Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heavy Lift Installation Study of Offshore Structure - 2004
Heavy Lift Installation Study of Offshore Structure - 2004
OF
OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
LI LIANG
(MS. Eng, NUS)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
2004
HEAVY LIFT INSTALLATION STUDY
OF
OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
LI LIANG
(MS. Eng, NUS)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to his supervisor Associate
Professor Choo Yoo Sang. The author is deeply indebted to his most valuable guidance,
Professor Richard Liew and Dr. Ju Feng for their assistance and encouragement.
In addition, the author would like to thank the National University of Singapore for
Finally, the author is grateful to his family, the one he loves, and all his friends, whose
encouragement, love and friendship have always been the major motivation for his study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
CHAPTER 5 JACKET LIFTING.................................................................................... 78
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Vertical Lift of Jackets
5.3 Horizontal Lift of Jackets
5.4 Summary
ii
Summary
geometric configuration of the structure, its weight and centre of gravity, member
strength, rigging details, lifting crane vessel and other construction constraints. These
This thesis summarises the results of detailed investigations by the author involving
actual offshore engineering projects. The thesis first reviews the lift criteria adopted in
the offshore industry. The key practical considerations for selection of appropriate
crane barges, rigging components are discussed. The algorithms and formulations for
rigging systems with various number of lift points are then presented.
Practical considerations for module and jacket lifts are investigated. For deck panel
flip-over operation, the force distribution between two hooks which varies with
rigging systems with multiple spreader bars for Floating Production Storage &
Offloading (FPSO) modules are also studied. Emphasis is given to the design and
combination of padeye and lifting trunnions. Detailed finite element modelling and
analysis are conducted to analyze the lifting module and padeye connection. It is found
that finite element analysis can provide important detailed stress distributions and
iii
Nomenclature/Abbreviation
iv
H4 - height of hook block above module (without spreader structure), or
=0 (without spreader)
v
WLL - Shackle Working Load Limit
τg - Punching strength
vi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main or jib hook block without spreader)
Table 4.2 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main or jib hook block with spreader structure)
Table 4.3 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time )
Table 4.4 Formulations for rigging configurations with six lift points
(using main or jib hook block )
Table 4.5 Formulations for rigging configurations with six lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time)
Table 4.6 Formulations for the rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main or jib hook block at a time )
Table 4.7 Formulations for rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time )
vii
Table 8.3 Member Analysis Result Summary
viii
List of Figures
Figure 3.3 Sheerleg Crane Vessel – Asian Hercules II : 3200 ton Capacity
ix
Figure 4.5b Sling tensions for six-lift-point sling system -
using main or jib hook block with spreader frame
x
Figure 6.8 Lifting with a spreader frame
Figure 7.1 Rigging arrangement for lifting FPSO modules with spreader bars
Figure 9.10 Local view of Von Mises stress contour of load case D
xi
Figure A.1 Load conditions
xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Heavy lifts are frequently carried out during the fabrication and/or installation of major
offshore components and structures, such as welded girder beams, tubular columns,
deck panels, sub-assemblies, flares, bridges and completed jackets / modules. Without
For an offshore platform, the issue of final installation of the completed jacket /
topside is considered as early as the conceptual study stage. The major determining
factor is availability of heavy lift crane vessel around the region. Heavier structures
can be fabricated if a lager crane vessel is selected for the project. Many topside
structures are split into several modules instead of an integrated deck structure due to
Offshore hook-up and commissioning costs are very high as compared to those for the
same work performed onshore. This has led to the fabrication of very large modules,
together offshore.
The great advancement of offshore technology during the last 30 years was largely due
to the development of very heavy lift equipment. Thirty years ago, a 1000 ton module
would be considered a very heavy lift, while the biggest crane barge in the world at
that time could hardly lift 2000 tons at the required lifting radius. In South East Asia,
the biggest crane barge available in the region at the time was only around 600 tons.
1
Nowadays, a semi-submersible derrick barge can lift a structure up to 12,000 tons.
In the recent past, a 10,000 ton jacket in the North Sea would have to be launched.
Using present day equipment, the same jacket can now be lift-installed by a semi-
submersible crane barge which has two cranes. In most cases, lift-installed jacket is
more cost-effective. In South East Asia, jackets and decks are getting larger and
heavier, with the largest jacket to-date around 10,000 tons and the largest deck around
11,500 tons. Single lift installation can be a very attractive cost alternative. For
up the old deck and old jacket. It may be appropriate to mention that the Offshore
Industry would not have developed to what it is today without all the heavy lift
For fabrication of offshore structures, the method which was first developed in the
United States more than 40 year ago is quite different from other industries. Offshore
structures are usually first fabricated in small units. After fabrication, these will be
moved to an open area for assembly. Offshore contractors tend to do as much work as
possible on the ground to minimize work in the air. This method is productivity driven.
In fabrication, one can do a much better and faster job on the ground and in a weather
protected workshop. This fabrication technique means that there are a lot of heavy
Before all the sub-units are assembled, these may need to go through many lifting
operations, such as, roll up, stacking, flipping, etc. Each lift by itself could be more
than one thousand tons. In this type of fabrication technique, there are a lot of
2
opportunities for errors. Safety and accident prevention should thus be considered in
For offshore installation, major cost savings can be achieved if the structure can be
installed in one piece. For integration of topside modules, it can save significant
offshore hook-up time. For jacket, the cost of fabricating launch trusses can be
eliminated. A heavier lift requires a larger crane barge. It is a very high premium to
pay for the rental of a big derrick barge, especially if none is available in the area and it
and crane usage is normally considered as part of the overhead cost for fabrication
yards. Usually the cost is included in the fabrication tonnage rate. It will normally
involve fewer people to operate a crane onshore. For offshore installation, a crane
barge usually has only one big crane, except for larger semi-submersible derrick
barges which can accommodate two cranes side-by-side. When a derrick crane barge is
capacity for more than 700 men. In addition, the client will also need to pay for
For a typical project, the offshore portion accounts for around 30% of the total project
cost. The question that comes to everyone's mind is how to reduce this number and be
more competitive. One of the solutions is to reduce offshore hook-up time. This means
3
that one should make the lift of a structure as heavy as possible and with few lifts as
The project may not be cheap if one has to mobilize a big derrick barge from far away
supply base. It could also be expensive if it requires two barges to do the lift and the
other barge has to be mobilized from elsewhere. Making a single heavy lift to
minimize hook up time or to eliminate the launch trusses is an excellent idea provided
we have the right equipment at a reasonable price and at the right time.
For FPSO module installation, there are normally 20 to 30 heavy lifts. The need to
design a common rigging system to suit different configurations, weights and centres
common rigging system for all lifts, the designer needs to minimize the number of
rigging changes to reduce the schedule associated with heavy lifts for the planned
installation sequence.
4
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Present Study
As indicated in Section 1.1, heavy lifts in major offshore projects are required to be
engineer to produce an optimized design for both the lifted structure and lifting rigging
system for use with the selected crane barge that will lead to cost savings. The author
has been involved in some major offshore projects which required considerations for
alternative designs and detailed analysis for different structural schemes for heavy lift.
The author is thus motivated to investigate the inter-related engineering and fabrication
• Investigate lifting schemes which can provide cost-effective solutions and safe
• Evaluate selected rigging systems with different spreader and lift point
• To study the current design codes for lift design and highlight key
• To evaluate heavy lift rigging systems which involve different crane barges and
lifted structures with associated spreader arrangement and consistent lift point
5
conditions of the lift point through finite element analyses.
• To document the findings on heavy lift in the thesis for future reference by
6
1.3 Organisation of Thesis
Following the introduction, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 provide a thorough review and
discussion of current design codes and standards used in heavy lift. The discussion
covers the codes and recommendations from API - RP2A (2000), DNV Marine
(1989), Heerema (1991), Noble Denton & Associates (NDA) (1996), Health and
shackles and lift points are discussed in Chapter 3. Lift points are the locations where
large sling tensions are transmitted to the lifted module structure. Lift points should be
members. Two common types of lift points which connect rigging systems to module
structures are padeyes and trunnions. With appropriate factored sling tensions, slings
and shackles can be selected from available sling and shackle lists (inventories) or
ordered from suppliers. It has always been the focus of the design codes to provide
consistent safety factors for the lift components within a rigging system for heavy lift.
An appropriate rigging system includes available lift points (strong points in the
module structure), available slings in inventory, spreader structure (bar or frame) and
hook block(s) of the crane barge. In actual rigging arrangement, the sling system can
involve four, six, eight or more lift points, and spreader bar or frame may be used to
7
protect the module from significant compressive forces or possible damage. Chapter 4
summarises the investigation into the algorithms and formulations to determine the
configurations of rigging sling systems, which are affected by the location of lift
points, length of slings and geometry of spreader and hook block. The hook block(s)
involved in a particular rigging system can be one (main or jib hook) or two (both
main and jib) at a time. Emphasis is placed on the determination of the critical
geometrical quantities of the rigging system including the sling angles with respect to
the horizontal plane and the distances between the module, spreader structure and hook
blocks. This chapter also serves as a theoretical basis of the following three chapters
which focus on practical issues in lift design of real projects, of which author was
Chapters 5, 6, and 7 discuss the practical considerations in lift design and operations
for jacket, modules and modules for FPSO (Floating Production Storage and
Offloading). A special design for a lifting frame is proposed and analyzed in Chapter
8.
disciplines. A finite element model can represent and analyse a detailed structural
component with greater precision than conventional simplified hand calculations. This
is because the actual shape, load and constraints, as well as material property can be
specified with much greater accuracy than that used in hand calculations. Chapter 9
discusses finite element approaches in heavy lift design and analysis. Two important
lift applications, for living quarter module lifting and padeye connection for heavy lift,
8
Finally, conclusions and general discussions are given in Chapter 10.
Module Lifting
(Chapter 6)
FEM Analysis for Lifting System
(Chapter 9)
FPSO Structure Lifting
(Chapter 7)
Special Case
Applications Considerations
9
CHAPTER 2 LIFTING CRITERIA
There are several lifting criteria and specifications written specifically for offshore
heavy lift, including API-RP2A (2000), DNV Marine Operation Part 2 Recommended
Practice RP5 (1996), Phillips Petroleum (1989), Heerema (1991), Noble Denton &
Associates (NDA) (1996), Health and Safety Executive UK (HSE) (1992) and Shell
(1990). Amongst these criteria, some of these are either not updated or strictly for in-
house use. Only the API, DNV and HSE codes are easily available to the general
public. The API codes are the oldest and the most well established in the Offshore
Industry. The HSE recommendation deals with cable laid slings and grommets in
detail, but it does not address other lifting system or factors such as dynamic
with other codes. The DNV code is the most comprehensive and is widely used in the
North Sea.
For South-East Asia, the most commonly accepted criterion is still the API-RP2A
(2000) with a number of modifications to cater for weight inaccuracy etc. The original
lifting criterion in the API RP2A (2000) was written mostly by engineers working in
the Gulf of Mexico. The document was intended for those lifts performed in the area.
Over the years, the code expanded and received acceptance as a worldwide standard.
Although these criteria are written primarily for offshore lift, they can also be adopted
for onshore lift with minor modifications. In fact, this has been done for many years.
10
During the performance of the lift, there will be dynamic loads induced by the action
of the waves on the crane vessel and the cargo barge. These loads are conventionally
allowed for by the application of Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF) to the static
load in the hooks and slings. Typical value of DAF, as used at present in relation to
operations. This will be in addition to any quasi-static changes in the hook and sling
A second category of dynamic loads exists. This is associated with the action of
slewing the crane or of starting or stopping the hook as it is being raised or lowered.
These loads are normally allowed for in the specification of the safe working load
(SWL) of the crane. It should be recognized that the skill of the crane operator can
have a significant effect in reducing these forces. Also, but to a lesser extent, his
expertise will help to prevent the build-up of dynamic oscillations induced by the
waves.
Some extensive analyses of the dynamics of the lift have been carried out by using
SSCVs. In most cases, actual SSCV /module/ cargo barge combinations and rigging
geometries with predicted COG (Centre of Gravity) positions have been used. The
• It was found that increasing the barge draught tended to decrease the DAF in
11
• When the module was on the barge with the slings tensioned, there was a
spread of natural periods from 3-8 s. Hence, there were both significant
• The DAFs were generally worse in beam seas (i.e., beam onto the barge).
• The sling load DAFs were in general larger than the hook load DAFs.
• The DAFs were quite low, while the module was freely suspended. There
would be some advantage in picking a module off the crane vessel's own deck
The distinction between beam and head sea DAF was sufficiently marked to allow
recommended DAFs for head seas to be significantly less than for beam seas.
12
2.2 Practical Considerations for Standard Rigging Design
This section discusses the design requirements for the selection and design of heavy
The sling design load (SDL) is based on the factored lift weight, with the individual
sling loads being determined from DNV Marine Operation, Part 2 Recommended
a) Distribute the lift weight to the lifting points, adopting the factored lift weight
b) Increase each individual lifting point load by 10% to account for inaccuracy in
c) Further increase each individual lifting point load to account for the Dynamic
d) Further increase each individual lifting point load by the skew load distribution
13
e) Calculate the sling load accounting for the angle the sling makes with the
horizontal, including allowance for component tilt. This sling angle should not
As an example, the SDL for a 500 tonne (factored) lift, evenly distributed to 4 points,
These loads may be calculated as for the slings, but can be decreased by the sling
This is primarily to determine adequate rigging sizes. For the design of the structure
and lift points (padeyes), design loads should be based on the structural analysis
requirements.
SDL is used to determine the sling, or grommet size. The governing design criteria is
given in HSE, which sets out the basis for the design criteria listed below and has been
developed for heavy lift slings of diameter 100mm and above, where the rope is not
usually tested to destruction, and which would normally be required for deck, module
14
Individual Slings (Single Slings)
Note: the 0.55 factor allows for uneven distribution of the sling load to each leg of the sling
CRBL = the sum of the individual minimum breaking loads of the core and outer unit
= 1- 0 . 5 (2.2a)
( D/d ) 0 . 5
SDL ×2 . 25
Minimum CRBL = (2.3)
Et
Where, Et = Efficiency of termination method = 0.75 for hand splices, 0.95 for
Doubled slings
Where slings are doubled around the shackle and/or the lifting hook of the crane,
effectively halving the sling length, the equations given in a), b), are modified as
follows:
15
c) At the sling eye,
SDL × 2 . 25 × 0 . 55
Minimum CRBL = (2.4)
Eb
SDL × 2 . 25 × 0 . 55
Minimum CRBL = (2.5)
Et
SDL × 2 . 25 × 0 . 55
Minimum CRBL = (2.6)
Et
Individual Grommets
SDL × 2 . 25 × 1 . 1
Minimum CGBL = (2.7)
Eb
Doubled Grommets
SDL × 2 . 25 × 1 . 1
Minimum CGBL = (2.8)
2 xE b
16
2.2.4 Shackle Sizing
The sizing of shackles is much simpler than slings and can be based on the following:
Minimum Shackle Working Load Limit, WLL = Sling Design Load, SDL
Note: The WLL is usually quoted by the major shackle Manufacturers, e.g. Crosby
Group, and should be taken as analogous to the safe working load. The WLL is usually
based on a ratio of ultimate strength to WLL of not less than 4 for shackles above 200
tonnes WLL. Should any Manufacturer quote WLL's based on a lower factor, the WLL
should be derated accordingly. Higher ratios between ultimate strength and WLL are
normally adopted for shackles below 200 tonnes capacity, however in these cases the
It is often necessary to make up long sling lengths using 2 slings joined together with a
Shackle WLL's are quoted for sling loads in line with the shackle i.e. at right angles to
the pin. Should the lift configuration result in side loading, not perpendicular to the pin
17
loading during the lifting, it is necessary to ensure a close fit-up between the inside of
the shackle jaws and the padeye main, or cheek plates. The width of the main/cheek
plate combination should preferably exceed 0.8 times of the jaw width.
