Erecting long,

vertical
precast
concrete
members
with one
crane and
two operating
lines
Donald R. Logan

Background
The most common procedure to erect long vertical precast
concrete members is to rotate the members in midair
from their as-delivered flat position to their final vertical
position in the structure. To keep member stresses during
lifting within acceptable limits, this procedure normally
involves supporting the member at three points. One point
is at or near the top of the member, and the two lower
reactions are supported by slings threaded through rolling
blocks, one end attached near the bottom of the member
and the other end close to its midheight (Fig. 1).

Erectors have reported incidents that occurred while using

Editor’s quick points
n  Erectors have reported incidents in which precast concrete
members have rolled uncontrollably during erection.
n  PCI issued an alert regarding this phenomenon in December
2008.
n  This article provides reliable methods to determine the cause
of panel instability and discusses ways to anticipate and avoid
panel instability.
this common erection procedure in which precast concrete
members suddenly rolled from an apparently stable tilt
angle to the vertical position. These incidents often cause
damage to the member and erection equipment and can
endanger the safety of erection personnel (Fig. 2). Erectors
have expressed concern that they have no reliable method
to determine the cause of this instability, how to anticipate
it, and how to avoid it.
While the concepts described herein apply to all long
vertical precast concrete members, the discussion and
figures address long nonprestressed wall panels. These
are potentially subject to detrimental visible cracking in
critical architectural finished surfaces that may result from

118 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 using handling techniques that address erection safety W = weight of panel
only. Thus, tensile stresses at an impact factor of 1.2W are
checked for each lifting-layout configuration against the RR = right lifting reaction
recommended maximum of
RL = left lifting reaction
5 f c' = 354 psi (2.44 MPa)

where

f c' = concrete compressive strength at erection

= assume 5000 psi (35 MPa)

RR
RL

c. Crane operator tilts panel by raising top

W (c.g.) end allowing lower sling to rotate
through rolling block.

RL

b. Crane operator lifts panel in horizontal

RR position until truck pulls away.

W (c.g.)

a. Panel arrives on truck in horizontal

position.

Figure 1. A panel can be erected with one crane using two operating lines. Note: c.g.= center of gravity; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block;
RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 119

 R L= W

W (c.g.) c. Panel suddenly becomes unstable. Top

line goes slack. Panel rotates rapidly to
vertical position, swinging
uncontrollably.

RL RR

b. Panel feels “light” to crane operator.

Top line appears to be going slack.
W (c.g.)

RL RR

a. Crane operator tilts panel by raising top

line. Panel feels stable to crane operator.

W (c.g.)

Figure 2. Panels can experience instability during tilting toward vertical. Note: c.g. = center of gravity; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; RR = right
lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel.

120 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 Since the mid-1980s, the third edition of the PCI Design tion of Precast Concrete Products2 have addressed this
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete1 and PCI’s issue, providing a formula intended to protect against sud-
Erector’s Manual: Standards and Guidelines for the Erec- den rollover of long wall panels (Fig. 3).

Formula in PCI Erector’s Manual and Design Handbook.

Purpose is to protect against erection instability.

e = distance from c.g. to RL centerline with panel in horizontal position.

Panel will be stable during erection if:

L L2 − b 2
e> − −a
2 2

RL
a (to c.g.)

sRR

W (c.g.)
eo
b
L

CAUTION: DO NOT USE THE ABOVE FORMULA

IN ITS PRESENT FORM. (Refer to article pages 125−128)

Figure 3. The current PCI stability equation shown with Fig. 5.6.2 on page 5-24 of the sixth edition of the PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete is incor-
rect. It is necessary for the c.g. of the precast concrete component to be between the two main crane lines for all angles during the rotation. Note: a = distance from up face
of panel to center of gravity of the panel; b = distance between lower lifting devices; c.g. = center of gravity; eo = distance from the center of gravity of panel to centerline
of rolling-block reaction with panel in horizontal position; L = length of panel; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at
right end of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 121

 However, erectors have indicated that even if the panel lift-
ing points conform to the dimensions derived from the PCI
formula, there have been instances in which unexpected
sudden rollover has occurred.
The author encountered this problem in 1995 during the
erection of a long wall panel produced by Stresscon Corp.
for the Soundtrack project in Denver, Colo. In an analysis
of the incident, the basic concept of safe handling of long
wall panels was recognized and Stresscon adopted a pro-
cedure for three-point lifting, imposing restrictions on the
location of the lower sets of lifting devices.
Basic instability concept
As illustrated in Fig. 4, with the panel in its horizontal
position, the rolling-block lifting reaction RL is centered
between the two lower sets of lifting devices. Its verti-
cal alignment is located at a distance eo from the center
of gravity c.g. of the panel toward the lower end of the
panel. As the panel is tilted to its vertical position, RL shifts
toward the c.g. of the panel and its distance eΔ decreases.
As the tilt angle increases further, eΔ may decrease to zero
so that RL aligns with the c.g. of the panel. At that point, RL
carries the entire weight of the panel, the top reaction car-
ries no weight, and the panel becomes unstable, swinging
rapidly to the vertical position as illustrated in Fig. 2 and 4.

