Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ENGINEERING
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
MANUAL:
1
.t:.r;.}i'i.7-;:C-;~
~ c~/r.; fcu
) .
UEOE/11
Custodian
Name:
Ref. Ind.:
A WvanBEEK
UEOE/11
Authorised
Name:
Ref. Ind.:
RMUNCASTER
UEO;E
- 1-
Signature :
Date:
--~__q lj/t/;;
Signature:
~~t~~e.a~~
Date:
:ZJ;-t{2(91
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
REVISION RECORD
REVISION
No/DATE
REVISION DETAILS
REVISED BY:
REF. IND
F. Mohaqmad
UEN/31
B. Irvine
UENM/1
W.G. Laver
UEOE/11
0/June 1985
1/June 1987
Section 3 has been revised to clarify design requirements for heavy lifts.
Section 4.4.8 is corrected to allow a reduced safety
factor for certain types of sling. Reference is made to
cable laid slings for heavy lifts.
Section 7.1- Equation (2) is corrected ..
2/Aug 1989
3/Dec 1991
This document should be reviewed within one year of the last revision date. However, the user of this
document must always consult the appointed custodian for advice on validity and currency.
Page 2 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
UEOE/24
COPY:
EXTN:
REVISION
DATE:
PROPOSAL:
JUSTIFICATION:
TARGET DATE:
APPROVE
CUSTODIAN
COMMENTS OF:
i.
DISTRIBUTE TO:
Page 3 of 149
REJECT
SPONSOR
EM/039
Rev31991
CONTENTS
Para
Page
PREFACE
10
GLOSSARY
11
12
1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
2
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF MEDIUM PACKAGES (> SOT Bu'T <
1OOOT)
Hook Load (W1)
Weight Allowances (lV'a)
Dynamic Amplification Factor {Fh)
Lifting Point Design Load (VY'a)
Four Point Lifts
Tandem Crane Lifts
Alternative Lifting Arrangements
Lateral Loads
Padears
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
18
18
18
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
23
DOCUMENTATION
25
7
7.1
APPENDICES
Dynamic Amplification Factor Derivation
25
25
Page4 of 149
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
22
22
EM/039
Rev 31991
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
27
27
28
29
30
46
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
47
DISTRIBUTION LIST
48
48
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
INTRODUCTION
General
Project Management
Lift History
Single Crane Lifts
Dual Crane Lifts
50
50
50
2
2.1
SUMMARY
Scope of Work
Results
Single Hook Lift
Criteria Comparison. Single Hook Lifts
Dual Lift
Criteria Comparison. Dual Lifts
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
CONCLUSIONS
Static Analyses
Dynamic Analyses
References
60
60
60
61
64
64
INTRODUCTION
64
64
2.9.2
2.10
2.11
2.11.1
2.11.2
2.11.3
2.11.4
2.11.5
2.11.6
2.11.7
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Module Weights
Rigging Weight
Dynamic Amplifications Factors
Lift Configuration
Lift Geometry
Module Tilt and Allowable CG Zone
Lift Point Loads
Dual Crane Lifts
Single Crane Lifts
Sling Design
Single Slings
Multiple Length Slings
Grommets
Dynamic Hook Load
Dual Crane Lifts
Single Crane Lifts
Crane Capacity
Lift Point Design
Design Loads
Allowable Stresses
Lift Point Geometry
Cast Padears
Trunnions
Pad eyes
Shackles
72
73
INSTALLATION AIDS
73
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.8
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.9
2.9.1
Page 5 of 149
65
65
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
71
72
EM/039
Rev 31991
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Slings and Grommets
Manufacture, Inspection and Certification
Re-use of Slings and Grommets
Sling Handling
Shackles
Certification
Re-use of Shackles
78
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
78
REFERENCES
84
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76
76
76
76
1
1.1
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
85
85
85
87
88
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
88
88
88
94
TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Page
Dynamic Amplification Factors (Fh) For Light Packages
Minimum Size Fillet Welds
Typical Sling Properties
Dimensions and SWL of 'GREEN-PIN' Shackles
Dimensions and SWL of 'McKissick' Shackles
Dimensions of Round and Oval Eyes
Dimensions of Triangular Lifting Eyes
Dimensions of Lug Fittings
Lift Criteria Comparison -Single Crane Lifts
Lift Criteria Comparison -Dual Lifts
References used in this Document
Page 6 of 149
15
22
27
28
28
29
30
30
56
58
62
EM/039
Rev 31991
FIGURES
Page
Fig
'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Page 7 of 149
36
37
37
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
EM/039
Rev 31991
57
58
59
60
61
Page 8 of 149
145
146
147
148
149
EM/039
Rev31991
PREFACE
In this third rev1s1on of EM/039 there have been changes to content and format. The revJsJon has been
prompted by the issue of a guideline document for the design of the lifting systems for heavy offshore modules
in air by semi-submersible crane vessels. This document was prepared following a joint industry project (JIP)
carried out during 1990 and in which Shell Expro participated.
The Manual has therefore been split into two parts.
The first part contains guidelines on the design fabrication and inspection of lifting points and is in essence of
similar style and content to the previous Rev. 2 version, but updated.
The second part contains extracts from the unabridged version of the 'Heavy Lift Criteria Final Report' prepared
by Brown and Root (BRV) under the auspices of the JIP. The main deliverable from this JIP WAS THE
GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF MODULE LIFTING SYSTEMS which is reproduced in full.
The reader should be aware that whilst the GUIDELINES were prepared with joint industry input there is no
obligation from any of the major offshore installation contractors, warranty surveyors or others to follow the
criteria rigidly. The object of the JIP was to standardise the lifting criteria but this proved to be too ambitious a
task and so lifting contractors, warranty surveyors and others will continue to use their own criteria developed
over a number of years experience. However, the differences between the GUIDELINES developed during the
JIP and other criteria are very small and similar results can be expected. For front end Engineering or
Conceptual Design then the JIP GUIDELINES may be used, but once an installation Contractor has been
appointed then the appropriate criteria should be discussed and agreed.
PART 1 of this Manual describes the criteria to be applied to the design, fabrication and inspection of lifting
points for light and medium packages up to 1000 tonnes lift weight. These criteria are mainly intended for lifting
points on packages for offshore lifting. However, appropriate modifications to the criteria for onshore lifting are
also specified and similar principles apply to offshore and onshore lifts.
PART 2 of this Manual contains the main guidelines for the design of the lifting systems for heavy offshore
modules in air by a semi-submersible crane vessel and relevant extracts from the main JIP report. The
document was prepared following a joint industry project study carried out during 1990. The guidelines do not
specifically cover lifts incorporating floating spreader beams/frames or offshore lifts of jacket structures although
they can be applied under certain circumstances.
Due to the two part nature of the manual there may be some duplication of information but this is unavoidable
and information in Part 2 for heavy lifts may be appropriate for light and medium lifts and vice versa.
Proposed modifications to this Standard shall be addressed to, and agreed with the appointed custodian,
UEOE/11.
Page 9 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Page 10 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
GLOSSARY
SIPM
Shell
Shell Expro
Purchaser
The organisation responsible who carry out the purchasing function, e.g. Shell
Expro or a Shell Expro appointed Contractor, Consultant or Agent.
Vendor
Manufacturer
The company responsible for the manufacture- not necessarily the Vendor.
Contractor
The Shell Expro appointed main Contractor for a defined piece of work.
Sub-contractor
Nominated
(to be used with extreme caution)
Sub-contractor
A term having a special legal meaning applicable to the unusual case where the
terms and conditions of the contract between Shell Expro and the Contractor
provide that special terms and conditions apply to any Sub-contractor that is
nominated by Shell Expro. Shell Expro model contracts avoid use of the term
'nominated'.
Consultant
A company awarded a contract by Shell Expro for the company to advise or give
guidance on specific subjects. The Scope of Work may include instructions to act
as an Agent for Shell Expro (see Agent).
Agent
Safe Working
The maximum mass that an item of lifting gear may raise, lower or suspend under
conditions no more severe than the design conditions. The SWL is sometimes
referred to as the working limit load (WLL) in British Standards documents.
Minimum Breaking Load (MBL) The load below which a sling will not fracture when tested to
destruction in the prescribed manner.
Base Weight
Factored Weight
Base weight plus allowances. Refer to EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and
Procedures
Light Package
Medium Package A package whose factored weight is between 50 tonnes and 1000 tonnes.
Heavy Package
Package
Lifting Point
A lifting polnC usually pacfeye or a padear, is a structural element and the part of
the package or lifting frame connected to the sling.
Lifting System
A lifting system is the combination of package, lifting points, slings and shackles.
Page 11 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Tz
VJ,
Hook speed.
VIJ
Wo.
Weight allowance.
\/1Jd
\~Jd~
WJ...
Wr
Weight of rigging.
Angle formed between horizontal and e.g. of package.
Effective Jack of fit in the slings.
Direct stress (axial, bearing or bending).
Equivalent stress.
Yield stress.
Shear stress
Sling angle to horizontal.
c. g.
Centre of gravity
MBL
PWHT
SF
Page 12 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
1
1.1
Scope
The recommendations contained in this Manual (Part 1) present design, fabrication and inspection
criteria for lifting points up to 1000 tonnes lift weight. The recommendations apply to offshore lifting
although appropriate relaxations for onshore lifts only are also specified.
It is intended that the manual be used as a basis for the design of lifting points and it should also be
issued to Shell Expro Representatives onshore and offshore, as a basis for their assessment of the
acceptability for safe lifting of packages.
Rules and codes for offshore lifting have been produced by DnV and Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
Refer to DnV Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix H,
Marine Operations Section Hi: Lifting and Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a
Marine Environment.
This Manual deals with the topics covered by DnV (load definition, design to allowable stress criteria,
sling and shackle selection etc.) but in more detail. The LRS Code is a general document covering all
types of lifting appliance. Only those recommendations concerning lifting with cranes have been
considered in drawing up this Manual. A single load factor to be applied when designing for lifting is
required by API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms.
For medium and heavy lifts, the API approach is conservative, but, for light lifts the load factor of 2.0
recommended by API is consistent with this document.
In general, the criteria outlined hereafter are applicable to any weight of package. However, the load
factors vary considerably between those that are appropriate for the lift of a light package, and those
that are appropriate for a heavy package to reflect, for example, differences in .the hook speed of the
crane and dimensional tolerances on lifting point positioning.
To avoid unnecessary conservatism, specific recommendations for lifting point design for light
packages are presented in Section 2 Specific Design Criteria for Lifting of Light Packages (Wh Sot).
For medium packages up to 1000 tonnes in Section 3 SOt but 1OOOT. For heavy packages, greater
than 1000 tonnes then guidance is recommended from Part 2- Heavy Lift Criteria Final Report.
The following are applicable to all packages except where specifically stated otherwise. Refer to
Section 4 General Design Criteria for Lifting, Section 5 Fabrication, Inspection and Testing and
Section 6 Documentation.
In general, the allowable stresses used in this document are also applicable to castings. Refer to
Section 4.3 Design Stresses. However, for lift points employing castings it is recommended that for
detailed design finite element analysis is used. Material and fabrication requirements for castings are
the subject of a separate specification. Refer to ES/148 - Structural Cast Steel Materials for Offshore
Installations.
The Appendices (Section 7) contain general information which may be useful to the engineer when
evaluating lift point design.
1.2
References
1.2.1
British Standards
8S1290
Specification for wire rope slings and sling legs for general lifting
purposes
8S4360
Page 13 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
BS62i0
1.2.2
Code of practice for the safe use of wire rope slings for general
lifting purposes
of
Petroleum
Steel
Institute
1.2.3
1.2.4
Standard ES/096
Specification
Installations
Standard ES/148
Standard ES/006
Standard ES/088
UEOS-3142-001
for
Structural
Steel
Materials
for
Offshore
Others
The following steps are required to establish the hook weight (W1):
(1)
Establish base weight (W) and position of centre of gravity (e.g.) of the package
(2)
Establish weight allowances (Wa) to be used for the lifting point design. The weight allowance
to be used will vary depending on the accuracy of the base weight. If it is a preliminary
engineering estimate then Wa. =0.2W, whereas if it is a weighed itemWa. =0.02W. Guidance on
the correct weight allowance to use is available in EN/001 Weight Engineering Principles and
Procedure.
'Na. varies depending on quality of information, 0.2W < Wa. < 0.02\1\1. The sum (W + Wa) is the
factored weight of the package in the lift condition.
Page 14 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
(3)
Establish a factor for shock load which will be called a Dynamic Amplification Factor (Fl.) which
is to be applied to the padeye design only. Slings and shackles have a built-in Dynamic
Amplification Factor. The Dynamic Amplification Factor is influenced by a number of factors, in
particular environmental conditions, appropriate to the expected method and nature of the lift.
D.A.F. values are quoted in the Table below, with a recommendation to use 2.0. These values
are calculated assuming the supply boat heave is the same as the wave height.
Table 1
Onshore lift
Offshore LIFT 3
Recommended
2.0
1.3
..
1.25
2.5
I.
NOTES:
l-
1.
This factor may also be applied to a lift from place to place on a platform by the
platform crane.
2.
3.
4.
The formulae used to obtain the values of F1, as listed in the table above (F1) For Light Packages',
above, are given in Appendix 1 Dynamic Amplification Factor Verification. These formulae can be
used to calculate F 1 values depending on purposes. An F1 = 2.0 is recommended for the design of
attachment points which covers the majority of lift situations.
(4)
2.2
2.2.1
For 4 point lifts without spreader beams or bars, the hook weight (W1) is distributed so that any
diagonal pair of lifting points is assumed to carry 0.75 W1 vertical load. The 0.75 Wh is then
distributed between each lifting point of the pair according to its distance from the e.g. This distribution
allows for the extensibility of the slings, flexibility of the lifted object etc. The lifting point load is
calculated using the sling angle () to the horizontal. The procedure is repeated for the other pair of
lifting points. The lifting point design load (Wfl.) is defined as the load on the most heavily loaded lifting
points. Wd is applied to all the lifting points. Wd,. (without the D.A.F.) is used for the sling and shackle
design.
If loose spreader bars are used the hook weight is more evenly distributed over the lifting points so
that any diagonal pair is assumed to carry 0.60 W1 vertical load.
2.2.2
(2)
BS 6166 requirement that the load does not tilt more than 6 when lifted. Although this
maximum angle of tilt is greater than that allowed for heavy lifts (1.1 ) it may still require the use
of slings of unequal length resulting in some lifting points being much more heavily loaded than
others. Furthermore the permitted maximum angle of tilt may have to be reduced if it causes
installation difficulties. Refer to BS 6166 Lifting Slings Rating and Marking.
Page 15 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
(3)
2.2.3
Padeyes and other internal members (and both end connections) framing into the joint where
the padeyes is attached and transmitting lifting forces within the structure should be designed
for a minimum load factor of 2.0 applied to the calculated static loads. Refer to API
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.
Lateral Load
The lifting points should be orientated so that as far as possible the theoretical centre of gravity lies in
the plane of each. A nominal lateral load of 5% of the lifting point design load ("'Va) acting at the point
of sling load application, normally top of the padeye, should be applied simultaneously with all the
other design forces. This lateral load accommodates some inaccuracies in fabrication and e.g.
position, and is equivalent to a 3 misalignment of the plane of each lifting point from the design hook
position.
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIFTING OF MEDIUM PACKAGES(> SOT BUT< 1000T)
This Section describes the specific requirements for the design of lifting points for medium packages
(>50 tonnes but< 1000 tonnes). Each lift should be Engineered on an individual basis. Onshore lift
requirements are similar to offshore with the exception of Dynamic Amplification factors.
3.1
3.1.1
Se~tion
2.1 Hook
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
Page 16 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Should a relaxation of the 75/25 split be required then the package should be analysed for lifting by
considering:
sling length tolerances as specified by the manufacturer;
true sling stiffness;
the theoretical package stiffness;
Once an analysis for a package has been carried out considering these four factors, the initial lifting
point design should be checked using the load generated.
Further comments on this aspect appear in Appendix 2 Lifting Point Design Load Derivation.
If loose spreader bars are used the hook weight is more evenly distributed over the lifting points so
that any diagonal pair is assumed to carry 0.60 vertical load.
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
Centre of Gravity
Locations for centre of gravity of all tandem lifted packages should be quoted with an allowance for
calculation inaccuracies and probable deviations during the course of design and fabrication. Refer to
Section 3.2.2.4 Package Tilt. This allowance will be reduced as design progresses. No further
allowances shall be applied for possible variations in centre of gravity location when designing slings
and lifting point.
'. i'J 7
Page 17 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
3.2.2.2
3.2.2.3
Sling Angles
For slings attached to the crane hook, the effect on the determination of loads and clearances of
variations in angles to the horizontal plane of 5 from the nominal values calculated from the lift
geometry, and any limitations imposed, shall be determined.
3.2.2.4
Package Tilt
Redistribution of load between the cranes due to the package tilting in the longitudinal direction
because of variation in hook heights shall be estimated from changes in the relative distance of the
centre of gravity between cranes, assuming a maximum tilt of 0.02 radians.
Transverse tilt of the packages shall also be limited to 0.02 radians. The location of the centre of
gravity of the package should be restricted to comply with this requirements.
3.2.3
3.2.4
Lateral Loads
For medium and heavy packages the lateral load should be 5% of Wd, applied at the top of the
pad eye or across the top of the padear stubs. This load should be considered to act concurrently with
the in-line loading.
For spreader beams 8% of the vertical lift point force shall be used to account for possible adverse
horizontal load distribution or dynamic behaviour.
3.3
Padears
The padear is a development due to the advent of very heavy packages for offshore lifting. The
maximum practical hook weight for a shackle lifted package is of the order of 2000 tonnes, giving a
base weight of approximately 1500 tonnes.
Practicalities dictate that above this approximate limit a doubled sling and padear arrangement should
be used. The slings employed have spliced eyes at each end. Refer to Figure 4 Simplified
Representation of Package Tilt and Figure 5 Pad ear Lifting Arrangements.
The forces in each leg of the sling will be different due to frictional losses over the hook or stubs.
These frictional losses are taken into account by a 45/55 distribution in the sling loads S 1 and S 2 in
addition to the other load distribution factors. Therefore a padear has to be designed for substantial
out of plane bending.
The use of castings is a viable alternative to fabricated steel padears and can lead to significant cost
savings. Castings can now be produced of adequate strength, toughness and weldability. They are
also more tolerant than fabricated padears, of changes in the package centre of gravity.
