Validation of Analysis Methods for Pad Eye

Attachment Through Destructive Testing

Planning, Production Process & Facilities Panel

2
Shipyard rigging involves the lifting, handling, and transportation of partially built
structure, which are desired to be as massive as possible, and which will
undergo temporary loading conditions through orientations that may never
occur again, for which the consequences of failure are severe.

What is Shipyard Rigging?
3
Ship Block Construction Examples
4
Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types
Types:
Lap-on
Blade


5
Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types
Lap-on Pad Eyes
6
Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types
Lap-on Pad Eyes
7
Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types
Blade Pad Eyes
8
Review of Typical Shipyard Pad Eye Types
Blade Pad Eye
9
Project Points
Lifting pad eyes and their attachment points are the most
critically loaded locations during lifting and turning
evolutions.
The attachment and removal of padeyes to ship
structure represents a substantial no value added
shipbuilding activity for which there is minimal reference
documentation.
It is the goal of this project to develop data to determine,
for typical padeyes, the desirable degree of attachment
with the goal of reducing no value work content and
material waste, while ensuring safety in the ship erection
process.

10
Literal Survey
Looked for the most commonly available resources for
pad eye design and weld calculations.
The survey consisted of:
Manuals
Articles
Text books
Design guides

11
Literal Survey
12
Literal Survey
Only the most extreme loading scenario studied.
eccentric loading at 90 degrees
From literature studied, there were only four calculation
methods mentioned:
1. Elastic method
2. Instantaneous center of rotation or strength
method
3. C-coefficient table method
4. Computer aided finite element.

13
Elastic Method


Elastic Method Assumptions:
Rotation occurs about the centroid of
the weld configuration.
The load caused by torsion is
proportional to the distance from the
centroid.
The direction of the force caused by
torsion is assumed to be perpendicular
to the centroid.
The components of the forces caused
by direct load and by torsion are
combined vectorially to obtain a
resultant force.
The critical element, where shear failure will
first occur, will usually have the greatest
distance from the centroid of the weld group.


14
Elastic Method


The process below describes the elastic method as detailed by
Shigley, Mischke, and Budynas in their Mechanical Engineering
Design textbook.
1. b =horizontal weld length
2. d =vertical weld length
3. h =weld leg width
4. e =the in-plane eccentricity of the applied load from the closest
weld face
5. X
bar
=location of the weld group center of gravity in X coordinate
6. Y
bar
=location of the weld group center of gravity in Y coordinate
7. l =distance from the weld group center of gravity to the eccentric
load
8. r =distance from the weld group center of gravity to the furthest
weld element
9. q =angle of the weld element reaction
10. A =weld group area
11. J o =weld group polar moment of inertia
12. t
max
=maximum weld capacity from manufacturer
13. P =maximum load capacity of the weld group
A1-1
b = 4.0000 in
d = 8.0000 in
h = 0.1875 in
e = 3.0000 in
X
bar
= 2.0000 in
Y
bar
= 4.0000 in
l = 5.0000 in
r = 4.4721 in
q = 0.4636 rad.
q = 26.5651 deg.
A = 3.1820 in
2

J
o
= 38.1838 in
4

t
max
= 70.0000 ksi
P = 89.8981 kips
15
Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method
Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method
Assumptions
Rotation occurs about an
instantaneous center of rotation.
The fillet weld group is divided into
a number of finite elements. The
resistance of the weld group to the
external eccentric load is provided
by the combined resistances of the
weld elements.
The load deformation response of
a fillet weld loaded in compression
shear is the same as for a similar
weld loaded in tension shear.
The ultimate strength of a weld
group is obtained when the
maximum deformation of any weld
element is reached.