RL = W

c. As tilt angle increases further, RL can

align with c.g. of panel, causing panel to
suddenly become unstable.

shift
RL RR

α b. As panel is tilted, e decreases as RL shifts

Tilt Angle W (c.g.)
∆ = 45° toward c.g. of panel, creating potential
e∆ instability of panel.
∆
b∆/2 b∆/2
b∆

RL

Tilt Angle
∆ = 0° RR
α

a. At zero degrees, RL centered between

W (c.g.)
lifting devices.
CGL CGR
eo
b/2 b/2
b
L

Figure 4. These diagrams show the fundamental issues as the tilt angle increases. Note: b = distance between lower lifting devices; c.g. = center of gravity; CGL = distance
from left end of panel to c.g. of panel; CGR = distance from right end of panel to c.g. of panel; eo = distance from the center of gravity of panel to centerline of rolling-block
reaction with panel in horizontal position; eΔ = horizontal projection of distance from centerline of center of gravity to centerline of rolling-block reaction with panel in tilted
position; L = length of panel; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W = weight of panel; W(c.g.)
= panel weight acting at c.g. of panel; α = angle between sling leg and surface of panel; Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript identifies horizontal
projection of dimensions with panel in tilted position).

122 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 RR R L = 39.44K

e∆ =1'-7"

RL 0'-6" RR = 16.06K

12"
e=9'-01/2" W ' (c.g.) = 55.5K

8'-6 /2"
1
8'-6 /2"
1

4'-71/2" 17'-1" 22'-81/2"

W (c.g.) 44'-5"
Tilt Angle
RR =16.06
∆ = 75°
19.72 19.72

R (kips)
16.06

5.77 7.81
V (kips)

-13.91 -12.31 103.23

64.51
42.56

M (kip-ft)
RL -13.33

4.62' 11.16' 5.93' 9.85' 12.85'

Allowable Tensile Stress Max. Tensile Stress

Tilt Angle
∆ = 0°
0'-6 "
RR fc' = 5000psi at erection ft =
6 × 103.23 × 12,000
6.94 × 12 × (12)
2 = 620psi

allow
ft = 5 fc' = 354psi ft = 620psi Tension (Bottom)
> 354psi allowable

High tensile stresses in bottom face of panel

eo=9'-01/2" W (c.g.) will cause cracking. 4-point lifting or
8'-61/2" 8'-61/2" prestressing required.

4'-7 /2"
1
17'-1" 22'-81/2"
22'-21/2" 22'-21/2"
44'-5"
Figure 5. A conservative layout prevents instability at all tilt angles. Note: c.g. =
center of gravity; eo = distance from the center of gravity of panel to centerline of
rolling-block reaction with panel in horizontal position; eΔ = horizontal projection of
distance from centerline of center of gravity to centerline of rolling-block reaction
with panel in tilted position; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling
block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight
acting at c.g. of panel; α = angle between sling leg and surface of panel; Δ = tilt
angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript identifies horizontal projection of
dimensions with panel in tilted position). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.
Conservative
layout procedure
The safeguard against instability is to locate the lower sets
of lifting devices so that throughout the tilting of the long
panels, the rolling-block reaction RL is prevented from
aligning with the c.g. of the panel.
As indicated in Fig. 5, both of the lower sets of lifting
devices are located below the c.g. of the panel. Thus at all
tilt angles, RL is prevented from aligning with the c.g. of
the panel.
Figure 6. This conservative layout shows shear, moment, and tensile stresses.
Note: c.g. = center of gravity; e = minimum distance from the center of gravity
of the panel, with the panel in its horizontal position, to protect the erection-crew
members against the unexpected sudden rollover of the panel; fc' = concrete com-
pressive strength at erection; ft = actual tensile stress in panel during lifting; ftallow
= allowable tensile stress in panel during lifting; k = K = kip; LF = linear foot; M =
moment; R = reaction; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block;
RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; V = shear; W = weight of
panel; W ’ = weight of panel modified by impact factor (1.2W in examples); W(c.g.)
= panel weight acting at c.g. of panel. 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m;
1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
There are other considerations that must be addressed,
even with this conservative procedure. As the panel is
tilted, the load carried by RL increases and the loads ap-
plied to the lifting devices increase accordingly, changing
from primarily tension to primarily shear. These loads are
applied to the lower lifting devices at steep angles, poten-
tially exceeding their allowable shear capacity.
As shown in Fig. 6, the conservative layout of the lower
lifting inserts causes the moment in the upper portion of
the panel to dominate. The consequent tensile stresses
in the bottom face of the panel (usually the architectural
finished face) may result in visible cracking of this critical
surface. Concentric prestressing is often required for long
panels erected using the three-point procedure.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 123

 44'-5" 44'-5"

4'-7 /2" 12'-11 /2"

1 1
9'-3" 12'-11 /2" 4'-1 /2"
1 1
4'-7 /2"
1
22'-81/2"
17'-1"
0'-6"
22'-21/2" 22'-21/2" 22'-21/2" 22'-21/2"

R (kips) 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 R (kips) 19.72 19.72 16.06

1 2 3 4
W ' = 55.5K W ' = 55.5K

1 2 3 4 2' 103.23

64.51 42.56

12.94 12.94
M(kip-ft) M(kip-ft)
-13.33 -13.33 -13.33 -13.33 -13.33

Panel is stable at all Tilt Angles

Panel 6.94' × 44.42' × 1.0'
W ' = 46.25 × 1.2 = 55.5K Max. Tensile Stress = 620psi > 354psi
Max. Tensile Stress = 80psi
3-Point Lift - Shift Point 2 to Point 2'
4-Point Lift - Stripping & Loading Conservative Layout

Figure 7. This figure shows the lifting-device layout for the illustrated panel in this
article and the consequent balanced positive and negative moments during loading
on trucks for delivery to jobsites. Note: K = kip; M = moment; R = reaction; W’ =
weight of panel modified by impact factor (1.2W in examples). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.
Figure 8. This figure shows the moments and maximum tensile stress using the
conservative three-point lifting-insert layout shown in Fig. 6. Note: K = kip; M =
moment; R = reaction; W’ = weight of panel modified by impact factor (1.2W in
examples). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip =
4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

