FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SPREADER BAR BY

UTILIZING THE ARRANGEMENT AND CONNECTION OF

PADEYES

Che Zaid Bin Zakaria1* and Nuraini Abdul Aziz 1

1
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
Phone: +60389464382; Fax: +603 86567122

ABSTRACT

Heavy lifting is one of several methods used for marine installation of

heavy equipment while spreader bar (SB) is widely used in heavy lifting.
The application of SB is mainly to avoid an overstress in the structure
when being lifts which due to sling arrangement in bridle. SB is typically
made of high strength tubular pipe with padeye/trunnion attached.
Comparison between 3 types of padeye arrangements on SB is made based
on its strength properties as reflected in API RP 2A 22nd edition to ensure
its optimum design centred on material’s weight and welding work
criteria. The buckling load for lightest pipe among 3 types of SB is then
calculated. Finite element analysis (FEA) is performed to verify design
stresses and buckling load of selected pipe. From observation, the
thickness of tubular pipe can be reduced up to 50 percent compared to
other SB types by setting the centre line (CL) of upper padeye to be in line
with tubular pipe axis.

KEYWORDS: Spreader bar, heavy lifting, Euler stress, padeye, finite element

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, major drilling and production facilities of oil and gas industry are located
offshore and thus installing this equipment necessitate efficiency and safety. The
industry has developed a number of ways to overcome heavy lift challenges through
experience and innovation. Heavy lifting is among main methods of marine installation
for heavy equipment. The conventional way to install major facilities, such as topsides
and production equipment, is through heavylift vessel (www.rigzone.com). Heerema's
Thialf and Saipem's S7000, (by then renamed) were upgraded such that the combined
lifting capacity of two cranes on each vessel is 14200 tonnes and 14000 tonnes
respectively. The Balder and Hermod semi-submersible crane vessels (SSCV) were
each fitted with two enormous cranes. S7000 is well-known for holding world record
for an actual lift of 12150 tonnes and for lifted 9500 tonnes jacket in 2007 for Pemex in
dynamic positioning mode. Also, Thialf has a staggering lifting capacity of 14200 tonne

*Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 77

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

or equivalent to weight of more than 1180 fully laden London buses (offshore-
technology.com).
During heavy lifting, the structure is subjected to higher stress due to its self-weight and
dynamic load from variation of hoisting speeds, crane, vessel motions, cargo barge
movements, object movements and others. (DNV VMO, 2014). Thicker and higher
strength of steels are used in designing installation aids for heavy lifting. The use of
slings in bridle arrangement configuration will induce stress in the structure. This
additional stress can be eliminated using SB. By utilizing SB to vertically line up the
sling on top of structure’s lifting point, this will allow a straight pull movement. SB is a
structure designed to resist compression forces induced by angled slings, by altering line
of action’s force on lift point into the vertical plane. (GL Nobel Denton, 2013).

Upper Sling
Upper padeyes
Spreader bar
(SB)

Lower Sling
Delta
Plate

Lower padeyes Stiffener plate

Figure 1. Common SB padeye

design

Figure 1. Typical rigging arrangement using

single SB

Tubular pipe is commonly used in designing SB, as shown in Figure 1, due to its
constant properties in any sectional direction if compared to I beam which have a
combination of strong and weak axis. There are two types of SB padeye design usually
found in offshore lifting (Figure 2) where the differences are on bottom padeye’s
design. Where, bottom part of type 2 padeye is fabricated in form of delta plate whereas
bottom of type 1 padeye is sharing same plate with its top.
Type 1 is using less material and welding filler because of simplicity of lifting point
(padeye) connection design. Though by sharing a same plate, bottom shackle’s need to
be de-rated (depend on manufacture) since side loading applied to the shackle will
caused larger size of shackle (Figure 3). Increased size of shackle will lead to larger
plate needed and stimulate weight gain of lifting system, whereas type 2 will require
more material to be used in fabricating delta plate. By introducing delta plate, top
padeye will need to be shifted away from bottom padeye to avoid clashes between top
shackle and delta plate. This arrangement will result in a bigger in-plane moment hence
thicker pipe need to be used.