16
Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method
17
Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method

r
o
= 0.3927 in
A1-1
(As Designed)

e = 7.0000 in
F
EXX
= 70 ksi
Horizontal
Segments
Length
(in)
a
(in)
b
(in)
t
e

(in)
X
(in)
Y
(in)
r
j

(in)
q
j

(Radian
s)
q
j

(Degree
s)
D
m

(in)
D
u

(in)
D
u
/r
j
D
j
(in)
D
j
/D
m
R
j
(ksi)
(R
j
)
x

(ksi)
(R
j
)
y

(ksi)
R
j
r
j
(k-in)
1 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 3.8927 4.0000 5.5815 0.7718 44.2212 0.0115 0.0160 0.0029 0.0160 1.3908 6.9702 4.9952 4.8612 38.9043
2 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 2.8927 4.0000 4.9364 0.6261 35.8737 0.0122 0.0180 0.0036 0.0141 1.1541 6.8052 5.5144 3.9879 33.5932
3 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 1.8927 4.0000 4.4252 0.4420 25.3225 0.0136 0.0217 0.0049 0.0127 0.9319 6.3263 5.7184 2.7058 27.9951
4 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 0.8927 4.0000 4.0984 0.2196 12.5810 0.0166 0.0305 0.0074 0.0117 0.7060 5.6558 5.5200 1.2319 23.1797
Vertical
Segments
Length
(in)
a
(in)
b
(in)
t
e

(in)
X
(in)
Y
(in)
r
i

(in)
q
i

(Radian
s)
q
i

(Degree
s)
D
m

(in)
D
u

(in)
D
u
/r
i
D
i
(in)
D
i
/D
m
R
i
(ksi)
(R
i
)
x

(ksi)
(R
i
)
y

(ksi)
R
i
r
i
(k-in)
5 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 0.3927 3.5000 3.5220 1.4591 83.5979 0.0094 0.0110 0.0031 0.0101 1.0689 8.3332 8.2813 0.9292 29.3493
6 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 0.3927 2.5000 2.5307 1.4150 81.0726 0.0095 0.0112 0.0044 0.0072 0.7607 8.1091 8.0109 1.2584 20.5214
7 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 0.3927 1.5000 1.5506 1.3147 75.3287 0.0097 0.0117 0.0075 0.0044 0.4555 7.3158 7.0772 1.8529 11.3435
8 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 0.3927 0.5000 0.6358 0.9050 51.8528 0.0109 0.0146 0.0229 0.0018 0.1664 5.1868 4.0790 3.2038 3.2977
Vertical
Segments
Length
(in)
a
(in)
b
(in)
t
e

(in)
X
(in)
Y
(in)
r
i

(in)
q
i

(Radian
s)
q
i

(Degree
s)
D
m

(in)
D
u

(in)
D
u
/r
i
D
i
(in)
D
i
/D
m
R
i
(ksi)
(R
i
)
x

(ksi)
(R
i
)
y

(ksi)
R
i
r
i
(k-in)
9 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 4.3927 3.5000 5.6166 0.6728 38.5469 0.0120 0.0173 0.0031 0.0161 1.3421 6.7863 4.2289 5.3075 38.1155
10 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 4.3927 2.5000 5.0543 0.5174 29.6452 0.0130 0.0200 0.0040 0.0145 1.1156 6.5361 3.2329 5.6806 33.0354
11 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 4.3927 1.5000 4.6418 0.3291 18.8537 0.0148 0.0252 0.0054 0.0133 0.8966 6.0432 1.9529 5.7190 28.0513
12 1 0.1875 0.1875 0.1326 4.3927 0.5000 4.4211 0.1133 6.4937 0.0198 0.0319 0.0072 0.0127 0.6406 5.4002 0.6107 5.3655 23.8746
: 79.4682 59.2218 42.1038
311.260
9
P = 84.2075 k 84.2075 k
18
C-coefficient Tables Method
The C-coefficient was derived using the strength method
using a specific load angle at different load eccentricities.
It represents a non-dimensional effective strength of the
weld group as it resists the eccentric shear force.
The coefficient itself is the resultant of the weld group
geometry parameter, k, and a load eccentricity
parameter, a.
Once the k and a values are determined, a double linear
interpolation is then used to establish a specific C value
for a weld group at a particular loading eccentricity and
angle.

