×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Padeye-Safe Working Load

Padeye-Safe Working Load

Padeye-Safe Working Load

(OP)
Hi everyone,
There is some argument comes up at my office every so often about the safe working load to be marked on the pad eyes.
I have a structure to be installed offshore in GoM (Gulf of Mexico). The governing code to design the structure is API RP 2A-WSD. (By WSD I mean Working Stress Desing).
I run a 4 point lift static analysis on my structure and come up with the maximum un-factored static reaction of 100 kips in my sling. (By 4 point lift I mean 4 slings are hanging from one lift point/hook point located above of the center of gravity of the structure. The other ends of the slings are connected to 4 pad eyes at each corner of the structure). Per API RP 2A section 2.4.2.c, I pick up a DLF (Dynamic Load Factor) of 2.0, and design my pad eye per AISC-ASD. (By ASD I mean Allowable Stress Design).
The stress ratio for the combined stresses on the pad eye is 0.90. I proceed with the fabrication, and then I run an actual load test on the pad eye for 1.5x 100 kips, and it passes the load test at the fabrication site.
At this point I want to mark that pad eye for a Safe Working Load (SWL). What that safe working load would be?
Is it 100 kips, or 1.5 x 100 kips or 2.0 x 100 kips or 2x 100 kips/ 0.90?
The way I understand it, the SWL is 100 kips. I know technically and theoritically the Pad eye stress is going to reach just to the yield stress even under a 2 x 100 kips / 0.9 =222.22kips load, but that is not the number to be marked on the pad eye as the safe working load on the pad eye.
Please help me to see if I am missing something.
Thanks, 007

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

Victor,

From your description I would agree that 100 kips is the SWL.

However, I would strongly suggest not putting that on the lifteye. The reason is that 100 kips is the SWL for a specified angle with minimum out of plane bending. Unless you go through the effort of analyzing the structure and lifting eye for every angle of lift including some significant out of plane bending, I think that a SWL could be misinterpreted. Also I would read 2.4.2.e carefully because a few engineers I know take this to mean that your short sling and long sling should be able to take 100% of the load, which means that your padeyes should be able to carry 200 kips. Another option is to provide Installation drawings showing design assumptions such as sling lengths, lift arrangement, and shackle size/type.

Regards,
TomasAron

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

(OP)
TomasAron, Thanks for your response.
Regarding the pad eye angles, I agree with you. As a matter of fact, the way I positioned the pad eyes on the structure, minimizes any out of plane bending. Basically I rotate the pad eyes on the fashion that each diagonal pair of pad eyes fall in a plane goes thru the center of gravity of the structure. Also my structural drawings clearly call out this positions for the pad eyes. From design stand point, per API RP 2A-WSD section 2.4.2.a, I have to design the pad eyes for 5% of the static sling load as a horizontal out of plane load applied at the center of the pinhole. Theoretically this 5% will take care of almost 2degree and 52 second rotation of the pad eye out of that ideal plane. [Arc Tan (0.05) = 2.86degree].
Besides the orientation of the pad eyes on the top frame of the structure, I also call out the location (X, Y, Z) of the lift point(hook point), location of the C.G. (X, Y, Z), and also the angles of the slings to horizontal on my structural drawings to minimize the risk of any loading operation different than my analysis.
Speaking of section 2.4.2.e, I am totally familiar with this concept, and I take care of that by running skew lift analysis with different load distribution ratios between the sling pairs. I did not bring it up in my original question because I wanted to simplify my case study. So in my original question, I assumed that the fabrication tolerance in the structure, pad eyes, and slings will be zero.

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

Mark your eyes just like Eye Slings 'chokers' are marked: 100Kips - VERTICAL. Make the Rigger do the calc's, because he will know the actual choke angles. Trying to outguess the future rigging is dangerous.

If you test at 1.5 x 100 Kips, the prudent value for SWL is indeed 100Kips.

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

(OP)
Thanks Duwe6 for your response.
It seems we all agree on 100 kips value for SWL.
The challenge I am facing is coming from the Installation contractor who has the vessel to install my structure offshore.
I mark the padeyes with SWL=100Kips. According to them, they are NOT allowed to lift the structure if they know more than SWL=100 Kips load goes to the padeyes. In real world they have to install the structure when there is some seastate motion is going on. Because of the dynamic effect of that seastate on the structure, the padeyes will face a load more than 100 kips for sure (how much more? Depends on how bad or calm the seastate is). My calculations show the stress ratio in the padeyes will stay below the allowable stress even for 2 times of that SWL (Per API RP 2A section 2.4.2.c).
So they argument is if the padeye stress level is below the allowable stress even for 2 times of 100 kips, and also the load test shows the padeye can handle 1.5x100kips load, why we can NOT mark the padeye for a SWL more than 100 kips. They say the load test and the calculation show the pad eye is safe for loads way more than 100 kips.
Could you please help me to respond to their argument?

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

(OP)
Thank you so much "boo#1" for sharing the GL document. I am familiar with marine lift concept and its governing codes, and I've been doing this job for a quite while.
All I'm asking for is some help to build a logic to respond back to the argument made by my installation company.

RE: Padeye-Safe Working Load

". . . test at 1.5 x 100 Kips, the prudent value for SWL is indeed 100Kips."

Assuming that the calc's bear this out, test these padeyes at a higher value. The lowest test I've ever seen/heard of was at 1.2 x SWL. I agree that 1.5 is much more prudent, even for a 1-time use. If customer demands 100kips x dynamic factor, make them give you the value for their Dynamic Load. Only they [the rigging master] will know what their cut-off is. And then proof-test at 1.5X that value.

Sounds like they want you to 'certify' these padeyes without them being actually proof loaded at their envisioned actual load.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close