Anda di halaman 1dari 151

Copyright 1991 Shell U.K. Limired. All rights reserved.

Additional registered or controlled copies can be obtained


from Central Engineering Library.

Shell U.K. Exploration and Production


SHELL

ENGINEERING

REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MANUAL:
1

GUIDELINES FOR LIFTING


POINTS AND HEAVY LIFT
CRITERIA

Document Number : EM/039


Rev: 3
"''C'r~t

.t:.r;.}i'i.7-;:C-;~

~ c~/r.; fcu

) .

UEOE/11

is the appointed Custodian of this document and must always be


consulted for advice on validity and currency by a user.

Custodian
Name:

Ref. Ind.:

A WvanBEEK

UEOE/11

Authorised
Name:

Ref. Ind.:

RMUNCASTER

UEO;E

- 1-

Signature :

Date:

--~__q lj/t/;;
Signature:

~~t~~e.a~~

Date:

:ZJ;-t{2(91

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

REVISION RECORD
REVISION
No/DATE

REVISION DETAILS

REVISED BY:

REF. IND

This manual has been extensively revised in


accordance with current ERD format procedure (see
Preface).

F. Mohaqmad

UEN/31

B. Irvine

UENM/1

W.G. Laver

UEOE/11

0/June 1985

1/June 1987

Section 3 has been revised to clarify design requirements for heavy lifts.
Section 4.4.8 is corrected to allow a reduced safety
factor for certain types of sling. Reference is made to
cable laid slings for heavy lifts.
Section 7.1- Equation (2) is corrected ..

2/Aug 1989

Amendment, dated 31 51 July 1987, removed. Design


Code References updated, Clarification of Lifting
Point Proof Test Requirements.

3/Dec 1991

Manual split into two parts to cover:


Part 1 - Guideiines for design fabrication and
inspection of lifting points (intended for packages up
to 1000 tonnes).
Part 2 - Heavy Lift Criteria (Intended for packages
exceeding 1000 !annes - traditionally modules and
Integrated decks).

This document should be reviewed within one year of the last revision date. However, the user of this
document must always consult the appointed custodian for advice on validity and currency.

Page 2 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991

AMENDMENT PROPOSAL FORM


To be completed by Amendment Proposer
TO:

UEOE/24

(Photocopy and leave original in binder)


FROM:

COPY:

EXTN:

AMENDMENT TO ERD NUMBER

REVISION

DATE:

PROPOSAL:

JUSTIFICATION:

To be completed by ERD Administration


APF NUMBER:

TARGET DATE:

APPROVE
CUSTODIAN

COMMENTS OF:

i.

COMMENTS FROM CONTRIBUTORS:


(Only if specifically requested by Custodian)

DISTRIBUTE TO:

Page 3 of 149

REJECT
SPONSOR

EM/039
Rev31991

CONTENTS
Para

Page

PREFACE

PART 1 GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN FABRICATION AND INSPECTION OF LIFTING POINTS

10

GLOSSARY

11

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

12

1
1.1

1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
2
2.1

2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2

2.2.3
3
3.1

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2

3.2.1

3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3

4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

INTRODUCTION AND REFERENCES


Scope
References
British Standards
Other National/International Standards
Shell Expro Documents
Others

13
13
13
13
14
14
14

SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF LIGHT PACKAGES (Vf1< SOT)


Hook Load (VV1)
Lifting Point Design Load {Wa)
Four Point Lifts
Alternative Lifting Arrangements
Lateral Load

14
14
15
15
15

SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF MEDIUM PACKAGES (> SOT Bu'T <
1OOOT)
Hook Load (W1)
Weight Allowances (lV'a)
Dynamic Amplification Factor {Fh)
Lifting Point Design Load (VY'a)
Four Point Lifts
Tandem Crane Lifts
Alternative Lifting Arrangements
Lateral Loads
Padears

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
18
18
18

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8

GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING


Sling Angle
Material Selection
Design Stresses
Practical Considerations
Lifting Point Attachments
Lifting Point Location
Dimensioning
Cheek Plates
Weld Design
Bolted Connections
Lifting Eyes and Lugs
Slings and Shackles

FABRICATION, INSPECTION AND TESTING

23

DOCUMENTATION

25

7
7.1

APPENDICES
Dynamic Amplification Factor Derivation

25
25

Page4 of 149

19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
22
22

22
22

EM/039
Rev 31991
7.2
7.3

7.4
7.5

7.6

Lifting Point Design Load Derivation


Typical Sling Properties
Typical Shackle Properties
Properties of Lifting Eyes and Lugs
Padeye Design Example

27
27

28
29
30

PART 2 HEAVY LIFT CRITERIA FINAL REPORT

46

TRANSMITTAL LETTER

47

DISTRIBUTION LIST

48

SECOND DRAFT REPORT 27TH NOVEMBER 1990

48

1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2

INTRODUCTION
General
Project Management
Lift History
Single Crane Lifts
Dual Crane Lifts

50
50
50

2
2.1

SUMMARY
Scope of Work
Results
Single Hook Lift
Criteria Comparison. Single Hook Lifts
Dual Lift
Criteria Comparison. Dual Lifts

2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3

2.2.4

3
3.1
3.2

3.3

51
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
54

55

CONCLUSIONS
Static Analyses
Dynamic Analyses
References

60
60
60
61

64

APPENDIX 1.0 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF MODULE LIFTING SYSTEMS

64

INTRODUCTION

64
64

2.9.2
2.10
2.11
2.11.1
2.11.2
2.11.3
2.11.4
2.11.5
2.11.6
2.11.7

DESIGN GUIDELINES
Module Weights
Rigging Weight
Dynamic Amplifications Factors
Lift Configuration
Lift Geometry
Module Tilt and Allowable CG Zone
Lift Point Loads
Dual Crane Lifts
Single Crane Lifts
Sling Design
Single Slings
Multiple Length Slings
Grommets
Dynamic Hook Load
Dual Crane Lifts
Single Crane Lifts
Crane Capacity
Lift Point Design
Design Loads
Allowable Stresses
Lift Point Geometry
Cast Padears
Trunnions
Pad eyes
Shackles

72
73

INSTALLATION AIDS

73

2
2.1
2.2

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7

2.7.1
2.7.2

2.8
2.8.1

2.8.2
2.8.3
2.9

2.9.1

Page 5 of 149

65
65

66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

71
71

72

EM/039
Rev 31991
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3

Module Guidance Systems


General
Module Movement Limitations
Bumpers and Guides
Pins and Buckets
Design Forces
Design Considerations
Sling Laydown
General
Sling Configuration
Sling Laydown Platform Design
Tugger Line Attachment
General
Attachment Position
Attachment Design

4
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Slings and Grommets
Manufacture, Inspection and Certification
Re-use of Slings and Grommets
Sling Handling
Shackles
Certification
Re-use of Shackles

78

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

78

REFERENCES

84

73
73
73

74
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76
76
76
76

ATTACHMENT 1.0 DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS

1
1.1

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS


General

76
76
76
76
77
77

77

85
85
85

ATTACHMENT 2.0 SKEW LOAD FACTOR- SINGLE HOOK LIFTS

87

ATTACHMENT 3.0 WORKED EXAMPLES

88

3
3.1
3.2
3.3

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS


General
Single Hook Lift Example
Dual Crane Lift Example

88
88

88
94

TABLES
Table

1
2
3

4
5
6

7
8

9
10
11

Page
Dynamic Amplification Factors (Fh) For Light Packages
Minimum Size Fillet Welds
Typical Sling Properties
Dimensions and SWL of 'GREEN-PIN' Shackles
Dimensions and SWL of 'McKissick' Shackles
Dimensions of Round and Oval Eyes
Dimensions of Triangular Lifting Eyes
Dimensions of Lug Fittings
Lift Criteria Comparison -Single Crane Lifts
Lift Criteria Comparison -Dual Lifts
References used in this Document

Page 6 of 149

15
22
27
28
28
29
30
30
56

58
62

EM/039
Rev 31991

FIGURES
Page
Fig

'

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Dynamic Amplification Factors


Cruciform for CG Location
Positioning of CG for Pad eye Load Calculation
Simplified Representation of Package Tilt
Padear Lifting Arrangements
Typical Padear Details
Preferred Padeye Design Details
Stability of Packages
Typical Shackle Details
Lifting Eyes and Lugs
Plan View of Package in Design Example
Padeye Design Example
Sling Configurations
Lift Point Design Loadings
Cast Padear
Trunnion
Pad eye
Bumpers and Guides (Type 1)
Bumpers and Guides (Type 2)
Bumpers and Guides (Type 3)
Pin and Bucket Guide
Stabbing Cone
Impact Velocities (Module Setting)
Module Impact Loads, Single Lift
Module Impact Loads, Dual Lift
Sling Design DAF
Hook Load OAF
Typical Cable Laid Constructions
Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift (sheet 1 of 2)
Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift (sheet 2 of 2)
Single Hook Lift Geometry
Lift Point Loads- Single Crane Lift
Skew Load Factor Graphs
Single Hook List Skew Load Factor (sheet 1 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 2 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 3 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 4 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 5 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 6 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 7 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 8 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 9 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 10 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 11 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 12 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 13 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 14 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 15 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 16 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 17 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 18 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 19 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 20 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 21 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 22 of 24)
Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 23 of 24)

Page 7 of 149

36
37
37
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144

EM/039
Rev 31991

57
58
59
60
61

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 24 of 24)


Lift Design Calculation Chari
Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones
Single Crane Lift Example
Dual Crane Lift Example

Page 8 of 149

145
146
147
148
149

EM/039
Rev31991

PREFACE
In this third rev1s1on of EM/039 there have been changes to content and format. The revJsJon has been
prompted by the issue of a guideline document for the design of the lifting systems for heavy offshore modules
in air by semi-submersible crane vessels. This document was prepared following a joint industry project (JIP)
carried out during 1990 and in which Shell Expro participated.
The Manual has therefore been split into two parts.
The first part contains guidelines on the design fabrication and inspection of lifting points and is in essence of
similar style and content to the previous Rev. 2 version, but updated.
The second part contains extracts from the unabridged version of the 'Heavy Lift Criteria Final Report' prepared
by Brown and Root (BRV) under the auspices of the JIP. The main deliverable from this JIP WAS THE
GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF MODULE LIFTING SYSTEMS which is reproduced in full.
The reader should be aware that whilst the GUIDELINES were prepared with joint industry input there is no
obligation from any of the major offshore installation contractors, warranty surveyors or others to follow the
criteria rigidly. The object of the JIP was to standardise the lifting criteria but this proved to be too ambitious a
task and so lifting contractors, warranty surveyors and others will continue to use their own criteria developed
over a number of years experience. However, the differences between the GUIDELINES developed during the
JIP and other criteria are very small and similar results can be expected. For front end Engineering or
Conceptual Design then the JIP GUIDELINES may be used, but once an installation Contractor has been
appointed then the appropriate criteria should be discussed and agreed.
PART 1 of this Manual describes the criteria to be applied to the design, fabrication and inspection of lifting
points for light and medium packages up to 1000 tonnes lift weight. These criteria are mainly intended for lifting
points on packages for offshore lifting. However, appropriate modifications to the criteria for onshore lifting are
also specified and similar principles apply to offshore and onshore lifts.
PART 2 of this Manual contains the main guidelines for the design of the lifting systems for heavy offshore
modules in air by a semi-submersible crane vessel and relevant extracts from the main JIP report. The
document was prepared following a joint industry project study carried out during 1990. The guidelines do not
specifically cover lifts incorporating floating spreader beams/frames or offshore lifts of jacket structures although
they can be applied under certain circumstances.
Due to the two part nature of the manual there may be some duplication of information but this is unavoidable
and information in Part 2 for heavy lifts may be appropriate for light and medium lifts and vice versa.
Proposed modifications to this Standard shall be addressed to, and agreed with the appointed custodian,
UEOE/11.

Page 9 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

PART 1 GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN FABRICATION AND INSPECTION OF LIFTING


POINTS

Page 10 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991

GLOSSARY
SIPM

Shelllnternationale Petroleum Maatschappij B.V.

Shell

Shell U.K. Ltd.

Shell Expro

Shell U.K. Exploration and Production.

Purchaser

The organisation responsible who carry out the purchasing function, e.g. Shell
Expro or a Shell Expro appointed Contractor, Consultant or Agent.

Vendor

The supplier of materials or equipment- not necessarily the Manufacturer.

Manufacturer

The company responsible for the manufacture- not necessarily the Vendor.

Contractor

The Shell Expro appointed main Contractor for a defined piece of work.

Sub-contractor

A company awarded a contract by a Contractor to do part of the work awarded to


the Contractor by Shell Expro. The work of the Sub-contractor is carried out under
the direction and control of the Contractor. Under its model contracts Shell Expro
has the right to review all proposed Sub-contractors, and sub-contracts.

Nominated
(to be used with extreme caution)
Sub-contractor
A term having a special legal meaning applicable to the unusual case where the
terms and conditions of the contract between Shell Expro and the Contractor
provide that special terms and conditions apply to any Sub-contractor that is
nominated by Shell Expro. Shell Expro model contracts avoid use of the term
'nominated'.
Consultant

A company awarded a contract by Shell Expro for the company to advise or give
guidance on specific subjects. The Scope of Work may include instructions to act
as an Agent for Shell Expro (see Agent).

Agent

The legal status of any person or company


Shell Expro's behalf on the matters specified
Third parties can usually rely on the Agent
authority of Shell Expro, provided that the
apparent authority from Shell Expro.

Safe Working

The maximum mass that an item of lifting gear may raise, lower or suspend under
conditions no more severe than the design conditions. The SWL is sometimes
referred to as the working limit load (WLL) in British Standards documents.

authorised by Shell Expro to act on


in the agency agreement or contract.
as acting on behalf of and with the
Agent acts within the scope of his

Minimum Breaking Load (MBL) The load below which a sling will not fracture when tested to
destruction in the prescribed manner.
Base Weight

The best estimate of the weight of a package exclusive of allowances as defined in


EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and Procedures

Factored Weight

Base weight plus allowances. Refer to EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and
Procedures

Light Package

A package whose factored weight does not exceed 50 tonnes.

Medium Package A package whose factored weight is between 50 tonnes and 1000 tonnes.
Heavy Package

A package whose factored weight exceeds 1000 tonnes.

Package

An item requiring to be lifted, onshore or offshore.

Lifting Point

A lifting polnC usually pacfeye or a padear, is a structural element and the part of
the package or lifting frame connected to the sling.

Lifting System

A lifting system is the combination of package, lifting points, slings and shackles.

Page 11 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS


Padeye hole diameter.
Shackle pin diameter.
Acceleration due to gravity.
Padeye plate thickness (including cheek plates).
w

Shackle jaw width.


Dynamic amplification factor.
Significant wave height.

Crane system stiffness.

Tz

Most probable zero upcrossing period.

VJ,

Hook speed.

VIJ

Package base weight.

Wo.

Weight allowance.

\/1Jd

Lifting point design load. (Includes D.A.F .).

\~Jd~

Sling and Shackle design load.(Excludes D.A.F.).

WJ...

Hook load due to package.

Wr

Weight of rigging.
Angle formed between horizontal and e.g. of package.
Effective Jack of fit in the slings.
Direct stress (axial, bearing or bending).
Equivalent stress.
Yield stress.
Shear stress
Sling angle to horizontal.

c. g.

Centre of gravity

MBL

Minimum breaking load.

PWHT

Post weld heat treatment.

SF

Sling safety factor offshore.

Page 12 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
1

INTRODUCTION AND REFERENCES

1.1

Scope
The recommendations contained in this Manual (Part 1) present design, fabrication and inspection
criteria for lifting points up to 1000 tonnes lift weight. The recommendations apply to offshore lifting
although appropriate relaxations for onshore lifts only are also specified.
It is intended that the manual be used as a basis for the design of lifting points and it should also be
issued to Shell Expro Representatives onshore and offshore, as a basis for their assessment of the
acceptability for safe lifting of packages.
Rules and codes for offshore lifting have been produced by DnV and Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
Refer to DnV Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix H,
Marine Operations Section Hi: Lifting and Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a
Marine Environment.
This Manual deals with the topics covered by DnV (load definition, design to allowable stress criteria,
sling and shackle selection etc.) but in more detail. The LRS Code is a general document covering all
types of lifting appliance. Only those recommendations concerning lifting with cranes have been
considered in drawing up this Manual. A single load factor to be applied when designing for lifting is
required by API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms.
For medium and heavy lifts, the API approach is conservative, but, for light lifts the load factor of 2.0
recommended by API is consistent with this document.
In general, the criteria outlined hereafter are applicable to any weight of package. However, the load
factors vary considerably between those that are appropriate for the lift of a light package, and those
that are appropriate for a heavy package to reflect, for example, differences in .the hook speed of the
crane and dimensional tolerances on lifting point positioning.
To avoid unnecessary conservatism, specific recommendations for lifting point design for light
packages are presented in Section 2 Specific Design Criteria for Lifting of Light Packages (Wh Sot).
For medium packages up to 1000 tonnes in Section 3 SOt but 1OOOT. For heavy packages, greater
than 1000 tonnes then guidance is recommended from Part 2- Heavy Lift Criteria Final Report.
The following are applicable to all packages except where specifically stated otherwise. Refer to
Section 4 General Design Criteria for Lifting, Section 5 Fabrication, Inspection and Testing and
Section 6 Documentation.
In general, the allowable stresses used in this document are also applicable to castings. Refer to
Section 4.3 Design Stresses. However, for lift points employing castings it is recommended that for
detailed design finite element analysis is used. Material and fabrication requirements for castings are
the subject of a separate specification. Refer to ES/148 - Structural Cast Steel Materials for Offshore
Installations.
The Appendices (Section 7) contain general information which may be useful to the engineer when
evaluating lift point design.

1.2

References

1.2.1

British Standards
8S1290

Specification for wire rope slings and sling legs for general lifting
purposes

8S4360

Specification for weldable structural steels

8S6166, Pt. 1 and 2

Lifting slings, rating and marking

Page 13 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991
BS62i0

1.2.2

Code of practice for the safe use of wire rope slings for general
lifting purposes

Other National/International Standards


America
Institute
Construction (AISC)
American
(API)

of

Petroleum

Steel

Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural


Steel for Buildings

Institute

Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing


Fixed Offshore Platforms

American Welding Society (AWS)

Structural Welding Code- Steel

Guidance Note PM20 from the


Health and Safety Executive

Cable laid slings and grommets

Del Norske Veritas

Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore


Structures, Appendix H, Marine Operations Section H1 :Lifting

Lloyd's Register of Shipping

Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment

Shell Expro Documents

1.2.3

Engineering Reference Documents (EROs)

1.2.4

Standard ES/096

Specification
Installations

Info. Note EN/001

Weight Engineering Principles and Procedures

Standard ES/148

Structural Cast Steel Materials for Offshore Installations

Standard ES/006

Topside Facilities Structural Design, Offshore Installations

Standard ES/088

Steel Substructures and Ancillary Attachments Structural Design


Offshore Installations

UEOS-3142-001

Lifting Gear and Lifting Appliances

for

Structural

Steel

Materials

for

Offshore

Others

J.W Bunce and T.A. Wyatt

Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift Operations


Offshore: OTC4192, 1982

Brown and Root

Heavy Lift Criteria Report

SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF LIGHT PACKAGES {Wh< 5DT)


This Section describes the steps required to design lifting points for the safe lifting of packages which
give rise to hook loads less than 50 tonnes.

The following steps are required to establish the hook weight (W1):
(1)

Establish base weight (W) and position of centre of gravity (e.g.) of the package

(2)

Establish weight allowances (Wa) to be used for the lifting point design. The weight allowance
to be used will vary depending on the accuracy of the base weight. If it is a preliminary
engineering estimate then Wa. =0.2W, whereas if it is a weighed itemWa. =0.02W. Guidance on
the correct weight allowance to use is available in EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and
Procedure.

'Na. varies depending on quality of information, 0.2W < Wa. < 0.02\1\1. The sum (W + Wa) is the
factored weight of the package in the lift condition.

Page 14 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
(3)

Establish a factor for shock load which will be called a Dynamic Amplification Factor (Fl.) which
is to be applied to the padeye design only. Slings and shackles have a built-in Dynamic
Amplification Factor. The Dynamic Amplification Factor is influenced by a number of factors, in
particular environmental conditions, appropriate to the expected method and nature of the lift.
D.A.F. values are quoted in the Table below, with a recommendation to use 2.0. These values
are calculated assuming the supply boat heave is the same as the wave height.
Table 1
Onshore lift

Dynamic Amplification Factors (Fh) For Light Packages


Offshore Lift 2 Upper
Bound

Offshore LIFT 3
Recommended

Offshore Lift: Lower


Bound

2.0

1.3

..

1.25

2.5

I.

NOTES:

l-

1.

This factor may also be applied to a lift from place to place on a platform by the
platform crane.

2.

Based on a seastate represented by Hs = 4-0 m, Tz = 7.5 sec (Beaufort 7).

3.

Based on a seastate represented by Hs = 2.~m. Tz = 6.0 sec (Beaufort 5).

4.

Based on a seastate represented by H = 0.6 m, Tz = p.O sec (Beaufort 2).

The formulae used to obtain the values of F1, as listed in the table above (F1) For Light Packages',
above, are given in Appendix 1 Dynamic Amplification Factor Verification. These formulae can be
used to calculate F 1 values depending on purposes. An F1 = 2.0 is recommended for the design of
attachment points which covers the majority of lift situations.
(4)

The hook load (W1) can be calculated as:

2.2

Lifting Point Design Load (Wd)

2.2.1

Four Point Lifts

=W1 =F1 (W + Wa).

For 4 point lifts without spreader beams or bars, the hook weight (W1) is distributed so that any
diagonal pair of lifting points is assumed to carry 0.75 W1 vertical load. The 0.75 Wh is then
distributed between each lifting point of the pair according to its distance from the e.g. This distribution
allows for the extensibility of the slings, flexibility of the lifted object etc. The lifting point load is
calculated using the sling angle () to the horizontal. The procedure is repeated for the other pair of
lifting points. The lifting point design load (Wfl.) is defined as the load on the most heavily loaded lifting
points. Wd is applied to all the lifting points. Wd,. (without the D.A.F.) is used for the sling and shackle
design.

If loose spreader bars are used the hook weight is more evenly distributed over the lifting points so
that any diagonal pair is assumed to carry 0.60 W1 vertical load.
2.2.2

Alternative Lifting Arrangements


For 1, 2 and 3 point lifts the distribution of hook weight can be calculated because it is statically
determinate. The calculation should consider the most onerous combination of:
(1)

the position of e.g. of the package.

(2)

BS 6166 requirement that the load does not tilt more than 6 when lifted. Although this
maximum angle of tilt is greater than that allowed for heavy lifts (1.1 ) it may still require the use
of slings of unequal length resulting in some lifting points being much more heavily loaded than
others. Furthermore the permitted maximum angle of tilt may have to be reduced if it causes
installation difficulties. Refer to BS 6166 Lifting Slings Rating and Marking.

Page 15 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

(3)

2.2.3

Padeyes and other internal members (and both end connections) framing into the joint where
the padeyes is attached and transmitting lifting forces within the structure should be designed
for a minimum load factor of 2.0 applied to the calculated static loads. Refer to API
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.

Lateral Load
The lifting points should be orientated so that as far as possible the theoretical centre of gravity lies in
the plane of each. A nominal lateral load of 5% of the lifting point design load ("'Va) acting at the point
of sling load application, normally top of the padeye, should be applied simultaneously with all the
other design forces. This lateral load accommodates some inaccuracies in fabrication and e.g.
position, and is equivalent to a 3 misalignment of the plane of each lifting point from the design hook
position.

SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF MEDIUM PACKAGES(> SOT BUT< 1000T)

This Section describes the specific requirements for the design of lifting points for medium packages
(>50 tonnes but< 1000 tonnes). Each lift should be Engineered on an individual basis. Onshore lift
requirements are similar to offshore with the exception of Dynamic Amplification factors.
3.1

Hook Load ('N.l)


The procedure for calculating Wh is similar to that for light packages described in
Load (Wh), but Wo. and F1 will be different as indicated below.

3.1.1

Se~tion

2.1 Hook

Weight Allowances (IIlJa.)


This Manual treats weight allowances in a very simple way for light packages. Refer to Section 2.1
Hook Load (Wh). For medium and heavy packages a weight growth philosophy should be used for
estimating the value of Wa., as described in EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and Procedures.

3.1.2

Dynamic Amplification Factor (F h)


Medium and heavy lifts are made by the main or auxiliary hoists of large crane vessels. The hook
speed which a main or auxiliary hoist can achieve is much lower than that of the whip hoists. The
packages are off loaded from the deck of the crane vessel or of a large cargo barge. In both cases the
vessel motions are much less than those of a supply boat in the same sea conditions, and Fhis
generally lower for heavier packages.
Typical values ofFh are given in Figure 1 Dynamic Amplification Factors.

3.2

Lifting Point Design Load (lr'ITa)

3.2.1

Four Point Lifts


For 4-point lifts without spreader beams or bars, the hook weight (Wh) is distributed so that any
diagonal pair of lifting points is assumed to carry 0. 75 Wh vertical load.
The 0.75 W1 is then distributed between each lifting point of the pair according to its distance from the
e.g. The 75/25 split is introduced to take into account sling length inaccuracies. Maximum package
twisting takes place when slings across one diagonal are short and slings on the other diagonal are
long. The magnitude of the twist is also dependent upon the package stiffness, a flexible package
allowing a more even split in load between diagonals.
The lifting point load is calculated using the sling angle (cD) to the horizontal. The procedure is
repeated for the other pair of lifting points. The lifting point design load (lNa) is defined as the load on
the most heavily loaded lifting point. Wa is applied to all the lifting points.

Page 16 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Should a relaxation of the 75/25 split be required then the package should be analysed for lifting by
considering:
sling length tolerances as specified by the manufacturer;
true sling stiffness;
the theoretical package stiffness;

the theoretical load distribution within the package.

Once an analysis for a package has been carried out considering these four factors, the initial lifting
point design should be checked using the load generated.
Further comments on this aspect appear in Appendix 2 Lifting Point Design Load Derivation.
If loose spreader bars are used the hook weight is more evenly distributed over the lifting points so
that any diagonal pair is assumed to carry 0.60 vertical load.
3.2.1.1

Position of e.g. of Package


Having established the theoretical centre of gravity of the package it must be checked that it falls
within the cruciform shown in Figure 2 Cruciform for cg Location and Positioning of cg for Padeye
Load Calculation.
The cruciform limits above are for packages using matched slings. Packages that use unmatched
slings will need to be considered separately; for these cases the cruciform may need to be redefined
and such redefinition agreed with the installation contractor.
During early stages of design, the centre of gravity (e.g.) is assumed to be at an extremity of the
cruciform, for the purpose of establishing Wd. Refer to Appendix 7, Cruciform For Cg Location And
Positioning Of cg For Padeye Load Calculation.
For packages whose centre of gravity is more precisely defined, a less conservative assumption for
e.g. position may be used. For example, for living quarters modules a 1m shift of the theoretical centre
of gravity in the most onerous direction is acceptable.