In certain circumstances, the shackle available far exceeds the design requirement for
the width of the main/cheek plate combination. In such cases, this width can be
reduced to one half of the jaw width by adopting non-load bearing centralisers between
Matched sling pairs should be used to limit the tilt of the module, or deck, to less than
centroid, the tilt exceeds this value, the lengths of the sling pairs should be altered
accordingly.
Sling lengths for side lifting of the jacket off the barge deck, at the offshore location,
should preferably be selected so that the barge deck and the jacket framing interface
remain parallel during the lift off. This avoids possible damage due to the jacket being
18
impacted as it is raised off the barge sea-fastenings and it also provides more clearance
For installation of fabricated modules onto FPSO, in most cases, there will be a
specific requirement in which one of the support legs is required to be settled down
first. This will require the detailed sling calculation to ensure module tilt to the touch-
down corner.
Other Lifts
For certain operations, specific tilt angles may be required to allow safe
Possible Centre of Gravity (COG) shift shall be accounted for by applying a COG shift
factor (fcog) to all assigned weights in the load combinations. fcog is calculated for the
support point most sensitive to shift in COG, and applied equally for the whole
structure.
The COG from the analyses shall be used in the calculations of the COG shift.
19
fcog factor shall be calculated as follows:
dx + a dy + b
f cog = × ≥ 1 . 05 (2.9)
b b
where, as shown in Figure 2.1, a and b are the distances between analysis COG and
nearest footing in x and y directions and dx and dy are the distances between the
respectively.
20
2.3 Summary
Lifting criteria and sling specifications in practice are first reviewed in this chapter.
These codes include API-RP2A (2000), Det Norske Veritas (DNV) RP-5, Phillips
Petroleum, Heerema, Noble Denton & Associates (NDA), HSE and Shell. API, DNV
and HSE codes are easily available to the general public. The API codes are the oldest
Practical considerations for standard rigging design are discussed in detail. The
• Shackle Sizing,
21
Table 2.1 Lifting Criteria comparison - Single Crane Lift
Noble DnV Heerama Shell BP Oxy Amoco Chevron
Denton
Range of Module Weight >2500 >2500 >2500 >1000 >2500 >2500 >2500 >2500
1 A. Weight Factor (Pre-AFC) 1.125 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
2 B. DAF (Slings) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
3 C. Skew load factor 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50
4 D. CG Shift factor 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00
5 E. Tilt factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05
6 F=AxBxCxDxE 1.62 1.51 1.90 1.99 1.90 1.90 1.66 1.99
7 G. Rigging weight factor 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
8 H. Lift point design factor 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.30 1.30 1.30
9 I. Load member design factor 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.15
10 J. Sling Design = (F x G) 1.67 1.56 1.95 2.05 1.95 1.95 1.71 2.05
11 K. Lift point Design = (F x H) 2.19 2.04 1.90 1.99 2.37 2.47 2.16 2.59
12 L. Load member design = (F x I) 1.87 1.74 1.90 1.99 2.09 2.18 1.91 2.29
The overall lift point design factor (K) from API RP 2A (2000) is 2.00.
The overall lift point design factor (K) from API RP 2A (2000) is 2.00.
22
Y
Support location
Analysis COG
Max. COG shift
dy
Design envelope
b
a dx
23
CHAPTER 3 HEAVY LIFTING EQUIPMENT AND
COMPONENTS
3.1 Introduction
As shown in Figure 3.1, crane vessel, rigging components including shackles, slings
and grommets and lift point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are basic
The crane barge is the most expensive piece of equipment and the most important
member in lift operation as well. The safety of the crane barge during lift operations is
the first consideration for both crane barge owner and client. The characteristics of the
crane barge also constrain the rigging arrangement and necessary reinforcement of the
module structure.
To safely pick up and install the module is the ultimate objective of carrying out a lift
Reinforcement is needed when the module is too flexible to withstand the load during
lift.
The rigging system is the only connection of module to crane vessel. The rigging
components include slings, spreader structure, shackles, padeyes (or trunnions) and
the barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and the
site parameters.
24
3.2 Heavy Lift Cranes
In the mid 1980s, the available lifting capacity was increased dramatically with the
S7000 (with up to 14000 ton capacity) in Figure 3.2 and DB102 (with up to 12000 ton
capacity). Coupled with the upgrading of the Heerema SSCVs, Balder and Hermod,
the availability of these vessels has led to development of lifted jacket concepts for
medium and deeper water and modules over 10000 ton in weight. Table 3.1 lists some
McDermott's DB102 (12000 ton capacity) and Saipem’s S7000 (14000 ton capacity),
may reduce the costs of offshore installation work significantly, especially for large
integrated topsides and liftable jacket structures. The dynamic aspects of heavy lift
installations are to some extent yet unknown. However, the knowledge of these aspects
is essential to properly assess the feasibility and safety of heavy lift operations.
Both the lifting capacity and the installed lift weights have increased dramatically
during the past two decades. For a long time the available offshore crane capacity used
to be well ahead of the demand and did not impose any significant restrictions on the
the maximum available crane capacity of large SSCV's has become a limiting factor in
For example, the maximum dimensions of liftable jackets are effectively constrained
by the crane capacity and outreach of large SSCV's, as well as by minimum clearance
25
requirements between the jacket legs and the crane booms. In addition it has become
apparent that the dynamic aspects of large offshore installations should not be ignored
as these may seriously impact the feasibility, safety and schedule of lift operations.
In recognition of these tendencies, many experts has been active from an early stage
onwards in promoting the theoretical and practical development of offshore heavy lift
The objectives of such analyses are three folds: firstly, given the large weights and
sizes of present day integrated topsides and liftable jackets, the extrapolation on the
basis of past experience is often not possible and unreliable, and therefore one wants to
Secondly, it should be verified that a lift operation can be performed in a safe manner
without unacceptable risk to personnel involved or to the structure or the crane vessel.
In an actual project, the choice between an integrated deck or split modules can be
difficult. The split module concept is to separate the integrated deck into smaller
directions, which can be easily lifted by smaller crane vessel (with lower cost), but
result in higher offshore hook-up cost. Besides using a larger crane vessel to install
the integrated deck, “Float-over” method is also used for installation of heavy deck
without weight limitation. The float-over method will not be discussed in this thesis.
26
3.2.1 Crane Vessel Types
In general, the floating crane lift vessel can be classified into two main groups:
Advantages
- Economic saving
Disadvantages
Type I – Facilitated with dual crane booms, such as S7000 in Figure 3.2 & Thialf
in Figure 3.4.
Type II – Single crane boom, like DB30, DB50 & DB101 as shown in Figure 3.5
Disadvantages
- Deep draft for not able to access in-shore shallow water area
27
3.2.2 Frequently Used Crane Vessels
Asian Hercules II, as shown in Figure 3.3, is a self-propelled lifting vessel that
has a maximum hoisting capacity of 3200 ton. The crane structure comprises
The A-Frame can be skidded along fixed tracks on deck into three different
working positions:
Harbour condition:
28
Derrick Barge – Thialf
of 14,200 ton. The dual cranes provide for depth reach lowering capability as
29
Derrick Barge – DB101
Main Dimensions:
LOA 146.3 m (480 ft)
Beam 51.9 m (170.3 ft)
Depth 36.6 m (120 ft)
Working Draft Min. 7.5m (24.6 ft), 23.5m (Max. 77 ft)
Clear Deck: 43,000 sq. ft.
Tonnage: Gross 52,313, Net 15,693
Cranes
Main Crane: IHC E-3500
Boom Length:
Main 67.0m (219.75 ft)
Aux. 97.33m (319.33 ft)
Whip 104.2m (341.75 ft)
Hook Capacity:
Main 2,430 ton (2,700 stons) @ 66 - 78 ft. (Revolving),
3,150 ton (3,500 stons) @ 66 - 78 ft. (Tied Back),
540 ton (600 stons) @ 115 - 279 ft. (Aux.) &
135 ton (150 stons) @ 350.0 ft. (Whip)
Deck Cranes: 83 ton (92 stons) @ 25 ft.
30
3.3 Heavy Lift Shackles
Shackles are used in lifting and static systems as removable links to connect wire rope,
chain and other fittings. The shackles used most commonly in industry are
manufactured by two groups, namely Green Pin and Crosby as shown in Figure 3.6.
The wide range of shackle sizes provides choices to designer, with the working load
limit from 0.5 ton to 1200 ton. The shackles are mostly used to connect sling to padeye
on the lifting components. However, the shackles can also be utilized to adjust
Design
ultimate load by the working load limit. The ultimate load is the average load or force
at which the product fails or no longer supports the load. The working load limit is the
maximum force which the product is authorized to support in general service. The
design of shackles is the selection of proper steel to support fatigue, ductility and
impact properties.
31
- Chain shackles are used mainly on one-leg systems.
Shackle Material
The following are the common materials used for shackle manufacturing:
High tensile steel, quenched and tempered, which is comparable to ISO Grade 6;
obtained.
techniques that include proper forging and accurate machining. Closed die forging of
shackles assures clear lettering, superior grain flow, and consistent dimensional
accuracy. A closed die forged bow allows for an increased cross section that, when
coupled with quench and tempering, enhances strength and ductility. Closed forging
combined with close tolerance pin hole assures good fatigue life, particularly with
Quench and tempering assures the uniformity of performance and maximizes the
properties of the steel. This means that each shackle meets its rated strength and has
required ductility, toughness, impact and fatigue properties. The job requirements
32
The quench and tempering process develops a tough material that reduces the risk of
brittle, catastrophic failure. The shackle bow will deform if overloading occurs, giving
The proper application of shackles requires that the correct type and size of shackle be
used. The shackle's working load limit, its size, a traceability code and the
manufacturer’s name should be clearly and boldly marked in the bow. Traceability of
the material chemistry and properties is essential for confidence in the product.
For example, a Green Pin standard shackle has following technical indications:
H - Traceability code
6 - Grade
CE - Conformity European.
Documentation
• a work certificate;
• a certificate with the actual breaking load found on the tested samples;
33
Usage
The correct type of shackle should be selected for a particular application. The
Working Load Limit (WLL) should be applied in a straight pull and overloads must
not be made. Side-loads should be avoided as the products are not designed for this
purpose.
If side-loads are required, as shown in Table 3.2, shackles should be fitted to the load
in a manner that allows the shackle body to take the load in a true line along its centre-
line; and not in such a way that bending loads are induced, other than those for which
When using shackles in conjunction with multi-leg slings, due consideration should be
given to the effect of the angle between the legs of the sling. As the angle increases so
does the load in the sling leg and consequently in any shackle attached to that leg.
To avoid eccentric loading of the shackle, a loose spacer may be used on either end of
the shackle pin or a shackle with a smaller jaw width should be used. Welding
washers or spacers to the inside faces of shackles or closing shackle jaws shall not be
used to reduce the width between the shackle jaws, as this will have adverse effects on
The applications, where the shackle pin can rotate and possibly be unscrewed due to
34
Finished shackles may not be heat-treated because this may affect the Working Load
Professional Engineer. This is necessary because the product in use may be affected by
• the body of the shackle and pin are both identifiable as being of the same
quality grade;
• the body and pin are not distorted and unduly worn;
• the body and pin are free from nicks, gouges and cracks.
Also, the pin should be correctly screwed into the shackle eye, i.e. tighten finger tight,
then lock using a small tommy bar or suitable tool so that the collar of the pin is fully
seated on the shackle eye. The pin needs to be the correct length so that it penetrates
the full depth of the screwed eye and allows the collar of the pin to bed on the surface
of the shackle eye. Incorrect seating of the pin may be due to a bent pin, too tight
35
It is important not to replace a shackle pin with a bolt, other than one designed for the
It is important in the case of shackles fitted with a bolt, nut and split cotter pin that the
length of the plain portion of the bolt is such that the nut will jam on the inner end of
the thread or on the eyes of the shackle, and that the rivet on the bolt is cross drilled for
a split cotter pin. A bolt type shackle in operation without using a split cotter pin
36
3.4 Heavy Lift Slings
As an important lifting component, the sling is limited in design not only by the lifted
• Diameter - the largest slings to date have been about 400 mm, though currently
• Weight of the slings - the sling making machinery has an upper weight limit,
about 80 ton, for any individual sling. Thus large diameter slings are restricted
• An installation contractor may wish to lay the slings down on the module after
lifting so that they can be removed individually. This is to avoid the slings
moving towards each other, hence limiting possible damage on the module.
In actual lift projects, sling retention devices (keepers plates) must be fitted to the
trunnions to keep the slings in place during transportation and sling connection. Slings
need to be tied down to the lay-down platform using soft ropes, to prevent movement
The cable laid slings and grommets are most commonly used in heavy lift operation.
The term "cable laid" indicates wire rope constructed from six smaller diameter ropes
laid up in a helical manner about a single core rope. A hand-spliced soft eye is placed
at each end of the rope section to form a "cable laid sling". The term "grommet" refers
37
to a continuous sling made up in the form of a rubber band. Eyes are formed by
securing the two parts of the grommet together with seizing to produce a loop at each
end.
A common trait of these systems is that they require an element with high tensile
stiffness and relatively low bending stiffness. Selection rules for wire ropes are rooted
implementations are the result of the design engineers' biases and experiences, based
The task of designing a wire-rope-based system follows the basic description of the
design process. In addition, each step may be decomposed into several inter-related
subtasks. For instance, system definition subtasks include the selection of a drum,
selection of the appropriate number and sizes of sheaves, selection of wire rope end
The design of a typical wire rope involves the selection of the following geometrical
• Numbers of wire lays in each strand, wires in each wire lay, and strand lays in
the rope
• Diameters of the individual wires and strands as well as the total rope diameter
• Lay lengths (pitches) of the wire lays within the strands and the strands within
the rope
• Configuration of the strands and total rope (i.e., lay directions, etc.)
