Validation of Analysis Methods for Pad Eye

Attachment Through Destructive Testing

Planning, Production Process & Facilities Panel

What is Shipyard Rigging?

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

Ship Block Construction Examples

Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types

Types:

Lap-on

Blade

Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types

Lap-on Pad Eyes

Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types

Lap-on Pad Eyes

Typical Shipyard Lifting Pad Eye Types

Blade Pad Eyes

Review of Typical Shipyard Pad Eye Types

Blade Pad Eye

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

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

10

Literal Survey

11

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

12

Elastic Method

Elastic Method Assumptions:

Rotation occurs about the centroid of

the weld configuration.

The load caused by torsion is

proportional to the distance from the
centroid.

The direction of the force caused by

torsion is assumed to be perpendicular
to the centroid.

The components of the forces caused

by direct load and by torsion are
combined vectorially to obtain a
resultant force.

The critical element, where shear failure will

first occur, will usually have the greatest
distance from the centroid of the weld group.

13

Elastic Method

The process below describes the elastic method as detailed by

Shigley, Mischke, and Budynas in their Mechanical Engineering
Design textbook.

1.

b = horizontal weld length

2.

d = vertical weld length

3.

h = weld leg width

4.

e = the in-plane eccentricity of the applied load from the closest

weld face

5.

Xbar = location of the weld group center of gravity in X coordinate

6.

Ybar = location of the weld group center of gravity in Y coordinate

b=

4.0000

in

7.

l = distance from the weld group center of gravity to the eccentric

load

d=

8.0000

in

h=

0.1875

in

e=

3.0000

in

Xbar =

2.0000

in

Ybar =

4.0000

in

l=

5.0000

in

r=

4.4721

in

q=

0.4636

rad.
deg.

8.
9.

r = distance from the weld group center of gravity to the furthest

weld element
q = angle of the weld element reaction

10. A = weld group area

11. Jo = weld group polar moment of inertia
12. tmax = maximum weld capacity from manufacturer
13. P = maximum load capacity of the weld group

A1-1

q=

26.5651

A=

3.1820

in2

Jo =

38.1838

in4

tmax =

70.0000

ksi

P=

89.8981

kips

14

Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method

Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method

Assumptions

Rotation occurs about an

instantaneous center of rotation.

The fillet weld group is divided into

a number of finite elements. The
resistance of the weld group to the
external eccentric load is provided
by the combined resistances of the
weld elements.

The load deformation response of

a fillet weld loaded in compression
shear is the same as for a similar
weld loaded in tension shear.

The ultimate strength of a weld

group is obtained when the
maximum deformation of any weld
element is reached.
15

Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method

16

Instantaneous Center of Rotation Method

ro =
e=
FEXX =
Horizontal
Segments

0.3927 in
7.0000 in
70 ksi
Length
a
(in)
(in)

A1-1 (As Designed)

b
(in)

te
(in)

X
(in)

Y
(in)

rj
(in)

1
2
3
4

1
1
1
1
Length
(in)

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
a
(in)

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
b
(in)

0.1326
0.1326
0.1326
0.1326
te
(in)

3.8927
2.8927
1.8927
0.8927
X
(in)

4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
Y
(in)

5.5815
4.9364
4.4252
4.0984
ri
(in)

5
6
7
8

1
1
1
1
Length
(in)

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
a
(in)

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
b
(in)

0.1326
0.1326
0.1326
0.1326
te
(in)

0.3927
0.3927
0.3927
0.3927
X
(in)

3.5000
2.5000
1.5000
0.5000
Y
(in)

3.5220
2.5307
1.5506
0.6358
ri
(in)

9
10
11
12

1
1
1
1

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875

0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875

0.1326
0.1326
0.1326
0.1326

4.3927
4.3927
4.3927
4.3927

3.5000
2.5000
1.5000
0.5000

5.6166
5.0543
4.6418
4.4211

Vertical
Segments

Vertical
Segments

qj
(Radian
s)
0.7718
0.6261
0.4420
0.2196
qi
(Radian
s)
1.4591
1.4150
1.3147
0.9050
qi
(Radian
s)
0.6728
0.5174
0.3291
0.1133

qj
(Degree
s)
44.2212
35.8737
25.3225
12.5810
qi
(Degree
s)
83.5979
81.0726
75.3287
51.8528
qi
(Degree
s)
38.5469
29.6452
18.8537
6.4937

Dm
(in)

Du
(in)

Du/rj

Dj
(in)

Dj/Dm

Rj
(ksi)

(Rj)x
(ksi)

(Rj)y
(ksi)

Rjrj
(k-in)

0.0115
0.0122
0.0136
0.0166
Dm
(in)

0.0160
0.0180
0.0217
0.0305
Du
(in)

0.0029
0.0036
0.0049
0.0074
Du/ri

0.0160
0.0141
0.0127
0.0117
Di
(in)

