Heavy Lift Installation Study of Offshore Structure 2004

HEAVY LIFT INSTALLATION STUDY
OF

OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

LI LIANG
(MS. Eng, NUS)

A THESIS SUBMITTED

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIOANL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2004

ii

HEAVY LIFT INSTALLATION STUDY

OF

OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

LI LIANG
(MS. Eng, NUS)

A THESIS SUBMITTED

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIOANL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to his supervisor Associate
Professor Choo Yoo Sang. The author is deeply indebted to his most valuable guidance,
constructive criticism and kind understanding. Appreciation is extended to Associate
Professor Richard Liew and Dr. Ju Feng for their assistance and encouragement.

In addition, the author would like to thank the National University of Singapore for
offering the opportunity for this research project.

Finally, the author is grateful to his family, the one he loves, and all his friends, whose
encouragement, love and friendship have always been the major motivation for his study.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Present Study
1.3 Organisation of Thesis

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LIFTING DESIGN CRITERIA.......................................... 10
2.1 Review of Various Lifting Criteria
2.2 Practical Considerations for Standard Rigging Design
2.2.1 Sling Design Loads (SDL)
2.2.2 Shackle Design Loads
2.2.3 Lift Point Design Loads
2.2.4 Shackle Sizing
2.2.5 Tilt during Lifting
2.2.6 COG Shift Factor
2.3 Summary

CHAPTER 3 HEAVY LIFTING EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS....................... 24
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Heavy Lift Cranes
3.2.1 Crane Vessel Types
3.2.2 Frequently Used Crane Vessels
3.3 Heavy Lift Shackles
3.4 Heavy Lift Slings
3.4.1 Sling properties
3.4.2 Grommets versus Slings
3.4.3 Sling and Grommet Properties
3.5 Lift Points
3.6 Summary

CHAPTER 4 RIGGING THEORY AND FORMULATION ......................................... 57
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Rigging Sling System with Four Lift Points
4.2.1 Using Main or Jib Hook without Spreader Structure
4.2.2 Using Main or Jib Hook with Spreader Structure
4.2.3 Using Main and Jib Hooks at the Same Time
4.3 Rigging Sling System with Six Lift Points
4.3.1 Using Main or Jib Hook with Spreader Frame
4.3.2 Using Main and Jib Hooks without Spreader Structure
4.4 Rigging Sling System with Eight Lift Points
4.4.1 Using Main or Jib Hook with/without Spreader Structure
4.5 Summary

ii

CHAPTER 5 JACKET LIFTING.................................................................................... 78
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Vertical Lift of Jackets
5.3 Horizontal Lift of Jackets
5.4 Summary

CHAPTER 6 MODULE LIFTING.................................................................................. 88
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Vertical Module Lift and Installation
6.3 Deck Panel Flip-Over
6.4 Summary

CHAPTER 7 FPSO STRUCTURE LIFTING............................................................... 102
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Lift Procedures and Considerations for FPSO Modules
7.3 Rigging Systems with Multiple Spreader Bars
7.4 Lifting of Lower Turret
7.5 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module
7.6 Lifting of Flare Tower
7.7 Summary

CHAPTER 8 SPECIAL LIFTING FRAME DESIGN.................................................. 121
8.1 General Discussion
8.2 Effect of the Shift of the Centre of Gravity
8.3 Lift Point Forces
8.4 Padeye Checking
8.5 Trunnion Checking
8.6 Summary
CHAPTER 9 FINITE ELEMET ANALYSIS FOR LIFTING DESIGN....................... 139
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Finite Element Analysis for Module Lifts
9.2.1 Structural and Material Details
9.2.2 Finite Element Modelling and Analysis
9.2.3 Discussions
9.3 Finite Element Analysis for Lifting Padeye Connection
9.3.1 Structural Details
9.3.2 Loading Cases
9.3.3 Finite Element Modelling
9.3.4 Result Analysis
9.4 Summary

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS.......................................... 170
10.1 Conclusions
10.2 Recommendation for Future Work

BIOBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 174

APPENDIX A FEM ANALYSIS FOR JACKET UPENDING PADEYE.................... 181

iii

Summary

Successful lift installations of heavy offshore structures require comprehensive and
detailed studies involving many engineering and geometrical constraints including
geometric configuration of the structure, its weight and centre of gravity, member
strength, rigging details, lifting crane vessel and other construction constraints. These
constraints need to be resolved efficiently in order to arrive at a cost-effective solution.

This thesis summarises the results of detailed investigations by the author involving
actual offshore engineering projects. The thesis first reviews the lift criteria adopted in
the offshore industry. The key practical considerations for selection of appropriate
crane barges, rigging components are discussed. The algorithms and formulations for
rigging systems with various number of lift points are then presented.

Practical considerations for module and jacket lifts are investigated. For deck panel
flip-over operation, the force distribution between two hooks which varies with
changing module inclined angle, is calculated consistently. Lifting procedures and
rigging systems with multiple spreader bars for Floating Production Storage &
Offloading (FPSO) modules are also studied. Emphasis is given to the design and
analysis of lifting unique components to meet the stringent installation requirements.

The thesis is reports on a versatile spreader frame design which incorporates a
combination of padeye and lifting trunnions. Detailed finite element modelling and
analysis are conducted to analyze the lifting module and padeye connection. It is found
that finite element analysis can provide important detailed stress distributions and
limits for safety verification of lift components.

iv

Nomenclature/Abbreviation

A - Cross Sectional Area
AISC - American Institute Steel Construction
API - American Petroleum Institute
CoG - Centre of Gravity
CRBL - Calculated Rope Breaking Load
CGBL - Calculated Grommet Breaking Load
D - Pin Hole Diameter of Padeye
DAF - Dynamic Amplification Factors
DB - Derrick crane Barge
Dh - Pin Diameter of Shackle
DNV - Det Norske Veritas
E - Modulus of elasticity of Steel
Eb - the sling bend efficiency (reduction) factor
Et - Efficiency of termination method
FEM - Finite Element Method
FEA - Finite Element Analysis
FPSO - Floating Production Storage and Offloading
Fb - Allowable bending stress
Ft - Allowable Tensile stress
Fy - Material Yield stress
Fu - Steel Tensile strength
Fv - Allowable shear Stress
G - Shear Modulus of elasticity of Steel

v

H
4
- height of hook block above module (without spreader structure), or
height of spreader above module (with spreader)
H
5
- height of hook block above spreader (with spreader), or,
=0 (without spreader)
HSE - Health and Safety Executive
Ix, Iy - Moment of Inertia
Lh - Inside Length of Shackle
L
i
- length of ith sling
MBL - Minimum Breaking Load
MWS - Marine Warranty Surveyor
Rai - ith Cheek plate Radius of Padeye
Rm - Main plate Radius of Padeye
SACS - Structural Analysis Computer System
SDL - Sling Design Load
SSCVs - Semi-Submersible Crane Vessels
Sx, Sy - Sectional Modulars
SWL - Safe Working Load
T - Static Sling Load
Tci - ith Cheek plate thichness of Padeye
Th - Crane Hook Load
Tm - Main plate thichness of Padeye
Wh - Jaw width of shackle
W
h
, L
h
- the width and length of hook block
W
m
, L
m
, H
m
- the width, length and height of module, respectively
W
sp
, L
sp
- width and length of spreader

vi

WLL - Shackle Working Load Limit
d - Sling rope diameter
fb - Actual bending stress
fc - Actual Combined stress
f
cog -
COG shift factor
ft - Actual Tensile stress
fv - Actual shear Stress
x
c
, y
c
- location of the centre of gravity of module in local coordinate system
i
- angle of sling with respect to the horizontal plane
g
- Punching strength

vii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Lifting Criteria comparison - Single Crane Lift
Table 2.2 Lifting Criteria comparison - Double hook Lift
Table 2.3 Dynamic Amplification Factors
Table 3.1 Some of Heavy Lifting Crane Vessels in the World
Table 3.2 Shackle Side Loading Reduction
For Screw Pin and Safety Shackles Only

Table 4.1 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main or jib hook block without spreader)

(using main or jib hook block with spreader structure)

(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time )

Table 4.4 Formulations for rigging configurations with six lift points
(using main or jib hook block )

(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time)

Table 4.6 Formulations for the rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main or jib hook block at a time )

Table 4.7 Formulations for rigging configurations with eight lift points

Table 7.1 Lifting Operation Summary for Laminaria FPSO
Table 7.2 Contingency Actions Plan / Procedure
Table 7.3 Preparation Check List
Table 7.4 Loadout Check List

Table 7.5 Installation Check List
Table 8.1 Weight and COG data

Table 8.2 Total Weight and COG

viii

Table 8.3 Member Analysis Result Summary

Table 9.1 Load factor used for lifting analysis
Table 9.2 Design value of material parameter
Table 9.3 Sample of Member Group Properties
Table 9.4 Sample of SACS Section Properties
Table 9.5 Sample of SACS Plate Group Properties
Table 9.6 Sample of SACS Plate Stiffener Properties
Table 9.7 SACS Loading Summary

Table 9.8 Sample of SACS Loading ID and Description

Table 9.9 Type of Support Constraints and Member Releases

Table 9.10 SACS Load Combinations

Table 9.11 Sample of 75% Lifting Weight Factor

Table 9.12 SACS Combined Load Summation

Table 9.13 Support Reactions

Table 9.14 Spring Reaction

Table 9.15 Sample of SACS Member Stress Listing

Table 9.16 Joint Stress Ratio Listing

Table 9.17 Sling Force Summary

Table 9.18 Dimensions and length of each tubular member
Table 9.19 Maximum stress (MPa) of each case
Table 9.20 Maximum stress (MPa) for braces
Table A.1 Member forces coming out from SACS analysis

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Thesis Organizations Vs Contents of Study
Figure 2.1 Centre of gravity (COG) shift
Figure 3.1 Lifting Equipment and Components
Figure 3.2 Saipem S7000 SSCV 14000 ton Capacity
Figure 3.3 Sheerleg Crane Vessel Asian Hercules II : 3200 ton Capacity
Figure 3.4 Derrick Barge Crane Thialf : 14200 ton Capacity
Figure 3.5 Derrick Lifting Barge DB101: 3150 ton Capacity
Figure 3.6 Samples of Some Shackles (Green Pin and Crosby)
Figure 3.7 Sling Forming & Cross Section
Figure 3.8 Sling Configuration
Figure 3.9 Actual usage of Slings
Figure 3.10 Lift point connections- Padeye and Trunnion
Figure 3.11 Fabricated Lifting Padeye
Figure 3.12 Actual fabricated Lifting Trunnion
Figure 3.13 Details of a Typical Padeye
Figure 4.1 Determination of rigging configuration: tasks, inputs and outputs
Figure 4.2 Rigging configuration for four-lift-point sling systems -
using main or jib hook block without spreader

Figure 4.3 Rigging configurations for four-lift-point sling systems -
using main or jib hook block and spreaders

Figure 4.4a Rigging configuration for four-lift-point sling systems -
using main and jib hook blocks and spreader bars

Figure 4.4b Hook load distribution for four-lift-point sling systems -
using both main and jib hook blocks

Figure 4.5a Rigging configuration for six-lift-point sling system -
using main or jib hook block with spreader frame

x

Figure 4.5b Sling tensions for six-lift-point sling system -

Figure 4.6a Rigging configuration for six-lift-point sling system -

Figure 4.6b Hook load distribution for six-lift-point sling systems -

Figure 4.7a Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system -
using main or jib hook block without spreader frame

Figure 4.7b Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system -
using main or jib hook block with two parallel spreader bars

Figure 4.7c Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system -

Figure 4.8a Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system -

Figure 4.8b Hook load distribution for eight-lift-point sling systems -

Figure 5.1 Vertical Lifting of Jacket
Figure 5.2a Horizontal Lifting of Jacket
Loadout operation at Fabrication Yard (2800ton)

Figure 5.2b Horizontal Lifting of Jacket
Dual Crane Lifting a Tripod Jacket (6200 ton)

Figure 5.2c Horizontal Lifting of Jacket
Dual lift of a Jacket from transportation barge

Figure 5.3 ISO View of lifting horizontal Jacket (3150ton)

Figure 6.1 Deck Panel Stacking in progress
Figure 6.2 Computer Model for Deck Panel Flip-over
Figure 6.3 Deck Panel 180 Degree Flip Over
Figure 6.4 Module Lifting Four Sling Arrangement
Figure 6.5 Module Installation One Lifting Bar Arrangement
Figure 6.6 Module Lifting Two Bars System
Figure 6.7 Module Lifting Three Bars System

xi

Figure 6.8 Lifting with a spreader frame
Figure 6.9 Multi-Tier Rigging System

Figure 6.10 Tendem Lift of a Module
Figure 7.1 Rigging arrangement for lifting FPSO modules with spreader bars
Figure 7.2 Lifting of Lower Turret (680 ton)
Figure 7.3 Lifting of Upper Turret -
Manifold Deck Structure with Three Spreader Bars
Figure 7.4 Lifting of Upper Turret Gantry Structure
Figure 7.5 Lifting of Swivel Stack Bottom Assembly
Figure 7.6 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module
Figure 7.7 Upending and Lifting of 92-metre Flare Tower
Figure 8.1 Lifting Frame Details

Figure 9.1 Computer Lifting Model Plot
Figure 9.2 COG Shift of Module during Lifting

Figure 9.3 Jacket Loadout arrangement

Figure 9.4 Upending process of Jacket
Figure 9.5 Jacket positions for the four load cases
Figure 9.6 Configuration of Joint 164
Figure 9.7 Boundary conditions for the FE model
Figure 9.8 Finite element mesh
Figure 9.9 1
st
-principal stress contour of load case D
Figure 9.10 Local view of Von Mises stress contour of load case D

xii

Figure A.1 Load conditions
Figure A.2 Stress distribution for the braces of load case A
Figure A.3 Stress distribution for the braces of load case B
Figure A.4 Stress distribution for the braces of load case C
Figure A.5 Stress distribution for the braces of load case D

1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Heavy lifts are frequently carried out during the fabrication and/or installation of major
offshore components and structures, such as welded girder beams, tubular columns,
deck panels, sub-assemblies, flares, bridges and completed jackets / modules. Without
heavy lifting equipment, offshore steel platforms cannot be built effectively.

For an offshore platform, the issue of final installation of the completed jacket /
topside is considered as early as the conceptual study stage. The major determining
factor is availability of heavy lift crane vessel around the region. Heavier structures
can be fabricated if a lager crane vessel is selected for the project. Many topside
structures are split into several modules instead of an integrated deck structure due to
non-availability of sufficient lifting capacity of heavy offshore crane barge in the
region or at required time window schedule.

Offshore hook-up and commissioning costs are very high as compared to those for the
same work performed onshore. This has led to the fabrication of very large modules,
where the intention is to minimize hook-up associated with connecting modules
together offshore.

The great advancement of offshore technology during the last 30 years was largely due
to the development of very heavy lift equipment. Thirty years ago, a 1000 ton module
would be considered a very heavy lift, while the biggest crane barge in the world at
that time could hardly lift 2000 tons at the required lifting radius. In South East Asia,
the biggest crane barge available in the region at the time was only around 600 tons.

2
Nowadays, a semi-submersible derrick barge can lift a structure up to 12,000 tons.

In the recent past, a 10,000 ton jacket in the North Sea would have to be launched.
Using present day equipment, the same jacket can now be lift-installed by a semi-
submersible crane barge which has two cranes. In most cases, lift-installed jacket is
more cost-effective. In South East Asia, jackets and decks are getting larger and
heavier, with the largest jacket to-date around 10,000 tons and the largest deck around
11,500 tons. Single lift installation can be a very attractive cost alternative. For
platform decommissioning or removal, it may be possible to use a crane barge to pick
up the old deck and old jacket. It may be appropriate to mention that the Offshore
Industry would not have developed to what it is today without all the heavy lift
equipment developed over the last 30 years.

For fabrication of offshore structures, the method which was first developed in the
United States more than 40 year ago is quite different from other industries. Offshore
structures are usually first fabricated in small units. After fabrication, these will be
moved to an open area for assembly. Offshore contractors tend to do as much work as
possible on the ground to minimize work in the air. This method is productivity driven.
In fabrication, one can do a much better and faster job on the ground and in a weather
protected workshop. This fabrication technique means that there are a lot of heavy
lifting operations in the yard as compared to typical onshore building construction.
Before all the sub-units are assembled, these may need to go through many lifting
operations, such as, roll up, stacking, flipping, etc. Each lift by itself could be more
than one thousand tons. In this type of fabrication technique, there are a lot of

3
opportunities for errors. Safety and accident prevention should thus be considered in
the design stage.

For offshore installation, major cost savings can be achieved if the structure can be
installed in one piece. For integration of topside modules, it can save significant
offshore hook-up time. For jacket, the cost of fabricating launch trusses can be
eliminated. A heavier lift requires a larger crane barge. It is a very high premium to
pay for the rental of a big derrick barge, especially if none is available in the area and it
has to be mobilized from elsewhere. A large capacity crane is an expensive equipment
and crane usage is normally considered as part of the overhead cost for fabrication
yards. Usually the cost is included in the fabrication tonnage rate. It will normally
involve fewer people to operate a crane onshore. For offshore installation, a crane
barge usually has only one big crane, except for larger semi-submersible derrick
barges which can accommodate two cranes side-by-side. When a derrick crane barge is
mobilized for an offshore installation project which includes hook-up and
commissioning, it will have 200 to 300 workers/engineers on board. The cost is
extremely high. Some of the semi-submersible derrick barges have accommodation
capacity for more than 700 men. In addition, the client will also need to pay for
mobilization and demobilization costs. Depending on location, these costs could be
millions of dollars. To design a structure to suit the installation contractor is certainly
an excellent way to minimise cost.

For a typical project, the offshore portion accounts for around 30% of the total project
cost. The question that comes to everyone's mind is how to reduce this number and be
more competitive. One of the solutions is to reduce offshore hook-up time. This means

4
that one should make the lift of a structure as heavy as possible and with few lifts as
necessary. However, one should be extremely careful in interpreting this statement.
The project may not be cheap if one has to mobilize a big derrick barge from far away
supply base. It could also be expensive if it requires two barges to do the lift and the
other barge has to be mobilized from elsewhere. Making a single heavy lift to
minimize hook up time or to eliminate the launch trusses is an excellent idea provided
we have the right equipment at a reasonable price and at the right time.

For FPSO module installation, there are normally 20 to 30 heavy lifts. The need to
design a common rigging system to suit different configurations, weights and centres
of gravity is a challenge to all designers. Since it is usually impossible to have a
common rigging system for all lifts, the designer needs to minimize the number of
rigging changes to reduce the schedule associated with heavy lifts for the planned
installation sequence.

5
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Present Study
As indicated in Section 1.1, heavy lifts in major offshore projects are required to be
conducted safely and cost-effectively. It is always a challenge for a structural design
engineer to produce an optimized design for both the lifted structure and lifting rigging
system for use with the selected crane barge that will lead to cost savings. The author
has been involved in some major offshore projects which required considerations for
alternative designs and detailed analysis for different structural schemes for heavy lift.
The author is thus motivated to investigate the inter-related engineering and fabrication
issues and to document the findings in this thesis.

The two key objectives of the research study are:
Investigate lifting schemes which can provide cost-effective solutions and safe
operations for heavy lift installation of structures, and
Evaluate selected rigging systems with different spreader and lift point
arrangements to provide guidelines for heavy lift design.

The scope of the present study can be summarized as follows:
To study the current design codes for lift design and highlight key
considerations for heavy lift;
To evaluate heavy lift rigging systems which involve different crane barges and
lifted structures with associated spreader arrangement and consistent lift point
combinations. Practical issues involved in actual projects, especially for lift
installation of jackets, offshore decks and modules for FPSO (Floating
Production Storage and Offloading) vessel will be investigated.
To investigate global structural responses of lifted structures and detailed stress

6
conditions of the lift point through finite element analyses.
To document the findings on heavy lift in the thesis for future reference by
designers and engineers.

7
1.3 Organisation of Thesis

Figure 1.1 summarises the organisation and contents of the thesis.

Following the introduction, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 provide a thorough review and
discussion of current design codes and standards used in heavy lift. The discussion
covers the codes and recommendations from API - RP2A (2000), DNV Marine
Operations Part 2 - Recommended Practice RP5 Lifting (1996), Phillips Petroleum
(1989), Heerema (1991), Noble Denton & Associates (NDA) (1996), Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) (1992) and Shell (1990).

Lifting equipment and components, including details on crane vessel/barge, slings,
shackles and lift points are discussed in Chapter 3. Lift points are the locations where
large sling tensions are transmitted to the lifted module structure. Lift points should be
properly selected to allow sling tensions to smoothly transfer to strong structural
members. Two common types of lift points which connect rigging systems to module
structures are padeyes and trunnions. With appropriate factored sling tensions, slings
and shackles can be selected from available sling and shackle lists (inventories) or
ordered from suppliers. It has always been the focus of the design codes to provide
consistent safety factors for the lift components within a rigging system for heavy lift.

An appropriate rigging system includes available lift points (strong points in the
module structure), available slings in inventory, spreader structure (bar or frame) and
hook block(s) of the crane barge. In actual rigging arrangement, the sling system can
involve four, six, eight or more lift points, and spreader bar or frame may be used to

8
protect the module from significant compressive forces or possible damage. Chapter 4
summarises the investigation into the algorithms and formulations to determine the
configurations of rigging sling systems, which are affected by the location of lift
points, length of slings and geometry of spreader and hook block. The hook block(s)
involved in a particular rigging system can be one (main or jib hook) or two (both
main and jib) at a time. Emphasis is placed on the determination of the critical
geometrical quantities of the rigging system including the sling angles with respect to
the horizontal plane and the distances between the module, spreader structure and hook
blocks. This chapter also serves as a theoretical basis of the following three chapters
which focus on practical issues in lift design of real projects, of which author was
involved as project manager or engineer.

Chapters 5, 6, and 7 discuss the practical considerations in lift design and operations
for jacket, modules and modules for FPSO (Floating Production Storage and
Offloading). A special design for a lifting frame is proposed and analyzed in Chapter
8.

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is widely accepted in almost all engineering
disciplines. A finite element model can represent and analyse a detailed structural
component with greater precision than conventional simplified hand calculations. This
is because the actual shape, load and constraints, as well as material property can be
specified with much greater accuracy than that used in hand calculations. Chapter 9
discusses finite element approaches in heavy lift design and analysis. Two important
lift applications, for living quarter module lifting and padeye connection for heavy lift,
are investigated and reported in this chapter.

9

Finally, conclusions and general discussions are given in Chapter 10.

Structures
to Be Lifted
Evaluation of Design
Criteria
(Chapter 2)
Equipment Selection and
Component Design
(Chapter 3)
Rigging Theory and
Formulations
(Chapter 4)
Theory and Knowledge
Scopes for Design and Analysis
Rigging System Lift Points Lift Operation
Jacket Lifting
(Chapter 5)
Module Lifting
(Chapter 6)
FPSO Structure Lifting
(Chapter 7)
Applications
Lifting Frame Design
(Chapter 8)
FEM Analysis for Lifting System
(Chapter 9)

Special Case
Considerations
Figure 1.1 Thesis organization and contents of the thesis

10

CHAPTER 2 LIFTING CRITERIA

2.1 Review of Various Lifting Criteria
There are several lifting criteria and specifications written specifically for offshore
heavy lift, including API-RP2A (2000), DNV Marine Operation Part 2 Recommended
Practice RP5 (1996), Phillips Petroleum (1989), Heerema (1991), Noble Denton &
Associates (NDA) (1996), Health and Safety Executive UK (HSE) (1992) and Shell
(1990). Amongst these criteria, some of these are either not updated or strictly for in-
house use. Only the API, DNV and HSE codes are easily available to the general
public. The API codes are the oldest and the most well established in the Offshore
Industry. The HSE recommendation deals with cable laid slings and grommets in
detail, but it does not address other lifting system or factors such as dynamic
amplification, weight growth, etc. This recommendation should be used in conjunction
with other codes. The DNV code is the most comprehensive and is widely used in the
North Sea.