3.2.1.2

Permissible Tilt of Package


The cruciform limit (x) is defined by an acceptable package tilt for ease of installation of the package.
The maximum acceptable module tilt is generally 2%, slope-equivalent to 1.14. Refer to Figure 4
Simplified Representation of Package Tilt and Padear Lifting Arrangements
The above assumes that two pairs of matched slings are used, so that the hook is above the
longitudinal or lateral centre line of the module. Refer to Figure 2 Cruciform for cg Location and
Positioning of cg for Padeye Load Calculation.

3.2.2

Tandem Crane Lifts

3.2.2.1

Centre of Gravity
Locations for centre of gravity of all tandem lifted packages should be quoted with an allowance for
calculation inaccuracies and probable deviations during the course of design and fabrication. Refer to
Section 3.2.2.4 Package Tilt. This allowance will be reduced as design progresses. No further
allowances shall be applied for possible variations in centre of gravity location when designing slings
and lifting point.

'. i'J 7
Page 17 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
3.2.2.2

Sling Load Distribution


Tandem crane lifts are generally stati"cally determinate and variations in sling lengths within normal
tolerances specified by manufactu1ers give insignificant deviations in sling load. However, some
racking loads may be imparted to the package while it is being lifted off the barge; to allow for this it
shall be assumed that loads in slings attached to any one hook (2 slings per hook) are distributed in
the ratio 55/45.

3.2.2.3

Sling Angles
For slings attached to the crane hook, the effect on the determination of loads and clearances of
variations in angles to the horizontal plane of 5 from the nominal values calculated from the lift
geometry, and any limitations imposed, shall be determined.

3.2.2.4

Package Tilt
Redistribution of load between the cranes due to the package tilting in the longitudinal direction
because of variation in hook heights shall be estimated from changes in the relative distance of the
centre of gravity between cranes, assuming a maximum tilt of 0.02 radians.
Transverse tilt of the packages shall also be limited to 0.02 radians. The location of the centre of
gravity of the package should be restricted to comply with this requirements.

3.2.3

Alternative Lifting Arrangements


Alternative arrangements such as 3-point lifts are often statically determinate and may allow reduced
design loadings due to different load distribution mechanisms. General design guidance is not
possible and lifting point loads must be derived on a case by case basis.
Particular attention must be paid to the possible variations in package e.g. and changes in design
loads due to package tilt.

3.2.4

Lateral Loads
For medium and heavy packages the lateral load should be 5% of Wd, applied at the top of the
pad eye or across the top of the padear stubs. This load should be considered to act concurrently with
the in-line loading.
For spreader beams 8% of the vertical lift point force shall be used to account for possible adverse
horizontal load distribution or dynamic behaviour.

3.3

Padears
The padear is a development due to the advent of very heavy packages for offshore lifting. The
maximum practical hook weight for a shackle lifted package is of the order of 2000 tonnes, giving a
base weight of approximately 1500 tonnes.
Practicalities dictate that above this approximate limit a doubled sling and padear arrangement should
be used. The slings employed have spliced eyes at each end. Refer to Figure 4 Simplified
Representation of Package Tilt and Figure 5 Pad ear Lifting Arrangements.
The forces in each leg of the sling will be different due to frictional losses over the hook or stubs.
These frictional losses are taken into account by a 45/55 distribution in the sling loads S 1 and S 2 in
addition to the other load distribution factors. Therefore a padear has to be designed for substantial
out of plane bending.

The use of castings is a viable alternative to fabricated steel padears and can lead to significant cost
savings. Castings can now be produced of adequate strength, toughness and weldability. They are
also more tolerant than fabricated padears, of changes in the package centre of gravity.

Page 18 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

The stress analysis of castings shall be carried out using an adequate finite element program. The
finite element model of the casting shall be built up of volume or brick elements having a finite element
mesh that will ensure accurate 'stress recovery' in three dimensions. Limited local yielding is
permitted; the extent of the yielding zone shall be approved by Shell Expro. It is recommended that, in
cases where the casting manufacturer does not have sufficient capability to perform the analysis as
indicated above, the finite element analysis shall be carried out by a competent subcontractor.
4

GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING

4.1

Sling Angle
No sling angle should be less than 45 to the horizontal. The recommended sling angles are 55 -65
to the horizontal, to achieve a reasonable balance between load minimisation and sling length.
As a general guide, initial lifting point design should be based on a sling angle of 55.
The lengths of slings should normally be within tolerance of 0.25% of their nominal length.

4.2

Material Selection
The material used for lifting points, their attachment to the package and lifting beams (if required)
should comply with the requirements set out in ES/096 Specification for Structural Steel Materials for
Offshore Installations.
It should be noted that materials having guaranteed through-thickness properties are recommended
for lifting points, and the plates or members to which they are attached, unless the design is such that
through-thickness stresses are avoided.

4.3

Design Stresses
Allowable stresses for lift design shall be in accordance with the requirements of the AISC
specifications, with no increases in allowable stresses. Refer to ES/096 Specification for Structural
Steel Materials for Offshore Installations. These allowable stresses are listed below for guidance but
the designer should use information from the latest edition of the referenced publication.
Nature of Applied Stress

Allowable Stress

Tension

0.6"
0.6 (maximum) "Y
0.66 t;Jy [<'ICI,I tn'

Compression
Bending

0.4

Shear

'7S'

:h

t;Jy

0.9 Y

Equivalent

0.75"Y

Buckling

AISC Tables

Bearing

Where "Y is the yield stress of the material.


NOTES:

1.

2.

The bearing stress value is based on the contact area:

Shackle pin diameter

Padeye plate thickness including cheek plates (if used)

The equivalent stress (" 0 ) at a given point is:

'

.
-@xx.2 + t;Jy~
-

Oxx +

Oyy

2 y,

+ ;;JT.)

Page 19 of 149

.:':

0.75

t;J

I}JC.c

l<'l

EM/039
Rev31991
Where:

Oxx

=direct stress in x direction (due to axial and bending loads)

0YY

=direct stress in y direction

-r

= algebraic sum of shear stress acting at the given point

4.4

Practical Considerations

4.4.1

Lifting Point Attachments


It is strongly recommended that the lifting points are designed to transfer load in shear rather than
tension. Through-thickness loads should be avoided. For example, padeye plates should be slotted
through horizontal flanges and welded directly to vertical web plates. For examples of the preferred
design details for padeye attachment to hollow and I -section members, refer to Figure 7 Preferred
Padeye Design Details.
However, other details are acceptable if sufficient analysis is provided to demonstrate that stresses
are within allowable limits.
Lifting Point Location

4.4.2

Lifting points should be attached to locations on the package which are capable of withstanding the
lifting point design load, and these locations must be checked for strength using the allowable stresses
quoted in Section 4.3 Design Stresses.
Lifting points should be located such that there is easy access for slings and shackles. Structural
detailing that avoids having to cut-off the lifting points after installation is recommen.ded. Wherever
possible, the centre of gravity of the package should be below the lifting points.
Where the centre of gravity of the package is above the lifting points, stability will be enhanced by:

use of a lifting beam/frame;


use of long slings such that the angle formed between the horizontal and the hook is
substantially greater than the angle ~ formed between the horizontal and the centre of gravity.
Refer to Figure 8 Stability of Packages.

4.4.3

Dimensioning

4.4.3.1

Padeyes
Padeyes should conform to the following criteria with respect to shackle pin size for ease of fitting and
the avoidance of small contact area. The following equations apply. Refer to Figure 9 Typical Shackle
Details.

dp _:::25mm

d1 =Diameter of padeye hole

dp = Diameter of shackle pin

Page 20 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991
Thickness of padeye, including cheek plates where used, should be between the limits given below.
Packing plates may be required to make up the gap in order to centralise the shackle and avoid
eccentric loading.
tmax

O.Bw

!min:::: 0.6w
Note that dimension H can be important for fit-up of the shackle on the padeye. Refer to Figure g
Typical Shackle Details.
This dimension varies with different shackle designs, and the shackle manufacturer must be consulted
for its value for a given shackle.
Clearance should also be provided around the padeye to ensure the shackle pin can be inserted and
removed.

A minimum clearance tm of 0.5 times the sling diameter should be allowed between the inside length of
the shackle and the combined length of sling diameter plus padeye main plate radius.

4.4.3.2

Padears
The dimensioning of the padears is mainly govern.ed by the following:
e

the central stiffener plate (shear plate), refer to Figure 6 Typical Padear Details, should be
slotted through the main plate and should be designed to transfer the total sling load into the
main plate.
the padear stubs should only be regarded as a bent circumference for the sling eye. The
diameter of the pipe should be at least three times the sling diameter, or four times if the main
body of the sling is bent;

the main plate thickness (or, if more than one main plate will be used, the sum of the main
plates' thickness) should be equal to or larger than the padear stiffener plate;
as the sling will stretch out at the contact area during lifting (bearing length
the width of the stub should be minimum 1.5 times the sling diameter;

= 1.3 sling diameter)

the cover plate/keep plate should protrude about 75% of the sling diameter at the bearing area
and at least 1OOmm above the centre of the pipe. To install the sling an overall clearance of 1.5
times the sling diameter is required.

4.4.4

Cheek Plates
The requirements for bearing and shear pull-out stresses and for shackle clearances may mean that
cheek plates are required even for light lifts. Refer to Section 4.3 Design Stresses and Section 4.4.3
Dimensioning.
The radius of cheek plates should be no more than the radius of the main plate minus the cheek plate
thickness.
If the pad eye main-plate is not circular at its free end, then the minimum distance from the edge of the
cheek plate to the outside edge of the main plate shall be the cheek plate thickness.
The maximum cheek plate thickness for the calculation of allowable stresses shall be taken as the
lesser of:

'X main plate thickness,

Page 21 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

3 x the weld length of the cheek plate to the main plate


However, thicker cheek plates may be designed to satisfy clearance requirements.
Wheri cheek plates are used, the hole for the shackle-pin should be drilled after welding the cheek
plates to the main plate.
4.4.5

Weld Design
In general, full penetration welds are required for the connections between the padeye and the

f, structure. Fillet welds are adequate for welds to cheek plates. However, for light lifts fillet welds may
h! be used for every connection provided that adequate strength is demonstrated and that the welds are

1 loaded in shear, not tension.


In the design of cheek plate welds it is recommended that a safety factor of 2 be applied to the load
which the weld is to carry. This factor is applied to allow for load distribution along the weld.
The welds, full penetration or fillet, should be designed according to the AISC and AWS codes
applicable to the design of the package structure. Refer to AISC Specification for Design, Fabrication
and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings and AWS Structural Welding Code- Steel.
Table 2

Minimum Size Fillet Welds

Material Thickness of Thicker Part Joined


(mm)
Up to 12.0 inclusive
Over 12.0 to

Minimum 1 Size Fillet Weld


(mm)
5.0

4>w0 2 [/' 0

6.0

Over 20.0 to 40.0

8.0

Over 40.0.to'60.0

1tl.O

Over 60.0

12.0

Leg dimension of fillet welds

The weld details should be designed for easy access for welding and inspection.
4.4.6

Bolted Connections
Proposals for bolted connections shall be treated on a case by case basis and be subject to the
approval of Shell Expro.

4.4.7

Lifting Eyes and Lugs


The Lloyd's Register of Shipping code for lifting appliances gives details of appropriate dimensions of
lifting eyes (round, oval and triangular) and lifting Jugs. These are repeated in Appendix 5 Properties of
Lifting Eyes and Lugs. Safety factors against MBL should be 5.0.

4.4.8

Slings and Shackles


The safe working load (SWL) of the sling is the maximum load which the sling is allowed to carry. The
SWL should be greater th,an or equal tq the lift point design lo.ad Wd obtained from Section 2.2 Lifting
Point Design Load (WD) or Section 3.2 Lifting Point Design Load (WD).

The minimum breaking load (MBL) required is the SWL multiplied by the safety factor. Refer to Lloyd's
Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment.

Page 22 of 149

5:/NL

Y INc!

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Safety Factor:
SF= 5.0
sF= 104/8.85

svn + 1910

SF= 3.0

svn.:: 10 tonnes
10 < svn.:: 160
160 >

svn

In case F J. > 1.6, the MBL is determined as:


MBL> vva/1.6xSF
Refer to Section 2.1 Hook Load (WH) and Section 3.1.2 Dynamic Amplification Factor.
The above equation only applies to slings constructed in accordance with Lloyd's Register of Shipping
Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment.
The safety factors above apply provided that the main body of the sling is not used over bearing points
less than four times the nominal diameter of the rope, and that soft eyes are not used over bearing
~ points less than the nominal diameter of the rope.

\1

Slings with SWL > 160 tonnes may be of cable laid construction. These are not covered by L\oyds
Register of Shipping, and safety factors for these slings should be obtained from HSE PM20Cable laid
slings and grommets.
It is important that the slings are not too large for the lift (SWL 2:: Wa~) because large and over stiff
slings may invalidate the75/25% load distribution al)d may be difficult to handle and fit to the shackles.
Refer to Section 1.2.2 (4) Lifting Point Design Load (WD).
This can happen if a high Dynamic Amplification Factor F1 is used resulting in very conservative slings
and shackle sizes. Given slings and shackles have a high safety factor, minimum 3.0, and include an
element of dynamic loading, a Dynamic Amplification Factor F1 of 1.0 is recommended for lifting light
packages unless more onerous seastates are required for specific lifts, then F1 = 1.3 would be
recommended.
Shackles are usually classified according to their SWL. Only shackles with minimum breaking strength
at least four times SWL should be used. For shackles:

For fit-up purposes it is important that shackles are matched to the load.
The properties of typical slings and oftypical shackles is listed, respectively, in Appendix 3 Typical
Sling Properties and Appendix 4 Typical Shackle Properties.
Current manufacturers' catalogues must be consulted for design purposes.

FABRICATION, INSPECTION AND TESTING


In general, the Codes of Practice and structural specification applying to the fabrication of the package
apply equally to the lifting points and their attachments. The following points should be noted.

Page 23 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991

(1)

Lifting points, spreader beams, etc. shall in general comply with the requirements for the
structural steel of the package for fab1ication and inspection. Materials used in lifting points and
welds in connection with lifting points should be 100% non-destructively tested. Fillet welds
require only wet' MPI. Full penetration welds require wet' MPI plus ultrasonic inspection
wherever practical. The areas for lifting point welds shall be mapped out onto the surface of the
supporting structure and this area, plus 50mm either side of the weld, shall be ultrasonically
inspected. If any laminar discontinuities are found the lifting point shall be relocated to avoid
such areas, or redesigned to compensate for poor through-thickness properties.

(2)

Relative lifting point positions and fabrication tolerances of plate shacl<les, spreader beams, etc.
are to be measured. Tolerances must be such that the lateral loading will not exceed the
specified levels. Refer tci Section 2.2.3 Lateral Load and Section 3.2.4 Lateral Loads. It is
recommended that the tolerances on lifting point orientation are not greater than +2

(3)

Items which are flame cut from plate either manually or automatically are to be ground to give a
smooth, notch free, bright metal finish to the faces.

(4)

Holes should be drilled after welding, not cut and profiled, to avoid point contacts.

(5)

Tolerances on pin-hole diameter

(6)

Each lifting point in regular use (e.g. containers) is to be marked with its Safe Working Load
(SWL). This SWL should be the lifting point design load (VTa). The marking should be made with
white paint in letters not less than 50mm high.
....-c.--

(7)

Lifting beams, and spreader frames are to be proof-tested in accordance with Lloyd's Register
of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment .

fl) shall be +2, - Omm.

SWL s; 10 Tonnes

/-~

Proof Load= 2 ~~

Lr{M (CXJ-<)

f2il<c(udr-~

1>PJ-f-

10 < SWL < 160 Tonnes


Proof Load= (1.04 x SWL) + 9.6 Tonnes
SWL > 160 Tonnes
Proof Load = 1.1

x SWL

For a lifting beam, SWL = W1.


It may be impractical to proof load large lifting beams, i.e. SWL > 100 tonnes. If proof loading is
not possible, the design and fabrication of the lifting beams should be certified to the same
standards as the package. All lifting beams shall be marked with the SWL. Lifting points for the
general construction phase of topside modules and those Which are an integral part of a
structure do not, in general, require to be proof tested. Such cases, where a great deal of
attention has been given to the loads and stresses, can be accepted by design and inspection
only. However when there is an uncertainty proof testing could be carried out at the request of
Shell Expro.

Page 24 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

(8)

Inspection of re-usable items: All padeyes and associated lifting gear must be inspected before
any lift. In addition all pad eyes and associated lifting gear are to undergo the relevant inspection
requirements for six-monthly survey listed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting
Appliances in a Marine Environment. This inspection should check for wear, damage, COITosion,
structural changes etc. In particular, padeye welds should undergo MPI at regular intervals to
ensure that cracks or other defects do not propagate as a result of repeated lifts. Parts which
are found to be work damaged, .or corroded to a significant degree should be replaced. For
guidance purposes generally acceptable levels of wear down are given by LRS but earlier
replacement may be required where considered warranted by Shell Expro.

(9)

All welding carried out in the fabrication of lifting points and attachment to the package shall be
in accordance with the fabrication specification of the package.

(1 0)

Inspection of lifting equipment within Onshore Plants is undertaken in accordance with the
Factories Act 1961 Section 26.

DOCUMENTATION
(1)

Generally, the requirements of LRS are to be complied with. Refer to Lloyd's Register of
Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment.
Certification requirements for all categories of lifting appliance are outlined. Certificates are to
be prepared, and kept available, showing that:
e

satisfactory tests have been carried out on the individual items of loose gear and on each
lifting appliance as rigged for its intended mode of operation;
the required Periodical Surveys of each lifting appliance have been carried out.

(2)

Written calculations, design drawings, material certificates and weld procedures for all packages
are to be supplied to the Shell Expro Project Engineer for approval. The calculations are
required before approval of drawings for construction. The material certificates and weld
procedures are required before the start of fabrication. All the above should be in accordance
with the fabrication specification of the package.

APPENDICES

7.1

Dynamic Amplification Factor Derivation


The Dynamic Amplification Factors (F 1) for offshore lifts are based on the assumption that the
package is lifted from a supply boat working in the design condition. The extreme design condition is a
sea state represented by Hs = 4.0m, Tz = 7.5s, which is the specified limiting sea state for supply boat
operations next to a platform. F1 may be changed if it can be demonstrated that, for instance, the lift
will not be attempted in a sea state as severe as the design condition or if the crane parameters do not
allow the required hook-speed to be achieved. In the latter case the results of a possible 'hammering'
of the package on the vessel deck should be analysed. Generally, only a whip-line or a pedestal crane
can achieve a high hook speed.
Simple single degree of freedom models are used to derive Dynamic Amplification Factors th) for
offshore lifting of packages. These models give conservative values ofF 1 for most lifting conditions.
The following formulae were considered in order to produce recommended values of Fh:

F1 = 1.0 + 4.5 H.tg T~

.Y Kg/W + VTa + Wr

(-1)

F1 = [1.o + V11g

.Y Kg/W + Wa + Wr]

(-2)

(See Glossary for symbols)

Page 25 of 149

EM/039
Rev 31991
Equation (1) is derived from that quoted by Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in
a Marine Environment.
Equation (2) is derived from OTC4192, 1982 Development of Unsigned Criteria for Heavy Lift
Operations Offshore.
Equation (2) is preferable because it treats crane hook speed (Vl.) and vessel motions as separate
terms. This enables values of FJ, to be calculated for low hook speeds.
Onshore Lifting of Light Packages
The following analysis was required for calculation of the values of F h in Table 1 Dynamic
Amplification Factors (Fl.) For Light Packages.

Typical value (1 0) and one which does not vary greatly provided slings sizes are matched to the loads
they lift. The value therefore applies to both onshore and offshore lifting.
H~

=0

A value of hook speed one would expect not to be exceeded.


This leads to Fh = 1.25.
Offshore Lifting of Light Packages

.v1 = 1.6ms-1

Maximum likely hoist speed

H.,=4m

Tz = 7.5s

This leads to

Extreme Design environmental conditions

F h = 2.39 (Eq. 1)

Fh

=2.21(Eq.2)

As an upper bound Fh

=2.5

H., =0.6m

Monitored Design environmental conditions

}
This leads to

Fh = 1.31 (Eq. 1)

As a lower bound Fh = 1.3

Operational Design environmental conditions

}
This leads to

Fh = 2.08 (Eq. 1)

The recommended value ofF 1 which will cover the majority of offshore lift packages is F1 = 2.0.

Page 26 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
7.2

Lifting Point Design Load Derivation


The 75/25 split is considered conservative for 4-point lifts with slings of length tolerance 0.25%,
especially if the lifted package is not very stiff. Refer to DnV Rules for the Design, Construction and
Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix H, Marine Operations Section 1-11: Lifting, OTC4192, 1982
Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift Operations Offshore and Brown and Root Heavy
Lift Criteria Report.

The real force distribution depends on the flexibility of the rigging system and the lifted object, on the
lack-of-fit of slings due to fabrication errors, crane hook arrangements, tolerances on the e.g. position
etc.
A better method of calculating force-distribution than assuming a 75/25 split is described in OTC4192,
1982 Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift Operations Offshore.
This treats the effective lack-of-fit in the slings as an explicit design parameter and describes it by ,
which is the sum of the effect of fabrication tolerances plus the sling manufacturers' guaranteed
tolerances. The load distribution can then be assessed assuming an error of+ on both slings on one
diagonal and - E on both slings on the other. The effect of package distortion is included in the
analysis.
This method may be used if a relaxation of the 75/25 split is required or if the 75/25 distribution has to
be justified because, say, sling tolerances cannot be guaranteed or if fabrication tolerances have not
been met.

7.3

Typical Sling Properties


The following table lists the properties of typical slings. It is taken from BS 1290 Specification for wire
rope slings and sling legs for general lifting purposes and LRS Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine
Environment. Therefore the properties can only be strictly applied to slings constructed in accordance
with these documents. All the properties are for single leg slings.
Table 3

Typical Sling Properties

Rope
Diameter
(mm)

SWL
(tonnes)

Rope Diameter
(mm)
$L..f'c.l

SWL
(tonnes)

Rope Diameter
(mm)

SWL
(tonnes)

0.4

0.8

0.5

0.54

1.0

10

0.8

0.76

08

10

1.3

12

1 .1

0.96

/D

I 11

1.5

14

1.6

10

1.2

1.8

16

2.1

11

1.4

2.1

18

2.6

12

1.7

2.5

20

3.2

13

2.0

3.3

22

3.9

14

2.3

4.1

24

4.7

16

3.0

18

5.1

26

5.5

3.8

I 12
l J; I 13
!&I 14
.'1 I 16
;j 18
, ~, I 20
4 ., I 22

6.2

28

6.3

20

4.7

...d

" l

7.4

32

8.3

22

5.7

8.6

36

10.5

24

6.8

10.0

40

13.0

Js

"H..

'!"'

I 24

(, : : I 26
~:, )cl I 28
'
.

.'iii'

5/t=G.L CvRE: _____/


~t::-li-

fft I '1 c:io


Page 27 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Rope
Diameter
(mm)

SWL
(tonnes)

Rope Diameter
(mm)

SWL
(tonnes)

26

8.0

32

13.1

28

9.3

36

16.6

32

12.1

40

20.6

36

"15.4

44

24.9

40

19.0

48

29.6

44

23.0

52

34.9

48

27.5

56

40.4

52

32.0

60

46.3

56

37.3

60

42.8

SWL
(tonnes)

Rope Diameter
(mm)

It should be noted in using the tabulated figures in the Lloyds Register of Shipping that minimum
breaking loads (MBL) are quoted.

7.4

Typical Shackle Properties


The Following tables Jist the properties of bow shackles. They are taken from the Crosby 'Green-Pin'
Shackle Catalogue. These Tables are for guidance only. Current manufacturer's catalogues should be
consulted for design purposes.
To reference the dimensions, consultation should be made of Figure 9 Typical Shackle Details.
Dimensions and SWL of 'GREEN-PIN' Shackles

Table 4

B (mm)

Db (mm)

DP (mm)

H (mm)

Mass (kg)

22

51

12.7

16

17

0.4

26

64

1q

19

20

0.8

31

76

19

22.2

23

1.2

6.5

36

83

22.2

25.4

26

1.8

8.5

43

95

25.4

28.6

29

2.6

9.5

47

108

28.6

31.8

32

12.25

51

115

31.8

35

35

5.3

13.75

57

133

35

38

38

7.5

17.25

60

146

38

41.3

41

9.3

25.5

74

178

44.5

50.8

51

15

35.5

83

197

50.8

57.2

57

21

50.75

105

254

63.5

69.9

70

42

76.25

127

330

76.2

82.5

83

65

101.5

146

381

88.9

95.3

98

113

132.0

165

432

101.6

108

108

160

SWL
Tonnes

W(mm)

2.0
3.25 ..
4.75

Table 5

Dimensions and SWL of 'McKissick' Shackles

Page 28 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

7.5

SWL
Tonnes

W(mm)

B(mm)

Db {mm)

DP(mm)

H(mm)

Mass (kg)

15.4

60

118

38

41

46

9.5

22.7

73

139

44

51

54

15.4

31.75

83

152

51

57

64

23.5

45.3

105

210

64

70

76

46

68.0

127

271

76

83

83

81

90.7

135

308

89

95

102

120

136.0

159

254

140

11

114

154

Properties of Lifting Eyes and Lugs


These Tables are for guidance only. Current manufacturer's catalogues should be consulted for
design purposes.
Dimensions of Round and Oval Eyes

Table 6
SWL
Tonnes

Shank
d1

1.0

Oval

Round

d2

d3

d4

M18

11

24

48

21

12

1.6

M22

14

30

58

26

16

2.0

M24

16

34

58

26

16

18

2.5

M27

18

39

72

32

21

23

3.2

M30

20

44

72

32

21

23

4.0

M33

22

48

94

40

26

28

5.0

M36

25

54

94

40

26

28

6.3

M42

27

60

108

45

29

32

8.0

M45

31

68

115

49

32

35

10.0

M52

35

76

125

54

36

39

12.5

M56

39

86

144

60

41

44

16.0

M64

163

66

46

49

20.0

M72x6

173

72

56

54

25.0

M76x6

192

80

56

59

32.0

M80 x 6

216

90

60

64

40.0

M90x6

240

100

66

70

50.0

M100 x 6

264

110

74

78

63.0

M110x6

290

120

84

89

80.0

M120 X 6

325

135

94

99

100.0

M130 X 6

360

150

105

111

NOTE:

I
I

e
14
18

All dimensions are given in millimetres and are illustrated in Figure 10 Lifting Eyes and
Lugs.