Page 18 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
The stress analysis of castings shall be carried out using an adequate finite element program. The
finite element model of the casting shall be built up of volume or brick elements having a finite element
mesh that will ensure accurate 'stress recovery' in three dimensions. Limited local yielding is
permitted; the extent of the yielding zone shall be approved by Shell Expro. It is recommended that, in
cases where the casting manufacturer does not have sufficient capability to perform the analysis as
indicated above, the finite element analysis shall be carried out by a competent subcontractor.
4
4.1
Sling Angle
No sling angle should be less than 45 to the horizontal. The recommended sling angles are 55 -65
to the horizontal, to achieve a reasonable balance between load minimisation and sling length.
As a general guide, initial lifting point design should be based on a sling angle of 55.
The lengths of slings should normally be within tolerance of 0.25% of their nominal length.
4.2
Material Selection
The material used for lifting points, their attachment to the package and lifting beams (if required)
should comply with the requirements set out in ES/096 Specification for Structural Steel Materials for
Offshore Installations.
It should be noted that materials having guaranteed through-thickness properties are recommended
for lifting points, and the plates or members to which they are attached, unless the design is such that
through-thickness stresses are avoided.
4.3
Design Stresses
Allowable stresses for lift design shall be in accordance with the requirements of the AISC
specifications, with no increases in allowable stresses. Refer to ES/096 Specification for Structural
Steel Materials for Offshore Installations. These allowable stresses are listed below for guidance but
the designer should use information from the latest edition of the referenced publication.
Nature of Applied Stress
Allowable Stress
Tension
0.6"
0.6 (maximum) "Y
0.66 t;Jy [<'ICI,I tn'
Compression
Bending
0.4
Shear
'7S'
:h
t;Jy
0.9 Y
Equivalent
0.75"Y
Buckling
AISC Tables
Bearing
1.
2.
'
.
-@xx.2 + t;Jy~
-
Oxx +
Oyy
2 y,
+ ;;JT.)
Page 19 of 149
.:':
0.75
t;J
I}JC.c
l<'l
EM/039
Rev31991
Where:
Oxx
0YY
-r
4.4
Practical Considerations
4.4.1
4.4.2
Lifting points should be attached to locations on the package which are capable of withstanding the
lifting point design load, and these locations must be checked for strength using the allowable stresses
quoted in Section 4.3 Design Stresses.
Lifting points should be located such that there is easy access for slings and shackles. Structural
detailing that avoids having to cut-off the lifting points after installation is recommen.ded. Wherever
possible, the centre of gravity of the package should be below the lifting points.
Where the centre of gravity of the package is above the lifting points, stability will be enhanced by:
4.4.3
Dimensioning
4.4.3.1
Padeyes
Padeyes should conform to the following criteria with respect to shackle pin size for ease of fitting and
the avoidance of small contact area. The following equations apply. Refer to Figure 9 Typical Shackle
Details.
dp _:::25mm
Page 20 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
Thickness of padeye, including cheek plates where used, should be between the limits given below.
Packing plates may be required to make up the gap in order to centralise the shackle and avoid
eccentric loading.
tmax
O.Bw
!min:::: 0.6w
Note that dimension H can be important for fit-up of the shackle on the padeye. Refer to Figure g
Typical Shackle Details.
This dimension varies with different shackle designs, and the shackle manufacturer must be consulted
for its value for a given shackle.
Clearance should also be provided around the padeye to ensure the shackle pin can be inserted and
removed.
A minimum clearance tm of 0.5 times the sling diameter should be allowed between the inside length of
the shackle and the combined length of sling diameter plus padeye main plate radius.
4.4.3.2
Padears
The dimensioning of the padears is mainly govern.ed by the following:
e
the central stiffener plate (shear plate), refer to Figure 6 Typical Padear Details, should be
slotted through the main plate and should be designed to transfer the total sling load into the
main plate.
the padear stubs should only be regarded as a bent circumference for the sling eye. The
diameter of the pipe should be at least three times the sling diameter, or four times if the main
body of the sling is bent;
the main plate thickness (or, if more than one main plate will be used, the sum of the main
plates' thickness) should be equal to or larger than the padear stiffener plate;
as the sling will stretch out at the contact area during lifting (bearing length
the width of the stub should be minimum 1.5 times the sling diameter;
the cover plate/keep plate should protrude about 75% of the sling diameter at the bearing area
and at least 1OOmm above the centre of the pipe. To install the sling an overall clearance of 1.5
times the sling diameter is required.
4.4.4
Cheek Plates
The requirements for bearing and shear pull-out stresses and for shackle clearances may mean that
cheek plates are required even for light lifts. Refer to Section 4.3 Design Stresses and Section 4.4.3
Dimensioning.
The radius of cheek plates should be no more than the radius of the main plate minus the cheek plate
thickness.
If the pad eye main-plate is not circular at its free end, then the minimum distance from the edge of the
cheek plate to the outside edge of the main plate shall be the cheek plate thickness.
The maximum cheek plate thickness for the calculation of allowable stresses shall be taken as the
lesser of:
Page 21 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Weld Design
In general, full penetration welds are required for the connections between the padeye and the
f, structure. Fillet welds are adequate for welds to cheek plates. However, for light lifts fillet welds may
h! be used for every connection provided that adequate strength is demonstrated and that the welds are
4>w0 2 [/' 0
6.0
8.0
Over 40.0.to'60.0
1tl.O
Over 60.0
12.0
The weld details should be designed for easy access for welding and inspection.
4.4.6
Bolted Connections
Proposals for bolted connections shall be treated on a case by case basis and be subject to the
approval of Shell Expro.
4.4.7
4.4.8
The minimum breaking load (MBL) required is the SWL multiplied by the safety factor. Refer to Lloyd's
Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment.
Page 22 of 149
5:/NL
Y INc!
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Safety Factor:
SF= 5.0
sF= 104/8.85
svn + 1910
SF= 3.0
svn.:: 10 tonnes
10 < svn.:: 160
160 >
svn
\1
Slings with SWL > 160 tonnes may be of cable laid construction. These are not covered by L\oyds
Register of Shipping, and safety factors for these slings should be obtained from HSE PM20Cable laid
slings and grommets.
It is important that the slings are not too large for the lift (SWL 2:: Wa~) because large and over stiff
slings may invalidate the75/25% load distribution al)d may be difficult to handle and fit to the shackles.
Refer to Section 1.2.2 (4) Lifting Point Design Load (WD).
This can happen if a high Dynamic Amplification Factor F1 is used resulting in very conservative slings
and shackle sizes. Given slings and shackles have a high safety factor, minimum 3.0, and include an
element of dynamic loading, a Dynamic Amplification Factor F1 of 1.0 is recommended for lifting light
packages unless more onerous seastates are required for specific lifts, then F1 = 1.3 would be
recommended.
Shackles are usually classified according to their SWL. Only shackles with minimum breaking strength
at least four times SWL should be used. For shackles:
For fit-up purposes it is important that shackles are matched to the load.
The properties of typical slings and oftypical shackles is listed, respectively, in Appendix 3 Typical
Sling Properties and Appendix 4 Typical Shackle Properties.
Current manufacturers' catalogues must be consulted for design purposes.
Page 23 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
(1)
Lifting points, spreader beams, etc. shall in general comply with the requirements for the
structural steel of the package for fab1ication and inspection. Materials used in lifting points and
welds in connection with lifting points should be 100% non-destructively tested. Fillet welds
require only wet' MPI. Full penetration welds require wet' MPI plus ultrasonic inspection
wherever practical. The areas for lifting point welds shall be mapped out onto the surface of the
supporting structure and this area, plus 50mm either side of the weld, shall be ultrasonically
inspected. If any laminar discontinuities are found the lifting point shall be relocated to avoid
such areas, or redesigned to compensate for poor through-thickness properties.
(2)
Relative lifting point positions and fabrication tolerances of plate shacl<les, spreader beams, etc.
are to be measured. Tolerances must be such that the lateral loading will not exceed the
specified levels. Refer tci Section 2.2.3 Lateral Load and Section 3.2.4 Lateral Loads. It is
recommended that the tolerances on lifting point orientation are not greater than +2
(3)
Items which are flame cut from plate either manually or automatically are to be ground to give a
smooth, notch free, bright metal finish to the faces.
(4)
Holes should be drilled after welding, not cut and profiled, to avoid point contacts.
(5)
(6)
Each lifting point in regular use (e.g. containers) is to be marked with its Safe Working Load
(SWL). This SWL should be the lifting point design load (VTa). The marking should be made with
white paint in letters not less than 50mm high.
....-c.--
(7)
Lifting beams, and spreader frames are to be proof-tested in accordance with Lloyd's Register
of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment .
SWL s; 10 Tonnes
/-~
Proof Load= 2 ~~
Lr{M (CXJ-<)
f2il<c(udr-~
1>PJ-f-
x SWL
Page 24 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
(8)
Inspection of re-usable items: All padeyes and associated lifting gear must be inspected before
any lift. In addition all pad eyes and associated lifting gear are to undergo the relevant inspection
requirements for six-monthly survey listed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting
Appliances in a Marine Environment. This inspection should check for wear, damage, COITosion,
structural changes etc. In particular, padeye welds should undergo MPI at regular intervals to
ensure that cracks or other defects do not propagate as a result of repeated lifts. Parts which
are found to be work damaged, .or corroded to a significant degree should be replaced. For
guidance purposes generally acceptable levels of wear down are given by LRS but earlier
replacement may be required where considered warranted by Shell Expro.
(9)
All welding carried out in the fabrication of lifting points and attachment to the package shall be
in accordance with the fabrication specification of the package.
(1 0)
Inspection of lifting equipment within Onshore Plants is undertaken in accordance with the
Factories Act 1961 Section 26.
DOCUMENTATION
(1)
Generally, the requirements of LRS are to be complied with. Refer to Lloyd's Register of
Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in a Marine Environment.
Certification requirements for all categories of lifting appliance are outlined. Certificates are to
be prepared, and kept available, showing that:
e
satisfactory tests have been carried out on the individual items of loose gear and on each
lifting appliance as rigged for its intended mode of operation;
the required Periodical Surveys of each lifting appliance have been carried out.
(2)
Written calculations, design drawings, material certificates and weld procedures for all packages
are to be supplied to the Shell Expro Project Engineer for approval. The calculations are
required before approval of drawings for construction. The material certificates and weld
procedures are required before the start of fabrication. All the above should be in accordance
with the fabrication specification of the package.
APPENDICES
7.1
.Y Kg/W + VTa + Wr
(-1)
F1 = [1.o + V11g
.Y Kg/W + Wa + Wr]
(-2)
Page 25 of 149
EM/039
Rev 31991
Equation (1) is derived from that quoted by Lloyd's Register of Shipping Code for Lifting Appliances in
a Marine Environment.
Equation (2) is derived from OTC4192, 1982 Development of Unsigned Criteria for Heavy Lift
Operations Offshore.
Equation (2) is preferable because it treats crane hook speed (Vl.) and vessel motions as separate
terms. This enables values of FJ, to be calculated for low hook speeds.
Onshore Lifting of Light Packages
The following analysis was required for calculation of the values of F h in Table 1 Dynamic
Amplification Factors (Fl.) For Light Packages.
Typical value (1 0) and one which does not vary greatly provided slings sizes are matched to the loads
they lift. The value therefore applies to both onshore and offshore lifting.
H~
=0
.v1 = 1.6ms-1
H.,=4m
Tz = 7.5s
This leads to
F h = 2.39 (Eq. 1)
Fh
=2.21(Eq.2)
As an upper bound Fh
=2.5
H., =0.6m
}
This leads to
Fh = 1.31 (Eq. 1)
}
This leads to
Fh = 2.08 (Eq. 1)
The recommended value ofF 1 which will cover the majority of offshore lift packages is F1 = 2.0.
Page 26 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
7.2
The real force distribution depends on the flexibility of the rigging system and the lifted object, on the
lack-of-fit of slings due to fabrication errors, crane hook arrangements, tolerances on the e.g. position
etc.
A better method of calculating force-distribution than assuming a 75/25 split is described in OTC4192,
1982 Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift Operations Offshore.
This treats the effective lack-of-fit in the slings as an explicit design parameter and describes it by ,
which is the sum of the effect of fabrication tolerances plus the sling manufacturers' guaranteed
tolerances. The load distribution can then be assessed assuming an error of+ on both slings on one
diagonal and - E on both slings on the other. The effect of package distortion is included in the
analysis.
This method may be used if a relaxation of the 75/25 split is required or if the 75/25 distribution has to
be justified because, say, sling tolerances cannot be guaranteed or if fabrication tolerances have not
been met.
7.3
Rope
Diameter
(mm)
SWL
(tonnes)
Rope Diameter
(mm)
$L..f'c.l
SWL
(tonnes)
Rope Diameter
(mm)
SWL
(tonnes)
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.54
1.0
10
0.8
0.76
08
10
1.3
12
1 .1
0.96
/D
I 11
1.5
14
1.6
10
1.2
1.8
16
2.1
11
1.4
2.1
18
2.6
12
1.7
2.5
20
3.2
13
2.0
3.3
22
3.9
14
2.3
4.1
24
4.7
16
3.0
18
5.1
26
5.5
3.8
I 12
l J; I 13
!&I 14
.'1 I 16
;j 18
, ~, I 20
4 ., I 22
6.2
28
6.3
20
4.7
...d
" l
7.4
32
8.3
22
5.7
8.6
36
10.5
24
6.8
10.0
40
13.0
Js
"H..
'!"'
I 24
(, : : I 26
~:, )cl I 28
'
.
.'iii'
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Rope
Diameter
(mm)
SWL
(tonnes)
Rope Diameter
(mm)
SWL
(tonnes)
26
8.0
32
13.1
28
9.3
36
16.6
32
12.1
40
20.6
36
"15.4
44
24.9
40
19.0
48
29.6
44
23.0
52
34.9
48
27.5
56
40.4
52
32.0
60
46.3
56
37.3
60
42.8
SWL
(tonnes)
Rope Diameter
(mm)
It should be noted in using the tabulated figures in the Lloyds Register of Shipping that minimum
breaking loads (MBL) are quoted.
7.4
Table 4
B (mm)
Db (mm)
DP (mm)
H (mm)
Mass (kg)
22
51
12.7
16
17
0.4
26
64
1q
19
20
0.8
31
76
19
22.2
23
1.2
6.5
36
83
22.2
25.4
26
1.8
8.5
43
95
25.4
28.6
29
2.6
9.5
47
108
28.6
31.8
32
12.25
51
115
31.8
35
35
5.3
13.75
57
133
35
38
38
7.5
17.25
60
146
38
41.3
41
9.3
25.5
74
178
44.5
50.8
51
15
35.5
83
197
50.8
57.2
57
21
50.75
105
254
63.5
69.9
70
42
76.25
127
330
76.2
82.5
83
65
101.5
146
381
88.9
95.3
98
113
132.0
165
432
101.6
108
108
160
SWL
Tonnes
W(mm)
2.0
3.25 ..
4.75
Table 5
Page 28 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
7.5
SWL
Tonnes
W(mm)
B(mm)
Db {mm)
DP(mm)
H(mm)
Mass (kg)
15.4
60
118
38
41
46
9.5
22.7
73
139
44
51
54
15.4
31.75
83
152
51
57
64
23.5
45.3
105
210
64
70
76
46
68.0
127
271
76
83
83
81
90.7
135
308
89
95
102
120
136.0
159
254
140
11
114
154
Table 6
SWL
Tonnes
Shank
d1
1.0
Oval
Round
d2
d3
d4
M18
11
24
48
21
12
1.6
M22
14
30
58
26
16
2.0
M24
16
34
58
26
16
18
2.5
M27
18
39
72
32
21
23
3.2
M30
20
44
72
32
21
23
4.0
M33
22
48
94
40
26
28
5.0
M36
25
54
94
40
26
28
6.3
M42
27
60
108
45
29
32
8.0
M45
31
68
115
49
32
35
10.0
M52
35
76
125
54
36
39
12.5
M56
39
86
144
60
41
44
16.0
M64
163
66
46
49
20.0
M72x6
173
72
56
54
25.0
M76x6
192
80
56
59
32.0
M80 x 6
216
90
60
64
40.0
M90x6
240
100
66
70
50.0
M100 x 6
264
110
74
78
63.0
M110x6
290
120
84
89
80.0
M120 X 6
325
135
94
99
100.0
M130 X 6
360
150
105
111
NOTE:
I
I
e
14
18
All dimensions are given in millimetres and are illustrated in Figure 10 Lifting Eyes and
Lugs.
Page 29 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Table 7
SWL
Tonnes
Shank
d1
20
M72x6
475
25
M76x6
32
400
48
95
66
95
94
95
515
445
51
108
72
108
100
108
M80x6
565
500
55
120
79
120
108
120
40
M90x6
630
550
59
133
86
133
117
133
50
M100x6
675
600
64
146
94
146
127
146
63
M110x6
740
660
71
150
104
150
139
150
80
M120x6
815
725
78
158
115
158
153
158
100
M130x6
880
795
86
178
127
178
168
178
NOTE:
All dimensions are given in millimetres and are illustrated in Figure 10 Lifting Eyes and
Lugs.
Dimensions of Lug Fittings
Table 8
7.6
Bottom
Side
Top
SWL
Tonnes
Shank
d1
d2
d3
1.0
M18
19
17
35
1.6
M22
23
11
21
1.0
M24
26
12
23
1.5
M27
29
13
25
3.2
M30
32
14
28
60
4.0
M33
35
15
31
65
5.0
M36
39
18
37
75
6.3
M42
45
20
40
85
8.0
M45
49
23
46
95
10.0
M52
58
26
50
110
12.5
M56
64
28
54
120
16.0
M64
70
30
62
130
20.0
M72x6
74
33
70
140
25.0
M76x6
80
35
74
150
32.0
M80x 6
90
40
82
170
45
50
55
Base Weight = 23 tonnes (preliminary engineering estimate only available at this stage of
design).
Page 30 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
=Fl. (W + VoTa.)
I
Establish Lifting Point Design Load 1'Ya Refer to Section 2.2 Lifting Point Design Load (WD)
Both pairs of diagonal padeyes (A and B, C and D) are designed to take 75 % of 'I/>T1.
Considering A and B: Refer to Figure 11 Plan View of Package in Design Example.