44'-5" 44'-5"
4'-7 /2"
1
22'-21/2" 17'-7" 6'-71/2" 20'-2 /2" 1
17'-7"
4'-71/2" 4'-71/2"
22'-2 /2"
1 22'-2 /2"
1
22'-21/2" 22'-21/2"
R (kips) 21.48 21.48 12.54 R (kips) 22.25 22.25 12.54

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
W ' = 55.5K W ' = 55.5K
1'
85.38
63.96
27.34 50.84 48.25

M(kip-ft) M(kip-ft)
0.0
-13.33
-27.38
o
At Tilt Angle = 60 o
Panel unstable w/sling line = 30ft. At Tilt Angle = 60
Panel barely stable w/sling line = 40ft. Panel unstable w/sling line = 30ft.
Panel stable w/sling line = 40ft.
Max. Tensile Stress = 513psi > 354psi
Max. Tensile Stress = 305psi < 354psi
3-Point lift at points 1 , 3 & top 3-Point Lift - Shift Point 1 to Point 1'

Figure 9. This figure shows the moments and maximum tensile stress resulting
from three-point lifting using a single line from the top of the panel and the slings
and rolling blocks attached to points 1 and 3 of the four-point lifting configuration.
Note: K = kip; M = moment; R = reaction; W’ = weight of panel modified by impact
factor (1.2W in examples). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 psi =
6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.
Figure 10. This figure shows the moments and maximum tensile stress resulting
from attaching the rolling-block lines to point 3 and a modified location of point 1,
farther from the bottom of the panel. Note: K = kip; M = moment; R = reaction; W’ =
weight of panel modified by impact factor (1.2W in examples). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

124 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Analytical methods
to reduce tensile stresses
Figures 7 through 10 study the effects on panel moments
and stresses resulting from varying the lifting-device
locations. The layout of lifting devices for long panels is
dictated by the condition at stripping of the panels when
the concrete strength is low. The PCI Design Handbook5
shows the recommended layout of lifting devices using
four-point handling of long panels in the horizontal posi-
tion for stripping and loading on trucks. (This is referred to
as eight-point lifting in the PCI Design Handbook because
there are two devices at each lift point location along the
length of the panel.) For the panel in this article, Fig. 7
shows this lifting-device layout and the consequent bal-
anced positive and negative moments during loading onto
trucks for delivery to jobsites.
Figure 8 repeats the moments and maximum tensile stress
using the conservative three-point lifting-insert layout
shown on Fig. 6 for comparison with the modified layouts
shown in Fig. 9 and 10. Figure 9 shows the moments and
maximum tensile stress resulting from three-point lifting
using a single line from the top of the panel and the slings
and rolling blocks attached to points 1 and 3 of the four-
point lifting configuration. This results in a reduction
in tensile stress from 620 psi (4.3 MPa) to 513 psi (3.5
MPa), but the analytical stability calculation presented
in this article indicates that the panel becomes unstable
at a tilt angle of about 50 deg with a sling length of 30
ft (9 m). Even with a sling length of 40 ft (12 m), there
is insufficient margin of safety against instability at the
critical tilt angle.
In this article, sling length S is defined as the length of
the cable attached to a lifting device running diagonally
through the rolling block and diagonally back to the com-
panion lifting device that shares the rolling-block reaction.
It includes the lengths of hooks and any shackles within
that length of line.
Figure 10 shows the moments and maximum tensile
stress resulting from attaching the rolling-block lines to
point 3 and a modified location of point 1, farther from
the bottom of the panel. The tensile stress reduces further
to 305 psi (2.10 MPa), but the analytical stability calcula-
tion shows that the panel is only marginally stable at the
most critical tilt angle, using a sling length of 40 ft (12
m). Increasing the sling length to 50 ft (15 m) in both of
the previously described cases would ensure stability at
all tilt angles.
The section “Analytical Study—Shifting of Rolling-Block
Reaction” and the sidebar “Erecting Long Precast Concrete
Members” show two analytical methods that establish
the safe location of lifting devices. However, it must be
understood that the length of the sling running through
the rolling block is a critical variable in these analytical
methods, and that using a shorter sling than indicated may
cause sudden instability of the panel, even though the
lifting-device locations are unchanged.
This raises an important caveat that must be considered
by designers who use this less-conservative layout. It is
essential that the designer be in a position to ensure that
the erection crew is properly notified and understands the
critical importance of using the minimum specified sling
length. If not, this less-conservative layout method may
potentially put members of the erection crew at serious
risk and should not be used.
The conservative layout procedure for three-point lifting
(Fig. 5) is not subject to this risk and is recommended for
use in any situation in which close supervision of the erec-
tion crew is not available.
Four-point lifting with two sets
of rolling blocks
Another method to reduce tensile stresses in the critical
face of the panel is to use a four-point layout of lifting
devices and two sets of rolling blocks. As illustrated in
Fig. 11, both the lower and upper reactions are carried by
rolling blocks with upper-block slings engaging the two
upper lifting devices and the lower-block slings engaging
the two lower devices in the conservative locations shown
in Fig. 8.
Figure 11 also shows the moments and maximum ten-
sile stress for the same panel for comparison with those
indicated from Fig. 7 through 10. Although this method
significantly reduces tensile stresses in both faces of the
panel, it is also more expensive and requires additional
erection equipment and extra erection labor to install and
then disengage for each panel lifted.
However, as indicated in Fig. 11, the panel remains stable
through all tilt angles from its horizontal position to its
vertical position. The demonstration photograph sequence
in Fig. 12 further illustrates the stability and clearly shows
the shifting of the rolling-block reactions as the panel is
rotated through all tilt angles.
Check validity of the PCI
Design Handbook formula
As discussed in the “Background” section, four editions of
the PCI Design Handbook1,3,4,5 and the Erector’s Manual2
present a formula that is intended to protect against sudden
rollover of panels being tilted to their vertical position.
Erectors have reported to the author that some long panels
that have lifting-device locations conforming to this for-
mula suddenly became unstable during erection.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 125
 12.9K

