HAND-OUT

Of the seminar titled

'RIGGING DESIGN
for offshore heavy lifting'
By W. Leefmans

Held on 7 February 2014

at the
Offshore Independents Office
Capelle aan den IJssel, Holland

RIGGING DESIGN
for offshore
heavy lifting

A SEMINAR AT
THE OFFSHORE
INDEPENDENTS
OFFICE
Capelle aan den IJssel

W. Leefmans

SEMINAR CHAPTERS
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

CREATING OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES
1.
2.
3.

The environment of
offshore heavy lifting

An introduction to the art *

Road-map from dry weight to the
hook load *
Rigging components *
The rigging arrangement *
The tilt attitude (*)
Spreaders (*)

4.
5.
6.

Initiative, studies & engineering

Procurement, fabrication &
testing
Transportation to the field
Installation; this includes heavy
lifting *
Hook-up
Commissioning

RULES, CRITERIA &

GUIDELINES BY:

LIFT OPERATIONS
A crane vessel is required *
Minor lifts
Heavy lifts (dry wt 50 t) *
Pre-rigging at fabricators
The lift-off *
Up-ending a jacket *
Setting the module *
Many authorities are involved *

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

CLIENTS CRITERIA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Safety, timing, environment

The best quality for their money
Jackets location & orientation
Jackets elevation
Jackets out-of-levelness
Deck elevation
Boat-landing elevation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Assume their clients risks against a

premium
Risk needs to be classed to assess the
premium
They rely on the competence of
marine warranty surveyors to assess
the risk class *

MARINE WARRANTY
SURVEYORS (MWS)

Independent third party

Assess and warrant that heavy lifting is
kept in the recognized risk class
Publish guidelines
Verify design criteria
Review documents
Survey during construction & installation
Approvals
Etc

Client or Company *
Marine warranty surveyor *
Classification society *
Heavy lift contractor *
IMCA, API, ISO, etc
Others (host country)
Design Brief (or Design Basis) *

CLASSIFICATION
SOCIETY

Independent third party

Core business: class vessels, etc.
Sets rules for: steel wire ropes,
spreader beams, sister plates, etc.
Publish rules
Verifies design criteria
Document review
Survey during construction
Etc.

HEAVY LIFT
CONTRACTOR

DESIGN BRIEF
(A basis of understanding)

Have set standard engineering

procedures
To solve things the practical way
Standards may be issued with their
proposal

Agreed by client, MWS and contractor

List of reference documents, by client,
warranty surveyors
List of standards and codes
Weights, COG positions & envelopes *
Load spread method *
Allowable stress in steel plate parts
Dynamic amplification factor (DAF) *
Skew load and consequence factors *

VESSEL MOTIONS

CRANE VESSELS

Mono-hull types and semi-subs *

Main hoist cap. varies from 500 t to
7100 t
Vessel is kept stationary during the lift
Mooring by anchors
Dynamic positioning
Operating & stand-off positions;
leeward of the target

BALLASTING

Changes draught, trim and heel

Ballast system includes: tanks, pipelines, pumps, valves & control system
Ballasting, de-ballasting & cross
filling
Tanks are either pressed, slack or
stripped
Ballast engineer is in charge for the
ballast scenario
Pumps run during extreme lifts

Roll: rotations about longitudinal axis

Surge: translations along longitudinal axis
Pitch: rotations about transversal axis
Sway: translations along transversal axis
Yaw: rotations about vertical axis
Heave: translations along vertical axis
Hook motions: we assume but heave &
horizontal motions

HLV STANISLAV YUDIN

Monohull vessel
Length over all: 185.00 m
Breadth: 42.00 m
Depth: 12.30 m
Operations draught: 7.00 m
Main hoist cap. 2500 t at 37.5 m
Auxiliary: 500 t

HLV THIALF

Semi-sub vessel
Length over all: 202.00 m
Breadth: 97.00 m
Depth: 49.50 m
Operations draught: 26.60 m
Main hoist cap. 7100 t at 43.00 m
Auxiliary: 907 t