Page 29 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
Table 7
SWL
Tonnes

Shank
d1

20

M72x6

475

25

M76x6

32

Dimensions of Triangular Lifting Eyes

400

48

95

66

95

94

95

515

445

51

108

72

108

100

108

M80x6

565

500

55

120

79

120

108

120

40

M90x6

630

550

59

133

86

133

117

133

50

M100x6

675

600

64

146

94

146

127

146

63

M110x6

740

660

71

150

104

150

139

150

80

M120x6

815

725

78

158

115

158

153

158

100

M130x6

880

795

86

178

127

178

168

178

NOTE:

All dimensions are given in millimetres and are illustrated in Figure 10 Lifting Eyes and
Lugs.
Dimensions of Lug Fittings

Table 8

7.6

Bottom

Side

Top

SWL
Tonnes

Shank
d1

d2

d3

1.0

M18

19

17

35

1.6

M22

23

11

21

1.0

M24

26

12

23

1.5

M27

29

13

25

3.2

M30

32

14

28

60

4.0

M33

35

15

31

65

5.0

M36

39

18

37

75

6.3

M42

45

20

40

85

8.0

M45

49

23

46

95

10.0

M52

58

26

50

110

12.5

M56

64

28

54

120

16.0

M64

70

30

62

130

20.0

M72x6

74

33

70

140

25.0

M76x6

80

35

74

150

32.0

M80x 6

90

40

82

170

45
50

55

Padeye Design Example


A Package of base weight 23 tonnes is to be installed on an offshore platform, with the plan form
illustrated in Figure 11 Plan View of Package in Design Example. Four padeyes are to be designed
accordingly to the criteria set out in the main text of this document.
(1)

Establish Hook Load

'llh Refer to Section 2.1

Hook Load (WH)

Base Weight = 23 tonnes (preliminary engineering estimate only available at this stage of
design).

Page 30 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

V{a. (Weight Allowance) = 0.2W = 4.6 tonnes


The recommended dynamic amplification factor F1 = 2.0 shall be used as there is knowledge of
the characteristics of the vessel and crane which are to lift the package, and it is known that the
package will NOT BE lifted from a supply boat in extreme design weather conditions.
The hool< weight \I'!TJ,

=Fl. (W + VoTa.)
I

= 2.0 (23 + 4.6) = 55.20 tonnes, say 56 tonnes


(2)

Establish Lifting Point Design Load 1'Ya Refer to Section 2.2 Lifting Point Design Load (WD)
Both pairs of diagonal padeyes (A and B, C and D) are designed to take 75 % of 'I/>T1.
Considering A and B: Refer to Figure 11 Plan View of Package in Design Example.
0. 75 VvJ, = 42 tonnes
Padeye A takes: 2.2/4 x 42.0 tonnes

= 23.1

tonnes, say 24 tonnes (vertically).

Check padeye vertical load is ~ 2x static load. Refer to API Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.
API check: 2 x static load= 2 x (23 + 4.6) x 0.75 x 2.2 + 4 = 22.7 tonnes
A Wa = 24 tonnes to be used which exceeds 2 x static load o.k. for API check.
To minimise sling and shackle sizes, the sling angle (c)l) should be as large as possible. In this
case, it is specified that the slings be long enough that c)l > 55 for each padeye. Therefore,
conservatively,

Wa = 24 tonnes +sin 55 =29.3 tonnes (Pad eye and attachment design load).
Wa~

=29.3 + D.A.F. (2.0) = 14.65 tonnes (Sling and Shackle design load).

The components of Wa are:


\

Vertical

24 tonnes

Horizontal

24 tonnes +sin 55 = 16.80 tonnes

Lateral (0.05 Wd)

1.5 tonnes

..

oS t: N

&.

is the maximum value of Wa that any padeye is expected to carry. For conservatism, all the
padeyes should be designed to accept these loads.
(3)

Establish Sling and Shackle Sizes using Wa,_


The slings and shackles from->Table 4 Dimensions and SWL of 'Green-Pin' Shackles', SWL =
25.5 tonnes, mass= 15 kg each; 4 slings from 'Table: Typical Sling Properties', (Note: Designer
MUST check sling and shackle manufacturers catalogues), 48 mm rope with steel core, SWL +
29.6 tonnes, length 5.5 m (to ensure cp ~ 55); Mass = 9.17 kg/m (50 kg each). Total weight if
rigging= 4 (50+ 15) kg= 0.26 tonnes = 0.01 W.
Check clearance: tm = 178 - (11 0 + 48) = 20mm = 0.41 sling dia. <0.5 but accept.
NOTE:

(4)

Shackle selection may be governed by clearance requirements rather than


strength, so remember to check clearances.

Material Selection (Referto Section 4.2 Material Selection)

..

Page 31 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
The structural steel for the package complies with BS 4360 Specification for weldable structural
steels (Grade 40D).
2

There is no material thicker than 40mm, therefore minimum yield stress a y = 245 Nm(5)

Design Stresses (Refer to Section 4.3 Design Stresses)


For proposed design, refer to Figure 12 Padeye Design Example.
First Design Check: Bearing Stress on the Padeye Plate from the Shackle-Pin
Shackle-Pin diameter (SWL = 25.5 tonnes) =51 mm =dP.
Force= Vlfa = 2.93 tonnes
2

Allowable bearing stress= 0.90 a y = 219 Nmm


Required Area= 29.3 x 9810/219 = 1,312mm

dp tJ--/2 = 1,312mm 2 therefore t (padeye plate thickness)::: 36.4mm.


Choose t = 45mm, with a main plate of 25mm thickness and two cheek plates each 1Omm
thickness. This is necessary to satisfy shackle clearance. Refer to Figure 9 Typical Shackle
Details and Table 4 Dimensions and SWL of 'Green-Pin' Shackles.
Second Design Check: Shear Pull-Out of the Shackle-Pin through the Pad eye Plate
Take radius of main plate to be 110mm, radius of cheek plates to be 95mm.
2

Allowable shear stress= 0.4 a y = 98 Nm-

. .......

Pad eye hole diameter= 51 mm + 3mm (51 - 25) = 55.04mm say 56mm.
25
(

Shear pull-out area

~5) x (11 0-28)

Main Plate

+ 4(1 0) x (95-28)
Cheek Plates

= 6780mm 2
Shear stress= Wa/6780 = 42.4 Nmm2 < 95 Nmm2 , hence 01<.
Third Design Check: Tensile and Combined Stresses Across a Horizontal Section
Containing the Centre of the Padeye Hole. Refer to Figure 12 Padeye Design Example
(A2).
Tensile stresses:
This is a vertical component of Wa divided by the area of the section at A2.
2

Area at A2 = (250-56) x (25) + 2(190-56) x (1 0) = 7530mm


Vertical component of Wa = 24 x 9810 N.
2

Therefore tensile stress= 31.3 Nmm (Allowable tensile= 147 Nmm- ).

Shear Stress:

Page 32 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
The horizontal component of VTd divided by the area of A2.
Therefore Shear stress = (16.8 x 981 0) I 75310 = 21.9 Nmm
2
=(Allow shear= 98Nmm- )

Bending Stress:
At A2 the only bending load is due to latera/load (0.05 'Na) = 1.5 tonnes
Max. bending stress (occurring at the outer fibre of the check plates) is given by:

~
.!...

'\

[(1.6

')

981 0) (203) ((25 I 2) + 10)] I I (-A2) = 67,210,762 I I (A2)

X
h-..!._"

Dimension 203 is conservatively taken as dimension b in Figure 9 Typical Shackle Details.


Lateral force inN. Distance of line of action of force from A2.
3

I (-Az) = (250- 190) x (25) + (190-56) x (45) = 1,095,687mm


12
12

Maximum bending stress= 61.34 Nmm (Allowable bending= 163 Nmm-2).


2

Equivalent stress (a 0 ) = [(61.3 + 31.3) + 3(21.9lJ

05

= 100.1 Nmm

Allowable a0 = 183.75 Nmm- . Therefore this is OK


Fourth Design Check: Tensile and Combined Stresses at the Attachment of Padeye to
the Structure (Section)
Tensile Stress Check:
(440 x 25) mm 2 = 11,000 mm

Area A3 =

(padeye plate is only considered)


~

..........

Tensile stress= (24 x 981 0) x 150 = 24.74 x 10 Nmm


Shear Stress Check:
Area A3 = 11 00mm 2 = shear area
6

Therefore shear stress = (16. 8 x 981 0) x 150 = 24.72 x 10 Nmm


In-plane Bending Check:
In-plane bending is caused by the horizontal component of Wa acting at the padeye hole.
6

Bending moment= (16.8 x 981 0) x 150 = 24.72 x 10 Nmm.


Maximum stress acts at the outer extremity of the padeye plate. Refer to Figure 12 Padeye
Design Example (Point E).
6

This equals [(24.72 x 10 ) x 440 I 2] II


3

(A 3 J

about the major axis.


6

I (A 3l major axis= 25 x 440 I 12 = 177 x 10 mm (side plates not considered).


Therefore maximum stress acts at the outer extremity of the pad eye plate.
In-plane bending stresses should be combined with out- of-plane stresses, the latter are a
maximum at F. Refer to Figure 12 Padeye Design Example (Point E).

Page 33 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
At F: In-plane bending stress= [ 30.7} {120 + 15 + 2)f20] = 17.8 Nmm

Out-of Plane Bending Check:


As described on the previous page, out-of-plane bending is due to the lateral component of Vifd
and should be checked at points E and F.
Bending moment == (1.5 x 981 0) x (203 + 150)

=5.2 x 106 Nmm2 .

x 10

=4.5 Nmm- .

I IA 3) minor axis == (2x1 0)(205) 3 112 == 14.3 x 10 mm (Side plates only).


Bending stress (E)= [5.2 x 10
Bending stress (F)= (5.2

x 106 ]

[12.5] I [14.3

(102.5] I 14.3 x 10 = 37.3 Nmm

Equivalent Stress Checks:


AtE:
Cie

== [21.4 + 30.7 + 4.5) + 3(15.0)

2 05
]

= 62.3 Nmm , OK.

At F:

ere= [21.4 + 17.8 + 37.3) 2 + 3(15.0) 2t 5 = 80.8 Nmm2 , OK.


Therefore the padeye design passes all the design checks, as shown in Figure 12 Padeye
Design Example.
(6)

Fifth Design Check: Weld Design


Two welds should be checked.
The cheek plate fillet welds and the welds to the flange of the universal column.
Cheek Plate Welds:

fR0'tiki(Jl))-.\

The load on one cheek plate== (29.3) x (981 0) I 4 = 71.8 KN.

?. ~~\l-1~\

)1..]

M~'(:.fl, 11~.

tcUOV!..~'r:j f,\((,

:ez.>-\()J 1-.l 13

A factor of 2 is applied for load distribution, therefore design load= 143.6 KN.
Total weld length = 2 TT (95) = 597mm.
Therefore design Load I mm = 240 Nlmm.
A 4mm leg length weld is required. However, the minimum requirement for plate 25mm thick is
8 mm leg length, so 8mm fillet weld is required. Refer to Table 2 Minimum Fillet Welds.
Weld to Universal Column:
The load Wa == 29.3 Tonne. Again applying a factor 2 for load distribution, design load ==
574.8KN, say 575KN.
Taking the welds to main and side plates, total weld length (top surface of u.c. only) == 1400mm.
Therefore load= 410 Nlmm.
Therefore a 6mm leg length is OK.

Page 34 of 149

EIVI/039
Rev 3 1991
Conservatively select a 1Omm fillet weld for padeye and side plates to flange of universal
column.
NOTES:

1.

For preliminary sizing of padeyes the following is suggested for determining the
radius of the main plate from pin hole centre:
M'XIm"m radl"'" 0.6 b. Refer to Figure 9 Typical Shackle Detail,. \
Minimum radius= 2.5 x pin hole radius

2.

In the above example padeye sizings were originally based on a Vlfh = 70 tonnes (for
an FJ, = 2.5). By using a reduced, and recommended value of FJ, = 2.0 for their
design. Economic padeye, shackle and sling sizing is to be encouraged provided it is
consistent with design codes. Refer to API Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.

Page 35 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

MAIN HOOK (1.1)


2000

.,----... 1000
(f)

w
z

z
0

f.._...

500
LARGE AUXILLIARY HOI T
(CAPACITY UP TO 1000 1)

fI

(9

(1.2)

SMALL AUXILLIARY HOISTS


(CAPACITY UP TO 500 T)
(1.4)

w
_j

::J
0

0--
~

100

(9
(f)

I WHIPHOIST LIFTS
(CAPACITY UP TO 75 T
I (2.5)

50

D. A F.

Figure 1

Dynamic Amplification Factors

Page 36 of 149

Ul8657
(illu0553423)

EM/039
Rev31991

Pad eye location

0C

ct--- --/---

llJ
_T_ _

00

I ,

80

I ,

I '\outlineof

L~

ped<ege(plee)
(illu0553424)

Figure 2

Cruciform for CG Location

Padeye location

0C

Aef'

.;;ofG
/

Limiting cruciform

/
/

80

Outline of
package (plan)
(illu0553425)

Figure 3

Positioning of CG for Pad eye Load Calculation

Page 37 of 149

EfVI/039
Rev31991

Hook point
.A/

Horizontal plane
through CG of package

(illu0553426)

Figure 4

Simplified Representation of Package Tilt

(i) SLING BENT OVER HOOK, SLING EYES OVER PADEAR


Hook

Sling Force

Sling Force

sz

S1

Sling Eye

Padear

(ii) SLINGS BENT OVER PADEAR, SLING EYES OVER HOOK

Sling Force

Sling Force

Sz

s1

(ILLU0553427)

Figure 5

Pad ear Lifting Arrangements

Page 38 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

\
\

\
\

):

./

II\ I
IIII \
II -II
,\
II

./

Section 'A-A'

-1vd = sling diameter


D pipe diameter
L sling eye length
W = width of bearing area
t1= main plate thickness
tz= stub stiffener plate thickness

=
=

t ~ 12
w~

1.sd

=0.50 + 0.75d

D~

L/6

X= Y = Z ~ 1.5d
U-18300
(illu0553428)

Figure 6

Typical Padear Details

Page 39 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

PADEYE ON HOLLOW SECTION MEMBERS


ELEVATION

SECTIONS ON 'A-A'

PADEYES ON UNIVERSAL BEAMS, COLUMNS ETC.


ELEVATION

SECTION ON '8-8'

U-16583
(il/u0553429)

Figure 7

Preferred Padeye Design Details

Page 40 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

EXAMPLE OF HIGH
CENTRE OF GRAVIT
RELATIVE TO
ATTACHMENT
POINTS

EXAMPLE OF
STABLE LOAD

U-16781
(illu0553430)

Figure 8

Stability of Packages

Page 41 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

SHACKLE

PAD EYE
X

t2:S;;0.75~

w =WIDTH OF SHACKLE
t1
t2
R
1m
ds

=MAIN PLATE THICKNESS


=CHEEK PLATE THICKNESS
=RADIUS MAIN PLATE
=CLEARANCE
=SLING DIAMETER

Figure 9

Typical Shackle Details

Page 42 of 149

1f1ow:S;; x~ 1J5 w
lm;?: 0.5c:t
Y;?: t2
U-16584
(il/u0553431)

EIVI/039
Rev31991

d4
b

ev
ROUND EYE
g

OVAL EYE

LUG FITTING
U-16995

TRIANGULAR LIFTING EYE

Figure 10

(illu0553432)