78 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Upper shackles

Lower shackles

Figure 3. Position of shackle at spreader beam (Product Datasheet, http://www.nli.no)

The plate used to fabricate padeye is made from through-thickness (Wang, et al., 2015)
property material to avoid failure due to lamellar tearing during lifting. Lamellar tearing
is a separation in parent or based metal caused by through-thickness strains. Such
strains are induced primarily by weld metal shrinkage under conditions of high strain.
When detected, lamellar tearing can result in often difficult and costly repairs and
subsequent construction delays (Ship Structure Committee, 1979). Furthermore,
required type of steel is barely available in the market therefore require to be procure
within at least 3 months in advance, depending on its availability. Therefore, if any
defect detected during fabrication, schedule of offshore installation campaign will be
drag forward until procurement of material is completed.
Also, the limitation on rigging weight due to operational/material handling issue or as
per client’s requirement on “Not to Exceed Weight” need to be considered. Hence,
designing SB using relatively thinner material for weight reduction and lessen welding
work to reduce risk of defect in welding is essential.
In this study, an advanced SB padeye design (Type 3) and comparison analysis with
other two common SB padeye design is introduce where main plate of padeye (Figure
4) is slotted through tubular pipe in order to get maximum lifting capacity by
transferring load through weld at joint. Tubular joint without stiffener inside the chord
will cause chord to experience punching stress thus reducing its capacity. Therefore, slot
in connection is ideal for designing connection between lifting point and tubular pipe.
Lifting point on SB is installed right above lifting point of module to ensure that vertical
pull conditions can be achieve without overstress due to sling arrangement occurred in
lifted structure.

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 79

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Wall thickness
Outer diameter
Tubular pipe
A

Length of SB, l
View A-A
(Cross Sectional
Figure 2. New spreader bar padeye design Area)

2.0 MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Material

For the purpose of this study, SBs are design to lift the 19620N structure. Lifting
arrangement is shown in Figure 1. The length of SB is fixed to 800mm based on
distance between two lifting point of structure and dimensions of SB’s geometry is
detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Geometry details for each SB

Items Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Outer Diameter (mm) 42.40 48.30 26.9
Wall Thickness (mm) 2.60 4.90 2.0
Cross Sectional Area(mm2) 325.10 668.10 156.45
Slenderness Ratio Kl/r 56.73 51.81 120.77
Total Weight (N) 54.76 70.49 26.33

Material properties selected for fabrication of plates and tubular are mild steel which in
compliance to ASTM A36 for plate and ASTM A106 Grade B for pipe. Calculations are
based on minimum yield strength of relevant material grade as specified in Table 3.

Table 2. Material properties

Density in air 7.74E-5 N/mm3
Young’s Modulus, E 210000 MPa
Shear Modulus, G 80000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.3

80 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Table 3. Strength of Material

Tensile
Yield Stress
Steel Grade Strength Remark
(MPa)
(MPa)
ASTM A36 248 400-550 For Lifting Point (padeye)
ASTM A106 Grade B 240 415 Min. Spreader

2.2 Tubular Design Criteria Mathematical Modelling

Force in horizontal component produce a compressive stress on tubular and assume to

be matched with Euler’s theory of buckling. Euler formula is derived for an ideal or
perfect column which the theory is simple enough to be applied. Though, the formula is
constructs on a couple of assumptions that rarely comply with real conditions as
highlighted below (McKenzie, 2006):
 The compression load acts through absolute centre of columns cross sectional
area.
 The column is completely a long, slender, straight and homogeneous even
before concentric axial compressive load is applied. Slenderness is defined as
the ratio between height and cross-sectional dimensions of column. Slender
columns which subject to buckling will produces additional moment resulting in
significant reduction of column capacity.
 The column’s material is elastic and follows Hooke’s law.
 There are no imperfections in the column.
 Lateral deflections of the column are small compared to overall length (the
column’s displacement is small).
 The column is pin-jointed at each end and restrained against lateral loading.
 There are no residual stresses in the column.
 There is no strain hardening on the material.
Since self-weight of SB is relatively too small compared to sling load, it is possible to
neglect the weight from here. Common design of SB normally produced moment due to
padeye eccentricity as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 3. Free Body Diagram for SB type 1 and 2