FEATURES OF
OIL PLATFORMS

Installed for an extended period of

time
In shallow water
Location & orientation specified
Platform North definition
Northing & easting >> grid
Lowest astronomical tide (LAT) is
datum elevation

CRANE MAIN FEATURES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Hoists capacities (fixed figure)

Hook lift capacity vs. hook radius *
Built-in 10% DAF in the curves
Weather limitations
Hook elevation vs. hook radius (for
vessel at operating draught) *
Design hook elevation: deduct 3.00 m
The lighter of the two hooks to be
applied

TYPICAL MODULES

Jackets *
Piles
Spacer frames
Decks *
Box-shaped modules *
Bridges *
Skids *
Towers

JACKET INSTALLATION
Transporting method is dictated by the
jacket size
1. S : vertical transportation & ditto lift-off
2. M: horizontal transp. & dry up-ending *
3. L : horizontal transp. & wet up-ending *
4. XL: launched jackets & wet up-ending *
5. Setting or docking the jacket

END OF
CHAPTER 1
(INTRODUCTION)

THE ROUTES FOR THE

RIGGING DESIGN

CHAPTER 2
THE ROAD-MAP
The routes for the design

Main route: From dry weight (plus

COG position) to the lift weight *
Byway #1: 3 hook load checks *
Byway #2: verify hook height *
Byway #3: make tilt prognosis (*)

DESIGN INPUT

OPTIMUM DESIGN

It is a wee bit of an art

A bit more of a science
Most of all, it is using the common
sense

The modules dry weight & the

location of its COG *
Physical limitations
Available equipment
Rules, regulations, specifications
codes, standards & Design brief

DESIGN RESULTS

LIFTING AND SAFETY

What it takes to produce the

optimum rigging design:

Applied rules, regulations, codes,

specifications, standards & Design
brief.
Dry weight & COG envelope *
Design wt, lift wt & hook loads *
Physical limitations made clear
Design analyses
Rigging arrangement * & MTO

We need safety for comfort and

assurance, for a low level of risk
Risk is the probability of a hazard
to occur and the consequences
A hazard could cause harm
Harm is an undesired event,
causing injury, lost of lives,
damage, pollution, etc.

ASSESSING SAFETY
First we need to define and
understand what safety is
We then assess the safety level for
the case, if we can
Safety is opposite to risk
So, if one can not assess the safety
level, maybe assessing the risk
level is possible

The risk assessment matrix:

Probability
of hazards
Likely
Reasonably probable
Unlikely
Remote
Extremely remote
Theoretically possible

Minor
2
1
0
0
0
0

Consequences
CatasSevere
Fatal trophic
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0

Disastrous
3
3
3
3
2
1

Offshore
heavy lifting

Where the classification of risk can be expressed as:

3
2
1
0

Intolerable risk area.

Border area.
Tolerable risk area.
Low risks area.

The definitions for the level of consequences:

Minor
Severe
(heavy lifting)
Fatal
(heavy lifting)
Catastrophic
Disastrous

For an event that causes local damage to the unit or light injuries to
personnel.
For an event that causes large damage to the unit or serious
personnel injuries.
For an event threatening the integrity of the unit or causes
fatalities.
For an event that causes loss of the unit and/or a number of
fatalities.
For an event that causes loss of the unit and/or a very large number
of fatalities.

BUILT-IN REDUNDANCY
TO PREVENT A FAILURE

THE PARTIAL
COEFFICIENT METHOD

A safety factor is needed for comfort

& assurance
Factor must cover uncertainties
Factor must cover inaccuracies
One overall safety factor is not
appropriate for heavy lifting
The partial coefficient method is
applied *

Weight factors *
Load factors *
Safety factor *
Factors for structural resistance *
This method gives transparency and
every factor can be re-calibrated
separately

APPLY FACTORS IN THEIR

OWN CONTEXT

WEIGHT DEFINITIONS

The product of the partial coefficients

form the aggregate coefficient of the
individual system
One should not go shopping for
factors

Weight definitions describe the

condition with more precision:
Budget weight (in the contract)
Dry weights (3 definitions) *
Design weight *
Lift weight (i.e. a dynamic load) *

THREE DRY WEIGHT

DEFINITIONS
1.