For South-East Asia, the most commonly accepted criterion is still the API-RP2A
(2000) with a number of modifications to cater for weight inaccuracy etc. The original
lifting criterion in the API RP2A (2000) was written mostly by engineers working in
the Gulf of Mexico. The document was intended for those lifts performed in the area.
Over the years, the code expanded and received acceptance as a worldwide standard.
Although these criteria are written primarily for offshore lift, they can also be adopted
for onshore lift with minor modifications. In fact, this has been done for many years.

11

During the performance of the lift, there will be dynamic loads induced by the action
of the waves on the crane vessel and the cargo barge. These loads are conventionally
allowed for by the application of Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF) to the static
load in the hooks and slings. Typical value of DAF, as used at present in relation to
Semi-Submersible Crane Vessels (SSCVs), is about 1.10 for slings in offshore
operations. This will be in addition to any quasi-static changes in the hook and sling
loads associated with the load transfer.

A second category of dynamic loads exists. This is associated with the action of
slewing the crane or of starting or stopping the hook as it is being raised or lowered.
These loads are normally allowed for in the specification of the safe working load
(SWL) of the crane. It should be recognized that the skill of the crane operator can
have a significant effect in reducing these forces. Also, but to a lesser extent, his
expertise will help to prevent the build-up of dynamic oscillations induced by the
waves.

Some extensive analyses of the dynamics of the lift have been carried out by using
SSCVs. In most cases, actual SSCV /module/ cargo barge combinations and rigging
geometries with predicted COG (Centre of Gravity) positions have been used. The
dynamic analyses drew attention to a number of interesting results as follows:

It was found that increasing the barge draught tended to decrease the DAF in
short period sea states.

12

When the module was on the barge with the slings tensioned, there was a
spread of natural periods from 3-8 s. Hence, there were both significant
dynamic effects and considerable scatter in the results.
The DAFs were generally worse in beam seas (i.e., beam onto the barge).
The DAFs were less for the heavier modules.
The sling load DAFs were in general larger than the hook load DAFs.
The DAFs were quite low, while the module was freely suspended. There
would be some advantage in picking a module off the crane vessel's own deck
rather than off a cargo barge.

The distinction between beam and head sea DAF was sufficiently marked to allow
recommended DAFs for head seas to be significantly less than for beam seas.

13

2.2 Practical Considerations for Standard Rigging Design

This section discusses the design requirements for the selection and design of heavy
lift rigging as given by Shell.

2.2.1. Sling Design Loads (SDL)
Standard 4 point Lifts for the Jacket or Deck
The sling design load (SDL) is based on the factored lift weight, with the individual
sling loads being determined from DNV Marine Operation, Part 2 Recommended
Practice RP5 Lifting. The procedure to be used is summarized below:

a) Distribute the lift weight to the lifting points, adopting the factored lift weight
based on the factors presented in the weight control engineering.

b) Increase each individual lifting point load by 10% to account for inaccuracy in
the calculation of the centre of gravity.

c) Further increase each individual lifting point load to account for the Dynamic
Amplification Factors given in Cable Laid and grommets Guidance Note PM
20, Health and Safety Executive - see Table 2.3.

d) Further increase each individual lifting point load by the skew load distribution
factor of 1.25 as recommended in DNV RP5, which primarily accounts for
different sling stiffness and lengths than theoretically assumed.

14

e) Calculate the sling load accounting for the angle the sling makes with the
horizontal, including allowance for component tilt. This sling angle should not
be below 55 at any point for level lifts.

As an example, the SDL for a 500 tonne (factored) lift, evenly distributed to 4 points,
offshore, with a 60 sling angle would be:

tonnes SDL 2 . 238
60 sin 4
25 . 1 2 . 1 1 . 1 500
=

= (2.1)

2.2.2 Shackle Design Loads
These loads may be calculated as for the slings, but can be decreased by the sling
factored weight above the shackle point.

2.2.3 Lift Point Design Loads
This is primarily to determine adequate rigging sizes. For the design of the structure
and lift points (padeyes), design loads should be based on the structural analysis
requirements.

SDL is used to determine the sling, or grommet size. The governing design criteria is
given in HSE, which sets out the basis for the design criteria listed below and has been
developed for heavy lift slings of diameter 100mm and above, where the rope is not
usually tested to destruction, and which would normally be required for deck, module
and jacket lifts.

15

Individual Slings (Single Slings)
a) At the sling eye,
Minimum Calculated Rope Breaking Load,

CRBL =
b E
SDL 55 . 0 25 . 2
(2.2)
Note: the 0.55 factor allows for uneven distribution of the sling load to each leg of the sling
eye due to friction.
CRBL = the sum of the individual minimum breaking loads of the core and outer unit
ropes of the sling multiplied by a 0.85 spinning loss factor (HSE).
E
b
= the sling bend efficiency (reduction) factor
= 1-
5 . 0
) D/d (
5 . 0
(2.2a)
D = minimum diameter around which the sling is bent
d = cable laid rope diameter
Note: D should preferably always exceed d to avoid sling load de-rating.

b) At the sling termination,
Minimum CRBL =
t
E
SDL 25 . 2
(2.3)
Where, E
t
= Efficiency of termination method = 0.75 for hand splices, 0.95 for
mechanical, or swaged splices and 1.0 for resin poured sockets.

Doubled slings
Where slings are doubled around the shackle and/or the lifting hook of the crane,
effectively halving the sling length, the equations given in a), b), are modified as
follows:

16

c) At the sling eye,

Minimum CRBL =
b E
SDL 55 . 0 25 . 2
(2.4)
d) At the sling termination,

Minimum CRBL =
t
E
SDL 55 . 0 25 . 2
(2.5)

e) At the sling bend,
Minimum CRBL =
t
E
SDL 55 . 0 25 . 2
(2.6)

Individual Grommets
Grommets sling may be sized as follows:

f) Minimum Calculated Grommet Breaking Load,
Minimum CGBL =
b
E
SDL 1 . 1 25 . 2
(2.7)

Doubled Grommets

g) Minimum Calculated Grommet Breaking Load,
Minimum CGBL =
b
xE
SDL
2
1 . 1 25 . 2
(2.8)

17

2.2.4 Shackle Sizing

The sizing of shackles is much simpler than slings and can be based on the following:

Minimum Shackle Working Load Limit, WLL = Sling Design Load, SDL

Note: The WLL is usually quoted by the major shackle Manufacturers, e.g. Crosby
Group, and should be taken as analogous to the safe working load. The WLL is usually
based on a ratio of ultimate strength to WLL of not less than 4 for shackles above 200
tonnes WLL. Should any Manufacturer quote WLL's based on a lower factor, the WLL
should be derated accordingly. Higher ratios between ultimate strength and WLL are
normally adopted for shackles below 200 tonnes capacity, however in these cases the
WLL must not be increased above the Manufacturer's quoted values.

Shackle to Shackle Connection

It is often necessary to make up long sling lengths using 2 slings joined together with a
shackle/shackle connection, usually by joining pin/pin. This is acceptable and no
derating of the shackle is required.

Side Loads on Shackles

Shackle WLL's are quoted for sling loads in line with the shackle i.e. at right angles to
the pin. Should the lift configuration result in side loading, not perpendicular to the pin
shackle, de-rating as recommended by the Manufacturer is necessary. To avoid side

18

loading during the lifting, it is necessary to ensure a close fit-up between the inside of
the shackle jaws and the padeye main, or cheek plates. The width of the main/cheek
plate combination should preferably exceed 0.8 times of the jaw width.

In certain circumstances, the shackle available far exceeds the design requirement for
the width of the main/cheek plate combination. In such cases, this width can be
reduced to one half of the jaw width by adopting non-load bearing centralisers between
the padeye and shackle jaw to ensure an in-line lift.

2.2.5 Tilt during Lifting

Decks and modules

Matched sling pairs should be used to limit the tilt of the module, or deck, to less than
2 in either the transverse or longitudinal direction, or less than 3 in diagonal
direction, whichever is less. Where, due to excessive eccentricity of the package
centroid, the tilt exceeds this value, the lengths of the sling pairs should be altered
accordingly.

Lifting of the jacket off the barge

Sling lengths for side lifting of the jacket off the barge deck, at the offshore location,
should preferably be selected so that the barge deck and the jacket framing interface
remain parallel during the lift off. This avoids possible damage due to the jacket being

19

impacted as it is raised off the barge sea-fastenings and it also provides more clearance
between the hook and the boom sheave.

FPSO Module Lifts

For installation of fabricated modules onto FPSO, in most cases, there will be a
specific requirement in which one of the support legs is required to be settled down
first. This will require the detailed sling calculation to ensure module tilt to the touch-
down corner.

Other Lifts

For certain operations, specific tilt angles may be required to allow safe
lifting/installation as would apply when installing a bridge between two platforms.

2.2.6 COG Shift Factor

Possible Centre of Gravity (COG) shift shall be accounted for by applying a COG shift
factor (f
cog
) to all assigned weights in the load combinations. f
cog
is calculated for the
support point most sensitive to shift in COG, and applied equally for the whole
structure.

The COG from the analyses shall be used in the calculations of the COG shift.

20

f
cog
factor shall be calculated as follows:
05 . 1
+
+
=
b
b d
b
a d
f
y x
cog (2.9)

where, as shown in Figure 2.1, a and b are the distances between analysis COG and
nearest footing in x and y directions and d
x
and d
y
are the distances between the
position of maximum shifted COG and analysis COG in x and y direction,
respectively.

21

2.3 Summary
Lifting criteria and sling specifications in practice are first reviewed in this chapter.
These codes include API-RP2A (2000), Det Norske Veritas (DNV) RP-5, Phillips
Petroleum, Heerema, Noble Denton & Associates (NDA), HSE and Shell. API, DNV
and HSE codes are easily available to the general public. The API codes are the oldest
and the most well established in the offshore industry.

Practical considerations for standard rigging design are discussed in detail. The
practical and important considerations in rigging design are
Sling Design Loads (SDL),
Shackle Design Loads,
Lift Point Design Loads,
Shackle Sizing,
Tilt during Lifting and
COG Shift Factor.

22

Table 2.2 Lifting Criteria comparison - Double hook Lift
Noble LOC Heerema Chevron BP Amoco
Denton
Range of Module Weight >2500 >1000 >2500 >2500 >8000 >2500
1 A. Weight Factor (Pre-AFC) 1.125 1.15 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.15
2 B. DAF (Slings) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
3 C. CG Shift factor 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.08 1.05
4 D. Tilt factor 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
5 E. Yaw factor 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05
6 F. Torsion factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10
7 G. Skew factor 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00
8 H = A x B x C x D x E x F x G 1.38 1.58 1.44 1.64 1.55 1.58
9 I. Rigging weight factor 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.00
10 J. Lift point design factor 1.35 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.25 1.35
11 K. Load member design factor 1.15 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.10 1.15
12 L. Sling Design = (H x I) 1.42 1.63 1.48 1.68 1.59 1.58
13 M. Lift point Design = (H x J) 1.86 1.58 1.58 2.13 1.93 2.13
14 N. Load member design = (H x K) 1.59 1.58 1.58 1.88 1.70 1.82
The overall lift point design factor (K) from API RP 2A (2000) is 2.00.
Table 2.1 Lifting Criteria comparison - Single Crane Lift
Noble DnV Heerama Shell BP Oxy Amoco Chevron
Denton
Range of Module Weight >2500 >2500 >2500 >1000 >2500 >2500 >2500 >2500
1 A. Weight Factor (Pre-AFC) 1.125 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
2 B. DAF (Slings) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
3 C. Skew load factor 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50
4 D. CG Shift factor 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00
5 E. Tilt factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05
6 F = A x B x C x D x E 1.62 1.51 1.90 1.99 1.90 1.90 1.66 1.99
7 G. Rigging weight factor 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
8 H. Lift point design factor 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.30 1.30 1.30
9 I. Load member design factor 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.15
10 J. Sling Design = (F x G) 1.67 1.56 1.95 2.05 1.95 1.95 1.71 2.05
11 K. Lift point Design = (F x H) 2.19 2.04 1.90 1.99 2.37 2.47 2.16 2.59
12 L. Load member design = (F x I) 1.87 1.74 1.90 1.99 2.09 2.18 1.91 2.29
The overall lift point design factor (K) from API RP 2A (2000) is 2.00.

Table 2.3 Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF)
Design (factored)
Lift Weight (tonne)
<100 100 to 1000 >1000
DAF Offshore 1.30 1.20 1.10
DAF Inshore 1.15 1.10 1.05

23

X
Y
b
dx
d
y
a
Design envelope
Max. COG shift
Analysis COG
Support location

Figure 2.1 : Centre of Gravity (COG) Shift

24

CHAPTER 3 HEAVY LIFTING EQUIPMENT AND
COMPONENTS

3.1 Introduction

As shown in Figure 3.1, crane vessel, rigging components including shackles, slings
and grommets and lift point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are basic
considerations in heavy lift design.

The crane barge is the most expensive piece of equipment and the most important
member in lift operation as well. The safety of the crane barge during lift operations is
the first consideration for both crane barge owner and client. The characteristics of the
crane barge also constrain the rigging arrangement and necessary reinforcement of the
module structure.

To safely pick up and install the module is the ultimate objective of carrying out a lift
operation. The module cannot be damaged or overstressed or distorted during lift.
Reinforcement is needed when the module is too flexible to withstand the load during
lift.

The rigging system is the only connection of module to crane vessel. The rigging
components include slings, spreader structure, shackles, padeyes (or trunnions) and
their arrangement. The selection or design of a rigging arrangement is dependent on
the barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and the
site parameters.

25

3.2 Heavy Lift Cranes

In the mid 1980s, the available lifting capacity was increased dramatically with the
introduction of the latest generation of Semi Submersible Crane Vessels (SSCVs):
S7000 (with up to 14000 ton capacity) in Figure 3.2 and DB102 (with up to 12000 ton
capacity). Coupled with the upgrading of the Heerema SSCVs, Balder and Hermod,
the availability of these vessels has led to development of lifted jacket concepts for
medium and deeper water and modules over 10000 ton in weight. Table 3.1 lists some
of heavy lifting crane vessels in the world.

Nowadays it is generally recognized that the application of large SSCVs, such as
McDermott's DB102 (12000 ton capacity) and Saipems S7000 (14000 ton capacity),
may reduce the costs of offshore installation work significantly, especially for large
integrated topsides and liftable jacket structures. The dynamic aspects of heavy lift
installations are to some extent yet unknown. However, the knowledge of these aspects
is essential to properly assess the feasibility and safety of heavy lift operations.

Both the lifting capacity and the installed lift weights have increased dramatically
during the past two decades. For a long time the available offshore crane capacity used
to be well ahead of the demand and did not impose any significant restrictions on the
weight and dimensions of lift-installed offshore platforms. In recent years, however,
the maximum available crane capacity of large SSCV's has become a limiting factor in
the design of integrated topsides and liftable jackets.

For example, the maximum dimensions of liftable jackets are effectively constrained
by the crane capacity and outreach of large SSCV's, as well as by minimum clearance

26

requirements between the jacket legs and the crane booms. In addition it has become
apparent that the dynamic aspects of large offshore installations should not be ignored
as these may seriously impact the feasibility, safety and schedule of lift operations.

In recognition of these tendencies, many experts has been active from an early stage
onwards in promoting the theoretical and practical development of offshore heavy lift
analyses as an integral consideration in the design of large liftable offshore structures.
The objectives of such analyses are three folds: firstly, given the large weights and
sizes of present day integrated topsides and liftable jackets, the extrapolation on the
basis of past experience is often not possible and unreliable, and therefore one wants to
be reassured beforehand that a proposed lift installation is technically feasible.
Secondly, it should be verified that a lift operation can be performed in a safe manner
without unacceptable risk to personnel involved or to the structure or the crane vessel.
Thirdly, an assessment of the workability (or weather downtime) of a lift operation is
required by project management when deciding on the installation time in relation to
the fabrication schedule. Moreover it may be of interest to establish whether the
workability is determined by factors under the control of the engineering design
project team or of the installation contractor.

In an actual project, the choice between an integrated deck or split modules can be
difficult. The split module concept is to separate the integrated deck into smaller
pieces called modules, by splitting the integrated deck in vertical or horizontal
directions, which can be easily lifted by smaller crane vessel (with lower cost), but
result in higher offshore hook-up cost. Besides using a larger crane vessel to install
the integrated deck, Float-over method is also used for installation of heavy deck
without weight limitation. The float-over method will not be discussed in this thesis.

27

3.2.1 Crane Vessel Types

In general, the floating crane lift vessel can be classified into two main groups:
A) Sheer Leg Crane, like Asian Hercules II in Figure 3.3.
Advantages
- Less draft for access in-shore shallow water area
- Smaller in barge size, easy maneuvers
- Economic saving
Disadvantages
- Non swivel of crane boom
- Offshore lifting limitation
B) Derrick Crane Barge (or SSCVs)
This group can be further classified into two types:
Type I Facilitated with dual crane booms, such as S7000 in Figure 3.2 & Thialf
in Figure 3.4.
Type II Single crane boom, like DB30, DB50 & DB101 as shown in Figure 3.5
Advantages of Derrick Barge
- Swivel of crane boom, more lifting flexibility
- More suitable to offshore lifting operation
- Bigger barge size, more stability
Disadvantages
- Deep draft for not able to access in-shore shallow water area
- Big barge size, not easy maneuvers

28

3.2.2 Frequently Used Crane Vessels

Sheer Leg Floating Crane Asian Hercules II
Asian Hercules II, as shown in Figure 3.3, is a self-propelled lifting vessel that
has a maximum hoisting capacity of 3200 ton. The crane structure comprises
mainly an A-frame and jib.

The A-Frame can be skidded along fixed tracks on deck into three different
working positions:
Position 1 : Located at 5.2 m from forward of vessel
The general specifications are as below:
Length (overall) : 91.00 m
Breadth moulded : 43.00 m
Depth moulded : 8.50 m
Max. /Min draft : 5.00/2.40 m
Gross tonnage : 10560 tons
Net tonnage : 3168 tons
Displacement : 16500 tons (even keel)
Speed : 7 knots (12.97 km/hr)
Deck loading : 15 ton/m
The crane structure has been designed based on the following criteria:
Harbour condition:
Wind speed : 20 m/s
Current : 3 Knots
Offshore condition:
Wind speed : 20 m/s
Current : 5 Knots
Max. sig. wave height : Hs = 1m

29

Derrick Barge Thialf
Thialf, as shown in Figure 3.4, is the largest Deepwater Construction Vessel
(DCV) operated by Heerema Marine Contractors and is capable of a tandem lift
of 14,200 ton. The dual cranes provide for depth reach lowering capability as
well as heavy lift capacity to set topsides. This multi-functional dynamic
positioned DCV is tailored for the installation of foundations, moorings,
SPAR's, Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs) and integrated topsides, as well as
pipelines and flowlines.
Main dimensions as below,
Length overall 201.6m
Length of vessel 165.3m
Breadth 88.4m
Depth to work deck 49.5m
Draught 11.8-31.6m
GRT 136,709 ton
NRT 41,012 ton
Deck load capacity 15 mT/square metre
Total deck load capacity 12,000 mT
Transit speed with 12,000 tons deck load 6 knots at 12.5 metres (43.6 ft) draft.
Ballast pump capacity 20,800 cubic metre/hour

PORTSIDE or STARBOARD CRANE
Main hoist revolving 7,043 ton up to 31.2 m (102 ft)
Auxiliary hoist 900 ton at 36.0 - 79.2 m (120 - 260 ft)
Whip hoist 198 ton at 41.0 - 129.5 m (134 - 425 ft)

30

Derrick Barge DB101
DB101, as shown in Figure 3.5, has the following details:
Main Dimensions:
LOA 146.3 m (480 ft)
Beam 51.9 m (170.3 ft)
Depth 36.6 m (120 ft)
Working Draft Min. 7.5m (24.6 ft), 23.5m (Max. 77 ft)
Clear Deck: 43,000 sq. ft.
Tonnage: Gross 52,313, Net 15,693

Cranes
Main Crane: IHC E-3500
Boom Length:
Main 67.0m (219.75 ft)
Aux. 97.33m (319.33 ft)
Whip 104.2m (341.75 ft)
Hook Capacity:
Main 2,430 ton (2,700 stons) @ 66 - 78 ft. (Revolving),
3,150 ton (3,500 stons) @ 66 - 78 ft. (Tied Back),
540 ton (600 stons) @ 115 - 279 ft. (Aux.) &
135 ton (150 stons) @ 350.0 ft. (Whip)
Deck Cranes: 83 ton (92 stons) @ 25 ft.

31

3.3 Heavy Lift Shackles

Shackles are used in lifting and static systems as removable links to connect wire rope,
chain and other fittings. The shackles used most commonly in industry are
manufactured by two groups, namely Green Pin and Crosby as shown in Figure 3.6.

The wide range of shackle sizes provides choices to designer, with the working load
limit from 0.5 ton to 1200 ton. The shackles are mostly used to connect sling to padeye
on the lifting components. However, the shackles can also be utilized to adjust
(increase) a particular sling length in a set of slings.

Design
The theoretical reserve capability of carbon / alloy shackles should be as a minimum 5
to 1. Known as the DESIGN FACTOR, it is usually computed by dividing the catalog
ultimate load by the working load limit. The ultimate load is the average load or force
at which the product fails or no longer supports the load. The working load limit is the
maximum force which the product is authorized to support in general service. The
design factor is generally expressed as a ratio such as 5 to 1. Also important to the
design of shackles is the selection of proper steel to support fatigue, ductility and
impact properties.

Type & Applications
- Screw pin shackles are mainly used for non-permanent applications.
- Bolt-type shackles are preferably used for long term or permanent
applications and in circumstances where the pin of the shackle may
rotate during loading.

32

- Chain shackles are used mainly on one-leg systems.
- Anchor shackles on multi-leg systems.

Shackle Material
The following are the common materials used for shackle manufacturing:
Mild steel, untreated, which is comparable to ISO Grade 3;
High tensile steel, untreated or normalized, which is comparable to ISO Grade 4;
High tensile steel, quenched and tempered, which is comparable to ISO Grade 6;
Alloy steel, quenched and tempered, which is comparable to ISO Grade 8;

All shackles are upset-forged, on special requirement drop-forged shackles can be
obtained.

The proper performance of premium shackles depends on good manufacturing
techniques that include proper forging and accurate machining. Closed die forging of
shackles assures clear lettering, superior grain flow, and consistent dimensional
accuracy. A closed die forged bow allows for an increased cross section that, when
coupled with quench and tempering, enhances strength and ductility. Closed forging
combined with close tolerance pin hole assures good fatigue life, particularly with
screw pin shackle.

Quench and tempering assures the uniformity of performance and maximizes the
properties of the steel. This means that each shackle meets its rated strength and has
required ductility, toughness, impact and fatigue properties. The job requirements
demand this reliability and consistency.

33

The quench and tempering process develops a tough material that reduces the risk of
brittle, catastrophic failure. The shackle bow will deform if overloading occurs, giving
warning before ultimate failure.

The proper application of shackles requires that the correct type and size of shackle be
used. The shackle's working load limit, its size, a traceability code and the
manufacturers name should be clearly and boldly marked in the bow. Traceability of
the material chemistry and properties is essential for confidence in the product.
Material chemistry should be independently verified prior to manufacturing.