0. 75 VvJ, = 42 tonnes
Padeye A takes: 2.2/4 x 42.0 tonnes
= 23.1
Check padeye vertical load is ~ 2x static load. Refer to API Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.
API check: 2 x static load= 2 x (23 + 4.6) x 0.75 x 2.2 + 4 = 22.7 tonnes
A Wa = 24 tonnes to be used which exceeds 2 x static load o.k. for API check.
To minimise sling and shackle sizes, the sling angle (c)l) should be as large as possible. In this
case, it is specified that the slings be long enough that c)l > 55 for each padeye. Therefore,
conservatively,
Wa = 24 tonnes +sin 55 =29.3 tonnes (Pad eye and attachment design load).
Wa~
=29.3 + D.A.F. (2.0) = 14.65 tonnes (Sling and Shackle design load).
Vertical
24 tonnes
Horizontal
1.5 tonnes
..
oS t: N
&.
is the maximum value of Wa that any padeye is expected to carry. For conservatism, all the
padeyes should be designed to accept these loads.
(3)
(4)
..
Page 31 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
The structural steel for the package complies with BS 4360 Specification for weldable structural
steels (Grade 40D).
2
There is no material thicker than 40mm, therefore minimum yield stress a y = 245 Nm(5)
. .......
Pad eye hole diameter= 51 mm + 3mm (51 - 25) = 55.04mm say 56mm.
25
(
Main Plate
+ 4(1 0) x (95-28)
Cheek Plates
= 6780mm 2
Shear stress= Wa/6780 = 42.4 Nmm2 < 95 Nmm2 , hence 01<.
Third Design Check: Tensile and Combined Stresses Across a Horizontal Section
Containing the Centre of the Padeye Hole. Refer to Figure 12 Padeye Design Example
(A2).
Tensile stresses:
This is a vertical component of Wa divided by the area of the section at A2.
2
Shear Stress:
Page 32 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
The horizontal component of VTd divided by the area of A2.
Therefore Shear stress = (16.8 x 981 0) I 75310 = 21.9 Nmm
2
=(Allow shear= 98Nmm- )
Bending Stress:
At A2 the only bending load is due to latera/load (0.05 'Na) = 1.5 tonnes
Max. bending stress (occurring at the outer fibre of the check plates) is given by:
~
.!...
'\
[(1.6
')
X
h-..!._"
05
= 100.1 Nmm
Area A3 =
..........
(A 3 J
Page 33 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
At F: In-plane bending stress= [ 30.7} {120 + 15 + 2)f20] = 17.8 Nmm
x 10
=4.5 Nmm- .
x 106 ]
[12.5] I [14.3
2 05
]
At F:
fR0'tiki(Jl))-.\
?. ~~\l-1~\
)1..]
M~'(:.fl, 11~.
tcUOV!..~'r:j f,\((,
:ez.>-\()J 1-.l 13
A factor of 2 is applied for load distribution, therefore design load= 143.6 KN.
Total weld length = 2 TT (95) = 597mm.
Therefore design Load I mm = 240 Nlmm.
A 4mm leg length weld is required. However, the minimum requirement for plate 25mm thick is
8 mm leg length, so 8mm fillet weld is required. Refer to Table 2 Minimum Fillet Welds.
Weld to Universal Column:
The load Wa == 29.3 Tonne. Again applying a factor 2 for load distribution, design load ==
574.8KN, say 575KN.
Taking the welds to main and side plates, total weld length (top surface of u.c. only) == 1400mm.
Therefore load= 410 Nlmm.
Therefore a 6mm leg length is OK.
Page 34 of 149
EIVI/039
Rev 3 1991
Conservatively select a 1Omm fillet weld for padeye and side plates to flange of universal
column.
NOTES:
1.
For preliminary sizing of padeyes the following is suggested for determining the
radius of the main plate from pin hole centre:
M'XIm"m radl"'" 0.6 b. Refer to Figure 9 Typical Shackle Detail,. \
Minimum radius= 2.5 x pin hole radius
2.
In the above example padeye sizings were originally based on a Vlfh = 70 tonnes (for
an FJ, = 2.5). By using a reduced, and recommended value of FJ, = 2.0 for their
design. Economic padeye, shackle and sling sizing is to be encouraged provided it is
consistent with design codes. Refer to API Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms.
Page 35 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
.,----... 1000
(f)
w
z
z
0
f.._...
500
LARGE AUXILLIARY HOI T
(CAPACITY UP TO 1000 1)
fI
(9
(1.2)
w
_j
::J
0
0--
~
100
(9
(f)
I WHIPHOIST LIFTS
(CAPACITY UP TO 75 T
I (2.5)
50
D. A F.
Figure 1
Page 36 of 149
Ul8657
(illu0553423)
EM/039
Rev31991
0C
ct--- --/---
llJ
_T_ _
00
I ,
80
I ,
I '\outlineof
L~
ped<ege(plee)
(illu0553424)
Figure 2
Padeye location
0C
Aef'
.;;ofG
/
Limiting cruciform
/
/
80
Outline of
package (plan)
(illu0553425)
Figure 3
Page 37 of 149
EfVI/039
Rev31991
Hook point
.A/
Horizontal plane
through CG of package
(illu0553426)
Figure 4
Sling Force
Sling Force
sz
S1
Sling Eye
Padear
Sling Force
Sling Force
Sz
s1
(ILLU0553427)
Figure 5
Page 38 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
\
\
\
\
):
./
II\ I
IIII \
II -II
,\
II
./
Section 'A-A'
=
=
t ~ 12
w~
1.sd
=0.50 + 0.75d
D~
L/6
X= Y = Z ~ 1.5d
U-18300
(illu0553428)
Figure 6
Page 39 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
SECTIONS ON 'A-A'
SECTION ON '8-8'
U-16583
(il/u0553429)
Figure 7
Page 40 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
EXAMPLE OF HIGH
CENTRE OF GRAVIT
RELATIVE TO
ATTACHMENT
POINTS
EXAMPLE OF
STABLE LOAD
U-16781
(illu0553430)
Figure 8
Stability of Packages
Page 41 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
SHACKLE
PAD EYE
X
t2:S;;0.75~
w =WIDTH OF SHACKLE
t1
t2
R
1m
ds
Figure 9
Page 42 of 149
1f1ow:S;; x~ 1J5 w
lm;?: 0.5c:t
Y;?: t2
U-16584
(il/u0553431)
EIVI/039
Rev31991
d4
b
ev
ROUND EYE
g
OVAL EYE
LUG FITTING
U-16995
Figure 10
(illu0553432)
Page 43 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
~~~~---------r~------. 0
0
0
0
0
0
- - - - -jL-- - - - __ ,_ - - - - - -
0
0
N
_ _!__!__ _ _
2000
6000
Figure 11
Page 44 of 149
(illu0553434)
- - - ...........
EM/039
Rev 31991
SHACKLE
DIMENSION 'b'
see Fig 9
-'~>-
209
6/2>2/d
I~
2os
~I
SECTION A-A
U-16994
(illu0553434)
Figure 12
Page 45 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Page 46 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Our Ref: DTB/jaa/BPJ3LOG
22nd February, 1991
See Distribution Attached
Dear Sir,
Offshore Lift Criteria- Joint Industry Project Final Report
Brown & Root Vickers Technology Ltd. are pleased to herewith submit a copy of the following documentation
supporting the work done on the above study:
Final report, dated February 1991.
Appendix 1.0, Guidance for the design of module Lifting Systems. This copy replaces Appendix 1.0
contained in the Appendices volume, issued November 1990.
Appendix 8.0, List of Report Comments. This document should be included after Appendix 7.0 in the
above Appendices Volume.
The above documentation has been updated and amended As Applicable And Incorporates Comments as
Received from parties involved.
BRVT would like to thank all participants and collaborators for their cooperation and support which enabled us
to successfully complete the study.
Yours Faithfully,
for Brown & Root Vickers Technology Ltd.
DirJ( T. Blanken
(Project Manager)
Page 47 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. A West
Participant
Participant
Mr. J. M. Walton
Collaborator
BP International Limited
Participant
BP International Limited
Mr. J. Jerzak
Participant
Collaborator
Participant
Mr. N. Hughes
Collaborator
Department of Energy
Mr. J. Peel
Participant
Department of Energy
Marine Technology support Unit
Participant
Mr. K. Lindemann
Collaborator
Mr. A R. Biddle
Participant
Participant
Collaborator
R & D Department
Mr. R. Wouts
Collaborator
Hendrik Veder BV
Mr. W. Vervat
Collaborator
Page 48 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Mr. P. Oldham
Participant
Mr. J. C. Smith
Collaborator
Collaborator
McDermott International
Mr. D. Sullivan
Collaborator
Mr. H. M. Williams
Collaborator
Participant
Mr. L. Dalsgaard
Participant
Mr. S. Nelson
Participant
Mr. T. McCardle
Participant
Rockwater Limited
Mr. J. Rahtz
Collaborator
Mr. W. McGuire
Collaborator
Seaplace Limited
Capt. G. De Jong
Collaborator
Scanrope A.S.
Mr. R. Jespersen
Collaborator
Mr. W. G. Laver
(UETE. 11)
Participant
Shelllnternationale Petroleum
Maatschappij BV
Participant
Statoil A.S.
Mr. B. Stead
Participant
United Ropes
Mr. P. Kampers
Collaborator
i.
Page 49 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
The offshore lifting criteria which have been developed over the years are entirely on practical
experience and sound engineering guidance. Generally factors were developed based on the lift
weight for the design of sling, bumpers, guides and other installation aids.
As weights grew from several thousand to in excess of 10,000 Tonnes, there was a need for a
thorough review of the basis for these factors. With this in mind, British Petroleum (BP) commissioned
Brown and Vickers Ltd. (BRV) in October 1989 to perform a general review of the installation criteria. It
was found that there was a requirement for the establishment of an analytical basis for the criteria.
On this basis, BP recommended to BRV that a more detailed study should be carried out, involving as
a number of field, design, installation contractors, warranty surveyors, regulatory bodies, sling
manufacturers and other interested parties.
A proposed scope of work for such Joint Industry Project (JIP) was presented to a wide audience of
potentially interested parties. his resulted in the participation of 31 participants and other collaborating
companies.
As a result of discussions during the presentation this scope of work was amended and a revised
scope, dated 27th October 1989 was issued. A copy of this scope is included in Appendix 7.0. study
commenced on 1st December 1989. Refer to Appendix 7 Scope of Work.
This document contains the findings of the study which was performed by Brown and Root Vickers
Technology Ltd. (BRVT) over a ten month period. the results of the work have been discussed and
agreed at intervals with a Steering Committee. the course of the project progress and status was also
reported in meetings with the remaining participants. The comments that were received as a result of
the issue of the draft reports are recorded in Appendix 8 Results.
1.2
Project Management
The JIP was managed by ERVT who also performed the analytical work. The project involved two
types of participants. Firstly the full fee paying parties which were labelled as participants and
secondly of contributing parties as collaborators. The collaborator paid a reduced fee which most
cases were waived in lieu of a contribution in kind in support of the study.
The project was controlled by a Steering Committee which was elected at the commencement of the
study by the main party. It was the responsibility of the Steering Committee to provide technical
guidance and approvals to the project.
The members of the J IP are as follows:
PARTICIPANTS
COLLABORATORS
BP International Ltd
Chevron Limited
Department of Energy
Page 50 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Norsk Hydro AS
Scanrope A. S.
Statoil A.S.
Seaplace Ltd
Rockwater Ltd
United Ropeworks B.V.
1.3
Lift History
1.3.1
Page 51 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
The demands of offshore construction began to grow with the discovery of North Sea oil in 1970.
Since oil has been found in the Northern Sector with much greater water depths, the technology to
bigger structures evolved. Also, the lift capacity increased to 2,000 tons capacity cranes on several
vessels from 1972 onwards.
It was recognised in 1975 by Phillips Petroleum, facing the Ekofisk area development presume that it
was necessary to adopt a more rational standard for lifting systems. A proposed standard was
discussed at a forum, made up of representatives from the following companies:
Brown and Root
Heerema
McDermott
Santa Fe
Micoperi
Phillips
Universal agreement however was not reached, as contractors as will as warranty surveyors and
statutory bodies adopted their own and Sometimes different approach to the problem.
1.3.2
SUMMARY
2.1
Scope of Work
The objective of the study was to develop improved design criteria for the lifting of large modules in an
offshore environment and using SSCV's. A large lift for the purpose of the work was defined as a with
a weight in excess of 1,000 Te. Lifted jackets were the scope of this study. It was also agreed that the
use of free floating spreader frames would not be investigated in this study.
Page 52 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
The work consisted of studying the properties and characteristics of the slings, manufactured to lift
very heavy modules. The behaviour of the hook - sling - module - lift system during the lift condition
was investigated. Data on slings, their strength and possible future trends were obtained from
collaborating manufacturers and evaluated.
A large number of static and dynamic lift simulations were carried out to develop an understanding into
the lateral and vertical impact loads for a range of module weights. The weather conditions chosen as
a basis for the analyses are of the type usually seen in the No1ih Sea. The findings of the work
therefore applies to a lesser degree to lifting with smaller semi-submersible or monohull vessels and to
operations in area like the US Gulf or offshore Brazil.
Results
2.2
The results of the study shall that using an accurate analytical for the evaluation of the variation lifting
parameters gave a better insight into many aspects of the mechanism of lifting.
This has resulted in a development of a set of revised criteria, contained in Appendix 1 Guidelines for
the Design of Module Lifting Systems.
This criteria included a comprehensive glossary of terms, which is aimed at standardising the lift
system nomenclature.
In, the study has showed that some of the old established parameters developed years of offshore
lifting were generally good parameters and their continued use is with some modifications acceptable
with current lifting practice.
A list of definitions of some of the expressions used in this document is contained in Appendix 1
Guidelines for the Design of Module Lifting Systems.
A list of references to other specifications, criteria, codes and procedures is included in Section 4.4
References.
Some basic changes to or a better definition of the general approach of the of the lift system
components however are proposed. These include the following:
Single Hook Lift
2.2.1
Single hook lifts with four or more slings on padeyes at the same plane are statically
indeterminate and sling loads are not calculable by simple means. Accurate computer structural
analysis accounting for hook articulation, module tilt and sling length mismatch. For the
purposes of lift system design the current industry method based an a skew load factor of 1.5 is
generally found to be safe providing the slings are in matched pairs and their length mismatch
conforms to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets. This is providing the slings are
rigged correctly to minimise the sling length misfit across the diagonals.
It is recommended that slings for single hook lifts be measured for compliance with length
specification and to enable the slings to be rigged to minimise diagonal misfit by arranging that
the shortest slings in each matched pair are not on opposite corners of the lift. All the slings
should be measured at the same tension between 2.5% and 5% of the calculated rope breaking
load. This would generally comply with the recommendations in HSE, PM20Cable Laid Slings
and Grommets.
New slings are more flexible than used slings of the same diameter and are preferred for single
hook lift without spreaders. The use of oversized used slings must be avoided in single hook
lifts.
Module flexibility has more effect on single hook lift sling loads than in the dual lift but only
results in changes of the order of 1% sling loads. For most the module can be assumed
completely rigid.
Page 53 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
2.2.2
It is considered that the skew factor of 1.50 can be reduced in accordance with Figure 33 Skew Load
Factor Graphs.
This is providing the sling length mismatch criteria are satisfied.
Apart flow early examples all present criteria include for a centre of gravity shift factor or allowance.
proposed in this document includes a tilt factor of 1.03 for single crane lifts, a factor not previously
included.
With the exception of the DnV 1985 criteria all criteria include a doubled sling load ratio of 55:45 and a
lift point side load of 5.0 percent.
Apart from the DnV 1985 criteria, early criteria did not include design factors, or consequence factors
for module lift point or load transferring member design. Design factors appear in the criteria quoted in
Appendix 1, Table Lift Criteria Comparison - Single Crane Lifts.
These design factors vary considerably between criteria. The design factor of 1.1 0 is lower than other
criteria but is appropriate due to the other factors being based upon analytical work done in this study,
quoted for the guidelines in Appendix 1 Guidelines For The Design Of Module Lifting Systems.
A comparison is also made between the combined factors on the slings and lift point. The lift point
factor by this document is within the range of combined factors for lift points for previous criteria.
However the sling combined factor is higher than for previous criteria. It is substantially higher than
these criteria which use a skew load factor of 1.25. This skew load factor is the factor by which sling
loads are multiplied to account for sling length mismatch. Unless sling lengths are known before each
lift by measurement and slings rigged in order to reduce mismatch, for criteria with the lower combined
sling factors there is a likelihood that the sling working load limit, as defined by the Health and Safety
Executive Guidance Note PM20 will be exceeded. This is clearly an unacceptable situation.
2.2.3
Dual Lift
e
The sling load distribution in dual lifts is little affected by large variations in module stiffness. For
most the assumption that the module is rigid is modestly conservative resulting in sling load
changes of less than 0.1 %.
Page 54 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
With a rigid module and knowledge of the hook geometry the dual lift becomes a statically
determinate mechanism for which sling loads can be calculated accurately.
Because the dual lift with the sling configuration as investigated in this study is statically
determinate, the sling load distribution is relatively insensitive to variations in sling
load/extension or torque characteristics. Also the effect of large sling length mismatches can be
quantified on the basis of geometric deformation without the need for structural stiffness
analysis. Dual lifts having 2 x 4 or 2 + 4 slings however are statically indeterminate and require
computer analysis outside the scope.
The dynamic amplification factor for slings was shown to have a dependency on module weight and
mean spectral wave periods. dependency has been evaluated and incorporated as part of the revised
criteria. For completeness, the hook load were also evaluated and shown to have this dependency
Guideline impact velocities of a module during set down have also been investigated in this study.
These have been incorporated in the revised criteria. In particular, the loads have been evaluated as a
of bumper stiffness and presented as graphical curves for design purposes.
The curves show that depending upon module weight, and bumper stiffness, the overall value falls
below the normal ten that is generally used globally. In particular the impact loads have been split into
two components the quasi static and dynamic parts.
Overall the study has resulted in several major findings. This has been reflected in a revised lift criteria
having a more analytical basis for its recommendations.