2.

3.

Dry weight by the fabricators: the

bear object for its end-purpose
Dry weight for the lift (= #1 +
installation aids) *
Dry weight for transportation =
load-out weight (= #2 + rigging)

DRY WEIGHT
ASSESSMENT METHODS
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Conceptual stage estimate: initial

assessment *
Weight control procedure
Weight control report
MTO (material take-off) used *
Weighing the module: final assessment
(i.e. the as-weighed weight)

WEIGHT GROWTH FACTORS

(to achieve design weight)

DESIGN WEIGHT
DEFINITION

Should be made equal to the

presumed tolerance of the applied
weight assessment method
Conceptual stage >> 1.25
MTO >> 1.10 (structural) & 1.20
(remaining)
Weighed weight >> 1.03

Dry weight without any error would do,

as being the design weight; not a
realistic option
Design weight = dry weight x weight
growth factor *
Some authorities prefer to work with
weight growth allowance (+25%), rather
than a factor (x1.25)

WEIGHT BUDGET
FOR THE RIGGING

The rigging load includes the weight

of rigging itself
Rigging weight budget = 3% to 5% of
the modules design weight (for
simple riggings)
Final rigging MTO needs to be
budget weight
Take a closer look at complex
arrangements or the longer legs

LIFT WEIGHT DEFINITION

Is a dynamic load
Lift weight = design wt X DAF
DAF = dynamic amplification factor
DAF varies with the load class of
the module *

D.A.F. PRESUMPTIONS

D.A.F. VARIES WITH THE

WEIGHT CLASS
Lift by mono-hull vessels offshore:
Design wt
< 100 t:
100 t 1000 t

DAF
1.30
1.20

1000 t 2500 t

1.15

> 2500 t

1.10

Rigging weight is not factored by

DAF
DAF maximum to occur during the
actual lift-off.
Lift-off is rather a smooth ride than
a jerk or a snatch load *

A 2000 T LIFT-OFF BY
STANISLAV YUDIN

IMPACT DURING LIFT-OFF

IS REDUCED, DUE TO:

Cargo barge emerging

Crane vessel immerging, while trim
& heel change
Rigging legs elongating
Hoist wire ropes elongating
Elastic deformation of crane parts

A 200 T LIFT-OFF
BY STANISLAV YUDIN

DAF for this load class, to be 1.15

Cargo barge emerging
0.75 m
(Barge 91 m x 30 m)
Hook drops due to immersion 0.27 m
Hook drops due to trim
0.23 m
Hook drops due to heel
0.40 m
Miscellaneous
0.15 m
Total travel of hook
1.80 m

3 HOOK LOAD DEFINITIONS

DAF for this load class, to be 1.20

Cargo barge will emerge
0.08 m
(Barge 91 m x 30 m)
Hook drops due to immersion 0.03 m
Hook drops due to trim
0.02 m
Hook drops due to heel
0.04 m
Miscellaneous
0.01 m
Total travel of hook
0.18 m

WHEN THE DYNAMIC HOOK

LOAD NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED

Dry hook load = dry wt + rigging. (For

ballast scenarios, etc.)
Static hook load = design weight +
rigging wt. (against hook curve) *
Dynamic hook load = lift weight +
rigging wt. (against hook curve +10%) *

HOOK HEIGHT CHECK

Module design weight = 2213 t; Rigging = 100 t

Static hook load = 2213 t + 100 t =2313 t
Static lift capacity of hook = 2400 t
Equation for static is OK (2313t<2400t)
DAF = 1.15 and so dynamic hook load will be:
(1.15 x 2213 t) + 100 t = 2545 t + 100 t = 2645 t
Dynamic lift capacity = 2400 t x1.10 =2640 t
Equation for dynamic lift is not OK (2645 t>2640t)
This lift can NOT be performed.