For example, a Green Pin standard shackle has following technical indications:
WLL 125 T - Working Load Limit 125 tons
Bs - the manufacturer's symbol
H - Traceability code
6 - Grade
CE - Conformity European.
Documentation
Shackles can be supplied from vendors with the following documents:
a work certificate;
a certificate of basic raw material;
an inspection certificate DIN 50049 - 3.1.B or 3.1.C.;
a proof-load test certificate;
a certificate with the actual breaking load found on the tested samples;
a test report of Magnetic Particle Examination and
a test report of Ultrasonic Examination.

34

Usage
The correct type of shackle should be selected for a particular application. The
Working Load Limit (WLL) should be applied in a straight pull and overloads must
not be made. Side-loads should be avoided as the products are not designed for this
purpose.

If side-loads are required, as shown in Table 3.2, shackles should be fitted to the load
in a manner that allows the shackle body to take the load in a true line along its centre-
line; and not in such a way that bending loads are induced, other than those for which
the shackle is designed.

When using shackles in conjunction with multi-leg slings, due consideration should be
given to the effect of the angle between the legs of the sling. As the angle increases so
does the load in the sling leg and consequently in any shackle attached to that leg.

To avoid eccentric loading of the shackle, a loose spacer may be used on either end of
the shackle pin or a shackle with a smaller jaw width should be used. Welding
washers or spacers to the inside faces of shackles or closing shackle jaws shall not be
used to reduce the width between the shackle jaws, as this will have adverse effects on
the mechanical properties of shackles. Extreme circumstances or shock loadings must
be well taken into account on selecting the products.

The applications, where the shackle pin can rotate and possibly be unscrewed due to
movement (e.g. of the load or rope), must be avoided.

35

Finished shackles may not be heat-treated because this may affect the Working Load
Limit and the material structure.

Shackles in use should be subject to thorough examination by a competent person at
least every 6 months. In practice, re-certificate is carried out by mechanical
Professional Engineer. This is necessary because the product in use may be affected by
wear, misuse, overloading with consequent deformation of the steel structure.

Shackles should be inspected before use to ensure that:
the body of the shackle and pin are both identifiable as being of the same
quality grade;
all markings are readable;
the pin is of the correct type;
the threads of the pin and the body are undamaged;
the body and pin are not distorted and unduly worn;
the body and pin are free from nicks, gouges and cracks.

Also, the pin should be correctly screwed into the shackle eye, i.e. tighten finger tight,
then lock using a small tommy bar or suitable tool so that the collar of the pin is fully
seated on the shackle eye. The pin needs to be the correct length so that it penetrates
the full depth of the screwed eye and allows the collar of the pin to bed on the surface
of the shackle eye. Incorrect seating of the pin may be due to a bent pin, too tight
fitting thread or misalignment of pin holes.

36

It is important not to replace a shackle pin with a bolt, other than one designed for the
purpose, as it may not be suitable for the loads imposed.

It is important in the case of shackles fitted with a bolt, nut and split cotter pin that the
length of the plain portion of the bolt is such that the nut will jam on the inner end of
the thread or on the eyes of the shackle, and that the rivet on the bolt is cross drilled for
a split cotter pin. A bolt type shackle in operation without using a split cotter pin
should not be used.

37

3.4 Heavy Lift Slings

As an important lifting component, the sling is limited in design not only by the lifted
weight and also by the factors listed below:
Being pre-rigged on the structure;
Diameter - the largest slings to date have been about 400 mm, though currently
available machinery can build slings 475 mm in diameter;
Weight of the slings - the sling making machinery has an upper weight limit,
about 80 ton, for any individual sling. Thus large diameter slings are restricted
by the length in which they can be manufactured;
An installation contractor may wish to lay the slings down on the module after
lifting so that they can be removed individually. This is to avoid the slings
moving towards each other, hence limiting possible damage on the module.

In actual lift projects, sling retention devices (keepers plates) must be fitted to the
trunnions to keep the slings in place during transportation and sling connection. Slings
need to be tied down to the lay-down platform using soft ropes, to prevent movement
during transportation. For a module, sling slashing may be required to prevent
damage to module equipment.

3.4.1 Sling properties

The cable laid slings and grommets are most commonly used in heavy lift operation.
The term "cable laid" indicates wire rope constructed from six smaller diameter ropes
laid up in a helical manner about a single core rope. A hand-spliced soft eye is placed
at each end of the rope section to form a "cable laid sling". The term "grommet" refers

38

to a continuous sling made up in the form of a rubber band. Eyes are formed by
securing the two parts of the grommet together with seizing to produce a loop at each
end.

A common trait of these systems is that they require an element with high tensile
stiffness and relatively low bending stiffness. Selection rules for wire ropes are rooted
in history, of which the purpose or derivation is not easily traced. Most
implementations are the result of the design engineers' biases and experiences, based
on many years of practical use of cables and wire ropes.

The task of designing a wire-rope-based system follows the basic description of the
design process. In addition, each step may be decomposed into several inter-related
subtasks. For instance, system definition subtasks include the selection of a drum,
selection of the appropriate number and sizes of sheaves, selection of wire rope end
fittings, and design of the wire rope itself.

The design of a typical wire rope involves the selection of the following geometrical
and material parameters as shown in Figure 3.7.
Numbers of wire lays in each strand, wires in each wire lay, and strand lays in
the rope
Diameters of the individual wires and strands as well as the total rope diameter
Lay lengths (pitches) of the wire lays within the strands and the strands within
the rope
Configuration of the strands and total rope (i.e., lay directions, etc.)
Individual wire cross sections

39

Core type
Wire and core materials (including treatment, etc.).
Conventional wire rope slings are limited to diameters of about 4 inches. Braided
slings and several other types of multipart slings have also been used for heavy lifts,
but cable laid slings have proven their superiority and are presently the standard for the
industry. The generally recognized authority for the design and construction of cable
laid slings and grommets is Guidance Note PM 20, Cable Laid Slings and Grommets
issued by U.K. Health and Safety Executive. The guidance note was prepared by a
working group of experts primarily from the offshore construction and wire rope
manufacturing industries. The note covers construction procedures and prescribes how
safe working loads are to be established.

One of the problems encountered in the construction of cable laid or any large
diameter slings is the maintenance of an acceptable tolerance on differential length.
Three factors involved in the minimization of the tolerances are:
Control of the production of the unit ropes from which the slings are
constructed.
Accurate measurement and marking of rope during construction.
Mechanical control of splicing tensions to achieve a balanced termination.

Some measurable length differential will be present at the end of construction and the
magnitude can be expected to increase due to differential permanent elongation under
load. A reasonable tolerance on length for the life of the slings is 0.25 percent of the
length. The length differential for a matched set of 100 foot slings constructed under
ideal conditions may be as much as 6 inches.

40

Heavy lift slings are made of machine spun cable laid rope and usually terminated by
hand made eyes and splices. The eye and splice sections are softer than the cable
section. These are up to 40 rope diameters in length and significantly affect the overall
sling characteristics. Sling splices can slip during load take up and some allowance
should be made in the sling load calculations for this effect. The characteristics
become stiffer and more linear with repeated use.

Grommets are made out of a single length of wire rope which is spun into a continuous
multi-strand loop of wire. They generally have softer characteristics than slings of
similar minimum breaking load (MBL). The single grommet is softer than the
equivalent double sling with two spliced eyes. No slippage allowance is necessary in
grommet design.

3.4.2. Grommets versus Slings

In one major offshore lift project, dual crane lifts with doubled grommets were used to
provide four parts per lifting point. These proved to be lighter as a percentage of the
module weight than doubled slings and resulted in rigging weights approximating to
2% of the lift weight. For the single crane lifts doubled slings were used and resulted in
rigging weights between 3 and 3.5% of the lifted weight.

The grommet lengths were adjusted to permit the centre of lift to be matched to the
centre of gravity. This was achieved by means of intentionally scheduled late
manufacture of a pair of grommets. However, this resulted in potential for late delivery

41

of rigging and therefore careful integration of grommet and module fabrication
scheduling was required. In spite of the rigging being a low percentage of overall
module weight, the individual rigging components still weighed approximately 50 ton
each and rigging installation in the module fabrication yard, at the lift height required,
presented some difficulty and necessitated the preparation of detailed handling
procedures.

An allowance should be made in the design for differential tension across the hook or
padeye. This is due to friction preventing the full load equalization in the rope or
spliced eyes. The tension ratio between the two parts is usually taken as 45:55. This
corresponds to a coefficient of friction of 6.4% around a 180 degree bend.

Slings apply a torque to the crane hook and lifting padeyes. This causes a 2% increase
in sling loads for single hook lifts, increasing to 4% in long and slender modules. Sling
torque has a negligibly small effect on sling loads in double hook lifts.

3.4.3. Sling and Grommet Properties
A. Properties of rope and splice
A1. New rope (1
st
load cycle)
mr
nr
d
Lo Cr
T

= (3.1)
Where,
T = Load in % MBL
Lo = Extension in % of original length
d = Sling rope diameter (mm)
Cr = 132.8 25%
nr = 1.75
mr = 0.3807

42

Used rope (2
nd
cycle onwards)
Elastic modulus E = 2533 25% kg/mm

A2. New eye/splice (1st load cycle)
me
ne
d
Lo Ce
T

= (3.2)
Where,
Ce = 16.48 30%
ne = 3.5
me = 0.6286

Used eye/splice (2nd load cycle onwards)
Elastic modulus E = 1357 25% kg/mm

B. Grommet properties

These properties are for a simple continuous two-part grommet, i.e. having two ropes
connecting the padeye to the hook.

B1. New grommet (1
st
load cycle)
mg
ng
g
d
Lo C
T

= (3.3)
Where,
T = Load in % MBL of tow ropes
Lo = Extension in % of original length between hook and padeye
d = grommet rope diameter (mm)
Cg = 69.0 25%
ng = 1.80
mg = 0.4618

43

3.5 Lift Points

Lift points are the locations where intensive sling tensions meet with module structure.
Lift points should be properly designed to allow sling tensions smoothly transfer to
other strong structural members. Depending on the factored lift loads, slings and
shackles can be selected from available sling and shackle lists (inventories) or ordered
from suppliers. How to get safe enough and yet reasonably factored lift point loads has
been the focus of all industry design codes.
There are basically two types of lift points which connect rigging systems to module
structures: Padeye and trunnion, as shown in Figure 3.10.

Padeyes are important lift components, which link module structure and shackles. In
lift arrangement, a shackle locks up a padeye by inserting shackle pin through padeye
hole, while the shackle bow connects to a sling.

The design of padeye requires special attention and detailing. It is recommended that
padeyes to be designed with the main connections in shear rather than in tension. High
tension loads in the thickness direction of steel material should be avoided. Padeyes
should be also dimensioned to properly fit up with shackles and avoid uneven contact
areas, which is usually resolved by using cheek plate and spacer plates.

Although the padeyes themselves are usually adequately designed for vertical and
horizontal loads, the structure to which the padeyes connect must be able to accept and
transmit the total vertical and horizontal forces back into structure.

Trunnions are normally used to lift very heavy modules. The advantages of trunnions

44

are their simplicity in rigging connections where slings or grommets are looped over
the braces without the use of shackles, and the freedom for a sling or a grommet to
rotate around the trunnion brace. The latter may be beneficial for module upending,
overturning or rotating.

Trunnions can be either cast or fabricated. Ideally the diameter of the trunnion should
be four times the sling diameter. The use of cast trunnions means that early design is
required because castings have a long lead time. The fabricated trunnions are
frequently used in the offshore industry.

45

3.6 Summary

Crane barges, rigging components including shackles, slings and grommets, and lift
point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are discussed based on practical
considerations in heavy lift design.

The barge is the most expensive piece of equipment and the most important member in
lift operation as well. The safety of the barge during a lift operation is the first
consideration for both barge owner and client. The characteristics of the barge also
constrain the rigging arrangement and necessary reinforcement of the module
structure.

The rigging system is the only connection for the module to the crane barge. The
rigging components include slings, spreader structure, shackles, padeyes (or trunnions)
and their arrangement. The selection or design of a rigging arrangement is dependent
on the barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and
the site parameters.

Sling retention devices (keepers plates) must be fitted to the trunnions to keep the
slings in place during transportation and sling connection. Slings need to be lashed
down to the lay-down platform using soft ropes, to prevent movement during
transportation. For a module, sling slashing may be required to prevent damage to
module equipment.

46

Table 3.1 Some of Heavy Lifting Crane Vessels in the World

Crane Vessel
Name

Contractor
Nominal
Lift
Capacity
(Ton)

Vessel
Type

Location
Asian Hercules II Asian Lift 3200
Sheer Leg
Singapore
Asian Hercules Asian lift 1600
Sheer Leg
Singapore
Semco L1501 Semco Salvage 1500
Sheer Leg
Singapore
Crane 5000 McDermott 4500
Sheer Leg
Gulf of Mexico
DB 50 McDermott 3960
Derrick
Gulf of Mexico
Derrick
Gulf of Mexico
Derrick
Gulf of Mexico
Derrick
South Asia
Derrick
Arabian Gulf
Muashi-3600
Fukada Salvage &
Marine
3600
Derrick
Tokyo Bay
Suruga-2200 Fukada 2200
Derrick
Japan
Kongo Fukada 2050
Derrick
Hiroshima,Japan
Rambiz 3000 - 3300
Derrick
Europe
Samsung 3000
Samsung Heavy
Industry
3000
Derrick
Korea
Thialf Heerema 14200
Derrick
North Sea
Hermod Heerema 8100
Derrick
Gulf of Mexico
Balder Heerema 5670
Derrick
Gulf of Mexico
M7000 Saipem 14000
Derrick
North Sea
Castoro Otto Saipem 2160
Derrick
W. Hemisphere
S 3000 Saipem 2250
Derrick
South Asia
Kurushio Nippon Steel 2250
Derrick
South Asia
HD2500 Hyundai 2250
Derrick
Arabian Gulf
Stanislav Yudin Seaway Heavy Lift 2250
Derrick
Dubai
HLS 2000 NPCC 2160
Derrick
Arabian Gulf.
Lan Jiang Hao COOEC 3420
Derrick
China
Da Li Hao Shanghai Salvage 2500
Derrick
China
Nian Tian Long Guangzhou Salvage 1500
Derrick
China

47

Table 3.2 Shackle Side Loading Reduction
For Screw Pin and Safety Shackles Only

Angle of Side Load
from Vertical In-Use
of Shackle
Adjusted Working Load
Limit
0 In-line* 100% of Rated Working
Load Limit

45 from In-line 70% of Rated Working
Load Limit

90 from In-line 50% of Rated Working
Load Limit

* In-Line load is applied vertical to the pin.

Figure 3.1 Lifting Equipment and Components
Crane Vessel
Site
Module
Rigging
Spreader bar
Lift point

48

Figure 3.2

Saipem S7000
SSCV with
maximum of
14000 ton Capacity

49

Figure 3.3 Sheerleg Crane Vessel Asian Herlues II : with maximum of 3200 ton
Capacity

50

Figure 3.4 Derrick Barge Crane Thialf : 14200 ton Capacity

51

Figure 3.5 Derrick Lifting Barge DB101: 3150 ton Capacity

52

Figure 3.6 Samples of Some Shackles (GreenPin and Crosby)

53

Figure 3.7 Sling Forming & Cross Section

54

Figure 3.8 Sling Configuration

Figure 3.9 Actual Usage of Slings

Left: Sling being attached to Crane hook

Right: Sling being laid on platform and ready to sail for offshore hook-up

55

Figure 3.10 Lift point connections- Padeye and Trunnion
Padeye
Shackle
Sling
Pipe Trunnion
Plate Trunnion

56

Figure 3.11 Fabricated Lifting Padeye

Figure 3.12 Actual fabricated Lifting Trunnion
Left: Plate Type Trunnion joining to Centre plate
Right: Tubular Type Trunnion joining to Centre Tubular

Figure 3.13 Details of A Typical Padeye

57

CHAPTER 4 RIGGING THEORY AND FORMULATION

4.1. Introduction
The design of rigging sling systems involves the available lift points (strong points in
module), the available slings in inventory, the spreader structure and the hook blocks
of the barge. In other words, all the components from the lift points at the module to
the hook block should be considered. In actual rigging arrangement, the sling system
can be with four, six, eight or more lift points, and spreader bar or frame may be used
to protect the module from extensive compressive forces or any possible
clashing/damage to other equipment. Rigging sling systems with more than eight lift
points are used to lift large and flexible modules. It can be seen that the configuration
of the rigging sling system determines the forces in all the components of the rigging
system including padeyes, shackles, slings and spreader structures (if any), and thus
affects the selection and design of these members. Moreover, the configuration of the
rigging sling system is one of the most critical factors that should be considered in the
analysis of stresses in the module and in the determination of the barge gesture
including the angles of crane boom and jib.

The objective of this section is, as shown in Figure 4.1, to investigate the algorithms
and formulations to determine the configurations of rigging sling systems, which are
affected by the location of lift points, length of rigging slings and geometry of spreader
and hook block. The hook block(s) involved in a particular rigging system can be one
(main or jib hook) or two (both main and jib hooks) at a time. Emphasis is placed on
the determination of the critical geometrical quantities of the rigging sling system
including the sling angles with respect to the horizontal plane and the distances
between the module, spreader structure and hook blocks.

58

Accurate sling tensions can be computed using the methods presented in Chapters 2
and 3. Some practical methods, however, are also presented in this chapter due to the
specific nature of individual problems.

In this chapter, useful formulations and procedures for determining sling angles, hook
height above module, spreader height above module, and hook height above spreader
are derived based on the selected slings from the sling inventory and the geometrical
dimensions of spreader structures. The established formulations can also be used to
design new slings and spreaders by applying them appropriately.

For the convenience of discussion, the geometrical parameters are defined as follows:
H
4
- height of hook block above module (without spreader structure), or
height of spreader above module (with spreader),
H
5
- height of hook block above spreader (with spreader), or,
=0 (without spreader)
L
i
- length of ith sling,
i
- angle of sling with respect to the horizontal plane,
(x
c
, y
c
) - location of the centre of gravity of module in local coordinate system,
W
m
, L
m
, H
m
- the width, length and height of module, respectively,
W
h
, L
h
- the width and length of hook block, and
W
sp
, L
sp
- width and length of spreader.

The superscripts (B) and (J) used in this chapter denote parameters related to the boom
(main frame) and jib hook, respectively, while the subscripts m and h are related to

59

module and hook. For example, L
(B)
and L
(J)
represent the lengths of boom and jib,
while W
h
and W
m
the widths of hook block and module, respectively.

4.2 Rigging Sling System with Four Lift Points
Rigging sling systems with four lift points are frequently used in offshore and marine
module installation where lift points can be located at the legs of the jacket or strong
structural components.

4.2.1. Using Main or Jib Hook without Spreader Structure
Three typical rigging arrangements in terms of the hook position with respect to the
Centre of Gravity (CG) are shown in Figure 4.2. These are configurations with (1)
four-equal slings, (2) two-matched-pair slings and (3) four-unequal slings. The
formulations for the geometrical parameters of the three rigging configurations are
summarised in Table 4.1.

4.2.2. Using Main or Jib Hook with Spreader Structure
As mentioned in the above section, spreaders are used to avoid extensive compressive
forces in modules to protect modules or equipment from damage. In actual
applications, a spreader structure can consist of simple spreader bar or a spreader
frame. Figure 4.3 shows three typical rigging arrangements with spreader structures: (i)
one spreader bar, (ii) two parallel spreader bars, and (iii) a spreader frame. To simplify
the discussion, module geometry, lift points, spreaders are assumed to be symmetric
about geometrical axes.

The formulations for the geometrical parameters of the three rigging configurations are

60

summarised in Table 4.2, where and are the angles of the sling below and above the
spreader with respect to the horizontal plane, respectively, is the angle between the
real plane of the slings and the horizontal plane, D
sp
is the distance between two
spreader bars and L and L" are the lengths of the slings below and above the
spreader, respectively.

4.2.3 Using Main and Jib Hooks at the Same Time
In the case of using both main and jib hook blocks at the same time as shown in Figure
4.4a, the distance between the main and jib hook is normally made equal to the
distance D
x
between lift points, and the real planes of the main hook slings and jib
hook slings are thus perpendicular to the horizontal plane. The formulations to
determine the geometrical parameters of rigging configurations are given in Table 4.3.
The loads taken by the main hook and jib hook are dependent on the lift points and CG
positions as shown in Figure 4.4b.

4.3 Rigging Sling System with Six Lift Points
Due to the constraint of structural patterns of modules, rigging systems with six lift
points may be used in certain cases. Modules with six lift points can be lifted up by
single (main or jib) hook block or by two (both main and jib) hook blocks due to
various practical considerations.

4.3.1 Using Main or Jib Hook with Spreader Frame
If only the main or jib hook block is used, a spreader structure is normally needed to
accommodate the force distribution in the slings above and below it. Figure 4.5a shows
a typical rigging arrangement for using a single hook block to lift up a module with six

61

lift points, where a planar frame is used to protect the module from intensive
compression and to effectively transfer the forces from the lower slings to the upper
slings. The span of the spreader frame can be designed equal to the distance D
x

between lift points to minimise the horizontal compressive forces (in the x-direction)
on the module. The formulations for determining the geometrical parameters of this
rigging configuration are summarised in Table 4.4.

Attention should be paid to the tensions of individual slings as well as the forces at
individual lift points, as the forces may be significantly unevenly distributed depending
on the global stiffness of the module structure and sling system, as discussed in
Chapter 2. It is known from Chapter 2 that the sling tensions are evenly distributed if
the module is very stiff compared to the slings. However, if the module structure is
very flexible, or, in other words, the slings are comparatively very stiff, the tensions of
the two middle slings can be much larger than the tensions of other slings. In this case,
two big slings are required for the middle positions. Since the sling tensions are
transferred to the lift points, the corresponding lift point loads at the two middle
positions are also much larger than those at the two ends. Thus, bigger shackles and
stronger padeyes or trunnions should be designed for the lift points at the middle
locations. Furthermore, as the forces finally find their paths in the structure, local over-
stressing and excessive deformation of the module may occur since the forces during
the lifting operation may be significantly different from the actual working loads
assumed during the design of the module.

To obtain accurate sling tensions and structural performance during the lift, a
comprehensive structural analysis, as proposed in Chapter 3 should be conducted on
the rigging configuration including the actual stiffness of the slings and the module.

62

The design of the spreader frame should be also based on the consistent load condition
of the rigging system.

If both the main and jib hook blocks are used at the same time as shown in Figure 4.6a,
the distance between the main and jib hook is normally designed to be equal to the
distance D
x
between lift points, as discussed in the previous section. The formulations
for determining the geometrical parameters of this rigging configuration are
summarised in Table 4.5. Figure 4.6b gives the loads taken by the main and jib hooks
which depend on the lift points and CoG positions.

If two doubled slings, instead of four single slings, are used for those slings at the main
hook block, the formulations provided in Table 4.5 are still valid except that the length
of the slings L
(B)
should be changed to half the length of the corresponding doubled
slings.

4.4 Rigging Sling System with Eight Lift Points
Rigging sling systems with eight lift points are often used in shipbuilding and offshore
structural installations. The lift points in a ship block may be the cross points of
bulkheads or strong points at hull structures. In this section, some practical rigging
configurations are discussed. In the case of doubled slings, the force split ratio of the
two arms of a doubled sling (), as discussed in Chapters 3, should be applied
appropriately.