19
C-coefficient Tables Method
a
k
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
0.00 5.57 5.88 6.20 6.51 6.83 7.15 7.46 7.78 8.09 8.41 8.72 9.35 9.98 10.60 11.20 11.90
0.10 4.32 4.68 5.08 5.54 6.02 6.49 6.95 7.40 7.82 8.23 8.62 9.37 10.10 10.80 11.50 12.10
0.15 3.90 4.24 4.65 5.08 5.55 6.04 6.52 7.00 7.47 7.92 8.36 9.18 9.96 10.70 11.40 12.10
0.20 3.54 3.86 4.26 4.69 5.14 5.61 6.10 6.60 7.08 7.56 8.03 8.92 9.76 10.60 11.30 12.10
0.25 3.22 3.53 3.91 4.34 4.77 5.23 5.71 6.20 6.69 7.19 7.67 8.61 9.50 10.30 11.20 12.00

0.30 2.94 3.24 3.60 4.01 4.44 4.88 5.35 5.83 6.32 6.82 7.31 8.27 9.20 10.10 11.00 11.80
0.40 2.48 2.76 3.09 3.46 3.87 4.30 4.73 5.18 5.65 6.13 6.62 7.60 8.57 9.52 10.40 11.30
0.50 2.14 2.38 2.69 3.03 3.40 3.80 4.21 4.64 5.07 5.53 6.00 6.96 7.93 8.90 9.85 10.80
0.60 1.87 2.09 2.37 2.68 3.02 3.39 3.78 4.18 4.59 5.02 5.46 6.38 7.34 8.30 9.26 10.20
0.70 1.65 1.86 2.11 2.40 2.71 3.05 3.41 3.79 4.18 4.58 5.00 5.87 6.79 7.73 8.69 9.64

0.80 1.48 1.67 1.90 2.16 2.45 2.77 3.10 3.46 3.82 4.20 4.60 5.42 6.30 7.21 8.14 9.09
0.90 1.34 1.51 1.73 1.97 2.24 2.53 2.84 3.17 3.52 3.88 4.25 5.03 5.86 6.73 7.64 8.56
1.00 1.22 1.38 1.58 1.81 2.06 2.33 2.62 2.92 3.25 3.59 3.94 4.68 5.47 6.31 7.18 8.07
1.20 1.04 1.17 1.35 1.55 1.76 2.00 2.26 2.53 2.82 3.12 3.43 4.10 4.81 5.57 6.37 7.21
1.40 0.90 1.02 1.17 1.35 1.54 1.75 1.98 2.22 2.48 2.75 3.03 3.64 4.29 4.98 5.71 6.48

1.60 0.79 0.90 1.04 1.19 1.37 1.56 1.76 1.98 2.21 2.45 2.71 3.26 3.85 4.48 5.16 5.85
1.80 0.71 0.81 0.93 1.07 1.23 1.40 1.59 1.78 1.99 2.22 2.45 2.95 3.49 4.08 4.69 5.33
2.00 0.64 0.73 0.84 0.97 1.12 1.27 1.44 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.23 2.69 3.19 3.73 4.30 4.89
2.20 0.59 0.67 0.77 0.89 1.02 1.17 1.32 1.49 1.66 1.85 2.05 2.48 2.94 3.44 3.97 4.51
2.40 0.54 0.61 0.71 0.82 0.94 1.07 1.22 1.37 1.54 1.71 1.89 2.29 2.72 3.18 3.68 4.19

2.60 0.50 0.57 0.66 0.76 0.87 1.00 1.13 1.27 1.43 1.59 1.76 2.13 2.53 2.97 3.42 3.90
2.80 0.46 0.53 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.93 1.05 1.19 1.33 1.48 1.64 1.99 2.37 2.77 3.20 3.65
3.00 0.43 0.49 0.57 0.66 0.76 0.87 0.99 1.11 1.25 1.39 1.54 1.87 2.22 2.60 3.01 3.43
20
C-coefficient Tables Method
The process below describes the C-coefficient method as detailed by the
American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Construction Manual and
C.G. Salmon and J .E. J ohnson in their Steel Structures Design and
Behavior textbook.
1. D =number of sixteenths of an inch of fillet weld required
2. C
1
=Electrode strength coefficient
3. l =characteristic length of weld group
4. kl =weld length opposite of characteristic length
5. ex =distance from the weld group centroid to the eccentric load
6. a =ex/L
7. k =kl/l
8. Values for a and k were placed into AISC tables 8-7 through 8-9,
depending on the weld group configuration. A value for the C-coefficient
was determined using double linear interpolation.
9. The value for P, the maximum load capacity of the weld group was then
calculated.