38
• Core type
Conventional wire rope slings are limited to diameters of about 4 inches. Braided
slings and several other types of multipart slings have also been used for heavy lifts,
but cable laid slings have proven their superiority and are presently the standard for the
industry. The generally recognized authority for the design and construction of cable
laid slings and grommets is Guidance Note PM 20, “Cable Laid Slings and Grommets”
issued by U.K. Health and Safety Executive. The guidance note was prepared by a
working group of experts primarily from the offshore construction and wire rope
manufacturing industries. The note covers construction procedures and prescribes how
One of the problems encountered in the construction of cable laid or any large
• Control of the production of the unit ropes from which the slings are
constructed.
Some measurable length differential will be present at the end of construction and the
load. A reasonable tolerance on length for the life of the slings is ±0.25 percent of the
length. The length differential for a matched set of 100 foot slings constructed under
39
Heavy lift slings are made of machine spun cable laid rope and usually terminated by
hand made eyes and splices. The eye and splice sections are softer than the cable
section. These are up to 40 rope diameters in length and significantly affect the overall
sling characteristics. Sling splices can slip during load take up and some allowance
should be made in the sling load calculations for this effect. The characteristics
Grommets are made out of a single length of wire rope which is spun into a continuous
multi-strand loop of wire. They generally have softer characteristics than slings of
similar minimum breaking load (MBL). The single grommet is softer than the
equivalent double sling with two spliced eyes. No slippage allowance is necessary in
grommet design.
In one major offshore lift project, dual crane lifts with doubled grommets were used to
provide four parts per lifting point. These proved to be lighter as a percentage of the
module weight than doubled slings and resulted in rigging weights approximating to
2% of the lift weight. For the single crane lifts doubled slings were used and resulted in
The grommet lengths were adjusted to permit the centre of lift to be matched to the
manufacture of a pair of grommets. However, this resulted in potential for late delivery
40
of rigging and therefore careful integration of grommet and module fabrication
scheduling was required. In spite of the rigging being a low percentage of overall
module weight, the individual rigging components still weighed approximately 50 ton
each and rigging installation in the module fabrication yard, at the lift height required,
procedures.
An allowance should be made in the design for differential tension across the hook or
padeye. This is due to friction preventing the full load equalization in the rope or
spliced eyes. The tension ratio between the two parts is usually taken as 45:55. This
Slings apply a torque to the crane hook and lifting padeyes. This causes a 2% increase
in sling loads for single hook lifts, increasing to 4% in long and slender modules. Sling
torque has a negligibly small effect on sling loads in double hook lifts.
41
Used rope (2nd cycle onwards)
Elastic modulus E = 2533 ± 25% kg/mm²
B. Grommet properties
These properties are for a simple continuous two-part grommet, i.e. having two ropes
connecting the padeye to the hook.
42
3.5 Lift Points
Lift points are the locations where intensive sling tensions meet with module structure.
Lift points should be properly designed to allow sling tensions smoothly transfer to
other strong structural members. Depending on the factored lift loads, slings and
shackles can be selected from available sling and shackle lists (inventories) or ordered
from suppliers. How to get safe enough and yet reasonably factored lift point loads has
There are basically two types of lift points which connect rigging systems to module
Padeyes are important lift components, which link module structure and shackles. In
lift arrangement, a shackle locks up a padeye by inserting shackle pin through padeye
The design of padeye requires special attention and detailing. It is recommended that
padeyes to be designed with the main connections in shear rather than in tension. High
tension loads in the thickness direction of steel material should be avoided. Padeyes
should be also dimensioned to properly fit up with shackles and avoid uneven contact
areas, which is usually resolved by using cheek plate and spacer plates.
Although the padeyes themselves are usually adequately designed for vertical and
horizontal loads, the structure to which the padeyes connect must be able to accept and
transmit the total vertical and horizontal forces back into structure.
Trunnions are normally used to lift very heavy modules. The advantages of trunnions
43
are their simplicity in rigging connections where slings or grommets are looped over
the braces without the use of shackles, and the freedom for a sling or a grommet to
rotate around the trunnion brace. The latter may be beneficial for module upending,
overturning or rotating.
Trunnions can be either cast or fabricated. Ideally the diameter of the trunnion should
be four times the sling diameter. The use of cast trunnions means that early design is
required because castings have a long lead time. The fabricated trunnions are
44
3.6 Summary
Crane barges, rigging components including shackles, slings and grommets, and lift
point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are discussed based on practical
The barge is the most expensive piece of equipment and the most important member in
lift operation as well. The safety of the barge during a lift operation is the first
consideration for both barge owner and client. The characteristics of the barge also
structure.
The rigging system is the only connection for the module to the crane barge. The
rigging components include slings, spreader structure, shackles, padeyes (or trunnions)
on the barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and
Sling retention devices (keepers plates) must be fitted to the trunnions to keep the
slings in place during transportation and sling connection. Slings need to be lashed
down to the lay-down platform using soft ropes, to prevent movement during
module equipment.
45
Table 3.1 Some of Heavy Lifting Crane Vessels in the World
Nominal
Crane Vessel Contractor Lift Vessel Location
Name Capacity Type
(Ton)
Asian Hercules II Asian Lift 3200 Sheer Leg Singapore
46
Table 3.2 Shackle Side Loading Reduction
For Screw Pin and Safety Shackles Only
Spreader bar
Rigging
Lift point
Module Site
Crane Vessel
47
Figure 3.2
Saipem S7000
SSCV with
maximum of
14000 ton Capacity
48
Figure 3.3 Sheerleg Crane Vessel – Asian Herlues II : with maximum of 3200 ton
Capacity
49
Figure 3.4 Derrick Barge Crane – Thialf : 14200 ton Capacity
50
Figure 3.5 Derrick Lifting Barge DB101: 3150 ton Capacity
51
Figure 3.6 Samples of Some Shackles (GreenPin and Crosby)
52
Figure 3.7 Sling Forming & Cross Section
53
Figure 3.8 Sling Configuration
Right: Sling being laid on platform and ready to sail for offshore hook-up
54
Sling
Plate Trunnion
Shackle
Padeye
Pipe Trunnion
55
Figure 3.11 Fabricated Lifting Padeye
56
CHAPTER 4 RIGGING THEORY AND FORMULATION
4.1. Introduction
The design of rigging sling systems involves the available lift points (strong points in
module), the available slings in inventory, the spreader structure and the hook blocks
of the barge. In other words, all the components from the lift points at the module to
the hook block should be considered. In actual rigging arrangement, the sling system
can be with four, six, eight or more lift points, and spreader bar or frame may be used
clashing/damage to other equipment. Rigging sling systems with more than eight lift
points are used to lift large and flexible modules. It can be seen that the configuration
of the rigging sling system determines the forces in all the components of the rigging
system including padeyes, shackles, slings and spreader structures (if any), and thus
affects the selection and design of these members. Moreover, the configuration of the
rigging sling system is one of the most critical factors that should be considered in the
analysis of stresses in the module and in the determination of the barge gesture
The objective of this section is, as shown in Figure 4.1, to investigate the algorithms
and formulations to determine the configurations of rigging sling systems, which are
affected by the location of lift points, length of rigging slings and geometry of spreader
and hook block. The hook block(s) involved in a particular rigging system can be one
(main or jib hook) or two (both main and jib hooks) at a time. Emphasis is placed on
the determination of the critical geometrical quantities of the rigging sling system
including the sling angles with respect to the horizontal plane and the distances
57
Accurate sling tensions can be computed using the methods presented in Chapters 2
and 3. Some practical methods, however, are also presented in this chapter due to the
In this chapter, useful formulations and procedures for determining sling angles, hook
height above module, spreader height above module, and hook height above spreader
are derived based on the selected slings from the sling inventory and the geometrical
For the convenience of discussion, the geometrical parameters are defined as follows:
=0 (without spreader)
(xc, yc) - location of the centre of gravity of module in local coordinate system,
The superscripts (B) and (J) used in this chapter denote parameters related to the boom
(main frame) and jib hook, respectively, while the subscripts m and h are related to
58
module and hook. For example, L(B) and L(J) represent the lengths of boom and jib,
Rigging sling systems with four lift points are frequently used in offshore and marine
module installation where lift points can be located at the legs of the jacket or strong
structural components.
Three typical rigging arrangements in terms of the hook position with respect to the
Centre of Gravity (CG) are shown in Figure 4.2. These are configurations with (1)
four-equal slings, (2) two-matched-pair slings and (3) four-unequal slings. The
formulations for the geometrical parameters of the three rigging configurations are
As mentioned in the above section, spreaders are used to avoid extensive compressive
frame. Figure 4.3 shows three typical rigging arrangements with spreader structures: (i)
one spreader bar, (ii) two parallel spreader bars, and (iii) a spreader frame. To simplify
the discussion, module geometry, lift points, spreaders are assumed to be symmetric
The formulations for the geometrical parameters of the three rigging configurations are
59
summarised in Table 4.2, where θ and γ are the angles of the sling below and above the
spreader with respect to the horizontal plane, respectively, φ is the angle between the
real plane of the slings and the horizontal plane, Dsp is the distance between two
spreader bars and L′ and L" are the lengths of the slings below and above the
spreader, respectively.
In the case of using both main and jib hook blocks at the same time as shown in Figure
4.4a, the distance between the main and jib hook is normally made equal to the
distance Dx between lift points, and the real planes of the main hook slings and jib
hook slings are thus perpendicular to the horizontal plane. The formulations to
determine the geometrical parameters of rigging configurations are given in Table 4.3.
The loads taken by the main hook and jib hook are dependent on the lift points and CG
Due to the constraint of structural patterns of modules, rigging systems with six lift
points may be used in certain cases. Modules with six lift points can be lifted up by
single (main or jib) hook block or by two (both main and jib) hook blocks due to
If only the main or jib hook block is used, a spreader structure is normally needed to
accommodate the force distribution in the slings above and below it. Figure 4.5a shows
a typical rigging arrangement for using a single hook block to lift up a module with six
60
lift points, where a planar frame is used to protect the module from intensive
compression and to effectively transfer the forces from the lower slings to the upper
slings. The span of the spreader frame can be designed equal to the distance Dx
between lift points to minimise the horizontal compressive forces (in the x-direction)
on the module. The formulations for determining the geometrical parameters of this
Attention should be paid to the tensions of individual slings as well as the forces at
individual lift points, as the forces may be significantly unevenly distributed depending
on the global stiffness of the module structure and sling system, as discussed in
Chapter 2. It is known from Chapter 2 that the sling tensions are evenly distributed if
the module is very stiff compared to the slings. However, if the module structure is
very flexible, or, in other words, the slings are comparatively very stiff, the tensions of
the two middle slings can be much larger than the tensions of other slings. In this case,
two big slings are required for the middle positions. Since the sling tensions are
transferred to the lift points, the corresponding lift point loads at the two middle
positions are also much larger than those at the two ends. Thus, bigger shackles and
stronger padeyes or trunnions should be designed for the lift points at the middle
locations. Furthermore, as the forces finally find their paths in the structure, local over-
stressing and excessive deformation of the module may occur since the forces during
the lifting operation may be significantly different from the actual working loads
To obtain accurate sling tensions and structural performance during the lift, a
the rigging configuration including the actual stiffness of the slings and the module.
61
The design of the spreader frame should be also based on the consistent load condition
If both the main and jib hook blocks are used at the same time as shown in Figure 4.6a,
the distance between the main and jib hook is normally designed to be equal to the
distance Dx between lift points, as discussed in the previous section. The formulations
summarised in Table 4.5. Figure 4.6b gives the loads taken by the main and jib hooks
If two doubled slings, instead of four single slings, are used for those slings at the main
hook block, the formulations provided in Table 4.5 are still valid except that the length
of the slings L(B) should be changed to half the length of the corresponding doubled
slings.
Rigging sling systems with eight lift points are often used in shipbuilding and offshore
structural installations. The lift points in a ship block may be the cross points of
bulkheads or strong points at hull structures. In this section, some practical rigging
configurations are discussed. In the case of doubled slings, the force split ratio of the
appropriately.
62
4.4.1 Using Main or Jib Hook with/without Spreader Structure
Figure 4.7a shows an eight-point rigging sling configuration without any spreader
structure where four doubled slings with the same length L are used. Figures 4.7b and
4.7c show rigging sling systems with two parallel spreader bars and a spreader frame,
and the lengths of the doubled slings below the spreader structures and single sling
As will be discussed in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2, when both the main and jib hook
blocks are used at the same time as shown in Figure 4.8a, the distance between the
main and jib hook is normally made equal to the distance Dx between the lift points.
configuration are summarised in Table 4.7. Figure 4.8b gives the loads taken by the
main and jib hooks, which depend on the locations of lift points and CoG positions.
4.5 Summary
heavy lift design, since the configuration affects the tensions in rigging slings, loads in
lift points and forces in shackles and link plates, and thus affects the design of those lift
components. Furthermore, it also affects the selection of the boom and jib angles of a
63
The geometrical configurations of rigging sling systems are dependent on the location
of lift points, available rigging slings and the details of the spreader geometry and hook
rigging sling systems with four, six and eight lift points, which cover the majority of
heavy lifts in offshore and marine industries, are presented in this chapter. The sling
arrangements can be with single slings, doubled slings or doubled make-up slings. The
type of spreader structures included in the discussion can be a simple spreader bar, two
parallel spreader bars or a spreader frame. The hook block(s) involved in a particular
rigging system can be one (main or jib hook) or two (both main and jib hooks) at a
the rigging sling systems. These include the sling angles with respect to the horizontal
plane, hook height above the module or spreader structure, and spreader structure
above lift points. The algorithms and formulations presented in this chapter can be
applied both for selecting slings from the inventory and for ordering new slings.