63

4.4.1 Using Main or Jib Hook with/without Spreader Structure
Figure 4.7a shows an eight-point rigging sling configuration without any spreader
structure where four doubled slings with the same length L are used. Figures 4.7b and
4.7c show rigging sling systems with two parallel spreader bars and a spreader frame,
and the lengths of the doubled slings below the spreader structures and single sling
above the spreader structures are denoted L
d
and L
s
, respectively.

The formulations for determining the geometrical parameters of the rigging
configurations are summarised in Table 4.6.

As will be discussed in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2, when both the main and jib hook
blocks are used at the same time as shown in Figure 4.8a, the distance between the
main and jib hook is normally made equal to the distance D
x
between the lift points
.
The formulations for determining the geometrical parameters of this rigging
configuration are summarised in Table 4.7. Figure 4.8b gives the loads taken by the
main and jib hooks, which depend on the locations of lift points and CoG positions.

4.5 Summary
The determination of the configuration of rigging sling systems is an important step in
heavy lift design, since the configuration affects the tensions in rigging slings, loads in
lift points and forces in shackles and link plates, and thus affects the design of those lift
components. Furthermore, it also affects the selection of the boom and jib angles of a
barge to fulfil lift requirements.

64

The geometrical configurations of rigging sling systems are dependent on the location
of lift points, available rigging slings and the details of the spreader geometry and hook
blocks. The algorithms and formulations for the determination of configurations of
rigging sling systems with four, six and eight lift points, which cover the majority of
heavy lifts in offshore and marine industries, are presented in this chapter. The sling
arrangements can be with single slings, doubled slings or doubled make-up slings. The
type of spreader structures included in the discussion can be a simple spreader bar, two
parallel spreader bars or a spreader frame. The hook block(s) involved in a particular
rigging system can be one (main or jib hook) or two (both main and jib hooks) at a
time. Emphasis is placed on the determination of the critical geometrical quantities of
the rigging sling systems. These include the sling angles with respect to the horizontal
plane, hook height above the module or spreader structure, and spreader structure
above lift points. The algorithms and formulations presented in this chapter can be
applied both for selecting slings from the inventory and for ordering new slings.

65

Type of
rigging
configuration
Parameters and formulations Approximate
tilt angle
four-equal
slings
L
1
= L
2
=
L
3
=L
4

1
=
2
=
3
=
4
=
1
2
h y
2
h x
1
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
+

) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( H
h y
2
h x
2
1 4
=
)
H
) y ( ) x (
( tg
4
2
c
2
c 1
+

2-matched-
pair slings
L
1
= L
2
,
L
3
=L
4

1
=
2
=
1
2
h y
2
c h x
1
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) x 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
+
3
=
4
=
3
2
h y
2
c h x
1
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) x 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
+ +

2
h y
2
c h x
2
1 4
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) x 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( H =

)
H
y
( tg
4
c 1

four-unequal
slings
L
1
L
2

L
3
L
4

i
=
i
2
i h y
2
i h x
1
L
) y 2 / L 2 / D ( ) x 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
+ + +

(i=1,2,3,4)
where
c 4 3 c 2 1
x x x x x x = = = = ,

c 3 2 c 4 1
y x x y y y = = = = ,
2
c h y
2
c h x
2
1 4
) y 2 / L 2 / D ( ) x 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( H + =

0

(using main or jib hook block without spreader)

66

Type of
rigging
configuration
Parameters and formulations

One spreader
bar
)
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / D (
( cos
2
sp y
2
x
1
+
=

2
sp y
2
x
2
4
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / D ( ) L ( H =
)
L
) 2 / L 2 / L (
( cos
2
h sp
1

=

2
h sp
2
5
) 2 / L 2 / L ( ) L ( H =

Two parallel
spreader bars
)
) 2 / W 2 / W ( ) L ( ) 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L (
2 / ) L D (
( cos
2
h sp
2 2
sp x
2
h y
1
+

=

) sin( ) 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( H
2
sp x
2
4
= ) sin( ) 2 / W 2 / W ( ) L ( H
2
h sp
2
5
=
) cos( ) 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( 2 D D
2
sp x
2
x sp
=
)
L
) 2 / D 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
2
sp y
2
sp x
1
+
=

)
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / W (
( cos
2
h sp
2
h sp
1

+
=

Spreader
frame
)
L
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / D (
( cos
2
sp y
2
sp x
1
+
=

2
sp y
2
sp x
2
4
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) 2 / W 2 / D ( ) L ( H =
)
L
) 2 / L 2 / L ( ) 2 / W 2 / W (
( cos
2
h sp
2
h sp
1

+
=

2
h sp
2
h sp
2
5
) 2 / L 2 / L ( ) 2 / W 2 / W ( ) L ( H =

(using main or jib hook block with spreader structure)

67

Type of rigging
configuration


Without
Spreader bars

)
L 2
L D
( cos
) B (
h
) B (
y 1 ) B (

=

2 ) B (
h
) B (
y
2 ) B (
4
) 2 / L 2 / D ( L H =
(similar for
) J (
4
) J (
H and )

With
spreader bars

)
L 2
L D
( cos
) B (
sp
) B (
y 1 ) B (
=

2 ) B (
sp
) B (
y
2 ) B (
4
) 2 / L 2 / D ( ) L ( H =
)
L 2
L L
( cos
) B (
h
) B (
sp 1 ) B (

=

2 ) B (
h
) B (
sp
2 ) B (
5
) 2 / L 2 / L ( ) L ( H =
(similar for
(J)
5
(J) ) J (
4
) J (
H and H , , )

Type of rigging
configuration


With
spreader
frame
)
L 2
D
( cos
y
1
=

2 ) B (
y
2
4
) 2 / D ( ) L ( H =
)
L 2
W W
( cos
h sp
1

=

2
h sp
2
5
) 2 / W 2 / W ( ) L ( H =

(using main or jib hook block )

68

Type of rigging
configuration

Without
spreader
frame

)
L
] 2 / L 2 / D [ ] 2 / D [
( cos
) B (
2 ) B (
h
) B (
y
2 ) B (
x
1 ) B (
+
=

2 ) B (
h
) B (
y
2 ) B (
x
2 ) B ( ) B (
4
] L 2 / D [ ] 2 / D [ ] L [ H + =
)
L 2
L D
( cos
) J (
) J (
h
) J (
y 1 ) J (

=

2 ) J (
h
) J (
y
2 ) J ( ) J (
4
] L 2 / D [ ] L [ H + =

(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time)

69

Type of
rigging
configuration

Without
Spreader
Structure

) b a b L a L ( 2 b a L
L 2
1
H
2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
4
+ + + + =
)
a
H
( tg
4 1
1

= , )
b
H
( tg
4 1
2

=
where L is the length of doubled slings,

2 h
y
2 h
) 1 (
x
]
2
L
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ a + = and
2 h
y
2 h
) 2 (
x
]
2
L
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ b + =

With
Two
Parallel
Spreader
Bars

2 1
h y
1
d d
2 / L 2 / D
( cos
+
=

)
) sin( d H
1 4
= , ) sin( d H
2 5
=
)
a
H
( tg
4 1
1

= , )
b
H
( tg
4 1
2

= , )
c
H
( tg
5 1
=
where is the angle between the real plane of sling and horizontal plane.
) q p q L p L ( 2 q p L
L 2
1
d
2 2 2 2
d
2 2
d
4 4 4
d
d
1
+ + + + = ,
2 h
sp 2
s 2
)
2
W
2
W
( L d = ,
2
sp y
2
sp
) 1 (
x
]
2
D
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ a + = ,
2
sp y
2
sp
) 2 (
x
]
2
D
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ b + = ,
2 h
sp
2 h
sp
)
2
L
2
D
( )
2
W
2
W
( c + =
with L
d
being the length of doubled slings below spreader, L
s
being the length of single
sling above the spreader,
2
W
2
D
p
sp
) 1 (
x
= and
2
W
2
D
q
sp
) 2 (
x
=

With
Spreader
Frame

) b a b L a L ( 2 b a L
L 2
1
H
2 2 2 2
d
2 2
d
4 4 4
d
d
4
+ + + + = ,
2 2
s 5
c ) L ( H =
)
a
H
( tg
4 1
1

= , )
b
H
( tg
4 1
2

= , )
c
H
( tg
5 1
=
where L
d
is the length of doubled slings below spreader, L
s
is the length of single sling
above the spreader,
2
sp y
2
sp
) 1 (
x
]
2
L
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ a + = ,
2
sp y
2
sp
) 2 (
x
]
2
L
2
D
[ ]
2
W
2
D
[ b + = and
2 h
sp
2 h
sp
)
2
L
2
L
( )
2
W
2
W
( c + =

Table 4.6 Formulations for the rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main or jib hook block at a time )

70

Type of rigging
configuration

Without
spreader
frame
)
L
] 2 / L 2 / D [ ] W 2 / D [
( cos
) B (
2 ) B (
h
) B (
y
2 ) B (
h
) B (
x
1 ) B (
+
=

2 ) B (
h
) B (
y
2 ) B (
h
) B (
x
2 ) B ( ) B (
4
] L 2 / D [ ] W 2 / D [ ] L [ H + =
)
L
] 2 / L 2 / D [ ] W 2 / D [
( cos
) J (
2 ) J (
h
) J (
y
2 ) J (
h
) J (
x
1 ) J (
+
=

2 ) J (
h
) J (
y
2 ) J (
h
) J (
x
2 ) J ( ) J (
4
] L 2 / D [ ] W 2 / D [ ] L [ H + =

Table 4.7 Formulations for rigging configurations with eight lift points

71

TASKS
Determination
of rigging
configuration

Algorithms

Formulations

Inputs

Hook block info.
Sling info.
(from inventory)
Lift point info.
Spreader info.

Outputs

Sling angles

Heights of
1. hook above module
2. hook above spreader
3. spreader above module

Figure 4.1 Determination of rigging configuration: tasks, inputs and outputs
x
Barge Direction
1
ISO View
4
H
m
(H
3
)
H
4
x
y
z
LPT 4
LPT 3
LPT 2
LPT 1
W
h
L
h
D
x
L
m
D
y
y
x
W
m
) y , CG
c c
(x
Rigging configuration with four equal slings
LPT 4
LPT 3
LPT 2
LPT 1
D
x
L
m
D
y
W
m
) y , CG
c c
(x
Rigging configuration with matched-pair slings
LPT 4
LPT 3
LPT 2
LPT 1
D
x
L
m
D
y
W
m
) y , CG
c c
(x
Rigging configuration with unequal slings
Figure 4.2 Rigging configuration for four-lift-point sling systems using
main or jib hook block without spreader
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L

72

Figure 4.3 Rigging configurations for four-lift-point sling systems using
main or jib hook block and spreaders
W
m

L
h L
sp L
m D
y
D
x
W
m

H
5
H
4
H
m

Rigging configuration with one transverse spreader bar

H
5
H
4
L
h
W
h
D
sp
W
sp
L
m D
y
D
x
Rigging configuration with two parallel spreader bars
H
m

H
4
H
m

L
h
W
h
L
sp D
y
W
sp
D
x
W
m
L
m
H
5
Rigging configuration with a spreader frame
' '
L
'
L
'
L
'
L
' '
L
' '
L
x
y
z
x
y
z
x
y z

73

jib
hook
main
hook
) B (
4
H
) B (
5
H
m
H
) J (
4
H
) J (
5
H
m
W
x
D
) J (
y
D m
L
) B (
h
L
) B (
sp
L
) J (
h
L
) J (
sp
L
Figure 4.4a Rigging configuration for four-lift-point sling systems using
main and jib hook blocks and spreader bars
) B (
) B (
) J (
) J (
) B (
y
D
'
L
' '
L
x
y
z
W
CG
) 1 (
x
D
) 2 (
x
D
) B (
W
) J (
W
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 2 (
x ) B (
+
=
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 1 (
x ) J (
+
=
Figure 4.4b Hook load distribution for four-lift-point sling systems using
both main and jib hook blocks

74

W
m
H
4
H
sp
H
5
H
sp
W
sp
W
m
L
m
W
y
D
x
D
h
W
h
W
'
L
' '
L
T
T
T
T
W
where is dependent on the stiffness of module
structure and sling system
1 2
T T =
x
y
z

1
T
1
T
1
T
2
T
2
T
1
T
1
T
1
T
1
T
1
T
2
T
2
T
W
) sin( 2
1
T
=
Figure 4.5a Rigging configuration for six-lift-point sling system using
main or jib hook block with spreader frame
Figure 4.5b Sling tensions for six-lift-point sling system using

75

W
CG
x
y
z
) B (
4
H
) J (
4
H
m
H
) B (
) J (
m
W
x
D
) J (
y
D m
L ) B (
H
L
) J (
H
L
) J (
sp
L
) B (
y
D
) B (
x
D
main hook
jib hook
) B (
L
) J (
L
Figure 4.6a Rigging configuration for six-lift-point sling system using
) 1 (
x
D
) 2 (
x
D
) B (
W
) J (
W
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 2 (
x ) B (
+
=
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 1 (
x ) J (
+
=
Figure 4.6b Hook load distribution for six-lift-point sling systems using

76

Figure 4.7a Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system using
main or jib hook block without spreader frame
m
L
y
D
4
H
m
H
m
W
m
L
y
D
h
W
h
L
) 1 (
x
D
4
H
m
H
5
H
h
W
h
L
sp
D
sp
W
4
H
m
H
5
H
m
L
y
D
h
W
h
L
sp
L
sp
W
L
Figure 4.7b Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system using
main or jib hook block with two parallel spreader bars
Figure 4.7c Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system using
1
2
1
2
) 2 (
x
D
m
W
) 1 (
x
D
) 2 (
x
D
m
W
) 1 (
x
D
) 2 (
x
D
d
L
s
L

77

) J (
h
W
) B (
) J (
) B (
4
H
) J (
4
H
m
H
x
y
z
m
W
x
D
) J (
y
D m
L ) B (
h
L
) B (
y
D
) B (
h
W
) B (
x
D
) B (
h
L
) J (
x
D
W
CG
Figure 4.8a Rigging configuration for eight-lift-point sling system using
) 1 (
x
D
) 2 (
x
D
) B (
W
) J (
W
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 2 (
x ) B (
+
=
W
D D
D
W
) 2 (
x
) 1 (
x
) 1 (
x ) J (
+
=
Figure 4.8b Hook load distribution for eight-lift-point sling systems using
) B (
L
) J (
L

78

CHAPTER 5 JACKET LIFTING

5.1 Introduction

The fixed steel jacket is the most common type of structure used for supporting facilities
for the offshore production of oil and gas. A few of jackets have been built with sufficient
buoyancy to enable them to self-float, but the majorities have been transported from
fabrication yard to offshore site on aboard of an ocean-going cargo barge.

The following steps should be taken during the conceptual design of a jacket.

The capacity of the lift cranes falls off dramatically with increasing radius. It is, therefore,
essential to take all possible steps to minimize the operating radius. The smaller the cross
section of the jacket is, the smaller the crane radius is. Therefore limiting both top and
bottom plan dimensions of a horizontally lifted jacket, will give improved liftability.
Smaller plan dimensions cause more piles and higher dynamic amplification in the in-
place condition.

If the jacket is not square in plan then a clearance and radius study should be carried out to
determine which way round the jacket should be on the barge to give maximum hook
capacity. Selection of barge width may also be critical in determining the optimum crane
radius.

79

In determining the crane radius, the clearance between the barge and the crane vessel hull,
the jacket and the hull, and the jacket and the crane boom or crane cabs must not be less
than 3m during lifting.

The common offshore installation method of barge transported jackets is directly by
lifting, using a heavy lift vessel (HLV) or a semi-submersible crane vessel (SSCV). While
another method is to lunch jacket from cargo barge and then upending by using crane
vessel. The main differences between lifted and launched jackets are that the latter have
launch frames and auxiliary buoyancy tanker. Launch frames have also another function,
serving as supporting framework during jacket construction and for skidding the jacket
onto the launch barge during loadout. Some form of auxiliary buoyancy is necessary on
launched jackets to arrest the jacket during launch, and as an aid during upending and
installing the jacket on the seabed.

Lifted jackets without the requirement for launch frames and the auxiliary buoyancy
tankers needed to achieve a safe launch, which will give quite saving of steel materials.
Lifting slings and lifting trunnions (installed on the jacket) are required to lift the jacket
from the cargo barge into the water.

There are a variety of ways by which a jacket may be lifted and installed into position on
the seabed. Each depends on the characteristics of the jacket. The first method is the
vertical lift whereby the jacket is vertically transported on and lifted vertically off the
barge and placed on the seabed.

80

In the situations where the jacket is too tall for vertical lifting it can be lifted horizontally
from the barge using slings attached close to the top and base of the jacket. Installation
follows by lowering the jacket base and raising the top of the jacket. This method is
inappropriate for longer jackets as the lifting capacities of the cranes reduce with
increasing crane boom radius. Such circumstances will probably result in a two-stage
installation. Firstly the jacket is lifted from the barge and lowered into the water until it
floats. This requires the use of auxiliary buoyancy. The main lifting slings are then
removed and the prerigged upending slings attached to the crane hook. The jacket is then
upended and positioned on the seabed.

It is relevant to point out that the configuration and sling tensions for lifting jackets
vertically or horizontally are discussed in the previous chapter.

5.2 Vertical Lift of Jackets

The majority of shallow water jackets are constructed, loaded out and transported with the
jacket in its vertical position. The jacket is installed by lifting it clear of the cargo barge by
either a single or dual lift, removing the barge, and then lowering the jacket into place on
the seabed as shown in Figure 5.1.

The advantages of this method of lifted jacket installation with respect to other methods
are: the jacket is vertical during all phases of installation: no re-rigging of lift slings is
required during installation (which means that offshore installation time/cost is reduced
significantly); and only a minimum ballasting system (if any) is necessary. The

81

disadvantages are that the jacket height is limited by the available boom height capacity of
the crane vessel and the vertical construction of the jacket. For jacket installation of this
sort a submersible cargo barge is required to meet hook height requirement.

However, the influence of the new generation SSCVs is illustrated by the comparatively
large weight of the 8400t Gyda jacket in North Sea, which was installed in a water depth
of approximately 65m in 1989 by Saipem S7000.

5.3 Horizontal Lift of Jackets

In the case of jackets in greater water depth, the height of the jacket prohibits vertical
lifting. Consequently, the jacket is constructed horizontally at the fabrication yard and
loaded out onto the cargo barge in a similar manner to the launched jackets. For horizontal
jacket, there will involve number of lifting operations: 1) Lifted loadout horizontally
onto the transportation barge in fabrication yard, see Figure 5.2a , 2) Lifted up from
transportation barge offshore, see Figure 5.2b, 3) upending jacket from horizontal position
into vertical position, 4) Lift jacket vertically for final installation. Also refer to Chapter
9.3 for more details.

Two upending methods are used for installation of horizontal jackets:

Upending in air, which requires a larger SSCV with two hooks working
independently, like S7000. Refer to Figure 5.3 and Figure 9.4. This can also be
achieved by two Crane vessels, see Figure 5.2.

82

Upending in water, which is commonly used as less SSCV requirement. This may
further be divided into two categories: those installed with the rigging always
attached (these jackets invariably have no auxiliary buoyancy) and those installed
using a re-rigging method while the jacket is free floating (such jackets may
require auxiliary buoyancy).

The former category of installation is best suited to medium water depth jackets. When
partially supported by buoyancy, the load was transferred to the auxiliary hook. The main
hook was re-rigged at the top of the jacket, which was then upended.

For short jackets the lifting points are close to the top and the base of the jacket. Such
positioning facilitates the upending of the jacket, where one crane is used to hold the top
of the jacket vertical while the other lowers the base.

The jacket size is restricted by the various factors. At the lower lift point, the main crane
hook typically only has enough wire to go to the same level as the SSCV pontoons. The
vessel operator prefers that the crane hooks do not go underwater. The upper lift slings
need to pass over the top of the jacket. Both this and the restrictions on lowering the crane
hooks result in long slings attached to the jacket. But the length of these slings is limited
by the maximum allowable hook heights when lifting the jacket off the barge. The crane
vessel draught may be limited to only a few positions because of stability and motions
restrictions.

83

The typical sequence for the lifting of deep water jackets is as following:

Step 1: Jacket lifted horizontally from the cargo barge after removing seafastening,
Jacket lowered into the water, where it floats horizontally. The jacket may require
auxiliary buoyancy.

Step 2: Slings and spreader beams are removed. The derigging of the jacket included:
lay down of slings on the rigging platforms;
release and removal of slings one at a time;
removal of end shims on the spreader beam;
removal of the spreader beams.
This operation took usually about 24hrs.

Step 3: The pre-rigged upending rigging, at the top of the jacket is attached to the crane

Step 4: The jacket is upended by a combination of ballasting and raising the crane hook

It should be noted that the large jackets have required substantial loadout frames. If they
had been built as launched jackets, the equivalent weight would have been built into the
structure as launch frames and load out rails. This in turn would have attracted higher
wave loadings in the in-place condition. Additional anodes and/or painting would have
been needed. These extra weights on a launched jacket hence require temporary buoyancy
to be fitted.

84

5.4 Summary

Jackets which are built and transported vertically offer significant savings over jackets
built on their side. These include:

Loadout and transportation forces are carried efficiently by the legs and vertical
face braces. Plan bracing sizes reduce and there is a minimum of temporary steel
that becomes redundant when the jacket is in place;

No ballasting/upending system is required and the legs are free flooding;

The jacket is not required to float or to have submerged, remote, sling release
systems;

The same slings are used for lift and placement. No separate upend slings are
required;

The water depth for this type of lift installation is limited by the available hook
height of the SSCV to around 65-70m. If built vertically, jackets are limited by the
height of the cranes in the fabrication yard.

85

Considerations for lift jacket structures horizontally and vertically are discussed in this
chapter. Lifting large jackets have required substantial loadout frames.

Figure 5.1 Vertical Lifting of Jacket

86

Figure 5.2a Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Loadout operation at Fabrication Yard
(2800ton)

Figure 5.2b Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Dual Crane Lifting a Tripod Jacket (6200 ton)

87

Figure 5.2c Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Dual lift of a Jacket from transportation barge

Figure 5.3 ISO View of lifting horizontal Jacket (3150ton)

88

CHAPTER 6 MODULE LIFTING

6.1 Introduction

Normally, deck structures are broken to several modules and fabricated on the ground
block by block. After fabrication, they will be assembled together by lifting. If the
deck is a truss deck, the obvious problem is that during fabrication, we do not have
truss action in the deck, so the deflection of the deck may be very large such that final
fit-up could pose major problem. For opened deck, the deflection will not pose a
problem, but we have to make sure the deck leg work points do not shift during
assembly. It is obvious that opened deck is cheaper to fabricate than a truss deck
provided the plate girders in the opened deck are not too expensive. When a deck is
fabricated, we usually turn it upside down to facilitate downhand welding position.
After the deck plate is welded to all the deck beams. It will be turned over 180 degrees
to a correct position. For this operation, simple temporary padeyes will be provided at
the edge of the deck. The only difficulty in this operation is that the deck is half-
finished, so it is still very flexible.

With the DB102 and the S7000, modules of up to 10 000t can be lifted using cranes in
tandem. The full capacity of the crane vessels is not available as they normally operate
at radii greater than that which gives the maximum lift capacity. In addition,
allowances need to be made for weight growth, COG shift and module tilt. Lifts of up
to 8 000t can be lifted using a single crane. Chapter 9.2 presents the detailed analysis
for the completed module.