42.6K

Panel is stable at
all Tilt Angles
W ' = 55.5K

∆ = 60°

R L = 33.16K R R = 22.34K

0'-6"

R (kips) 16.58 16.58 11.17 11.17

W ' = 55.5K
22'-21/2" 22'-21/2"

4'-7 /2"
1
5'-1 /2"
1
17'-1" 17'-7"

50.09
33.40
M (kips-ft)
-13.33 -11.12

Max. Tensile Stress = 301psi < 354psi

Figure 11. This figure shows the four-point lifting layout with rolling blocks at both
ends of the panel. Note: K = kip; M = moment; R = reaction; RL = left lifting reac-
tion acting at centerline of rolling block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at right
end of panel; Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript identifies
horizontal projection of dimensions with panel in tilted position). 1” = 1 in. = 25.4
mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 Figure 12. This demonstration shows the tilting of a panel with a four-point layout
kN-m. and rolling blocks at both ends of the panel.

126 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 CHECK VALIDITY OF FORMULA IN PCI HANDBOOK AND ERECTORS MANUAL.
DOES IT PROTECT AGAINST INSTABILITY?

Panel Instability Incident: Soundtrack project, June 1995 (Stresscon)

RL = 42.2K

PCI Formula
Sling Length = 40'-0"

0'-6" to (c.g.)
L L2 - b 2
e > _ - _______ - a RR = 9.8K
2 2
2 2
54.33 (54.33) - (25)
e > _____ - _____________ - 0.5
2 2 W (c.g.) = 52K

1'-0"
26'-10" 27'-6"
e = 2.55' e = 6'-0"

8'-4" 12'-6" 12'-6" 21'-0"

e = 6.0' > 2.55' OK per formula
b = 25'-0"

L = 54'-4"

Figure 13. This figure shows the soundtrack panel dimensions used in the PCI Design Handbook formula. Note: a = distance from up face of panel to center of gravity of
the panel; b = distance between lower lifting devices; c.g. = center of gravity; K = kip; L = length of panel; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block;
RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel. 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

CHECK VALIDITY OF FORMULA IN PCI HANDBOOK AND ERECTORS MANUAL.

DOES IT PROTECT AGAINST INSTABILITY?

Panel Instability Incident: Soundtrack project, June 1995 (Stresscon)

PCI Formula
If e > 2.55’ , stability OK R L = 52.51K > W = 52K
Actual e = 6.0’ > 2.55’
RR = -0.51K

Analytical Model
At Δ = 60°
RL shifts to right of c.g.
RL carries entire weight of panel > 52k
RR would require downward pull = 510# W (c.g.) = 52K
to keep panel from rolling
e∆ = -11/2"

Panel actually rolled in June 1995 ∆

∆ = 60°
As predicted by Analytical Model

PCI FORMULA DID NOT

PREDICT INSTABILITY

Figure 14. This figure compares the formula e with the actual e in unstable soundtrack panel. Note: c.g. = center of gravity; e = minimum distance from the center of
gravity of the panel, with the panel in its horizontal position, to protect the erection-crew members against the unexpected sudden rollover of the panel; eΔ = horizontal pro-
jection of distance from centerline of center of gravity to centerline of rolling-block reaction with panel in tilted position; RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling
block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; W = weight of panel; W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel; Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position
(Δ as a subscript identifies horizontal projection of dimensions with panel in tilted position); # = pound. 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 127