Lifting Eyes and Lugs

Page 43 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

PADEYE POSITIONS A, B, C & D

~~~~---------r~------. 0
0
0

0
0
0

- - - - -jL-- - - - __ ,_ - - - - - -

0
0
N

_ _!__!__ _ _

2000
6000

Figure 11

Plan View of Package in Design Example

Page 44 of 149

(illu0553434)

- - - ...........
EM/039
Rev 31991

SHACKLE
DIMENSION 'b'

see Fig 9

-'~>-

209

6/2>2/d
I~

2os

~I

SECTION A-A
U-16994
(illu0553434)

Figure 12

Padeye Design Example

Page 45 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

PART 2 HEAVY LIFT CRITERIA FINAL REPORT


Part 2 of EM/039 has only included the main findings and some relevant extracts from Heavy Lift Criteria Final
Report managed by BRV. The full report if required is available from the Engineering ISU. Refer to Appendix 1
Guidelines for the Design of Module Lifting Systems.

Page 46 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Our Ref: DTB/jaa/BPJ3LOG
22nd February, 1991
See Distribution Attached

Dear Sir,
Offshore Lift Criteria- Joint Industry Project Final Report
Brown & Root Vickers Technology Ltd. are pleased to herewith submit a copy of the following documentation
supporting the work done on the above study:
Final report, dated February 1991.
Appendix 1.0, Guidance for the design of module Lifting Systems. This copy replaces Appendix 1.0
contained in the Appendices volume, issued November 1990.

Appendix 8.0, List of Report Comments. This document should be included after Appendix 7.0 in the
above Appendices Volume.

The above documentation has been updated and amended As Applicable And Incorporates Comments as
Received from parties involved.
BRVT would like to thank all participants and collaborators for their cooperation and support which enabled us
to successfully complete the study.

Yours Faithfully,
for Brown & Root Vickers Technology Ltd.

DirJ( T. Blanken
(Project Manager)

Page 47 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

DISTRIBUTION LIST

SECOND DRAFT REPORT- 27TH NOVEMBER 1990


Amerada Hess Limited

Mr. A West

Participant

British Gas pic

Mr. R.H. Rosenberg

Participant

British Ropes Ltd.

Mr. J. M. Walton

Collaborator

BP International Limited

Mr. R.O. Shell

Participant

BP International Limited

Mr. J. Jerzak

Participant

John Brown Engineers & Const'rs Ltd.

Mr. K.L. Logendra

Collaborator

Chevron Petroleum (UK) Ltd.

Mr. E.l. White

Participant

Davy McDermott Limited

Mr. N. Hughes

Collaborator

Department of Energy

Mr. J. Peel

Participant

Technical Services Department

Department of Energy
Marine Technology support Unit

Dr. P.M. Hook

Participant

Det norske Veritas


Veritas Marine Operations

Mr. K. Lindemann

Collaborator

Enterprise Oil pic

Mr. A R. Biddle

Participant

Exxon Production Research Co.

Mr. J.A. Jones

Participant

Global Maritime Ltd.

Mr. C.S. Barr

Collaborator

R & D Department

Mr. R. Wouts

Collaborator

Hendrik Veder BV

Mr. W. Vervat

Collaborator

Heerema Engineering Services BV

Page 48 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

Kerr McGee Oil (UK) Ltd.

Mr. P. Oldham

Participant

Offshore Services Division

Mr. J. C. Smith

Collaborator

London Offshore Consultants

Mr. R.S.W. Martin

Collaborator

McDermott International

Mr. D. Sullivan

Collaborator

Noble Denton Consultancy Services

Mr. H. M. Williams

Collaborator

Norsk Hydro a.s.

Mr. F.C. Pettersson

Participant

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

Mr. L. Dalsgaard

Participant

Occidental Petroleum (UK) Ltd.

Mr. S. Nelson

Participant

Phillips Petroleum Co. UK Ltd.

Mr. T. McCardle

Participant

Rockwater Limited

Mr. J. Rahtz

Collaborator

Saipem (UK) Ltd.

Mr. W. McGuire

Collaborator

Seaplace Limited

Capt. G. De Jong

Collaborator

Scanrope A.S.

Mr. R. Jespersen

Collaborator

Shell (UK) Exploration and Production

Mr. W. G. Laver
(UETE. 11)

Participant

Shelllnternationale Petroleum
Maatschappij BV

Mr. J.J.M. Baar (EPD/52)

Participant

Statoil A.S.

Mr. B. Stead

Participant

United Ropes

Mr. P. Kampers

Collaborator

Lloyds Register of Shipping

i.

Verto Wire Rope Division

Page 49 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
INTRODUCTION
1.1

General
The offshore lifting criteria which have been developed over the years are entirely on practical
experience and sound engineering guidance. Generally factors were developed based on the lift
weight for the design of sling, bumpers, guides and other installation aids.
As weights grew from several thousand to in excess of 10,000 Tonnes, there was a need for a
thorough review of the basis for these factors. With this in mind, British Petroleum (BP) commissioned
Brown and Vickers Ltd. (BRV) in October 1989 to perform a general review of the installation criteria. It
was found that there was a requirement for the establishment of an analytical basis for the criteria.
On this basis, BP recommended to BRV that a more detailed study should be carried out, involving as
a number of field, design, installation contractors, warranty surveyors, regulatory bodies, sling
manufacturers and other interested parties.
A proposed scope of work for such Joint Industry Project (JIP) was presented to a wide audience of
potentially interested parties. his resulted in the participation of 31 participants and other collaborating
companies.
As a result of discussions during the presentation this scope of work was amended and a revised
scope, dated 27th October 1989 was issued. A copy of this scope is included in Appendix 7.0. study
commenced on 1st December 1989. Refer to Appendix 7 Scope of Work.
This document contains the findings of the study which was performed by Brown and Root Vickers
Technology Ltd. (BRVT) over a ten month period. the results of the work have been discussed and
agreed at intervals with a Steering Committee. the course of the project progress and status was also
reported in meetings with the remaining participants. The comments that were received as a result of
the issue of the draft reports are recorded in Appendix 8 Results.

1.2

Project Management
The JIP was managed by ERVT who also performed the analytical work. The project involved two
types of participants. Firstly the full fee paying parties which were labelled as participants and
secondly of contributing parties as collaborators. The collaborator paid a reduced fee which most
cases were waived in lieu of a contribution in kind in support of the study.
The project was controlled by a Steering Committee which was elected at the commencement of the
study by the main party. It was the responsibility of the Steering Committee to provide technical
guidance and approvals to the project.
The members of the J IP are as follows:
PARTICIPANTS

COLLABORATORS

Amerada Hess Ltd

Bridon (British Ropes) Ltd

British Gas PLC

John Brown Eng. & Const. Ltd

BP International Ltd

Davy McDermott Ltd

Chevron Limited

Det Norske Veritas

Department of Energy

Global Maritime Ltd

Enterprise Oil PLC

Engineering Services B.V.

Exxon Production Research Co

Hendrik Veder B.V.

Kerr McGee Oil (UK) Ltd

Lloyds Register of Shipping

Page 50 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Norsk Hydro AS

London Offshore Consultants

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

McDermott International inc

Occidental Petroleum UJ< Ltd

Saipem (Micoperi) UJ< Ltd

Phillips Petroleum . UK Ltd

Noble Denton Consultancy Service Ltd

Shell (UK) Exploration & Production

Scanrope A. S.

Statoil A.S.

Seaplace Ltd
Rockwater Ltd
United Ropeworks B.V.

Representatives of the following companies were elected as of the Steering Committee:


BP International Ltd
Bridon (British Ropes) Ltd
Oet norske Veritas
Heerema Engineering Services BV
Lloyds Register of Shipping
London Offshore Consultant
Noble Denton Consultancy Service Ltd
Saipem Micoperi) UK Ltd
Occidental Petroleum Co. UK Ltd
Shell UK Exploration and Production

1.3

Lift History

1.3.1

Single Crane Lifts


The expertise of offshore lifting and installation was initially in the US Gulf, where floating cranes
installed the first fixed drilling platform offshore in 1952. lifts made were usually well below 100 Tonnes
(Te), and lift criteria were virtually non existent. Riggers Handbook, together with the Towing Manual,
issued by the US Corps of Engineers and the US Navy Supervisor of Salvage respectively provided
general guidelines.
The safety factors those used in general shipping. General guideline - evolved from the engineering
practices published by the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) and similar institutions. Also, use was made of the general cargo handling methods
which were commonplace at the time. The virtual absence of legal or classification supervision during
lifting did not to a significant development of criteria.
Offshore construction and lifting activities first came to the North Sea in 1965. Flat bottom , monohull
and single crane vessels lifted loads generally well under 500 Te. criteria used were usually based on
extrapolations from the then current practices developed in the US Gulf.
The weight of modules crept up when the lifting capacity of the 500 capacity single crane charges was
upgraded to 800 Te in 1969. this created the need for a more specific and comprehensive list of lift
design checks. These were developed by Brown and Root (UK) Ltd., in support of their fleet of lift
vessel then working in the North.

Page 51 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

The demands of offshore construction began to grow with the discovery of North Sea oil in 1970.
Since oil has been found in the Northern Sector with much greater water depths, the technology to
bigger structures evolved. Also, the lift capacity increased to 2,000 tons capacity cranes on several
vessels from 1972 onwards.
It was recognised in 1975 by Phillips Petroleum, facing the Ekofisk area development presume that it
was necessary to adopt a more rational standard for lifting systems. A proposed standard was
discussed at a forum, made up of representatives from the following companies:
Brown and Root
Heerema
McDermott
Santa Fe
Micoperi
Phillips
Universal agreement however was not reached, as contractors as will as warranty surveyors and
statutory bodies adopted their own and Sometimes different approach to the problem.
1.3.2

Dual Crane Lifts


On very rare, the overall weight of the modules required dual crane lifts to be performed. This was
done by using two crane barges, preferably with equal maximum lift capacities. lift procedure is
sometimes also referred to as tandem lifts. The first two such lifts to take place in this area were in
1968 when Brown and Root's 'Atlas' and lifted two modules for Amoco's Leman Field. The weights
were 420 and 368 Te respectively.
The third and final dual crane, two vessel lift in the North Sea was made during 1976, lifting 1,500 Te
Frigg TP1. Formal written procedures for this type of dual crane lift were not developed mainly due to
the rare nature of such an operation. The basis of the lift design was good engineering practice and
the single crane lift criteria which were in use at the time.
Heerema pioneered the introduction of the single VESSEL-dual crane semi-submersible lift capacity.
Initially, the Balder' and 'were designed for lifting modules with the larger crane only. The second and
much smaller crane was intended for continuous pile driving operations.
It was in 1980 when, for the first time a single load with a weight beyond 3,000 Te was lifted, making
use of both cranes of the SSCV in tandem. this was the Shell Fulmar buoy, weighing 3,250 Te. Since
then, dual or tandem crane lifts have become accepted within the industry and more than a dozen
have been made to date with many more planned for the future. It was therefore a logical progression
for Heerema to develop the Criteria for Dual Crane Lift Systems, which were first published in
November 1983.
RV wish to acknowledge the valuable input which was provided by this major heavy lift contractor and
thank Heerema for the use of some of their documentation on the subject.

SUMMARY

2.1

Scope of Work
The objective of the study was to develop improved design criteria for the lifting of large modules in an
offshore environment and using SSCV's. A large lift for the purpose of the work was defined as a with
a weight in excess of 1,000 Te. Lifted jackets were the scope of this study. It was also agreed that the
use of free floating spreader frames would not be investigated in this study.

Page 52 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
The work consisted of studying the properties and characteristics of the slings, manufactured to lift
very heavy modules. The behaviour of the hook - sling - module - lift system during the lift condition
was investigated. Data on slings, their strength and possible future trends were obtained from
collaborating manufacturers and evaluated.
A large number of static and dynamic lift simulations were carried out to develop an understanding into
the lateral and vertical impact loads for a range of module weights. The weather conditions chosen as
a basis for the analyses are of the type usually seen in the No1ih Sea. The findings of the work
therefore applies to a lesser degree to lifting with smaller semi-submersible or monohull vessels and to
operations in area like the US Gulf or offshore Brazil.
Results

2.2

The results of the study shall that using an accurate analytical for the evaluation of the variation lifting
parameters gave a better insight into many aspects of the mechanism of lifting.
This has resulted in a development of a set of revised criteria, contained in Appendix 1 Guidelines for
the Design of Module Lifting Systems.
This criteria included a comprehensive glossary of terms, which is aimed at standardising the lift
system nomenclature.
In, the study has showed that some of the old established parameters developed years of offshore
lifting were generally good parameters and their continued use is with some modifications acceptable
with current lifting practice.
A list of definitions of some of the expressions used in this document is contained in Appendix 1
Guidelines for the Design of Module Lifting Systems.
A list of references to other specifications, criteria, codes and procedures is included in Section 4.4
References.
Some basic changes to or a better definition of the general approach of the of the lift system
components however are proposed. These include the following:
Single Hook Lift

2.2.1

Single hook lifts with four or more slings on padeyes at the same plane are statically
indeterminate and sling loads are not calculable by simple means. Accurate computer structural
analysis accounting for hook articulation, module tilt and sling length mismatch. For the
purposes of lift system design the current industry method based an a skew load factor of 1.5 is
generally found to be safe providing the slings are in matched pairs and their length mismatch
conforms to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets. This is providing the slings are
rigged correctly to minimise the sling length misfit across the diagonals.
It is recommended that slings for single hook lifts be measured for compliance with length
specification and to enable the slings to be rigged to minimise diagonal misfit by arranging that
the shortest slings in each matched pair are not on opposite corners of the lift. All the slings
should be measured at the same tension between 2.5% and 5% of the calculated rope breaking
load. This would generally comply with the recommendations in HSE, PM20Cable Laid Slings
and Grommets.

New slings are more flexible than used slings of the same diameter and are preferred for single
hook lift without spreaders. The use of oversized used slings must be avoided in single hook
lifts.

Module flexibility has more effect on single hook lift sling loads than in the dual lift but only
results in changes of the order of 1% sling loads. For most the module can be assumed
completely rigid.

Page 53 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
2.2.2

Criteria Comparison. Single Hook Lifts


A comparison of existing lift criteria and the proposed guidelines in 'Appendix: Guidelines for the
Design of Module Lifting Systems' is shown on Appendix 1, Table Lift Criteria Comparison - Single
Crane Lifts.
In order to a common basis for this comparison, the usually accepted pre-AFC weight factors have
been shown.
All previous criteria include a hook dynamic implication factor, or OAF of 1.1. The present study
concludes that this existing hook OAF is valid for weights approaching 6,000 tonnes, but for lighter
modules the hook OAF can increase above 1.1.
The study has also found that the sling OAF is usually larger than the hook OAF and concludes that
the sling OAF should be on Figures 7.6.5 and 7.6.6*"********. A sling of 1.15 for a single crane lift
approaching 6,000 tonnes increasing to 1.20 for a single crane lift of 2,500 T is included in Appendix
1, Table Lift Criteria Comparison- Single Crane Lifts.
Apart from the DnV criteria published in RP.5 of 1985 and some other criteria based on the DnV
criteria all criteria include a skew factor of 1.50, i.e. 75 of the load is assumed to be by slings on one
diagonal. DnV criteria is qualified by a sling fiUextension criteria. Some other criteria however which
have adopted the DnV skew factor are surprisingly not qualified. Indication of how the skew factor is
influenced by sling length mismatch is given in Figure_...32'Skew Load Factor Graphs.
~

It is considered that the skew factor of 1.50 can be reduced in accordance with Figure 33 Skew Load
Factor Graphs.
This is providing the sling length mismatch criteria are satisfied.
Apart flow early examples all present criteria include for a centre of gravity shift factor or allowance.
proposed in this document includes a tilt factor of 1.03 for single crane lifts, a factor not previously
included.
With the exception of the DnV 1985 criteria all criteria include a doubled sling load ratio of 55:45 and a
lift point side load of 5.0 percent.
Apart from the DnV 1985 criteria, early criteria did not include design factors, or consequence factors
for module lift point or load transferring member design. Design factors appear in the criteria quoted in
Appendix 1, Table Lift Criteria Comparison - Single Crane Lifts.
These design factors vary considerably between criteria. The design factor of 1.1 0 is lower than other
criteria but is appropriate due to the other factors being based upon analytical work done in this study,
quoted for the guidelines in Appendix 1 Guidelines For The Design Of Module Lifting Systems.
A comparison is also made between the combined factors on the slings and lift point. The lift point
factor by this document is within the range of combined factors for lift points for previous criteria.
However the sling combined factor is higher than for previous criteria. It is substantially higher than
these criteria which use a skew load factor of 1.25. This skew load factor is the factor by which sling
loads are multiplied to account for sling length mismatch. Unless sling lengths are known before each
lift by measurement and slings rigged in order to reduce mismatch, for criteria with the lower combined
sling factors there is a likelihood that the sling working load limit, as defined by the Health and Safety
Executive Guidance Note PM20 will be exceeded. This is clearly an unacceptable situation.
2.2.3

Dual Lift
e

The sling load distribution in dual lifts is little affected by large variations in module stiffness. For
most the assumption that the module is rigid is modestly conservative resulting in sling load
changes of less than 0.1 %.

Page 54 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
With a rigid module and knowledge of the hook geometry the dual lift becomes a statically
determinate mechanism for which sling loads can be calculated accurately.
Because the dual lift with the sling configuration as investigated in this study is statically
determinate, the sling load distribution is relatively insensitive to variations in sling
load/extension or torque characteristics. Also the effect of large sling length mismatches can be
quantified on the basis of geometric deformation without the need for structural stiffness
analysis. Dual lifts having 2 x 4 or 2 + 4 slings however are statically indeterminate and require
computer analysis outside the scope.
The dynamic amplification factor for slings was shown to have a dependency on module weight and
mean spectral wave periods. dependency has been evaluated and incorporated as part of the revised
criteria. For completeness, the hook load were also evaluated and shown to have this dependency
Guideline impact velocities of a module during set down have also been investigated in this study.
These have been incorporated in the revised criteria. In particular, the loads have been evaluated as a
of bumper stiffness and presented as graphical curves for design purposes.
The curves show that depending upon module weight, and bumper stiffness, the overall value falls
below the normal ten that is generally used globally. In particular the impact loads have been split into
two components the quasi static and dynamic parts.
Overall the study has resulted in several major findings. This has been reflected in a revised lift criteria
having a more analytical basis for its recommendations.

2.2.4

Criteria Comparison. Dual Lifts


A number of present lift criteria for lifts is shown in Table Lift Criteria Comparison- Dual Lifts.
The examples shown should be regarded as an indicative example and are quoted as comparative
rather than absolute values. This Table includes for completeness sake the pre-AFC factors used to
establish the lift weight.
As was the case for single crane lifts, most present criteria allow a sling OAF of 1.10 for all lifting
weights of the range. BRV proposes the values, in a straight interpolation, to range 1.15 for a 6, 000
tonne lift down to 1.10 for 10,000 tonnes.
As can be seen from the Table, the range of the overall sling design load (L) as proposed by BRV is
well within the ranges as proposed in other contemporary criteria. The lift point and load member
design factors (M and H) however are shown to have considerably lower values as hither to assumed.
This provides a marginal saving in overall steel weight of a module.

Page 55 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Table 9

HEEREMA
(1983)

RANGE OF
MODULE
WEIGHTS
A

c
D
E
F
G

DnV
(1985)

MICOPERI
(1985)

SHELl
SOLE
PIT
(1988)

OXY
PIPER
(1990)

BP
BRUCE
(1990)

>1 ,000

>2,500

> 2,500

>2,500

>2,500

1.15

1.15(1)

1.15(1)

1.15(1)

1.15

D.A.F.
(SLINGS)

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

SKEW LOAD
FACTOR

1.50

1.50

1.50

C.G. SHIFT
FACTOR

1.00

1.05(2)

TILT
FACTOR

1.00

1.00

AxBxCxD
xE

1.90

1.51

RIGGING
WEIGHT
FACTOR

1.03

1.03(1)

LIFT POINT
DESIGN
FACTOR

1.00

LOAD
MEMBER
DESIGN
FACTOR

1.00

AMOCO
CATS
(1990)

CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)

NOBLE
DENTON
(1990)

BRV JIP (1991)

A(5)

8(3)

>2,500

6000/2500

6000/2500

1.15

0 1.125

1.175

1.175

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.15/1.20

1.15/1.20

1.50

1.25

1.50

1.25

1.50

1.25

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.05(2)

1.05

1.02(8)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.03(7)

1.90

1.99

1.90

1.90

1.66

1.99

1.62

2.23/2.33

1. r r/1.85

1.04

1.03(1)

1.03(1)

1.03(1)

1.03(1)

1.03(1)

1.03(1)

1.03

1.03

1.35

1.00

1.00

1.30

1.25

1.30

1.30

1.35

1.10

1.10

1.15

1.00

1.00

1.15

1.10

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.00

1.00

>2,500

WEIGHT
FACTOR
(PREAFC)(4)

lift Criteria Comparison -Single Crane Lifts

1.10

1.10
1.25
1.00
1.00

1.15

1.10
1.50
1.00

Page 56 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
HEEREMA
(1983)

DnV
(1985)

MICOPERI
(1985)

SHELL
SOLE
PIT
{1988}

OXY
PIPER
(1990)

BP
BRUCE
(1990)

AMOCO
CATS
(1990)

CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)

NOBLE
DENTON
(1990}

BRV JIP (1991)

A(5)

B(3)

SUNG
DESIGN
(F x G)

1.95

1.56

1.97

2.05

1.95

1.95

1.71

2.05

1.67

2.30/2.40

1.83/1.91

.LIFT POINT
DESIGN
(F x H) (6)

1.90

2.04

1.90

1.99

2.47

2.37

2.16

2.59

2.19

2.45/2.56

1.95/2.04

LOAD
MEMBER
DESIGN
(F X I)

1.90

1.74

1.90

1.99

2.18

2.09

1.91

2.29

1.87

2.23/2.33

1.77/1.85

----

NOTES:

1.

Factor not quoted, but assumed for this comparison table.

2.

Factor used, but not quoted and assumed for this comparison table.

3.

Skew load factor can be reduced to 1.25 minimum by use of curves, depending upon measured sling lengths.

4.

Factor based on average of factors for structural and equipment.

5.

Sling OAF varies linearly with the module weight, from 1.20 at 2,500T to 1.15 at 6,000T.

6.

The overall Lift Point Design Factor (K) from API RP2A (Eighteenth Edition 1989) is 2.00.

7.

Tilt factor assumed if tilt is 1% or less.

8.

Factor can be reduced to 1.02 after weighing.

Page 57 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
Table 10
-

Lift Criteria Comparison - Dual Lifts

RANGE OF MODULE WEIGHTS

BP
BRUCE
(1990)

LOG
(1991)

AMOCO
CATS
(1990)

CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)

HEEREMA
(1990)

NOBLE
DENTON
(1990)

BRV JOINT INDUSTRY


PROJECT (1991)

>8,000

> 1,000

> 2,500

> 2,500

> 2,500

> 2,500

10,00016,000 (5)

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.25

i.15

1.125

1.175

WEIGHT
AFC)(1)

D.A.F. (SLINGS)

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.1011.15

C. G. SHIFT FACTOR

1.08

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.03

1.05

TILT FACTOR

1.08

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.03(4)

YAWFACTOR.

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.00(6)

TORSION FACTOR

1.00

1.00

1.10

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

SKEW FACTOR

1.10

1.10

1.00

1.10

1.00

1.00

1.03

AxBxCxDxExFxG

1.50

1.58

1.58

1.64

1.44

1.38

1.44 I 1.51

RIGGING
FACTOR

WEIGHT

1.03

1.03

1.00

1.03(2)

1.03

1.03(2)

1.03

LIFT
POINT
FACTOR

DESIGN

1.25

1.00

1.35

1.30

1.'10

1.35

1.10

LOAD MEMBER
FACTOR

DESIGN

1.10

1.00

1.15

1.15

1.10

1.15

1.00

SLING DESIGN (H xI)

1.55

1.63

1.58

1.68

1.48

1.42

1.48 I 1 .55

LIFT POINT DESIGN (H x J)


(3)

1.88

1.58

2.13

2.13

1.58

1.86

1.58 I 1.66

LOAD MEMBER
(H x K)

1.65

1.58

1.82

1.88

1.58

1.59

1.44 I 1.51

FACTOR

(PRE-

DESIGN

L_____

NOTES:

---

1.

Based upon average of factors for structural and equipment/outfitting.

2.

Factor not quoted, but assumed as 1.03 for this comparison table.
Page 58 of 149

~-

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

3.

The overall Lift Point Design Factor (M) from API RP2A is 2.00.

4.

Factor assumed for this comparison table. Factor should be calculated by statics based upon C.G. position and allowable tilt

5.

The sling OAF varies linearly with the module weight, from 1.15 at 6,000T to 1.10 at 1 O,OOOT.

6.

Yaw included in OAF and Skew factors.

Page 59 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
3

CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the work in relation to this study, a large number of interesting conclusions have been
drawn. The most significant of these are listed briefly in this Section. The background a more detailed
explanation or other qualifications where appropriate are included in the relevant Sections of this
report.

3.1

Static Analyses
(1)

The single hook four point lifts investigated in this study, are statically. Lifts as investigated were
to be performed with a two times two sling configuration which is statically determinate. Dual
lifts with alternative slinging arrangements may however be statically indeterminate.

(2)

A final design check, on measured sling lengths and module weight data, may result in the use
of less conservative sign factors. As a consequence the risk of problems arising from module
weight growth or CG position change is greatly reduced when using these proposed criteria.

(3)

The range of the overall sling design loads as proposed by BRVT are well within the range as
proposed in other contemporary lift point design and load member design factors however are
shown to have considerably lower values as hitherto assumed. This provides a marginal saving
in the overall STEEL weight of the module.

(4)

The different crane hook geometric on the currently available SSCVs have very little effect an
sling tensions since all have sufficient articulation to allow distribution of loads by the rotation of
their hook components.

(5)

The load split ratio of 55:45 between adjacent lengths of multiple length slings affects the
maximum tension in each sling rope but has virtually no effect on the overall load distribution
between the slings in single or dual lifts.

(6)

The sling load distribution in single hook lifts is very sensitive to sling length misfit. For example,
when one diagonal pair of slings is 40 shorter than the other diagonal than almost weight is
carried by the shorter slings. analysis has shown diagonal load ratios in excess of 90/10 on
some of the cases studied. Clearly the lift criteria for single hook lifts has to relate to the effect of
sling length misfit on skew load factor.

(7)

Dual lifts are relatively insensitive to sling length misfit. maximum increase in sling load due to

40 total shortening of two slings on opposite corners of the module was found to be 5%.

3.2

(8)

Sling structural efficiency decreases as sling diameters increase. With current hook geometries,
slings in excess of 500 mm diameter become uneconomic and can be made more efficient by
use of part slings of diameter rope.

(9)

Module stiffness has very little effect on the sling tensions in dual or single lifts. In dual lifts
increasing module stiffeners by 50% increases the maximum sling load by less than 0.07% and
in single lifts by less than 1.1 %.

(1 0)

Variations in the elastic properties of matched pairs of slings cause changes in sling loads. In
dual lifts sling loads can by up to 0.4% and in single lifts up to 5%.

(11)

CG position error variation has a significant effect on both single -hook and dual crane sling
loads. combined effect of CG position error and 2% module tilt on the cases studied resulted in
sling load increases up to 15%.

Dynamic Analyses
(1)

In a test analysis, a 25% database in cargo barge draught produced a 7% increase in hook
loads at short wave periods. It is felt that deeper barge draught will normally result in lower.

Page 60 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

(2)

A comparison the frequency and the time domain results show that the flexibility domain
analysis has the following effects.
e

It may increase or decrease the expected (average) DAF for the slings compared with the
frequency domain values at 50% preload and dependant on the non-linearities of the
system.

The comparison also the importance of carrying cut a time domain simulation for a lift
analysis.

(3)

When a module is on the cargo barge prior to lift with hooks tensioned, the natural periods are
dispersed throughout the 3 to 8 seconds wave range of interest. This is the case for all weights
and types of lifts. Therefore significant dynamic loads can be expected (and were found).
Overall there was a of results, reflecting the variation in natural period combined with the
frequency dependant forcing effects of the waves on the barge and SSCV.

(4)

At low sea states the time domain dynamic amplification factor may be by the load caused by
the speeding up of the crane load winch at 100 percent weight transfer. his is a function of the
timescale over which the speeding up takes place.

(5)

Relatively higher nonlinearities have been in the dual lift examined than m the single crane lift.
This can be seen by examining the frequency as the time domain results contained in Appendix
2 Lifting Point Design Load Derivation

(6)

The dynamic amplification factors found in the time domain for long crested beam seas have
been found to be higher than in quartering or head seas. This is to the extent of reversing the
trend in the frequency for dual lifts when the quarter m g seas appear to be most onerous.

(7)

Maximum sling loads are sensitiv(3 to the way in which the lift is carried out ( 20%), for
example the speed and time of onset of the final hoist phase.

(8)

The OAF found for long crested beam seas are significantly higher than previously assumed
DAF for quartering and head seas to the cargo barge, which fully feature during a dual lift, are
lower.

(9)

The dynamic amplification factors for larger modules are lower than for smaller modules.

(1 0)

For headseas at the cargo barge and during dual lifts, the sling OAF approximately equals the
hook OAF. For beam seas, however, sling OAF exceeds the hook DAF.

(11)

During single crane four point lifts, the sling OAF exceeds the hook OAF at head as well as
beam seas to the cargo barge. The values of this exceedance varies with the wave period.

(12)

This study provides a revised method of assessing the impact in bumpers and guides. Impact
velocity values are given and when applied to the stiffness of the guide. enables the to be
evaluated.

(13)

Module guidance system design loads can be reduced by reducing the overall bumper stiffness.
However the bumpers must be of resisting a minimum horizontal load, the value of is given.

It should be noted that in our opinion a efficiently representative set of simulations have been
performed to be statistically acceptable to effect the conclusions noted above.
3.3

References

In this document , references are made to other specifications, criteria, of practice and procedures
which have been widely accepted within the industry. It must be stressed however that throughout the
preparation of this report and the Heavy Lift Criteria no attempt has been made to validate the basis of
these reference documents.

Page 61 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
For the sake of completeness, however, a list of the most comply used specifications and other
documentation is herewith presented for further guidance.
Table 11
Origin

References used in this Document


Document

Date

American Institute of Steel


Construction, (AISC)

Specification for the


Fabrication and Erection
of Structural Steel for
Buildings (8th Edition)

August 1982

American Institute of Steel


Construction (AISC)

Manual of Steel
Construction Allowable
Stress Design (9th
Edition)

September 1989

American Petroleum
Institute (API)

Recommended Practice
2A, 18th Edition (APIRP2A)

September 1989

British Standards Institution


(BSI)

Specification for the use


of Structural Steel in
Building BS-449 (Part 2
Metric Units, AMD 4576)

August 1984

British Standards Institution


(BSI)

Structural use of
Steelwork in Building
BS-5950 (Part 1 to 5)

October 1987
(Part 5)

Det norske Veritas (DnV)

Rules for the Design,


Construction &
Inspection of Offshore
Structures: (and
associated appendices)

January 1977

Det norske Veritas (DnV)

Standard for Insurance


Warranty Surveys in
Marine Operations,
Recommended
Practices, RP-5. (Lifting)

September 1989

Det norske Veritas (DnV)

Rules for the Design,


Construction &
Inspection of Offshore
Structures, 1977.
(Appendix G, Dynamic
Analysis)

January 1982

European Committee for


Standardisation

Steel Wire Ropes, their


Terminations and Wire
Rope Slings
(CEN/TC168NVGZ)

April1989

10

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Criteria for Four Point


Lift System (SC 201)

October 1983

11

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Criteria for Dual Crane


Topside Lift Systems
(SC211)

October 1990

12

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Criteria for Dual Crane


Jacket Lift Systems (SC
221)

August 1990

Page 62 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
Origin

Document

Date

13

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Criteria for Guides,


Bumpers and
Placement (SC 251)

October 1983

14

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Criteria for Module


Seafastenings (SC 301)

October 1983

15

Heerema Engineering
Service BV

Handling Procedures for


Large Diameter Cable
Laid Slings (SC 402)

November 1986

16

Lloyds Register of Shipping

Rules and Regulation


for the Classification of
Fixed Offshore
Installations Part 4,
Chapter 3

July 1988

17

London Offshore Consultant


Ltd.

Guideline for Offshore


Lifting Rev. 0

January 1991

18

McDermott International Inc.

Design Standards for


Lifting Arrangement and
Installation Aid Rev. 0

October 1985

19

Noble Denton Consultancy


Service

Guidelines for Lifting by


Floating Crane (NDA
0027 -NDI-JR)

October 1990

20

Norges Bygg Standardising


Stad

Norwegian Standard
NS-3472 (E)

21

Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)

Guidelines for the


Determination of Loads
and Load Effects

January 1987

22

Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)

Guidelines on design
and analysis of steel
structures in the
petroleum industry

January 1990

23

Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)

Regulations for
Structural of Load
Bearing structures

October 1984

24

Saipem (Formerly Micoperi)

Criteria for Dual Crane


Lift Systems, Spec/205

February 1986

25

Saipem (Formerly Micoperi)

Criteria for Single Crane


Four Point Lift Systems,
Spec/203

February 1986

26

Saipem (Formerly Micoperi)

Criteria for Single Crane


Four Point Lift Systems
with Spreader Beam,
Spec/204

February i 986

27

Saipem (Formerly Micoperi)

Criteria for Module


Setting Guides and
Bumpers, Spec/301

February 1986

28

UK Health and Safety


Executive

Guidance Note. PM 20

October 1987

Page 63 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