64
Table 4.1 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main or jib hook block without spreader)
four-equal γ≈
( D x / 2 − Wh / 2) 2 + (D y / 2 − L h / 2) 2
slings θ1=θ2=θ3=θ4 = cos ( −1
(x c ) 2 + (y c ) 2
L1 tg −1 ( )
L 1 = L2 = H4
H 4 = ( L 1 ) 2 − (D x / 2 − Wh / 2) 2 − (D y / 2 − L h / 2)
L3 =L4
( D x / 2 − Wh / 2 − x c ) 2 + (D y / 2 − L h / 2) 2
θ1=θ2= cos −1 (
2-matched- L1
pair slings ( D x / 2 − W h / 2 + x c ) 2 + ( D y / 2 − L h / 2) 2 γ ≈ tg −1 (
yc
)
L1 = L 2 , θ3=θ4= cos −1 ( H4
L3
L3 =L4
H 4 = ( L 1 ) 2 − (D x / 2 − Wh / 2 − x c ) 2 − ( D y / 2 − L h / 2) 2
( D x / 2 − Wh / 2 + x i ) 2 + ( D y / 2 − L h / 2 + y i ) 2
θi= cos −1 (
four-unequal Li
slings (i=1,2,3,4) γ≈0
L1≠L2≠ where x 1 = x 2 = x c , x 3 = x 4 = − x c
L3≠L4 y1 = y 4 = − y c , x 2 = x 3 = y c
H 4 = (L1 ) 2 − ( D x / 2 − Wh / 2 − x c ) 2 − (D y / 2 − L h / 2 + y c ) 2
65
Table 4.2 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main or jib hook block with spreader structure)
( D x / 2) 2 + (D y / 2 − L sp / 2) 2
θ = cos −1 ( ) H 4 = ( L ′) 2 − (D x / 2) 2 − (D y / 2 − L sp / 2) 2
L′
One spreader
bar
( L sp / 2 − L h / 2) 2
γ = cos −1 ( ) H 5 = (L ′′) 2 − (L sp / 2 − L h / 2) 2
L ′′
(D y − L h ) / 2
φ = cos −1 ( )
( L ′) − ( D x / 2 − Wsp / 2) 2 + ( L ′′) 2 − ( Wsp / 2 − Wh / 2) 2
2
−1
( D x / 2 − Wsp / 2) 2 + (D y / 2 − D sp / 2) 2
θ = cos ( )
L′
( Wsp / 2 − Wh / 2) 2 + (D sp / 2 − L h / 2) 2
γ = cos −1 ( )
L ′′
( D x / 2 − Wsp / 2) 2 + ( D y / 2 − L sp / 2) 2
θ = cos −1 ( )
L′
Spreader H 4 = (L ′) 2 − ( D x / 2 − Wsp / 2) 2 − ( D y / 2 − L sp / 2) 2
frame
( Wsp / 2 − Wh / 2) 2 + (L sp / 2 − L h / 2) 2
γ = cos −1 ( )
L ′′
H 5 = (L ′′) 2 − ( Wsp / 2 − Wh / 2) 2 − ( L sp / 2 − L h / 2) 2
66
Table 4.3 Formulations for rigging configurations with four lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time )
D (yB) − L(spB)
θ ( B) = cos −1 ( ) H (4B) = (L′) 2 − (D (yB) / 2 − L(spB) / 2) 2
2 L′
With
spreader bars L(spB) − L(hB)
γ ( B) = cos −1 ( ) H 5( B) = (L′′) 2 − (L(spB) / 2 − L(hB) / 2) 2
2L′′
Table 4.4 Formulations for rigging configurations with six lift points
(using main or jib hook block )
Dy
θ = cos −1 ( ) H 4 = (L ′) 2 − (D (yB) / 2) 2
With 2L ′
spreader
frame
Wsp − Wh
γ = cos −1 ( ) H 5 = (L ′′) 2 − ( Wsp / 2 − Wh / 2) 2
2L ′′
67
Table 4.5 Formulations for rigging configurations with six lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time)
−1
[D (xB) / 2]2 + [D (yB) / 2 − L(hB) / 2]2
θ ( B)
= cos ( )
L( B)
Without
H (4B) = [L( B) ]2 − [D (xB) / 2]2 − [D (yB) / 2 + L(hB) ]2
spreader
D (yJ ) − L(hJ )
θ ( J ) = cos −1 ( )
frame 2L( J )
68
Table 4.6 Formulations for the rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main or jib hook block at a time )
1
H4 = L4 + a 4 + b 4 − 2( L2 a 2 + L2 b 2 + a 2 b 2 )
2L
Without H H
Spreader θ1 = tg −1 ( 4 ) , θ 2 = tg −1 ( 4 )
a b
Structure where L is the length of doubled slings,
D (x1) Wh 2 D y L h 2 D ( 2) W Dy Lh 2
a= [ − ] +[ − ] and b = [ x − h ] 2 + [ − ]
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Dy / 2 − Lh / 2
φ = cos −1 ( )
d1 + d 2
H 4 = d 1 sin(φ) , H 5 = d 2 sin(φ)
H4 H H
θ1 = tg −1 ( ) , θ 2 = tg −1 ( 4 ) , γ = tg −1 ( 5 )
a b c
With where φ is the angle between the real plane of sling and horizontal plane.
Two Wsp
1 Wh 2
Parallel d1 = L4d + p 4 + q 4 − 2(L2d p 2 + L2d q 2 + p 2 q 2 ) , d 2 = L2s − ( − ) ,
Spreader 2L d 2 2
Bars D Wsp 2 D y D sp 2
(1)
D Wsp 2 D y D sp 2 ( 2)
a= [ −
x
] +[ − ] , b= [ − ] +[ − ] , x
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Wsp Wh 2 D sp L h 2
c= ( −) +( − )
2 2 2 2
with Ld being the length of doubled slings below spreader, Ls being the length of single
D (1) Wsp D ( 2 ) Wsp
sling above the spreader, p = x − and q = x −
2 2 2 2
1
H4 = L4d + a 4 + b 4 − 2(L2d a 2 + L2d b 2 + a 2 b 2 ) , H 5 = ( L s ) 2 − c 2
2L d
H4 H H
θ 1 = tg −1 ( ) , θ 2 = tg −1 ( 4 ) , γ = tg −1 ( 5 )
a b c
With where Ld is the length of doubled slings below spreader, Ls is the length of single sling
Spreader above the spreader,
Frame D (x1) Wsp 2 D y L sp 2 D ( 2 ) Wsp 2 D y L sp 2
a= [ − ] +[ − ] , b= [ x − ] +[ − ] and
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Wsp Wh 2 L sp L h 2
c= ( − ) +( − )
2 2 2 2
69
Table 4.7 Formulations for rigging configurations with eight lift points
(using main and jib hook blocks at the same time )
−1
[D (xB) / 2 − Wh( B) ] 2 + [D (yB) / 2 − L(hB) / 2] 2
θ ( B)
= cos ( )
L( B)
Without
H (4B) = [L( B) ] 2 − [D (xB) / 2 − Wh( B) ] 2 − [D (yB) / 2 + L(hB) ] 2
spreader
frame
[D (xJ ) / 2 − Wh( J ) ] 2 + [D (yJ ) / 2 − L(hJ ) / 2] 2
θ ( J ) = cos −1 ( )
L( J )
70
Inputs TASKS Outputs
Determination
• Hook block info. of rigging • Sling angles
• Sling info. configuration
(from inventory) • Heights of
• Algorithms 1. hook above module
• Lift point info.
2. hook above spreader
• Spreader info. • Formulations 3. spreader above module
ISO View
Wm
Dx
L3 H4 L
L4 L1 2 CG (x c , y c )
LPT 3 y LPT 2
θ3 θ2 Lh Dy Lm
z y x
x LPT 4 Wh LPT 1
Hm (H3)
θ4
θ1
x
Barge Direction
Wm Wm
Dx Dx
CG (x c , y c )
LPT 3 CG (x c , y c ) LPT 2 LPT 3 LPT 2
Dy Lm Dy Lm
LPT 4 LPT 1 LPT 4 LPT 1
Rigging configuration with matched-pair slings Rigging configuration with unequal slings
71
L'' H5
γ Wm
γ Dx
L' H4
θ z y θ
Lm Dy Lsp Lh
θ x θ
Hm
H5 Wm
L'' Dx
γ φ
Wsp
H4 Wh
z y
'
L Lm Dy Lh Dsp
θ x φ
Hm
Wm
'' Dx
L
H5
γ
Wsp
Wh
' z y θ H4
L x Lm Dy Lh Lsp
Hm
72
jib
hook
main
hook
H 5( J )
γ (J)
L'' H 5( B)
γ ( B)
H (4J )
H ( B)
4
D (yB) L(hB) L(spB) L(spJ ) L(hJ ) D (yJ ) L m
'
L z y
θ ( B) x θ(J)
Dx
Hm
Wm
( B)
W (J)
W
D(x2 )
W ( B) = W
D(x1) + D (x2 )
D (x1) D (x2 )
D (x1)
W (J) = W
D (x1) + D (x2)
CG
Figure 4.4b Hook load distribution for four-lift-point sling systems using
both main and jib hook blocks
73
Wh
L''
Wsp′′ H5
γ
Wsp′
H sp Wm
Dx
L' H4
z
y
Wh
x θ
θ θ Lm Dy
Hm
T′ T′
W
T′ T′
T1
T2 T1 1
T′ = W
2 sin( γ )
T1 T2 T1
T1 T2 T1
T1 T2 T1
T2 = αT1
θ θ θ where α is dependent on the stiffness of module
structure and sling system
74
main hook jib hook
D (xB)
L( B) L( J )
H (4B) H (4J )
z
y
θ (J) L(spJ ) L(HJ ) D (yJ ) L m
θ ( B)
x D (yB) L(HB)
Hm
Dx
Wm
W (J)
W ( B)
D (x2 )
W ( B) = W
D (x1) + D (x2)
D (x1) D (x2)
D (x1)
W (J) = W
D (x1) + D (x2 )
CG
Figure 4.6b Hook load distribution for six-lift-point sling systems using
both main and jib hook blocks
75
L
Wm
D (x2)
H4 D (x1)
Wh
θ2 θ1
Lm Dy Lh
Hm
Wm
H5 D (x2)
D (x1)
Wh
H4
Lm Dy Lh D sp
θ2 θ1
Hm Wsp
Wm
Ls
H5 D (x2)
γ
D (x1)
Ld
Wh
H4
Lm Dy Lh L sp
θ2
θ1
Hm Wsp
L( B ) L( J )
H (4J )
H (4B)
z y
D (yB) L(hB) L(hB) D (yJ ) L m
θ ( B)
x θ(J)
Wh( B) Wh( J )
Hm D (xB) D (xJ )
Wm
( B)
W (J)
W
D (x2 )
W ( B) = W
D (x1) + D (x2)
D (x1) D (x2 )
D (x1)
W (J) = W
D (x1) + D (x2 )
CG
Figure 4.8b Hook load distribution for eight-lift-point sling systems using
both main and jib hook blocks
77
CHAPTER 5 JACKET LIFTING
5.1 Introduction
The fixed steel jacket is the most common type of structure used for supporting facilities
for the offshore production of oil and gas. A few of jackets have been built with sufficient
buoyancy to enable them to self-float, but the majorities have been transported from
The following steps should be taken during the conceptual design of a jacket.
The capacity of the lift cranes falls off dramatically with increasing radius. It is, therefore,
essential to take all possible steps to minimize the operating radius. The smaller the cross
section of the jacket is, the smaller the crane radius is. Therefore limiting both top and
bottom plan dimensions of a horizontally lifted jacket, will give improved liftability.
Smaller plan dimensions cause more piles and higher dynamic amplification in the in-
place condition.
If the jacket is not square in plan then a clearance and radius study should be carried out to
determine which way round the jacket should be on the barge to give maximum hook
capacity. Selection of barge width may also be critical in determining the optimum crane
radius.
78
In determining the crane radius, the clearance between the barge and the crane vessel hull,
the jacket and the hull, and the jacket and the crane boom or crane cabs must not be less
lifting, using a heavy lift vessel (HLV) or a semi-submersible crane vessel (SSCV). While
another method is to lunch jacket from cargo barge and then upending by using crane
vessel. The main differences between lifted and launched jackets are that the latter have
launch frames and auxiliary buoyancy tanker. Launch frames have also another function,
serving as supporting framework during jacket construction and for skidding the jacket
onto the launch barge during loadout. Some form of auxiliary buoyancy is necessary on
launched jackets to arrest the jacket during launch, and as an aid during upending and
Lifted jackets without the requirement for launch frames and the auxiliary buoyancy
tankers needed to achieve a safe launch, which will give quite saving of steel materials.
Lifting slings and lifting trunnions (installed on the jacket) are required to lift the jacket
There are a variety of ways by which a jacket may be lifted and installed into position on
the seabed. Each depends on the characteristics of the jacket. The first method is the
vertical lift whereby the jacket is vertically transported on and lifted vertically off the
79
In the situations where the jacket is too tall for vertical lifting it can be lifted horizontally
from the barge using slings attached close to the top and base of the jacket. Installation
follows by lowering the jacket base and raising the top of the jacket. This method is
inappropriate for longer jackets as the lifting capacities of the cranes reduce with
increasing crane boom radius. Such circumstances will probably result in a two-stage
installation. Firstly the jacket is lifted from the barge and lowered into the water until it
floats. This requires the use of auxiliary buoyancy. The main lifting slings are then
removed and the prerigged upending slings attached to the crane hook. The jacket is then
It is relevant to point out that the configuration and sling tensions for lifting jackets
The majority of shallow water jackets are constructed, loaded out and transported with the
jacket in its vertical position. The jacket is installed by lifting it clear of the cargo barge by
either a single or dual lift, removing the barge, and then lowering the jacket into place on
The advantages of this method of lifted jacket installation with respect to other methods
are: the jacket is vertical during all phases of installation: no re-rigging of lift slings is
required during installation (which means that offshore installation time/cost is reduced
significantly); and only a minimum ballasting system (if any) is necessary. The
80
disadvantages are that the jacket height is limited by the available boom height capacity of
the crane vessel and the vertical construction of the jacket. For jacket installation of this
However, the influence of the new generation SSCVs is illustrated by the comparatively
large weight of the 8400t Gyda jacket in North Sea, which was installed in a water depth
In the case of jackets in greater water depth, the height of the jacket prohibits vertical
lifting. Consequently, the jacket is constructed horizontally at the fabrication yard and
loaded out onto the cargo barge in a similar manner to the launched jackets. For horizontal
jacket, there will involve number of lifting operations: 1) Lifted loadout horizontally
onto the transportation barge in fabrication yard, see Figure 5.2a , 2) Lifted up from
transportation barge offshore, see Figure 5.2b, 3) upending jacket from horizontal position
into vertical position, 4) Lift jacket vertically for final installation. Also refer to Chapter
• Upending in air, which requires a larger SSCV with two hooks working
independently, like S7000. Refer to Figure 5.3 and Figure 9.4. This can also be
81
• Upending in water, which is commonly used as less SSCV requirement. This may
further be divided into two categories: those installed with the rigging always
attached (these jackets invariably have no auxiliary buoyancy) and those installed
using a re-rigging method while the jacket is free floating (such jackets may
The former category of installation is best suited to medium water depth jackets. When
partially supported by buoyancy, the load was transferred to the auxiliary hook. The main
hook was re-rigged at the top of the jacket, which was then upended.