 To evaluate the validity of this formula, the panel used for
the following example is the Soundtrack wall panel, which
became unstable during tilting. Figure 13 shows the formula
along with the corresponding dimensions of the lifting-de-
vice locations, panel thickness, and location of the c.g. of the
panel. The length of the rolling-block sling was 40 ft (12 m).
The PCI Design Handbook1 formula calculates the mini-
mum e required to protect the erection-crew members
against the unexpected sudden rollover of the panel when it
is in the horizontal position. In this case, the actual e = 6.0
ft (1.8 m), which comfortably exceeds the minimum e =
2.55 ft (0.78 m) derived from the formula.
However, as indicated in Fig. 14, the analytical method
shows that, with the sling length of 40 ft (12 m), the panel
becomes unstable at a tilt angle of 60 deg. In fact, the
Soundtrack panel became unstable during erection. The
bottom end hit the ground abruptly, and the panel was
severely damaged. Fortunately, all erection-crew members
escaped without injury. With a sling length of 50 ft (15 m),
the analytical methods show that the panel would probably
have been stable throughout the tilting process.
Erectors have also reported to the author other documented
rollover incidents wherein the dimensional information and
sling lengths were available. In each case, the PCI Design
Handbook formula indicated that the formula-derived
lifting-device locations should have protected the panel
from sudden rollover, whereas the analytical methods,
which include sling-length effects, predicted the instability
that was actually encountered.
In its present form, the PCI Design Handbook formula
does not include the critical sling-length variable and
therefore does not provide its intended protection against
instability. Instead of addressing possible modifications to
the PCI Design Handbook formula, this article provides
the analytical methods described in the section “Analyti-
cal Study—Shifting of Rolling-Block Reaction” and the
sidebar “Erecting Long Precast Concrete Members,” which
directly model the shifting location of the RL reaction and
enable the designer to vary the length of the sling for any
case studied.
At the time this article was written, PCI had transmitted a
technical bulletin to the industry on December 19, 2008,
then published the bulletin in the Spring 2009 edition of
the PCI Journal,6 indicating that the formula in its present
form “is incorrect and may not provide stability for all con-
ditions when rotating a precast concrete component in the
air.” PCI has further initiated action to remove the formula
from future editions of both the PCI Design Handbook1
and the Erector’s Manual2 and to recommend that the
conservative layout shown in Fig. 5 be used for three-point
lifting of long vertical precast concrete members.
128 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
However, design engineers are hereby cautioned that the
PCI Design Handbook1 formula, in its present form, is
represented in current and past editions of these publica-
tions as providing protection against sudden rollover, and
precautionary procedures should be instituted to ensure
against its use without a verified modification that incorpo-
rates the sling-length variable.
Conclusion
Beneficial effect of longer sling
lengths
Through studies of various hypothetical conditions and
analyses of incidents that resulted in the sudden rollover
of members while using the three-point pickup, it became
apparent that increasing the length of the slings would
often protect against this condition. Based on these studies,
it appears that a simple rule may be applicable in cases in
which the erector is confronted with having to evaluate the
potential for sudden rollover of long vertical precast con-
crete members already cast with lifting devices in place.
Erectors’ quick rule
For the three-point lifting procedure, it is suggested that
the minimum sling length be greater than twice the dis-
tance between the two lower lifting devices to which it is
attached. For example, if that distance is 25 ft (7.5 m), a
minimum sling length of 50 ft (15 m) plus 10 ft (3 m), or
a total minimum sling length of 60 ft (18 m), is suggested.
However, to verify the safety of this quick rule, for any
specific case it is critical that the resulting sling length be
checked and verified by analytical methods, such as those
presented in the section “Analytical Study—Shifting of
Rolling-Block Reaction” and the sidebar “Erecting Long
Precast Concrete Members.”
Recommendations to designers
The analytical methods shown in the section “Analyti-
cal Study—Shifting of Rolling-Block Reaction” and the
sidebar “Erecting Long Precast Concrete Members” are
also recommended to be used to establish lifting-device
locations in situations in which the designer elects not to
conform to the recommended conservative lifting-device
layout in Fig. 5.
However, the following must be emphasized:
• The designer must be in a position to guarantee that
the sling length required by the calculation is actually
used by the erection crew.
• The location of the c.g. of the member must be clearly
defined. A wall panel with openings near the top
of the panel or with the top portion thinner than the
 bottom shifts the c.g. toward the bottom, which may
result in the panel becoming unstable if the calculation
is based on the c.g. being at midheight of the panel.
• While the analytical methods are capable of calculat-
ing the eccentricity between the vertical alignments
of the c.g. of a member and the rolling-block reaction
through all tilt angles, engineering judgment should
be exercised in establishing a required minimum value
for this eccentricity to ensure that it is increased by an
adequate factor of safety to account for manufacturing
tolerances and other imperfections.
The analytical methods should also be used to calculate
the loads in the slings and the angles to which they apply
loads to the lifting devices, particularly in cases in which
the rated capacity of a lifting device is less in shear than in
tension.
Analytical study—shifting
of rolling-block reaction
This method compares the vertical alignment of the
rolling-block reaction with the vertical alignment of the
c.g. of long precast concrete members at any selected tilt
angle. If at any tilt angle the rolling-block reaction aligns
with the c.g., that reaction will carry the entire weight of
the member and the member will become unstable.
Figure 15 illustrates this method. The input data utilize
values given for each of the notations illustrated on Fig. 16
with the panel in the horizontal position. Those input data
are shown in the highlighted boxes in the example.
The notations at any tilt angle Δ are shown on Fig. 17. Dur-
ing the tilting of a member, the horizontal components of
the loads T in the two legs of the rolling-block sling
(T sin θ) must be equal and opposite. Thus the angle of incli-
nation θ of each leg with respect to the vertical alignment of
the rolling-block reaction must also be equal and opposite.
At any tilt angle Δ, the method requires the selection
of trial values of θ, calculates the consequent values of
dimensions qΔ and pΔ until, through successive approxima-
tions, tan θ = qΔ/pΔ. At that value of θ, the method calcu-
lates the horizontal shift of the vertical alignment of RLΔ
and its eccentricity eΔ with respect to the vertical alignment
of the c.g. of the member.
If, at any selected tilt angle, eΔ approaches zero value or
becomes negative, the panel becomes unstable and will roll
suddenly and uncontrollably.
If the value of eΔ remains positive through all tilt angles,
the member will remain stable. However, it is emphasized
that the selected sling length S is a very important variable
and its length must be established and controlled so that
this or any other analytical method may be relied on to
ensure the safe erection of these long members.
In the example, this method is applied to the long wall
panel that rolled suddenly during erection on the 1995
Soundtrack project. The required input data are taken from
the panel dimensions with the panel in its horizontal posi-
tion and are highlighted in yellow. The sling length used to
erect the Soundtrack panel was about 40 ft (12 m).
Figure 17 illustrates the panel at tilt angle Δ. The value of
Δ is checked at 60 deg in the example, and the value of θ
is varied until tan θ = qΔ/pΔ. The resulting value of
θ =18.2 deg, and at that value the vertical alignment of the
rolling-block reaction RL has shifted beyond the vertical
alignment of the c.g. of the panel. The value of eΔ becomes
negative by 1.54 in. (39 mm), and the panel becomes
unstable.
The calculations in the example show that at RR, a down-
ward pull of 0.51 kip (2.3 kN) would be required to keep
the panel stable, and RL carries the entire weight of the
panel. The tension in one of the two sling lines would be
13.56 kip (60 kN) applied at the lower lifting device at
angle α = 11.8 deg with respect to the panel surface.
This method also checks the validity of the PCI Design
Handbook1 formula and calculates the minimum value of e
= 2.55 ft (0.78 m) with the panel in the horizontal position,
at which point the panel should be stable. However, the
actual value of e is 6.0 ft (1.8 m), but the panel has become
unstable at a tilt angle Δ = 60 deg, with a sling length S =
40 ft (12 m). Thus the PCI Design Handbook formula did
not predict the instability of the panel.
If the sling length S is changed to 50 ft (15 m), the method
will show that the panel remains stable at all tilt angles.
However, engineering judgment should be exercised
with respect to establishing a safety factor to increase the
minimum required eccentricity at the critical tilt angle to
account for manufacturing tolerances and other variables
associated with the erection process.
Acknowledgments
The author appreciates valuable input, detailed review,
suggestions, and editing by Helmuth Wilden, P.E., of
Wilden Enterprises and Steve Seguirant, P.E., of Concrete
Technology Corp. Also providing comments were John
Jacobsen, P.E., Peter Robinson, Mike Larsen, and Dennis
Cates of Stresscon Corp. and Mike Dixon, P.E., of FDG
Associates. The demonstration of the four-point lifting
sequence was performed by Stresscon Corp., and its photo-
graphic sequence was provided by Ralph Brandhorst.
Diagrams were put into digital form by Austin Bryan of
CAD Prototypes LLC.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 129
 LIFTING ANGLE EFFECT ON PANEL REACTIONS DON LOGAN v3 09/30/09
Notations Illustrated on Figs. 16 and 17