2.2.4
Page 55 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Table 9
HEEREMA
(1983)
RANGE OF
MODULE
WEIGHTS
A
c
D
E
F
G
DnV
(1985)
MICOPERI
(1985)
SHELl
SOLE
PIT
(1988)
OXY
PIPER
(1990)
BP
BRUCE
(1990)
>1 ,000
>2,500
> 2,500
>2,500
>2,500
1.15
1.15(1)
1.15(1)
1.15(1)
1.15
D.A.F.
(SLINGS)
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
SKEW LOAD
FACTOR
1.50
1.50
1.50
C.G. SHIFT
FACTOR
1.00
1.05(2)
TILT
FACTOR
1.00
1.00
AxBxCxD
xE
1.90
1.51
RIGGING
WEIGHT
FACTOR
1.03
1.03(1)
LIFT POINT
DESIGN
FACTOR
1.00
LOAD
MEMBER
DESIGN
FACTOR
1.00
AMOCO
CATS
(1990)
CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)
NOBLE
DENTON
(1990)
A(5)
8(3)
>2,500
6000/2500
6000/2500
1.15
0 1.125
1.175
1.175
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.15/1.20
1.15/1.20
1.50
1.25
1.50
1.25
1.50
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.05(2)
1.05
1.02(8)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.05
1.03(7)
1.90
1.99
1.90
1.90
1.66
1.99
1.62
2.23/2.33
1. r r/1.85
1.04
1.03(1)
1.03(1)
1.03(1)
1.03(1)
1.03(1)
1.03(1)
1.03
1.03
1.35
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.25
1.30
1.30
1.35
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.10
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.00
1.00
>2,500
WEIGHT
FACTOR
(PREAFC)(4)
1.10
1.10
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.10
1.50
1.00
Page 56 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
HEEREMA
(1983)
DnV
(1985)
MICOPERI
(1985)
SHELL
SOLE
PIT
{1988}
OXY
PIPER
(1990)
BP
BRUCE
(1990)
AMOCO
CATS
(1990)
CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)
NOBLE
DENTON
(1990}
A(5)
B(3)
SUNG
DESIGN
(F x G)
1.95
1.56
1.97
2.05
1.95
1.95
1.71
2.05
1.67
2.30/2.40
1.83/1.91
.LIFT POINT
DESIGN
(F x H) (6)
1.90
2.04
1.90
1.99
2.47
2.37
2.16
2.59
2.19
2.45/2.56
1.95/2.04
LOAD
MEMBER
DESIGN
(F X I)
1.90
1.74
1.90
1.99
2.18
2.09
1.91
2.29
1.87
2.23/2.33
1.77/1.85
----
NOTES:
1.
2.
Factor used, but not quoted and assumed for this comparison table.
3.
Skew load factor can be reduced to 1.25 minimum by use of curves, depending upon measured sling lengths.
4.
5.
Sling OAF varies linearly with the module weight, from 1.20 at 2,500T to 1.15 at 6,000T.
6.
The overall Lift Point Design Factor (K) from API RP2A (Eighteenth Edition 1989) is 2.00.
7.
8.
Page 57 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Table 10
-
BP
BRUCE
(1990)
LOG
(1991)
AMOCO
CATS
(1990)
CHEVRON
ALBA
(1990)
HEEREMA
(1990)
NOBLE
DENTON
(1990)
>8,000
> 1,000
> 2,500
> 2,500
> 2,500
> 2,500
10,00016,000 (5)
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.25
i.15
1.125
1.175
WEIGHT
AFC)(1)
D.A.F. (SLINGS)
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.1011.15
C. G. SHIFT FACTOR
1.08
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.05
TILT FACTOR
1.08
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03(4)
YAWFACTOR.
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.00(6)
TORSION FACTOR
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SKEW FACTOR
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.03
AxBxCxDxExFxG
1.50
1.58
1.58
1.64
1.44
1.38
1.44 I 1.51
RIGGING
FACTOR
WEIGHT
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.03(2)
1.03
1.03(2)
1.03
LIFT
POINT
FACTOR
DESIGN
1.25
1.00
1.35
1.30
1.'10
1.35
1.10
LOAD MEMBER
FACTOR
DESIGN
1.10
1.00
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.15
1.00
1.55
1.63
1.58
1.68
1.48
1.42
1.48 I 1 .55
1.88
1.58
2.13
2.13
1.58
1.86
1.58 I 1.66
LOAD MEMBER
(H x K)
1.65
1.58
1.82
1.88
1.58
1.59
1.44 I 1.51
FACTOR
(PRE-
DESIGN
L_____
NOTES:
---
1.
2.
Factor not quoted, but assumed as 1.03 for this comparison table.
Page 58 of 149
~-
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
3.
The overall Lift Point Design Factor (M) from API RP2A is 2.00.
4.
Factor assumed for this comparison table. Factor should be calculated by statics based upon C.G. position and allowable tilt
5.
The sling OAF varies linearly with the module weight, from 1.15 at 6,000T to 1.10 at 1 O,OOOT.
6.
Page 59 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
3
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the work in relation to this study, a large number of interesting conclusions have been
drawn. The most significant of these are listed briefly in this Section. The background a more detailed
explanation or other qualifications where appropriate are included in the relevant Sections of this
report.
3.1
Static Analyses
(1)
The single hook four point lifts investigated in this study, are statically. Lifts as investigated were
to be performed with a two times two sling configuration which is statically determinate. Dual
lifts with alternative slinging arrangements may however be statically indeterminate.
(2)
A final design check, on measured sling lengths and module weight data, may result in the use
of less conservative sign factors. As a consequence the risk of problems arising from module
weight growth or CG position change is greatly reduced when using these proposed criteria.
(3)
The range of the overall sling design loads as proposed by BRVT are well within the range as
proposed in other contemporary lift point design and load member design factors however are
shown to have considerably lower values as hitherto assumed. This provides a marginal saving
in the overall STEEL weight of the module.
(4)
The different crane hook geometric on the currently available SSCVs have very little effect an
sling tensions since all have sufficient articulation to allow distribution of loads by the rotation of
their hook components.
(5)
The load split ratio of 55:45 between adjacent lengths of multiple length slings affects the
maximum tension in each sling rope but has virtually no effect on the overall load distribution
between the slings in single or dual lifts.
(6)
The sling load distribution in single hook lifts is very sensitive to sling length misfit. For example,
when one diagonal pair of slings is 40 shorter than the other diagonal than almost weight is
carried by the shorter slings. analysis has shown diagonal load ratios in excess of 90/10 on
some of the cases studied. Clearly the lift criteria for single hook lifts has to relate to the effect of
sling length misfit on skew load factor.
(7)
Dual lifts are relatively insensitive to sling length misfit. maximum increase in sling load due to
40 total shortening of two slings on opposite corners of the module was found to be 5%.
3.2
(8)
Sling structural efficiency decreases as sling diameters increase. With current hook geometries,
slings in excess of 500 mm diameter become uneconomic and can be made more efficient by
use of part slings of diameter rope.
(9)
Module stiffness has very little effect on the sling tensions in dual or single lifts. In dual lifts
increasing module stiffeners by 50% increases the maximum sling load by less than 0.07% and
in single lifts by less than 1.1 %.
(1 0)
Variations in the elastic properties of matched pairs of slings cause changes in sling loads. In
dual lifts sling loads can by up to 0.4% and in single lifts up to 5%.
(11)
CG position error variation has a significant effect on both single -hook and dual crane sling
loads. combined effect of CG position error and 2% module tilt on the cases studied resulted in
sling load increases up to 15%.
Dynamic Analyses
(1)
In a test analysis, a 25% database in cargo barge draught produced a 7% increase in hook
loads at short wave periods. It is felt that deeper barge draught will normally result in lower.
Page 60 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
(2)
A comparison the frequency and the time domain results show that the flexibility domain
analysis has the following effects.
e
It may increase or decrease the expected (average) DAF for the slings compared with the
frequency domain values at 50% preload and dependant on the non-linearities of the
system.
The comparison also the importance of carrying cut a time domain simulation for a lift
analysis.
(3)
When a module is on the cargo barge prior to lift with hooks tensioned, the natural periods are
dispersed throughout the 3 to 8 seconds wave range of interest. This is the case for all weights
and types of lifts. Therefore significant dynamic loads can be expected (and were found).
Overall there was a of results, reflecting the variation in natural period combined with the
frequency dependant forcing effects of the waves on the barge and SSCV.
(4)
At low sea states the time domain dynamic amplification factor may be by the load caused by
the speeding up of the crane load winch at 100 percent weight transfer. his is a function of the
timescale over which the speeding up takes place.
(5)
Relatively higher nonlinearities have been in the dual lift examined than m the single crane lift.
This can be seen by examining the frequency as the time domain results contained in Appendix
2 Lifting Point Design Load Derivation
(6)
The dynamic amplification factors found in the time domain for long crested beam seas have
been found to be higher than in quartering or head seas. This is to the extent of reversing the
trend in the frequency for dual lifts when the quarter m g seas appear to be most onerous.
(7)
Maximum sling loads are sensitiv(3 to the way in which the lift is carried out ( 20%), for
example the speed and time of onset of the final hoist phase.
(8)
The OAF found for long crested beam seas are significantly higher than previously assumed
DAF for quartering and head seas to the cargo barge, which fully feature during a dual lift, are
lower.
(9)
The dynamic amplification factors for larger modules are lower than for smaller modules.
(1 0)
For headseas at the cargo barge and during dual lifts, the sling OAF approximately equals the
hook OAF. For beam seas, however, sling OAF exceeds the hook DAF.
(11)
During single crane four point lifts, the sling OAF exceeds the hook OAF at head as well as
beam seas to the cargo barge. The values of this exceedance varies with the wave period.
(12)
This study provides a revised method of assessing the impact in bumpers and guides. Impact
velocity values are given and when applied to the stiffness of the guide. enables the to be
evaluated.
(13)
Module guidance system design loads can be reduced by reducing the overall bumper stiffness.
However the bumpers must be of resisting a minimum horizontal load, the value of is given.
It should be noted that in our opinion a efficiently representative set of simulations have been
performed to be statistically acceptable to effect the conclusions noted above.
3.3
References
In this document , references are made to other specifications, criteria, of practice and procedures
which have been widely accepted within the industry. It must be stressed however that throughout the
preparation of this report and the Heavy Lift Criteria no attempt has been made to validate the basis of
these reference documents.
Page 61 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
For the sake of completeness, however, a list of the most comply used specifications and other
documentation is herewith presented for further guidance.
Table 11
Origin
Date
August 1982
Manual of Steel
Construction Allowable
Stress Design (9th
Edition)
September 1989
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
Recommended Practice
2A, 18th Edition (APIRP2A)
September 1989
August 1984
Structural use of
Steelwork in Building
BS-5950 (Part 1 to 5)
October 1987
(Part 5)
January 1977
September 1989
January 1982
April1989
10
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
October 1983
11
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
October 1990
12
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
August 1990
Page 62 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Origin
Document
Date
13
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
October 1983
14
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
October 1983
15
Heerema Engineering
Service BV
November 1986
16
July 1988
17
January 1991
18
October 1985
19
October 1990
20
Norwegian Standard
NS-3472 (E)
21
Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)
January 1987
22
Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)
Guidelines on design
and analysis of steel
structures in the
petroleum industry
January 1990
23
Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD)
Regulations for
Structural of Load
Bearing structures
October 1984
24
February 1986
25
February 1986
26
February i 986
27
February 1986
28
Guidance Note. PM 20
October 1987
Page 63 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DESIGN GUIDELINES
This Section presents a general description of the overall process for offshore heavy lift design.
Detailed descriptions of the various stages of design are included in the following Sections of these
guidelines and the design process is summarised in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.
2.1
Module Weights
It is essential, at the commencement of lift system design, to establish the maximum module lift
weight, or MLW, on which the lift design is to be based.
The MLW exceeds the initial calculated gross lift weight of the lift components by a contingency factor,
C which is set sufficiently high to ensure that subsequent values of GLW do not exceed the value of
MLW set at the start of the project. The value of C varies from project to project but typical values are
in the range 1.05 to 1.2 and must be large enough to avoid having to shed weight or strengthen the lift
system at a later stage in the project.
The gross lift weights, GLW, is calculated by applying contingency factors to the net lift weights of the
structural and equipment components of the lift.
The nett lift weights are the total weight of the components before the application of any factors.
The contingency values are adjusted to match the increased lift definition as the design proceeds and
typical values are as follows:
Page 64 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Typical weight factors
Component
Start of Design
End of Design
Structural
1.15
1.05
Equipment
1.20
1.10
Thus at the start of detailed design the module gross lift weight is typically given by:
GLW = 1.15 x 2: Structure weights+ 1.20 x 2: Equipment weights
and the maximum lift weight by:
MLW= GLWx C.
If the is weighed at the end of construction then the gross lift weight may be based on the weighed
weight with a weigh mg inaccuracy factor of 1.03 as follows:
GLW = 1.03 x Weighed Weight.
The application of the above weight factors is shown in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation Chart.
For the design of the lift s m, for any module having a dynamic lift weight within approximately 10
percent of the crane capacity, then consideration should be given to basing the maximum lift weight
upon the crane capacity.
Through the detailed design and fabrication phase, as the module weight becomes better defined,
provided the gross lift weight and centre of gravity are within the maximum lift weight and centre of
gravity zone, then no interim design checks on the lift system are necessary.
It is recommended that lift point orientation and sling or grommet lengths be finalised as late as
possible in the design phase. is in order to minimise lift point to sling misalignment and module tilt.
Should this approach be adopted, any final design checks could take into accouQt a reduced centre of
gravity offset if so desired.
2.2
Rigging Weight
The static hook load, or SHL, is derived by adding the weight of rigging to the module maximum lift
weight and is used in the calculation of hook load and sling load as shown in Figure 58 Lift Design
Calculation Chart.
Until the rigging details are known the rigging weight, or RW, may be taken as 0.03 times the module
maximum lift weight.
Thus: SHL =MLW + RW.
2.3
Page 65 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
TABLE OF DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (OAFs)
INSHORE
OFFSHORE
COMPLETION
DESIGN
LIFT WEIGHT (Te)
ALL
10,000
2,500
1,000
HOOK OAF
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
Refer to Figure 26
Sling Design OAF
SLING OAF
1.05
1.10
1.20
1.25
Refer to Figure 27
Hook Load OAF
ALL
The OAF for module weights between the values given above, should be calculated by a linear
interpolation.
In cases where a single hook lift is lifted offshore from the deck of the crane vessel and placed on a
fixed installation, the hook and sling for the operation shall be taken as 1.10 in the lift system design.
The method of applying the slings and hook OAFs to lift design is given, respectively, in Section 2.7
Lift Point Loads and Section 2.9 Dynamics Hook Load.
Lift Configuration
2.4
Which are light enough to be lifted by a single crane may be lifted by either a single or dual crane lift
system. The following points may be considered in determining which system to use:
2.5
single crane lifts in a more flexible marine operation having the possibility of revolving crane
operation.
"
single crane lifts may be lifted from the deck of the heavy lift vessel offshore, following an
inshore lift from a cargo barge, resulting in a reduced weather sensitivity.
Lift Geometry
The lift geometry for single and dual lifts is to be designed to use slings in matched pairs such that the
slings in each pair have the same length. In this way the hook location is in general confined to the
planes of padear symmetry as shown on Figure 59 Allowable Centre of Gravity Zones. Exceptions are
possible in the case of dual lifts as described in Section 2.6 Module Tilt and Allowable CG Zone.
Various types of sling configuration are used for the lifting of heavy modules. With the exception of the
four part sling, these are all shown pictorially in Figure 13 Sling Configurations.
(1)
A single sling between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is often used for lighter
four point single crane lifts where the sling is connected to a padeye type lift point by a shackle.
(2)
Multiple sling lengths between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is used for single
crane or dual lifts. The sling is usually doubled over the crane hook prong, with the sling eyes
connected to a trunnion type lift point. Alternatively the sling may be doubled around a padear
type lift point with the sling eyes over the crane hook. Occasionally for larger Dual lifts a sling is
four-parted between the lift point and the crane hook.
(3)
A grommet between the lift point and the crane hook. This method is most often used for Dual
lifts where the grommet is connected to a padear type lift point. Occasionally, for larger dual lifts
a may be doubled, connected to the module either by a padear or trunnion type lift point.
Page 66 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
Page 67 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
The effect of module tilt on the lift point loads is allowed for in initial design by the CGTF factor of 1.05
which is valid providing module tilt does not exceed 2%. If a larger tilt angle is to be used, the CGTF is
to be calculated using the CGTF final design formula given in Figure 32 Lift Point Loads - Single
Crane Lift.
In the final design check the value of is to be calculated from the tilt angle derived from the module CG
location determined by weighing.
The tilt angle allowed in the calculation is 1% even if the true tilt angle is less.
The maximum permitted tilt is 5%.
The method of calculating the lift point loads is given in Figure 32 Lift Point Loads -Single Crane Lift.
It consists of determining the loads in an ideal lift with correct length slings and then multiplying the lift
point load by the skew load factor or SLF. The SLF accounts for a number of factors including sling
misfit, sling properiy variation and splice slippage.
During design the SLF is to be taken as 1.5 and the resulting lift point loads used in the design of each
pair of padears.
If the sling lengths are measured accurately under tension the actual SLF can be detem1ined by the
method given in Attachment 2.0 Skew Load Factor- Single Hook Lifts.
The lift design should be checked using the revised SLF. calculation may allow modules which exceed
design weight to be lifted if the revised SLF is below 1.5 and providing the crane capacity is not
exceeded.
If the slings are not reassured the SLF should be checked by the method given in Attachment 2 on the
basis that the sling misfit is 2.5 times the sling rope diameter. If the SLF is greater than 1.5 then the
slings are to be reassured and rigged appropriately to ensure the SLF does not exceed 1.5 during the
lift.
2.8
Sling Design
The sling design load, or SOL, in lifts without spreader beams is to be taken as the lift point load
determined in Section 2. 7 Lift Point Loads.
For sling eyes and for length slings and grommets, allowance be made for different tensions in each
part due to friction at the hook or lift point preventing equalisation. The maximum tension in any part
should be taken as Tmax where:
Tmax = 1.1 x SOL
n
This equation is considered suitable for lubricated contact between the sling and the hook or lift point
and where the following bend requirements are complied with Section 2.11.4 Cast Padears and
Section 2.11.5 Trunnions.
Sufficient lubrication for this purpose is normally provided by the protective surface coating of the
sling.
Sling splices should have a circumferential paint line to provide evidence of any slippage.