For short jackets the lifting points are close to the top and the base of the jacket. Such
positioning facilitates the upending of the jacket, where one crane is used to hold the top
The jacket size is restricted by the various factors. At the lower lift point, the main crane
hook typically only has enough wire to go to the same level as the SSCV pontoons. The
vessel operator prefers that the crane hooks do not go underwater. The upper lift slings
need to pass over the top of the jacket. Both this and the restrictions on lowering the crane
hooks result in long slings attached to the jacket. But the length of these slings is limited
by the maximum allowable hook heights when lifting the jacket off the barge. The crane
vessel draught may be limited to only a few positions because of stability and motions
restrictions.
82
The typical sequence for the lifting of deep water jackets is as following:
Step 1: Jacket lifted horizontally from the cargo barge after removing seafastening,
Jacket lowered into the water, where it floats horizontally. The jacket may require
auxiliary buoyancy.
Step 2: Slings and spreader beams are removed. The derigging of the jacket included:
Step 3: The pre-rigged upending rigging, at the top of the jacket is attached to the crane
Step 4: The jacket is upended by a combination of ballasting and raising the crane hook
It should be noted that the large jackets have required substantial loadout frames. If they
had been built as launched jackets, the equivalent weight would have been built into the
structure as launch frames and load out rails. This in turn would have attracted higher
wave loadings in the in-place condition. Additional anodes and/or painting would have
been needed. These extra weights on a launched jacket hence require temporary buoyancy
to be fitted.
83
5.4 Summary
Jackets which are built and transported vertically offer significant savings over jackets
• Loadout and transportation forces are carried efficiently by the legs and vertical
face braces. Plan bracing sizes reduce and there is a minimum of temporary steel
• The jacket is not required to float or to have submerged, remote, sling release
systems;
• The same slings are used for lift and placement. No separate upend slings are
required;
• The water depth for this type of lift installation is limited by the available hook
height of the SSCV to around 65-70m. If built vertically, jackets are limited by the
84
Considerations for lift jacket structures horizontally and vertically are discussed in this
85
Figure 5.2a Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Loadout operation at Fabrication Yard
(2800ton)
Figure 5.2b Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Dual Crane Lifting a Tripod Jacket (6200 ton)
86
Figure 5.2c Horizontal Lifting of Jacket-Dual lift of a Jacket from transportation barge
87
CHAPTER 6 MODULE LIFTING
6.1 Introduction
Normally, deck structures are broken to several modules and fabricated on the ground
block by block. After fabrication, they will be assembled together by lifting. If the
deck is a truss deck, the obvious problem is that during fabrication, we do not have
truss action in the deck, so the deflection of the deck may be very large such that final
fit-up could pose major problem. For opened deck, the deflection will not pose a
problem, but we have to make sure the deck leg work points do not shift during
assembly. It is obvious that opened deck is cheaper to fabricate than a truss deck
provided the plate girders in the opened deck are not too expensive. When a deck is
After the deck plate is welded to all the deck beams. It will be turned over 180 degrees
to a correct position. For this operation, simple temporary padeyes will be provided at
the edge of the deck. The only difficulty in this operation is that the deck is half-
With the DB102 and the S7000, modules of up to 10 000t can be lifted using cranes in
tandem. The full capacity of the crane vessels is not available as they normally operate
at radii greater than that which gives the maximum lift capacity. In addition,
allowances need to be made for weight growth, COG shift and module tilt. Lifts of up
to 8 000t can be lifted using a single crane. Chapter 9.2 presents the detailed analysis
88
6.2 Vertical Module Lift and Installation
For the design of the deck padeyes, there are few problems that we should be aware of.
First, the confirmation of the deck lift weight and the exact centre of gravity location
will usually come very late during fabrication. So an economic design should be such
that it will not have major impact on the fabrication schedule even though they may be
the last item to be fabricated and installed. The padeye together with the pipe can be
fabricated separately, it then can be easily installed after the centre of gravity is
confirmed. Installation only involves one girth weld. This type of detail will have least
impact on the fabrication schedule if the equipment vendor data is late. For a deck with
a lot of equipment on the main deck, a spreader frame or a spreader bar may be
needed. In this case, the padeye main plate should line up with the adjacent webs of the
primary girders.
In terms of fabrication cost, the cost for fabricating a padeye is extremely small
compared with the overall project cost. It is therefore unwise not to be conservative in
the design, after all, the weight and centre of gravity information would normally not
be available until the end of the job. After fabrication, all primary welds in a padeye
should be l00% NDT (Non Destructive Test). In certain critical locations, a simple
MPI (Magnet Particle Inspection or DPI (Dye Penetrant Inspection) is unlikely to yield
meaningful result, So Ultrasonic Test (UT), Radiography Test (RT) or other NDT
The choice of material and the design of bumper guide are also very important to
heavy lift. However, these items are the outside scope of this paper.
89
The advantages of lifting the modules in one piece are:
• No need for bumpers and guides for offshore lifting of individual modules and
• Modules have a high concentration of weight over a small area. This may result
their foundations;
• Cargo barges and perhaps even the large launch barges may require
• If large launch barges are used, then their depth may require substantial
• If the module is built with the drilling derrick or flare, the module may be
higher than overhead obstructions between the yard and sea. Obstructions
include power cables. Thus the module would need to be completed down river
• The preferred load out method for modules is by using trailers. With the very
large modules, there may not be enough trailers available. For a 10 000t
module, the trailers from all owners needed to be combined to perform the
loadout. Joint venturing of trailer owner is quite common and, for example,
90
80% of Europe's trailers were needed for loading out the recent integrated deck
for Gannet;
A most important aspect of the design of large lifts is the control of weight and its
designer.
2. During fabrication the responsibility for the detailed weight report passes to
the fabricator.
this period.
module and the second just before loadout (normally one week).
5. The installation contractor is able to reduce the lift tolerances on the basis
of the weighing, which in turn gave greater confidence to the offshore lift
To handle a big sling, such as one with 150mm in diameter, is not an easy task. Doing
it onshore is much easier than offshore. For this reason, all the rigging equipment
should be rigged up in the yard before loadout. One of the common mistakes in deck
padeye design is the failure of the design engineer to appreciate the difficulty in
installing the slings and shackles. In many instances, the eye of the padeye is located
below deck. This will make it difficult for the workers to line up the padeye and the
shackle to push in the pin, because there is no platform for them to stand on. In some
cases, the design engineer forgot to cater for the need for link plates to do a level lift. A
good design will make sure that the shackle can be installed on top of the deck where
people can have space to work. Another common mistake is that there must be enough
91
space to physically position the pin and push it through the pin hole. There have been
many cases that an access hole has to be cut in the web of the intersecting girder in
order to install the pin. When a spreader frame is used, it too has to be rigged up in the
yard. Design engineers should remember that the weight of the rigging is heavy. It
could be 100 tons or more. This weight has to be supported on the deck and enough
protection bumpers will have to be installed to keep the sling from damaging any deck
equipment.
When we lift a deck, the maximum out-of-level across a diagonal should be limited to
300mm to 600mm. This means that if we want to achieve almost level lift, we have to
use link plate to bring the CoG directly under the hook. If the sling capacity is not big
enough, we may have to use double slings. This can be accomplished by using sister
plates.
remove the requirement for very large shackles for the lift and allow the sling to turn.
For sling or cable laid sling, the sling capacity may be de-rated if it is bent around a
small object, etc. If the cable laid sling is already 300mmφ, say, we may not be able to
find a big enough wide-body shackle to go with the sling without derating the sling
capacity. In this case, a trunnion detail is an attractive alternative. For very heavy lift,
some engineers specify precast lifting eye. This is not a cheap solution. Since this is a
Before we do the lift, we should also check the strength as well as the eccentricity on
the prongs of the hook. Using double slings at the deck level is acceptable, but at the
92
prong location, one sling will take more load than the other, because the first sling will
have already taken up a lot of space. This eccentric load may cause eccentricity
moment at the prong which may not have been designed for. If this moment causes the
prong to twist or rotate, we have to make sure the lines on the crane hook will not jump
out of the sheave. This will have to rely on the experience of the barge superintendent.
Before the deck is lifted, the derrick barge is set up some distance away from the
platform with perhaps 8 point mooring arrangement. When the deck is picked up from
the material barge, we have to walk the barge forward for setting the deck. However,
enough bumper guides will have to be provided to make sure the package will not be
damaged during setting. For dual barge or dual crane lift, we have to pay attention to
the relatively crane tip movement. This may change the load distribution of the
93
6.3 Deck Panel Flip-Over
each deck panel on ground level, and stack them one level by another. Most of topside
modules are consist of three, or four deck levels. The lifting weight of a single deck
panel structure can go as heavy as 1,200 ton, like Malampaya project shown Figure
6.1.
To ease the fabrication work, some of deck panels are built upside down. A typical
The great advantage for the above fabrication method is to change welding process
from top welding into bottom welding, which leads into the benefit for welders and
It is required lots of detailed engineering to flip over the completed deck panel. As it is
involved many different steps, engineers must perform structural stress analysis for
each step as shown Figure 6.2. Temporary strengthening may be required for certain
area in case of over stress occurred. Spreader bars are utilized to facilitate the rotation.
Two or three lifting cranes may be mobilized to complete the flip-over operation as
94
6.4 Summary
Practical considerations for module lifts, which include vertical lifts and flip-over are
One of the most important aspects of the design of large lifts is the control of weight
and the CoG of the module. This requires a proper sequence of weighing scheme to
ensure the accuracy of these parameters. The locations of padeyes and arrangement of
For deck panel flip-over operation, force distribution between two cranes or two
hooks should be calculated precisely. The forces at two hooks vary with the change of
95
Figure 6.1 Deck Panel Stacking in progress (Panel lifting weight: 1,200 ton)
96
Figure 6.2 Computer Model for Deck Panel Flip-over
97
Figure 6.3 Deck Panel – 180 Degree Flip-Over
98
Figure 6.4 Module Lifting – Four Sling Arrangement
99
Figure 6.5 Module Installation – One Lifting Bar Arrangement
100
Figure 6.8 lifting with a spreader frame Figure 6.9 Multi-Tier Rigging System
101
CHAPTER 7 FPSO STRUCTURE LIFTING
7.1 Introduction
The lifting operation for FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) project
involves the loadout from fabrication site, transportation to integration yard and
installation onto FPSO Hull deck. The topside modules can be fabricated in various
locations. The module size and weight are engineered to the certain lifting vessel
during the detailed design stage.
The followings are the lifting operation carried out in Sembawang Yard for Laminaria
& Corallina Development Project.
The sheerleg crane vessel namely Asian Hercules II was used for the operation. Most
of modules were directly lifted up at the Erection yard, transported to the Hookup yard
on crane hook for a distance of approximately 2.2km, and then installed onto FPSO. In
General, it took one day to complete one module lifting operation from preparation,
loadout and installation. However, there were cases that two modules were installed
GENERAL
• The communication channels were set-up for all the parties, such as Owner
(WOS), Lifting contactor (ALPL), fabricator (SME), Marine Warranty
Surveyor (LOC) etc, for different stages as below:
• during the preparation works
• during the Loadout
• during the Transportation
• during the installation operation:
102
• A flowchart showing the relationship of all parties along with responsibilities
for the operation covered under the operation.
• The estimated operating schedule for the lifting operation must be agreed prior
to the operation
• For each module, a specific procedure was prepared with all the necessary
calculation and detailed drawings.
The Erection site of module must be cleared from all obstructions such as
It is crane operator’s responsibility to provide and handle the tag lines. Four tag
lines will be attached to each of modules during lifting. The minimum length
shall be 15 meters.
Environmental Criteria
carried out in sheltered harbour. Any vessel movement was monitored closely.
Water depth
The water depth charts for the quay of both loadout and installation yard were
103
Wind
condition. However for lifting operation, a wind speed of 5m/s is the limitation.
If higher wind occurs, a decision shall be made by agreement of all parties both
Consensus
Lifting operation was not initiated unless the Mater of Asian Hercules II Crane
vessel and representatives from all parties (owner, SME and LOC) agreed that
the lifting conditions were safe. Information regarding to wind, wave and swell
of Singapore at the time of the operation was obtained from the weather station.
Lifting Crane
For the detail of Lifting crane Asian Hercules II, refer to Chapter 3.2.1a.
LOADOUT
• On the day of the lifting operation, the floating crane was moored into
position. Lower the hook and connect to rigging system as shown on
detailed drawing.
• Hook blocks were then raised until the slings are just taut. At this point,
slings/shackles and spreader bar was inspected. Prior to the lifting, the LOC
certificate shall be provided and checked off on the checklist.
• Lift-up the module until it is well clear from temporary support and other
obstacle. At the point of lifting clear of temporary support, checks should
be carried out to allow the two fixed points touching footing pads on hull
deck first, otherwise adjustment shall be made.
104
• Hercules II then raise boom to the maximum, i.e., enough gap between
crane boom and module.
• De-mooring all the mooring lines.
• Hercules II is ready for sail to Berth 8 – Installation yard.
TRANSFER OF Module
drawing.
INSTALLATION
Asian Hercules II will lay two stern anchors. Hercules II will be moored
perpendicular to FPSO. The port and starboard forward moorings are to be tied
with bollards on the FPSO. Two fenders (1.2m OD x 1.5m in length) will be
FPSO shall be moored at Berth 8 with adequate mooring lines. The mooring
the FPSO will be trimmed to even keel position. The pre-installed footing on
hull deck should be checked for their condition and dimensions. The
purpose.
Two pre-slings for mooring of the lift vessel to the Hull, will be attached to the
hull own bollards rigged down along the hull side and the ends with soft eyes are
105
• Final check on the mooring conditions of Hercules II.
• Hercules II manoeuver herself to slowly lower the module slowly onto Hull
deck to match with pre-installed footings. Prior to lowering, a check shall be
completed of barge/vessel moorings to confirm the continuation of operation.
• Client (WOS) /Marine Warranty surveyor (LOC) to check, confirm and accept
that module is properly installed.
• Starting minimum bolting with the approval of LOC prior derigging.
• The crane barge is ready for de-mooring for next lifting.
SAFETY ANALYSIS
The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) was conducted together with Client, Marine
warranty surveyor, Lifting contractor. The critical points and caution area
CHECK LIST
Prior to each lift, the check lists in Table 7.3 to 7.5 were checked and signed by
all three parties.
Rigging systems with one, two and spreader bars, as shown in Figure 7.1, are
extensively use in the lifting and installation of FPSO modules. The configuration
and force distribution in the rigging system have been discussed in Chapter 4.
The 680ton Turret shown in Figure 7.2 was built at Noell Imac’s yard in
Mussafah, Abu Dhabi. The turret was transported to Singapore on Ocean going
heavy lift ship “Happy Buccaneer”. The turret was offloaded by Asian
Hercules and stored at Berth 8 of Sembawang yard until installation onto FPSO
106
For installation of the Lower Turrent into FPSO Moon pool, the following
Crane Selection
Choose a right crane which is able to lift the Turret across over FPSO
(50m wide and 22 m height above sea water). Or else to shift FPSO is a
costly operation.