21
Computer Aided Finite Element Analysis Method
For ductile materials like steel,
local high stresses calculated
from linear-elastic finite
element analysis will appear to
indicate failure, whereas the
actual behavior of the structure
may result in localized yielding
and a redistribution of the
overload stresses to other
nearby locations that are not
heavily stressed.


22
Calculation Methods vs. Rigging Standards
Each method studied was developed for civil engineering purposes;
buildings, bridges, etc.
Civil construction considers in plane loading only

Rigging or ship building specific weld calculation and analysis
methods were not found.
Side loading, turning loads, as well as in plane loads are
common during rigging evolutions.

All units for calculations were in kips and inches, which is standard
for civil engineering, not kilonewtons and millimeters as is typical in
marine engineering.


23
Design of Test Program
Subcontracting San Diego State
University
Multi-channel digital data
acquisition system available
Displacement control testing:
Allowing the capture of
data beyond ultimate
capacity
Personnel in place to assist
with non-linear finite element
analysis



24
Design of Test Program
Design Considerations:
Test machine at SDSU:
220 kips Maximum capacity
6-inches total displacement
Smallest one pass weld size:
3/16-inch with idealized weld throat
70 ksi weld wire
FCAW
Failure to occur in the weld ONLY
Pad eyes and backing plate suitable size and strength
A36 steel for test jig and specimens (F
y
: 36 ksi, F
u
: 58 ksi)



25
Design of Test Program
26
Design of Test Program
27
Develop FE Models for Supporting Analysis
All FEA completed using
SAP2000 v15
Plate and linkage elements
modeled with linear elastic
properties
28
Develop FE Models for Supporting Analysis
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

W
e
l
d

L
o
a
d
,

R
i
/
[
0
.
6
F
E
X
X
t
e
]


Normalized Weld Deformation, /(weld leg size)
15
o
90
o
75
o
60
o
45
o
30
o
0
o
Values
=Angle between force and axis of fillet weld
R
i
=0.6F
EXX
t
e
(1.0 +0.5sin
1.5
)[(
i
/
m
)(1.9 - 0.9(
i
/
m
)]
0.3
Beam elements with non-
linear plastic hinges used
to model weld segments

Compression link
elements used for
boundary condition
29
Initial Calculations

Elastic Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)
Strength Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)
AISC Manual
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)
SAP2000 (kips)
A1-1 89.898 84.208 84.330 89.900
A1-2 47.348 51.061 51.120 59.600
A1-3 80.099 66.113 66.240 81.000
A2-1 111.690 112.065 104.100 106.050
A2-2 60.363 73.941 70.140 73.100
A2-3 105.163 90.325 90.100 101.730
A3-1 130.998 134.023 126.072 116.200
A3-2 74.637 96.475 91.344 81.571
A3-3 124.050 113.257 112.728 114.677
A4-1 15.201 53.610 12.060 76.260
A5-1 33.065 73.755 33.000 111.164
A6-1 51.769 95.976 56.340 148.837
Initial Design Values
30
Prepare Instrumentation Plan
31
Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs
Test Plate T4 after ultimate load











ADAPTER PLATE









LINK PLATE









90 DEGREE LINK ADAPTER PLATE









BOSS PLATES
32
Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs

A1-1

A1-2

A1-3

A2-1

A2-2

A2-3

A3-1

A3-2

A3-3

A4-1

A5-1

A6-1
33
Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs


Weld Leg 1 Measurement

Weld Leg 2 Measurement
Weld legs measured at every 1-inch
Used to refine calculations
34
Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs
Change in weld throat properties due to
weld technique:


35
Refined Calculations Based on New Throat

Elastic Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) Avg. h
Strength Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) Adjusted t
AISC Manual
(@70.00 ksi) Avg. h
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
A1-1 111.618 103.533 104.704 306.179
A1-2 58.787 58.907 63.471 58.876
A1-3 99.451 78.743 82.244 320.560
A2-1 138.675 142.586 129.251 104.370
A2-2 74.946 97.012 87.086 72.093
A2-3 130.571 119.049 111.868 100.093
A3-1 162.647 174.288 156.531 114.296
A3-2 92.670 125.698 113.413 80.800
A3-3 154.020 153.515 139.963 112.796
A4-1 18.874 68.497 14.974 68.442
A5-1 41.054 94.237 40.973 111.164
A6-1 64.277 122.627 69.952 81.952
36
Conduct Test Program
37
Conduct Test Program
Tested Capacity (kips)
A1-1 ?
A1-2 126.430
A1-3 168.660
A2-1 201.875
A2-2 119.800
A2-3 197.120
A3-1 >220.000
A3-2 151.820
A3-3 >220.000
A4-1 71.989
A5-1 123.960
A6-1 139.700
38
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Weld Failure Mechanisms
1) Incomplete fusion
1) Failure of the base metal and adjacent weld
metal to fuse together completely
2) Porosity
1) Voids or small gas pockets trapped while
cooling
3) Slag inclusion
1) Entrapment of slag because of rapid cooling
4) Undercutting
1) An unfilled grove melted into the base
material adjacent to the toe of the weld
5) Cracks
1) Longitudinal or transverse breaks in the weld
2) Micro fractures


39
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A1-1:
Tension side
of weld group.





40
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A1-1:
Compression
side of weld
group.




41
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A1-2:
Compression
side of weld
group.
Fusion.



42
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A1-2:
Corner of weld
group.





43
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A1-3:
Complete weld
group.
Shear failure
on
Compression
side





44
Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms
Test A2-2:
Shear almost
completely
along leg b.





45
Example of FE Analysis
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
SP2 SP5 SP8 A2-1 A2-2 A2-3
46
Actual Weld Material Strength
47
Test Data and Analysis Correlation
Test Specimen
Elastic Method
(@ 85.57 ksi) Avg. h
Strength Method
(@ 85.57 ksi) Adjusted t
AISC Manual
(@90 ksi) Avg. h
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
A1-1 UNK UNK UNK UNK
A1-2 143.16% 143.04% 141.77% 153.43%
A1-3 127.92% 143.12% 143.43% 190.06%
A2-1 116.03% 113.66% 125.73% 148.30%
A2-2 123.53% 101.01% 115.68% 139.82%
A2-3 119.03% 126.17% 134.17% 149.22%
A3-1 >126.06% >120.78% >128.85% 148.05%
A3-2 125.38% 98.79% 113.35% 146.78%
A3-3 >129.99% >130.22% >136.38% 148.73%
Average 125.84% 120.97% 129.02% 154.60%
Test Specimen
Elastic Method
(@ 85.57 ksi) Avg. h
Strength Method
(@ 85.57 ksi) Adjusted t
AISC Manual
(@90 ksi) Avg. h
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
A4-1 167.95% 83.69% 175.87% 104.93%
A5-1 159.51% 107.07% 161.66% 110.32%
A6-1 143.75% 92.70% 141.92% 141.34%
Average 157.07% 94.48% 159.82% 118.86%
Percentage of Actual Capacity to Calculated Capacity
48
Conclusion
All equations for in-plane eccentrically loaded lap-on and blade type pad eyes
were found to be conservative with regards to the tests ran for this project.
Several variables needed to be changed in order to get calculated values
closer to actual:
Weld leg/throat size
Weld strength

Further development is needed in order to establish non-linear FEA reliability as
a viable design tool.

Further research is recommended in order to continue validation of weld design
and analysis methods with regards to shipyard construction:
Side loading
Cyclical loading caused by wind or crane travel
Materials other than steel
Loading through the block lifting and turning process
49
Conclusion
Questions?