2.8.1
Single Slings
For single slings the required calculated rope breaking load, or CRBL, as defined in HSE, PM20Cable
Laid Slings and Grommets must be the larger of the following:
Page 68 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
at the splices
CRBL ~ SDL,;'< 2.25
'-'T
0.5
~DL>~ 2.25
":
Er
where
is the termination efficiency, currently taken as 0.75 for a hand splice and 1.0 for a resin
socket and Bs Eis the bend efficiency at the sling eye calculated as follows:
BsE =
X /d/D
1- 0.5
where:
d = rope diameter
D = bend diameter
2.8.2
~ 1.1x SDLx US
V
n X EJJ;
~ 1.1x SDLx US
nX ET
0.55 x 1.1
SDLX 2.25
nX E:D:E
where:
n
=number of parts
E.BE =
Ey
= termination efficiency
and where the bend and termination efficiencies are as defined in Section 2.8.1 Single Slings.
2.8.3
Grommets
For a grommet the required calculated grommet breaking load, CGBL, as defined in HSE, PM20Cable
Laid Slings and Grommets is:
CGBL
2 X 1.1 X SDL
n X EJJ
2.25
Page 69 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
where EBG is the bend efficiency of the grommet calculated for the smallest diameter about which any
part of the grommet is bent and n = number of parts. Note that for a single grommet n = 2 and for a
doubled grommet n 4.
2.9
2.9.1
2.9.2
.'2.10
Crane Capacity
The crane capacity must exceed the dynamic hook load obtained from Section 2.9 Dynamic Hook
Load.
The crane capacity is to be taken from the certified crane capacity curve at the crane radius at which
the lift is made. If the crane radius varie~ during the lift the crane capacity is to be taken at the
maximum radius used in the lift.
Offshore crane load/radius charts often include an allowance for dynamic amplification. These crane
curves reflect the static capacity only. Consequently on top of the crane curve there is an additional
capacity available for dynamic amplification. In cases where the hook load exceeds the value obtained
from the crane capacity curve, the crane capacity may be converted to its dynamic capacity by
multiplying by the OAF used in the preparation of the capacity curve. Providing this dynamic crane
capacity exceeds the dynamic hook load the crane capacity is sufficient for the lift.
2.11
2.1 i .1
Design Loads
The lift point design load is determined from the maximum lift point load C by multiplying by a
consequence factor of 1.1. Refer to Section 2. 7 Lift Point Loads.
Loads are applied to the lift point as shown in Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings.
For a doubled sling the load to each part of the lift point is split in the ratio 55:45 corresponding to
lubricated contact where the bend requirements of Section 2.11.4 Cast Padears and Section 2.11.5
Trunnions.
The lift point design should allow for a tolerance of +5 degrees to the true sling account for any
misalignment between a sling and the lift point in addition to any theoretical misalignment a side force
of 5 percent of the lift point load should be applied as shown in Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings.
2.11.2
Allowable Stresses
Allowable stresses for lift design shall be in accordance with the of the AISC specification with no
increases in allowable stresses. Refer to AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable
Stress Design and Plastic Design.
These allowable stresses are listed below for guidance but the designer should use information from
the latest edition of the referenced publication.
Page 70 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Tension
Ft
=0.60 Fy
Compression
Fa
=0.60 Fy (maximum)
Bending
Fb
=0.60 Fy
Shear
Fv
=0.40 Fy
Bearing
Fp
=0.90 Fy
where fe is the actual equivalent stress, fx and fy are the actual direct stresses (i.e. combined axial
and bending, or tension) and fs the actual combined shear stresses due to torsion and/or bending in
the x-y plane.
2.11.3
2.11.4
Cast Padears
Details of cast padear geometry are shown on Figure: 3 Cast Padear.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
The padear design should allow the sling to follow a straight lifle from the padear to the crane hook to
eliminate unnecessary sling bending losses.
The bottom bearing surface of the pad ear should be elliptical to allow for some sling flattening.
In order for the sling bending efficiency to be higher than the splice efficiency, the minimum diameter
of a padear for a sling doubled over the pad ear should be our times in the sling rope diameter.
Page 71 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
In order to minimise the effect of grommet bending losses the diameter of padear for a grommet
should be the hook diameter or six times the grommet diameter whichever is the lower.
The minimum diameter of a pad ear for a sling eye should be the sling diameter.
The maximum diameter of a pad ear for a sling eye should be less than 0 of the sling eye length.
The padear flange should be not less than 75 percent of sling diameter. Easily removable sling
retainers should be provided to hold the sling in position around the padear during transportation.
Clearance of at least 1.5 times the sling diameter should be provided to facilitate sling installation and
removal.
2.11.5
Trunnions
Details of trunnion geometry are shown on Figure 16 Trunnion.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
The trunnion central stiffener plate (shear plate) shall be slatted through the main plate or tubular and
shall be designed to transfer the lift point load into the main plate or tubular, not taking the trunnion
connection into account.
The main plate or tubular thickness should be not less than the shear plate thickness.
In order for the sling bend efficiency to be higher than the splice efficiency, the minimum diameter of a
trunnion for a sling doubled aver the trunnion should be four times the sling diameter.
In order to minimise the effect of grommet bending losses the minimum diameter of a trunnion for a
grommet should be the hook diameter or six times the a grommet diameter which ever is the lower.
The diameter of a trunnion for a sling eye shall not be less than the one sling rape diameter and shall
not exceed 1/6 times the sling eye length.
The width of the trunnion contact area should be 1.25 times the actual sling diameter plus 25mm, to
allow for sling flattening.
The sling keeper plate should protrude by at least 75 percent of sling diameter beyond the trunnion in
the area of bearing. Sling retainers should be provided to hold the sling in position.
All edges to contact the sling during handling and transportation should be radiused limes to a
minimum of 1Dmm.
A clearance of at least 1.5 times the sling diameter is required to facilitate the sling installation and
removal. In initial design, allowance should be made for possible in sling rope diameter.
2.11.6
Padeyes
Details of padeye geometry are shown on Figure 17 Padeye.
Specific requirements are also detailed below.
Whenever possible the type of shackle to be used should be determined prior to commencement of
padeye design.
The padeye pin hole diameter should be 4% larger than the actual measured shackle pin diameter.
The minimum clearance between the inside the shackle bow and the padeye main plate should be 1.5
times the sling diameter.
Page 72 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
The Padeyes should have not more than one load bearing cheek plate at each side of the padeye
main plate.
The outer radius of the pad eye cheek plate should be less than the radius of the padeye main plate by
the thickness of the cheek plate.
The padeye cheel\ plate thickness should not be greater than the padeye main plate thickness.
The pad eye pin hole should be line bored after welding of the cheek plates to the main plate.
The overall clearance between the shackle jaw and the padeye should be between 10 percent and 15
percent of the shackle jaw width. Spacer plates should be fitted to the padeye cheel\ plates as
necessary.
2.11. 7
Shackles
A shackle is usually identified by its safe working load, or SWL. The safe working load is normally
determined by the shackle manufacturer and certified by a certifying agent.
The certified safe working load of a shackle should be not less than the applicable lift point load. In
general, shackles of the same size are used for a particular module lift conditions other than those
described in Section 2.11.1 Design Loads. This is shown on Figure 14 Lift Point Design Loadings. This
should be avoided.
Shackles should not be fitted to padeyes other than as on Figure 17 Padeye. Shackle selection should
take into account compatibility with the sling selection. Sling diameters must be less than shackle jaw
width.
INSTALLATION AIDS
3.1
3.1.1
General
Module guidance systems are used to aid the placement of a module on an offshore platform. Module
guidance systems typically consist of a primary system, bumpers and guides, and a secondary system
such as pins and buckets or secondary guides and bumpers.
The bumpers and guides protect the module and platform structure and equipment from damage
during the placement operation. The bumpers and guides also position the module until the pin and
bucket system or the secondary guide and bumper system is engaged. The secondary systems
usually provide final positioning of a module to within the limits required by the design such that no
further module movement, e.g. skidding, is required.
3.1.2
2.0m
Longitudinal movement
3.0m
Lateral movement
3.0m
Plan rotation
3 degrees
Longitudinal tilt
2 degrees
Lateral tilt
2 degrees
Page 73 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
The module guidance system should be designed to position a module within 25mm of its theoretical
position. This is usually achieved by the pin and bucket system or the secondary guide and bumper
system.
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
Design Forces
3.1 .5.1
Impact Forces
The impact forces are calculated by first determining the impact velocity Vn normal to the contact
surface. The horizontal and vertical components of impact velocity should be determined according to
Figure 23 Impact Velocities (Module Setting).
This applies in seastates with mean spectral periods not exceeding 5 seconds.
The stiffness Kn of the contact surface in the directions normal to the contact should then be
determined by normal structural methods.
The maximum bumper load is determined from the maximum deflection Xn and stiffness Kn. This is
given by:
= v,.,jWK7!
Fmax
Where:
~~{:.)
.,Using the guideline velocities given above, the forces are evaluated as follows:
8{p (/J\J ,
FH
0.08 X /WK7!
FV
0.10 x /WKn
-{--+
FH
= 0.05
I loa
x /WKn
Page 74 of 149
.....
/\
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
FV
= 0.10
x /WKn
Minimum Load
Although bumper design loads can be reduced by reducing bumper stiffness there is a horizontal load
which the bumpers must be capable of resisting.
The minimum required horizontal bumper design load results from the movement of the crane tip
caused by its unloading during module placement. This is a static load which occurs after all impact
loading has ceased and after vertical load transfer has commenced.
The required bumper horizontal design force is given by:
3.1.6
Dual Lift
Design Considerations
(1)
The positions of bumpers and guides and pins and buckets will be dependent upon the position
of module and platform structure support points. Generally the module guidance system will be
more effective if the components are positioned as far apart as possible.
(2)
The stiffness of bumpers and guides should be as low as possible to allow appreciable
deflection without yielding.
(3)
Module guidance systems should be designed to fail before the permanent structural members
of the module and platform structure are damaged.
(4)
(5)
Sharp edges and corners should be avoided and weld beads should be ground smooth on
areas of contact between bumpers and guides and between pins and buckets.
(6)
Module guidance system design should be as simple as possible to allow efficient fabrication.
(7)
Where possible, guidance systems should be designed to avoid the need for after module
installation.
3.2
Sling Laydown
3.2.1
General
Whenever possible slings are laid down on unobstructed areas of a module roof. Any items of
equipment in the area within the lift points are susceptible to damage during the lifting operation and
should be protected. In certain circumstances it is necessary to a sling support platform over certain
areas of the module roof.
Page 75 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
3.2.2
Sling Configuration
Slings should be laid down so that tight bends are avoided and so that twists in the slings will not
occur during offshore rigging. Where slings laid over or around edges, these edges should be
radiused by fitting of a tubular section, or packed by timber. Sling eyes, or for a doubled sling the sling
mid-point, should be positioned as close as practical to the lifting centre or centres of the module, i.e.
below the intended lifting position of the hook or hool1s during the lift. The sling eyes should be
supported on timber packing to ease handling during the offshore rigging operation.
3.2.3
_3.3
3.3.1
General
Tugger lines are used to restrict and control the horizontal rotation of a during installation to assist
positioning. Tugger line winches are normally mounted on the heavy lift vessel crane house.
3.3.2
Attachment Position
Tugger line attachments should be positioned at strong points of a module as far apart as practically
possible to improve their effectiveness.
Tugger line attachments should be positioned at a suitable elevation so that the tugger lines are as
close to the horizontal as possible during the positioning phase of the module installation.
3.3.3
Attachment Design
Tugger line attachments should be designed to be compatible with the capacity of the tugger line
winch, assuming each tugger line is used in the single mode. The design of tugger line attachments
and their supporting structure should the possible large variation in tugger line angle relative to the
attachment. Allowable stresses for tugger line attachments should be, with no increases, as detailed in
Section 2.11.2 Allowable Stresses.
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
Page 76 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
(1)
(2)
Oversized slings/grommets are less elastic than correctly sized slings/grommets and have
higher bending losses.
(3)
Slings/grommets should be measured under load at the six-month thorough examination and
re-celiification.
(4)
Sling splices should have a circumferential paint line to provide visual evidence of any splice
slippage.
Sling Handling
4.1.3
Sling handling should be prepared by lifting contractors and issued to their own personnel and other
contractors involved in pre-rigging of modules. The purpose of these sling handling procedure is to
ensure that slings are handled in a manner that will eliminate the possibility of damage and to maintain
the conditions of any splices. The handling procedure should address the following points:
e
Unloading
Storing
Uncoiling
Rigging
.,
Seafastening
Safety
4.2
Shackles
4.2.1
Certification
Each shackle should be supplied with the manufacturers certificate endorsed by a recognised
Certifying Agent. The shackle certificate should contain the following information:
"
Certificate number
Shackle number
Name of manufacturer
Date of manufacture
.,
Material information
Method of manufacture
Reference code, standard specification
"
Proof load
Page 77 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Safety factor
Each shackle be clearly and permanently marked with its identification number and its safe working
load.
4.2.2
Re-use of Shackles
Prior to each re-use of a shackle a visual inspection should be carried out.
At least once every six months or prior to reuse after a six month period of non-use a thorough visual
examination should be carried by a Certifying Agent and the shackle certificate should be endorsed. If
considered necessary magnetic particle inspection and testing may be performed.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Bending Loss
Cable laid slings and grommets stain a loss in effective strength when bent around a radius and this
reduction in strength is a function of rope diameter and bending radius. For further information refer to
HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Bucket
Part of the secondary guidance system in combination with the pin.
Bumper
The installation aid, attached to the m coming module, which engages the main structure guide and
locates the module close to its final position. The guide and bumper system as defined is a primary
guidance system. Alternatively a bumper may be a protective device only and not intended to assist
with.
C ofG Zone
The zone within which the module centre of gravity must lie to fulfil hook strength and module tilt
requirements. In certain cases this can be in the shape of a cruciform.
Cable Laid Grommet
See Grommet
Cable Laid Sling
See Sling
Calculated Grommet Breaking Load (CGBL)
The minimum breaking load of the outer unit rope multiplied by 12 (2 parts of 6 outer rope sections)
and by a spinning loss factor of 0.85.
Calculated Sling Breaking Load (CSBL)
The sum of the individual minimum breaking loads of the component (outer and) ropes multiplied by a
spinning loss factor of 0.85 and a splice efficiency factor (0.75 for hand splices)
For further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Page 78 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Centre of Gravity Shift Factor (CGSF)
A factor which allows for inaccuracies arising from the shift of the centre of gravity during the design
and fabrication phase.
Consequences Factor
A factor of safety to be applied to structural members according to the consequences arising from their
failure.
Centre of Gravity Lift Factor (CGTF)
A factor which allows for inaccuracies arising from tilt during single crane lifts.
Contingency Factor (C)
A factor applied to the gross lift weight at the start of detailed design to derive a maximum lift weight.
Dual Crane Lift
The method of using two separate and independent cranes, mounted on the same crane vessel, to lift
a module. The design of a dual crane lift system follows specific criteria which differ from single crane
lift systems.
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)
Effects caused by the operation of the vessels (impulsive loads caused by the start/stop of the
crane hoists or slewing motors, and variable loads caused by the SSCV/barge ballast system).
Page 79 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
GLW=WWxWI
Guidance Note FIVl 20
Issued by the Ul\ Health and Safety Executive, Revised October /987, this document provides
assistance to the users of cable laid slings and grommets.
The installation aid, attached to the main structure, that the module bumper engages and which
guides the module close to its final position.
Guide
The installation aid, attached to the main structure, that the incoming module bumper engages and
which guides the module close to its final position.
Individual Hook Load (Dual Lift Only)
The share of the total static load taken by each individual crane hook. This is apportioned to each
hook in proportion to its horizontal distance from the module centre of gravity.
where:
Sum (SHL) = MLW + RW
Lift Point
That part of the module to which a grommet, sling or shackle is attached for the lifting operation.
Padears, trunnions and padeyes are lift points.
Lift Point Load (LPL)
The maximum calculated load applied to a lift point by a sling or grommet. It includes all static and
dynamic components.
Lift System
The combination of module, lift points, grommets, slings, shackles, plate shackles and spreader
beams if incorporated in the design.
Link Plate
A shackle where the bow of a conventional shackle is replaced by two steel plates and an additional
pin.
Load Radius Curve
A crane capacity curve showing the relationship between the Hook Load (static or dynamic as
appropriate) and the lift radius of the crane to be used for the lift operation. This capacity curve usually
contains an allowance for dynamic amplification.
Maximum Lift Weight (MLW)
The weight to be used at the start of detailed design for the design of the lift system components
determined by applying a contingency C to the gross lift weight.
where:
MLW=GLWxC
Page 80 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Measured Length
The length recorded by carefully between specified bearing points after manufacture of a sling or
grommet. The is carried out by the manufacturer within strict controls under nominal tension and is
recorded on the sling/grommet certificate. For further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid
Slings and Grommets.
Module
A structure, construction, package, unit or item to be lifted by a heavy lift vessel crane in either an
inshore or offshore location utilising the other parts of the lift system as defined in this glossary of
terms.
Module Tilt
The maximum angle the module is designed to tilt during the lifting operation.
Nett lift Weight (NLW)
The weight of the module without any weight allowances (WA) or rigging weights (RW). Temporary
installation aids such as bumpers, guides and rigging platforms are included in the nett lift weight.
where:
NLW =SUM (V\0
where W is the best known nett weight of each component at the time of the calculation.
Pad ear
A lift point on a module, usually a casting, often forming part of a module node, around which is laid a
sling or grommet.
Pad eye
A lift point on a module consisting of a main plate with a matched hole for the shackle pin. The main
plate may be reinforced by cheek plates on each side.
Pin
The installation aid complementary to the bucket that guides the module to its final position. The pin
and bucket is a secondary guidance system which will be used in conjunction with a primary guidance
system.
Plate Shackle
A shackle where the bow of a conventional shackle is replaced by two steel plates and an additional
pin.
Primary Members
Structural members whose integrity is essential for the overall safety of the lift. The failure of a primary
member during lifting may result in the loss of the module.
Primary Guidance System
The incoming module above its installation position on the main structure.
Page 81 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Safe Working Load (SWL)
The maximum load that may be applied to a sling, grommet or shackle under specific working
conditions. For further definitions refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Secondary Members
Structural members, other than primary members, which in the event of their failure during lifting would
not result in the risk of loss of the module.