Lifting Requirement:
Minimum out-reach = 87.00M
Turret to Ship: 20.35 m
Ship width: 50.00 m
Clearance 16.65 m
Minimum hook height = 62.5 M
Sling Selection
Due to a small clearance (169mm) between turret and moonpool, the tilt angle
must be as minimum as possible.
As only three padeyes are installed, two grommet slings were used as the
balance slings to crane hook via single Shackle.
Turret Installation
For installation of Lower Turret, the FPSO was trimmed to even keel position,
and the watertight moon pool closing plate was in place with the lugs on the
closing plate welded. Three vertical support jacks installed on the moon pool
107
closing plate and set to the theoretical elevation. Three horizontal jacks were
also in position. Pumps necessary to activate the jacks was ready and tested.
Video Cameras installed inside moon pool and working properly. Gear for
rotating chain guides was in place. All the scaffoldings and other temporary
equipment inside the moon pool shall be removed to avoid any clashing with
Due to a small clearance (169mm) between turret and moonpool, six nos of old
ropes or cables (appr. φ50mm) as guide protections were evenly installed inside
the moon pool (against the moon pool circular wall) to protect the paint during
the turret lowering operation. Three nos of spot lights were installed in the
Turret to illuminate area where the video cameras are looking at. These lights
were facilitated with cables and end sockets for connecting the power lines at
hull deck.
disconnected and the water filled seals must be drained and inflated with
compressed air to a pressure of 2.5 bars one by one such that one seal system
The floating crane was moored into its position. Lower the hook and connect to
the turret rigging system. Raise Hook block until the slings are just taut. At this
point, slings and shackles were thoroughly inspected. Lift-up to well clear any
obstacle, i.e. two meters between lowest point of the Turret and highest point of
108
obstacles on berth site. Rotate the Turret 90 degree clockwise by using folk lift.
forward anchor. Move backward with the assistance of anchor lines until the
center line of turret is in line of moon pool. Release the mooring line on
starboard side. Hercules II moves sideward until the turret is on top of moon
pool. Drop the forward anchor. Tie the starboard mooring line onto a new
bollard of Hull.
Start to lower the Turret slowly into the moon pool. When chain cable is at the
level of the vessel deck, connect the chain stopper rotating slings to the main
deck. Check alignment at this stage and make adjustment when necessary.
Stop at the level where the guide wires start being functioning to check equal
chainstoppers and the closing plate. The clearance will be adjusted by means of
the hoists fitted on vessel deck. Continue to lower the turret into the moon pool
(LOC) to check, confirm and accept that turret is properly supported by the 3
Figures 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 show design details of lifting and installation of other
109
7.5 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module
For each lifting, lifting crane capacity was studied. The following is the details
of lifting of Module PX04, the gas recompression module, as shown in Figure
7.6.
110
7.6 Lifting of Flare Tower
The installation of the 92m of Flare Tower onto FPSO, as shown in Figure 7.7 was
studied during detailed design stage of Flare Tower. In general, two methods were
discussed as below:
Method A: To install the Flare Tower in two pieces, ie, to cut flare tower at mid
section.
Advantages:
Method A:
Method B:
Disadvantages:
Method A:
required for installation the upper part. This would lead into
- Safety issue. To connect the upper part onto the lower part, the welding
must be carried out up the height of 62m above the sea level. This must
Method B:
111
- Required lot of detailed engineering study to ensure safety, clashing
a) The flare Tower was fabricated on ground. Both main hook and Jib hook were
leg.
b) After releasing the main hook, the flare tower was lifted by Jib hook only.
Hercules then carried the flare for about 2.2 km from fabrication site to
integration site. Dynamic analysis was done to ensure the completed system is
safe.
c) Prior to installation, the dimension of stab-in guide and Flare leg was checked.
d) The upper leg of Flare was protected with the mooring rope.
112
7.7 Summary
Design and operation for lifting FPSO modules are discussed in this chapter. Lift
procedures and considerations for FPSO modules are indicated and rigging systems
with multiple spreader bars are highlighted. Practical design and analysis
considerations for lifting lower turret, gas recompression module and flare tower,
which are unique for stingy requirement of installation accuracy, heavy load and
113
Table 7.1 Lifting Operation Summary for Laminaria FPSO
LIFT AREA LIFT SPREADER BAR
NO. CODE AREA DESCRIPTION M WT WEIGHING LENGTH (M) NOS OF
O (TON) (Eye to Eye) SLINGS
B 1ST Final BOTTOM TOP REQ’D
2 NOS 1 NOS
1 HU10 TURRET ( LOWER ) 1ST 680 - - - - 3
2 PF00 FLARE TOWER 1ST 228 Yes Yes - - 2
ST
3 PX20 LAYDOWN AREA FWD TURRET 1 46 Yes Yes - - 4
ST
4 PX19 FLARE EQUIPMENT SUPPORT 1 70 Yes Yes - 14.080 6
ST
5 PR05 PROCESS PIPERACK 5 1 71 Yes Yes - 2.92 6
6 PR03 PROCESS PIPERACK 3 1ST 26 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
7 PR04 PROCESS PIPERACK 4 1ST 25 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
8 PR01 PROCESS PIPERACK 1 1ST 76 Yes Yes - 2.92 6
ST
9 PX18 CHEMICAL INJECTION 1 154 Yes Yes 11.565 16.720 10
ST
10 PX01 LAYDOWN AND STORAGE AREA 1 212 Yes Yes - 15.840 6
ST
11 PX02 UTILITY AREA 1 345 Yes Yes - 18.480 6
12 PX04 POWER GENERATION 1ST 1,120 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
13 PX03 POWER GENERATION 1ST 589 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
14 PM05/ ACCESS / TRANSPORT ROUTE 1ST 45 Yes Yes - 4.72 6
ST
15 HD20 PEDESTAL CRANE X-1402 1 92 - - - - 4
ND
16 HD70 PEDESTAL CRANE X-1401 2 92 - - - - 4
ND
17 TX00 TURRET – MANIFOLD STRUCTURE 2 697 Yes Yes - 4.100 6
18 TX00 TURRET – GANTRY STRUCTURE 2ND 372 Yes Yes - - 4
19 TX00 TURRET – SWIVEL STACK 2ND 50 - - - - 4
20 PX12 PRODUCED WATER 2ND 411 Yes Yes 13.545 18.480 10
ND
21 PX14 CORALLINA SEPARATION 2 780 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
ND
22 PX16 LAMINARIA SEPARATION 2 700 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
ND
23 PX17 DEBUTANIZER 2 307 Yes Yes 11.565 16.720 10
24 PX09 GAS RECOMPRESSION 3RD 875 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
25 PX11 GAS LIFT 3RD 906 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
26 PX13 GAS LIFT 3RD 967 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
RD
27 PX15 GAS INJECTION 3 1,066 Yes Yes 19.775 18.480 10
RD
28 HU90 DEBUTANIZER COLUMN 3 95 - - - - 4
114
Table 7.3 Preparation Check List
DESCRIPTION WOS LOC SME
Asian Hercules vessel in position at Erection yard, ready
for lifting operation.
Slings, shackles and spreader bar are ready
Certificate for sling, shackle and cranes
LOC to have checked the lifting gears
Certificate for Spreader bars
Qualified rigging supervisor and safety officer are present
Shiploosed items removed from module and list prepared
Bearing Pads and connecting bolts are ready
Erection area cleared of temporary equipment and
obstructions.
Temporary access way to the lifting trunnions
Movable crane standby
115
One spreader bar
θ2 θ1
θ4
θ3 θ3
CG
CG
θ
3 spreader Bars
θ1
θ2
θ
θ3
CG
116
Figure 7.2 Lifting of Lower Turret (680 ton)
Figure 7.3 Lifting of Upper Turret – Manifold Deck Structure with Three Spreader
Bars
117
• As the Gantry Structure is transported to installation yard on Barge “Sea
Prosper”, proper seafastening removal procedure was established prior to lifting;
• The four slings are also very carefully selected due to COG eccentricity
Figure 7.4 Lifting of Upper Turret – Gantry Structure
Single sling is attached to Swivel Stack with the balanced system to crane hook.
118
Figure 7.6 Lifting of Gas Recompression Module
119
Figure 7.7 Upending and Lifting of 92-metre Flare Tower
120
CHAPTER 8 SPECIAL LIFTING FRAME DESIGN
8.1 Introduction
A versatile lifting frame is designed for the loadout / installation of six pallets (topside
The weight and COG of six pallets used for the lifting frame design is listed in Table 8.1.
As we can see from Table 10.1, the COG for each pallet is different from other. Also, the
lifting point distances in Y-direction for Separation Pallet port and Power Generation
port are not the same as others. It is a challenge to make an uni-frame used for 6 lifts.
The final design weight is based on the pallet self-weight with 15% contingency plus
lifting frame weight and rigging weight. Dynamic factor of 1.5 is considered at the same
time. The design is performed in accordance with API RP2A and AISC (American
Institute Steel Construction) Allowable Stress Design 9th Edition. The lifting frame
With the lifting frame weight and rigging weight, the total weight used in analysis is
listed in table 8.2.
The hook point is 26 meters high from the lifting frame for all pallets except the pallet
Power Generation Port, in which the hook point is 16 meters considered due to hook
height limitation. Tube check and joint/overlapping check against API RP 2A are made
and the dynamic factor of 1.50 is considered. It is found that all members and joints are
sufficient. The maximum stress ratio for member check is 0.86 on the member 2-4 when
121
8.2. Effect of the Shift of the Centre of Gravity
122
Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards +ve X-direction
Pallet WT COG (mm) Reaction (ton)
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4
123
Reaction loads with COG 500mm shifted towards +ve Y-direction
Pallet WT COG (mm) Reaction (ton)
(ton) X Y 1 2 3 4
124
8.3. Sling Forces
Unit : kN
SACS MEMBER NO.
18-22 17-22 20-22 19-22 16-22 15-22 13-22 14-22
Power Generation Starboard 869.00 957.68 2145.91 1649.33 1525.19 1844.42 815.80 833.53
Separation Pallet Starboard 1276.90 1028.62 1596.13 851.27 851.27 1596.13 1028.62 1294.64
Separation Pallet Port 1560.66 1525.19 2358.72 1241.43 1046.35 1667.07 993.15 1347.84
Compression Pallet Starboard 1259.17 957.68 1436.52 709.39 709.39 1436.52 957.66 1259.17
Compression Pallet Port 904.47 602.98 1064.08 656.19 904.47 1879.88 1223.70 1152.76
Power Generation Port 1294.64 1294.64 2908.50 2553.81 2571.54 3032.64 1365.58 1294.64
125
8.4 Padeye Checking
SHACKLE SELECTION
Required SWL (SWL = SLt) SWL 480.00 tons ( As per lifting analysis ref: section 2)
PADEYE GEOMETRY
Main Plate : No. Nm = 1 nos
Thickness Tm = 80.00 mm
Radius Rm = 381.00 mm
Cheek Plate 1 : No. Nc1 = 2 nos
Thickness Tc1 = 50.00 mm
Radius Ra1 = 305.00 mm
Cheek Plate 2 : No. Nc2 = 0 nos
Thickness Tc2 = 0.00 mm
Radius Ra2 = 0.00 mm
126
PADEYE STRENGTH CHECKS
1. CHECK BEARING
Allow. Bearing Stress Fp = 0.9 * Fy = 310.50 MPa
Bearing Area Ap = Dh*(Nm*Tm+Nc1*Tc1+Nc2*Tc2)
= 33300.00 mm^2
Actual Bearing Stress fp = Pd / Ap = 212.11 MPa O.K!