APPENDIX 1.0 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF MODULE LIFTING SYSTEMS


INTRODUCTION
This document contains guidelines for the design of the lifting systems for heavy offshore modules in
air by a semi-submersible crane vessel. The document has been prepared following a joint industry
project study carried out during 1990.
The study considered in detail the effects of many parameters including sling characteristics, sling
length misfit, module tilt and module flexibility on both dual crane and single crane four point lift
systems.
Additionally, the effects of conditions on the dynamics of the lift system were investigated to give
guidance on the dynamic amplification factors for sling and lift point design. These effects are detailed
in Attachment 1.0: Dynamic Amplification Factors.
For single crane four point lift systems it has been found that the load distribution to the lift points is
considerably affected by sling load extension characteristics and sling misfit. Attachment 2.0 to this
document includes graphs which enable the designer to reassess the skew load factor when detailed
information is available on the slings to be used. All "single crane lifts should be reassessed using
Attachment 2 and this may enable lifts which have grown beyond their designed maximum lift weight
to be safely lifted at a reduced skew load factor.
This document does not cover lifts incorporating floating spreader beams or frames, lifts of jacket
structures in water, nor lifts of light non-standard shape structures such as bridges or flare booms.
These type of lifts are considered as special cases which have to be investigated separately and on
their specific merits.
Worked examples where sample calculations are carried out for each of the single and dual lift
methods is shown in Attachment 3.0 Worked Examples.
2

DESIGN GUIDELINES
This Section presents a general description of the overall process for offshore heavy lift design.
Detailed descriptions of the various stages of design are included in the following Sections of these
guidelines and the design process is summarised in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.

2.1

Module Weights
It is essential, at the commencement of lift system design, to establish the maximum module lift
weight, or MLW, on which the lift design is to be based.
The MLW exceeds the initial calculated gross lift weight of the lift components by a contingency factor,
C which is set sufficiently high to ensure that subsequent values of GLW do not exceed the value of
MLW set at the start of the project. The value of C varies from project to project but typical values are
in the range 1.05 to 1.2 and must be large enough to avoid having to shed weight or strengthen the lift
system at a later stage in the project.
The gross lift weights, GLW, is calculated by applying contingency factors to the net lift weights of the
structural and equipment components of the lift.
The nett lift weights are the total weight of the components before the application of any factors.
The contingency values are adjusted to match the increased lift definition as the design proceeds and
typical values are as follows:

Page 64 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Typical weight factors
Component

Start of Design

End of Design

Structural

1.15

1.05

Equipment

1.20

1.10

Thus at the start of detailed design the module gross lift weight is typically given by:
GLW = 1.15 x 2: Structure weights+ 1.20 x 2: Equipment weights
and the maximum lift weight by:
MLW= GLWx C.
If the is weighed at the end of construction then the gross lift weight may be based on the weighed
weight with a weigh mg inaccuracy factor of 1.03 as follows:
GLW = 1.03 x Weighed Weight.
The application of the above weight factors is shown in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.
For the design of the lift s m, for any module having a dynamic lift weight within approximately 10
percent of the crane capacity, then consideration should be given to basing the maximum lift weight
upon the crane capacity.
Through the detailed design and fabrication phase, as the module weight becomes better defined,
provided the gross lift weight and centre of gravity are within the maximum lift weight and centre of
gravity zone, then no interim design checks on the lift system are necessary.
It is recommended that lift point orientation and sling or grommet lengths be finalised as late as
possible in the design phase. is in order to minimise lift point to sling misalignment and module tilt.
Should this approach be adopted, any final design checks could take into accouQt a reduced centre of
gravity offset if so desired.

2.2

Rigging Weight
The static hook load, or SHL, is derived by adding the weight of rigging to the module maximum lift
weight and is used in the calculation of hook load and sling load as shown in Figure 58 Lift Design
Calculation Chart.
Until the rigging details are known the rigging weight, or RW, may be taken as 0.03 times the module
maximum lift weight.
Thus: SHL =MLW + RW.

2.3

Dynamic Amplifications Factors


Dynamic factors, or OAFs, are applied to the static hook load in the calculation of dynamic hook loads
and lift point loads as shown in Figure17 Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift, Figure 32 Lift Point LoadsSingle Crane Lift and Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.
Details of OAFs plotted against module weight for various sea states for both dual crane lifts and
single crane lifts are included in Attachment 1.0 Dynamic Amplification Factors. The given in the Table
below are for use by the designer at the commencement of detailed design. Alternative may be
considered by the designer if considered appropriate by the interested parties.
The offshore in the Table below are for lifts by a semi-submersible crane vessel from an unsheltered
cargo barge where the seas are non-beam onto the cargo barge.

Page 65 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
TABLE OF DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (OAFs)
INSHORE

OFFSHORE
COMPLETION

DESIGN
LIFT WEIGHT (Te)

ALL

10,000

2,500

1,000

HOOK OAF

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

Refer to Figure 26
Sling Design OAF

SLING OAF

1.05

1.10

1.20

1.25

Refer to Figure 27
Hook Load OAF

ALL

The OAF for module weights between the values given above, should be calculated by a linear
interpolation.
In cases where a single hook lift is lifted offshore from the deck of the crane vessel and placed on a
fixed installation, the hook and sling for the operation shall be taken as 1.10 in the lift system design.
The method of applying the slings and hook OAFs to lift design is given, respectively, in Section 2.7
Lift Point Loads and Section 2.9 Dynamics Hook Load.
Lift Configuration

2.4

Which are light enough to be lifted by a single crane may be lifted by either a single or dual crane lift
system. The following points may be considered in determining which system to use:

2.5

dual crane lifts result in more efficient structural design.

single crane lifts in a more flexible marine operation having the possibility of revolving crane
operation.

"

single crane lifts may be lifted from the deck of the heavy lift vessel offshore, following an
inshore lift from a cargo barge, resulting in a reduced weather sensitivity.

Lift Geometry
The lift geometry for single and dual lifts is to be designed to use slings in matched pairs such that the
slings in each pair have the same length. In this way the hook location is in general confined to the
planes of padear symmetry as shown on Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones. Exceptions are
possible in the case of dual lifts as described in Section 2.6 Module Tilt and Allowable CG Zone.
Various types of sling configuration are used for the lifting of heavy modules. With the exception of the
four part sling, these are all shown pictorially in Figure 13 Sling Configurations.
(1)

A single sling between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is often used for lighter
four point single crane lifts where the sling is connected to a padeye type lift point by a shackle.

(2)

Multiple sling lengths between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is used for single
crane or dual lifts. The sling is usually doubled over the crane hook prong, with the sling eyes
connected to a trunnion type lift point. Alternatively the sling may be doubled around a padear
type lift point with the sling eyes over the crane hook. Occasionally for larger Dual lifts a sling is
four-parted between the lift point and the crane hook.

(3)

A grommet between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is most often used for Dual
lifts where the grommet is connected to a padear type lift point. Occasionally, for larger dual lifts
a may be doubled, connected to the module either by a padear or trunnion type lift point.

Page 66 of 149

EM/039

Rev 3 1991
2.6

Module Tilt and Allowable CG Zone


The maximum allowable module tilt during lift is determined by practical considerations and the
maximum tilt acceptable to the lift contractors varies between contractors. It is recommended that lift
designs be based on 2% tilt unless there is a specific intent at the outset to allow larger tilt angles in
agreement with all parties concerned.
In order to limit module tilt to 2%, or 1.15 deg, during lift the CG is to lie within the allowable CG zone
defined on Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones.
Where a tilt angle larger than 2% has been agreed the CG zone may be increased proportionally.
During the design process the hook position is chosen to be on the axis of symmetry as close as
possible to the predicted module CG location. At the time of lift, subsequent weight control procedures
are to ensure that the module CG complies with Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones.
In extreme cases it may be necessary to design a dual lift using unequal slings on each hook to
maintain a practical module tilt, with CG outside the zone in Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity
Zones.
In these cases, to ensure module tilt does not exceed 2 percent during lift, the lift point loads and
dynamic hook loads are to be calculated using similar factors and principles as shown in Figure 29
and 30 Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane Lifts.

2.7

Lift Point Loads

2.7.1

Dual Crane Lifts


Lift point loads in dual lifts without spreader beams are calculated from the static hook load by the
method shown in Figure 29 and 30 Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane Lifts. This is based on simple statics.
The methods allows for the possibility of centre of gravity shift during the design and fabrication phase
by applying the CGSF factor of 1.05 to the static hook load. At module completion this factor may be du6
to 1.02 if the module CG location has been verified by weighing.
The SDAF factor accounts for dynamic amplification of the sling loads and is obtained from Section
2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factors.
The following reference also takes into account the effect of module transverse and longitudinal tilt
and skew load caused by sling length misfit. Refer to Figure 29 and 30 Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane
Lifts.
At module completion the transverse tilt may be reduced to a of 1% in the lift point calculation
providing that this is justified by the CG location having been determined by weighing.
The longitudinal tilt of +2% accounts for possible differences in the hoisting rates of the two cranes
during the lift and this affects the distribution of module weight between the two cranes. The lift point
loads are to be calculated for both positive and negative transverse tilt and the largest values used for
the design of each set of slings.

2.7.2

Single Crane Lifts


Lift point loads in single hook lifts without spreader beams are calculated from the static hook load by
the method shown in Figure 32 Lift Point Loads -Single Crane Lift. This includes factors for CG shift
and dynamic amplification to those for lifts in Section 2. 7.1 Dual Crane Lifts. (The maximum lift point
load is used in the design of all four slings and lift points).
The effect of centre of gravity shift during the design and fabrication phase is allowed for by applying
the CGSF factor of 1.05 to the static hook load. At module completion this factor may be reduced to
1.02 if the module CG location has been verified by weighing.

Page 67 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
The effect of module tilt on the lift point loads is allowed for in initial design by the CGTF factor of 1.05
which is valid providing module tilt does not exceed 2%. If a larger tilt angle is to be used, the CGTF is
to be calculated using the CGTF final design formula given in Figure 32 Lift Point Loads - Single
Crane Lift.
In the final design check the value of is to be calculated from the tilt angle derived from the module CG
location determined by weighing.
The tilt angle allowed in the calculation is 1% even if the true tilt angle is less.
The maximum permitted tilt is 5%.
The method of calculating the lift point loads is given in Figure 32 Lift Point Loads -Single Crane Lift.
It consists of determining the loads in an ideal lift with correct length slings and then multiplying the lift
point load by the skew load factor or SLF. The SLF accounts for a number of factors including sling
misfit, sling properiy variation and splice slippage.
During design the SLF is to be taken as 1.5 and the resulting lift point loads used in the design of each
pair of padears.

If the sling lengths are measured accurately under tension the actual SLF can be detem1ined by the
method given in Attachment 2.0 Skew Load Factor- Single Hook Lifts.
The lift design should be checked using the revised SLF. calculation may allow modules which exceed
design weight to be lifted if the revised SLF is below 1.5 and providing the crane capacity is not
exceeded.
If the slings are not reassured the SLF should be checked by the method given in Attachment 2 on the
basis that the sling misfit is 2.5 times the sling rope diameter. If the SLF is greater than 1.5 then the
slings are to be reassured and rigged appropriately to ensure the SLF does not exceed 1.5 during the
lift.

2.8

Sling Design
The sling design load, or SOL, in lifts without spreader beams is to be taken as the lift point load
determined in Section 2. 7 Lift Point Loads.
For sling eyes and for length slings and grommets, allowance be made for different tensions in each
part due to friction at the hook or lift point preventing equalisation. The maximum tension in any part
should be taken as Tmax where:
Tmax = 1.1 x SOL

where n = number of parts

n
This equation is considered suitable for lubricated contact between the sling and the hook or lift point
and where the following bend requirements are complied with Section 2.11.4 Cast Padears and
Section 2.11.5 Trunnions.
Sufficient lubrication for this purpose is normally provided by the protective surface coating of the
sling.
Sling splices should have a circumferential paint line to provide evidence of any slippage.

2.8.1

Single Slings
For single slings the required calculated rope breaking load, or CRBL, as defined in HSE, PM20Cable
Laid Slings and Grommets must be the larger of the following:

Page 68 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
at the splices
CRBL ~ SDL,;'< 2.25
'-'T

at the sling eyes


CRBL ):

0.5

~DL>~ 2.25

":

Er

where
is the termination efficiency, currently taken as 0.75 for a hand splice and 1.0 for a resin
socket and Bs Eis the bend efficiency at the sling eye calculated as follows:

BsE =

X /d/D

1- 0.5

where:
d = rope diameter

D = bend diameter

2.8.2

Multiple Length Slings


For multiple length slings the required calculated rope breaking load, or CRBL, must be the larger of
the following:
at the sling bend
CRBL

~ 1.1x SDLx US
V

n X EJJ;

at the sling splices


CRBL

~ 1.1x SDLx US
nX ET

at the sling eyes


CRBL '>v

0.55 x 1.1

SDLX 2.25

nX E:D:E

where:
n

=number of parts

Ei3s - bend efficiency of sling

E.BE =
Ey

bend efficiency of sling eye

= termination efficiency

and where the bend and termination efficiencies are as defined in Section 2.8.1 Single Slings.

2.8.3

Grommets
For a grommet the required calculated grommet breaking load, CGBL, as defined in HSE, PM20Cable
Laid Slings and Grommets is:
CGBL

2 X 1.1 X SDL
n X EJJ

2.25

Page 69 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
where EBG is the bend efficiency of the grommet calculated for the smallest diameter about which any
part of the grommet is bent and n = number of parts. Note that for a single grommet n = 2 and for a
doubled grommet n 4.

2.9

Dynamic Hook Load

2.9.1

Dual Crane Lifts


Dynamic hook loads for dual crane lifts are calculated from the static hook load by the method shown
in Figure 29 and 30 Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane Lift. The method for dynamic amplification, CG shift
and tilt as described in Section 2. 7 Lift Point Loads for lift point loads.

2.9.2

Single Crane Lifts


The dynamic hook load for single crane lifts is the product of the static hook load and the hook
dynamic amplification factor found from Dynamic Amplifications Factors.
Thus DHL = SHL x HDAF

.'2.10

Crane Capacity
The crane capacity must exceed the dynamic hook load obtained from Section 2.9 Dynamic Hook
Load.
The crane capacity is to be taken from the certified crane capacity curve at the crane radius at which
the lift is made. If the crane radius varie~ during the lift the crane capacity is to be taken at the
maximum radius used in the lift.
Offshore crane load/radius charts often include an allowance for dynamic amplification. These crane
curves reflect the static capacity only. Consequently on top of the crane curve there is an additional
capacity available for dynamic amplification. In cases where the hook load exceeds the value obtained
from the crane capacity curve, the crane capacity may be converted to its dynamic capacity by
multiplying by the OAF used in the preparation of the capacity curve. Providing this dynamic crane
capacity exceeds the dynamic hook load the crane capacity is sufficient for the lift.

2.11

Lift Point Design

2.1 i .1

Design Loads
The lift point design load is determined from the maximum lift point load C by multiplying by a
consequence factor of 1.1. Refer to Section 2. 7 Lift Point Loads.
Loads are applied to the lift point as shown in Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings.
For a doubled sling the load to each part of the lift point is split in the ratio 55:45 corresponding to
lubricated contact where the bend requirements of Section 2.11.4 Cast Padears and Section 2.11.5
Trunnions.
The lift point design should allow for a tolerance of +5 degrees to the true sling account for any
misalignment between a sling and the lift point in addition to any theoretical misalignment a side force
of 5 percent of the lift point load should be applied as shown in Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings.

2.11.2

Allowable Stresses
Allowable stresses for lift design shall be in accordance with the of the AISC specification with no
increases in allowable stresses. Refer to AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable
Stress Design and Plastic Design.
These allowable stresses are listed below for guidance but the designer should use information from
the latest edition of the referenced publication.

Page 70 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Tension

Ft

=0.60 Fy

Compression

Fa

=0.60 Fy (maximum)

Bending

Fb

=0.60 Fy

Shear

Fv

=0.40 Fy

Bearing

Fp

=0.90 Fy

where Fy is the minimum tensile yield stress of the material.


The allowable shear stress is based upon the maximum calculated shear stress across the section.
The allowable bear mg stress is based upon shackle pin diameter be mg a maximum of 6mm less
than padeye pin hole diameter.
The allowable equivalent stress shall be 0.75 Fy.
The actual equivalent stress is determined from the following formula:

where fe is the actual equivalent stress, fx and fy are the actual direct stresses (i.e. combined axial
and bending, or tension) and fs the actual combined shear stresses due to torsion and/or bending in
the x-y plane.
2.11.3

Lift Point Geometry


Lift points must be positioned at strong points preferably at roof level. In single hook lifts the optimum
positions for module lift points are equidistant the centre of gravity and with longitudinal separation
equal to lateral separation. In dual lifts the optimum lift point separation is the crane centre separation.
Lift point orientation should be in line with the sling direction, i.e. towards the crane hook prong to
minimise side loading of lift points.
Lift points should not beyond the module edge to avoid the possibility of a clash with an adjacent
module.
Consideration should be given to designing the lift points to remain on the module. Should removal
necessary, the lift point design is to include the method of access and method of removal.
The connection of lift point to the module should be designed to transfer load in shear rather than
tension. Through thickness loads should be avoided wherever possible. Whenever through thickness
primary tensile loads can not be avoided, material with certified the thickness properties shall be used.

2.11.4

Cast Padears
Details of cast padear geometry are shown on Figure: 3 Cast Padear.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
The padear design should allow the sling to follow a straight lifle from the padear to the crane hook to
eliminate unnecessary sling bending losses.
The bottom bearing surface of the pad ear should be elliptical to allow for some sling flattening.
In order for the sling bending efficiency to be higher than the splice efficiency, the minimum diameter
of a padear for a sling doubled over the pad ear should be our times in the sling rope diameter.

Page 71 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
In order to minimise the effect of grommet bending losses the diameter of padear for a grommet
should be the hook diameter or six times the grommet diameter whichever is the lower.
The minimum diameter of a pad ear for a sling eye should be the sling diameter.
The maximum diameter of a pad ear for a sling eye should be less than 0 of the sling eye length.
The padear flange should be not less than 75 percent of sling diameter. Easily removable sling
retainers should be provided to hold the sling in position around the padear during transportation.
Clearance of at least 1.5 times the sling diameter should be provided to facilitate sling installation and
removal.

2.11.5

Trunnions
Details of trunnion geometry are shown on Figure 16 Trunnion.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
The trunnion central stiffener plate (shear plate) shall be slatted through the main plate or tubular and
shall be designed to transfer the lift point load into the main plate or tubular, not taking the trunnion
connection into account.
The main plate or tubular thickness should be not less than the shear plate thickness.
In order for the sling bend efficiency to be higher than the splice efficiency, the minimum diameter of a
trunnion for a sling doubled aver the trunnion should be four times the sling diameter.
In order to minimise the effect of grommet bending losses the minimum diameter of a trunnion for a
grommet should be the hook diameter or six times the a grommet diameter which ever is the lower.
The diameter of a trunnion for a sling eye shall not be less than the one sling rape diameter and shall
not exceed 1/6 times the sling eye length.
The width of the trunnion contact area should be 1.25 times the actual sling diameter plus 25mm, to
allow for sling flattening.
The sling keeper plate should protrude by at least 75 percent of sling diameter beyond the trunnion in
the area of bearing. Sling retainers should be provided to hold the sling in position.
All edges to contact the sling during handling and transportation should be radiused limes to a
minimum of 1Dmm.
A clearance of at least 1.5 times the sling diameter is required to facilitate the sling installation and
removal. In initial design, allowance should be made for possible in sling rope diameter.

2.11.6

Padeyes
Details of padeye geometry are shown on Figure 17 Padeye.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
Whenever possible the type of shackle to be used should be determined prior to commencement of
padeye design.
The padeye pin hole diameter should be 4% larger than the actual measured shackle pin diameter.
The minimum clearance between the inside the shackle bow and the padeye main plate should be 1.5
times the sling diameter.

Page 72 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

The Padeyes should have not more than one load bearing cheek plate at each side of the padeye
main plate.
The outer radius of the pad eye cheek plate should be less than the radius of the padeye main plate by
the thickness of the cheek plate.
The padeye cheel\ plate thickness should not be greater than the padeye main plate thickness.
The pad eye pin hole should be line bored after welding of the cheek plates to the main plate.
The overall clearance between the shackle jaw and the padeye should be between 10 percent and 15
percent of the shackle jaw width. Spacer plates should be fitted to the padeye cheel\ plates as
necessary.

2.11. 7

Shackles

A shackle is usually identified by its safe working load, or SWL. The safe working load is normally
determined by the shackle manufacturer and certified by a certifying agent.
The certified safe working load of a shackle should be not less than the applicable lift point load. In
general, shackles of the same size are used for a particular module lift conditions other than those
described in Section 2.11.1 Design Loads. This is shown on Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings. This
should be avoided.
Shackles should not be fitted to padeyes other than as on Figure 17 Padeye. Shackle selection should
take into account compatibility with the sling selection. Sling diameters must be less than shackle jaw
width.

INSTALLATION AIDS

3.1

Module Guidance Systems

3.1.1

General
Module guidance systems are used to aid the placement of a module on an offshore platform. Module
guidance systems typically consist of a primary system, bumpers and guides, and a secondary system
such as pins and buckets or secondary guides and bumpers.
The bumpers and guides protect the module and platform structure and equipment from damage
during the placement operation. The bumpers and guides also position the module until the pin and
bucket system or the secondary guide and bumper system is engaged. The secondary systems
usually provide final positioning of a module to within the limits required by the design such that no
further module movement, e.g. skidding, is required.

3.1.2

Module Movement Limitations


The primary module guidance system should allow for the following overall module movements and
rotations:
Vertical movement

2.0m

Longitudinal movement

3.0m

Lateral movement

3.0m

Plan rotation

3 degrees

Longitudinal tilt

2 degrees

Lateral tilt

2 degrees

Page 73 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
The module guidance system should be designed to position a module within 25mm of its theoretical
position. This is usually achieved by the pin and bucket system or the secondary guide and bumper
system.
3.1.3

Bumpers and Guides


In general bumpers are horizontal tubular members fitted to the side of a module member. The
bumper engages against a post guide fitted and braced to the existing platform structure. To provide
bi-directional positioning bumpers can be fitted with a braced tubular at right angles to the bumper.
Diagrams of typical bumper and guide arrangements can be found in Figures 6 to 8.

3.1.4

Pins and Buckets


Pins and buckets, normally the secondary guidance system, are used for final positioning of a module
on a platform structure. In cases where a module is stabbed directly onto a jacket, or jacket piles a
cone type stabbing point (pin) on the underside of the module fits into the jacket or pile top (bucket).
Pins and buckets can also be used as the primary guidance system when a module is placed upon
another module of similar size and there is no room for bumpers and guides. A typical pin and bucket
arrangement is shown in Figure 21 Pin and Bucket Guide. The stabbing cone arrangements are
shown in Figure 22 Stabbing Cone.

3.1.5

Design Forces

3.1 .5.1

Impact Forces
The impact forces are calculated by first determining the impact velocity Vn normal to the contact
surface. The horizontal and vertical components of impact velocity should be determined according to
Figure 23 Impact Velocities (Module Setting).
This applies in seastates with mean spectral periods not exceeding 5 seconds.
The stiffness Kn of the contact surface in the directions normal to the contact should then be
determined by normal structural methods.

The maximum bumper load is determined from the maximum deflection Xn and stiffness Kn. This is
given by:

= v,.,jWK7!

Fmax
Where:

Vn =module impact velocity in metres/sees


W =module weight in Te
Kn = bumper stiffness in ~n/metre

~~{:.)

.,Using the guideline velocities given above, the forces are evaluated as follows:

8{p (/J\J ,

For Single Crane Lifts:

FH

0.08 X /WK7!

FV

0.10 x /WKn

-{--+

For Dual Lifts:

FH

= 0.05

I loa

x /WKn

Page 74 of 149

.....

/\

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

FV

= 0.10

x /WKn

Where the force is in KN, and W is the weight of the m~dule.


Figures 12 and 13 show these forces as a percentage of module weight plotted against a range of
stiffness for three module weights. These graphs are for one metre sea state and should be factored
for other sea states by the significant wave height.
Figures 12 and_13 ~pply in seastates with mean spectral periods not exceeding 5 seconds.
3.1.5.2

Minimum Load
Although bumper design loads can be reduced by reducing bumper stiffness there is a horizontal load
which the bumpers must be capable of resisting.
The minimum required horizontal bumper design load results from the movement of the crane tip
caused by its unloading during module placement. This is a static load which occurs after all impact
loading has ceased and after vertical load transfer has commenced.
The required bumper horizontal design force is given by:

3.1.6

Single Crane Lift

4.0 percent of the module weight.

Dual Lift

2.5 percent of the module weight.

Design Considerations
(1)

The positions of bumpers and guides and pins and buckets will be dependent upon the position
of module and platform structure support points. Generally the module guidance system will be
more effective if the components are positioned as far apart as possible.

(2)

The stiffness of bumpers and guides should be as low as possible to allow appreciable
deflection without yielding.

(3)

Module guidance systems should be designed to fail before the permanent structural members
of the module and platform structure are damaged.

(4)

Transfer of load should be by shear or compression if possible.

(5)

Sharp edges and corners should be avoided and weld beads should be ground smooth on
areas of contact between bumpers and guides and between pins and buckets.

(6)

Module guidance system design should be as simple as possible to allow efficient fabrication.

(7)

Where possible, guidance systems should be designed to avoid the need for after module
installation.

3.2

Sling Laydown

3.2.1

General
Whenever possible slings are laid down on unobstructed areas of a module roof. Any items of
equipment in the area within the lift points are susceptible to damage during the lifting operation and
should be protected. In certain circumstances it is necessary to a sling support platform over certain
areas of the module roof.

Page 75 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

3.2.2

Sling Configuration
Slings should be laid down so that tight bends are avoided and so that twists in the slings will not
occur during offshore rigging. Where slings laid over or around edges, these edges should be
radiused by fitting of a tubular section, or packed by timber. Sling eyes, or for a doubled sling the sling
mid-point, should be positioned as close as practical to the lifting centre or centres of the module, i.e.
below the intended lifting position of the hook or hool1s during the lift. The sling eyes should be
supported on timber packing to ease handling during the offshore rigging operation.

3.2.3

Sling Laydown Platform Design


The module roof in the way of sling laydown and any sling laydown platforms should be designed to
withstand static and dynamic sling transportation and handling loads. Allowable stresses for sling
laydown platforms should be, with no increases, as detailed in Section 2.11.2 Allowable Stresses.
The sling laydown platform should be sized to allow sufficient room for sling laydown after the
completion of the lift and to provide space for the safety of personnel involved in the rigging and
derigging operation.

_3.3

Tugger Line Attachment

3.3.1

General
Tugger lines are used to restrict and control the horizontal rotation of a during installation to assist
positioning. Tugger line winches are normally mounted on the heavy lift vessel crane house.

3.3.2

Attachment Position
Tugger line attachments should be positioned at strong points of a module as far apart as practically
possible to improve their effectiveness.
Tugger line attachments should be positioned at a suitable elevation so that the tugger lines are as
close to the horizontal as possible during the positioning phase of the module installation.

3.3.3

Attachment Design
Tugger line attachments should be designed to be compatible with the capacity of the tugger line
winch, assuming each tugger line is used in the single mode. The design of tugger line attachments
and their supporting structure should the possible large variation in tugger line angle relative to the
attachment. Allowable stresses for tugger line attachments should be, with no increases, as detailed in
Section 2.11.2 Allowable Stresses.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1

Slings and Grommets

4.1.1

Manufacture, Inspection and Certification


Slings and grommets be manufactured, inspected and certified in accordance with HSE, PM20 Cable
Laid Slings and Grommets.
Additionally a straight line should be marked along the length of a sling to indicate any twisting.

4.1.2

Re-use of Slings and Grommets


Re-use of slings and grommets is acceptable providing the requirements of the reference below are
satisfied. Refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Other points to be considered regarding the re-use of slings and, especially important for four point lift
systems, are discussed below:

Page 76 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
(1)

Used slings/grommets are less elastic than new slings/grommets

(2)

Oversized slings/grommets are less elastic than correctly sized slings/grommets and have
higher bending losses.

(3)

Slings/grommets should be measured under load at the six-month thorough examination and
re-celiification.

(4)

Sling splices should have a circumferential paint line to provide visual evidence of any splice
slippage.

Sling Handling

4.1.3

Sling handling should be prepared by lifting contractors and issued to their own personnel and other
contractors involved in pre-rigging of modules. The purpose of these sling handling procedure is to
ensure that slings are handled in a manner that will eliminate the possibility of damage and to maintain
the conditions of any splices. The handling procedure should address the following points:
e

Preparation and transportation

Unloading

Storing

Uncoiling

Preparation for rigging

Rigging

.,

Seafastening

Safety

4.2

Shackles

4.2.1

Certification
Each shackle should be supplied with the manufacturers certificate endorsed by a recognised
Certifying Agent. The shackle certificate should contain the following information:
"

Certificate number

Shackle number

Name of manufacturer

Date of manufacture

.,

Material information
Method of manufacture
Reference code, standard specification

Safe working load

"

Proof load

Page 77 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

Safety factor

Each shackle be clearly and permanently marked with its identification number and its safe working
load.
4.2.2

Re-use of Shackles
Prior to each re-use of a shackle a visual inspection should be carried out.
At least once every six months or prior to reuse after a six month period of non-use a thorough visual
examination should be carried by a Certifying Agent and the shackle certificate should be endorsed. If
considered necessary magnetic particle inspection and testing may be performed.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Bending Loss
Cable laid slings and grommets stain a loss in effective strength when bent around a radius and this
reduction in strength is a function of rope diameter and bending radius. For further information refer to
HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Bucket
Part of the secondary guidance system in combination with the pin.
Bumper
The installation aid, attached to the m coming module, which engages the main structure guide and
locates the module close to its final position. The guide and bumper system as defined is a primary
guidance system. Alternatively a bumper may be a protective device only and not intended to assist
with.
C ofG Zone