1.3908
1.1541
0.9319
0.7060
Di/Dm

6.9702
6.8052
6.3263
5.6558
Ri
(ksi)

4.9952
5.5144
5.7184
5.5200
(Ri)x
(ksi)

4.8612
3.9879
2.7058
1.2319
(Ri)y
(ksi)

38.9043
33.5932
27.9951
23.1797
Riri
(k-in)

0.0094
0.0095
0.0097
0.0109
Dm
(in)

0.0110
0.0112
0.0117
0.0146
Du
(in)

0.0031
0.0044
0.0075
0.0229
Du/ri

0.0101
0.0072
0.0044
0.0018
Di
(in)

1.0689
0.7607
0.4555
0.1664
Di/Dm

8.3332
8.1091
7.3158
5.1868
Ri
(ksi)

8.2813
8.0109
7.0772
4.0790
(Ri)x
(ksi)

0.9292 29.3493
1.2584 20.5214
1.8529 11.3435
3.2038 3.2977
(Ri)y
Riri
(ksi)
(k-in)

0.0120
0.0130
0.0148
0.0198

0.0173
0.0200
0.0252
0.0319

0.0031
0.0040
0.0054
0.0072

0.0161
0.0145
0.0133
0.0127

1.3421
1.1156
0.8966
0.6406

6.7863
6.5361
6.0432
5.4002

4.2289
3.2329
1.9529
0.6107

5.3075
5.6806
5.7190
5.3655

38.1155
33.0354
28.0513
23.8746
311.260
: 79.4682 59.2218 42.1038
9
P=
84.2075 k
84.2075 k

17

C-coefficient Tables Method

The C-coefficient was derived using the strength method

using a specific load angle at different load eccentricities.

It represents a non-dimensional effective strength of the

weld group as it resists the eccentric shear force.

The coefficient itself is the resultant of the weld group

geometry parameter, k, and a load eccentricity
parameter, a.

Once the k and a values are determined, a double linear

interpolation is then used to establish a specific C value
for a weld group at a particular loading eccentricity and
angle.