89

6.2 Vertical Module Lift and Installation

For the design of the deck padeyes, there are few problems that we should be aware of.
First, the confirmation of the deck lift weight and the exact centre of gravity location
will usually come very late during fabrication. So an economic design should be such
that it will not have major impact on the fabrication schedule even though they may be
the last item to be fabricated and installed. The padeye together with the pipe can be
fabricated separately, it then can be easily installed after the centre of gravity is
confirmed. Installation only involves one girth weld. This type of detail will have least
impact on the fabrication schedule if the equipment vendor data is late. For a deck with
a lot of equipment on the main deck, a spreader frame or a spreader bar may be
needed. In this case, the padeye main plate should line up with the adjacent webs of the
primary girders.

In terms of fabrication cost, the cost for fabricating a padeye is extremely small
compared with the overall project cost. It is therefore unwise not to be conservative in
the design, after all, the weight and centre of gravity information would normally not
be available until the end of the job. After fabrication, all primary welds in a padeye
should be l00% NDT (Non Destructive Test). In certain critical locations, a simple
MPI (Magnet Particle Inspection or DPI (Dye Penetrant Inspection) is unlikely to yield
meaningful result, So Ultrasonic Test (UT), Radiography Test (RT) or other NDT
technique may be required.

The choice of material and the design of bumper guide are also very important to
heavy lift. However, these items are the outside scope of this paper.

90

The advantages of lifting the modules in one piece are:
Increased hook-up, in particular all piping, electrical, instrumentation and
telecommunications cables can be run without spliced connections;
Higher percentage of commissioning the module onshore;
No need for bumpers and guides for offshore lifting of individual modules and
Offshore hook-up rates are approximately five times onshore rates.

The disadvantages of very large modules are:
Modules have a high concentration of weight over a small area. This may result
in fabrication pads and loadout quay walls needing substantial strengthening of
their foundations;
Cargo barges and perhaps even the large launch barges may require
strengthening to take the concentrated loads, during transportation;
If large launch barges are used, then their depth may require substantial
dredging to be carried out at the fabrication yard;
If the module is built with the drilling derrick or flare, the module may be
higher than overhead obstructions between the yard and sea. Obstructions
include power cables. Thus the module would need to be completed down river
from the main construction yard;
The preferred load out method for modules is by using trailers. With the very
large modules, there may not be enough trailers available. For a 10 000t
module, the trailers from all owners needed to be combined to perform the
loadout. Joint venturing of trailer owner is quite common and, for example,

91

80% of Europe's trailers were needed for loading out the recent integrated deck
for Gannet;

A most important aspect of the design of large lifts is the control of weight and its
CoG. The typical sequence of weight control includes:
1. During detailed design, a monthly weight report is produced by the
designer.
2. During fabrication the responsibility for the detailed weight report passes to
the fabricator.
3. The designer produces an independent weight report less frequently during
this period.
4. Two weighings are usually required, the first of a partially complete
module and the second just before loadout (normally one week).
5. The installation contractor is able to reduce the lift tolerances on the basis
of the weighing, which in turn gave greater confidence to the offshore lift

To handle a big sling, such as one with 150mm in diameter, is not an easy task. Doing
it onshore is much easier than offshore. For this reason, all the rigging equipment
should be rigged up in the yard before loadout. One of the common mistakes in deck
padeye design is the failure of the design engineer to appreciate the difficulty in
installing the slings and shackles. In many instances, the eye of the padeye is located
below deck. This will make it difficult for the workers to line up the padeye and the
shackle to push in the pin, because there is no platform for them to stand on. In some
cases, the design engineer forgot to cater for the need for link plates to do a level lift. A
good design will make sure that the shackle can be installed on top of the deck where
people can have space to work. Another common mistake is that there must be enough

92

space to physically position the pin and push it through the pin hole. There have been
many cases that an access hole has to be cut in the web of the intersecting girder in
order to install the pin. When a spreader frame is used, it too has to be rigged up in the
yard. Design engineers should remember that the weight of the rigging is heavy. It
could be 100 tons or more. This weight has to be supported on the deck and enough
protection bumpers will have to be installed to keep the sling from damaging any deck
equipment.

When we lift a deck, the maximum out-of-level across a diagonal should be limited to
300mm to 600mm. This means that if we want to achieve almost level lift, we have to
use link plate to bring the CoG directly under the hook. If the sling capacity is not big
enough, we may have to use double slings. This can be accomplished by using sister
plates.

In certain lifting arrangement, contractor uses trunnion or padeye details. This is to
remove the requirement for very large shackles for the lift and allow the sling to turn.
For sling or cable laid sling, the sling capacity may be de-rated if it is bent around a
small object, etc. If the cable laid sling is already 300mm, say, we may not be able to
find a big enough wide-body shackle to go with the sling without derating the sling
capacity. In this case, a trunnion detail is an attractive alternative. For very heavy lift,
some engineers specify precast lifting eye. This is not a cheap solution. Since this is a
proprietary detail, it will not be discussed here.

Before we do the lift, we should also check the strength as well as the eccentricity on
the prongs of the hook. Using double slings at the deck level is acceptable, but at the

93

prong location, one sling will take more load than the other, because the first sling will
have already taken up a lot of space. This eccentric load may cause eccentricity
moment at the prong which may not have been designed for. If this moment causes the
prong to twist or rotate, we have to make sure the lines on the crane hook will not jump
out of the sheave. This will have to rely on the experience of the barge superintendent.

Before the deck is lifted, the derrick barge is set up some distance away from the
platform with perhaps 8 point mooring arrangement. When the deck is picked up from
the material barge, we have to walk the barge forward for setting the deck. However,
enough bumper guides will have to be provided to make sure the package will not be
damaged during setting. For dual barge or dual crane lift, we have to pay attention to
the relatively crane tip movement. This may change the load distribution of the
structure. It will be very critical if it is a marginal lift.

94

6.3 Deck Panel Flip-Over

To fabricate a topside module structure, the most common method is to sub-assembly
each deck panel on ground level, and stack them one level by another. Most of topside
modules are consist of three, or four deck levels. The lifting weight of a single deck
panel structure can go as heavy as 1,200 ton, like Malampaya project shown Figure
6.1.

To ease the fabrication work, some of deck panels are built upside down. A typical
erection sequence is as below:
Lay the completed flat steel deck plate on temporary support,
Weld main beams onto the deck plate,
Secondary beams join to the main beams and
Fit-up vertical column and braces.
The great advantage for the above fabrication method is to change welding process
from top welding into bottom welding, which leads into the benefit for welders and
time saving for the project.

It is required lots of detailed engineering to flip over the completed deck panel. As it is
involved many different steps, engineers must perform structural stress analysis for
each step as shown Figure 6.2. Temporary strengthening may be required for certain
area in case of over stress occurred. Spreader bars are utilized to facilitate the rotation.
Two or three lifting cranes may be mobilized to complete the flip-over operation as
shown in Figure 6.3.

95

6.4 Summary

Practical considerations for module lifts, which include vertical lifts and flip-over are
discussed in this chapter.

One of the most important aspects of the design of large lifts is the control of weight
and the CoG of the module. This requires a proper sequence of weighing scheme to
ensure the accuracy of these parameters. The locations of padeyes and arrangement of
slings are also to be considered properly. Link-plates or additional shackles are
frequently used in lift design to ensure level installations.

For deck panel flip-over operation, force distribution between two cranes or two
hooks should be calculated precisely. The forces at two hooks vary with the change of
the module incline angle during flip-over.

96

Figure 6.1 Deck Panel Stacking in progress (Panel lifting weight: 1,200 ton)

97

Figure 6.2 Computer Model for Deck Panel Flip-over

98

Figure 6.3 Deck Panel 180 Degree Flip-Over

99

Figure 6.4 Module Lifting Four Sling Arrangement

100

Figure 6.5 Module Installation One Lifting Bar Arrangement

Figure 6.6 Module Lifting - Figure 6.7 Module Lifting -
Two Bars System Three Bars System

101

Figure 6.8 lifting with a spreader frame Figure 6.9 Multi-Tier Rigging System

Figure 6.10 Tendem Lift of a Module

102

CHAPTER 7 FPSO STRUCTURE LIFTING

7.1 Introduction

The lifting operation for FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) project
involves the loadout from fabrication site, transportation to integration yard and
installation onto FPSO Hull deck. The topside modules can be fabricated in various
locations. The module size and weight are engineered to the certain lifting vessel
during the detailed design stage.

The followings are the lifting operation carried out in Sembawang Yard for Laminaria
& Corallina Development Project.

The sheerleg crane vessel namely Asian Hercules II was used for the operation. Most
of modules were directly lifted up at the Erection yard, transported to the Hookup yard
on crane hook for a distance of approximately 2.2km, and then installed onto FPSO. In
General, it took one day to complete one module lifting operation from preparation,
loadout and installation. However, there were cases that two modules were installed
onto FPSO within a day.

7.2 Lift Procedures and Considerations for FPSO Modules

GENERAL
The communication channels were set-up for all the parties, such as Owner
(WOS), Lifting contactor (ALPL), fabricator (SME), Marine Warranty
Surveyor (LOC) etc, for different stages as below:
during the preparation works
during the Loadout
during the Transportation
during the installation operation:

103

A flowchart showing the relationship of all parties along with responsibilities
for the operation covered under the operation.
The estimated operating schedule for the lifting operation must be agreed prior
to the operation
For each module, a specific procedure was prepared with all the necessary
calculation and detailed drawings.

PREPARATION FOR LOADOUT
General Preparation
The Erection site of module must be cleared from all obstructions such as
temporary supports, construction equipment, movement of crane etc.
Temporary scaffolds or other facilities shall be in place at the designated lifting
padeyes to facilitate installation and remove of rigging system.
It is crane operators responsibility to provide and handle the tag lines. Four tag
lines will be attached to each of modules during lifting. The minimum length
shall be 15 meters.

Environmental Criteria
The module lifting/installation was carried out in sheltered water.

Wave and Swell
No relative movements of the vessel anticipated due to lifting/installation
carried out in sheltered harbour. Any vessel movement was monitored closely.

Water depth
The water depth charts for the quay of both loadout and installation yard were
surveyed prior to crane vessel arrival to ensure sufficient water depth.

104

Wind
Hercules II can be operated at wind speed of 20 m/s during hoisting in harbour
condition. However for lifting operation, a wind speed of 5m/s is the limitation.
If higher wind occurs, a decision shall be made by agreement of all parties both
prior to the commencement of lifting and during the operation itself.

Consensus
Lifting operation was not initiated unless the Mater of Asian Hercules II Crane
vessel and representatives from all parties (owner, SME and LOC) agreed that
the lifting conditions were safe. Information regarding to wind, wave and swell
of Singapore at the time of the operation was obtained from the weather station.

Lifting Crane

For the detail of Lifting crane Asian Hercules II, refer to Chapter 3.2.1a.

LOADOUT

On the day of the lifting operation, the floating crane was moored into
position. Lower the hook and connect to rigging system as shown on
detailed drawing.
Hook blocks were then raised until the slings are just taut. At this point,
slings/shackles and spreader bar was inspected. Prior to the lifting, the LOC
certificate shall be provided and checked off on the checklist.
Lift-up the module until it is well clear from temporary support and other
obstacle. At the point of lifting clear of temporary support, checks should
be carried out to allow the two fixed points touching footing pads on hull
deck first, otherwise adjustment shall be made.

105

Hercules II then raise boom to the maximum, i.e., enough gap between
crane boom and module.
De-mooring all the mooring lines.
Hercules II is ready for sail to Berth 8 Installation yard.

TRANSFER OF Module
The module will be transported to Berth 8 for installation on the Hook of
Hercules II for a distance of approximately 2.2km per the transportation routine
drawing.

INSTALLATION
Asian Hercules II will lay two stern anchors. Hercules II will be moored
perpendicular to FPSO. The port and starboard forward moorings are to be tied
with bollards on the FPSO. Two fenders (1.2m OD x 1.5m in length) will be
utilized in front of Hercules II.

FPSO shall be moored at Berth 8 with adequate mooring lines. The mooring
calculation shall be approved by Client & surveyor. For installation of module,
the FPSO will be trimmed to even keel position. The pre-installed footing on
hull deck should be checked for their condition and dimensions. The
temporary scaffoldings shall be provided to access module for derigging
purpose.

Two pre-slings for mooring of the lift vessel to the Hull, will be attached to the
hull own bollards rigged down along the hull side and the ends with soft eyes are
located approximately 1m above sea water line.

106

Final check on the mooring conditions of Hercules II.
Hercules II manoeuver herself to slowly lower the module slowly onto Hull
deck to match with pre-installed footings. Prior to lowering, a check shall be
completed of barge/vessel moorings to confirm the continuation of operation.
Client (WOS) /Marine Warranty surveyor (LOC) to check, confirm and accept
that module is properly installed.
Starting minimum bolting with the approval of LOC prior derigging.
The crane barge is ready for de-mooring for next lifting.

SAFETY ANALYSIS
The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) was conducted together with Client, Marine
warranty surveyor, Lifting contractor. The critical points and caution area
during the operation will be highlighted.

CHECK LIST

Prior to each lift, the check lists in Table 7.3 to 7.5 were checked and signed by
all three parties.

7.3 Rigging Systems with Multiple Spreader Bars

Rigging systems with one, two and spreader bars, as shown in Figure 7.1, are
extensively use in the lifting and installation of FPSO modules. The configuration
and force distribution in the rigging system have been discussed in Chapter 4.

7.4 Lifting of Lower Turret

The 680ton Turret shown in Figure 7.2 was built at Noell Imacs yard in
Mussafah, Abu Dhabi. The turret was transported to Singapore on Ocean going
heavy lift ship Happy Buccaneer. The turret was offloaded by Asian
Hercules and stored at Berth 8 of Sembawang yard until installation onto FPSO
for a period of three months.

107

For installation of the Lower Turrent into FPSO Moon pool, the following
challenges were faced:
Crane Selection

Choose a right crane which is able to lift the Turret across over FPSO
(50m wide and 22 m height above sea water). Or else to shift FPSO is a
costly operation.

Crane selected: ASIAN HERCULES II 3200Mton Floating Crane
Crane Boom : A-Frame And JIB in 0 degree

Max. dry weight of Turret = 680.0 Mton
Weight of lifting rigging system = 24.0 Mton
( Sling 19mton + Shackle 5mton = 24Mton )
______________________________
Total Lifting Loadings: 704.0 Mton
Considering Dynamic Factor of 1.05, lifting weight: 739.2 Mton

Lifting Requirement:
Minimum out-reach = 87.00M
Turret to Ship: 20.35 m
Ship width: 50.00 m
Clearance 16.65 m
Minimum hook height = 62.5 M

From crane chart:
At out reach of = 87.0m
Hook height = 70.0 m > 62.5 m Ok!
Lifting capacity = 900 Mton > 739.2 Mton Ok!

Sling Selection

Due to a small clearance (169mm) between turret and moonpool, the tilt angle
must be as minimum as possible.

As only three padeyes are installed, two grommet slings were used as the
balance slings to crane hook via single Shackle.

Turret Installation

For installation of Lower Turret, the FPSO was trimmed to even keel position,
and the watertight moon pool closing plate was in place with the lugs on the
closing plate welded. Three vertical support jacks installed on the moon pool

108

closing plate and set to the theoretical elevation. Three horizontal jacks were
also in position. Pumps necessary to activate the jacks was ready and tested.

Video Cameras installed inside moon pool and working properly. Gear for
rotating chain guides was in place. All the scaffoldings and other temporary
equipment inside the moon pool shall be removed to avoid any clashing with
turret during lowering operation.

Due to a small clearance (169mm) between turret and moonpool, six nos of old
ropes or cables (appr. 50mm) as guide protections were evenly installed inside
the moon pool (against the moon pool circular wall) to protect the paint during
the turret lowering operation. Three nos of spot lights were installed in the
Turret to illuminate area where the video cameras are looking at. These lights
were facilitated with cables and end sockets for connecting the power lines at
hull deck.

The closing plate seal pressurization system as installed earlier must be
disconnected and the water filled seals must be drained and inflated with
compressed air to a pressure of 2.5 bars one by one such that one seal system
remains active at any time.

The floating crane was moored into its position. Lower the hook and connect to
the turret rigging system. Raise Hook block until the slings are just taut. At this
point, slings and shackles were thoroughly inspected. Lift-up to well clear any
obstacle, i.e. two meters between lowest point of the Turret and highest point of

109

obstacles on berth site. Rotate the Turret 90 degree clockwise by using folk lift.
Hercules II continues raise A-Frame to a boom angle of 61 degree. Retrieve
forward anchor. Move backward with the assistance of anchor lines until the
center line of turret is in line of moon pool. Release the mooring line on
starboard side. Hercules II moves sideward until the turret is on top of moon
pool. Drop the forward anchor. Tie the starboard mooring line onto a new
bollard of Hull.

Start to lower the Turret slowly into the moon pool. When chain cable is at the
level of the vessel deck, connect the chain stopper rotating slings to the main
deck. Check alignment at this stage and make adjustment when necessary.

Stop at the level where the guide wires start being functioning to check equal
activating. Video cameras will be used to monitor clearance between the
chainstoppers and the closing plate. The clearance will be adjusted by means of
the hoists fitted on vessel deck. Continue to lower the turret into the moon pool
until it is in contact with the 3 supporting jacks. WOS/Marine Warranty surveyor
(LOC) to check, confirm and accept that turret is properly supported by the 3
jacks prior to derigging - completion of lifting operation.

Figures 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 show design details of lifting and installation of other
parts of the turret.

110

7.5 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module

For each lifting, lifting crane capacity was studied. The following is the details
of lifting of Module PX04, the gas recompression module, as shown in Figure
7.6.

The estimated lifting weight for each PX04 is 1001.0 ton
The lifting weight of PX04: 1001.0 Mton
Adding the weight of slings, shackles and Spreader bars: 78.0 Mton
Total: 1079.0 Mton
Considering Dynamic Factor of 1.05, lifting weight: 1133.0 Mton

Crane Type: ASIAN HERCULES II, 3200Mton Floating Sheerleg Crane
Crane Boom: A-Frame in Position I with JIB (0)
Lifting Requirement:
Minimum out-reach = 70.0m
Minimum hook height = 86.0m (5m clearance)
From crane chart:
At out reach of = 70.0m
Hook height = 87.4m > 86.0m ok!
Lifting capacity = 1500Mton > 1133.0Mton Ok!

111

7.6 Lifting of Flare Tower

The installation of the 92m of Flare Tower onto FPSO, as shown in Figure 7.7 was
studied during detailed design stage of Flare Tower. In general, two methods were
discussed as below:
Method A: To install the Flare Tower in two pieces, ie, to cut flare tower at mid
section.
Method B: To install the Flare Tower in one complete piece.
Advantages:
Method A:
- The Flare Tower weight can be reduced
- No any technical issue during lifting/installation
Method B:
- Time saving for both heavy lifting crane and fabrication
Disadvantages:
Method A:
- Required two separate lifts
- As the lifting height limitation of Hercules II JibII, the fly Jib is
required for installation the upper part. This would lead into
time/money costing for the boom changing.
- Safety issue. To connect the upper part onto the lower part, the welding
must be carried out up the height of 62m above the sea level. This must
be avoided to reduce any potential risk.
Method B:
- The steel weight increased slightly

112

- Required lot of detailed engineering study to ensure safety, clashing
free and cost saving

Method A was not chosen due to high risk up in the air.

For method B, following critical issues were studied carefully:
a) The flare Tower was fabricated on ground. Both main hook and Jib hook were
utilized to upbend as shown in Figure 7.6. Additional padeye was designed.
Updending structural analysis was performed with the modification of upper
leg.
b) After releasing the main hook, the flare tower was lifted by Jib hook only.
Hercules then carried the flare for about 2.2 km from fabrication site to
integration site. Dynamic analysis was done to ensure the completed system is
safe.
c) Prior to installation, the dimension of stab-in guide and Flare leg was checked.
Special guide system was designed to receive the tower.
d) The upper leg of Flare was protected with the mooring rope.

113

7.7 Summary

Design and operation for lifting FPSO modules are discussed in this chapter. Lift
procedures and considerations for FPSO modules are indicated and rigging systems
with multiple spreader bars are highlighted. Practical design and analysis
considerations for lifting lower turret, gas recompression module and flare tower,
which are unique for stingy requirement of installation accuracy, heavy load and
geometry, are discussed based on real projects.

114

Table 7.1 Lifting Operation Summary for Laminaria FPSO
LIFT
NO.
AREA
CODE

AREA DESCRIPTION

WEIGHING

SPREADER BAR
LENGTH (M)
(Eye to Eye)

M
O
B

LIFT
WT
(TON)
1
ST

Final BOTTOM
2 NOS
TOP
1 NOS

NOS OF
SLINGS
REQD
1 HU10 TURRET ( LOWER )
1
ST
680 - - - - 3
2 PF00 FLARE TOWER 1
ST
228 Yes Yes - - 2
3 PX20 LAYDOWN AREA FWD TURRET
1
ST
46 Yes Yes - - 4
4 PX19 FLARE EQUIPMENT SUPPORT
1
ST
70 Yes Yes - 14.080 6
5 PR05 PROCESS PIPERACK 5
1
ST
71 Yes Yes - 2.92 6
1
ST
26 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
1
ST
25 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
8 PR01 PROCESS PIPERACK 1 1
ST
76 Yes Yes - 2.92 6
9 PX18 CHEMICAL INJECTION
1
ST
154 Yes Yes 11.565 16.720 10
10 PX01 LAYDOWN AND STORAGE AREA
1
ST
212 Yes Yes - 15.840 6
11 PX02 UTILITY AREA
1
ST
345 Yes Yes - 18.480 6
12 PX04 POWER GENERATION
1
ST
1,120 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
13 PX03 POWER GENERATION
1
ST
589 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
14 PM05/ ACCESS / TRANSPORT ROUTE 1
ST
45 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
15 HD20 PEDESTAL CRANE X-1402
1
ST
92 - - - - 4
16 HD70 PEDESTAL CRANE X-1401
2
ND
92 - - - - 4
17 TX00 TURRET MANIFOLD STRUCTURE
2
ND
697 Yes Yes - 4.100 6
18 TX00 TURRET GANTRY STRUCTURE
2
ND
372 Yes Yes - - 4
19 TX00 TURRET SWIVEL STACK
2
ND
50 - - - - 4
20 PX12 PRODUCED WATER 2
ND
411 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
21 PX14 CORALLINA SEPARATION
2
ND
780 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
22 PX16 LAMINARIA SEPARATION
2
ND
700 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
23 PX17 DEBUTANIZER
2
ND
307 Yes Yes 11.565 16.720 10
24 PX09 GAS RECOMPRESSION
3
RD
875 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
25 PX11 GAS LIFT
3
RD
906 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
26 PX13 GAS LIFT 3
RD
967 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
27 PX15 GAS INJECTION
3
RD
1,066 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
28 HU90 DEBUTANIZER COLUMN
3
RD
95 - - - - 4

Table 7.2 Contingency Actions Plan / Procedure

SCENARIO

PRIMARY
CONTINGENCY
SECONDARY
CONTINGENCY
Breaking/parting of either
shear leg or FPSO
mooring line

Standby mooring rope

Tug's assist
Failure of shear leg to
lower load
Lower boom Maintain crew to
repair
Power failure on shear leg
crane
start emergency
generator automatically
None

Bad weather The lifting operation
will be postponed

115

Table 7.3 Preparation Check List
DESCRIPTION WOS LOC SME
Asian Hercules vessel in position at Erection yard, ready
for lifting operation.

Slings, shackles and spreader bar are ready
Certificate for sling, shackle and cranes
LOC to have checked the lifting gears
Certificate for Spreader bars
Qualified rigging supervisor and safety officer are present
Shiploosed items removed from module and list prepared
Bearing Pads and connecting bolts are ready
Erection area cleared of temporary equipment and
obstructions.