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 81

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Total moment at a point x from either end (boundary condition) gives:

𝑀(𝑥) − 𝑃𝑦 − 𝐹𝑥 = 0 0≤𝑥≤𝑎 (1)

𝑀(𝑥) − 𝑃𝑦 − 𝐹𝑎 = 0 𝑎 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ (𝐿 − 𝑎) (2)

𝑀(𝑥) − 𝑃𝑦 − 𝐹𝐿 + 𝐹𝑥 = 0 (𝐿 − 𝑎) ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝐿 (3)

Where:
M = Total Moment, P = Axial Load, F = Vertical Load
P and F are derived from calculated sling load based on rigging arrangement as shown
in Figure 1.
From equation (1), (2) and (3), it shows that SB is needed to resist axial compressive
force and bending moment. Thus, Figure 5 shows the eccentricity on geometry that
generates moment in SB where the bending moment created will reduced the capacity
of SB.
Any force that applied to SB at neutral axis resulted in a purely compression force in
tubular pipe. Therefore, forces that are not lined up with neutral axis generate bending
force or bending moment. SB that is subjected to bending forces and/or bending
moments is more difficult to be properly design and will no longer be simple and light
weight construction as preferred (heavyliftnews.com).
To eliminate eccentricity, padeye’s top is moved to CL of tubular pipe and left Euler
buckling as an only mode of failure for SB. This concept is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 4. Free Body Diagram for New SB Design

When lateral displacement is y, summation of moments on beam section is (Chen et al.,

1999):
𝑑2 𝑦 𝑑2 𝑦
𝑀 + 𝑃𝑦 = 0, 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑀 = 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 2 , 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 2 + 𝑃𝑦 = 0 (4)
Solution for equation for is 𝑦 = 𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝑘𝑥) (5)
By solving equation (4), smallest value of P is known as critical load, buckling load, or
Euler formula:
𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼 𝜋2𝐸
𝑃𝐸 = 𝑃𝑐𝑟 = = 𝑘𝐿 2
(6)
𝐿2 ( )
𝑟

According to API RP2A WSD 22nd Edition, allowable Axial Compressive stress, 𝐹𝑎
must be determined from the following AISC formulas for members with D/t ratio or
less than 60. In the (AISC ASD, 9th Edition) equations for allowable compressive
stresses, various imperfections such as effect of residual stresses, actual end restraint
conditions, crookedness, and small unavoidable eccentricities are empirically taken into
account.

82 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

The API code which is based on AISC 9th Edition requirement assumes arbitrarily that
the elastic buckling holds valid when stress in the column is not greater than one-half of
the yield stress (Fy/2) (J.S.Arora, http://user.engineering.uiowa.edu).

For column having effective length less than Cc, it is assuming the failure by crushing
of the material induced by predominantly axial compressive stresses. Failure occurs
when stress over cross-section reaches yield or crushing value for the material.
𝐹𝑎

𝑘𝑙 2
( )
[1 − 𝑟 2 ] 𝐹𝑦
𝐹𝑦 2𝐶𝑐

0.5𝐹𝑦
𝐸𝑞. (7)
𝐸𝑞. (6)

𝐸𝑞. (8)
𝑘𝐿
𝐶𝑐
𝑟

Figure 5: Variation of critical stress and allowable stress as specified by the API code

3.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite Element Analysis is widely used in offshore industry to design offshore and
subsea structure. All structures were modelled using Space Claim (ANSYS Package).

In SpaceClaim, spreader bar components i.e tubular pipe, main plate of padeye, cheek
plate and stiffener are group together and Shared Topology is activated. Shared
Topology occurs is triggered when bodies are grouped into multibody parts. It allows
for a continuous mesh across common regions where bodies touch, instead of having to
define Contact Regions in the ANSYS Workbench. These bodies share topology in the
region where they are in contact with, so the mesh is continuous across part as shown in
Figure 8. It is often, but not always, more desirable for analysis to have a continuous
mesh across parts than to use contact (ANSYS 14.5 User Guide).