SOUNDTRACK 1995-STYROCORE PANEL 10 FT × 54.33 FT; THICKNESS = 12.00 in.

3 POINT PICKUP, b(Lower) = 25.00 ft a= 0.500 in.
BOTTOM RIGGING
L= 54.33 ft PANEL LENGTH
SL = 40.00 ft SLING LENGTH
b= 25.00 ft
c= 8.33 ft CHECK VALIDITY OF PCI FORMULA
CG(R) = 27.50 ft pci e = L/2 – {[(L2 – b2)0.5]/2} – a
CG(L) = 26.83 ft pci e = 2.547 ft
f= 6.50 ft If e(actual) > pci e, then stable
e= 6.00 ft e(actual) = 6.000 ft > pci e, OK?

SELECT ∆ = 60.00 deg

sin∆ = 0.866 a*sin∆ = 0.433 ft

cos∆ = 0.500
b∆ = b*cos∆ = 12.500 ft
p∆ = b*sin∆ = 21.651 ft
f∆ = f *cos∆ = 3.250 ft
f'∆ = f∆ - (a*sin∆) = 2.817 ft
CG(R)∆ = [CG(R)*cos∆] – a*sin∆) 13.317 ft

TRY θ = 18.211 deg

j∆ = p∆/cosθ = 22.792 ft
k∆ = (SL – j∆)/2 = 8.604 ft
m∆ = k∆*sinθ = 2.689 ft
q∆ = b∆ – 2m∆ = 7.122 ft
n∆ = k∆*cosθ = 8.173 ft
e∆ = m∆ – f'∆ = -0.128 ft; * 12 = -1.538 in. UNSTABLE

CHECK q∆/p∆ = tanθ = 0.329 tanθ = 0.329

SHIFT = b∆/2 – m∆ = 3.561 ft ; *12 = 42.73

W = 52 K ; ALPHA = 90 – ∆ – θ = 11.79 deg

RR∆ = W*e∆/(CG(L)∆ + e∆) = -0.51 K downward*
RL∆ = [W*(CG(L)∆/[CG(L)∆ + e∆] = 5251 K vertical*
Line Tens. (4 components) = RL∆/(4*cosθ) = 13.82 K resultant

* NOTE: THE RL∆ REACTION LINE HAS SHIFTED PAST THE CG LINE AND RL CARRIES ENTIRE PANEL
WEIGHT; RR < ZERO KIPS. PANEL IS UNSTABLE.

Figure 15. This Microsoft Excel diagram shows the lifting angle’s effect on panel reactions. Note: b = distance between lower lifting devices; L = length of panel; SL = S
= sling length, defined as length of cable attached to lifting device, running diagonally through rolling block and diagonally back to companion lifting device that shares
rolling-block reaction, includes lengths of hooks and any shackles within that length of line; W = weight of panel; Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript
identifies horizontal projection of dimensions with panel in tilted position); θ = angle of inclination. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

130 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 eo fo

RL

Tilt Angle
ο
∆=0 θo θo
SL/2 SL/2

RR

αo
a

w
CG(L) CG(R)
b/2 b/2
c b L-(c+b)
L

Panel in horizontal position showing notations

Refer to Fig. 15 for specific dimensions
of unstable Soundtrack panel − 1995

Figure 16. Notations are given for the panel when it is in the horizontal position. Note: a = distance from up face of panel to center of gravity of the panel; b = distance
between lower lifting devices; eo = distance from the center of gravity of panel to centerline of rolling-block reaction with panel in horizontal position; L = length of panel; RL
= left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; SL = S = sling length, defined as length of cable attached to
lifting device, running diagonally through rolling block and diagonally back to companion lifting device that shares rolling-block reaction, including lengths of hooks and any
shackles within that length of line; W = weight of panel; α = angle between sling leg and surface of panel; Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript identi-
fies horizontal projection of dimensions with panel in tilted position).