Temporary access way to the lifting trunnions
Movable crane standby

Table 7.4 Loadout Check List
Hercules II is proper anchored and moored in its
lifting position

Check mooring line conditions
Shackle and slings are in good condition and attached
on module

loadout area is clear of any obstruction
This procedure reviewed by all the parties
Agreement to commence lifting operations. Certificate
of Approval for Lift issued by LOC.

Table 7.5 Installation Check List
Hercules II mooring its designed position with two
mooring lines tie on FPSO, two aft anchors dropped

Set-down area on FPSO is clear of obstacles, ready to
receive it.

Footing level/location survey done, trimmed if necessary
Bearing Pads and connecting bolts are ready on FPSO
Hull deck

LOC certificate provided to commence lifting
Agreement to lower down module
Module leveled and proper installed
Minimum bolt connection approved by LOC
Agreement to release crane hook

116

1

CG

3

Fig. 7.1 Rigging arrangement for lifting FPSO
modules with spreader bars
One spreader bar
Two spreader bars
3 spreader Bars
1

CG

1

CG

117

Figure 7.2 Lifting of Lower Turret (680 ton)

Figure 7.3 Lifting of Upper Turret Manifold Deck Structure with Three Spreader
Bars

118

As the Gantry Structure is transported to installation yard on Barge Sea
Prosper, proper seafastening removal procedure was established prior to lifting;
The four slings are also very carefully selected due to COG eccentricity
Figure 7.4 Lifting of Upper Turret Gantry Structure

Single sling is attached to Swivel Stack with the balanced system to crane hook.

Figure 7.5 Lifting of Swivel Stack Bottom Assembly

119

Figure 7.6 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module

120

Figure 7.7 Upending and Lifting of 92-metre Flare Tower

121

CHAPTER 8 SPECIAL LIFTING FRAME DESIGN

8.1 Introduction

A versatile lifting frame is designed for the loadout / installation of six pallets (topside
structures) onto Shell EA FPSO at Sembawang Yard.

The weight and COG of six pallets used for the lifting frame design is listed in Table 8.1.
As we can see from Table 10.1, the COG for each pallet is different from other. Also, the
lifting point distances in Y-direction for Separation Pallet port and Power Generation
port are not the same as others. It is a challenge to make an uni-frame used for 6 lifts.

The final design weight is based on the pallet self-weight with 15% contingency plus
lifting frame weight and rigging weight. Dynamic factor of 1.5 is considered at the same
time. The design is performed in accordance with API RP2A and AISC (American
Institute Steel Construction) Allowable Stress Design 9
th
Edition. The lifting frame
analysis is performed by the software SACS (Structural Analysis Computer System).

With the lifting frame weight and rigging weight, the total weight used in analysis is
listed in table 8.2.

The hook point is 26 meters high from the lifting frame for all pallets except the pallet
Power Generation Port, in which the hook point is 16 meters considered due to hook
height limitation. Tube check and joint/overlapping check against API RP 2A are made
and the dynamic factor of 1.50 is considered. It is found that all members and joints are
sufficient. The maximum stress ratio for member check is 0.86 on the member 2-4 when
pallet Power Generation Port is lifted in Table 8.3.

122

8.2. Effect of the Shift of the Centre of Gravity

Lifting Point Location
Coordinates (MM)
Point No X Y
1 0.0 18480
2 18060 18480
3 0 0
4 18060 0

Reaction loads without COG shifting
WT COG (mm) Base Reaction (ton) Pallet
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4

Cooler
998.0 9465 8640 222.1 244.5 252.9 278.5
Utility
1088.8 8120 9340 302.9 247.4 296.4 242.1
Separation
(Port)
860.0 9830 10710 227.2 271.3 164.8 196.8
Separation
(Starboard)
680.4 9330 9240 164.4 175.8 164.4 175.8
Compression
(Port)
594.7 9840 6740 98.7 118.2 172.0 205.8
Compression
(Starboard)
618.7 8840 9240 158.0 151.4 158.0 151.4
Power (Port)
1063.4 13040 9073 145.1 376.9 150.5 390.8
Power
(Starboard)
780.2 12640 9840 124.7 290.8 109.5 255.3

Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards ve X-direction
WT COG (mm) Reaction (ton) Pallet
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4

Cooler
998.0 8965 8640 235.0 231.6 267.6 263.8
Utility
1088.8 7620 9340 318.1 232.2 311.3 227.2
Separation
(Port)
860.0 9330 10710 240.9 257.5 174.8 186.8
Separation
(Starboard)
680.4 8830 9240 173.9 166.3 173.9 166.3
Compression
(Port)
594.7 9340 6740 104.7 112.2 182.4 195.4
Compression
(Starboard)
618.7 8340 9240 166.5 142.9 166.5 142.9
Power (Port)
1063.4 12540 9073 159.6 362.5 165.5 375.9
Power
(Starboard)
780.2 12140 9840 136.2 279.3 119.6 245.2
y
x
1 2
4
3

123

Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards +ve X-direction
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4

Cooler
998.0 9965 8640 209.1 257.5 238.2 293.2
Utility
1088.8 8620 9340 287.6 262.6 281.5 257.0
Separation
(Port)
860.0 10330 10710 213.3 285.1 154.8 206.8
Separation
(Starboard)
680.4 9830 9240 155.0 185.2 155.0 185.2
Compression
(Port)
594.7 10340 6740 92.7 124.2 161.5 216.3
Compression
(Starboard)
618.7 9340 9240 149.4 159.9 149.4 159.9
Power (Port)
1063.4 13540 9073 130.7 391.4 135.5 405.9
Power
(Starboard)
780.2 13140 9840 113.2 302.3 99.4 265.4

Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards ve Y-direction
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4

Cooler
998.0 9465 8140 209.2 230.4 265.8 292.7
Utility
1088.8 8120 8840 286.7 234.2 312.6 255.4
Separation
(Port)
860.0 9830 10210 216.5 258.6 175.4 209.5
Separation
(Starboard)
680.4 9330 8740 155.6 166.2 173.3 185.3
Compression
(Port)
594.7 9840 6240 91.4 109.4 179.3 214.6
Compression
(Starboard)
618.7 8840 8740 149.4 143.2 166.5 159.6
Power (Port)
1063.4 13040 8573 137.1 356.2 158.5 411.6
Power
(Starboard)
780.2 12640 9340 118.3 275.9 115.8 270.1

124

Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards +ve Y-direction
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4

Cooler
998.0 9465 9140 234.9 258.7 240.1 264.3
Utility
1088.8 8120 9840 319.1 260.7 280.2 228.9
Separation
(Port)
860.0 9830 11210 237.7 283.9 154.2 184.1
Separation
(Starboard)
680.4 9330 9740 173.3 185.3 155.6 166.2
Compression
(Port)
594.7 9840 7240 106.1 126.9 164.6 197.1
Compression
(Starboard)
618.7 8840 9740 166.5 159.6 149.4 143.2
Power (Port)
1063.4 13040 9573 153.1 397.7 142.5 370.9
Power
(Starboard)
780.2 12640 10340 131.0 305.5 103.1 240.5

125

8.3. Sling Forces
Unit : kN
SACS MEMBER NO.
18-22 17-22 20-22 19-22 16-22 15-22 13-22 14-22
Power Generation Starboard
869.00 957.68 2145.91 1649.33 1525.19 1844.42 815.80 833.53
Separation Pallet Starboard
1276.90 1028.62 1596.13 851.27 851.27 1596.13 1028.62 1294.64
Separation Pallet Port
1560.66 1525.19 2358.72 1241.43 1046.35 1667.07 993.15 1347.84
Compression Pallet Starboard
1259.17 957.68 1436.52 709.39 709.39 1436.52 957.66 1259.17
Compression Pallet Port
904.47 602.98 1064.08 656.19 904.47 1879.88 1223.70 1152.76
Power Generation Port
1294.64 1294.64 2908.50 2553.81 2571.54 3032.64 1365.58 1294.64

126

8.4 Padeye Checking

Also refer to the typical padeye in Figure 3.13.

SHACKLE SELECTION
Required SWL (SWL = SLt) SWL 480.00 tons ( As per lifting analysis ref: section 2)
PROPOSED SHACKLE PROPERTIES
Type 500 M.T. Green Pin Anchor Shackle (model P-6036)
Shackle I.D.
Safe Working Load SWLh = 500 tons
Safety Factor for Shackle SF = 4
Minimum Breaking Strength MBS = 2000 tons
Factor of Safety MBS/SWL = 4.17 > 4.0. O.K!
Pin Diameter Dh = 185.00 mm
Jaw Width Wh = 250.00 mm
Inside Length Lh = 700.00 mm
PADEYE GEOMETRY
Main Plate : No. Nm = 1 nos
Thickness Tm = 80.00 mm
Radius Rm = 381.00 mm
Cheek Plate 1 : No. Nc1 = 2 nos
Thickness Tc1 = 50.00 mm
Radius Ra1 = 305.00 mm
Cheek Plate 2 : No. Nc2 = 0 nos
Thickness Tc2 = 0.00 mm
Radius Ra2 = 0.00 mm
1. Check Pin Hole Diameter :
Pin Dia. + 6mm Allowance = Dh + 6 mm = 191.00 mm
Pin Hole Dia. Provided D = 190.000 mm
2. Check Main Plate Radius :
Minimum Radius = 1.25*D = 237.50 mm
or = D/2 + 3" = 171.20 mm
Radius Provided Rm = 381.00 mm O.K!
3. Check Shackle Inside Length :
Minimum Inside Length = (Ds + Rm- D/2+6mm) = 407.00 mm
Inside Length Provided Lh = 700.00 mm O.K!
( where assuming sling diameter Ds = 115mm )
4. Check Shackle Jaw Clearance :
Minimum Clearance Clr = 6.00 mm
Required Centraliser plate thickness = (Wh-Nm*Tm-Nc1*Tc1-Nc2*Tc2-2*Clr)/2
= 29.000 mm
Provide Centraliser Plate = 25.000 mm

127

PADEYE STRENGTH CHECKS
Padeye Des. Load Pd = SWL * 1.50 = 720.00 tons
(Dynamic Fac. = 1.5) ( where SWL = SLt )
MATERIAL : Type GRADE -50
Yield Strength Fy = 345.00 MPa
1. CHECK BEARING
Allow. Bearing Stress Fp = 0.9 * Fy = 310.50 MPa
Bearing Area Ap = Dh*(Nm*Tm+Nc1*Tc1+Nc2*Tc2)
= 33300.00 mm^2
Actual Bearing Stress fp = Pd / Ap = 212.11 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.68
2. CHECK PULLOUT SHEAR
Allow. Shear Stress Fv = 0.4 * Fy = 138.00 MPa
Shear Area :
Length : Main Plate Lm = Rm - D/2 = 286.000 mm
Cheek Plate 1 Lc1 = Ra1 - D/2 = 210.000 mm
Cheek Plate 2 Lc2 = Ra2 - D/2 = 0.000 mm
Area : Av = (Nm*Tm*Lm +Nc1*Tc1*Lc1+Nc2*Tc2*Lc2)*2
= 87760.00 mm^2
Actual Shear Stress fv = Pd / Av = 80.48 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.58
3. CHECK TENSION FAILURE AT
3.1 SECTION THROUGH PINHOLE
Allow Tensile Stress Ft = 0.45 * Fy = 155.25 MPa
Tensile Failure Area At = Nm*Tm*(2*Rm-D)+Nc1*Tc1*(2*Ra1-D)+Nc2*Tc2*(2*Ra2-D)
= 87760.00 mm^2
Actual Tensile Stress ft = Pd / At = 80.48 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.52
3.2 SECTION AROUND UNDERSIDE OF CHEEK PLATE 1
Allow Tensile Stress Ft = 0.60 * Fy = 207.00 MPa
Length of Section Lt = approx 1.5*pi*Ra1 = 1437.28 mm
Area of Section At = Tm*Lt = 114982.29 mm^2
Actual Tensile Stress ft = Pd / At = 61.43 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.30
4. CHECK ATTACHMENT FOR CHEEK PLATES
CHECK CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD BETWEEN CHEEK PLATE & MAIN PLATE
E70XX Electrode
Weld Strength Ftw = 70 ksi = 483.00 MPa
Allow. Shear Stress Fsw = 0.3 * Ftw = 144.90 MPa
Load in Cheek Plate Pcd = Pd*(Tc1)/(Nm*Tm+Nc1*Tc1) = 1962.00 kN
Weld Size Req'd Lg = Pcd / (Fsw*Ra**0.707) = 19.99 mm
Minimum (AISC) : For Main Plate thk. > 3/4" = 8.000 mm
Weld Size Provided : Fillet Weld = = 35.00 mm O.K!

128

CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES
A. SECTION PROPERTIES Y

'a'
'b' 5

'a'
'a' 'a'
'b' 2 3

4 'b'

Location 2

'b' 1 --- bottom flange X
'a'

Location 1

129

CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES (CONT'D)
A. SECTION PROPERTIES
About X-X axis
S/no Description Dimension Dimension Y Area AY AY*Y I x-x own
of 'a' 'b' (mm) A (mm^3) (mm^4) (mm^4)
Elements (mm) (mm) (mm^2)
1 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
2 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
3 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
4 80 x 1312 80.00 1312.00 656.000 104960.00 6.885E+7 4.52E+10 1.506E+10
5 NIL 0.00 0.00 1312.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
2a NIL 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
3a NIL 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000E+0 0.00E+00 0.000E+0
Summation 104960.00 6.885E+7 4.52E+10 1.506E+10
Yc , Distance to centroid of section measured from bottom flange = summation(AY)/summation(A)
Yc = 656.00 mm
I x-x = summation(I x-x own) + summation(AY*Y) - [{summation(AY)}^2/summation(A)]
I x-x = 1.506E+10 mm^4
Sxx = 2.295E+7 mm^3
Height of main plate = 1312.00 mm
Thickness of main plate = 80.00 mm
Area of Main plate, Aweb = Height x Thickness = 104960.00 mm^2
About Y-Y axis
S/no Description Dimension Dimension X Area AX AX*X I y-y own
of 'a' 'b' (mm) A (mm^3) (mm^4) (mm^4)
Elements (mm) (mm) (mm^2)
1 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
2 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00E+0 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
3 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00E+0 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
4 80 x 1312 80.00 1312.00 0.00 104960.00 0.00 0.0E+00 5.598E+7
5 NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
2a NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00E+0 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
3a NIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00E+0 0.0E+00 0.000E+0
Summation 104960.00 0.000E+0 0.000E+0 5.598E+7
Xc , Distance to centroid of section measured from middle of main plate = summation(AX)/summation(A)
Xc = 0.00 mm
I y-y = summation(I y-y own) + summation(AX*X) - [{summation(AX)}^2/summation(A)]
I y-y = 5.598E+7 mm^4
Syy = 1.399E+6 mm^3

130

CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES (CONT'D)
Sling Angle (w.r.t Horizontal) theta = 60.00 Degree
Tensile Force = SWL * SIN (theta) T = 415.69 tons
Shear Force = SWL* COS (theta) SHF = 240.00 tons
Out-of-Plane Force = SWL*0.05 (5% of actual force) OPF = 24.00 tons
Dynamic Factor = 1.50
Design Tensile Force = (Td = T* 1.50) Td = 6116.91 kN
Design Shear Force = (SHFd = SHF* 1.50) SHFd = 3531.60 kN
Design Out-of-Plane Force = (OPFd = OPF*1.50) OPFd = 353.16 kN
Height of Centerline of Hole H = 0.306 m
Distance from bottom flange to centreline of hole Hm = 1.025 m
Mxx = SHFd x H - Td x (Hm -Yc) = 1176.47 kN-m
Myy = OPFd x H = 108.07 kN-m
1. CHECK SHEAR STRESS
Allow. Shear Stress Fv = 0.4 * Fy = 138.00 MPa
In-plane :
Actual Shear Stress fvx = SHFd/Aweb = 33.65 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.24
2. CHECK TENSILE STRESS
Allow. Tensile Stress Ft = 0.6 * Fy = 207.00 MPa
Actual Tensile Stress ft = Td/Summation(A) = 58.28 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.28
3. CHECK BENDING STRESS
Allow. Bending Stress Fb = 0.6 * Fy = 207.00 MPa
In-plane :
Actual Bending Stress fbx = Mxx/Sxx = 51.26 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.25
Out-of-plane :
Actual Bending Stress fby = Myy/Syy = 77.22 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.37
4. CHECK COMBINED STRESS
Combined Stress Ratio = ft/Ft + (fbx+fby)/Fb = 0.90 O.K!
5. CHECK VON MISES YIELDING CRITERIA
Allow. Combined Stress Fc = 0.66 * Fy = 227.70 MPa
5.1 Check maximum combined stresses at main plate location.
Sum of Stresses in X-Plane fx = ft + fbx = 109.54 MPa
Sum of Stresses in Y-Plane fy = = 77.22 MPa
Ave. Shear Stress txy = (SHFd/Aweb) = 33.65 MPa
Actual Combined Stress fc = (fx^2+fy^2-fx*fy+3*txy^2)^0.5
= 113.58 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.50

131

8.5 Trunnion Checking

Max. Static sling force, Ps

Ps = 480 x 0.5 x 1.1 (Sin60)

= 305 Mton

Trunnion Cross Section Area, At

At = (914 38) x 38 x

= 1004577 mm

Shear Stress,

fv = 1.5 x (305 x 9.81 x 1000) (104577 x 0.5)

= 85.83 N/mm < Fv = 0.4 Fy = 0.4 x 345 = 138 N/mm OK!

Where,

1.5 = Dynamic factor

Fy = 345, Material Yielding stress

Ring Stress

As per Roak Formulas,

Cross sectional Area,

A= 8 x 1.5 + 16.5 x 1.5 = 36.75 in

C = 6.811 in

Moment Inertia,

I = 1 /12 x 16.5
3
x 1.5 + 16.5 x 1.5 x (9.75 6.811) + 8 x 1.5 x (6.811 0.75)

= 1216 in
4

Sectional Modulars,

S = 1216 / (18 6.811)

= 108.68 in
3

C
18
8
Plate thickness = 1.5

132

ROARK CLOSED RING ANALYSIS SEMBAWANG SHELL EA PROJECT-LIFTING FRAME TRUNN
EQUATIONS FROM 6th ED 01-Mar-01
(AS OF 20 JUNE 1992: MULTIPLE CASES AVAILABLE)
THE FOLLOWING ARE ASSUMED CO (ONLY THE FIRST 4 CASES OF EACH CATAGORY)
1) CROSS SECTION
2) MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
3) POISSON'S RATIO
4) RADIUS
CASE NUMBPARAMETERS:
TOTAL W SHIFT ANGLE O O o
(kN) (DEG) (DEG) (DEG) (mm)
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
25 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 N.A. N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 12.5000 12.5000 N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 25.7000 25.7000 N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 40.5000 40.5000 N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 60.0000 60.0000 N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 N.A.
16 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 N.A.
25S 2984.6080 0.00 N.A. N.A. 558.8000
25S 0.0000 0.00 N.A. N.A. 0.0000
25S 0.0000 0.00 N.A. N.A. 0.0000
25S 0.0000 0.00 N.A. N.A. 0.0000
25S 0.0000 0.00 N.A. N.A. 0.0000
25S 0.0000 0.00 N.A. N.A. 0.0000
YIELD STR. CROSS SECT. PROPERTIES
RADIUS TO RING MPa AREA (mm^2) SECT (mm^3)
NEUTRAL AXIS (mm)= 284.2006 344.72 23709.6 1780946.1

133

RESULTS: MAX. CHECK SEMBAWANG SHELL EA PROJECT-LIFTING FRAME TCIRCUM. TEN
CIRCUM. TEN MOMENT + BENDING
DEGREES MOMENT CIRCUM.TENADIAL SHEA STRESS RATIOSTRESS RATIO STRESS RATIO
(kN-m) (kN) (kN)
0 60.678 -559.488 0.000 0.114 0.165 0.279
5 59.644 -565.277 83.137 0.115 0.162 0.277
10 56.579 -582.364 163.269 0.119 0.154 0.272
15 51.594 -609.921 237.502 0.124 0.140 0.264
20 44.869 -646.602 303.155 0.132 0.122 0.254
25 36.648 -690.589 357.861 0.141 0.099 0.240
30 27.226 -739.659 399.657 0.151 0.074 0.225
35 16.943 -791.260 427.055 0.161 0.046 0.207
40 6.170 -842.608 439.105 0.172 0.017 0.189
45 -4.708 -890.786 435.436 0.182 0.013 0.194
50 -15.301 -932.851 416.278 0.190 0.042 0.232
55 -25.235 -965.947 382.464 0.197 0.069 0.265
60 -34.162 -987.411 335.416 0.201 0.093 0.294
65 -41.779 -994.882 277.104 0.203 0.113 0.316
70 -47.834 -986.393 209.991 0.201 0.130 0.331
75 -52.146 -960.461 136.959 0.196 0.142 0.337
80 -54.605 -913.617 60.775 0.186 0.148 0.335
85 -55.152 -833.370 -15.507 0.170 0.150 0.320
90 -53.896 -746.152 -84.473 0.152 0.146 0.298
95 -51.027 -653.255 -145.570 0.133 0.139 0.272
100 -46.744 -556.016 -198.361 0.113 0.127 0.240
105 -41.259 -455.800 -242.527 0.093 0.112 0.205
110 -34.787 -353.985 -277.867 0.072 0.094 0.167
115 -27.550 -251.948 -304.302 0.051 0.075 0.126
120 -19.767 -151.047 -321.873 0.031 0.054 0.084
125 -11.656 -52.609 -330.737 0.011 0.032 0.042
130 -3.431 42.085 -331.164 0.009 0.009 0.018
135 4.704 131.813 -323.536 0.027 0.013 0.040
140 12.554 215.430 -308.336 0.044 0.034 0.078
145 19.940 291.871 -286.145 0.060 0.054 0.114
150 26.696 360.172 -257.632 0.073 0.072 0.146
155 32.673 419.475 -223.545 0.086 0.089 0.174
160 37.745 469.036 -184.703 0.096 0.102 0.198
165 41.803 508.238 -141.985 0.104 0.113 0.217
170 44.763 536.592 -96.315 0.109 0.122 0.231
175 46.564 553.746 -48.657 0.113 0.126 0.239
180 47.168 559.488 0.000 0.114 0.128 0.242
185 46.564 553.746 -48.657 0.113 0.126 0.239
190 44.763 536.592 -96.315 0.109 0.122 0.231
195 41.803 508.238 -141.985 0.104 0.113 0.217
200 37.745 469.036 -184.703 0.096 0.102 0.198
205 32.673 419.475 -223.545 0.086 0.089 0.174
210 26.696 360.172 -257.632 0.073 0.072 0.146
215 19.940 291.871 -286.145 0.060 0.054 0.114
220 12.554 215.430 -308.336 0.044 0.034 0.078
225 4.704 131.813 -323.536 0.027 0.013 0.040
230 -3.431 42.085 -331.164 0.009 0.009 0.018
235 -11.656 -52.609 -330.737 0.011 0.032 0.042
240 -19.767 -151.047 -321.873 0.031 0.054 0.084
245 -27.550 -251.948 -304.302 0.051 0.075 0.126
250 -34.787 -353.985 -277.867 0.072 0.094 0.167
255 -41.259 -455.800 -242.527 0.093 0.112 0.205

134

CIRCUM. TEN
CIRCUM. TEN MOMENT + BENDING
DEGREES MOMENT CIRCUM. TENADIAL SHEA STRESS RATIOSTRESS RATIO STRESS RATIO
(kN-m) (kN) (kN)
260 -46.744 -556.016 -198.361 0.113 0.127 0.240
265 -51.027 -653.255 -145.570 0.133 0.139 0.272
270 -53.896 -746.152 -84.473 0.152 0.146 0.298
275 -55.152 -833.370 -15.507 0.170 0.150 0.320
280 -54.605 -913.617 60.775 0.186 0.148 0.335
285 -52.146 -960.461 136.959 0.196 0.142 0.337
290 -47.834 -986.393 209.991 0.201 0.130 0.331
295 -41.779 -994.882 277.104 0.203 0.113 0.316
300 -34.162 -987.411 335.416 0.201 0.093 0.294
305 -25.235 -965.947 382.464 0.197 0.069 0.265
310 -15.301 -932.851 416.278 0.190 0.042 0.232
315 -4.708 -890.786 435.436 0.182 0.013 0.194
320 6.170 -842.608 439.105 0.172 0.017 0.189
325 16.943 -791.260 427.055 0.161 0.046 0.207
330 27.226 -739.659 399.657 0.151 0.074 0.225
335 36.648 -690.589 357.861 0.141 0.099 0.240
340 44.869 -646.602 303.155 0.132 0.122 0.254
345 51.594 -609.921 237.502 0.124 0.140 0.264
350 56.579 -582.364 163.269 0.119 0.154 0.272
355 59.644 -565.277 83.137 0.115 0.162 0.277
360 60.678 -559.488 0.000 0.114 0.165 0.279

135

8.6 Summary

The final design of the lifting frame is shown in Figure 8.1.