The zone within which the module centre of gravity must lie to fulfil hook strength and module tilt
requirements. In certain cases this can be in the shape of a cruciform.
Cable Laid Grommet
See Grommet
Cable Laid Sling
See Sling
Calculated Grommet Breaking Load (CGBL)
The minimum breaking load of the outer unit rope multiplied by 12 (2 parts of 6 outer rope sections)
and by a spinning loss factor of 0.85.
Calculated Sling Breaking Load (CSBL)
The sum of the individual minimum breaking loads of the component (outer and) ropes multiplied by a
spinning loss factor of 0.85 and a splice efficiency factor (0.75 for hand splices)
For further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.

Page 78 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Centre of Gravity Shift Factor (CGSF)

A factor which allows for inaccuracies arising from the shift of the centre of gravity during the design
and fabrication phase.
Consequences Factor

A factor of safety to be applied to structural members according to the consequences arising from their
failure.
Centre of Gravity Lift Factor (CGTF)

A factor which allows for inaccuracies arising from tilt during single crane lifts.
Contingency Factor (C)

A factor applied to the gross lift weight at the start of detailed design to derive a maximum lift weight.
Dual Crane Lift
The method of using two separate and independent cranes, mounted on the same crane vessel, to lift
a module. The design of a dual crane lift system follows specific criteria which differ from single crane
lift systems.
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)

A factor to account for effects during lifting. It includes:

Effects of environmental forces (wind and wave forces).

Effects caused by the operation of the vessels (impulsive loads caused by the start/stop of the
crane hoists or slewing motors, and variable loads caused by the SSCV/barge ballast system).

Dynamic Hook Load (DHL)


The static hook load plus allowances for dynamic shock loads.
where:
DHL = SHL x OAF
Grommet (Cable Load)
An endless steel wire rape which connects a module lift point to the crane hook. A grommet comprises
a single length of rope laid up to make a body composed of six ropes around a rope core. For further
information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Gross Lift Weight (GLW)
The nett lift weight (NLW) times the weight allowance.
where:
GLW= NLWxWA
In the case of a weighed module the GLW is the weighed weight (WW) times the weighing inaccuracy
(WI).
where:

Page 79 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
GLW=WWxWI
Guidance Note FIVl 20
Issued by the Ul\ Health and Safety Executive, Revised October /987, this document provides
assistance to the users of cable laid slings and grommets.
The installation aid, attached to the main structure, that the module bumper engages and which
guides the module close to its final position.
Guide
The installation aid, attached to the main structure, that the incoming module bumper engages and
which guides the module close to its final position.
Individual Hook Load (Dual Lift Only)
The share of the total static load taken by each individual crane hook. This is apportioned to each
hook in proportion to its horizontal distance from the module centre of gravity.
where:
Sum (SHL) = MLW + RW

Lift Point
That part of the module to which a grommet, sling or shackle is attached for the lifting operation.
Padears, trunnions and padeyes are lift points.
Lift Point Load (LPL)
The maximum calculated load applied to a lift point by a sling or grommet. It includes all static and
dynamic components.
Lift System
The combination of module, lift points, grommets, slings, shackles, plate shackles and spreader
beams if incorporated in the design.
Link Plate
A shackle where the bow of a conventional shackle is replaced by two steel plates and an additional
pin.
Load Radius Curve

A crane capacity curve showing the relationship between the Hook Load (static or dynamic as
appropriate) and the lift radius of the crane to be used for the lift operation. This capacity curve usually
contains an allowance for dynamic amplification.
Maximum Lift Weight (MLW)
The weight to be used at the start of detailed design for the design of the lift system components
determined by applying a contingency C to the gross lift weight.
where:
MLW=GLWxC

Page 80 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Measured Length

The length recorded by carefully between specified bearing points after manufacture of a sling or
grommet. The is carried out by the manufacturer within strict controls under nominal tension and is
recorded on the sling/grommet certificate. For further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid
Slings and Grommets.
Module

A structure, construction, package, unit or item to be lifted by a heavy lift vessel crane in either an
inshore or offshore location utilising the other parts of the lift system as defined in this glossary of
terms.
Module Tilt

The maximum angle the module is designed to tilt during the lifting operation.
Nett lift Weight (NLW)

The weight of the module without any weight allowances (WA) or rigging weights (RW). Temporary
installation aids such as bumpers, guides and rigging platforms are included in the nett lift weight.
where:
NLW =SUM (V\0
where W is the best known nett weight of each component at the time of the calculation.
Pad ear

A lift point on a module, usually a casting, often forming part of a module node, around which is laid a
sling or grommet.
Pad eye

A lift point on a module consisting of a main plate with a matched hole for the shackle pin. The main
plate may be reinforced by cheek plates on each side.
Pin

The installation aid complementary to the bucket that guides the module to its final position. The pin
and bucket is a secondary guidance system which will be used in conjunction with a primary guidance
system.
Plate Shackle

A shackle where the bow of a conventional shackle is replaced by two steel plates and an additional
pin.
Primary Members

Structural members whose integrity is essential for the overall safety of the lift. The failure of a primary
member during lifting may result in the loss of the module.
Primary Guidance System

The incoming module above its installation position on the main structure.

Page 81 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Safe Working Load (SWL)
The maximum load that may be applied to a sling, grommet or shackle under specific working
conditions. For further definitions refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Secondary Members
Structural members, other than primary members, which in the event of their failure during lifting would
not result in the risk of loss of the module.
Secondary system
The structural components that provide the final location of the incoming module above its installation
position on the main structure.
Shackle

A structural component consisting of a bow and a pin linking a sling or grommet to a padeye.
Skew Load Factor (SLF)
The factor by which sling loads are multiplied to account for sling length mismatch in single crane four
point lift systems.
Sling (Cable Laid)

A steel wire rope which connects a module lift point to the crane hook. A sling typically comprises 6
lengths of unit rope laid up aver a single core rope, each end terminated in a spliced eye. For further
information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Sling Design Load
(SOL) The maximum calculated design tensile load applied to a sling or grommet
Sling Eye

A loop at each end of a sling, usually formed by a sling splice.


Sling Splice
That length of this sling where the rope is connected back into itself by tucking the tails of the unit
ropes back through the main body of the rope, after forming the sling eye.
Splice Efficiency

A factor applied to the calculated rope breaking load to obtain the calculated sling breaking load. For
further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Spreader Beam/Frame

A structure which is not a part of the module and is designed to avoid the introduction of horizontal
loads to the module.
Static Hook Load (SHL)
The sum of the maximum lift weight (MLW) and the rigging weight (RW).

Page 82 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
where:
SHL= MIWRW
Dual Lift
see Dual Lift
Tilt
see Module Tilt.
Trunnion
Unfactored Lift Weight see Nett Lift Weight (NLW).
Lift point on a module consisting of a tubular member with a stopping plate at the end. The sling or
grommet is laid around the tubular member so that a shackle is not required .

. Weighed Weight (WW)


The weight of the module upon completion of fabrication, a weighing using calibrated weighing
equipment following an approved procedure.

Weighing Inaccuracy (WI)

A factor which allows for inherent inaccuracies in the weighing equipment which is used to establish
the weighed weight (WW).
Weight Allowances
Weight allowances are applied to all component weights of the nett lift weight (NLW) to derive the
gross lift weight (GLW). These allowances take into account inaccuracies and weight growths
appropriate to the time of calculation.

Weight of Rigging
The sum of the weight of slings, grommets, shackles, spreader beams and plate shackles.

Page 83 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

REFERENCES

(1)

American Petroleum Institute RP2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Construction, Fixed Offshore Platforms, Eighteenth Edition, September 1, 1989.

(2)

American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable
Stress Design and Plastic Design, June 1, 1989.

(3)

UK Health and Safety Executive, Guidance Note PM20, Cable Laid Slings and Grommets,
October 1987.

(4)

Det Norske Veritas, Standard for Insurance Warranty Surveys in Marine Operations, Part 2:
Recommended Practices RP5, Lifting, June 1985.

(5)

Det Norske Veritas, Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structure,
1977, Appendix G, Dynamic Analysis, (reprint with corrections, 1982).

Page 84 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

ATTACHMENT 1.0 DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS


DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS
1.1

General
The dynamic amplification factors or OAFs outlined in the main section of the guidelines is a distillation
of a lengthy and detailed analytical frequency and time domain analyses. It provides the basic factors
for design but in no way describes the overall variation of these factors in term of sea states and wave
directions.
This attachment outlines the approach that is needed if insight is needed into the values at a later
stage of the design when more detailed environmental parameters are available.
It is recommended that in cases in which dynamic amplification is critical or the lift system is unusual,
frequency and time domain analyses are carried out to determine the dynamic amplification factors to
be applied to the sling and hook loads. This should include the stages of lifting the module from the
barge, and while the is hanging free in the air. Alternatively a suitable test may be carried out. The
analysis should be carried out in accordance with general dynamical practices as outlined below.
Impact velocities during module set down should also be determined from this analysis to form the
basis of the impact load calculations.
In the preliminary stages of the design, or in place of analysis or model tests, a calculation procedure
is given in Section 2.3 Calculation Procedure. This is for estimation of the OAFS. To utilise the
calculation procedure it will be necessary to decide on the wave heights and range of spectral periods
in which the lift will be attempted. To decide this, reference should be made to wave scatter diagrams
for the lift location and time of year.

1.1.2

Analysis Methodology
The analysis should be a multiple body analysis of the coupled motion of the cargo barge and SSCV,
following a recognized code such as DnV, Appendix G Dynamic Analysis.
The forces, damping and inertias of the SSCV should be determined by a suitable diffraction analysis
program. The damping and inertias of the cargo barge may be using a cargo barge program normally
a strip theory program, but may also be a diffraction program.
In general there would be significant interaction between the cargo barge and the SSCV, in particular
the SSCV can shelter the cargo barge if it is placed up-weather. If the hydrodynamic interaction is not
accounted for it should be noted that the results are only applicable for the cargo barge up wave of the

sscv.

If time domain simulations of the module being lifted off the barge are to be carried out, attention
should be paid to the following points:
The winching rates, including the possible use of a rapid hoist phase at or above 90 percent
load transfer to the crane.
The phasing ofthe SSCV ballast to maintain the vessel at level trim.
Choice of stiffness and damping values for the slings and cranes.
Choice of stiffness and damping values for the barge deck.
It may be important to model the direction of the sea state, particularly for seas beam onto the
barge.

Page 85 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
If of tile set down of tile module on tile platform is to be carried out, tile following points should be
noted:
It is important to model tile stabbing points, and bumper/guide geometry accurately.
Tile stiffness and damping values of tile installation aids should be carefully modelled.
1.1.3

Calculation Procedure
In place of a numerical analysis or model test, tile following are made for guidance in tile sizing of tile
slings, and tile determination of tile window for tile lift. Tile dynamical situation is quite different when
an SSCV is lifting from its own deck, compared with when it is lifting from a barge.
Lifting from a Barge
Tile hook and sling Dynamic Amplification Factors (OAFs) can be determined from tile values in a 1
metre seastate given in Figure 26 Sling Design OAF and Figure 27 Hook Load OAF.
Tile range of spectral mean m' should be chosen by consultation with the lifting contractor, and with
regard to the sea state scatter diagram for the time of year when the lift is to be attempted.
Each F for the desired sea state can then be obtained using:
OAF= 1 + (01 - 1) x Hsig
Where 01 is actual value from the curves.
These curves represent guide-line maximum values in non beam unsheltered i.e. outside + 30
degrees beam onto the barge.
Lifting from the SSCV Deck
Since this condition does not involve the interaction of the coupling of the module on the barge with
the SSCV dynamics, the only stages to be considered are the free swinging dynamic or pendulum
mode and the setting down stage. From analysis performed a OAF of 1.05 should be used to loads
induced by the swinging of the module in the air and a OAF of 1.1 to cover setting down.

1.1.4

Model Tests
If model tests are to be used to confirm the results of analytical work done on the project, it is
important that the relevant stiffness of slings, hook, deck connections and guidance system be
correctly modelled.

Page 86 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

ATTACHMENT 2.0 SKEW LOAD FACTOR- SINGLE HOOK LIFTS

Page 87 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

ATTACHMENT 3.0 WORKED EXAMPLES


3

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS

3.1

General
The examples of single hook lift and dual lift illustrate the intended use of the Guidelines for the
design of module lifting systems' given in Appendix 1.0 Guidelines for the Design of Module Lifting
Systems. The methods follow the lift design calculation chart given in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation
Chart.

3.2

Single Hook Lift Example

3.2.1

Details
For geometry refer to Figure 60 Single Crane Lift Example.
Initial net weight of structural components: 1,550 te
Initial net weight of equipment components: 1,403 te
Lift radius 45.5 metres
Static crane capacity at lift radius= 4,860 te
(from vessel load/radius chart with 1.1 crane (OAF)
Dynamic crane capacity at lift radius

= 4,860 X 1.1
= 5,346 te
x =- 1.46 m

Initial CG coordinates

y = 0.53 m
z =- 4.75 m
Sling angle before hook offset = 70

Hook bend dia 750 mm


Trunnion bend dia 750 mm
Final Mass Properties: Weighed Weight= 4,123 te
Final rigging weight = 132 te
Final calculated CG position

x =- 1.83 m
y=0.31m
z=-4.15m

Page 88 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

3.2.2

Initial Design

3.2.2.1

Crane Capacity Check


Gross Lift Weight (GLW)
GLW= 1.15 x 1,550 + 1.20 x 1,403 = 3,466 te
Maximum Lift Weight (MLW)
Assume contingency factor, C, of 1.15. Refer to Section 2.1 Module Weights.
MLW = GLW x C = 3,986 te
Static Hook Load (SHL)
SHL = MLWx 1.03 = 4,106 te
Dynamic Hook Load (DHL)
Find Hook OAF (HDAF). Refer to Section 2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factor.

DHL = SHL x HDAF = 4,676 te


Thus DHL < Dynamic crane capacity (5,346 te)
So crane capacity is OK.

3.2.2.2

Lift Point Design


Refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads - Single Crane Lift and Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.
X=-

Put Hook axis at

1,46

y=O
I
Check Module Tilt
Hook swivel height above CG = h
h = 2.3 + 38.87 + 1.65 + 4.75 = 47.57 m
Tilt= 0.53/47.6 = 1.1% < 2% allowable
Therefore Tilt OK

Lift Point Loads


Lh = 1.46 m, Bh = 0
Use case 1 of Figure 32 Lift Point Loads - Single Crane Lift.

"

.;;.!

--

8.1 ) ==
t an - 1 ( 10.14

9.0-0.90
) -12.5+1.4>-0.90

8.1 ) ==
t an - 1 ( 1.3.06

h a 1 == t a n -1( 1 2.5 9.0-0.90


)
- 1 .46 - o. 90

Al p h a 2 == t an

-1(

Page 89 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

T het .; 2

= ta n 1 ( /1:..1
. ~e..M,
+

= 63. 4 23.,

.. )

L.Ob

Calc K1 and K2 for offset hook. Refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads- Single Crane Lift.
K1 = 0.29674
K2 = 0.23499 (thus LPL 1 > LPL2)

Sling DiU

= SDAF
= 1.20- (1.20-

110)

'

(4,106- 2,500)
(10,000- 2,500)

= 1. 179
Maximum lift point load= LPL 1
Where:

= SHL x SDAF x CGSF x CGTFxK1 x SLF

LPL 1

= 4,106 X 1.179 X 1.05 X 1.05 X .2968 X 1.5

= 2,376 te

= LPL 1 x K2/K1

LPL2

= 1881 te

Therefore Max lift point load= LPL = 2376 te


Thus Lift Point design load = Consequence Factor x LPL. Refer to Section 2.11.1 Design Loads.

= 1.1 x2,376=2,613te
Design all four lifts points for 2,613 te load.
3.2.2.3

Sling Design
Refer to Section 2.8 Sling Design.
Sling design load

= Max Lift Point Load

= 2,376 te
Try a single hand spliced sling. Refer to Section 2.8.1 Single Slings.
At the splice:

CRBL

).>; SDx US _
:;...ET
-

2,3?6x 2.25
0.?5

Therefore CRBL;::: 7,128 te


i.e. rope dia ;::: 445 mm
This is large and may cause Skew Load Factor problems later. Preferable to use double sling.
Double hand spliced sling:

Page 90 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
At the splice:

Therefore CRBL

3,920 te

;:o:

i.e. rope dia :::: 306 mm


At the sling bend:

EB S

=1 -

~
/"15U

= o. 680

Therefore:

CRBL ;;,.

1.1 x 2,376x 2.25


2 X 0.680

:;-'

Therefore CRBL

;:o:

4,323 te

Re-run with a 324 mm rope CRBL = 4,400 te

~s =

1-

~11tr =

0. 671

Therefore:
1.1x 2376 x 2 25 2 x0.6?1
-

CRBL;;,.
v

4,381ie

Therefore 324 mm rope OK at splice and bend


At sling eyes:

CRBL

>-

0.55x l.lx SDLx 2.25

'

k'_
w:s E --

n X E;LE

5~m:o
'"~- 0.671

Therefore:

CRBL

>-

O.SSx i.ix 2,3?6x 2.25 2xD.671


-

2,410 ie

Therefore 324mm dia rope double sling with hand splices and crbl of 4,400TE is OK.

3.2.2.4

Module Global Structural Design


Module Global structural design to include the following racking cases caused by lift point loads from
the attached slings:
Case 1:

Lift point 1

LPL 1 (2,376 te)

Lift point 3

LPL2 (1,881 te)

Lift point 2 and 4

Loads acting along slings 2 and 4 which are in static equilibrium with DHL
(4,676 te) and LPL 1 and LPL2

Page 91 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
Case 2:
Similar to case 1 but with the higher loaded diagonal between lift points 2 and 4:

3.2.3

Lift point 2

LPL 1

Lift point 4

LPL2

Lift point 1 and 3

Loads acting along slings 1 and 3 which are in static equilibrium with DLH LPL 1
and LPL2

Check at End of Construction


Check tilt during lift will not exceed 2%:
Height of hook swivel above module CG

=h

h = 2.3 + 38.87 + 1.65 + 4.15m


h = 46.97m
hook position

X=

-1.46

y=O
final CG position

x=-1.83

y = 0.31

CG offset from hook

dx =-1.83- (-1.46) =-.37m

dy

= /(x 2 + y2) = 0.483m

Total offset
Tilt at lift

= 0.31-0 = 0.31m

~j = ~6~~ = 1.03 percent

<

2percent

Therefore tilt OK.


The module weighed weight is 4,123 te and the rigging weight is known to be 132 te.
Gross lift weight:
Therefore:
GLW = WN x 1.03. Refer to Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.

= 4,123 x 1.03 te
= 4,246 te
Since the GLW exceeds the Maximum lift weight of 3,986 te, the lift design is to be checked using
measured sling lengths to reassess the skew load factor using Attachment 2.
Crane capacity check:
Static Hook load:
SHL = GLW+ RW

Page 92 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

= 4,246 + 132 te
= 4,378 te
Dynamic Hook load:

'F = 1 15 - (1 15 - 1.0)
HD 1"1.'

('i,:o?.~- 2 500 1- 1 1"~1

(lO,COO- 2,5CO)-

'

"

DHL = SHL x HDAF = 4,978 te


Thus DHL <Dynamic crane capacity (5,346 te) so crane OK even though the DHL exceeds the static
crane capacity of 4,860 te.
Therefore crane Ol<
New 324 mm dia slings have been supplied with the following dimensions measured under tension.

Short pair
Long pair

8 1. 74rn
83. 45m

8 2. 0 1m
83.55m

Assuming the slings have not been installed then arrange for the slings to be rigged as follows:

Sling 1

69.97m

Sling 2
Sling 3

70.3 8 m
70.05m

Sling 4

70.34m

Refer to Figure 31 Single Hook Lift Geometry.


Thus the Percentage Sling Misfit:
Ref. Attachment 2 Section 2.4.

PSM

= AB5[(81.74+83.55)-

(82.01 + 83.45)] + 0.324 ..;- 2 x


100
(81.74+83.54)

Padear LIB ratio

0. 201 percent

=25/18 =1.39

Basic sling angle = (?1.5;

65 4
)

70

Find SLF for new double slings for UB ratios of 1 and 2, and interpolate.
Therefore:
SLF (UB = 1) = 1.25
SLF (UB = 2) = 1.23

SLF(L/B

= 1.39) = 1.25- (1.25-

1.23) X ((}~iP= 1.24

But reference to Attachment 2 Section A2.3. The minimum permissible SLF= 1.25.
NOTE:

If the slings are rigged without regard to minimising the skew load factor then the design
should be checked for the worst case i.e. shortest slings of each matched pair on the same
diagonal.

Page 93 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991
Thus:

and the SLF interpolated is '1.31.


3.3

Dual Crane Lift Example

3.3.1

Details
For geometry, refer to Figure 61 Dual Crane Lift Example.
Initial net weight of structural components

2,920 te

Initial net weight of equipment components

2,510 te

Lift radius 43 metres


Minimum static crane capacities at lift radius

= 5,370 te (from vessel load/radius chart with 1.1 OAF)

Dynamic crane capacities at lift radius

= 5,370 te x 1.1
= 5,907 te

CG Co-ordinates

Initial Design

-8.50

0.55m

0.37m

- 5.59m

-6.13m

Final Check

-9.13m

Sling angles

70

Hook bend dia

750mm

Trunnion bed dia

750mm

Final module weighed weight

7,255 te

Final rigging weight

145 te

3.3.2

Initial Design

3.3.2.1

Crane Capacity Check


Gross lift weight (GLI/\.0
GLW= 1.15x2,920+ 1.20x2,510=6,370te
Maximum lift weight (MLW)
Assume contingency factor, C of 1.15. Refer to Section 2.1 Details.
MLW = GLW x C = 7,325 te
Static Hook Load (SHL)
SHL = MLW x 1.03 = 7,545 te

Page 94 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

Check Maximum Lift point design load


The maximum lift point loads on which the sling sizing, lift point and global structural design was
based were:
LP1 = 2,376 te LPL2 == 1,881 te
Providing the revised lift point loads (LPL1', LPL2') are less than these values then the original design
is safe. For method, refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads - Single Crane Lift.
K1 and K2 are unchanged.

Sli1wDAF = SDAF = 1.20- (1.20 -1.10) x


0

~ 78 -

25

co 1 - 1. 174

10,00J-2,50J ..-:-

For CGSF and CGTF, refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads- Single Crane Lift.
CGSF can be reduced to 1.02 for a weighed module.
CGTF

= 1 + .025 x cp %where cp % == percentage tilt== 1.03%

CGTF

== 1.026

LPL 1'

= SHL x SDAF x CGSF

x CGTF x K1 x SLF

= 4,378 X 1.174 X 1.02 X 1.026 X 0.29674 X 1.25 te

= 1,995 te < 2,315 te


LPL 1' < LPL 1 therefore OK
LPL2' = LPL 1'

x K2/K1

= 1,580 te < 1,833 te

Therefore LPL2' < LPL2


Thus Sling, Lift point and Global module designs are safe even though the final module gross lift
weight exceeds the maximum lift weight specified for the lift design.
Dynamic Hook Loads (DHL)
Find Hook OAF (HDAF). Refer to Section 2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factors.
HDAF- = 1.15- (1.15- 1.0) x (7,545- 2,500)/(1 0,000- 2,500)

= 1.116
For method, refer to Figure 29 and 30 Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift.
At +2% longitudinal tilt (End 1 below End 2)
La= (30- 8.50) cos(1.15) + (5.59+1.65) sin(1.15)
= 21.641

Ill

Lb = 60 cos(1.15)- La
= 38.638

Ill

At- 2% longitudinal tilt (End 2 below End 1)

Page 95 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
La = (30-8.50) cos(1.15 o)- (5.59+1.65) Sin(1.15 o)
=21.350m
Lb = 60 cos(1.15 o)- La
= 38.638 m
La + Lb = 60 cos(1.15

DHL 1

= SHL

o )

= 59.988 m

x HDAF x CGSF x (L.,\\b)

Maximum DHL 1 occurs when Lb is largest

:. DHL1

= 7,545

1.116

1.05

'6 . '.{;
5 9 :~;;.~

ic

= 5,694/c

Similarly the maximum DHL2 occurs when La is largest.

DHL2

7,545

1.116

1.05

n:~!~ te

= 3,189 ic

Both Dynamic Hook Loads are Jess than the Dynamic crane capacities (5,907te). So crane capacity is

OK.
3.3.2.2

Lift Point Design


Refer to Figure 19 and 20 Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane Lift and Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity
Zones.
Sling OAF (SDAF). Refer to Section 2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factors.

LPL1

= SHL

x SDAF x CGSF x

Lb

(L" +Lb)

x coie 1 -e) + SL
s0:,)(2e1)

Where:
SL = Skew Load (refer to Figure 30 (2))

= 0.03 x SHL for initial design


= 0.03 x 7,545 te = 226 te
Lift Point Loads
Maximum LPL 1 occurs when Lb is largest

= 7,545 X 1.133 X 1.05 X g~~


= 3,245 + 226 = 3,471 te
LPL2

cos~;~1".fu\)S') + 226te

Maximum LPL2 occurs when La is largest

LPL2

~
= 7,.54 uX

1 133

1 05

X 2 1.641 X cos(70'-1. 1S')


59.988

su\(1'!0')

Page 96 of 149

+ 226te

EM/039
Rev31991

= 1.,817 + 226 = 2,1HHe


Lift Point design load== Consequence Factor x LPL. Refer to Section 2.11.1 Design Loads.
Themfore:

x 3,4 71 == 3, 818 te

At end 1 LPDL 1

== 1.1

At end 2 LPDL 2

== 1.1 x 2,043 == 2,247 te

Design lift points at ends 1 and 2 for LPDL 1 and LPDL 2 respectively.
3.3.2.3

Sling Designs

Double hand spliced slings. Refer to Section 2.8.2 Multiple Length Slings.
At end 1

Sling design load== maximum lift load at end 1


SOL 1 == 3,471 te
At Splice:

CRBL 1 ;;:

1.1

SD1 X 2.25
rz X ET

1.1

.3.471 X 2.25
2 X 0.75

CRBL 1 ;;: 5,727 te


i.e. rope dia;:: 381 mm (CRBL == 5,900 te)
At Bend:

CRBL ;;:
E8 s

1.1 x SDLx i.i5


,., X Eil s

o. 5 ~ = o. 644

1-

2 25
CRBL1:::<:1.lx.3,"l:?ix
v
2 x 0.644

= 6670"
' .e

i.e. rope dia;:: 406 mm


Try 432mm dia with CRBL = 7,000 te

= 1- 0:/n'1f = 0.621

:. E 85

. c RBL 1 :v:<:

1.1 X 3 471 X us
2 x 0.621

= 6' 917 'e


J

i.e. rope dia 2: 432 mm


At Eyes:

cRBL 1 >-v
EaE

0.55

1-

CRBL 1 >
V

0.55

X SD1 X
rzX Ei/E

1.1

2.25

~~1f = o. 621
X

1.1 X 3,-018
2 X 0.621

2.25

3,804te

Page 97 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
HUS 432 MM DIA ROPE DOUBLE SLING WITH HAND SPLICES AND CRBL OF 7,000TE IS OK AT
END 1.
USE A SIMILAR METHOD AT END 2 TO SHOW THAT A 306MM DIA ROPE DOUBLE SLING WITH
HAf\JD SPLICES AND CRBL OF 3,900 TE IS 01\ AT END 2.
3.3.2.4

Module Global Structural Design


Module Global Structural Design is to include the following racking cases caused by lift point loads
from the attached slings:
Case 1
Lift Point 1:

LPL 1 = 3,245 + 226 = 3,471 te

Lift Point 2:

3,245- 226

Lift Point 3:

LPL2

Lift Point 4:

1,817-226 = 1,591 te

=3,019 te

= 1,817 + 226 =2,043 te

Case 2
Similar to case 1 but with the skew loads reversed:

=3,019 te

Lift Point 1:

3,245- 226

Lift Point 2:

3,245 + 226 = 3,471 te

Lift Point 3:

1,817-226 = 1,591 te

Lift Point 4:

1 ,817 + 226 = 2,043 te

Check at End of Construction

3.3.3

The module weighed weight is 7,255 te and the rigging weight is known to be 145 te.
Gross lift weight:

GL W

7,255

WW

x 1.03

x 1.03ie

=7,472ie
Since the GLW exceeds the Maximum lift weight of 7,325 te the list design is to be checked.
Crane capacity checks:
Static Hook Load:
SHL

GLW

+ RW

= 7,472 + 145 ie

7,617ie

Dynamic Hook Load:

Page 98 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

1. 116
At +2% longitudinal tilt, La= La max (End 1 below end 2)
La= (30- 9.13) cos (1.15) + (6.13+1.65) sin (1.15 o)
La= 21.022
At- 2% longitudinal tilt, Lb = Lb max (End 2 below end 1)
Lb = (30 x 9.13) cos (1.15)+(6.13+1.65) sin (1.15 o)
Lb = 39.278 m
La + Lb = 60 cos (1.15) = 59.988m
Thus:

DHL 1 = SHL

x HDAF x CGSF x

(LaLAb)

CGSF can be reduced to 1.02 for weighed weight.

DHL1

7,617

1.02 x l~:mte

5,677te

DHL2

7,617 X 1.116 X 1.02 X n:~llte

3,038te

1.116

Since DHL 1 and DHL2 are less than the design values of 5,694 te and 3,189 te respectively the crane
capacities are OK providing the lift radius is unchanged.
Check maximum lift point loads:

LPL1 =
Where:

SL _

SHL

MF

- ---g-- x --;;-

Ja,.(O)

for final design check

. d1ameter

= Average s1wg
=( 4.>2 + 3DS) = 0. 369m
2

Measu1ement of the 432 mm and 306 mm dia slings under tension give the following results:
Slings Under Tension
432mm

69.97m

70.38m

306mm

70.05m

70.34m

Check for the worst misfit by rigging the shortest slings as 1 and 3:

Sling 1 69.97m
Sling 2 70. 38m
Sling 3 70. 0 5 m
Sling 4

70. 34m

Thus:

Page 99 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

MF

ABS[(69o97 + 70o05)- (70o33 + 70034)] + Oo5 x o369

= Oo 335m (OK since > 2D)


Note that if the slings were rigged to minimise the misfit then MF is reduced to Oo35m but the minimum
value allowed is 2D (ref Fig 17 (2)) so in this case MF would be 0.738m.
Skew Load (SL)

7617

y
~

O.MS v !an(JO)" _
2
..
2'
(.f,

43 te

Transverse Tilt (<p)

= height of hook pivots above CG

= 2.3 + 32.97 + 1.65 = 6.13 m


= 43.05

= transverse CG offset = CGY cood

= 0.37 m
Thus:

= 430Do 3705 = Oo 86 per cent

but <p is not to be taken as less than 1% (ref 2. 701)

= 001 rad. = 0.57deg

Thus <p

Sling Dynamic Amplification Factor. Refer to Section 2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factors.

Max Lift Point Load LPL 1

LPL1

= SHL x SDAF x CGSF x

- 7 617

1o132

1o02

1 -e) + SL
Lb
x ~o~e
(La. +Lb)
m;(2e1)

X " 9 278 X cos(?0'-0.5?')


59. 9&8
sJ.n( 140')

+ 48

3, 19 5 te

Similarly:

LPL 2

= 7,617 X

10132

1 02
0

21.011 X cos(?O'- 0.57')


X 59.988
m;(l"'O')

+ 48

1,732te

Since the final values of LPL 1 and LPL2 are less than the design valuesof3,47i te and 2,043 te
respectively, the sling and lift designs are safe.
Also since the skew load (SL) of 48 te is less than the design of 226 te the module racking .case
design is safe.

Page 100 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

2.1
2.0
1.9

0::

I
I

1/

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

1. 7

1.6

0
_j

1.5

f-

<{
LL
<{

sw

~
(f)

1.4

1.2
1.1
1.0

/v

I/~
I

~
I

/1
Yf y

~
I

I
I

'

_j_

0.8

I
!
I
0.6

------r-

0.4

I
I ....... Gc,
I~'-~

~f-j

USED sLINGS

I__

I
I

'

/4

I
I

~~I

V1
~
v-;

I
I

0.2

0
/

VI

I /

;/ I

1.3

1.0

SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UBratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

j_

1.4

SINGLE

65
2
0
0
I

1.6

I
1--

I
i
1.8
2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553501l

Figure 35

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 2 of 24)

Page 123 of 149

I.
EM/039
Rev31991

Lift Point

Hook

:::>\\\\\\\\'\~-----j\\\\\\\\\\-<9
SINGLE SLING

0)

(0
SINGLE GROMMET

g:==q
DOUBLED GROMMET
(Double Lift Point Connections)

0
DOUBLED GROMMET
(Single Lift Point Connections)

~\\\\\\\\\t-f-----------

~''"'''''"I

0)

DOUBLE SLING
(Over Hook)

~'---------=f~*~
DOUBLED SLING
(Over Lift Point)

(illu0553q79)

Figure 13

Sling Configurations

Page 101 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

A.

TRUNNION DESIGN LOADINGS

KEEPER
PLAT

Total Sling Load

=LPL (Lift Point Load)

f + Fz

Sling Load Ratio _f


F2

= 55
45

Trunnion Side Load

:f

=0.05 x LPL

Sling Keeper Load

= 0.5 x F3

B.

PADEYE DESIGN LOADINGS


LPL

Side Load

=0.05 X LPL
011u0553480)

Figure 14

Lift Point Design Loadings

Page 102 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

Sling diameter
Padear diameter

Padear flange
Clearance

d
D) 4d for doubled sling
D) 6d for grommet
D) d for sling eye
D < 1/6 x sling eye length
f > 0.75d
c > 1.5d

T
(illu0553481)

Figure 15

Cast Padear

Page 103 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

d
D
D
D
D

Sling diameter
Trunnion diameter

>
>
>
>

w =

Trunnion width
Main Plate
Trunnion flange

tm
f

Clearance

>
>
>

4d
6d
d

1;6

for doubled sling


for grommet
for sling eye
sling
eye length
X

1.25d + 25111111
ts
0.75d
1.5d

SLING
RETAINER
(TYP)

(illu05534B2)

Figure 16

Trunnion

Page 104 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

1-4---

Sling diameter
Shackle bow diameter
Clearance
Shackle jaw width
Pin diameter
Padeye hole diameter
Padeye main plate tm
Padeye cheek plate tc
Padeye main plate radius
Padeye cheek plate radius
Jaw clearance

tc

d
D ~ d for sling eye (to limit bending losses)

c~

1.5 d

W> d
dp
dn 1.04 dp
tm ~ tc
tc
rm - rc;;? tc
rc
0.10 \IV:::; W- tm - 2t&;

0.15W
(illu0553483)

Figure 17

Pad eye

Page 105 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

~UNI-DIRECTIONAL

HORIZONTAL BUMPER

INCOMING MODULE

VERTICAL POST GUI

:---BI-DIRECTIONAL
HORIZONTAL BUMPER

Refer to Section 3.1.5 for the derivation


of forces for bumper and guide design.
h = Bumper height to allow for clearance (= 1m)
and Module heave (= 2m)

Fv

i
h

Fv
(illu0553484)

Figure 18

Bumpers and Guides (Type 1)

Page 106 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

INCOMING
MODULE

EXISTING
MODULE

EXISTING
MODULE

.....

FH )o-

-Q

'

t t

Fv Fv

Refer to Section 3.1.5 for the derivation


of forces for bumper and guide design
h = Bumper height to allow for clearance (= 1m)
and module heave (=2m)
(illu0553485)

Figure 19

Bumpers and Guides (Type 2)

Page 107 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

INCOMING
MODULE

H
EXISTING
MODULE

EXISTING
MODULE

Refer to Section 3.1.5 for derivation


of forces for bumper and guides design
(illu0553486)

Figure 20

Bumpers and Guides {Type 3)

Page 108 of 149

EWi/039
Rev 3 1991

INCOMING MODULE
(PlAN)

lQJ

SHORT Pill! I BUCKET (RECT)

TALL PIN I BUCKET (ROUND:

INCOMING
MODULE
(ELEV)
BU CKET-------:3.,..._,

PIN

Refer to Section 3.1.5 for derivation


of forces for pin and bucket design
(illuD553487)

Figure 21

Pin and Bucket Guide

Page 109 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

INCOMING MODULE

~ CONICAL STABBING POINT

~ JACKET LEG OR PILE OR


MODULE ROOF BUCI<ET

Refer to section 3.1.5 for derivation


of forces for stabbing cone design
(illu05534BB)

Figure 22

Stabbing Cone

Page 110 of149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

MAXIMUM
VELOCITY
METRE/SEC
SINGLE L I F T - - - - - - DUAL L I F T - - - - - - - -

0.2

v_E_R_TICAL~PACTL _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _________j_f_ _ _ _

0.1

0. 0 ''-t-----r-----r-----.--.--.--...---...---.---.--,...--,-----,

2000

4000

6000

I
8000

10000

MODULE WEIGHT (Te)


(illu0553489)

Figure 23

Impact Velocities (Module Setting)

Page 111 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

(Ve1i & Hor Loads, Fv & Fh, on Bumper)

Hs

= 1.0r

.=j:l

+'

.r::
OJ

'Qi

I~

:::J
lJ

:2
4-

I/

[f)

ro
lJ

ro

_j

I/

+'

ro

0.

I~

v
~

)/

1/

.~

.~

,.---

I~

~~

1/

~(

k---' I~

-~

I~

V'
~'

' =-:::-'

~~
~'

/'\

'

"

1
I

'+'

'

0
30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

Stiffness of bumper. MN/m

o Fv at 2000 tonnes
6

Fv at 5000 tonnes

X Fh at 5000 tonnes

Fh at 2000 tonnes

(illu055349D)

Figure 24

Module Impact Loads, Single Lift

Page 112 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

(Vert & Hor Loads, Fv & Fh, on Bumper)

I!
''

Hs == 1.l

.:c

OJ

OJ
:J

:2
4--

;f.
U)

ro
~

_j

3
~~

lr-'
'

~
j

~ !:----'

~ tz--c

p:...----"~'-

~~

_5j;Z---- ~

IZ--- j;Z----

~~

... ~'

__...; ~'

'

IT-(

30

>

'

0
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

Stiffness of bumper. MN/m

Fv at 5000 tonnes

Fv at 10000 tonnes

\1 Fh at 10000 tonnes

X Fh at 5000 tonnes

(illu0553491)

Figure 25

Module Impact Loads, Dual Lift

Page 113 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

SLING DESIGN OAF


NON BEAM SEAS, HS - 1.0tl1

BEAM SEAS

Tm = Spectral mean period


- - - - - - PERIMINARY

DESIGN OAF

BEAM SEAS

1.3
LL

1.2

<(

1.1

_ _-i- DUrL LIFrS __

~+: ~Tt ~

-=rr<G~~=~==~-~=~
Tm~7s
I
I
I
I
I j__ -t---L_ I
"'
--t--1--f----+--+--t
Trr<ss~ I

f= :-r-~~

-~-~--~-r-~-~-~--~-r--

Tm<Gs
Tm<5s

1.o~,--~--~-4---+;--~--~~--~~--~--+---

2ooo

4ooo

sooo

sooo

1oooo

MODULE WEIGHT (te)


{ILLUOS53492)

Figure 26

Sling Design OAF

Page 114 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

HOOK LOAD OAF


NON BEAM SEAS, HS
Tm = Spectral mean period
------

BEAM SEAS

1.0m

PERIMINARY
DESIGN OAF
BEAM SEAS

1.3

LL

1.2

<(

1.1

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

MODULE WEIGHT (te)


(ILLU0553493)

Figure 27

Hook Load OAF

Page 115 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

A: SLING
ROPE DIA

=D

~~

;]::ITS:TI:::!
II 1\ \\cr::::==9

*
10D

\~\\j~

=====================r:s:l S S S S

26.5D

CABLE AND ROPE LENGTH

= Lr

26.5D

10D