Secondary system
The structural components that provide the final location of the incoming module above its installation
position on the main structure.
Shackle
A structural component consisting of a bow and a pin linking a sling or grommet to a padeye.
Skew Load Factor (SLF)
The factor by which sling loads are multiplied to account for sling length mismatch in single crane four
point lift systems.
Sling (Cable Laid)
A steel wire rope which connects a module lift point to the crane hook. A sling typically comprises 6
lengths of unit rope laid up aver a single core rope, each end terminated in a spliced eye. For further
information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Sling Design Load
(SOL) The maximum calculated design tensile load applied to a sling or grommet
Sling Eye
A factor applied to the calculated rope breaking load to obtain the calculated sling breaking load. For
further information refer to HSE, PM20 Cable Laid Slings and Grommets.
Spreader Beam/Frame
A structure which is not a part of the module and is designed to avoid the introduction of horizontal
loads to the module.
Static Hook Load (SHL)
The sum of the maximum lift weight (MLW) and the rigging weight (RW).
Page 82 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
where:
SHL= MIWRW
Dual Lift
see Dual Lift
Tilt
see Module Tilt.
Trunnion
Unfactored Lift Weight see Nett Lift Weight (NLW).
Lift point on a module consisting of a tubular member with a stopping plate at the end. The sling or
grommet is laid around the tubular member so that a shackle is not required .
A factor which allows for inherent inaccuracies in the weighing equipment which is used to establish
the weighed weight (WW).
Weight Allowances
Weight allowances are applied to all component weights of the nett lift weight (NLW) to derive the
gross lift weight (GLW). These allowances take into account inaccuracies and weight growths
appropriate to the time of calculation.
Weight of Rigging
The sum of the weight of slings, grommets, shackles, spreader beams and plate shackles.
Page 83 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
REFERENCES
(1)
American Petroleum Institute RP2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Construction, Fixed Offshore Platforms, Eighteenth Edition, September 1, 1989.
(2)
American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable
Stress Design and Plastic Design, June 1, 1989.
(3)
UK Health and Safety Executive, Guidance Note PM20, Cable Laid Slings and Grommets,
October 1987.
(4)
Det Norske Veritas, Standard for Insurance Warranty Surveys in Marine Operations, Part 2:
Recommended Practices RP5, Lifting, June 1985.
(5)
Det Norske Veritas, Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structure,
1977, Appendix G, Dynamic Analysis, (reprint with corrections, 1982).
Page 84 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
General
The dynamic amplification factors or OAFs outlined in the main section of the guidelines is a distillation
of a lengthy and detailed analytical frequency and time domain analyses. It provides the basic factors
for design but in no way describes the overall variation of these factors in term of sea states and wave
directions.
This attachment outlines the approach that is needed if insight is needed into the values at a later
stage of the design when more detailed environmental parameters are available.
It is recommended that in cases in which dynamic amplification is critical or the lift system is unusual,
frequency and time domain analyses are carried out to determine the dynamic amplification factors to
be applied to the sling and hook loads. This should include the stages of lifting the module from the
barge, and while the is hanging free in the air. Alternatively a suitable test may be carried out. The
analysis should be carried out in accordance with general dynamical practices as outlined below.
Impact velocities during module set down should also be determined from this analysis to form the
basis of the impact load calculations.
In the preliminary stages of the design, or in place of analysis or model tests, a calculation procedure
is given in Section 2.3 Calculation Procedure. This is for estimation of the OAFS. To utilise the
calculation procedure it will be necessary to decide on the wave heights and range of spectral periods
in which the lift will be attempted. To decide this, reference should be made to wave scatter diagrams
for the lift location and time of year.
1.1.2
Analysis Methodology
The analysis should be a multiple body analysis of the coupled motion of the cargo barge and SSCV,
following a recognized code such as DnV, Appendix G Dynamic Analysis.
The forces, damping and inertias of the SSCV should be determined by a suitable diffraction analysis
program. The damping and inertias of the cargo barge may be using a cargo barge program normally
a strip theory program, but may also be a diffraction program.
In general there would be significant interaction between the cargo barge and the SSCV, in particular
the SSCV can shelter the cargo barge if it is placed up-weather. If the hydrodynamic interaction is not
accounted for it should be noted that the results are only applicable for the cargo barge up wave of the
sscv.
If time domain simulations of the module being lifted off the barge are to be carried out, attention
should be paid to the following points:
The winching rates, including the possible use of a rapid hoist phase at or above 90 percent
load transfer to the crane.
The phasing ofthe SSCV ballast to maintain the vessel at level trim.
Choice of stiffness and damping values for the slings and cranes.
Choice of stiffness and damping values for the barge deck.
It may be important to model the direction of the sea state, particularly for seas beam onto the
barge.
Page 85 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
If of tile set down of tile module on tile platform is to be carried out, tile following points should be
noted:
It is important to model tile stabbing points, and bumper/guide geometry accurately.
Tile stiffness and damping values of tile installation aids should be carefully modelled.
1.1.3
Calculation Procedure
In place of a numerical analysis or model test, tile following are made for guidance in tile sizing of tile
slings, and tile determination of tile window for tile lift. Tile dynamical situation is quite different when
an SSCV is lifting from its own deck, compared with when it is lifting from a barge.
Lifting from a Barge
Tile hook and sling Dynamic Amplification Factors (OAFs) can be determined from tile values in a 1
metre seastate given in Figure 26 Sling Design OAF and Figure 27 Hook Load OAF.
Tile range of spectral mean m' should be chosen by consultation with the lifting contractor, and with
regard to the sea state scatter diagram for the time of year when the lift is to be attempted.
Each F for the desired sea state can then be obtained using:
OAF= 1 + (01 - 1) x Hsig
Where 01 is actual value from the curves.
These curves represent guide-line maximum values in non beam unsheltered i.e. outside + 30
degrees beam onto the barge.
Lifting from the SSCV Deck
Since this condition does not involve the interaction of the coupling of the module on the barge with
the SSCV dynamics, the only stages to be considered are the free swinging dynamic or pendulum
mode and the setting down stage. From analysis performed a OAF of 1.05 should be used to loads
induced by the swinging of the module in the air and a OAF of 1.1 to cover setting down.
1.1.4
Model Tests
If model tests are to be used to confirm the results of analytical work done on the project, it is
important that the relevant stiffness of slings, hook, deck connections and guidance system be
correctly modelled.
Page 86 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Page 87 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
3.1
General
The examples of single hook lift and dual lift illustrate the intended use of the Guidelines for the
design of module lifting systems' given in Appendix 1.0 Guidelines for the Design of Module Lifting
Systems. The methods follow the lift design calculation chart given in Figure 58 Lift Design Calculation
Chart.
3.2
3.2.1
Details
For geometry refer to Figure 60 Single Crane Lift Example.
Initial net weight of structural components: 1,550 te
Initial net weight of equipment components: 1,403 te
Lift radius 45.5 metres
Static crane capacity at lift radius= 4,860 te
(from vessel load/radius chart with 1.1 crane (OAF)
Dynamic crane capacity at lift radius
= 4,860 X 1.1
= 5,346 te
x =- 1.46 m
Initial CG coordinates
y = 0.53 m
z =- 4.75 m
Sling angle before hook offset = 70
x =- 1.83 m
y=0.31m
z=-4.15m
Page 88 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
3.2.2
Initial Design
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
1,46
y=O
I
Check Module Tilt
Hook swivel height above CG = h
h = 2.3 + 38.87 + 1.65 + 4.75 = 47.57 m
Tilt= 0.53/47.6 = 1.1% < 2% allowable
Therefore Tilt OK
"
.;;.!
--
8.1 ) ==
t an - 1 ( 10.14
9.0-0.90
) -12.5+1.4>-0.90
8.1 ) ==
t an - 1 ( 1.3.06
Al p h a 2 == t an
-1(
Page 89 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
T het .; 2
= ta n 1 ( /1:..1
. ~e..M,
+
= 63. 4 23.,
.. )
L.Ob
Calc K1 and K2 for offset hook. Refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads- Single Crane Lift.
K1 = 0.29674
K2 = 0.23499 (thus LPL 1 > LPL2)
Sling DiU
= SDAF
= 1.20- (1.20-
110)
'
(4,106- 2,500)
(10,000- 2,500)
= 1. 179
Maximum lift point load= LPL 1
Where:
LPL 1
= 2,376 te
= LPL 1 x K2/K1
LPL2
= 1881 te
= 1.1 x2,376=2,613te
Design all four lifts points for 2,613 te load.
3.2.2.3
Sling Design
Refer to Section 2.8 Sling Design.
Sling design load
= 2,376 te
Try a single hand spliced sling. Refer to Section 2.8.1 Single Slings.
At the splice:
CRBL
).>; SDx US _
:;...ET
-
2,3?6x 2.25
0.?5
Page 90 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
At the splice:
Therefore CRBL
3,920 te
;:o:
EB S
=1 -
~
/"15U
= o. 680
Therefore:
CRBL ;;,.
:;-'
Therefore CRBL
;:o:
4,323 te
~s =
1-
~11tr =
0. 671
Therefore:
1.1x 2376 x 2 25 2 x0.6?1
-
CRBL;;,.
v
4,381ie
CRBL
>-
'
k'_
w:s E --
n X E;LE
5~m:o
'"~- 0.671
Therefore:
CRBL
>-
2,410 ie
Therefore 324mm dia rope double sling with hand splices and crbl of 4,400TE is OK.
3.2.2.4
Lift point 1
Lift point 3
Loads acting along slings 2 and 4 which are in static equilibrium with DHL
(4,676 te) and LPL 1 and LPL2
Page 91 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Case 2:
Similar to case 1 but with the higher loaded diagonal between lift points 2 and 4:
3.2.3
Lift point 2
LPL 1
Lift point 4
LPL2
Loads acting along slings 1 and 3 which are in static equilibrium with DLH LPL 1
and LPL2
=h
X=
-1.46
y=O
final CG position
x=-1.83
y = 0.31
dy
Total offset
Tilt at lift
= 0.31-0 = 0.31m
<
2percent
= 4,123 x 1.03 te
= 4,246 te
Since the GLW exceeds the Maximum lift weight of 3,986 te, the lift design is to be checked using
measured sling lengths to reassess the skew load factor using Attachment 2.
Crane capacity check:
Static Hook load:
SHL = GLW+ RW
Page 92 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
= 4,246 + 132 te
= 4,378 te
Dynamic Hook load:
'F = 1 15 - (1 15 - 1.0)
HD 1"1.'
(lO,COO- 2,5CO)-
'
"
Short pair
Long pair
8 1. 74rn
83. 45m
8 2. 0 1m
83.55m
Assuming the slings have not been installed then arrange for the slings to be rigged as follows:
Sling 1
69.97m
Sling 2
Sling 3
70.3 8 m
70.05m
Sling 4
70.34m
PSM
= AB5[(81.74+83.55)-
0. 201 percent
=25/18 =1.39
65 4
)
70
Find SLF for new double slings for UB ratios of 1 and 2, and interpolate.
Therefore:
SLF (UB = 1) = 1.25
SLF (UB = 2) = 1.23
SLF(L/B
But reference to Attachment 2 Section A2.3. The minimum permissible SLF= 1.25.
NOTE:
If the slings are rigged without regard to minimising the skew load factor then the design
should be checked for the worst case i.e. shortest slings of each matched pair on the same
diagonal.
Page 93 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
Thus:
3.3.1
Details
For geometry, refer to Figure 61 Dual Crane Lift Example.
Initial net weight of structural components
2,920 te
2,510 te
= 5,370 te x 1.1
= 5,907 te
CG Co-ordinates
Initial Design
-8.50
0.55m
0.37m
- 5.59m
-6.13m
Final Check
-9.13m
Sling angles
70
750mm
750mm
7,255 te
145 te
3.3.2
Initial Design
3.3.2.1
Page 94 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
~ 78 -
25
co 1 - 1. 174
10,00J-2,50J ..-:-
For CGSF and CGTF, refer to Figure 32 Lift Point Loads- Single Crane Lift.
CGSF can be reduced to 1.02 for a weighed module.
CGTF
CGTF
== 1.026
LPL 1'
x CGTF x K1 x SLF
x K2/K1
= 1.116
For method, refer to Figure 29 and 30 Lift Point Loads- Dual Crane Lift.
At +2% longitudinal tilt (End 1 below End 2)
La= (30- 8.50) cos(1.15) + (5.59+1.65) sin(1.15)
= 21.641
Ill
Lb = 60 cos(1.15)- La
= 38.638
Ill
Page 95 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
La = (30-8.50) cos(1.15 o)- (5.59+1.65) Sin(1.15 o)
=21.350m
Lb = 60 cos(1.15 o)- La
= 38.638 m
La + Lb = 60 cos(1.15
DHL 1
= SHL
o )
= 59.988 m
:. DHL1
= 7,545
1.116
1.05
'6 . '.{;
5 9 :~;;.~
ic
= 5,694/c
DHL2
7,545
1.116
1.05
n:~!~ te
= 3,189 ic
Both Dynamic Hook Loads are Jess than the Dynamic crane capacities (5,907te). So crane capacity is
OK.
3.3.2.2
LPL1
= SHL
x SDAF x CGSF x
Lb
(L" +Lb)
x coie 1 -e) + SL
s0:,)(2e1)
Where:
SL = Skew Load (refer to Figure 30 (2))
cos~;~1".fu\)S') + 226te
LPL2
~
= 7,.54 uX
1 133
1 05
su\(1'!0')
Page 96 of 149
+ 226te
EM/039
Rev31991
x 3,4 71 == 3, 818 te
At end 1 LPDL 1
== 1.1
At end 2 LPDL 2
Design lift points at ends 1 and 2 for LPDL 1 and LPDL 2 respectively.
3.3.2.3
Sling Designs
Double hand spliced slings. Refer to Section 2.8.2 Multiple Length Slings.
At end 1
CRBL 1 ;;:
1.1
SD1 X 2.25
rz X ET
1.1
.3.471 X 2.25
2 X 0.75
CRBL ;;:
E8 s
o. 5 ~ = o. 644
1-
2 25
CRBL1:::<:1.lx.3,"l:?ix
v
2 x 0.644
= 6670"
' .e
= 1- 0:/n'1f = 0.621
:. E 85
. c RBL 1 :v:<:
1.1 X 3 471 X us
2 x 0.621
cRBL 1 >-v
EaE
0.55
1-
CRBL 1 >
V
0.55
X SD1 X
rzX Ei/E
1.1
2.25
~~1f = o. 621
X
1.1 X 3,-018
2 X 0.621
2.25
3,804te
Page 97 of 149
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
HUS 432 MM DIA ROPE DOUBLE SLING WITH HAND SPLICES AND CRBL OF 7,000TE IS OK AT
END 1.
USE A SIMILAR METHOD AT END 2 TO SHOW THAT A 306MM DIA ROPE DOUBLE SLING WITH
HAf\JD SPLICES AND CRBL OF 3,900 TE IS 01\ AT END 2.
3.3.2.4
Lift Point 2:
3,245- 226
Lift Point 3:
LPL2
Lift Point 4:
1,817-226 = 1,591 te
=3,019 te
Case 2
Similar to case 1 but with the skew loads reversed:
=3,019 te
Lift Point 1:
3,245- 226
Lift Point 2:
Lift Point 3:
1,817-226 = 1,591 te
Lift Point 4:
3.3.3
The module weighed weight is 7,255 te and the rigging weight is known to be 145 te.
Gross lift weight:
GL W
7,255
WW
x 1.03
x 1.03ie
=7,472ie
Since the GLW exceeds the Maximum lift weight of 7,325 te the list design is to be checked.
Crane capacity checks:
Static Hook Load:
SHL
GLW
+ RW
= 7,472 + 145 ie
7,617ie
Page 98 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
1. 116
At +2% longitudinal tilt, La= La max (End 1 below end 2)
La= (30- 9.13) cos (1.15) + (6.13+1.65) sin (1.15 o)
La= 21.022
At- 2% longitudinal tilt, Lb = Lb max (End 2 below end 1)
Lb = (30 x 9.13) cos (1.15)+(6.13+1.65) sin (1.15 o)
Lb = 39.278 m
La + Lb = 60 cos (1.15) = 59.988m
Thus:
DHL 1 = SHL
x HDAF x CGSF x
(LaLAb)
DHL1
7,617
1.02 x l~:mte
5,677te
DHL2
3,038te
1.116
Since DHL 1 and DHL2 are less than the design values of 5,694 te and 3,189 te respectively the crane
capacities are OK providing the lift radius is unchanged.
Check maximum lift point loads:
LPL1 =
Where:
SL _
SHL
MF
- ---g-- x --;;-
Ja,.(O)
. d1ameter
= Average s1wg
=( 4.>2 + 3DS) = 0. 369m
2
Measu1ement of the 432 mm and 306 mm dia slings under tension give the following results:
Slings Under Tension
432mm
69.97m
70.38m
306mm
70.05m
70.34m
Check for the worst misfit by rigging the shortest slings as 1 and 3:
Sling 1 69.97m
Sling 2 70. 38m
Sling 3 70. 0 5 m
Sling 4
70. 34m
Thus:
Page 99 of 149
EM/039
Rev31991
MF
7617
y
~
O.MS v !an(JO)" _
2
..
2'
(.f,
43 te
= 0.37 m
Thus:
Thus <p
Sling Dynamic Amplification Factor. Refer to Section 2.3 Dynamic Amplifications Factors.
LPL1
- 7 617
1o132
1o02
1 -e) + SL
Lb
x ~o~e
(La. +Lb)
m;(2e1)
+ 48
3, 19 5 te
Similarly:
LPL 2
= 7,617 X
10132
1 02
0
+ 48
1,732te
Since the final values of LPL 1 and LPL2 are less than the design valuesof3,47i te and 2,043 te
respectively, the sling and lift designs are safe.
Also since the skew load (SL) of 48 te is less than the design of 226 te the module racking .case
design is safe.
EM/039
Rev31991
2.1
2.0
1.9
0::
I
I
1/
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. 7
1.6
0
_j
1.5
f-
<{
LL
<{
sw
~
(f)
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
/v
I/~
I
~
I
/1
Yf y
~
I
I
I
'
_j_
0.8
I
!
