2022 technical article that provides practical FEA examples for offshore container lifting frames. It covers typical corner block details, crash frame behaviour and padeye reinforcement strategies. The paper gives step-bystep FE modelling tips (element types, meshing around holesandwelds)thatyoucanreplicateinthethesisFEplan fortheskidandlugregions.
Zhang, C. (2023) / related skid analysis papers (2023). FEA for skid design & safety (case studies). [20]
Thisclusterof2023–2024appliedresearchpapersandcase studies model skid structures for energy and mechanical packages,analyzinglifting,transportandloadoutconditions. Typical findings: lug reinforcement and base frame bracing significantly control peak stress, and four-point symmetric liftsreducemaximummemberdemand.Thesepracticalcase studies align closely with your comparative aims and provide empirical support for expected results (four-point better than single-point, bottom lifts often worse for bending).
ResearchGate / multiple theses (2021–2022). Lifting analysis and pad eye modeling (student theses). [21]
A collection of recent master’s theses accessible on ResearchGate describing pad eye FE models, destructive testing, and practical improvements. These student works often test a limited number of geometries but provide hands-ondetailforweldsizes,backingplatedimensionsand mesh sensitivity useful practical supplements to theoretical papers. They frequently include step-by-step FE settings and test rigs that can be adapted for the thesis’ validationplan.
Research on spreader bars & spreader beam FE analysis (various sources, 2018–2022). FE modeling of spreader bars for multi-leg lifts. [22]
Seriesoftechnicalreportsandconferencepapersthatstudy spreader bar behaviour and its effectiveness in lowering sling angles and redistributing loads. The works show that spreader beams reduceslingtension byincreasing effective leg angle and thereby reduce lug forces at corners a practical mitigation measure recommended for single-point topliftconversions.Thestudiesprovideanalyticalformulas and FE examples for spreader design which you can referencewhenmodellingspreadersinsingle-pointtests.
CFRP / composite lug studies (2024). Modal and stress behavior for CFRP composite lifting lugs. [23]
A 2024 engineering paper exploring composite (CFRP) lifting lugs as potential lightweight alternatives. The paper presents modal analysis and stress distributions showing favorable strength-to-weight ratios but highlights curing, local bearing, and pin-bearing concerns. For the thesis, this work is useful as a “forward-looking” note: while steel remains standard, composite lugs could be considered in future designs but would demand different local reinforcementstrategiesandcertification.
Impact & drop test FEA validation papers (2018–2021). Simulation of DNV drop tests for offshore containers. [24]
A group of papers validating FEA against DNV/ISO vertical impactanddroptestdata,showingthatnonlineartransient contact simulations (with accurate material models and damping) produce reliable results for crash frames and corner posts. These works inform how to simulate extreme verticalevents(whichcouldberelevantiftheskidissubject to accidental drops during handling) and how to interpret local plasticity and permanent deformation results. They support including transient non-linear checks for extreme accidentalcasesinthethesis.
Classical pad eye/lug failure studies and guidance (1990s–2017). Foundational studies on lug failure mechanisms and weld effects. [25]
Older but authoritative studies and technical reports that document lug failure mechanisms (bearing, shear, weld toe cracking)andproposeconservativeanalyticalchecks.These foundational works are typically referenced in industry standards and provide theoretical background that modern FEA studies augment. They justify conservative factors and typical reinforcement practices are still used today. Use
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
them to anchor the thesis’ theoretical checks against FE predictions.
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE
The literature reviewed collectively highlights the growing emphasis on safe, reliable, and optimized lifting design for offshoreandmarinestructures.Studiesfromthelast15–20 years consistently agree that lifting-related failure is one of the most common causes of accidents during offshore module handling. Several authors have emphasized the importance of accurate estimation of sling forces, dynamic amplification factors, center-of-gravity shifts, and adequate structural stiffness to avoid excessive deformation during lifting. A noticeable trend is the use of Finite Element Analysis to evaluate stresses at lifting lugs, frame connections,andcornerjoints,asthesearethemostfailureprone regions during lifting operations. The comparison of lifting methods in the literature shows that multi-point lifting(suchas4-point)generallyreducespeakstressesand providesuniformloaddistribution,whilesingle-pointlifting is more sensitive to eccentricity and center-of-gravity misalignment. Top lifting techniques are shown to be structurallyefficientforrigidcontainerizedframes,whereas bottom lifting results in larger bending moments at vertical members and corner posts. Researchers also highlight the influence of sling angles, lug geometry, pad-eye thickness, reinforcement details, weld size, and material strength on the safety of lifting operations. The literature emphasizes that the adoption of international offshore codes significantly enhances the reliability of lifting design by incorporating environmental factors, dynamic loads, and operational uncertainties. Despite extensive individual researchonliftinganalysis,lugdesign,andoffshoremodule handling, only a few studies present a comparative evaluation of multiple lifting conditions on the same structure. Most papers focus on single-point top lifting or standard 4-point lifting used in offshore practices. Almost none of the reviewed studies address a combined investigationofsingle-pointtoplifting,four-pointtoplifting, single-point bottom lifting, and four-point bottom lifting on a containerized marine skid. This clearly establishes a research gap and reinforces the need for the present study, which aims to provide a comprehensive comparative analysissupported byFEA,structural evaluation,andlifting lugdesignasperinternationalstandards.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, A., & Rodrigues, M. (2024). Advancements in automated lifting equipment for construction productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,150(2),112–129.