The lifting devices of the above spreader frame are the combination of padeye and
lifting trunnions. Padeyes are designed underneath of spreader frame, while the lower
slings remain un-changed, these save lots of rigging changing time during actual lifting
operation. The trunnions above the spreader frame make operator much easier for re-
rigging of slings for next lift. The trunnions are also catered for different COG. The
concept of X-Brace at centre and introduction of thicker joint-can eventually lead into
a lighter frame, 69 ton only. Other concept, four braces at corner, was studied and
found not cost saving. A 50mm thick of the main plate of padeye/trunnions per design
are good enough for the lifting. The above analysis was based on the fabricator stock
of main plate 80 mm thick.

136

Table 8.1 Weight and COG data

C.O.G (See Note) Lifting Point Dist
S/No
.

PALLET DESCRIPTION
Pallet
Weight
(ton)
X
(mm)
Y
(mm)
X
(mm)
Y
(mm)
1 Power Generation Starboard 780 12640 9840 18060 18480
2 Separation Pallet Starboard 680 9330 9240 18060 18480
3 Separation Pallet Port 860 9830 9840 18060 16740
4 Compression Pallet Starboard 619 8840 9240 18060 18480
5 Compression Pallet Port 595 9840 6740 18060 18480
6 Power Generation Port 1063 13040 10840 18060 22015

Table 8.2 Total Weight and COG
Lifting Weight (m.ton)
Revised C.O.G
(based on frame)
DESCRIPTION Pallet
15%
contin.
Computer
Model
Frame
5% contin
Misc. Load
Rigging &
Padeye
X
(mm)
Y
(mm)
Power Generation Starboard 897 58 29 12325 9788
Separation Pallet Starboard 782 58 29 9301 9240
Separation Pallet Port 989 58 29 9766 10592
Compression Pallet Starboard 712 58 29 8861 9240
Compression Pallet Port 684 58 29 9750 7020
Power Generation Port 1222 58 29 12777 9084

Note: Origin is located at the lower left lifting point,
shown on the left.
x
y

137

TABLE 8.3 MEMBER ANALYSIS RESULT SUMMARY

SACS Group ID 1 2 3 4

PALLET NAME
Criti.
Memb
Max.
UC*
Criti.
Memb
Max.
UC
Criti.
Memb
Max.
UC
Criti.
Memb
Max.
UC
Power Generation Starboard
4-12 0.48 4-21 0.35 2-21 0.28 2-4 0.37
Separation Pallet Starboard
12-20 0.33 1-21 0.20 3-21 0.19 2-4 0.16
Separation Pallet Port
12-20 0.49 4-21 0.31 3-21 0.20 2-4 0.33
Compression Pallet Starboard
12-20 0.29 1-21 0.20 3-21 0.19 1-3 0.13
Compression Pallet Port
15-10 0.39 1-21 0.18 2-21 0.26 2-4 0.27
Power Generation Port
15-10 0.63 4-21 0.64 2-21 0.64 2-4 0.86
* UC: Unity Check = Actual Stress over Allowable stress

138

1
B
D
E
T
A
I
L

1
2
D
E
T
A
I
L

2
S
I
M
.

D
E
T
A
I
L

1
A
1
B
S
I
M
.

D
E
T
A
I
L

2
2
B
D
E
T
A
I
L

3
R
0
2
0

Figure 8.1 Lifting Frame Details

139

CHAPTER 9 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR LIFTING
DESIGN

9.1 Introduction
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computer based method to simulate and analyse the
behaviour of engineering structures and components under a variety of conditions. It is
an advanced tool that is used in engineering design. The method is comprised of three
stages: (A) pre-processing, in which the analyst develops a finite element mesh of the
geometry and applies material properties, boundary conditions and loads; (B) solution,
during which the program derives the governing matrix equations (stiffness x
displacement = load) from the model and solves for the displacements, strains and
stresses and (C) post-processing, in which the analyst obtains results usually in the
form of deformed shapes and contour plots which help to check the validity of the
solution.

FEA is widely accepted in almost all engineering disciplines. The technique is based
on the premise that an approximate solution to any complex engineering problem can
be reached by subdividing the structural component into smaller and more manageable
(finite) elements. The Finite Element Model (FEM) is analysed with an inherently
greater precision than would otherwise be possible using manual calculations, since the
actual shape, load and constraints, as well as material property combinations can be
specified with much greater accuracy than that used in manual calculations.

It is possible to perform a simulation of a design concept and to determine its real
world behaviour under envisaged environments to enable the concept to be refined
prior to the creation of drawings, when minor cost expenditure is committed and

140

changes are inexpensive. Once a model has been developed, the analysis helps in
evaluating the feasibility of the new design as well as trouble shooting failed
components to refine the design.

This chapter discusses FEM structural analysis in heavy lift design and analysis. Two
critical lift applications, namely, living quarter module lifting and lifting padeye joints,
will be investigated using different finite element models.

9.2 Finite Element Analysis for Module Lifts
9.2.1 Structural and Material Details
A typical living quarter module in North Sea field development project consists of the
following structural components:
Utility Area,
Living Quarter Area,
Cellar deck,
Helicopter deck,
Bridge,
Drain caisson,
Deluge caisson,
Sewage caisson,
Seawater caisson and
Fire water caisson.
All decks except the cellar deck are plated decks. As for the cellar deck, there is an
open frame structure for free ventilation. The utility area and the living quarter area are
closed and airtight. The deck structure is made to fit the jacket and supported on three

141

points. The interface point is at elevation LAT (Low Astronomical Tide) +20.0m. The
helideck is an octagon of 22.8m internal diameter and is located approximately 4.0m
above the roof. The helicopter deck is designed for landing of a Westland EH101
helicopter.

The lifting analysis is performed using the SACS software. The computer model of the
module consists of eight levels, including the roof and helideck level, from EL.+22.0m
to EL.+50.5m. The module is to be lifted offshore using single hook with a lifting
spreader frame.

The analysis consists of 92 load combinations. They are two for basic load
combinations of two diagonally opposite lifting points carrying 75% of the lift weight;
two combinations with the basic loads and factors; eight combinations with the basic
loads, the factors and couples which simulate CoG (centre of gravity) shift of one
meter towards each frame corner and eighty combinations with horizontal force of 5%
lift weight incorporated in eight directions each to check lifting spreader frame.

The maximum expected lift weight of 1556 ton, which includes module weight of
1391 ton, rigging weight of 65 ton and grillage and sea-fastening weight of 100 ton, is
used as per the design requirements. The consequence factor of 1.15 is added for
members connecting directly to the padeye as per code requirement.

All the members and the joints were checked against the DANISH code as per project
requirement. The load factor used in lifting analysis is tabulated in Table 9.1.

It was considered at the same time that the lift design weight was distributed over the

142

lifting points on the spreader frame such that the two diagonally opposite lift points
carried 75% of the lift weight. In addition, CoG shift of 1m towards each corner of the
frame was considered instead of CoG Shift (f
cog
) factor of 1.05 in load case 210, 220,
230, 240, 310, 320, 330 and 340.
Design Load Factor = (
c
)*(
f
)*(DAF)*( f
cog
)*(SKL
t
) (9.1)
= 1.368 (for load case 200 and 300)
Design Load Factor = (
c
)*(
f
)*(DAF)* (SKL
t
) (9.2)
= 1.303 (for load case 210, 220, 230, 240, 310, 320, 330 and 340)

Material for secondary beam, external cladding except in Row A and Row B in
accommodation area, internal cladding and deck plate of level one, level three, level
four, level five and level six will be mild steel with yielding stress of 248 MPa.

Material for main beam, plates to be used as part of main steel, external cladding in
Row A and Row B in accommodation area and deck plate of level two, roof and
mezzanine deck, as well as lifting spreader frame will be high strength steel with
yielding stress of 345 MPa.

Deck plate thickness is 6mm except for lay-down area where 15mm is used. External
cladding in Row A and Row B in accommodation area is 6.0mm corrugated plate, in
Row 1 and Row 2, while the others in 4.5mm. Rib pattern dimensions are 230mm
length with 68mm depth and 45 bevel.

The design value of material parameter will be determined by dividing characteristic
value by the partial coefficients
m
as given in Table 9.2.

143

The module is designed to be lifted offshore using spreader frame with one hook point.
The frame was connected with the module on the top of helideck at the point A2 (joint
8220) and B2 (joint 8120) as well as on the roof at the point A3 (joint 7230) and B3
(joint 7130). Temporary braces between the roof and helideck level on Row A and Row
B, as well as on Row 2 and Row 3 were provided.

9.2.2 Finite Element Modelling and Analysis
The sling was modelled as weightless tubular with moments at the two ends released.
The minimum sling angle considered was 70 degree as per the information provided by
the installation contractor, Heerema Marine Contractors. Since the system with four
slings connecting a hook is structurally under-constrained, two springs were required to
ensure numerical stability by the SACS program. The two artificial springs were applied
onto joints 1220(A2) and 1130(B3) at EL (+) 17.187. To simulate the uneven
distribution of lift weight at two diagonal opposite lifting points, the elastic modulus of
slings was adjusted proportionally, which was achieved by several SACS runs and using
an iterative method.

Deck plates and external corrugated wall in accommodation area were modelled as shear
plate and corrugated plate respectively.

Members with the same properties are grouped by the computer. A sample list of
member group properties generated by the computer and section properties are
extracted and shown in Table 9.3 and Table 9.4. Plates with the same properties are
grouped by the computer. A list of plate group properties generated by the computer
and section properties is extracted and shown in Table 9.5 and Table 9.6.

144

The weight of main steel was generated by SACS program. Other gravity loadings,
which included rigging, secondary and miscellaneous steel, architectural components,
mechanical, piping, and electrical & instrument were manually calculated and added to
the model. The summary of loads is shown in Table 9.7, while Table 9.8 gives sample
of loading description.

Structural Loads
It consists of two groups of loading. One is the computer generated self-weight of the
model. The other is the structural weight derived from manual calculation which
includes leg stabbing guide, secondary beam, plating & grating, corrugated wall,
handrail, staircase and miscellaneous steel.

Architectural Loads
It consists of deck and wall insulation, floor finishes, partition, cladding, ceiling,
furniture, etc.

Mechanical Loads
This consists of dry and operating load from mechanical equipment, HVAC ducting
and fire safety equipment. The loading is separated to three groups.

Piping Loads
It consists of the dry weight of pipes and ducts etc.

Electrical and Instrument Loads

145

This consists of electrical bulk weight and electrical and communication equipment
weight.

Rigging Weight and Grillage & Sea-fastening
This consists of rigging weight of 65 ton and grillage & sea-fastening weight.

Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter
Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards spreader frame corners.

Horizontal Force of 5% of Lift Weight
5% of lift weight acted on lifting spreader frame horizontally to check the frame.

Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) suite of software was used to perform
the lifting analysis. A total of ninety-two (92) load-cases were considered in the
analysis. These combinations covered module basic weight combination (2), lifting
case without CoG shift (2), lifting cases with CoG. shift (8) and lifting case with
horizontal force (80), see Table 9.10 for the example. Table 9.11 gives the sample of
75% lifting weight factor of point B2 and A3 at different loading conditions.

Analysis results, such as combined load summation, support reactions and spring
reactions, are given in Table 9.12 to 9.14. All members are found to have stress ratios
less than unity. Members with stress ratios greater than 0.9 are listed in Table 9.15.
All joints are found to have stress ratios less than unity shown in Table 9.16. The
summary of the four sling forces is given in Table 9.17.

146

9.2.3 Discussions
Support condition
The hook point is treated as a fixed point. Slings attached to module are treated as
moment free members. Artificial spring supports must be added for the numerical
stability in computations. Spring stiffness factors should be small to minimise
significant horizontal forces as Table 9.9.

CoG shifting/Load distribution
The above analysis has taken into account of CoG shift of 1.0m, with 75% and 25% of
load distribution on two diagonally opposite lifting points. This is normally not
considered if API RP 2A method is chosen as design code.

Early Weight Control
Weight control report for accurate lifting weight and CoG is still not ready; therefore,
the computer analysis results are good enough for the selection of rigging and lifting
crane vessel.

Rigging system modelling
The requirement of spreader bar/frame per module layout of top level needs to be
identified. The correct sling property (weight less), sling length and offset at padeye
points need to be assessed, and proper releases of all slings need to be specified.
Joint displacement
Designer often tends to make mistake of misalignment of CoG and hook, which leads
the joint displacements to be very large. To overcome this, a few computer runs are
required to find out CoG location and to adjust hook point accordingly.

147

9.3 Finite Element Analysis for Lifting Padeye Connection
9.3.1 Structural Details
The Dan FG jacket is a conventional space frame structure, consisting of 4 legs with
the top of the jacket work points arranged in a grid with a transverse spacing of 20
metres at EL(+) 13.5m. 2 pile sleeves will be attached to each leg of the jacket. The
four legs are double battered at 1:9.4 in both transverse and longitudinal directions.
The top of the jacket cut-off elevation for all four legs of the jacket are at EL(+)
15.000m. Jacket horizontal bracing levels are at EL(-) 39.5m, EL(-) 29.8m and EL(+)
12.6m. The jacket is designed for 42.9m water depth. The height of jacket is 58.4m.
The estimated possible lifting weight for Jacket is 3038 tons, based on the weight
control report.

The jacket will be fabricated in a horizontal position. The fabricated jacket will be
loaded out by lifting it off using Asian Hercules II from quayside onto the barge. The
lifting arrangement for loadout is shown in Figure 9.3. Loadout analyses were carried
out to simulate the lifting operation to evaluate the adequacy of the jacket together
with appurtenances & rigging gear during loadout lift.

On reaching its tow destination in the Danish sector of the North Sea, SAIPEM will
carry out the upending with SSCV S7000, see Figure 3.5. The S7000, operating in
dynamic mode at a heavy lift draught of 27.5m, in 43m of water depth, will lift the
jacket off the vessel and upend it using the cranes in tandem. The upending process is
explained in Figure 9.4. 11 steps of upending analyses were performed to simulate
different orientations of the jacket from the initial horizontal position to the final
vertical position of the jacket.

148

During the above analysis, the lifting points were found essentially important. The
critical padeye, hereafter called Joint 164 (from SACS), on Jacket pile sleeve is
analysed using the finite element method (FEM) with the computer program of
MSC/NASTRAN. The purpose is to compute the stress distribution in the four loading
cases during load out and upending as shown in Figure 9.5. As illustrated in Figure 9.6,
the joint 164 consists of two chord members, three bracing members and a pad-eye
member. To simulate the actual loading conditions, loads subjected to lifting by the
sling are applied at the centre of the pad-eye while the other end of each chord or
brace, where the member is strongly supported by other members, is fixed. The fixed
boundaries for all the chords and braces are shown in Figure 9.7. What is concerned in
the analysis is the stress distribution in the adjacent areas around the joint. If the stress
level was found too high, the structure will be improved and re-analyzed till satisfying
results are achieved.

Except the pad-eye member, dimensions and length of members 2 to 6 are listed in
Table 9.18. For the pad-eye, the main plate is 100mm thick and the two cheek plates
are 100mm thick also. In addition, the joint is reinforced with three 100mm thick full
ring plates.

9.3.2 Loading Cases

The forces of each member from one load out analysis and three upending analysis by
SACS IV have been listed in Table A.1 in Appendix A. The joint is modelled with all
braces members (members 2, 3, 4 and 6) being extended to the locations where
supports are provided by other strong braces. The other ends (away from joint 164) of
these four members are fixed. Since there is no support at the other end of chord

149

member 5, no constraints are applied over there. The sling forces being applied on the
pad-eye for cases A, B, C & D are shown in Figure A.1 in Appendix A. Thus the force
will distribute mainly based on the stiffness of members automatically, which is the
most reasonable way.

9.3.3 Finite Element Modelling

The FE model for the structure is illustrated in Figure 9.8. The four-sided solid element
(labelled as CTETRA in NASTRAN) with ten nodes and five-sided solid elements
(labelled CPENTA in NASTRAN) are employed to model the structure. They are 2
nd
-
order isoparametric elements.

Particularly fine mesh is generated in the welding-line area to ensure computation
accuracy; 128 elements are used around the circumference. The pad-eye and stiffeners
are also modelled with element size of 20~50 millimetres. Other parts of the structure
are modelled with relatively coarse mesh with an element size of 100 millimetres. The
model consists of 211,113 elements with 376,104 nodes.

9.3.4 Result Analysis

Stress of the structure under one load out and three upending conditions is computed
for the above FEM model using MSC/NASTAN. The 1
st
-principal stress distributions
and Von Mises stress distributions of the Case D only are shown from Figure 9.9 to
Figure 9.10 respectively. The maximum stress values are summarised and listed in
Table 9.19.

More detailed results of the maximum stresses on the braces are given in Appendix A.
The maximum stress values are summarised and listed in Table 9.20.

150

Stress analysis of the pad-eye Joint 164 under the loadout (1 case) and upending (3
cases) conditions was conducted. The Von Mises stress and 1
st
-principal stress results
are presented for each case. Since the maximum stresses (both 1
st
-principal stress and
Von Mises stress) are less than or close to the yield strength of the steel material used
for the structure, the structure should globally be safe under the four aforementioned
load conditions. Since the maximum 1
st
-principal stress of case D is a little bit larger
than the yield strength, it would be better if small side-stiffeners can be added at the
bottom connection of main plate to the pile sleeve.

151

9.4 Summary

Finite element analyses have been performed on a living quarters module and detailed
behaviour of a padeye connection. In the numerical modelling, the hook point is
treated as fixed. Spring support must be input for structural stability. The spring
stiffness factor should be small to minimise the horizontal reaction force. It is
important to identify the requirement of spreader bar/frame according to the module
layout at the top level and to model correct sling property (weight less), sling length
and offset at padeye locations. Finite element analysis can also provide important
information for detailed stress evaluation and safety check at the padeye connection.

152

Table 9.1 Load factor used for lifting analysis
Factor Single Crane Lift
Load Contingency Factor (
f
) 1.15
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) 1.10
C of G Shift (f
cog
) 1.05
Tilt Factor (SKL
t
) 1.03
Yaw Factor (for local design of trunions) N/A
Consequence Factor (
c
)
Trunion attachment joint
Members local to lift point
Other structural steel members

N/A
1.15
1.00

Table 9.2 Design Value of Material Parameter
Material Parameters Safety Class
high and Strict
Material Control
(Primary steel
members)
Safety Class
high and Normal
Material Control
(Primary steel
members)
Safety Class
normal
(Secondary
steel
members)
Yield stress F
y
1.28 1.21 1.15
Tensile strength F
u
1.56 1.48 1.41
Punching strength
g
1.41 1.34 1.28
Modulus of elasticity E 1.48 1.48 1.34
Note: The material parameters, F
y
of 1.21, E of 1.48 and
g
of 1.34, were used in computer analysis
by SACS software .

153

Table 9.3 Sample of Member Group Properties (units: cm, kN)
SACS
Group ID
SACS
SECT ID
Outside
Diameter
Wall
Thick
E G FY KY KZ SPC
SAM
DEN LEN
*1000 *1000

0B1 21.9 1.27 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

0B2 27.3 1.27 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

1H3 HEB300 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

1H4 HEB400 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

1H5 HEB500 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

1I5 IPE500 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

2B5 2B5 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849
0.5
2B5 IPE500 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

2C1 2C1 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

2C5 2I5C 20 8 34.5 1 1 0.5 7.849

SL1 27.3 7.5 4 8 24.8 1 1 0.5 0.001

SL2 27.3 7.5 4 8 24.8 1 1 0.5 0.001

Where: * data in column SPC for tubular shear checking only
** data in column LEN for segment length
*** data in column E for ID SL1 & SL2 will be variable:
E for SL2 = 20000kN/cm
2
E for SL1 = 4000kN/cm
2

Table 9.4 Sample of SACS Section Properties (unit: cm)

SACS
Section ID
Type A B C D
0D5 WF 30 2.8 70 1.45
2I5C WF 20 2.0 50 1.5
HS2 BOX 30 1.2 30 1.2
PG2 BOX 70 4.0 85 5.0
TP2 CON 45.7 3.175 76.2
TP3 CON 145 2.5 76.2

Note: A -- depth for Box section, flange width for WF section, one end
diameter for CON section
B -- side wall thickness for Box section, flange thickness for WF section,
thickness for CON section
C -- width for Box section, depth for WF section, one end diameter for
CON section
D -- top and bottom wall thickness for Box section, web thickness for
WF section

154

Table 9.5 Sample of SACS Plate Group Properties (units: cm, kN)

ID THIC
K
M E U FY PLZO SECT AV.SP L T DEN
1F1 0.6 S 20 0.25 24.8 25 TROUGH 35 X B 0.001
2F1 0.6 S 20 0.25 24.8 25 HP100X8 80 X B 0.001
2W1 0.42 Y 20 0.25 24.8 3.0 CORR 33 Y T 0.001
2W4 0.42 Y 20 0.25 24.8 3.0 CORR 33 Y T 0.001
2WA 0.503 Y 20 0.25 34.5 3.0 CORR6 33 Y T 0.001
2WB 0.503 Y 20 0.25 34.5 3.0 CORR6 33 Y T 0.001
6F1 0.6 S 20 0.25 24.8 18 HP120X8 50 X B 0.001
7F1 1 S 20 0.25 34.5 20 TROUGH 35 Y B 0.001
Note: Column M
S -- Shear plate
Y -- Corrugated in local Y direction
I -- Isotropic plate (used for deflection checking only for plate
group 1F1, 2F1, 3F1, 4F1, 5F1 and 6F1)

Table 9.6 Sample of SACS Plate Stiffener Properties (unit: cm)

Type Label A B C D E F
IBM HP120X8 12 0.8 2.3 0.8 1.4 1.4
BOX CORR 6.0 23 10 0.5 0 0
BOX CORR6 6.0 23 10 0.6 0 0
IBM HP100X8 10 0.8 2.17 0.8 1.27 1.27
BOX TROUGH 27.5 35 15 0.5 0.001 0.5

Table 9.7 SACS Loading Summary

Item Lift Wt
(Mton)
Contingency Final Lift WT
(mton)
Structural
(a) Model 399.14 1.05 419.10
(b) Misc Loading 373.05 1.05 391.70
Architectural 183.50 1.10 201.85
Mechanical 102.09 1.10 112.30
HVAC 35.95 1.10 39.55
Fire and Safety 51.24 1.10 56.36
Electrical 95.07 1.10 104.58
Piping 59.28 1.10 65.21
Rigging 65.00 1.00 65.00
Grillage & seafatener 100.00 1.00 100.00