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 131

 bΔ /2

RL
RLΔ Shift
fΔ'
-eΔ ∴ unstable
b∆/2 b∆/2
qΔ 2mΔ

w
CG(R)Δ
RL Δ Shift
Δ
fΔ'
-eΔ ∴ unstable

w
θ∆ = θ∆ RRΔ
(-)

tan θ∆ = q∆ / p∆
RL Δ
k∆

nΔ θ∆θ∆
T
m∆ m∆
Δ
T
fo
j∆

pΔ θ∆ α∆
w

b fo

Tilt Angle = ∆ c
a
a
b∆/2
b∆
b∆/2
w
a sinΔ f-asinΔ
Δ

f Δ

Shift in CG
(panel thickness effect)

Panel ininstability at tilt angle ∆ illustrated

Refer to Fig. 15 for specific dimensions
of unstable Soundtrack panel − 1995

Figure 17. Panel instability is shown for tilt angle Δ. Note: a = distance from up face of panel to center of gravity of the panel; b = distance between lower lifting devices;
eΔ = horizontal projection of distance from centerline of center of gravity to centerline of rolling-block reaction with panel in tilted position; RL = left lifting reaction acting at
centerline of rolling block; W = weight of panel. Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a subscript identifies horizontal projection of dimensions with panel in tilted
position).

132 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

References
1. Industry Handbook Committee. 1985. PCI Design
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL-
120. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
2. PCI Erectors Committee. 1999. Erectors Manual:
Standards and Guidelines for the Erection of Precast
Concrete Products. MNL-127. 2nd ed. Chicago IL:
PCI.
3. Industry Handbook Committee. 1992. PCI Design
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL-
120. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
4. Industry Handbook Committee. 1999. PCI Design
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL-
120. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
RL = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling
block
RR = right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel
S = sling length, defined as length of cable attached
to lifting device, running diagonally through
rolling block and diagonally back to companion
lifting device that shares rolling-block reaction,
including lengths of hooks and any shackles
within that length of line
T = tension in the rolling block sling
W = weight of panel
W’ = weight of panel modified by impact factor (1.2W
in examples)

5. Industry Handbook Committee. 2004. PCI Design W(c.g.) = panel weight acting at c.g. of panel
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL-
120. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI. α = angle between sling leg and surface of panel

6. PCI Journal. 2009. Figure on Stability during Han- Δ = tilt angle of panel in tilted position (Δ as a
dling and Erection to Be Revised. In “From PCI Head- subscript identifies angles and dimensions with
quarters.” V. 54, No. 2 (Spring): p. 21. panel in tilted position)

Notation θ = angle of inclination between sling legs and cen-

terline of rolling block reaction
a = distance from up face of panel to center of grav-
ity of the panel

b = distance between lower lifting devices

c.g. = center of gravity

CGL = distance from left end of panel to c.g. of panel

CGR = distance from right end of panel to c.g. of panel

eo = distance from the center of gravity of panel to

centerline of rolling-block reaction with panel in
horizontal position

eΔ = horizontal projection of distance from centerline

of center of gravity to centerline of rolling-block
reaction with panel in tilted position

f c' = concrete compressive strength at erection

ft = actual tensile stress in panel during lifting

ftallow = allowable tensile stress in panel during lifting

L = length of panel

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 133

 Erecting long precast
concrete members
Stephen J. Seguirant, P.E.
Vice president and director of engineering
Concrete Technology Corp., Tacoma, Wash.
This sidebar shows the method that Concrete Technology
Corp. uses to evaluate the stability of long precast con-
crete members lifted using three points during erection.
This method is based on the law of cosines and is simple
to understand and incorporate into a spreadsheet.
In the horizontal position, the panel hangs as shown in
Fig. S1. The only information required as input for the
method is:
dcg = distance from up face of panel to c.g. of panel
hcg = distance from bottom of panel to c.g. of panel
h1 = distance from bottom of panel to lowest set of
lifting devices
h2 = distance between lower two sets of lifting devices
L = length of panel
S = sling length, defined as total length of lifting sling
from lowest set of lifting devices through the rolling
blocks to middle set of lifting devices
In the horizontal position, the length of the lower leg
of the sling S1 and the upper leg of the sling S2 are both
equal to S/2. During all angles of rotation, S1 + S2 = S.
When the panel reaches vertical, S1 = S - (S - h2)/2 and S2
= S - S1. By varying S1 between the possible extremes, the
stability of the panel during rotation can be investigated.
Figure S2 shows the panel in a tilted position. Because
the distance between the lower two sets of lifting devices
h2 is fixed, angles A and B can be found by the law of
cosines for any assumed value of S1.
S12 + S22 − h22
A = cos−1
2S1S2
h22 + S22 − S12
B = cos−1
2h2 S2

Rl Rr
Rl Rr

S 1 = S/2 S 2 = S/2

60 o min
A ∆θ
d cg S2

Equal
B
eh
S1

h cg C

h1 h2 h3

x lift e
Panel in horizontal position.
x cg

Figure S1. The panel hangs like this when it is in the horizontal position. Note: c.g.
= center of gravity; dcg = distance from up face of panel to c.g. of panel; eh = dis-
tance from c.g. of panel to Rl; hcg = distance from bottom of panel to c.g. of panel;
h1 = distance from bottom of panel to lowest set of lifting devices; h2 = distance
between lower two sets of lifting devices; h3 = length of panel minus (h1 plus h2); L
= length of panel; Rl = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; Rr =
right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; S = sling length, defined as total
length of lifting sling from lowest set of lifting devices, through the rolling blocks, to
middle set of lifting devices; S1 = the length of the lower leg of the sling; S2 = the
length of the upper leg of the sling.
Panel in tilted position.
Figure S2. The panel is in a tilted position. Note: A = angle; B = angle; C = angle;
e = eccentricity; Rl = left lifting reaction acting at centerline of rolling block; Rr =
right lifting reaction acting at right end of panel; S1 = the length of the lower leg
of the sling; S2 = the length of the upper leg of the sling; xcg = distance between
the bottom up-face corner of the panel and the c.g. of the panel; xlift = distance
between the bottom up-face corner of the panel and the vertical crane line reaction
Rl; θ = angle of panel rotation from horizontal.