I
0.6
------r-
0.4
I
I ....... Gc,
I~'-~
~f-j
USED sLINGS
I__
I
I
'
/4
I
I
~~I
V1
~
v-;
I
I
0.2
0
/
VI
I /
;/ I
1.3
1.0
SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UBratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
j_
1.4
SINGLE
65
2
0
0
I
1.6
I
1--
I
i
1.8
2.0
Figure 35
I.
EM/039
Rev31991
Lift Point
Hook
:::>\\\\\\\\'\~-----j\\\\\\\\\\-<9
SINGLE SLING
0)
(0
SINGLE GROMMET
g:==q
DOUBLED GROMMET
(Double Lift Point Connections)
0
DOUBLED GROMMET
(Single Lift Point Connections)
~\\\\\\\\\t-f-----------
~''"'''''"I
0)
DOUBLE SLING
(Over Hook)
~'---------=f~*~
DOUBLED SLING
(Over Lift Point)
(illu0553q79)
Figure 13
Sling Configurations
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
A.
KEEPER
PLAT
f + Fz
= 55
45
:f
=0.05 x LPL
= 0.5 x F3
B.
Side Load
=0.05 X LPL
011u0553480)
Figure 14
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Sling diameter
Padear diameter
Padear flange
Clearance
d
D) 4d for doubled sling
D) 6d for grommet
D) d for sling eye
D < 1/6 x sling eye length
f > 0.75d
c > 1.5d
T
(illu0553481)
Figure 15
Cast Padear
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
d
D
D
D
D
Sling diameter
Trunnion diameter
>
>
>
>
w =
Trunnion width
Main Plate
Trunnion flange
tm
f
Clearance
>
>
>
4d
6d
d
1;6
1.25d + 25111111
ts
0.75d
1.5d
SLING
RETAINER
(TYP)
(illu05534B2)
Figure 16
Trunnion
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
1-4---
Sling diameter
Shackle bow diameter
Clearance
Shackle jaw width
Pin diameter
Padeye hole diameter
Padeye main plate tm
Padeye cheek plate tc
Padeye main plate radius
Padeye cheek plate radius
Jaw clearance
tc
d
D ~ d for sling eye (to limit bending losses)
c~
1.5 d
W> d
dp
dn 1.04 dp
tm ~ tc
tc
rm - rc;;? tc
rc
0.10 \IV:::; W- tm - 2t&;
0.15W
(illu0553483)
Figure 17
Pad eye
EM/039
Rev31991
~UNI-DIRECTIONAL
HORIZONTAL BUMPER
INCOMING MODULE
:---BI-DIRECTIONAL
HORIZONTAL BUMPER
Fv
i
h
Fv
(illu0553484)
Figure 18
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
INCOMING
MODULE
EXISTING
MODULE
EXISTING
MODULE
.....
FH )o-
-Q
'
t t
Fv Fv
Figure 19
EM/039
Rev31991
INCOMING
MODULE
H
EXISTING
MODULE
EXISTING
MODULE
Figure 20
EWi/039
Rev 3 1991
INCOMING MODULE
(PlAN)
lQJ
INCOMING
MODULE
(ELEV)
BU CKET-------:3.,..._,
PIN
Figure 21
EM/039
Rev31991
INCOMING MODULE
Figure 22
Stabbing Cone
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
MAXIMUM
VELOCITY
METRE/SEC
SINGLE L I F T - - - - - - DUAL L I F T - - - - - - - -
0.2
v_E_R_TICAL~PACTL _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _________j_f_ _ _ _
0.1
0. 0 ''-t-----r-----r-----.--.--.--...---...---.---.--,...--,-----,
2000
4000
6000
I
8000
10000
Figure 23
EM/039
Rev31991
Hs
= 1.0r
.=j:l
+'
.r::
OJ
'Qi
I~
:::J
lJ
:2
4-
I/
[f)
ro
lJ
ro
_j
I/
+'
ro
0.
I~
v
~
)/
1/
.~
.~
,.---
I~
~~
1/
~(
k---' I~
-~
I~
V'
~'
' =-:::-'
~~
~'
/'\
'
"
1
I
'+'
'
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
o Fv at 2000 tonnes
6
Fv at 5000 tonnes
X Fh at 5000 tonnes
Fh at 2000 tonnes
(illu055349D)
Figure 24
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
I!
''
Hs == 1.l
.:c
OJ
OJ
:J
:2
4--
;f.
U)
ro
~
_j
3
~~
lr-'
'
~
j
~ !:----'
~ tz--c
p:...----"~'-
~~
_5j;Z---- ~
IZ--- j;Z----
~~
... ~'
__...; ~'
'
IT-(
30
>
'
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
Fv at 5000 tonnes
Fv at 10000 tonnes
\1 Fh at 10000 tonnes
X Fh at 5000 tonnes
(illu0553491)
Figure 25
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
BEAM SEAS
DESIGN OAF
BEAM SEAS
1.3
LL
1.2
<(
1.1
~+: ~Tt ~
-=rr<G~~=~==~-~=~
Tm~7s
I
I
I
I
I j__ -t---L_ I
"'
--t--1--f----+--+--t
Trr<ss~ I
f= :-r-~~
-~-~--~-r-~-~-~--~-r--
Tm<Gs
Tm<5s
1.o~,--~--~-4---+;--~--~~--~~--~--+---
2ooo
4ooo
sooo
sooo
1oooo
Figure 26
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
BEAM SEAS
1.0m
PERIMINARY
DESIGN OAF
BEAM SEAS
1.3
LL
1.2
<(
1.1
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Figure 27
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
A: SLING
ROPE DIA
=D
~~
;]::ITS:TI:::!
II 1\ \\cr::::==9
*
10D
\~\\j~
=====================r:s:l S S S S
26.5D
= Lr
26.5D
10D
~~~--~~-----------------------------~~
EYE SPLICE
SPLICE EYE
OVERALL SLING LENGTH= Ls
~~------------------------------------------------~~
Les =
* This is typical value. In cases where the eye is placed on the hook
prong, the eye length should be not less than 6 times the hook prong
diameter.
8: GROMMET
CORE BUTT
W 112 H
POSIT!~
RED PAINT
LKPOSITION
H
OVERALL GROMMET LENGTH = Ls
(illu05534 94)
Figure 28
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DHL2
HOD!' 2 SWIVEL
DHL1
END 2
END 1
~~
___I
-MODULE
_j
END VIEW
ELEVATION
fv Lb
)
DHL 1 = SHL x HDAF x CGSF \ La + L b
{
Lb
LPL 1 = SHL x SDAF x CGSF~ La + L b
[
L
)
DHL2 = SHL x HDAF x CGSF\ La : L b
LPL2
Notes:
DHL 1, DHL2
LPL 1, LPL2
SHL
HDAF
SDAF
CGSF
SL
)x( COS(8,-i/J)}
SIN (
SL
28
, )
).fCOS(82 -i/J)}
= SHL x SDAF x CGSF\xf. LaLa
+ L b -"'\ SIN ( 282 ) SL
1
(
*)
at
Figure 29
EM/039
Rev31991
Notes:
= SHLx MF xtan8
I<
n
8
SL = Skew Load
K
= 8 (dimensionless constant)
SHL = Static Hook Load
MF = Sling Misfit
SL
1.
2.
3.
=
=
= (8,+8,)12
= Average distance between padears
= (8 + J3., ) 12
4.
ouuo553496)
Figure 30
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
I:
-I-_ _ _ _
I
I
-~--
I
I
----1
LlA.J
2 r---J_-~-----+3I
NOTES:
1. The geometry is defined with
slings straight and prior to lift
off when the pad ear plane is
horizontal.
2.
~---U2---~r---U2---I
_ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _
I
I
I
I
- ------,Bh 1
----1
-~---
-----1-----
~u2----~---u2-~~
(i!Ju0553497}
Figure 31
EM/039
Rev31991
ICASE 1. Lh > 0, Bh = 0. I
LPL1
LPI2
Y~ -~-
K1 =case 2
2 sin~ 1 .ffi 2)
= Bh = 0)
K2 =case 1
2 sin~ 1 .ffi 2)
WHERE
LPL 1, LPL2 = Design loads for slings
1 & 2 respectively
SDAF
= Sling dynamic amplification factor (ref section 2.3)
= Static hook load (ref section 2.2)
SHL
= C of G shift factor
CGSF
= 1. 05 for calculated weight
= 1.02 for weighed weight
= C of G tilt factor
CGTF
= 1. 05 for initial design
= (1 + 0.025 x0 %) for final design check.
0% =percentage tilt during lift and
1 < 0 % < 5 (ref section 2.6 & 2. 7.2)
=Skew load factor (ref section 2.7.2)
SLF
case 2 cos>< 2
2 (sine 1 co!ill 2
K2 =case 1 cos>< 1
2 (sine 1 co!ill 2
2 +sin 2
ces 1
1)
1)
Figure 32
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
INDEX
FIGURE
NO.
SLING
ANGLE
SLING
TYPE
SINGLE
20
20
20
20
20
20
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
65'
20
20
20
20
20
20
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1 0)
(11)
(12)
7cf
20
20
20
20
20
20
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
7lJ
20
20
20
20
20
20
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
80
DOUBLE
SINGLE
DOUBLE
SINGLE
DOUBLE
SINGLE
MODULE
LIB
RATIO
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
DOUBLE
1
2
3
(illu0553499)
Figure 33
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
v
V)
1.9
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I
I
1.7
1.6
0
_J
1.5
cr:
I-
<(
lL
<(
sw
~
U)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
I
i
I
0.2
w"-Gs
~ \'\t\l~s~.:
I/
I/
I
~~
J_
l...--r
I
I
VI
Vv AI
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
0.6
'
'
_I
0.4
Figure 34
:=t=-
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE._ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
_l
I
1.4
I
1.6
'
~ r:y
I
I
I
usED sLNGE~
1/Vy ~
~~
I
I
I
SINGLE
}-
65
1
0
0
I
I
1.8
}-
2.0
(illu05535DO)
EM/039
Rev31991
2.1
2.0
1.9
~
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. 7
1.6
0_J
1.5
$
w
1.4
(f)
1-
<(
LL
<(
v /k v
1.3
I/
1.2
I/
1.1
1.0
~
/I
I
0
~~
-.\
1,-.\'2.\1~
~/[/
I
I
I
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
I
1.2
I
1.4
I
1.6
I
I
I
i
I
0.4
VI
I
uskosLING~
'
I
'
/l
0.2
I
I
y /y ~ VI
I
I
/v
SINGLE
1-
65
3
0
0
1-
1.8
2.0
(illuD553502)
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
1/
1.8
I
I
10
I
I
1.7
1.6
0
_j
1.5
1.9
0:::
<(
lL
sw
1/
(f)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
1::v---+::
Gs
~sy
\ \1'1
v I
I
Vy ""
_..;.--
J.-
L..----t"""
--r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__j_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.2
USED SLI:NGS
1/
~~ VlI
1.1 / '
l Vv /i
v/Vi
w
I
vI
y y
v
I! y v)/'
<(
'
0.4
0.6
I
0.8
'
1.0
SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UBra!io._ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio._ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
1.4
I
1.6
I
I
DOUBLE
65
1
0
0
I
I
1.8
r-_[
2.0
Figure 37
I,
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1~~~--r-~~~~~~~r--~~~--~,~~--L~:~--~:~--~;~--,-;~-.:-.
2 ' O -j,-+--ll--1--ll--1--ll-+--ti--1-V+-ti-U-S-1-ED-S-tlii-NG-S-1--tll--t-l--t
~~-+~-11----=:::l_
I
I
I
1/ I
I
....-::--1-""~1
~
1g 1--rl---+-..,..-11-----rl----l--...--i
111-----r
)"~---.-1- j - - r:1-+
/V---::o!..,...._,s~v;----,----::ol>--=..-1--l
I
_Ll_
Lf".,<(;.'l'!s\_.'''\~
ct
1.7
1. l--+~-~--+~-vl---7'-+l-v~--:r9y1
--74'--+-~-~--+~---1r--+l-r--+l----cr-+1-r---ri----1
f2
1.
1/: I Yv ~ /~l"--1-----:-l--r----:l--J
t-11---t----+1-+--~-1----+-V--ft-1- - t - - +11-/
-1/..,,L....J-v-b-"'--ll---j----+1-r---~-1--~---~_,
O 1.6
I
I
r~/
I
I
--J-i--+1--1
<t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(J)
yl
Yv:
1/ 1/VI
I
I
I
I
I
/~~'I
--::ri'-----t-1-r----r-1--+-----r~--t~~---l~~r---j---t-11 -1------r:--t
.4 1---t--1-l-~-t71"'-tI
13
.
12
' ~
-t---.1-t---T~-,-....~....St-L~IN_G-TIL._TY-_-P_LE..t-_-_'I::~~~--:::I~D_LOt-U~B-L'~~t----l
1
/--TV-b"[d/---i-r-::.,~-1-~-t---Tl
1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
1
I
I
~
I
0~1 ~a~i~GLE~g.--==~
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
~5
o
0
Figure 38
i.
EM/039
Rev31991
2. 1
2.0
1.9
rY
0
1-
1.8
sw
~
(f)
1.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I
I
1.2
I/
'
VI
~~ ~
1/
Yl /~
VI
--1:;
X XI
~~\j'l5.
/I
1_.-
~USED SL~NGS
I
I
_I
/I
/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
0.2
/I
/:
y
j_
.J
/I
v#
1.3
1.0
VI
1/ I
_/
1.4
1.1
<{
1.6
1.7 _ j
LL
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
1.2
I
1.4
I
1.6
I
I
DOUBLE
65
3
0
0
I
I
1.8
1-
f--
2.0
Figure 39
EM/039
Rev31991
2.1
1/
I
I
I
I
1. 7
_I
1.6
1.5
-sw
1.4
I
i
I
1/
2.0
1.9
a::
f0
<(
1.8
LL
<(
_j
~
(f)
1.3
'
'/I
I
y I
I
I
I
I /I
y
1/
I
~ y y
vy/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.4
I
0.6
0.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
1- ~
/1\'\~
----1
L--(\)'\ s'-:"" ___.
I
~
vyv
0sED FuNds
0.2
~
1.2
1.1 ~
1.0
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg. _ _ _ :
UB ratiQ.. _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I ;
1.4
I
1.6
I
SINGLE
70
r-
1
0
0
I
I
1.8
2.0
Figure 40
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
I
I
I
I
1/
2.0
1.9
0::
1.8
I
I
I
I
<(
1. 7
10
LL
1.6
<(
0
-'
sw
~
(f)
1.5
1/
_j
1.4
1.1
1.0
I
I
0
0.2
Vi
I~
----1
I
~
I
~\'\6~
vr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
0.8
yl
I
I
0.6
I
USED SL,INGS
1 / \'\'(.:---!
\l~s'-'/
0.4
~ / '~ V~Vi
/v ~
i/
I/
/y y
);: ~
I
I
1.3
1.2
I
I
i
/
VI
'
1.0
SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
I
1.2
;
I
1.4
I
1.6
I
I
SINGLE
1--
70
2
0
0
I
I
1.8
1I
2.0
Figure 41
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<(
1. 7
1.6
//
0
_j
1.5
1.9
a:
10
u..
<(
sw
1.4
(f)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
I
I
I~
0.2
A~
I/
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
'
0.8
1.0
I
I
!
0.6
0.4
X;.\I
kJ--
~I
I
1
I
~I
A USfDSLING~V'l~ --rI
y 1% X
VI
I
I
I
~V
~
I
:
~ I
Yl
I /
:
I
I
VI ~ ~
IL
VI
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ ;
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
__:
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ -
I
1.2
1
1.4
1
1.6
_l
I
SINGLE
1--
70
3
0
0
I
1.8
1--
_j
2.0
Figure 42
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--L~~:--~~:--~~~:--~~;~.--;r-~-~:
j_J_l_J_;_/1_j__Jl!_j__)l'l~Ljtu=st~lo=s=tLIN=G=siI ==t=__J.--~~~!---+-=tJ.--=b~~~=~==-=~=l,..l=-~=1
2.0
g
0
~
~
(f)
.
17
~~~'-----'-1---t-...---'-:--t---+-:-1~------'-:-1
l Y _j h~~
I I I
! V1
~/
!
!
!
i.B
1j
1.9
18
15
.
1
.4
13
.
: /
i
I
i
l
i
I
1/v) /
A Vv/
I 1/ ~v:
y/~
II
II
1.2
/~/
11 Vf/_/1
I
I Lh/Lratio______:
I Bh/Bratio______:
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
~~~~i~GLE~g_-.==:
I
1.2
I
1.4
I
1.6
710
( .
o
0
I
I
1.8
2.0
(~IU0553509)
EM/039
Rev31991
2.1
2.0
1/
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.7 _J
I/
LiI
1.6
0
_j
1.5
1.9
cr
f-
<(
LL
~
(f)
<(
sw
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
A
I
'
v:/
Yl
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.8
I
---l
I
'
0.6
I
I
I
I
H-~ --:t:
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
_;--
'
0.4
0.2
V,l "'0\0
IL \~~~/ I
/f
I
J0~I
~~
;;.r:~
. /~
usJo SLINGS
1/
V! A/
v
Y::VI
/V t/fI II
I
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
1.4
I
1.6
DOUBLE
70
2
0
0
I
I
1.8
1-
1-I
2.0
Figure 44
I.
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1~.,--r-.,--.-.,--.-.,--.-.,--.-.,,--.-.,,--.-.,,--.--,,,-~-,~~
2. o
r-v
19
'
u_
.8
I
I
~ 1.? _J
./f
I
i/
~
i/l
r /"'
g<(
1. 5 l--+1-t---+1-+--/_.<-t-1-+--V~
y1.____,..<!~
Y~~
1/ V/1
usED sLiNGs
Vv !_...v-VI
~s
.-----1
~ -~;
//
1.6
(f)
__
J(' ~ ~~~ ~
/.
1-+-1'--+-----:il--------11---ll----t----tl----t----tl----t
/T-rl--+--+l--l---1-j__--+---+---+1.,.........-~C-r--~1=----~
.4
1--t-1-!-A-n1./,L-----J-~--::>"T-~.
-7'f----rl--l-----t:---l----~:,----~-r-~'-1--r---1-t------r-1---1------t-1--~
13
.