Total 1464.32 1555.64

155

Table 9.8 Sample of SACS Loading ID and Description

Loading Description

D01 Main Steel Weight (created by computer)
D02 Miscellaneous Weight (leg stabbing guide, secondary steel, plating &
grating, corrugated wall, handrail, staircase, louver and wind shield)
D03 Architectural Weight (wall insulation, partition, floor, ceiling, door,
window, furniture)
D21 Mechanical Equipment Lift Weight
D22 HVAC Bulk Weight and Equipment Dry Weight
D23 Fire and Safety Bulk Weight and Equipment Dry Weight
D41 Piping Dry Weight
D51 Electrical and Instrument Bulk Weight and Equipment Dry Weight

X01 Lifting rigging Weight and Grillage & Seafastener Weight
XA2 Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards A2
XA3 Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards A3
XB2 Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards B2
XB3 Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards B3

X000 Horizontal force induced by 5% of lift weight (at 0 degree)
X090 Horizontal force induced by 5% of lift weight (at 90 degree)

156

Table 9.9 Type of Support Constraints and Member Releases

TYPE LOCATION JOINT NO. RELEASES
Fixed Support EL(+)69m hook
XY-Spring

EL(+)21.8m 1220, 1130 Stiffness = 1kN/mm
Mx, My, Mz, Fz
Sling Lifting Frame One end: Mx, My, Mz
The other end: My, Mz
Horizontal Brace Member 8.625
x 0.5
Level 1 One end: Mx, My, Mz
The other end: My, Mz

Table 9.10 SACS Load Combinations

75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3 75% of lift weight at point A2 & B3
100 200 210 220 230 240 110 300 310 320 330 340
Loading
Number

D01
-1.05 -1.05
D02
-1.05 -1.05
D03
-1.1 -1.1
D21
-1.1 -1.1
D22
-1.1 -1.1
D23
-1.1 -1.1
D41
-1.1 -1.1
D51
-1.1 -1.1
X01
-1.0 -1.0
XA2
1.303 1.303
XA3
1.303 1.303
XB2
1.303 1.303
XB3
1.303 1.303
100
-1.368 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.368 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303

157

Table 9.11 Sample of 75% Lifting Weight Factor
75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3 Loading
Number 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
220 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451
Number 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238
230 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451
Number 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248
240 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451

Note: Factor 2.052 = 1.368*1.5
(where 1.5 = sling force 75%/25% distribution)
Factor 1.451 = 2.052*sin(45)
Factor 1.15 = Consequence factor for member connecting to padeye

Table 9.12 SACS Combined Load Summation
LOAD CASE Fx (kN) Fy (kN) Fz (kN)
100 -0.25 -2.50 15241.50
200 -0.33 -3.42 20850.39
210 202.49 -281.38 19859.67
220 -242.24 -248.09 19859.70
230 204.75 273.19 19859.65
240 -244.32 239.49 19859.69
110 -0.25 -2.50 15241.50
300 -0.33 -3.41 20850.39
310 202.49 -281.38 19859.67
320 -242.24 -248.09 19859.70
330 204.75 273.19 19859.65
340 -244.32 239.49 19859.69

158

Table 9.13 Support Reactions (UNIT: kN)
Joint HKA2 Joint HKA3
LOAD Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz
100 447.62 -611.74 2400.16 -1296.20 -1315.20 5160.21
200 612.35 -836.86 3283.43 -1773.20 -1799.19 7059.17
210 678.87 -927.77 3640.12 -1698.38 -1723.28 6761.33
220 577.38 -789.06 3095.90 -1818.55 -1845.21 7239.71
230 575.31 -786.24 3084.82 -1562.25 -1585.15 6219.37
240 485.45 -663.43 2602.99 -1700.04 -1724.96 6767.90
110 1171.37 -1600.83 6280.89 -321.39 -326.10 1279.48
300 1602.44 -2189.94 8592.26 -439.66 -446.11 1750.33
310 1621.15 -2215.51 8692.60 -429.25 -435.54 1708.85
320 1521.50 -2079.32 8158.25 -546.93 -554.95 2177.36
330 1517.42 -2073.76 8136.42 -293.33 -297.63 1167.77
340 1429.44 -1953.52 7664.65 -428.59 -434.87 1706.23

Table 9.14 Spring Reaction (Unit: kN)
LOAD Joint 1220 Joint 1130
CASE Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz
100 -1.25 -5.52 0.00 1.13 -2.82 0.00
200 -1.71 -7.55 0.00 1.55 -3.85 0.00
210 89.18 -155.58 0.00 113.47 -133.40 0.00
220 -130.86 -136.94 0.00 -111.20 -118.75 0.00
230 110.42 139.46 0.00 94.50 126.13 0.00
240 -114.22 122.47 0.00 -129.93 109.42 0.00
110 -1.73 -4.96 0.00 1.61 -3.37 0.00
300 -2.37 -6.79 0.00 2.21 -4.61 0.00
310 88.56 -154.86 0.00 114.09 -134.12 0.00
320 -131.49 -136.22 0.00 -110.58 -119.47 0.00
330 109.80 140.18 0.00 95.12 125.41 0.00
340 -114.85 123.19 0.00 -129.30 108.69 0.00

Table 9.15 Sample of SACS Member Stress Listing
BEND STRESS SHEARFORCE AXIAL
STRES
Y Z

MEMBER

GROUP
ID
MAX
COMB
UNITY
CK
LOAD
COND
NO.
DIST
FROM
END
(N/MM)
FY
KN
FZ
KN

KLY/
RY

KLZ/
RZ
7267-8220 LFD 0.95 325 3.6 176.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 64.5
7167-8120 LFD 0.95 205 3.6 175.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 64.5
H231-H230 LF4 0.92 201 3.0 186.2 -29.0 -71.3 -161.5 -21.7 32.9 32.9
H131-H130 LF4 0.91 301 2.9 181.1 27.9 -73.4 -182.4 11.4 32.3 32.3
7120-7121 4I3 0.91 200 0.0 60.1 -167.3 -37.1 11.1 151.1 40.5 31.1
7110-8120 LFD 0.90 218 3.2 169.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 57.1

159

Table 9.16 Joint Stress Ratio Listing
DIAMETER THICKNESS YLD STRSS
JOINT
(CM) (CM) (KN/CM2)
UC
H000 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.527
H120 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.81
H130 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.654
H131 45.72 3.175 34.5 0.148
H220 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.747
H230 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.685
H231 45.72 3.175 34.5 0.165
H330 76.2 1.9 34.5 0.331

Table 9.17 Sling Force Summary: (unit: kN)
Member ID H130-HKB3 H220-HKA2 H120-HKB2 H230-HKA3
Section SL1 SL1 SL2 SL2
100 1416.28 2517.13 6649.08 5480.92
200 1937.47 3443.43 9095.96 7497.90
210 1313.86 3817.52 8612.04 7181.54
220 1884.43 3246.77 8117.72 7689.66
230 1883.43 3235.14 9199.25 6605.91
240 2390.11 2729.83 8629.15 7188.53
110 5534.20 6586.99 2583.27 1358.99
300 7570.79 9011.01 3533.93 1859.10
310 6675.16 9116.24 3318.60 1815.04
320 7256.20 8555.85 2813.93 2312.67
330 7243.80 8532.95 3906.73 1240.33
L
o
a
d

C
a
s
e

340 7761.16 8038.19 3326.07 1812.26

160

Table 9.18 Dimensions and length of each tubular member
Member No. Outer diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Length in the model (m)
2 700 30 4.91
3 1200 70 5.36
4 1200 40 4.16
5 2522 70 3.86
6 2522 70 7.00

Table 9.19 Maximum stress (MPa) of each case
Case No. Von Mises 1
st
-Principal Corresponding Location
A 305 350 Connection of central ring plate to main plate
B 242 300 Bottom connection of main plate to p-sleeve
C 328 356 Connection of central ring plate to main plate
D 358 431 Bottom connection of main plate to p-sleeve

Table 9.20 Maximum stress (MPa) for braces
Case No. Von Mises 1
st
-Principal Corresponding Location
A
147 165 Weld for braces 3 and 4
B
98.9 59.5 Weld for brace 3
C
300 306 Connection of central ring plate to brace 2
D
76.3 60.6 Bottom ring plate

161

Figure 9.1 Computer Lifting Model Plot
Hook Point

162

HALFDAN PHASE III HDB
C.O.G. SHIFT OF MODULE DURING LIFTING
2 3
H230
H220 A
H120 H130
COORDINATES OF JOINTS B
Coordinates (m)
X Y Z
H220 5.06 7 51.2
H230 17.19 7 51.2
H120 5.06 -7 51.2
H130 17.19 -7 51.2
DIMENSIONS OF MODULE
Span between A2 and A3 = 12.13 m
Span between A2 and B2 = 14.00 m
SELFWT AND MISCELLANEOUS WT. OF MODULE (WITH CONTIGENCY)
Total Weight =
Centre of Gravity C.O.G.
x = 10.230 m
y = -0.059 m
Envelope of C.O.G Shift
Shift of 1m towards each leg:
A2 (H220) (H230) A3
= 53.779 = 45.406
x ecc. = -0.591 x ecc. = 0.702
y ecc. = 0.807 y ecc. = 0.712
New C.O.G., (x, y)= (9.639, 0.748) New C.O.G., (x, y)= (10.932, 0.653)
COG = (10.23, -0.059)
New C.O.G., (x, y)= (9.633, -0.861) New C.O.G., (x, y)= (10.938, -0.765)
= -53.318 = -44.923
x ecc. = -0.597 x ecc. = 0.708
y ecc. = -0.802 y ecc. = -0.706
B2 (H120) (H130) B3
APPLIED FORCE TO MAINTAIN EQUILIBRIUM DUE TO C.O.G. SHIFT
Horizontal span to distributed My across Row A2 and Row A3 = 12.13 m
Horizontal span to distributed Mx across Row A2 and Row B2 = 14.00 m
Description Eccentricity (m) M Induced (kN.m) Force To Counter Induced Moment (kN)
x-dir y-dir My Mx A2 A3 B2 B3
1. Loadcase 201 -0.59 0.81 -9006.73 -12296.63 -810.42 -67.91 67.91 810.42
2. Loadcase 202 0.70 0.71 10701.37 -10853.98 53.47 -828.75 828.75 -53.47
3. Loadcase 203 -0.60 -0.80 -9105.36 12223.78 61.24 811.89 -811.89 -61.24
4. Loadcase 204 0.71 -0.71 10792.34 10763.53 829.27 -60.45 60.45 -829.27
-15242.32 kN
y
x
C.
Envelope
of C.O.G.
a
b
Figure 9.2 COG Shift of Module During Lifting

163

Figure 9.3 Jacket Loadout arrangement

164

Figure 9.4 Upending process of Jacket

165

Figure 9.5 Jacket positions for the four load cases

CASE A
CASE B
CASE C
CASE D

166

Figure 9.6 Configuration of Joint 164

Figure 9.7 Boundary conditions for the FE model

167

(a) Side view in xy-plane

(c) Local view (d) Local view for pad-eye
Figure 9.8 Finite element mesh

168

(a) Global view

(b) Local view
Figure 9.9 1
st
-principal stress contour of load case D

169

Figure 9.10 Local view of Von Mises stress contour of load case D

170

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE WORK

10.1 Conclusions
Lifting criteria and sling specifications in practice are reviewed and discussed in this
thesis. Relevant justification is made based on the lift projects in construction yard.
The practical and dominating considerations in rigging are sling design loads, shackle
design loads, lift point design loads, shackle sizing, tilt control and CoG (centre of
gravity) shift factor.

Crane barges, rigging components including shackles, slings and grommets and lift
point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are discussed based on practical
consideration in heavy lift design. The rigging system is the only connection of module
to barge. Lifting plays a very important role in major offshore engineering
construction. The selection or design of a rigging arrangement is dependent on the
crane barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and the
site parameters.

Rigging configuration affects the tensions in rigging slings, loads in lift points and
forces in shackles and link plates, and thus affects the design of those lift components.
Furthermore, it also affects the selection of the boom and jib angles of a crane barge to
fulfil lift requirements. The algorithms and formulations for the determination of
configurations of rigging sling systems with four, six and eight lift points, which cover
the majority of heavy lifts in offshore and marine industries, are presented in this
thesis. The sling arrangements can be with single slings, doubled slings or doubled

171

make-up slings. The type of spreader structures included in the discussion can be a
simple spreader bar, two parallel spreader bars or a spreader frame.

Jackets which are built and transported vertically offer significant savings over jackets
built on their side. Considerations for lift jacket structures horizontally and vertically
are discussed. Lifting a large jacket may require substantial loadout frame which needs
proper design.

Practical considerations for module lifts, which include vertical lifts and flip-over, are
investigated. One of the most important aspects of the design of large lifts is the
control of weight and the centre of gravity (CoG) of the module. This requires a proper
sequence of weighing scheme to ensure the accuracy of these parameters. For deck
panel flip-over operation, force distribution between two cranes or two hooks should
be calculated precisely since they vary with the change of the module incline angle
during flip-over.

Lift procedures and considerations for FPSO modules are discussed and rigging
systems with multiple spreader bars are highlighted. Practical design and analysis
considerations for lifting lower turret, gas recompression module and flare tower,
which are unique for stringent requirement of installation accuracy, heavy load and
geometry, are discussed based on real projects.

A versatile spreader frame is designed that includes the combination of padeye and
lifting trunnions. Padeyes are designed underneath of spreader frame, while the lower
slings remain un-changed, these save significant rigging changing time during actual

172

lifting operations. The trunnions above the spreader frame enable the riggers easier
access for re-rigging of slings for subsequent lift.

Finite element methods are used for lifting module and padeye connection analysis. In
the modelling, the hook point is considered fixed. Spring supports needs to be input to
prevent numerical problems with regards to rigid body modes and the specified spring
stiffness should be significantly smaller than the structural stiffness. It has been
illustrated that detailed finite element analysis can provide important information for
the stress design and safety check for padeye connections.

10.2 Recommendation for Future Work

Based on the detailed investigations by the author, the thesis has reported some
findings which will be useful for future reference. In view of the important nature of
installation engineering for offshore structures, the following areas may be
recommended for further investigation:

- Structural steel optimization of offshore platforms due to lifting considerations.
As most of structural members connected to the lift points are normally governed
by lifting operation, structural optimisation can result in significant cost saving.

- Investigation of padeye configuration with ring stiffeners. The FEM results in
Section 9.3 show that some stiffeners are not fully utilized, more optimized
configuration with regards to number and location of ring stiffeners is
recommended for further study.

173

- Study of the impact of accidental loadings on rigging system. Accidental loadings,
such as gust wind load, wave surge load, etc., have significant effect on the safety
of lifting operation and thus studies on these aspects are crucial to lifting design.

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design, API-RP 2A -
WSD, 21st edition, December 2000.

American Institute Steel Construction (AISC), Allowable Stress Design, 9
th
Edition,
1991.

Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) Release 5.1, 2003, by EDI, USA.

DNV Marine Operation Part 2 Recommended Practice RP5 Lifting, 1996

Baar, A. and Feigenbaum, E. A. (eds) The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence,
William Kaufmann, USA, 1981.

Baar, J. J. M. Developments in The Analysis of Offshore Heavy Lift Operations. In
Proc. of 1st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991,
Edinburgh, UK, pp 15-22.

Baar, J. J. M., Pijfers, J. G. L. and van Santen, J. A. Hydrodynamically Coupled
motions of a Crane Vessel and a Transport Barge. In Proc. 12th Offshore Technology
Conference (OTC), 1992, Houston, USA.

Black, W. J. Intelligent Knowledge-based System: An Introduction. Van Nostrand-
Reihold, UK. 1986.

175

Booch, G. Object-Oriented Design with Applications. The Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing Company, Inc., CA. 1991.

Bremdal, B.A., An Investigation of Marine Installation Processes A Knowledge-
Based Planning Approach, PhD Thesis, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
Trondheim, 1988.

Brown & Root. Joint Industry Project: Heavy Lift Criteria. Brown & Root Vickers
Technology Ltd. 1990.

Buchanan, B. G. and Shortliffe, E. H. Rule-Based Expert System. Addison-Wesley,
MA. 1984.

Bunce, J. W. and Wyatt, T. A. Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift
Operations Offshore. In Proc. 14th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 1982,
Houston, USA. pp 307-320.

Cheung, L. Y. Design Economics of Offshore Structures: Lifting Consideration,
Journal of The Institute of Engineering (Singapore), Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 61-70, 1993.

Choo, Y. S. Recent Developments in Computational and Knowledge-Based
Techniques for Lift Installation of Offshore Structures. In Proc. 1st Asia-Pacific
Conference on Offshore Systems: Mobile & Floating Structures, December 1996,
Malaysia.

176

Choo, Y. S., Lim, C.K. and Bok, S.H. A Knowledge-Based Approach to Design for
Heavy Lift. In Proc. Offshore 93: Installation of Major Structures and Equipment,
Institute of Marine Engineers, February 1993, London, UK. pp 8:1-8:11.

Coyne, R. D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford A. D., Balachandran, M. and Gero, J.S.
Knowledge-Based Design System, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 1990.

Crowle, A. P. Heavy Lift - From Concept to Installation. In Proc. Offshore 93:
Installation of Major Offshore Structures and Equipment, February 1993, London,
UK.

Crull, C. M. Direct determination of sling tensions in heavy rigging. In Proc. 22nd
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, May 1990, Houston, USA. Pp 455-462.

DnV. Rules for Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix
H, Marine Operation, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway. 1996.

Duerr, D. Variation of Lift Load Distribution due to Sling Length Tolerance,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 96-
101. 1988.

Durkin, J. Expert Systems: Design and Development, Macmillan Publishing
Company, NY. 1994.

Dym, C. L. and Levitt, R. E. Knowledge-Based System in Engineering, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., USA. 1991.

177

Fern, D. T. and Griffin, C. Piper B and Stltire A - Topside Design for Installation, In
Proc. Offshore 93 - Installation of Major Offshore Structures and Equipment, February
1993, UK. pp 7:1-7:8.

Firebaugh M. W. Artificial Intelligence: A Knowledge-Based Approach, Boyd and
Fraser. 1989.

Fuller, D. Theory and Practice of Lubrication for Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. USA. 1984.

Gunther, R. C. Lubrication, Chilton Book Company, USA. 1971.

Hamilton J. and Ramzan F. Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Heavy Lifts. In Proc. of 1st
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991, Edinburgh,
UK, pp 23-34.

Heerema (1991), Standard Criteria for Sling, Grommet and Shackle Selection, SC291.
The Netherlands.

Hollowell, J. A., Robinson R. W. and Ricketts R. E. A Study on The Influence of The
Rigging Configuration On The Installation of a Lifted Jacket. In Proc. 1st International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991, Edinburgh, UK, pp 51-60.

Johnson, L. and Keravnou, E. T. Expert System Architectures, Kogan Page. 1989.

178

Ju, S.H., Stone, J.J. and Rowlands, R.E. New symmetric contact element stiffness
matrix for frictional contact problems, Computers and Structures, Vol. 54, No 2, pp
289-301, 1995.

Lange, F. C., Hetland, S. and Knudsen J. I. Control and Dynamics During Lift
Installation of Snorre TLP Concrete Foundation Templates, In Proc. 24th Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, 1992, Houston, USA. pp 104-113.

Lee, S. S. Computational method for frictional contact problem using finite element
method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering Vol. 37 No 2, pp
217-228, 1994.

Leler W. and Merry J., 3D with HOOPS, Addison-Wesley, NY. 1996.

Lloyds Register of Shipping (LRS), Guidance Notes for Module Lifting Criteria,
London, UK. 1975.

Lucas, P. and Gaag, L. Principles of Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley. 1990.

Mawer, S. J., Hamilton, J. and Blanken, D. T. Assessment of Lift Criteria, In Proc.
Offshore 93: Installation of Major Offshore Structures and Equipment, February 1993,
London, UK. pp 6:1-6:15.

Mayfield, J. G. and Zimmerman, M. E. Notes on Heavy Lift Design, In Proc. 18th
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA. May 1986, pp509-522.

179

Michaelsen, R. H., Machie, D. and Boulanger, A. The Technology of Expert System.
BYTE, 10(4), p303-312. 1985.

Miles J. and Moore C. Practical Knowledge-based System in Conceptual Design,
Spring-Verlag, New York, 1994.

Mockler, R. J. and Dologite, D. G. An Introduction to Expert systems: Knowledge-
Based Systems, Macmillan. 1992.

Mortenson, M. E., Geometrical Transformations. Industrial Press, New York, 1995.

Robert, J. M. Knowledge-Based Systems for Strategic Planning, Prentice-Hall, 1989.

Siddall, J. N. Expert Systems for Engineers, Marcel Dekker. 1990.

Snyman, M. F.; Bird, W. W.; Martin, J. B. (1991), "Simple formulation of a dilatant
joint element governed by Coulomb friction", Engineering Computations, Vol.8 No 3,
pp 215-229

Tong, K. C. and Duncan, P. E. Modelling the Dynamics of Offshore Jacket Lifts. In
Proc. of 1st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991,
Edinburgh, UK, pp35-42.

Turban, E. Expert systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, Macmillan. 1992.

180

Varghese, K., Dharwadkar, P., Wolfhope, J. and OConner, J.T. A Heavy Lift
Planning System for Crane Lifts, J. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, vol. 12, pp
31-42, 1997.

Walterman, D. A. A Guide to Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 1986.

Walters, J. R. and Nielsen, N. R. Crafting Knowledge-Based Systems, John Wilwy,
NY. 1988.

Wiek, L. The Distribution of the Contact Forces on Steel Wire Ropes, Organisation
Internationale pour Etude de Endurance des Cables (OIPEEC), Bulletin No. 44.
1982.

Wouts, R., Coppens, T. and Van den Boom, H. J. J. (1992). Monitoring Offshore Lift
Dynamics. In Proc. 24th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, May 1992,
Houston, USA, pp 21-30.

Zhong Z. H. Finite Element Procedures for Contact-Impact Problems, Oxford
University Press, Oxford. 1993.

181

APPENDIX A FEM ANALYSIS FOR JACKET UPENDING PADEYE

Additional FFM results for Jacket upending padeye with various loading cases are
summarized in this section.

Summary of load cases and member forces

Table A.1 Member forces coming out from SACS analysis

182

183

Summary of loading applied to padeye

(A.1) Load out (wire-frame view) (A.2) Load out (solid view)

(B.1) Upending in vertical position (wire-frame view) (B.2) Upending in vertical position (solid view)

(C.1) Upending in horizontal (C.2) Upending in
position (wire-frame view) horizontal position (solid view)
Figure A.1 Load conditions (to be continued)

184

(D.1) Upending in tilted (D.2) Upending in tilted
position (wire-frame view) position (solid view)
Figure A.1 Load conditions

185

Stress distribution of upending padeye

(a) 1
st
- Principal stress

(b) Von Mises stress
Figure A.2 Stress distribution for the braces of load case A

186

(a) 1
st
- Principal stress

Figure A.3 Stress distribution for the braces of load case B

187

(a) 1
st
- Principal stress

Figure A.4 Stress distribution for the braces of load case C

188

(a) 1
st
- Principal stress

Figure A.5 Stress distribution for the braces of load case D

Heavy Lift Installation Study of Offshore Structure 2004

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Heavy Lift Installation Study of Offshore Structure 2004

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HEAVY LIFT INSTALLATION STUDY

Figure 9.2 COG Shift of Module During Lifting

Вам также может понравиться