134 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table S1. Stability calculation results for example panel from “Analytical Study – Shifting of Rolling-Block Reaction”

S1, ft S2, ft A, deg B, deg θ, deg xcg, ft xLift, ft e, ft Δ, ft

20.00 20.00 77.36 51.32 0.00 26.83 20.83 6.00 n.a.

21.56 18.44 76.92 57.15 5.62 26.75 21.71 5.05 1.563

23.13 16.88 75.57 63.61 11.40 26.40 22.34 4.07 1.563

24.69 15.31 73.17 70.94 17.52 25.74 22.66 3.08 1.563

26.25 13.75 69.47 79.52 24.26 24.67 22.55 2.11 1.563

27.03 12.97 67.01 84.47 27.97 23.93 22.28 1.65 0.781

27.81 12.19 64.01 90.00 32.01 23.02 21.81 1.21 0.781

28.59 11.41 60.35 96.29 36.47 21.88 21.07 0.80 0.781

29.38 10.63 55.81 103.61 41.51 20.42 19.99 0.44 0.781

29.77 10.23 53.11 107.78 44.33 19.54 19.27 0.28 0.391

30.16 9.84 50.04 112.39 47.41 18.53 18.39 0.13 0.391

30.55 9.45 46.51 117.57 50.82 17.34 17.32 0.01 0.391

30.94 9.06 42.37 123.49 54.67 15.92 16.00 -0.08 0.391

31.40 8.60 36.42 131.79 60.00 13.85 13.98 -0.13 0.459

31.79 8.21 29.85 140.74 65.66 11.51 11.62 -0.11 0.391

32.18 7.82 20.48 153.23 73.47 8.11 8.09 0.02 0.391

32.50 7.50 0.00 180.00 90.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.322

Note: A = angle; B = angle; e = eccentricity; S1 = the length of the lower leg of the sling; S2 = the length of the upper leg of the sling; xcg = distance
between the bottom up-face corner of the panel and the c.g. of the panel; xlift = distance between the bottom up-face corner of the panel and the verti-
cal crane line reaction Rl; ∆ = dimensional increment used to modify S1 during the rotation of the panel to vertical; θ = angle of panel rotation from
horizontal.

Due to the free rotation of the rolling blocks, angle A is e = xcg – xlif t ≥ 0
bisected by the crane line resisting Rl at all angles of rota-
tion. Consequently, the angle of panel rotation θ can be The results of this method on the example illustrated in
found using the section “Analytical Study – Shifting of Rolling-Block
Reaction” are tabulated in Table S1. The values desig-
⎛ A ⎞ nated Δ are used to modify S1 for the entire range of rota-
θ = 90 − ⎜ 180 − − B ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ tion. The mesh of Δ values decrease as the panel rotation
angle increases because instability is more likely to occur
The distance between the bottom up-face corner of the at higher tilt angles. At S1 = 31.40 ft (9.6 m), Δ has been
panel and the vertical crane line reaction Rl can be found manually adjusted to result in a panel tilt angle θ of 60
using deg. The resulting e = -0.13 ft = -1.54 in. (39 mm) agrees
with the results of the method shown in “Analytical
A Study—Shifting of Rolling-Block Reaction.” However,
( )
xlift = cosθ h1 + h2 − sin ( )
S
2 2 actual instability will begin at roughly θ = 50 deg.

The distance between that same bottom up-face corner The mathematical method presented herein is straight-
and the c.g. of the panel, adjusted for the depth of the c.g. forward. However, engineering judgment should be
below the up face, is exercised with respect to a minimum required eccen-
tricity (greater than zero) to account for manufacturing
xcg = cosθ(hcg + dcg tanθ) tolerances and other imperfections associated with the
erection process.
The panel will remain stable as long as

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 135

 About the author
Donald R. Logan, P.E., is
principal of Logan Structural
Research Foundation in Colorado
Springs, Colo. He was founder
and CEO of Stresscon Corp. from
1967 to 2007. He is a PCI Fellow
and was named a Titan of the
Industry in 2004. Logan received the Martin P. Korn
Award and the American Society of Civil Engineers’
T. Y. Lin Award for his 1997 paper on strand-bond
acceptance criteria and the Korn Award again for his
2007 paper on eccentrically loaded L-spandrels. He
serves on the PCI Research and Development Com-
mittee.
Synopsis
Erection of long, vertical precast concrete members
from their as-delivered horizontal position to their
vertical position in the structure involves devising
handling procedures that protect the safety of the erec-
tion personnel while preventing the precast concrete
member from cracking during the tilting procedure.
The author investigates the most commonly used
procedures, three-point and four-point rolling-block
lifting systems, and identifies a common instability
136 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
condition that causes sudden, uncontrolled rolling
of the members as they are being tilted toward their
vertical position. Methods are devised to detect in any
member the potential for such instability, to establish
safe location of lifting devices and minimum lengths
of crane slings to prevent this condition from occur-
ring, and to analyze and control tensile stresses from
causing cracking of long precast concrete wall panels
as they are lifted from their horizontal position, rigged
for the tilting operation.
Keywords
Erection, long members, rolling block, safety, stabil-
ity, tilting, wall panel.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606. J