Actual hook height at the required hook

radius (above operating draught)
Deduct 3.00 m, to achieve the design
hook height (safety margin)
Module bottom at least 3.00 m above
target
Can the module be installed, while sea
level is down to LAT?
1

END OF
CHAPTER 2
(THE ROAD-MAP)

RIGGING COMPONENTS

CHAPTER 3

1.
2.
3.

TENSILE RIGGING
COMPONENTS

4.
5.
6.

FEATURES OF RIGGING
COMPONENTS

STEEL WIRE ROPES

Effective length
Load capacity
Stability
Reliability

Diameter (d) defines the size

Applied in heavy lifting for their
flexibility and elasticity. There are two
types of wire rope construction :
Standard steel wire ropes (up to 100 150 mm) *
Cable laid ropes (76 mm 600 mm) *

STEEL WIRE ROPE

COMPONENTS

STANDARD STEEL WIRE ROPES

Lay direction (or twist) (important
feature when making strings) *
Ordinary lay and Langs lay *
Lay length (L) *
Lay factor (modulus = L/d) *

Slings *
Grommets *
Shackles *
Sister plates *
Bobbins *
Spreader elements (*)

1.

2.

3.

Slings made out of standard steel wire

ropes (up to say 150 mm diam.) *
Slings made out of cable laid ropes
(from 90 mm diam. and up)*
Grommets are all made out of cable laid
ropes *

DESIGN LOADS AND

RESISTANCE FACTORS

SLING PARTICULARS

EXAMPLE
RESISTANCE FACTORS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

1.

CRBL
(= CSBL/Es)
Splice efficiency (= Es = 0.75)
CSBL
(= WLL x Fs)
Safety factor
(= Fs = 2.25)
Workload limit
(= WLL)
Bearing length
Minimum lengths
Length tolerances
De-rating the WLL for bend *

Sling design load = 147 t

Sling work load limit to be at least 147 t
Minimum CSBL = 147 t x 2.25 = 331 t
To be a swaged spliced sling (Es =0.95)
CRBL = 331 t/ 0.95 = 348 t
Rope 80 mm chosen: CRBL = 411 t
Thence: actual CSBL = 411 t * 0.95 = 390 t
Safety factor for heavy lifting = 2.25
WLL = 390 t/ 2.25 = 173 t
UC = 147/173 = 0.85 UC is OK

GROMMETS RATING

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

LOAD SPREAD OVER TWO

PARTS OF THE LEG

For a connecting pin that can rotate without

friction, the load spread over the parts would
be exactly 50%+50% of the leg load.
However, pins are fixed bodies
The industry assumes a 10% friction for a wire
rope at the bend over the bearing area.
The extreme load spread over 2 parts then is:
45%+55%
Assumed load maximum is 55% in either one
of the two standing parts
The load spread factor applied then is:
55%/50% = 1.10

GROMMETS LOAD CAPACITY

(worked example)
1.

Splice efficiency (assumed) = 1.00

CGBL : 12 x strands CRBL x spinning
loss factor *
45%+55% load spread over 2 parts
De-rate the rope, related to the smaller
of the two pin radii.

Components design load = L

Safety factor for heavy lifting = Fs
Required minimum sling breaking load
= CSBLr = Fs x L
Actual minimum breaking load = CSBL
(figure from data-base or supplier)
WLL = CSBL / Fs
Unity check = UC = L / WLL

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Rope for core and strands = 32 mm

Cabled rope = 3 x 32 mm = 96 mm
CRBL of the strand ropes = 65.8 t
Spinning loss factor = 0.85
CGBL = 12 x 65.8 t x 0.85 = 671 t
Nominal WLL = 671 t/2.25 = 298 t
Bend efficiency (where D/d = 2.0) = 0.64
Load spread factor = 55%/50% = 1.10
De-rated WLL = 298 x 0.64/1.10 = 173 t

GROMMET LENGTH
SPECIFICATIONS

GROMMETS LENGTH
DEFINITION
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

Peripheral length *
Nominal bearing length (this is
specified on the purchase order) *
Applied bearing length (for the
conditions of the arrangement) *
Length tolerances for individual units
Length tolerances for a pair of
matched lengths