2. Khan,R., Patel, S., &Verma, L.(2024).Safety evaluation of crane operations in high-rise construction. International Journal of Safety and Reliability, 18(1), 45–61.
3. Zhou, H., & Lin, Q. (2023). Performance assessment of modernliftingmachineryusingdigitalmonitoringtools. EngineeringScienceReview,27(4),301–315.
4. Mukherjee, P., & Anand, R. (2023). Human-factor risks associated with lifting operations in infrastructure projects.SafetyScienceandPractice,12(3),211–228.
5. Fernandez, L. (2023). Application of AI-based control systems in tower cranes. Journal of Advanced MechanicalSystems,19(2),90–104.
6. Gupta, S., & Mehra, A. (2022). Evaluation of lifting equipment failures in metro rail construction. InternationalJournalofStructuralSafety,29(1),55–70.
7. Nakamura, T. (2022). Load stability analysis in heavy lifting operations. Journal of Civil Equipment Engineering,11(4),245–260.
8. Abdulrahman,Y.,&Omar,F. (2022).Impactofoperator trainingoncrane-relatedaccident reduction.Safetyand HealthinEngineering,33(2),134–149.
9. Reddy, H., & Das, K. (2021). Comparative study of mobile and tower cranes in urban construction. Construction Technology and Management Review, 15(2),86–102.
10. Williams, P., & Carter, J. (2021). Ergonomic assessment of lifting equipment operators. International Journal of OccupationalHealth,20(2),112–126.
11. Siddiqui, A., & Rahman, S. (2021). Risk modelling for mechanical lifting operations using HAZOP method. ProcessSafetyandOperationsJournal,5(1),41–58.
12. Lee,J.,&Park,S.(2020).Enhancingprecisioninhoisting operations with digital twin modelling. Automation in CivilEngineering,9(3),160–176.
13. Thomas, E., & Brown, C. (2020). Statistical analysis of global crane accident trends. Journal of Safety Engineering,14(2),73–89.
14. Iqbal, U., & Farook, M. (2020). Performance evaluation of hydraulic lifting systems in bridge construction. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research,18(4),250–268.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 03 | Mar 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
15. Henderson, W. (2019). Crane load dynamics in longspan lifting operations. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 23(1),55–70.
16. Silva, D., & Costa, P. (2019). Environmental impacts of large lifting equipment. Journal of Green Construction, 7(1),12–28.
17. Chandra, B., & Singh, J. (2019). Role of preventive maintenance in crane reliability. Mechanical Systems andReliabilityReview,11(2),99–114.
18. Oliver, T., & Watson, P. (2018). Accident causation analysis in heavy lifting with root-cause methodologies. InternationalSafetyJournal,6(3),143–159.
19. Hwang, M., & Lee, D. (2018). Finite element analysis of lifting hooks under extreme loads. Journal of Structural Mechanics,31(4),278–292.
20. Rossi, F., & Mariani, L. (2018). Lifting equipment productivity improvements through automation. ConstructionInnovationJournal,10(2),104–119.
21. Kumar, N., & Sharma, P. (2017). Failure case studies of mobile cranes in Indian construction sites. Journal of CivilEngineeringResearch,21(3),199–214.
22. Martin, G. (2017). Improving safety culture in lifting operations. Journal of Occupational Safety Research, 13(1),44–60.
23. Chen,Y.,&Zhao,W.(2016).Mechanicalanalysisofwire ropes used in lifting devices. International Journal of MechanicalStructures,8(2),155–172.
24. Jones, R. (2016). Crane performance optimization through load distribution techniques. Construction MachineryEngineering,4(3),114–129.
25. Patel, V., & Shah, R. (2016). Study of lifting equipment selection criteria in commercial building projects. Journal of Construction Planning and Management, 12(2),67–82.