18

C-coefficient Tables Method

a

k
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0.00

5.57

5.88

6.20

6.51

6.83

7.15

7.46

7.78

8.09

8.41

8.72

9.35

9.98

10.60

11.20

11.90

0.10

4.32

4.68

5.08

5.54

6.02

6.49

6.95

7.40

7.82

8.23

8.62

9.37

10.10

10.80

11.50

12.10

0.15

3.90

4.24

4.65

5.08

5.55

6.04

6.52

7.00

7.47

7.92

8.36

9.18

9.96

10.70

11.40

12.10

0.20

3.54

3.86

4.26

4.69

5.14

5.61

6.10

6.60

7.08

7.56

8.03

8.92

9.76

10.60

11.30

12.10

0.25

3.22

3.53

3.91

4.34

4.77

5.23

5.71

6.20

6.69

7.19

7.67

8.61

9.50

10.30

11.20

12.00

0.30

2.94

3.24

3.60

4.01

4.44

4.88

5.35

5.83

6.32

6.82

7.31

8.27

9.20

10.10

11.00

11.80

0.40

2.48

2.76

3.09

3.46

3.87

4.30

4.73

5.18

5.65

6.13

6.62

7.60

8.57

9.52

10.40

11.30

0.50

2.14

2.38

2.69

3.03

3.40

3.80

4.21

4.64

5.07

5.53

6.00

6.96

7.93

8.90

9.85

10.80

0.60

1.87

2.09

2.37

2.68

3.02

3.39

3.78

4.18

4.59

5.02

5.46

6.38

7.34

8.30

9.26

10.20

0.70

1.65

1.86

2.11

2.40

2.71

3.05

3.41

3.79

4.18

4.58

5.00

5.87

6.79

7.73

8.69

9.64

0.80

1.48

1.67

1.90

2.16

2.45

2.77

3.10

3.46

3.82

4.20

4.60

5.42

6.30

7.21

8.14

9.09

0.90

1.34

1.51

1.73

1.97

2.24

2.53

2.84

3.17

3.52

3.88

4.25

5.03

5.86

6.73

7.64

8.56

1.00

1.22

1.38

1.58

1.81

2.06

2.33

2.62

2.92

3.25

3.59

3.94

4.68

5.47

6.31

7.18

8.07

1.20

1.04

1.17

1.35

1.55

1.76

2.00

2.26

2.53

2.82

3.12

3.43

4.10

4.81

5.57

6.37

7.21

1.40

0.90

1.02

1.17

1.35

1.54

1.75

1.98

2.22

2.48

2.75

3.03

3.64

4.29

4.98

5.71

6.48

1.60

0.79

0.90

1.04

1.19

1.37

1.56

1.76

1.98

2.21

2.45

2.71

3.26

3.85

4.48

5.16

5.85

1.80

0.71

0.81

0.93

1.07

1.23

1.40

1.59

1.78

1.99

2.22

2.45

2.95

3.49

4.08

4.69

5.33

2.00

0.64

0.73

0.84

0.97

1.12

1.27

1.44

1.62

1.81

2.02

2.23

2.69

3.19

3.73

4.30

4.89

2.20

0.59

0.67

0.77

0.89

1.02

1.17

1.32

1.49

1.66

1.85

2.05

2.48

2.94

3.44

3.97

4.51

2.40

0.54

0.61

0.71

0.82

0.94

1.07

1.22

1.37

1.54

1.71

1.89

2.29

2.72

3.18

3.68

4.19

2.60

0.50

0.57

0.66

0.76

0.87

1.00

1.13

1.27

1.43

1.59

1.76

2.13

2.53

2.97

3.42

3.90

2.80

0.46

0.53

0.61

0.71

0.81

0.93

1.05

1.19

1.33

1.48

1.64

1.99

2.37

2.77

3.20

3.65

3.00

0.43

0.49

0.57

0.66

0.76

0.87

0.99

1.11

1.25

1.39

1.54

1.87

2.22

2.60

3.01

3.43

19

C-coefficient Tables Method

The process below describes the C-coefficient method as detailed by the

American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Construction Manual and
C.G. Salmon and J.E. Johnson in their Steel Structures Design and
Behavior textbook.

1.

D = number of sixteenths of an inch of fillet weld required

2.

C1 = Electrode strength coefficient

3.

l = characteristic length of weld group

4.

kl = weld length opposite of characteristic length

5.

ex = distance from the weld group centroid to the eccentric load

6.

a = ex/L

7.

k = kl/l

8.

Values for a and k were placed into AISC tables 8-7 through 8-9,
depending on the weld group configuration. A value for the C-coefficient
was determined using double linear interpolation.

9.

The value for P, the maximum load capacity of the weld group was then
calculated.

20

Computer Aided Finite Element Analysis Method

For ductile materials like steel,

local high stresses calculated
from linear-elastic finite
element analysis will appear to
indicate failure, whereas the
actual behavior of the structure
may result in localized yielding
and a redistribution of the
overload stresses to other
nearby locations that are not
heavily stressed.

21

Calculation Methods vs. Rigging Standards

Each method studied was developed for civil engineering purposes;

buildings, bridges, etc.

Rigging or ship building specific weld calculation and analysis

methods were not found.

Civil construction considers in plane loading only

Side loading, turning loads, as well as in plane loads are

common during rigging evolutions.

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

22

Design of Test Program

Subcontracting San Diego State

University

Multi-channel digital data

acquisition system available

Displacement control testing:

Allowing the capture of

data beyond ultimate
capacity

Personnel in place to assist

with non-linear finite element
analysis
23

Design of Test Program

Design Considerations:

Test machine at SDSU:

220 kips Maximum capacity

6-inches total displacement

Smallest one pass weld size:

3/16-inch with idealized weld throat

70 ksi weld wire

FCAW

Failure to occur in the weld ONLY

Pad eyes and backing plate suitable size and strength

A36 steel for test jig and specimens (Fy: 36 ksi, Fu: 58 ksi)

24

Design of Test Program

25

Design of Test Program

26

Develop FE Models for Supporting Analysis

All FEA completed using
SAP2000 v15

Plate and linkage elements

modeled with linear elastic
properties

27

Develop FE Models for Supporting Analysis

1.6
1.5

90o
75o

1.4

60o

Values

1.3
45o

Normalized Weld Load, Ri/[0.6FEXXte]

1.2
30o

1.1
1.0
0.9

15o

0.8

Beam elements with nonlinear plastic hinges used

to model weld segments

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

0o
= Angle between force and axis of fillet weld

Compression link
elements used for
boundary condition

Ri = 0.6FEXXte(1.0 + 0.5sin1.5)[(i/m)(1.9 - 0.9(i/m)]0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Normalized Weld Deformation, /(weld leg size)

28

Initial Calculations
Initial Design Values

A1-1
A1-2
A1-3
A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
A4-1
A5-1
A6-1

Elastic Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)

Strength Method
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)

AISC Manual
(@ 70.00 ksi) (kips)

SAP2000 (kips)

89.898
47.348
80.099
111.690
60.363
105.163
130.998
74.637
124.050
15.201
33.065
51.769

84.208
51.061
66.113
112.065
73.941
90.325
134.023
96.475
113.257
53.610
73.755
95.976

84.330
51.120
66.240
104.100
70.140
90.100
126.072
91.344
112.728
12.060
33.000
56.340

89.900
59.600
81.000
106.050
73.100
101.730
116.200
81.571
114.677
76.260
111.164
148.837