1 o-+OU-B-LE;-I--1'I-----.-!/-VW'----i;~,r---;-1-+--i-:-+-----i:-+-----i:-+SL-IN----iGI_TY_PE__+--,;-----J-_-:T----
1.21
/P
1.1 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Et~~~~~NGLE~g_--==~
Lh/Lratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
730
o
0
1.0~~~-~~~-~~~--~~~-~~~--~~1~~~1~~1-~r~J-~1~1-~I~
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 45
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
<(
LL
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. 7
_I_
1.6
1.5
sw
1.4
<(
~
(f)
_j
1-
1.9
a:
1.1
1.0
I
I
1/
/v ~I
~% I
I
I
'
'
I/
USED SLiNGS
..-J--
~'t:.\j'l s\..''Y ~
vI
I
I
_I_
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
'
0.6
r-+
0.4
:I
1,...-__.... ~s
0.2
I
I
/rI
/I
~ ~~ X I
I
V1 ~ ~ I
y
/
/y
1.3
1.2
I
I
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg. _ _ _ :
L!Bratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio _ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
1.4
SINGLE
0
0
I
1.6
r-
75
1
I
1.8
2.0
Figure 46
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
/I
1/ I
'
1.9
1.8
I
I
I
I
<(
1.7
I
I
1.6
1.5
sw
1.4
CL
f-
u..
<(
....J
~
(f)
1.3
I
I
1/
~
1.2
1.1 ~
1.0
I
!
I
X II
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
0.4
'~ ~ __JI
/'IV I~
I
VJ
I~~
s\..'
I
I
I
'
0.2
USED SL:INGS
A/t/rI
/I
y /
/
vy
I
I
0.6
I
'
0.8
SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE de g.. _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
SINGLE
75
2
0
1-
0
I
I
i
1.8
2.0
Figure 47
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
1/
2.0
1.9
0:::
'
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.7
1.6
0
_]
1.5
r-
<(
LL
<(
1.4
~
(f)
1.3
1/
1.0
'
I
I
y
//
Yl y /
I
y ~
0.2
I_,...-
vr
~~GSI/
v~v/
/
--+---:1:=
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.4
I
i
I
I
'
/i/ ~
I
~%
I
I
1.1 ~
-----j
VI
usED sL \NGS
1
/v A
1.2
_I
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
US ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
1.4
1.6
SINGLE
c--
75
3
0
0
I
I
1.8
f--
2.0
Figure 48
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2. 1
2.0
1.8
1-
1.7
I
I
I
I
/;
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
I/
~
(J)
1.2
1.1
1.0
vz
/(
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
'
0.6
I
I
I
I
0.4
0.2
I
I
y/ ~
---l
I
I
I
I
/I
~
s\..'
~~<;;JI
: :
--r~
I
I
I
I
wr
US~D
SLINGS:
I
<(
/I
V' X
i/ v /
;1 vy I
LL
1.9
~
'
0.8
1.0
'
SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
1.4
1.6
I
DOUBLE
75
1
0
1.8
1-
2.0
Figure 49
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2 0
rv'
19
"
I
1
r--7
11
<r:
LL
1.6
) j/ I / /
1.s
1.4
(f)
i.
1.2
1. 1
.{
Li
1/ . -
~~
,~~/
t::::=P
==j_
f-1 --
J_----1
I
_./T
.Lf_
_L
:
I
:
I
:
I
~~~~i~GLE~g_--==:
Lhh//LB rraati.o_ _ _ _ _
8
110
~ ';/f
I
Vl/v
~/l
Yv
L/
j.S
11
I
I
,/1 USED sLINGs
V
/ I
/1
17
"
vr-+--i-1--J--+--t-+--r---::::::::l=~=:l
SLINGITYPE._ -
_:
-:
------
DOUBLE!
725
r---
0
0
1.0~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~~~~--~~'--~l~i--~l~l--~1~1--~1~1~
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 50
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
1.9
cr
I
I
1.8
I
I
1.7
f-
<{
LL
1.6
<{
0
_J
~
({)
1.5
1.4
I / /I
1.3
I
I
0.2
/I
-!--
v
usJosLINGr
~~
/pv
v
I
yI
~L--1---VI
I
I-" I
---
/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v~ VI
I
I
_I_
I
i
I
/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.4
vy:V[
~~
1.2
I
~
I
1.1
1.0
)C
L J/
l/
I
I
1/
I
I
Vi
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE._ _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
i
1.4
I
1.6
.I
I
DOUBLE
75
3
0
0
I
I
1.8
1--
2.0
Figure 51
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
1.8
I
I
I
I
()
<(
LL
1.7
1.6
0_J
1.5
sw
~
U)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
Vi
vy
I
vv~
Jt 7r
I
0.2
~/
vr
Vf
~/
1-
~ .-~h--
~r
I
I
v:/
Vf
Yf
I
I
L
I
00
~X:.~s0
I/
US~D SLINGS :
I
I/
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
0.4
VI
v
v:
<(
!L
I
I
1-
I
I
a:
2.0
1.9
0.6
'
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg:. _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
1.4
i
I
1.6
I
SINGLE
r-
80
1
0
I
1.8
2.0
Figure 52
EM/039
Rev31991
2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.9
1.8
1-
LL
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
~
(f)
1.3
1.2
y h
v~ Vi
I
~~
W,
1.1
1.0
I
I
/I
0.2
VJ
VI
<(
2. 0
a::
I
I
1.-
1 v~~~\l'lv--r
1/ I / I
/i
I
Vf/
1/
Y(/ Vi
,/
--+---
4=-
----r
J_..- ~
~--"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
0.4
I
I
US~D
SLINGS~/~
I
r:,V-0'
'
'
0.6
I
-'
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE_ _ _ _ _ ;
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
UB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio _ _ _ _ _ _ ;
I
1.2
I
1.4
_l
L
1.6
SINGLE
80
1--
2
0
0
I
r-
I
i
1.8
2.0
Figure 53
I.
EM/039
Rev31991
2. 1
2.0
I
I
1.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.7
1.6
<(
1.5
sw
1.4
~
U)
ll..
1-
-~
1.9
0::
I
I
1.3
V1
yX
YY:: VfI
I
~ Vf
I
~
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.2
/I
v:
y
li
~/
1/
.--/1
USfD SLINGS ~
IL~
I
lhl
I
\~r::i=' I /
!/V'::~'-l'ls'vV1
~~/
l--I
1-
--r
I
I
I
I
I
~1/ /1
/j
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
J
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE... _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
US ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/8 ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
I
1.2
J
1.4
;
I
1.6
I
SINGLE
1-
80
3
0
I
1.8
2.0
Figure 54
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1r-~,--r-~,--.-,,-~.-~J--,-'_:--_,-,:----:----:--,--r-:,--~:
jl
---+-
,_/1-11-------fj----t---+j---+V--+--1-j--+--+i--+--1-~--+-~~-~~"--j--lt-~----::l;;=,--""1--~f-----l
2. o
1.9 ~----r-1-t--1.-+-.-1;--+~-----.l--+--.-+IV~.I-1-1x---r7"""+--l.-+-.-l--1-----rl--l
I
I
1/ usfo SLINGs 1/0~01 / V
I
I
I
18
.
1.7 1--11----;~-------JI~';--+--JI'--1--+
/--,.L-11---1
A'-7"'-1---ll-1--+l---+--+l-1-----ll---1---ll--1
LL
0
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1.6r-~--r~v-rr-~v--~~
~-/r-4--+~~+-~-+~r-T--r~--~-~
g<(
1.51--~,--~~.~--~~-yA
1 ~-~~4--ll-~
1 ---~~--~~~--+--,~4-~I~~---r-
>
[U
~
(f)
/1
/:
/:
I /
/f/
1 rrr----:/./~vr,r---l--tr---I----Jr----1f----jr----1--tr----+--ti---+----JI---t----JI--I
/-tf---i
1.4 f--r-1
13
.
j ~v,~~~Vj
I !':
1 o-tO-UB-LE-:-,f---l
1 -l~'--t-:v:r---7:~-~----TI---J---Tl--!----il-+--!c--+SL-IN--,Gic-TY-PE_-I---c-'_-_-l-_-:-T-!--Y-i-
1.2 j .,/
Y/,
1.1
80
Lh/Lratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Bh/Bratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
us ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :
r-
1 ~~--~~~~--~~~
1.0~~~--~~J--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~'~~--'~~~--~
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 55
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1
2.0
1.9
~
II
I
I
1.8
1.7
<(
LL
1.6
0_j
1.5
~
(f)
/i /
I; /v
/I
I
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
I~
tr
I
I
I
I
vr
--
-r
I
/1~~~"'0
/(/ ~
V( I
1 . . . .~
VI
I
I
1~0~0<:, I /
USTD SLINGS
v
VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.2
I
I
VI
'
Ill
1/
v/y
<(
lI
-I
I
I
I
I
f-
0.4
'
0.6
0.8
1.0
SLING TYPE.. _ _ _ _ :
SLING ANGLE deg_ _ _ _ :
LIB ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
;
I
1.2
I
1.4
;
I
1.6
DOUBLE
80
1-
2
0
0
I
1.8
1I
2.0
Figure 56
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
2.1r-~~--.-~-----~.--,-l,-,--,-,--,-,--.-,--.-.-~~~
2. 0
~
0
~
U)
yrriJ-1-IJ~-IJ-~T~-J~~J--~F--r~~
-+-+1--l
~-~~-1----l~l---11----lll-t-~~---r-;-~--~-~,-+--vt--+-v-:----:=-1--=-/+-vr----t-L
-to-=~~-
19 1--..--l-1-..-l--+----.l-t+-.-L-t-...,-1--+V-7"1!-~Gs,......-~-~---.::~----rl~r--.---l+--rl-1
18
I
I
I
I
1.7
1.6
II
LL
1.5
I Vi \~0
y/
1./
/;
I
I
~/
0.2
II
0.6
I
I
0.4
I
I
: l
I
I
I
I
/!
v~\'\ s"r./---
USFD SLINGS
_l
I
I
I
VI
I
I
V/:
II //Y
I1 kv I I
M~l : :
.4
13
.
12
' '~/
1. 1 ~ I
1.0
0.8
1.0
SLING,TYPE__~
_ _:
t~~~~i:~GLE~g.--==:
1.4
1.6
DOUBLE
80
'--
Lh/L ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ ;
Bh/B ratio_ _ _ _ _ _ :
I
1.2
I
I
0
0
I
1.8
2.0
Figure 57
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
Figure 58
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
r-r-
~-
8121 I i
.,--
-tI
CGZONE
~\
o.ozh
-~---
-1- \ -
B/2
~-
/
o.oz11
LONGITUDINAL PLANE
OF PADEAR SYMMETRY
Single UN Noles
2.
11
-.
-!j>-
I
--1
2. h
3.
4.
4.
Figure 59
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DHL
Hook Swivel
_,______________________ _______ _
2.30
L--------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
36.67
16.5 j_ =
s.Lo.1
I
I
I
I
I
--------
Sling
Attachment
!Z
Point
==-r-+----_-_-_--1-l-_--f-.....,:C---~h------- -...-4--'-'--+---~h
4. 7
415-F.D.
I
I
(lnilial CG) I
I
I
I
I
~-----~-~-------T
------
I
I
CG
I
END
PROFILE
I
I
I
I
ili-i~'
r--~T----1
!..,_---"'.9cco+l__,..'-<__9=c~O-...;
1
I I
f->+t-
0.53-I.D.
0.31-F.D.
,-----:
1.46
0.900
0.900
HOOK PRONG
GEOMETRY
PLAN
Sling 1
Sling 2
I
I
I
I
9.0
Slino 3
--------r--J-----=--
Figure 60
___r_
EM/039
Rev 3 1991
DHL 1
END 1
2.30- - - - -
DHL2
--- - --- -
-----
END 2
Hool< Swivel
-r - ------ - - -- - -- -- -- ---I
:/
~.-
- -- --- --
--------~---------r------------
~m
I
I
I
:
Sling
Atlachmenl
Poinl
"'t----,--------~~-,-------------- -~--~~
I
5 59-I.D.
6.13-F.D._T_ j-- _ _
I
I
tI ____c9f-__
iI ______ -_~I _-- ____ +
__ ~~I ____ -I-I
I
I
PROFILE
m
\
r'
I
I
I
30
I
I
I
1-<->i
I 8 50-1 D I
I 913-FD I
I
30
'l
f<-;.J.-..J
HOOK PRONG
GEOMETRY
I
I
I
NOTES: 1.
2.
3.
Figure 61
11.30 1.301
END
-
~
.. ,
IHPl.l([ AU.
f!p.
!Uf'~--
~su
1/J'
IU{IIli'IC ...
~il
_.
11'%.\\\1
lr'~~,-~ ~~~~
I
I
I~
iiJp--_#"
!/~
!j
;ii
\ ' 'i\
~~-T
111'l D
\~Do V{!!!_/
ttOl(
~--
{iVOQ
-l' iti;;~~~:~
ITP
f1_
tlfr
"'"
I)M;r~~:~~Q/~ ~LAillfl
OPICAl All
HALE
li~T PUMP
.11
r
/
/'
./
('I
/;~~~,--,~
J'Y
'--yo I
+i~
I~'
..
"
71
/'
JS~
DHl oil\
.!.
..1.. ~ID3 D\
Cl
00111.
PLAt! AT L. 'JDOD
(A!SSOHS R!HRS a
JTUDfS EL(YAT\0115,
SCAL[
1:10
:::~~--~~
~~~fA!:~SlTEOUERY Nos
~~-:..-w=~-.,
--~- - - ~',g;,;':",.;;,v::'a:;,.:'"
,~:"'~ ~ : :i; "'"' "'
:-c..:~
//
HAl(
J~''
-
""~
~
ss~~~~o:~ loP
"~'}t,,_
SECTION L
~
-'
:::,.
SECl!OH
"H"
I;
. ,
--~~.. ....
.,~,P
~i:"tl
tV
S(Alf
&.
,t,S UUllT
r
g
.L
~
S!Alt
~
i'\0
-::
D.C. HI
.F.L
TYP.
Cl 0:C.V9.i0(1\l
Cl 0,~6,1~6 IG
21 Til~. fLU.
~m: f03t
1
c, .
-----X
!!Ill
[f)
SECTION n
~
0C.'19.L0(.111
IAsftiJiiJJ
1.
'<:
5(At(
H.
.....':.'.""
tlDLH
p, c. o.
~;~
,,
JTD
----;;-!)--<!"
~ /
~c
...
I
lli.!!Q!!._Ji
11.~
,Aoc1:.l
OUfli SIDH
FR,O.f1()G.'I.
PLAN A.t H.ID
{l.HDDD,
~~;~~~~a ~~~-JTIJ
0/1
fRI:I"
D\IDDI
::11
r.,,
(AI5SDlt$
// /
/'
STAICOARO h'[lOUHi
FRO" Off( SIDE DillT.
STAI!DAAD IIU.DING
1!]15 liti;,STll'f.
l!lDII
PUt11'S
L[
rliU
DIOJ Dl
!5"tt"~;~. J~~~~-
'.;oo
//
!olll
EASDSIOJ/0\DJlll
'0"1lARS11P
f;;;aiii(AIUJI S"IIPPU
./- .// / /
;;n ,:,~ /' // / ,. ._ / . /
/
1/Monh<l"o.
..;-~.
v'\JrP2Ri~l;
k3~~------/-/ ----/-,.------:,----H'J.\11 ~U(It .xui
,../
./
/
/
,
~
&t'.(,IH
C41SSDtiS
~
'-U;I;Illt.ll:T S(.l.WAHR
f ~ />-.,
TYP,
AEFEAENCEORAWINGs
5CAL!1N
VIEW
\l[LQ
~([L'I]g
'
CAP
YI(IoiA.
i--
H'P)Tol
f.\[11
-0--
Ill' .
-,w-.
.. ...
~j"m----C>
uo". n\-Js
;;-:. 0 CD 0 ~
"'"'"~I
I I.
{'"""'
"'"''""@_
<;IJD II '
\\1
,,
.i! ''-J
,'-\1'
lib . =--~~ ~~ ,.d.\\
0~
,,...,, :1-:-~....---:-r Q
c_~-~ ~
't' H. ~~!IOU
/.t=~
"--,. ,.
... - __ _j
PLAI~
6
(AI55Dfl!i~filRClAR!fr
'rl'f U
TTP,
~I ~~,.r'"
~ 1\)
aog a l5
~ 0 II L<IIIG
!;UI!}~ I
~~~~
",Jt
Jr_~
1 CD
~~
"'"IIK'i
~In~,~
~ \
'IJu.-.-i;:-u~rlfo
~
~~,
!\
u
"'\\I~ '""""""'"'
rlll~
... ~~
. - ~
1/{S't- -.._~~
.J-.
ii==F.=II -
"-''bc.L_l!..:"-"'"''---,:~=~jlji"~. \\i
IL-.-;~;r/ ~ ~ \
(01
~~~~~~-~
-,
-:=
"'""'"""
IJ/; "'
r-
'
<!
r;J!i
"PA-02Qq.oz!f/---,;;;.
n-ooo
f~i,SDS/IIJI~ZIIIIII,
....
....
<!p
6p
i JACiiCT
IJ!J
-"-"---~---~--l!~L--1---~--+-------"-"-----.i
1.11111
-;-
NOTES
Ill
ILl"J'
I'! L"f i"'-' . ,...,. '"" '""""~:;p~ ~1 """'
~.
'
nooo@
~DO
~
~
~11550TO?l'::~~-l! IH
~.:100110
'
.-~~~\\
-. B
'L-'J""-'''-'~'-''-''"'"'---r-:,:::,-:,-,:,;-- tii ;.i.
..
Y..f.k=~~ t-1 -!l
vEl.. ll
,..H.
\L
~
3
.::
,~;.;_~!':..:. ..
......,to;ur~:::- ::..,....., ;.:;,
v
",,
r
l)s
_1),.. .
ta-v E"1J.,.,.. _j
15 nu; wtll
EIDEAFIELDDEVEl.OPMENTPLATFOAMA
IT~>
l:iO
I I i I I I I I I I I I
"""'~'l![:IC4l,l
...1:1'""
111 1
'
~G"IIUJ!.ho.j
DRG.No. 90301209 01
W::.C
l,n
-.1 ....
I ,
.....
L/{)
i
i
;z..:; -L-e-t
"l.a
-,
_,.....'
!a:
'-.J'
,._"::>.
('
"
!1"''
\;
I
i ,r.)
IJ'.
v
?.!
\
'
'
,,
'
i).Jr'l