Stress Ratio = 0.68
127
CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES
A. SECTION PROPERTIES Y
'a'
'b' 5
Location 1 'a'
'a' 'a'
'b' 2 3
4 'b'
Location 2
128
CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES (CONT'D)
A. SECTION PROPERTIES
129
CHECK ATTACHMENTS OF PADEYES (CONT'D)
130
8.5 Trunnion Checking
= 305 Mton
At = (914 – 38) x 38 x π
= 1004577 mm²
Shear Stress,
Where,
Ring Stress 8”
C = 6.811 in
Moment Inertia,
I = 1 /12 x 16.5 3 x 1.5 + 16.5 x 1.5 x (9.75 – 6.811)² + 8 x 1.5 x (6.811 – 0.75)²
= 1216 in4
Sectional Modulars,
= 108.68 in3
131
ROARK CLOSED RING ANALYSIS SEMBAWANG SHELL EA PROJECT-LIFTING FRAME TRUNN
EQUATIONS FROM 6th ED 01-Mar-01
(AS OF 20 JUNE 1992: MULTIPLE CASES AVAILABLE)
THE FOLLOWING ARE ASSUMED CO (ONLY THE FIRST 4 CASES OF EACH CATAGORY)
1) CROSS SECTION
2) MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
3) POISSON'S RATIO
4) RADIUS
CASE NUMBPARAMETERS:
TOTAL W SHIFT ANGLE O O o
(kN) (DEG) (DEG) (DEG) (mm)
132
RESU LT S: M AX. C H EC K SEM BAW AN G SH ELL EA PR O JEC T-LIFTIN G FR AM E TC IR C U M . TEN
C IR C U M . TEN M O M EN T + BEN D IN G
D EG R EES M O M EN T C IR C U M .TENAD IAL SH EA STR ESS R ATIOSTR ESS R ATIOS TR ESS R ATIO
(kN -m ) (kN ) (kN )
0 60.678 -559.488 0.000 0.114 0.165 0.279
5 59.644 -565.277 83.137 0.115 0.162 0.277
10 56.579 -582.364 163.269 0.119 0.154 0.272
15 51.594 -609.921 237.502 0.124 0.140 0.264
20 44.869 -646.602 303.155 0.132 0.122 0.254
25 36.648 -690.589 357.861 0.141 0.099 0.240
30 27.226 -739.659 399.657 0.151 0.074 0.225
35 16.943 -791.260 427.055 0.161 0.046 0.207
40 6.170 -842.608 439.105 0.172 0.017 0.189
45 -4.708 -890.786 435.436 0.182 0.013 0.194
50 -15.301 -932.851 416.278 0.190 0.042 0.232
55 -25.235 -965.947 382.464 0.197 0.069 0.265
60 -34.162 -987.411 335.416 0.201 0.093 0.294
65 -41.779 -994.882 277.104 0.203 0.113 0.316
70 -47.834 -986.393 209.991 0.201 0.130 0.331
75 -52.146 -960.461 136.959 0.196 0.142 0.337
80 -54.605 -913.617 60.775 0.186 0.148 0.335
85 -55.152 -833.370 -15.507 0.170 0.150 0.320
90 -53.896 -746.152 -84.473 0.152 0.146 0.298
95 -51.027 -653.255 -145.570 0.133 0.139 0.272
100 -46.744 -556.016 -198.361 0.113 0.127 0.240
105 -41.259 -455.800 -242.527 0.093 0.112 0.205
110 -34.787 -353.985 -277.867 0.072 0.094 0.167
115 -27.550 -251.948 -304.302 0.051 0.075 0.126
120 -19.767 -151.047 -321.873 0.031 0.054 0.084
125 -11.656 -52.609 -330.737 0.011 0.032 0.042
130 -3.431 42.085 -331.164 0.009 0.009 0.018
135 4.704 131.813 -323.536 0.027 0.013 0.040
140 12.554 215.430 -308.336 0.044 0.034 0.078
145 19.940 291.871 -286.145 0.060 0.054 0.114
150 26.696 360.172 -257.632 0.073 0.072 0.146
155 32.673 419.475 -223.545 0.086 0.089 0.174
160 37.745 469.036 -184.703 0.096 0.102 0.198
165 41.803 508.238 -141.985 0.104 0.113 0.217
170 44.763 536.592 -96.315 0.109 0.122 0.231
175 46.564 553.746 -48.657 0.113 0.126 0.239
180 47.168 559.488 0.000 0.114 0.128 0.242
185 46.564 553.746 -48.657 0.113 0.126 0.239
190 44.763 536.592 -96.315 0.109 0.122 0.231
195 41.803 508.238 -141.985 0.104 0.113 0.217
200 37.745 469.036 -184.703 0.096 0.102 0.198
205 32.673 419.475 -223.545 0.086 0.089 0.174
210 26.696 360.172 -257.632 0.073 0.072 0.146
215 19.940 291.871 -286.145 0.060 0.054 0.114
220 12.554 215.430 -308.336 0.044 0.034 0.078
225 4.704 131.813 -323.536 0.027 0.013 0.040
230 -3.431 42.085 -331.164 0.009 0.009 0.018
235 -11.656 -52.609 -330.737 0.011 0.032 0.042
240 -19.767 -151.047 -321.873 0.031 0.054 0.084
245 -27.550 -251.948 -304.302 0.051 0.075 0.126
250 -34.787 -353.985 -277.867 0.072 0.094 0.167
255 -41.259 -455.800 -242.527 0.093 0.112 0.205
133
CIRCUM. TEN
CIRCUM. TEN MOMENT + BENDING
DEGREES MOMENT CIRCUM. TENADIAL SHEA STRESS RATIOSTRESS RATIO
S TRESS RATIO
(kN-m) (kN) (kN)
260 -46.744 -556.016 -198.361 0.113 0.127 0.240
265 -51.027 -653.255 -145.570 0.133 0.139 0.272
270 -53.896 -746.152 -84.473 0.152 0.146 0.298
275 -55.152 -833.370 -15.507 0.170 0.150 0.320
280 -54.605 -913.617 60.775 0.186 0.148 0.335
285 -52.146 -960.461 136.959 0.196 0.142 0.337
290 -47.834 -986.393 209.991 0.201 0.130 0.331
295 -41.779 -994.882 277.104 0.203 0.113 0.316
300 -34.162 -987.411 335.416 0.201 0.093 0.294
305 -25.235 -965.947 382.464 0.197 0.069 0.265
310 -15.301 -932.851 416.278 0.190 0.042 0.232
315 -4.708 -890.786 435.436 0.182 0.013 0.194
320 6.170 -842.608 439.105 0.172 0.017 0.189
325 16.943 -791.260 427.055 0.161 0.046 0.207
330 27.226 -739.659 399.657 0.151 0.074 0.225
335 36.648 -690.589 357.861 0.141 0.099 0.240
340 44.869 -646.602 303.155 0.132 0.122 0.254
345 51.594 -609.921 237.502 0.124 0.140 0.264
350 56.579 -582.364 163.269 0.119 0.154 0.272
355 59.644 -565.277 83.137 0.115 0.162 0.277
360 60.678 -559.488 0.000 0.114 0.165 0.279
134
8.6 Summary
The lifting devices of the above spreader frame are the combination of padeye and
lifting trunnions. Padeyes are designed underneath of spreader frame, while the lower
slings remain un-changed, these save lots of rigging changing time during actual lifting
operation. The trunnions above the spreader frame make operator much easier for re-
rigging of slings for next lift. The trunnions are also catered for different COG. The
concept of X-Brace at centre and introduction of thicker joint-can eventually lead into
a lighter frame, 69 ton only. Other concept, four braces at corner, was studied and
found not cost saving. A 50mm thick of the main plate of padeye/trunnions per design
are good enough for the lifting. The above analysis was based on the fabricator stock
135
Table 8.1 Weight and COG data
136
TABLE 8.3 MEMBER ANALYSIS RESULT SUMMARY
SACS Group ID 1 2 3 4
Criti. Max. Criti. Max. Criti. Max. Criti. Max.
PALLET NAME Memb UC* Memb UC Memb UC Memb UC
Power Generation Starboard 4-12 0.48 4-21 0.35 2-21 0.28 2-4 0.37
Separation Pallet Starboard 12-20 0.33 1-21 0.20 3-21 0.19 2-4 0.16
Separation Pallet Port 12-20 0.49 4-21 0.31 3-21 0.20 2-4 0.33
Compression Pallet Starboard 12-20 0.29 1-21 0.20 3-21 0.19 1-3 0.13
Compression Pallet Port 15-10 0.39 1-21 0.18 2-21 0.26 2-4 0.27
Power Generation Port 15-10 0.63 4-21 0.64 2-21 0.64 2-4 0.86
* UC: Unity Check = Actual Stress over Allowable stress
137
1 2
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2
DETAIL 3
Figure 8.1
A
1 2
R020
138
CHAPTER 9 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR LIFTING
DESIGN
9.1 Introduction
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computer based method to simulate and analyse the
an advanced tool that is used in engineering design. The method is comprised of three
stages: (A) pre-processing, in which the analyst develops a finite element mesh of the
geometry and applies material properties, boundary conditions and loads; (B) solution,
during which the program derives the governing matrix equations (stiffness x
displacement = load) from the model and solves for the displacements, strains and
stresses and (C) post-processing, in which the analyst obtains results usually in the
form of deformed shapes and contour plots which help to check the validity of the
solution.
FEA is widely accepted in almost all engineering disciplines. The technique is based
on the premise that an approximate solution to any complex engineering problem can
be reached by subdividing the structural component into smaller and more manageable
(finite) elements. The Finite Element Model (FEM) is analysed with an inherently
greater precision than would otherwise be possible using manual calculations, since the
actual shape, load and constraints, as well as material property combinations can be
specified with much greater accuracy than that used in manual calculations.
prior to the creation of drawings, when minor cost expenditure is committed and
139
changes are inexpensive. Once a model has been developed, the analysis helps in
evaluating the feasibility of the new design as well as trouble shooting failed
This chapter discusses FEM structural analysis in heavy lift design and analysis. Two
critical lift applications, namely, living quarter module lifting and lifting padeye joints,
A typical living quarter module in North Sea field development project consists of the
• Utility Area,
• Cellar deck,
• Helicopter deck,
• Bridge,
• Drain caisson,
• Deluge caisson,
• Sewage caisson,
All decks except the cellar deck are plated decks. As for the cellar deck, there is an
open frame structure for free ventilation. The utility area and the living quarter area are
closed and airtight. The deck structure is made to fit the jacket and supported on three
140
points. The interface point is at elevation LAT (Low Astronomical Tide) +20.0m. The
above the roof. The helicopter deck is designed for landing of a Westland EH101
helicopter.
The lifting analysis is performed using the SACS software. The computer model of the
module consists of eight levels, including the roof and helideck level, from EL.+22.0m
to EL.+50.5m. The module is to be lifted offshore using single hook with a lifting
spreader frame.
The analysis consists of 92 load combinations. They are two for basic load
combinations of two diagonally opposite lifting points carrying 75% of the lift weight;
two combinations with the basic loads and factors; eight combinations with the basic
loads, the factors and couples which simulate CoG (centre of gravity) shift of one
meter towards each frame corner and eighty combinations with horizontal force of 5%
lift weight incorporated in eight directions each to check lifting spreader frame.
The maximum expected lift weight of 1556 ton, which includes module weight of
1391 ton, rigging weight of 65 ton and grillage and sea-fastening weight of 100 ton, is
used as per the design requirements. The consequence factor of 1.15 is added for
All the members and the joints were checked against the DANISH code as per project
requirement. The load factor used in lifting analysis is tabulated in Table 9.1.
It was considered at the same time that the lift design weight was distributed over the
141
lifting points on the spreader frame such that the two diagonally opposite lift points
carried 75% of the lift weight. In addition, CoG shift of 1m towards each corner of the
frame was considered instead of CoG Shift (fcog) factor of 1.05 in load case 210, 220,
Material for secondary beam, external cladding except in Row A and Row B in
accommodation area, internal cladding and deck plate of level one, level three, level
four, level five and level six will be mild steel with yielding stress of 248 MPa.
Material for main beam, plates to be used as part of main steel, external cladding in
Row A and Row B in accommodation area and deck plate of level two, roof and
mezzanine deck, as well as lifting spreader frame will be high strength steel with
Deck plate thickness is 6mm except for lay-down area where 15mm is used. External
Row 1 and Row 2, while the others in 4.5mm. Rib pattern dimensions are 230mm
142
The module is designed to be lifted offshore using spreader frame with one hook point.
The frame was connected with the module on the top of helideck at the point A2 (joint
8220) and B2 (joint 8120) as well as on the roof at the point A3 (joint 7230) and B3
(joint 7130). Temporary braces between the roof and helideck level on Row A and Row
The sling was modelled as weightless tubular with moments at the two ends released.
The minimum sling angle considered was 70 degree as per the information provided by
the installation contractor, Heerema Marine Contractors. Since the system with four
ensure numerical stability by the SACS program. The two artificial springs were applied
onto joints 1220(A2) and 1130(B3) at EL (+) 17.187. To simulate the uneven
distribution of lift weight at two diagonal opposite lifting points, the elastic modulus of
slings was adjusted proportionally, which was achieved by several SACS runs and using
an iterative method.
Deck plates and external corrugated wall in accommodation area were modelled as shear
Members with the same properties are grouped by the computer. A sample list of
member group properties generated by the computer and section properties are
extracted and shown in Table 9.3 and Table 9.4. Plates with the same properties are
grouped by the computer. A list of ‘plate group’ properties generated by the computer
and section properties is extracted and shown in Table 9.5 and Table 9.6.
143
The weight of main steel was generated by SACS program. Other gravity loadings,
mechanical, piping, and electrical & instrument were manually calculated and added to
the model. The summary of loads is shown in Table 9.7, while Table 9.8 gives sample
of loading description.
Structural Loads
It consists of two groups of loading. One is the computer generated self-weight of the
model. The other is the structural weight derived from manual calculation which
includes leg stabbing guide, secondary beam, plating & grating, corrugated wall,
Architectural Loads
It consists of deck and wall insulation, floor finishes, partition, cladding, ceiling,
furniture, etc.
Mechanical Loads
This consists of dry and operating load from mechanical equipment, HVAC ducting
Piping Loads
144
This consists of electrical bulk weight and electrical and communication equipment
weight.
This consists of rigging weight of 65 ton and grillage & sea-fastening weight.
Couples to simulate CoG shift of one meter towards spreader frame corners.
5% of lift weight acted on lifting spreader frame horizontally to check the frame.
Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) suite of software was used to perform
the lifting analysis. A total of ninety-two (92) load-cases were considered in the
analysis. These combinations covered module basic weight combination (2), lifting
case without CoG shift (2), lifting cases with CoG. shift (8) and lifting case with
horizontal force (80), see Table 9.10 for the example. Table 9.11 gives the sample of
Analysis results, such as combined load summation, support reactions and spring
reactions, are given in Table 9.12 to 9.14. All members are found to have stress ratios
less than unity. Members with stress ratios greater than 0.9 are listed in Table 9.15.
All joints are found to have stress ratios less than unity shown in Table 9.16. The
145
9.2.3 Discussions
Support condition
The hook point is treated as a fixed point. Slings attached to module are treated as
moment free members. Artificial spring supports must be added for the numerical
The above analysis has taken into account of CoG shift of 1.0m, with 75% and 25% of
load distribution on two diagonally opposite lifting points. This is normally not
Weight control report for accurate lifting weight and CoG is still not ready; therefore,
the computer analysis results are good enough for the selection of rigging and lifting
crane vessel.
The requirement of spreader bar/frame per module layout of top level needs to be
identified. The correct sling property (weight less), sling length and offset at padeye
points need to be assessed, and proper releases of all slings need to be specified.
Joint displacement
Designer often tends to make mistake of misalignment of CoG and hook, which leads
the joint displacements to be very large. To overcome this, a few computer runs are
required to find out CoG location and to adjust hook point accordingly.
146
9.3 Finite Element Analysis for Lifting Padeye Connection
the top of the jacket work points arranged in a grid with a transverse spacing of 20
metres at EL(+) 13.5m. 2 pile sleeves will be attached to each leg of the jacket. The
four legs are double battered at 1:9.4 in both transverse and longitudinal directions.
The top of the jacket cut-off elevation for all four legs of the jacket are at EL(+)
15.000m. Jacket horizontal bracing levels are at EL(-) 39.5m, EL(-) 29.8m and EL(+)
12.6m. The jacket is designed for 42.9m water depth. The height of jacket is 58.4m.
The estimated possible lifting weight for Jacket is 3038 tons, based on the weight
control report.
The jacket will be fabricated in a horizontal position. The fabricated jacket will be
loaded out by lifting it off using ‘Asian Hercules II’ from quayside onto the barge. The
lifting arrangement for loadout is shown in Figure 9.3. Loadout analyses were carried
out to simulate the lifting operation to evaluate the adequacy of the jacket together
On reaching its tow destination in the Danish sector of the North Sea, SAIPEM will
carry out the upending with SSCV S7000, see Figure 3.5. The S7000, operating in
dynamic mode at a heavy lift draught of 27.5m, in 43m of water depth, will lift the
jacket off the vessel and upend it using the cranes in tandem. The upending process is
different orientations of the jacket from the initial horizontal position to the final
147
During the above analysis, the lifting points were found essentially important. The
critical padeye, hereafter called Joint 164 (from SACS), on Jacket pile sleeve is
analysed using the finite element method (FEM) with the computer program of
MSC/NASTRAN. The purpose is to compute the stress distribution in the four loading
cases during load out and upending as shown in Figure 9.5. As illustrated in Figure 9.6,
the joint 164 consists of two chord members, three bracing members and a pad-eye
member. To simulate the actual loading conditions, loads subjected to lifting by the
sling are applied at the centre of the pad-eye while the other end of each chord or
brace, where the member is strongly supported by other members, is fixed. The fixed
boundaries for all the chords and braces are shown in Figure 9.7. What is concerned in
the analysis is the stress distribution in the adjacent areas around the joint. If the stress
level was found too high, the structure will be improved and re-analyzed till satisfying
Except the pad-eye member, dimensions and length of members 2 to 6 are listed in
Table 9.18. For the pad-eye, the main plate is 100mm thick and the two cheek plates
are 100mm thick also. In addition, the joint is reinforced with three 100mm thick full
ring plates.