29

Prepare Instrumentation Plan

30

Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs

Test Plate T4 after ultimate load

ADAPTER PLATE

LINK PLATE

90 DEGREE LINK ADAPTER PLATE

BOSS PLATES

31

Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs

A1-1

A1-2

A1-3

A2-1

A2-2

A2-3

A3-1

A3-2

A3-3

A4-1

A5-1

A6-1

32

Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs

Weld Leg 1 Measurement

Weld Leg 2 Measurement

Weld legs measured at every 1-inch

Used to refine calculations

33

Manufacture Test Pad Eyes and Jigs

Change in weld throat properties due to

weld technique:

34

Refined Calculations Based on New Throat

Elastic Method
Strength Method
AISC Manual
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
(@ 70.00 ksi) Avg. h (@ 70.00 ksi) Adjusted t (@70.00 ksi) Avg. h
A1-1

111.618

103.533

104.704

306.179

A1-2

58.787

58.907

63.471

58.876

A1-3

99.451

78.743

82.244

320.560

A2-1

138.675

142.586

129.251

104.370

A2-2

74.946

97.012

87.086

72.093

A2-3

130.571

119.049

111.868

100.093

A3-1

162.647

174.288

156.531

114.296

A3-2

92.670

125.698

113.413

80.800

A3-3

154.020

153.515

139.963

112.796

A4-1

18.874

68.497

14.974

68.442

A5-1

41.054

94.237

40.973

111.164

A6-1

64.277

122.627

69.952

81.952

35

Conduct Test Program

36

Conduct Test Program

Tested Capacity (kips)

A1-1
A1-2
A1-3
A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
A4-1
A5-1
A6-1

?
126.430
168.660
201.875
119.800
197.120
>220.000
151.820
>220.000
71.989
123.960
139.700

37

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Weld Failure Mechanisms

1)

Incomplete fusion
1)

2)

Porosity
1)

3)

Entrapment of slag because of rapid cooling

Undercutting
1)

5)

Voids or small gas pockets trapped while

cooling

Slag inclusion
1)

4)

Failure of the base metal and adjacent weld

metal to fuse together completely

An unfilled grove melted into the base

material adjacent to the toe of the weld

Cracks
1)

Longitudinal or transverse breaks in the weld

2)

Micro fractures
38

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A1-1:

Tension side
of weld group.

39

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A1-1:

Compression
side of weld
group.

40

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A1-2:

Compression
side of weld
group.

Fusion.

41

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A1-2:

Corner of weld
group.

42

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A1-3:

Complete weld
group.

Shear failure
on
Compression
side

43

Review and Document Test Failure Mechanisms

Test A2-2:

Shear almost
completely
along leg b.

44

Example of FE Analysis
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03
SP2

0.04
SP5

0.05
SP8

0.06
A2-1

0.07
A2-2

0.08

0.09

0.10

A2-3

45

Actual Weld Material Strength

46

Test Data and Analysis Correlation

Percentage of Actual Capacity to Calculated Capacity
Test Specimen

Elastic Method
Strength Method
AISC Manual
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
(@ 85.57 ksi) Avg. h (@ 85.57 ksi) Adjusted t (@90 ksi) Avg. h

A1-1

UNK

UNK

UNK

UNK

A1-2

143.16%

143.04%

141.77%

153.43%

A1-3

127.92%

143.12%

143.43%

190.06%

A2-1

116.03%

113.66%

125.73%

148.30%

A2-2

123.53%

101.01%

115.68%

139.82%

A2-3

119.03%

126.17%

134.17%

149.22%

A3-1

>126.06%

>120.78%

>128.85%

148.05%

A3-2

125.38%

98.79%

113.35%

146.78%

A3-3

>129.99%

>130.22%

>136.38%

148.73%

Average

125.84%

120.97%

129.02%

154.60%

Test Specimen

Elastic Method
Strength Method
AISC Manual
SAP2000 (Adjusted t)
(@ 85.57 ksi) Avg. h (@ 85.57 ksi) Adjusted t (@90 ksi) Avg. h

A4-1

167.95%

83.69%

175.87%

104.93%

A5-1

159.51%

107.07%

161.66%

110.32%

A6-1

143.75%

92.70%

141.92%

141.34%

Average

157.07%

94.48%

159.82%

118.86%

47

Conclusion
All equations for in-plane eccentrically loaded lap-on and blade type pad eyes
were found to be conservative with regards to the tests ran for this project.
Several variables needed to be changed in order to get calculated values
closer to actual:
Weld leg/throat size
Weld strength
Further development is needed in order to establish non-linear FEA reliability as
a viable design tool.
Further research is recommended in order to continue validation of weld design
and analysis methods with regards to shipyard construction:
Side loading
Cyclical loading caused by wind or crane travel
Materials other than steel
Loading through the block lifting and turning process

48

Conclusion

Questions?

49