~~~--~~-----------------------------~~

EYE SPLICE

SPLICE EYE
OVERALL SLING LENGTH= Ls

~~------------------------------------------------~~

Les =

Total length of one eye and splice=


26.50 + 100 = 36.50
Total eye splice length = 2 x Les
= 730
Cable laid rope length = Lr = Ls
- 2 x Les = Ls - 730

* This is typical value. In cases where the eye is placed on the hook
prong, the eye length should be not less than 6 times the hook prong
diameter.
8: GROMMET

CORE BUTT
W 112 H

POSIT!~

RED PAINT

LKPOSITION

H
OVERALL GROMMET LENGTH = Ls
(illu05534 94)

Figure 28

Typical Cable Laid Constructions

Page 116 of149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DHL2

HOD!' 2 SWIVEL
DHL1

---- -- -HOO!t 1 SWIVEL

END 2

END 1

~~
___I

-MODULE

_j

END VIEW

ELEVATION

DYNAMIC HOOK LOADS (DHL 1 AND DHL2)

LIFT POINT LOADS (LPL 1 AND LPL2)

fv Lb
)
DHL 1 = SHL x HDAF x CGSF \ La + L b

{
Lb
LPL 1 = SHL x SDAF x CGSF~ La + L b

[
L
)
DHL2 = SHL x HDAF x CGSF\ La : L b

LPL2

Notes:
DHL 1, DHL2
LPL 1, LPL2
SHL
HDAF
SDAF
CGSF

SL

= Dynamic Hook Load at hooks 1 and 2


= Lift Point Loads at ends 1 and 2
= Static Hook Load (ref Fig 22)
= Hook OAF (ref Section 2.3)
=Sling OAF (ref Section 2.3)
= CG Shift Factor (ref Section 2.3)
= 1.05 for calculated weight
= 1.02 for weighed weight
=Skew Load
= 0.03 x SHL for initial design
For final design use Figure 17(2)

)x( COS(8,-i/J)}
SIN (
SL
28

, )

).fCOS(82 -i/J)}
= SHL x SDAF x CGSF\xf. LaLa
+ L b -"'\ SIN ( 282 ) SL

~=Transverse tilt =TAN

1
(

*)

= 2% or 1.15 deg for initial design (ref Fig 22)


but not less than 1%
ex= Longitudinal tilt
= 2% or 1.15 deg

at

0.57 deg for final design check.

Note: La and Lb vary according to the direction of longitudinal tilt.


Each Dynamic Hook Load and Lift Point Load is to be taken as 1
largest of the values calculated at +2% and -2% tilt.
{i!iu0553495)

Figure 29

Lift Point Loads - Dual Crane Lift (sheet 1 of 2)

Page 117 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

SKEW LOAD CALCULATION FOR FINAL DESIGN CHECK

Notes:

= SHLx MF xtan8
I<
n
8
SL = Skew Load
K
= 8 (dimensionless constant)
SHL = Static Hook Load
MF = Sling Misfit
SL

1.
2.

No. of ropes in each sling or grommet.


e.g. single sling
n =1
double sling
n = 2
grommet
n = 2
4
doubled grommet n
Average sling angle

3.

=
=
= (8,+8,)12
= Average distance between padears
= (8 + J3., ) 12

This sheet is to be used in


conjunction with Fig 17 ( 1).
MF and 8 must be in the
same units.
W must be in the same units
as the SHL in Fig 17(1).
IVIF is the sling misfit where
MF = ABS [(L 1 + L3)- (L2 + L4)] + S
Where L 1, L2, L3 & L4 are the
lengths of slings 1 to 4 (ref Fig 17(1 ))
measured accurately under tension.
Sis an allowance for differential
splice slippage. For grommets S = 0
and for slings with spliced eyes S
should be taken as 0/2 where 0
cable laid rope diameter or average
diameter when they differ betv11een
end 1 and end 2.
For initial design MF is to be a
minimum of 40.
If the slings are measured and the
calculated MF is Jess than 20 then the
MF is to be 20.

4.

ouuo553496)

Figure 30

Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift (sheet 2 of 2)

Page 118 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

I:

LONGITUDINAL HOOK OFFSET


SLING No.1 _ _ _ _ _

-I-_ _ _ _

I
I

-~--

I
I
----1

LlA.J

2 r---J_-~-----+3I

NOTES:
1. The geometry is defined with
slings straight and prior to lift
off when the pad ear plane is
horizontal.

2.

The hool< offset from the central


position is always horizontally
along one of the two padear axes
so the slings are matched pairs.

~---U2---~r---U2---I

TRANSVERSE HOOI< OFFSET


SLING No.1

_ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _

I
I

I
I

- ------,Bh 1

----1

-~---

-----1-----

~u2----~---u2-~~
(i!Ju0553497}

Figure 31

Single Hook Lift Geometry

Page 119 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

ICASE 1. Lh > 0, Bh = 0. I

LPL1

ICASE 2. Lh =0, Bh > 0. I

LPI2

Y~ -~-

LIFT POINT LOADS (LPL 1, LPL2)

CENTRAL HOOK (Lh

LPL 1 = SHL x SDAF x CGSF x CGTF x K1 x SLF


LPL2 = SHL x SDAF x CGSF x CGTF x K2 x SLF

K1 =case 2
2 sin~ 1 .ffi 2)

= Bh = 0)

K2 =case 1
2 sin~ 1 .ffi 2)

WHERE
LPL 1, LPL2 = Design loads for slings
1 & 2 respectively
SDAF
= Sling dynamic amplification factor (ref section 2.3)
= Static hook load (ref section 2.2)
SHL
= C of G shift factor
CGSF
= 1. 05 for calculated weight
= 1.02 for weighed weight
= C of G tilt factor
CGTF
= 1. 05 for initial design
= (1 + 0.025 x0 %) for final design check.
0% =percentage tilt during lift and
1 < 0 % < 5 (ref section 2.6 & 2. 7.2)
=Skew load factor (ref section 2.7.2)
SLF

OFFSET HOOK (Lh or Bh > 0)


K1 =

case 2 cos>< 2
2 (sine 1 co!ill 2

K2 =case 1 cos>< 1
2 (sine 1 co!ill 2

2 +sin 2

ces 1

coo: 2 + sin 2 ces 1 oos

1. This calculation is to be used in


conjunction with Figure 21 :"Lift Design Calculation Chart"

1)
1)

2. The lift geometry is defined in


Figure 18:"Single Hook Lift Geometry"
{lu055349B)

Figure 32

Lift Point Loads -Single Crane Lift

Page 120 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

INDEX

FIGURE
NO.

SLING
ANGLE

SLING
TYPE
SINGLE

20
20
20
20
20
20

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

65'

20
20
20
20
20
20

(7)
(8)
(9)
(1 0)
(11)
(12)

7cf

20
20
20
20
20
20

(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)

7lJ

20
20
20
20
20
20

(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)

80

DOUBLE

SINGLE

DOUBLE

SINGLE

DOUBLE

SINGLE

MODULE
LIB
RATIO
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3

DOUBLE

1
2
3
(illu0553499)

Figure 33

Skew Load Factor Graphs

Page 121 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0

v
V)

1.9

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

I/

I
I

1.7

1.6

0
_J

1.5

cr:

I-

<(
lL
<(

sw

~
U)

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0

I
i
I

0.2

w"-Gs

~ \'\t\l~s~.:
I/
I/
I

~~

J_

l...--r
I
I

VI

Vv AI

I
I

I
I

I
!
I

I
I
J
I

I
I

I
i
I

I
i
I

0.6

'

'

_I

0.4

Figure 34

:=t=-

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE._ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

_l

I
1.4

I
1.6

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT

'

~ r:y
I

I
I
usED sLNGE~

1/Vy ~

~~
I

Single Hook List Skew Load Factor (sheet 1 of 24)

Page 122 of 149

I
I
SINGLE

}-

65

1
0
0
I

I
1.8

}-

2.0
(illu05535DO)

EM/039
Rev31991

2.1
2.0

1.9
~

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

1. 7

1.6

0_J

1.5

$
w

1.4

(f)

1-

<(
LL
<(

v /k v

1.3

I/

1.2

I/

1.1
1.0

~
/I

I
0

~~

-.\

1,-.\'2.\1~

~/[/
I

I
I

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;

I
1.2

I
1.4

I
1.6

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


Figure 36

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 3 of 24)

Page 124 of 149

I
I

I
i
I

0.4

VI

I
uskosLING~

'

I
'

/l

0.2

I
I

y /y ~ VI

I
I

/v

SINGLE

1-

65
3
0
0

1-

1.8

2.0
(illuD553502)

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0

1/

1.8

I
I

10

I
I

1.7

1.6

0
_j

1.5

1.9

0:::

<(
lL

sw

1/

(f)

1.4
1.3
1.2

1.0

1::v---+::
Gs

~sy
\ \1'1
v I
I

Vy ""

_..;.--

J.-

L..----t"""

--r
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

__j_

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

0.2

USED SLI:NGS

1/

~~ VlI

1.1 / '

l Vv /i

v/Vi
w
I

vI

y y
v
I! y v)/'

<(

'

0.4

0.6

I
0.8

'

1.0

SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UBra!io._ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio._ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
1.4

I
1.6

I
I
DOUBLE
65

1
0
0
I

I
1.8

r-_[

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553503)

Figure 37

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 4 of 24)

Page 125 of 149

I,

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1~~~--r-~~~~~~~r--~~~--~,~~--L~:~--~:~--~;~--,-;~-.:-.

2 ' O -j,-+--ll--1--ll--1--ll-+--ti--1-V+-ti-U-S-1-ED-S-tlii-NG-S-1--tll--t-l--t
~~-+~-11----=:::l_

I
I
I
1/ I
I
....-::--1-""~1
~
1g 1--rl---+-..,..-11-----rl----l--...--i
111-----r
)"~---.-1- j - - r:1-+
/V---::o!..,...._,s~v;----,----::ol>--=..-1--l
I

_Ll_

Lf".,<(;.'l'!s\_.'''\~

ct

1.7

1. l--+~-~--+~-vl---7'-+l-v~--:r9y1
--74'--+-~-~--+~---1r--+l-r--+l----cr-+1-r---ri----1

f2

1.

1/: I Yv ~ /~l"--1-----:-l--r----:l--J

t-11---t----+1-+--~-1----+-V--ft-1- - t - - +11-/
-1/..,,L....J-v-b-"'--ll---j----+1-r---~-1--~---~_,
O 1.6
I
I
r~/
I
I
--J-i--+1--1
<t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

(J)

yl

Yv:

1/ 1/VI
I
I
I
I
I
/~~'I
--::ri'-----t-1-r----r-1--+-----r~--t~~---l~~r---j---t-11 -1------r:--t
.4 1---t--1-l-~-t71"'-tI

13
.
12
' ~

-t---.1-t---T~-,-....~....St-L~IN_G-TIL._TY-_-P_LE..t-_-_'I::~~~--:::I~D_LOt-U~B-L'~~t----l
1

/--TV-b"[d/---i-r-::.,~-1-~-t---Tl

1.1

I
I
I

I
I
I

I
!
I

I
1
I

I
~
I

0~1 ~a~i~GLE~g.--==~

Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

~5
o
0

1.0 L--__,_1_..._____,_1_..._____,_1_..._____,_1_,_____,_1_..._____,_1_'--_..,j"-- _-....~._1~-=-'J.J._-----~..J.~-=--=--=--=:c'=:_,-=:_'.J._i-_---'~~0


0.2
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.8
2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553504)

Figure 38

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 5 of 24)

Page 126 of 149

i.

EM/039
Rev31991

2. 1

2.0

1.9

rY
0
1-

1.8

sw

~
(f)

1.5

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I/

I
I

1.2

I/

'

VI

~~ ~

1/

Yl /~

VI

--1:;

X XI

~~\j'l5.