The forces of each member from one load out analysis and three upending analysis by
SACS IV have been listed in Table A.1 in Appendix A. The joint is modelled with all
supports are provided by other strong braces. The other ends (away from joint 164) of
these four members are fixed. Since there is no support at the other end of chord
148
member 5, no constraints are applied over there. The sling forces being applied on the
pad-eye for cases A, B, C & D are shown in Figure A.1 in Appendix A. Thus the force
will distribute mainly based on the stiffness of members automatically, which is the
The FE model for the structure is illustrated in Figure 9.8. The four-sided solid element
(labelled as CTETRA in NASTRAN) with ten nodes and five-sided solid elements
(labelled CPENTA in NASTRAN) are employed to model the structure. They are 2nd-
accuracy; 128 elements are used around the circumference. The pad-eye and stiffeners
are also modelled with element size of 20~50 millimetres. Other parts of the structure
are modelled with relatively coarse mesh with an element size of 100 millimetres. The
Stress of the structure under one load out and three upending conditions is computed
for the above FEM model using MSC/NASTAN. The 1st-principal stress distributions
and Von Mises stress distributions of the Case D only are shown from Figure 9.9 to
Figure 9.10 respectively. The maximum stress values are summarised and listed in
Table 9.19.
More detailed results of the maximum stresses on the braces are given in Appendix A.
The maximum stress values are summarised and listed in Table 9.20.
149
Stress analysis of the pad-eye Joint 164 under the loadout (1 case) and upending (3
cases) conditions was conducted. The Von Mises stress and 1st-principal stress results
are presented for each case. Since the maximum stresses (both 1st-principal stress and
Von Mises stress) are less than or close to the yield strength of the steel material used
for the structure, the structure should globally be safe under the four aforementioned
load conditions. Since the maximum 1st-principal stress of case D is a little bit larger
than the yield strength, it would be better if small side-stiffeners can be added at the
150
9.4 Summary
Finite element analyses have been performed on a living quarters module and detailed
treated as fixed. Spring support must be input for structural stability. The spring
layout at the top level and to model correct sling property (weight less), sling length
and offset at padeye locations. Finite element analysis can also provide important
information for detailed stress evaluation and safety check at the padeye connection.
151
Table 9.1 Load factor used for lifting analysis
Factor Single Crane Lift
Load Contingency Factor (γf) 1.15
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) 1.10
C of G Shift (fcog) 1.05
Tilt Factor (SKLt) 1.03
Yaw Factor (for local design of trunions) N/A
Consequence Factor (γc)
Trunion attachment joint N/A
Members local to lift point 1.15
Other structural steel members 1.00
by SACS software .
152
Table 9.3 Sample of Member Group Properties (units: cm, kN)
SACS Type A B C D
Section ID
0D5 WF 30 2.8 70 1.45
2I5C WF 20 2.0 50 1.5
HS2 BOX 30 1.2 30 1.2
PG2 BOX 70 4.0 85 5.0
TP2 CON 45.7 3.175 76.2
TP3 CON 145 2.5 76.2
Note: A -- depth for Box section, flange width for WF section, one end
diameter for CON section
B -- side wall thickness for Box section, flange thickness for WF section,
thickness for CON section
C -- width for Box section, depth for WF section, one end diameter for
CON section
D -- top and bottom wall thickness for Box section, web thickness for
WF section
153
Table 9.5 Sample of SACS Plate Group Properties (units: cm, kN)
Type Label A B C D E F
IBM HP120X8 12 0.8 2.3 0.8 1.4 1.4
BOX CORR 6.0 23 10 0.5 0 0
BOX CORR6 6.0 23 10 0.6 0 0
IBM HP100X8 10 0.8 2.17 0.8 1.27 1.27
BOX TROUGH 27.5 35 15 0.5 0.001 0.5
154
Table 9.8 Sample of SACS Loading ID and Description
Loading Description
155
Table 9.9 Type of Support Constraints and Member Releases
75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3 75% of lift weight at point A2 & B3
Loading
100 200 210 220 230 240 110 300 310 320 330 340
Number
D01 -1.05 -1.05
D02 -1.05 -1.05
D03 -1.1 -1.1
D21 -1.1 -1.1
D22 -1.1 -1.1
D23 -1.1 -1.1
D41 -1.1 -1.1
D51 -1.1 -1.1
X01 -1.0 -1.0
XA2 1.303 1.303
XA3 1.303 1.303
XB2 1.303 1.303
XB3 1.303 1.303
100 -1.368 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.368 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303 -1.303
156
Table 9.11 Sample of 75% Lifting Weight Factor
Loading 75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3
Number 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
220 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451
Loading 75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3
Number 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238
230 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451
Loading 75% of lift weight at point B2 & A3
Number 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248
240 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
X000 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451 1.451
X090 1.451 2.052 1.451 -1.451 -2.052 -1.451
157
Table 9.13 Support Reactions (UNIT: kN)
Joint HKA2 Joint HKA3
LOAD Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz
100 447.62 -611.74 2400.16 -1296.20 -1315.20 5160.21
200 612.35 -836.86 3283.43 -1773.20 -1799.19 7059.17
210 678.87 -927.77 3640.12 -1698.38 -1723.28 6761.33
220 577.38 -789.06 3095.90 -1818.55 -1845.21 7239.71
230 575.31 -786.24 3084.82 -1562.25 -1585.15 6219.37
240 485.45 -663.43 2602.99 -1700.04 -1724.96 6767.90
110 1171.37 -1600.83 6280.89 -321.39 -326.10 1279.48
300 1602.44 -2189.94 8592.26 -439.66 -446.11 1750.33
310 1621.15 -2215.51 8692.60 -429.25 -435.54 1708.85
320 1521.50 -2079.32 8158.25 -546.93 -554.95 2177.36
330 1517.42 -2073.76 8136.42 -293.33 -297.63 1167.77
340 1429.44 -1953.52 7664.65 -428.59 -434.87 1706.23
158
Table 9.16 Joint Stress Ratio Listing
DIAMETER THICKNESS YLD STRSS
JOINT (CM) (CM) (KN/CM2)
UC
H000 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.527
H120 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.81
H130 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.654
H131 45.72 3.175 34.5 0.148
H220 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.747
H230 76.2 2.54 34.5 0.685
H231 45.72 3.175 34.5 0.165
H330 76.2 1.9 34.5 0.331
159
Table 9.18 Dimensions and length of each tubular member
Member No. Outer diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Length in the model (m)
2 700 30 4.91
3 1200 70 5.36
4 1200 40 4.16
5 2522 70 3.86
6 2522 70 7.00
160
Hook Point
161
HALFDAN PHASE III HDB
H230
H220 A
y
x a
b
C.
Envelope
of C.O.G.
H120 H130
COORDINATES OF JOINTS B
Coordinates (m)
X Y Z
H220 5.06 7 51.2
H230 17.19 7 51.2
H120 5.06 -7 51.2
H130 17.19 -7 51.2
DIMENSIONS OF MODULE
Span between A2 and A3 = 12.13 m
Span between A2 and B2 = 14.00 m
α = 53.779 α = 45.406
x ecc. = -0.591 x ecc. = 0.702
y ecc. = 0.807 α α y ecc. = 0.712
New C.O.G., (x, y)= (9.639, 0.748) New C.O.G., (x, y)= (10.932, 0.653)
COG = (10.23, -0.059)
New C.O.G., (x, y)= (9.633, -0.861) New C.O.G., (x, y)= (10.938, -0.765)
α = -53.318 α α α = -44.923
x ecc. = -0.597 x ecc. = 0.708
y ecc. = -0.802 y ecc. = -0.706
B2 (H120) (H130) B3
162
Figure 9.3 Jacket Loadout arrangement
163
Figure 9.4 Upending process of Jacket
164
CASE A
CASE B
CASE C
CASE D
165
Figure 9.6 Configuration of Joint 164
166
(a) Side view in xy-plane
167
(a) Global view
168
Figure 9.10 Local view of Von Mises stress contour of load case D
169
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE WORK
10.1 Conclusions
Lifting criteria and sling specifications in practice are reviewed and discussed in this
thesis. Relevant justification is made based on the lift projects in construction yard.
The practical and dominating considerations in rigging are sling design loads, shackle
design loads, lift point design loads, shackle sizing, tilt control and CoG (centre of
Crane barges, rigging components including shackles, slings and grommets and lift
point connections (including padeyes and trunnions) are discussed based on practical
consideration in heavy lift design. The rigging system is the only connection of module
crane barge characteristics, module structural pattern and behaviour during lift, and the
site parameters.
Rigging configuration affects the tensions in rigging slings, loads in lift points and
forces in shackles and link plates, and thus affects the design of those lift components.
Furthermore, it also affects the selection of the boom and jib angles of a crane barge to
fulfil lift requirements. The algorithms and formulations for the determination of
configurations of rigging sling systems with four, six and eight lift points, which cover
the majority of heavy lifts in offshore and marine industries, are presented in this
thesis. The sling arrangements can be with single slings, doubled slings or doubled
170
make-up slings. The type of spreader structures included in the discussion can be a
Jackets which are built and transported vertically offer significant savings over jackets
built on their side. Considerations for lift jacket structures horizontally and vertically
are discussed. Lifting a large jacket may require substantial loadout frame which needs
proper design.
Practical considerations for module lifts, which include vertical lifts and flip-over, are
investigated. One of the most important aspects of the design of large lifts is the
control of weight and the centre of gravity (CoG) of the module. This requires a proper
sequence of weighing scheme to ensure the accuracy of these parameters. For deck
panel flip-over operation, force distribution between two cranes or two hooks should
be calculated precisely since they vary with the change of the module incline angle
during flip-over.
Lift procedures and considerations for FPSO modules are discussed and rigging
systems with multiple spreader bars are highlighted. Practical design and analysis
considerations for lifting lower turret, gas recompression module and flare tower,
which are unique for stringent requirement of installation accuracy, heavy load and
A versatile spreader frame is designed that includes the combination of padeye and
lifting trunnions. Padeyes are designed underneath of spreader frame, while the lower
slings remain un-changed, these save significant rigging changing time during actual
171
lifting operations. The trunnions above the spreader frame enable the riggers easier
Finite element methods are used for lifting module and padeye connection analysis. In
the modelling, the hook point is considered fixed. Spring supports needs to be input to
prevent numerical problems with regards to rigid body modes and the specified spring
stiffness should be significantly smaller than the structural stiffness. It has been
illustrated that detailed finite element analysis can provide important information for
Based on the detailed investigations by the author, the thesis has reported some
findings which will be useful for future reference. In view of the important nature of
As most of structural members connected to the lift points are normally governed
Section 9.3 show that some stiffeners are not fully utilized, more optimized
172
- Study of the impact of accidental loadings on rigging system. Accidental loadings,
such as gust wind load, wave surge load, etc., have significant effect on the safety
of lifting operation and thus studies on these aspects are crucial to lifting design.
173
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• American Institute Steel Construction (AISC), Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition,
1991.
• Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) Release 5.1, 2003, by EDI, USA.
Proc. of 1st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991,
motions of a Crane Vessel and a Transport Barge. In Proc. 12th Offshore Technology
174
• Booch, G. Object-Oriented Design with Applications. The Benjamin/Cummings
Trondheim, 1988.
• Brown & Root. Joint Industry Project: Heavy Lift Criteria. Brown & Root Vickers
MA. 1984.
• Bunce, J. W. and Wyatt, T. A. Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift
Journal of The Institute of Engineering (Singapore), Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 61-70, 1993.
Malaysia.
175
• Choo, Y. S., Lim, C.K. and Bok, S.H. A Knowledge-Based Approach to Design for
Heavy Lift. In Proc. Offshore 93: Installation of Major Structures and Equipment,
• Coyne, R. D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford A. D., Balachandran, M. and Gero, J.S.
UK.
• DnV. Rules for Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 96-
101. 1988.
176
• Fern, D. T. and Griffin, C. Piper B and Stltire A - Topside Design for Installation, In
Fraser. 1989.
• Fuller, D. Theory and Practice of Lubrication for Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
• Hamilton J. and Ramzan F. Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Heavy Lifts. In Proc. of 1st
UK, pp 23-34.
• Heerema (1991), Standard Criteria for Sling, Grommet and Shackle Selection, SC291.
The Netherlands.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991, Edinburgh, UK, pp 51-60.
177
• Ju, S.H., Stone, J.J. and Rowlands, R.E. New symmetric contact element stiffness
matrix for frictional contact problems, Computers and Structures, Vol. 54, No 2, pp
289-301, 1995.
• Lange, F. C., Hetland, S. and Knudsen J. I. Control and Dynamics During Lift
• Lee, S. S. Computational method for frictional contact problem using finite element
217-228, 1994.
• Lloyds Register of Shipping (LRS), Guidance Notes for Module Lifting Criteria,
Offshore 93: Installation of Major Offshore Structures and Equipment, February 1993,
178
• Michaelsen, R. H., Machie, D. and Boulanger, A. The Technology of Expert System.
pp 215-229
Proc. of 1st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, August 1991,
179
• Varghese, K., Dharwadkar, P., Wolfhope, J. and O’Conner, J.T. A Heavy Lift
Planning System for Crane Lifts, J. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, vol. 12, pp
31-42, 1997.
NY. 1988.
• Wiek, L. The Distribution of the Contact Forces on Steel Wire Ropes, Organisation
Internationale pour ‘Etude de ‘Endurance des Cables (OIPEEC), Bulletin No. 44.
1982.
• Wouts, R., Coppens, T. and Van den Boom, H. J. J. (1992). Monitoring Offshore Lift
180
APPENDIX A FEM ANALYSIS FOR JACKET UPENDING PADEYE
Additional FFM results for Jacket upending padeye with various loading cases are
181
182
• Summary of loading applied to padeye
(A.1) Load out (wire-frame view) (A.2) Load out (solid view)
(B.1) Upending in vertical position (wire-frame view) (B.2) Upending in vertical position (solid view)
183
(D.1) Upending in tilted (D.2) Upending in tilted
position (wire-frame view) position (solid view)
Figure A.1 Load conditions
184
• Stress distribution of upending padeye
185
(a) 1st- Principal stress
186
(a) 1st- Principal stress
187
(a) 1st- Principal stress
188