Ln

D
Lp = D =
peripheral length

UNITY CHECK (UC) ANALYSIS

Leg design load = 200 t (given)
Max load in either part = 0.55 x 200t =
110t
De-rated CSBL = 280 t (above slide)
WLL = 280 t / 2.25 = 124 t
UC = 110/124 = 0.89

Ln = nominal or
measured length

La = applied
length

DE-RATING A SLING
(worked example)

DOUBLE USE SLINGS

De-rating the WLL :
45% + 55% load spread due to friction
at bearing area *
Factor due to bending*
Bend efficiency is separate from splice
efficiency

La

Bend efficiency is separate from splice

efficiency
CRBL = 400 t (given)
Splice efficiency = 0.75 (hand splices)
CSBL = 400 t x 0.75 = 300 t
Sling doubled > D/d = 2.8
Bend efficiency = 0.70 (from diagram)
De-rated CSBL = 400 t x 0.70 = 280 t

EUROPEAN STANDARDS FOR

WIRE ROPE COMPONENTS

EN 13414-3 (standard in EU member states)

Rope Diameter
< 60 mm

Coefficient of
utilization
5

60 <D< 150 mm

6.33 0.022 D

> 150 mm

ORDERING NEW SLINGS

THE SHACKLE

CSBL
Diameter (indicative)
Nominal bearing length
Length of the eyes (In offshore heavy
lifting, eyes are of equal lengths)
Specify the splice type
Standard wire ropes may be swaged
spliced
Cabled ropes may have resin cast splices

The least complex of all rigging

components
Suppliers: Green Pin, Le-Bon, Crosby.
Specified by its brand, series and load
rating: (E.g.: Green Pin, Series P-6036,
WLL = 400 t)
Standard and Wide body shackles *
Keep the proper play: radial and axial
De-rating for side loads: 70% at 45; 50%
at 90 *

THE BOBBIN

LIFT POINTS

Increases the radius of the bend in

the rope and so improves bend
efficiency

Padeyes *
Padears
Trunnions (= twin barrels)
Consequence factor
Design lift point load
Orientation & leg angle
Misalignment

made out of heavy

wall tubing

bobbin
pin

LAMELLAR TEARING

END OF
CHAPTER 3

Defect in rolled steel plating

Below welded joints with high stress
concentration.
Due to poor throughthickness-ductility
Z-quality steel plating shall be applied

Load

defect

(TENSILE RIGGING
COMPONENTS)
1

THE RIGGING
ARRANGEMENT

CHAPTER 4

THE RIGGING
ARRANGEMENT

Simple arrangements: 2, 3 or 4 legs

Complex arrangements: spreader
components applied
Proper fit and best fit arrangement
Data base for rope components
MTO
Verify if MTO wt wt. budget

LOAD SPREAD OVER THE

LIFT POINTS

A PARADE OF RIGGING
ARRANGEMENTS

LIFT POINT LOAD 1

Assess the lift point load by:
Vertical lift point force
Leg angle
Skew load factor (where applicable) *
Other factors

Assess vertical lift point force by:

The lift weight figure
The number of lift points
The COG position (in plan)
The COG envelope (in plan)
Lift points locations

LIFT POINT LOAD 2

Vertical lift
point force

Lift point
load
Leg angle

THE LIFT POINT DESIGN

LOAD

LEG DESIGN LOAD

Assess leg design load by:
The lift point load
Add: weight of the leg
Get: base load in the leg
Apply factor: to achieve the leg
design load

Assess lift point design load by:

The lift point load
Consequence factor: 1.5 >> (1.5 x
100%/66% = 2.25 )
Other factors

LEG COMPOSITION &

LOAD SPREAD
Single

part leg (100%)

Double parts (max = 55%)
Four parts (max = 30.3%)

COMPONENT DESIGN LOAD

The leg design load has been

assessed
The number of leg parts: 1, 2 or 4
The design load in one leg part
(55% or 30.3%)

LEG DETAILS
PARADE OF LEG
COMPOSITIONS

Leg detailed diagram is required to

prove clearance margins (where last
tucks are clear from pin)