/I

1_.-

~USED SL~NGS

I
I

_I

/I

/I

I
I

I
I

I
I

'

0.2

/I

/:

y
j_

.J

/I

v#

1.3

1.0

VI
1/ I

_/

1.4

1.1

<{

1.6

1.7 _ j

LL

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;

1.2

I
1.4

I
1.6

I
I
DOUBLE

65
3
0
0
I

I
1.8

1-

f--

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553505)

Figure 39

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 6 of 24)

Page 127 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

2.1

1/

I
I

I
I

1. 7

_I

1.6

1.5

-sw

1.4

I
i
I

1/

2.0
1.9

a::

f0

<(

1.8

LL

<(
_j

~
(f)

1.3

'

'/I
I
y I
I
I
I
I /I
y
1/
I
~ y y
vy/ I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I

I
I

0.4

I
0.6

0.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
!
I

I
I

I
!
I

1- ~

/1\'\~

----1
L--(\)'\ s'-:"" ___.
I
~

vyv

0sED FuNds

0.2

~
1.2
1.1 ~
1.0

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg. _ _ _ :
UB ratiQ.. _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I ;
1.4

I
1.6

I
SINGLE
70

r-

1
0
0
I

I
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553506)

Figure 40

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 7 of 24)

Page 128 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1

I
I

I
I

1/

2.0
1.9

0::

1.8

I
I

I
I

<(

1. 7

10
LL

1.6

<(

0
-'

sw

~
(f)

1.5

1/

_j

1.4

1.1

1.0

I
I
0

0.2

Vi

I~

----1
I
~
I
~\'\6~

vr
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

'

0.8

yl

I
I

0.6

I
USED SL,INGS

1 / \'\'(.:---!
\l~s'-'/

0.4

~ / '~ V~Vi

/v ~

i/

I/

/y y

);: ~

I
I

1.3

1.2

I
I

i
/
VI

'

1.0

SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;

I
1.2

;
I
1.4

I
1.6

I
I
SINGLE

1--

70
2
0
0
I

I
1.8

1I

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


[illu0553507)

Figure 41

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 8 of 24)

Page 129 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

<(

1. 7

1.6

//

0
_j

1.5

1.9

a:

10

u..
<(

sw

1.4

(f)

1.3

1.2
1.1

1.0

I
I

I~

0.2

A~

I/

I
1
I

I
I
1
I

'

0.8

1.0

I
I

!
0.6

0.4

X;.\I

kJ--

~I

I
1
I

~I

A USfDSLING~V'l~ --rI
y 1% X
VI
I
I
I

~V
~
I
:
~ I

Yl

I /

:
I
I

VI ~ ~

IL

VI

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;

LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
__:

Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ -

I
1.2

1
1.4

1
1.6

_l

I
SINGLE

1--

70
3
0
0

I
1.8

1--

_j

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553508)

Figure 42

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 9 of 24)

Page 130 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--L~~:--~~:--~~~:--~~;~.--;r-~-~:

j_J_l_J_;_/1_j__Jl!_j__)l'l~Ljtu=st~lo=s=tLIN=G=siI ==t=__J.--~~~!---+-=tJ.--=b~~~=~==-=~=l,..l=-~=1

2.0

g
0

~
~
(f)

.
17

~~~'-----'-1---t-...---'-:--t---+-:-1~------'-:-1
l Y _j h~~
I I I
! V1
~/
!
!
!

i.B

1j

1.9
18

15
.
1
.4
13
.

: /

i
I

i
l

i
I

1/v) /

A Vv/

I 1/ ~v:
y/~

II

II

SLING,TYPE... _J_- _: DOUBLE' '-

1.2
/~/
11 Vf/_/1
I

I Lh/Lratio______:
I Bh/Bratio______:

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

~~~~i~GLE~g_-.==:

I
1.2

I
1.4

I
1.6

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


Figure 43

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 10 of 24)

Page 131 of 149

710

( .

o
0
I

I
1.8

2.0
(~IU0553509)

EM/039
Rev31991

2.1
2.0

1/

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

1.7 _J

I/
LiI

1.6

0
_j

1.5

1.9

cr

f-

<(
LL

~
(f)

<(

sw

1.4

1.3

1.2
1.1
1.0

A
I

'

v:/
Yl

I
I

I
I

I
I

0.8

I
---l
I

'

0.6

I
I

I
I

H-~ --:t:
I
I

I
i
I
I
I

_;--

'

0.4

0.2

V,l "'0\0
IL \~~~/ I
/f
I

J0~I

~~
;;.r:~
. /~

usJo SLINGS

1/

V! A/
v
Y::VI
/V t/fI II
I

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
1.4

I
1.6

DOUBLE

70
2
0
0
I

I
1.8

1-

1-I

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553510)

Figure 44

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 11 of 24)

Page 132 of 149

I.
EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1~.,--r-.,--.-.,--.-.,--.-.,--.-.,,--.-.,,--.-.,,--.--,,,-~-,~~

2. o
r-v

19
'

u_

.8

I
I

~ 1.? _J

./f
I

i/
~

i/l

r /"'

g<(

1. 5 l--+1-t---+1-+--/_.<-t-1-+--V~
y1.____,..<!~

Y~~

1/ V/1

usED sLiNGs

Vv !_...v-VI

~s

.-----1

~ -~;

//

1.6

(f)

__

J(' ~ ~~~ ~

/.

1-+-1'--+-----:il--------11---ll----t----tl----t----tl----t
/T-rl--+--+l--l---1-j__--+---+---+1.,.........-~C-r--~1=----~

.4

1--t-1-!-A-n1./,L-----J-~--::>"T-~.
-7'f----rl--l-----t:---l----~:,----~-r-~'-1--r---1-t------r-1---1------t-1--~

13
.

1 o-+OU-B-LE;-I--1'I-----.-!/-VW'----i;~,r---;-1-+--i-:-+-----i:-+-----i:-+SL-IN----iGI_TY_PE__+--,;-----J-_-:T----

1.21

/P

1.1 ~

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I
I

Et~~~~~NGLE~g_--==~
Lh/Lratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

730

o
0

1.0~~~-~~~-~~~--~~~-~~~--~~1~~~1~~1-~r~J-~1~1-~I~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553511)

Figure 45

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 12 of 24)

Page 133 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0

<(
LL

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

1. 7

_I_

1.6

1.5

sw

1.4

<(

~
(f)

_j

1-

1.9

a:

1.1
1.0

I
I

1/

/v ~I
~% I
I
I

'

'

I/

USED SLiNGS

..-J--

~'t:.\j'l s\..''Y ~

vI

I
I

_I_

I
I

I
I

I
I

'

'

0.6

r-+

0.4

:I

1,...-__.... ~s

0.2

I
I

/rI

/I

~ ~~ X I
I
V1 ~ ~ I

y
/
/y

1.3
1.2

I
I

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg. _ _ _ :
L!Bratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio _ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
1.4

SINGLE
0
0
I

1.6

r-

75
1

I
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553512)

Figure 46

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 13 of 24)

Page 134 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0

/I
1/ I

'

1.9

1.8

I
I

I
I

<(

1.7

I
I

1.6

1.5

sw

1.4

CL

f-

u..

<(
....J

~
(f)

1.3

I
I

1/

~
1.2
1.1 ~
1.0

I
!
I

X II

I
I

I
I

I
!
I

0.4

'~ ~ __JI
/'IV I~
I

VJ
I~~
s\..'
I

I
I

'

0.2

USED SL:INGS

A/t/rI

/I

y /
/
vy

I
I

0.6

I
'

0.8

SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE de g.. _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

SINGLE
75
2
0

1-

0
I

I
i
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553513)

Figure 47

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 14 of 24)

Page 135 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1

1/

2.0
1.9

0:::

'

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

1.7

1.6

0
_]

1.5

r-

<(
LL
<(

1.4

~
(f)

1.3

1/

1.0

'

I
I

y
//
Yl y /
I

y ~

0.2

I_,...-

vr

~~GSI/

v~v/
/

--+---:1:=

I
I

I
I

I
I

0.4

I
i
I
I

'

/i/ ~
I

~%
I
I
1.1 ~

-----j

VI

usED sL \NGS
1

/v A

1.2

_I

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
US ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

1.4

1.6

SINGLE

c--

75
3
0
0
I

I
1.8

f--

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553514)

Figure 48

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor {sheet 15 of 24)

Page 136 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2. 1
2.0

1.8

1-

1.7

I
I

I
I

/;

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

I/

~
(J)

1.2
1.1

1.0

vz

/(

I
I

I
i
I

I
i
I

'

0.6

I
I

I
I

0.4

0.2

I
I

y/ ~

---l

I
I

I
I

/I

~
s\..'

~~<;;JI

: :
--r~
I
I

I
I

wr

US~D
SLINGS:
I

<(

/I

V' X
i/ v /
;1 vy I

LL

1.9
~

'

0.8

1.0

'

SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

1.4

1.6

I
DOUBLE

75
1
0

1.8

1-

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illuD553515)

Figure 49

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 16 of 24)

Page 137 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1

2 0
rv'

19
"

I
1

r--7

11

<r:

LL

1.6

) j/ I / /

1.s

1.4

(f)

i.

1.2

1. 1

.{

Li

1/ . -

~~
,~~/

t::::=P

==j_

f-1 --

J_----1
I

_./T

.Lf_

_L

:
I

:
I

:
I

~~~~i~GLE~g_--==:

Lhh//LB rraati.o_ _ _ _ _
8
110

~ ';/f
I

Vl/v

~/l

Yv

L/

j.S

11
I
I
,/1 USED sLINGs
V
/ I
/1

17
"

vr-+--i-1--J--+--t-+--r---::::::::l=~=:l

SLINGITYPE._ -

_:

-:

------

DOUBLE!
725

r---

0
0

1.0~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~~~~--~~'--~l~i--~l~l--~1~1--~1~1~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553516)

Figure 50

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 17 of 24)

Page 138 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1

2.0
1.9

cr

I
I

1.8

I
I

1.7

f-

<{
LL

1.6

<{

0
_J

~
({)

1.5
1.4

I / /I

1.3

I
I

0.2

/I

-!--

v
usJosLINGr

~~
/pv
v
I

yI

~L--1---VI
I

I-" I

---

/I

I
I

I
I

I
I

v~ VI

I
I

_I_

I
i
I

/I

I
I

I
I

I
I

0.4

vy:V[

~~
1.2
I
~
I
1.1
1.0

)C

L J/

l/

I
I

1/

I
I

Vi

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE._ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
i
1.4

I
1.6

.I
I
DOUBLE

75
3
0
0
I

I
1.8

1--

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553517)

Figure 51

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 18 of 24)

Page 139 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1

1.8

I
I

I
I

()
<(
LL

1.7

1.6

0_J

1.5

sw

~
U)

1.4

1.3

1.2
1.1
1.0

Vi
vy
I

vv~

Jt 7r
I

0.2

~/

vr

Vf

~/

1-

~ .-~h--

~r

I
I

v:/
Vf
Yf

I
I
L
I

00

~X:.~s0

I/

US~D SLINGS :
I

I/

I
I

I
I

I
I

'

0.4

VI

v
v:

<(

!L

I
I

1-

I
I

a:

2.0
1.9

0.6

'

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg:. _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
1.4

i
I
1.6

I
SINGLE

r-

80
1
0

I
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553518)

Figure 52

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 19 of 24)

Page 140 of 149

EM/039
Rev31991

2.1

I
I

I
I

I
I

1.9

1.8

1-

LL

1.7
1.6

1.5

1.4

~
(f)

1.3

1.2

y h
v~ Vi
I

~~

W,
1.1

1.0

I
I

/I

0.2

VJ

VI

<(

2. 0

a::

I
I

1.-

1 v~~~\l'lv--r
1/ I / I
/i
I

Vf/

1/

Y(/ Vi

,/

--+---

4=-

----r

J_..- ~

~--"I

I
I

I
I

I
I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
!
I

I
!
I

0.4

I
I

US~D
SLINGS~/~
I
r:,V-0'

'

'

0.6

I
-'

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio _ _ _ _ _ _ ;

I
1.2

I
1.4

_l

L
1.6

SINGLE
80

1--

2
0
0
I

r-

I
i
1.8
2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553519)

Figure 53

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 20 of 24)

Page 141 of 149

I.

EM/039
Rev31991

2. 1

2.0

I
I

1.8

I
I

I
I

I
I

1.7

1.6

<(

1.5

sw

1.4

~
U)

ll..

1-

-~

1.9

0::

I
I

1.3

V1

yX
YY:: VfI
I

~ Vf
I
~
1.1

1.2

1.0

0.2

/I

v:
y

li

~/

1/
.--/1
USfD SLINGS ~
IL~
I

lhl
I

\~r::i=' I /

!/V'::~'-l'ls'vV1
~~/

l--I

1-

--r
I

I
I

I
I

~1/ /1

/j

I
I

I
I

I
I

'

I
J

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
US ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;

I
1.2

J
1.4

;
I
1.6

I
SINGLE

1-

80
3
0

I
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(il/u0553520)

Figure 54

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 21 of 24)

Page 142 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1r-~,--r-~,--.-,,-~.-~J--,-'_:--_,-,:----:----:--,--r-:,--~:

jl

---+-

,_/1-11-------fj----t---+j---+V--+--1-j--+--+i--+--1-~--+-~~-~~"--j--lt-~----::l;;=,--""1--~f-----l

2. o

1.9 ~----r-1-t--1.-+-.-1;--+~-----.l--+--.-+IV~.I-1-1x---r7"""+--l.-+-.-l--1-----rl--l
I
I
1/ usfo SLINGs 1/0~01 / V
I
I
I
18
.
1.7 1--11----;~-------JI~';--+--JI'--1--+
/--,.L-11---1
A'-7"'-1---ll-1--+l---+--+l-1-----ll---1---ll--1

LL
0

I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1.6r-~--r~v-rr-~v--~~
~-/r-4--+~~+-~-+~r-T--r~--~-~

g<(

1.51--~,--~~.~--~~-yA
1 ~-~~4--ll-~
1 ---~~--~~~--+--,~4-~I~~---r-

>

[U
~
(f)

/1

/:

/:

I /

/f/

1 rrr----:/./~vr,r---l--tr---I----Jr----1f----jr----1--tr----+--ti---+----JI---t----JI--I
/-tf---i

1.4 f--r-1
13
.

j ~v,~~~Vj

I !':

1 o-tO-UB-LE-:-,f---l
1 -l~'--t-:v:r---7:~-~----TI---J---Tl--!----il-+--!c--+SL-IN--,Gic-TY-PE_-I---c-'_-_-l-_-:-T-!--Y-i-

1.2 j .,/

Y/,
1.1

SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :

80

Lh/Lratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/Bratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

us ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :

r-

1 ~~--~~~~--~~~
1.0~~~--~~J--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~'~~--'~~~--~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553521)

Figure 55

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 22 of 24)

Page 143 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1
2.0
1.9
~

II

I
I

1.8

1.7

<(
LL

1.6

0_j

1.5

~
(f)

/i /
I; /v
/I
I

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0

I~

tr

I
I

I
I

vr

--

-r
I

/1~~~"'0

/(/ ~
V( I

1 . . . .~

VI

I
I

1~0~0<:, I /

USTD SLINGS

v
VI

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

0.2

I
I

VI

'

Ill

1/

v/y

<(

lI

-I

I
I

I
I

f-

0.4

'

0.6

0.8

1.0

SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;

;
I
1.2

I
1.4

;
I
1.6

DOUBLE
80

1-

2
0
0

I
1.8

1I

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illu0553522)

Figure 56

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 23 of 24)

Page 144 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

2.1r-~~--.-~-----~.--,-l,-,--,-,--,-,--.-,--.-.-~~~

2. 0

~
0

~
U)

yrriJ-1-IJ~-IJ-~T~-J~~J--~F--r~~

-+-+1--l

~-~~-1----l~l---11----lll-t-~~---r-;-~--~-~,-+--vt--+-v-:----:=-1--=-/+-vr----t-L
-to-=~~-

19 1--..--l-1-..-l--+----.l-t+-.-L-t-...,-1--+V-7"1!-~Gs,......-~-~---.::~----rl~r--.---l+--rl-1
18

I
I

I
I

1.7

1.6

II

LL

1.5

I Vi \~0
y/
1./
/;
I
I

~/

0.2

II

0.6

I
I

0.4

I
I

: l

I
I

I
I

/!

v~\'\ s"r./---

USFD SLINGS

_l
I

I
I
VI
I
I
V/:
II //Y
I1 kv I I
M~l : :

.4
13
.
12
' '~/
1. 1 ~ I
1.0

0.8

1.0

SLING,TYPE__~

_ _:

t~~~~i:~GLE~g.--==:

1.4

1.6

DOUBLE

80

'--

Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :

I
1.2

I
I
0
0

I
1.8

2.0

PERCENTAGE SLING MISFIT


(illuOSS3523)

Figure 57

Single Hook Lift Skew Load Factor (sheet 24 of 24)

Page 145 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

GROSS LIFT WEIGHT (GLI'\ry

GROSS LIFT WEIGHT (GLV\ry

GLW =[ STRUCTURAL COMPOI~ENTS x 1.1

GLW =[ STRUCTURAL COMPONEI;Ts x 1.0

+ [EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS x 1.20

GROSS LIFT \"'ElGHT (GLWJ


GLW = WEIGHED WEIGHT fY\'W) x 1.03

+ [ EOUIPMEI;T COMPONENTS X 1.10

STATIC HOOK LOAD (SHL)


SHL =MLWx 1.03

ICHECK CRANE CAPACIIY, REFER TO SECTION 2j


SLING DESIGN, REFER TO SECTION 2.8

Figure 58

Lift Design Calculation Chart

Page 146 of 149

EM/039

Rev 3 1991

DUAL CRAI~E LIFT

SINGLE CRANE LIFT


PADEAR (lyp)

r-r-

~-

8121 I i
.,--

-tI

CGZONE

~\
o.ozh

-~---

-1- \ -

B/2

~-

/
o.oz11

LONGITUDINAL PLANE
OF PADEAR SYMMETRY

Single UN Noles

Dual Lift Noles

1. The crane hook vertical axis is to be in

1. The crane hoolt vertical axes are to


be in the plane of padear symmetry.

2.

= The ver1ical separation of

11

-.

-!j>-

one of the planes of padear symmetry.

I
--1

2. h

= The vertical separation of

the module centre of gravity

the module centre of gravity

below the hook swivel.

below !he hook swiveL

3.

The module centre of gravity is to be


within the shaded zone and within
0.0211 of the design location of the
hook vertical axis to ensure module
till does not exceed 2%.

3. The module centre of gravity is to be


within the shaded zone and within
0.02h of the design location of the
module centre of gravil}' to ensure
module tilt does not exceed 2%.

4.

VVhere a larger lilt angle has been


agreed the CG zone width may be
increased pro rata (ref Section 2.6).

4.

Wnere a larger till angle has been


agreed the CG zone width may be
increased pro rata (ref Section 2.6).
(~:.dE5J525)

Figure 59

Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones

Page 147 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

DHL

Hook Swivel

_,______________________ _______ _

2.30

L--------------------

I
I
I
I
I
I

36.67

16.5 j_ =

s.Lo.1

I
I
I
I
I

--------

Sling

Attachment

!Z

Point

==-r-+----_-_-_--1-l-_--f-.....,:C---~h------- -...-4--'-'--+---~h

4. 7
415-F.D.

I
I

(lnilial CG) I

I
I

I
I

~-----~-~-------T

------

I
I

CG

I
END

PROFILE

I
I

I
I

ili-i~'

r--~T----1

!..,_---"'.9cco+l__,..'-<__9=c~O-...;
1

I I
f->+t-

0.53-I.D.
0.31-F.D.

,-----:
1.46

0.900

0.900

HOOK PRONG
GEOMETRY

PLAN
Sling 1

NOTES: 1. This figure is to be used in conjunclion

with the single hook lift example

Sling 2

I
I
I
I

calculation in Attachment 3, Section A3.2.

9.0
Slino 3

--------r--J-----=--

Figure 60

___r_

2. All dimensions are in metres.

3. J.D. = Initial Design Dimension


F.D.:::; Final Dimension.

Single Crane Lift Example

Page 148 of 149

EM/039
Rev 3 1991

DHL 1

END 1
2.30- - - - -

DHL2

--- - --- -

-----

END 2

Hool< Swivel

-r - ------ - - -- - -- -- -- ---I

:/

~.-

- -- --- --

--------~---------r------------

~m

I
I

I
:

Sling
Atlachmenl
Poinl

"'t----,--------~~-,-------------- -~--~~
I

5 59-I.D.

6.13-F.D._T_ j-- _ _

I
I
tI ____c9f-__
iI ______ -_~I _-- ____ +
__ ~~I ____ -I-I
I

I
PROFILE

m
\

r'

I
I
I

30

I
I
I
1-<->i
I 8 50-1 D I
I 913-FD I

I
30

'l

f<-;.J.-..J

HOOK PRONG
GEOMETRY

I
I
I

NOTES: 1.

This figure is to be used in conjunction


with the dual crane lift example
calculation in Atlachment 3, Section A3.3.

2.

All dimensions are in metres.

3.

I.D. = lnilial Design Dimension

F.D. = Final Dimension.

Figure 61

Dual Crane Lift Example

Page 149 of 149

11.30 1.301

END

-
~

.. ,

IHPl.l([ AU.

f!p.

!Uf'~--

~su

1/J'

IU{IIli'IC ...

~il

_.

11'%.\\\1

lr'~~,-~ ~~~~
I
I
I~

iiJp--_#"
!/~

!j

;ii

\ ' 'i\

~~-T

111'l D

\~Do V{!!!_/

ttOl(

~--

{iVOQ

-l' iti;;~~~:~

ITP

f1_

@@@ !0(~1-' .... T!II

tlfr

"'"

I)M;r~~:~~Q/~ ~LAillfl

OPICAl All
HALE

li~T PUMP

.11

r
/

/'

./

('I

/;~~~,--,~

J'Y

'--yo I

+i~
I~'

..

"

71

/'

JS~

DHl oil\

.!.

..1.. ~ID3 D\

Cl

00111.

PLAt! AT L. 'JDOD

(A!SSOHS R!HRS a
JTUDfS EL(YAT\0115,

SCAL[

HIFAB ORG Nos

1:10

:::~~--~~

~~~fA!:~SlTEOUERY Nos

~~-:..-w=~-.,
--~- - - ~',g;,;':",.;;,v::'a:;,.:'"
,~:"'~ ~ : :i; "'"' "'

:-c..:~

//

HAl(

J~''
-

""~

~
ss~~~~o:~ loP

"~'}t,,_
SECTION L
~

-'

:::,.

SECl!OH

"H"

I;

. ,

--~~.. ....

.,~,P

~i:"tl

tV

S(Alf

&.

,t,S UUllT

r
g
.L

~
S!Alt

~
i'\0

-::

D.C. HI

.F.L

TYP.

Cl 0:C.V9.i0(1\l
Cl 0,~6,1~6 IG

21 Til~. fLU.

~m: f03t
1

c, .

-----X

!!Ill

[f)

SECTION n
~

0C.'19.L0(.111

IAsftiJiiJJ

1.

'<:
5(At(

H.

.....':.'.""

tlDLH
p, c. o.

~;~

,,

JTD

----;;-!)--<!"

~ /

~c

...
I

lli.!!Q!!._Ji

11.~

,Aoc1:.l

OUfli SIDH

FR,O.f1()G.'I.
PLAN A.t H.ID
{l.HDDD,

~~;~~~~a ~~~-JTIJ
0/1

fRI:I"

D\IDDI
::11

r.,,

(AI5SDlt$

// /

/'

STAICOARO h'[lOUHi
FRO" Off( SIDE DillT.
STAI!DAAD IIU.DING

1!]15 liti;,STll'f.

l!lDII

PUt11'S

t:~o/J'r,~ \'y/1 17"'J>X.r~~-

L[

rliU

DIOJ Dl

!5"tt"~;~. J~~~~-

'.;oo

//

!olll

EASDSIOJ/0\DJlll

'0"1lARS11P
f;;;aiii(AIUJI S"IIPPU

./- .// / /
;;n ,:,~ /' // / ,. ._ / . /
/

1/Monh<l"o.

..;-~.

v'\JrP2Ri~l;
k3~~------/-/ ----/-,.------:,----H'J.\11 ~U(It .xui
,../
./

/
/
,
~

&t'.(,IH

C41SSDtiS

VIE'n' 011 CAISSOII

~
'-U;I;Illt.ll:T S(.l.WAHR

f ~ />-.,

TYP,

AEFEAENCEORAWINGs

5CAL!1N

VIEW

\l[LQ

~([L'I]g

'

CAP

YI(IoiA.

i--

H'P)Tol
f.\[11

-0--

Ill' .

-,w-.

.. ...
~j"m----C>

uo". n\-Js

;;-:. 0 CD 0 ~
"'"'"~I
I I.

{'"""'
"'"''""@_

<;IJD II '

\\1

,,

.i! ''-J
,'-\1'
lib . =--~~ ~~ ,.d.\\

0~

,,...,, :1-:-~....---:-r Q
c_~-~ ~

't' H. ~~!IOU

11r~ ,,_ 11.

/.t=~

"--,. ,.

... - __ _j

PLAI~
6
(AI55Dfl!i~filRClAR!fr

'rl'f U

TTP,

~I ~~,.r'"

~ 1\)

aog a l5
~ 0 II L<IIIG
!;UI!}~ I

~~~~

",Jt

Jr_~

1 CD

~~

"'"IIK'i

~In~,~
~ \
'IJu.-.-i;:-u~rlfo
~

~~,

!\
u

"'\\I~ '""""""'"'
rlll~

... ~~

. - ~

1/{S't- -.._~~

.J-.

ii==F.=II -

"-''bc.L_l!..:"-"'"''---,:~=~jlji"~. \\i
IL-.-;~;r/ ~ ~ \

(01

~~~~~~-~
-,
-:=
"'""'"""

IJ/; "'

r-

'

<!

l. (.O.IS$1111 IIARII: Ha. SllOWI'I TUUS

r;J!i
"PA-02Qq.oz!f/---,;;;.

n-ooo

f~i,SDS/IIJI~ZIIIIII,

....

....

' "' """'' """ "' '" "'

<!p
6p
i JACiiCT
IJ!J
-"-"---~---~--l!~L--1---~--+-------"-"-----.i

1.11111

-;-

NOTES

Ill

ILl"J'
I'! L"f i"'-' . ,...,. '"" '""""~:;p~ ~1 """'

" - " ' " 'O'B-O'UH2J/'-

~.

'

nooo@

~DO
~
~
~11550TO?l'::~~-l! IH
~.:100110
'
.-~~~\\
-. B
'L-'J""-'''-'~'-''-''"'"'---r-:,:::,-:,-,:,;-- tii ;.i.
..
Y..f.k=~~ t-1 -!l
vEl.. ll

,..H.

\L
~
3

.::

,~;.;_~!':..:. ..
......,to;ur~:::- ::..,....., ;.:;,

v
",,
r

l)s
_1),.. .

ta-v E"1J.,.,.. _j

SHELL U.K. EXPLORATION&. PRODUCTION

15 nu; wtll

EIDEAFIELDDEVEl.OPMENTPLATFOAMA

IT~>

l:iO

I I i I I I I I I I I I
"""'~'l![:IC4l,l

...1:1'""

111 1
'

AUXILIARY SEAWATER &


SEAWATER LIFT PUMPS- CAISSON
GEfiERAL ARRANGEMENT
& SUPP8RT OETAIL.S
JBOS

~G"IIUJ!.ho.j

DRG.No. 90301209 01
W::.C

l,n

-.1 ....

I ,

.....

L/{)

i
i

;z..:; -L-e-t

"l.a
-,
_,.....'

!a:

'-.J'

,._"::>.

('

"

!1"''

\;
I

i ,r.)

IJ'.
v
?.!

\
'

'

,,

'
i).Jr'l