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 83

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

3
x

1 1
4 Legend:
x x
x 1-Tubular Pipe
2- Padeye-main plate
2 4 3. Padeye-cheek plate
x x 4. Stiffener plate

3
x

Figure 6. Typical details of SB components and continuous meshing across the parts

Figure 7. SOLID186 homogeneous structural solid geometry

84 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

The model then exported to ANSYS for assignment of materials and contact details.
The meshing is performed with element size of 5mm as shown in Figure 9 and
SOLID186 Element is assigned to the geometry. SOLID186 is a higher order 3-D 20-
node solid element that exhibits quadratic displacement behaviour where the element is
defined by 20 nodes having three degrees of freedom per node: translations in the nodal
x, y, and z directions. The geometry, node locations, and element coordinate system for
this element are shown in Figure 9. A prism-shaped element may be formed by defining
the same node numbers for nodes K, L, and S; nodes A and B; and nodes O, P, and W.
A tetrahedral-shaped element and a pyramid-shaped element may also be formed
(ANSYS 14.5 User Guide) as shown in Figure 9.

Summary of mesh statistic for each type of SB is as shown in Table 4. The static
structural analysis is performed to determine the stress level for imposed load. Then the
data is exported to linear buckling module to find critical buckling load for each type of
SB.

Table 4. Mesh Statistic for each type of tubular pipe

Item Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Nodes 12251 124060 74675
Elements 8766 25018 28507
Mesh Metric (Average Aspect Ratio) 4.78 4.19 2.83

Bearing load is then assigned to the surface of upper padeye’s pinhole representing
dynamic sling load (DSL) applied to SB as shown in Figure 10, 11 and 12 for SB type
1, 2, and 3 respectively. As defined by ANSYS, the bearing load simulates radial forces
only and applied on interior of cylinder in the radial direction by using a coordinate
system (ANSYS 14.5 User Guide).

In addition, torsion is imposed to the surface of pinhole for upper and bottom padeye to
distributes moment "about" (the vector of) an axis curved faces where right-hand rule is
applied to determine sense of moment.

Remote displacement applied to the surface of bottom padeye’s pinhole as a boundary

condition allows displacements and rotations application at an arbitrary remote location
in space. The origin of remote location can be specified under scope in details view by
selecting or entering the XYZ coordinates. The default location is at the centroid of the
geometry. These remote boundary conditions are all based on the use of a remote point,
be it created by the boundary condition itself, or by being scoped to Remote Point
object (ANSYS 14.5 User Guide).

Details of loading are as specified in Table 5.

Table 5. Detail of loading condition for each of SB
Items Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Horizontal Force (N) 10035.39 9679.53 10498.02
Vertical Force (N) 18149.11 30248.52 30248.52
Lateral Force (N) 1036.94 1587.98 1600.92

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 85

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Note:
Loadings are derived from rigging arrangement as shown in Figure 1. The maximum loading in upper
sling is separated into horizontal (parallel to longitudinal axis of SB) and vertical component. Latera load
is assuming 5 percent of DSL.

Figure 8 (a). Loading and boundary condition applied to the SB type 1

Figure 10(b). Detail of loading condition and boundary condition applied to the SB
type 1

86 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Figure 9 (a). Loading and boundary condition applied to the SB type 2

Figure 11(b). Detail of loading and boundary condition applied to the SB type 2

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 87

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Figure 10 (a). Loading and boundary condition applied to the SB type 3

Figure 12(b). Detail of Loading and Boundary Condition applied to the SB type 3

Once stress result is found, linearization of stress is performed. The linearized stress
results calculate membrane, bending, peak, and total stress along a straight-line path in
the ANSYS workbench. When result is evaluated (stress linearization), component
stress values at the path points are interpolated from appropriate element's average
corner nodal values. Stress components through the section are linearized by a line
integral method and are separated into constant membrane stresses, bending stresses
varying linearly between end points, and peak stresses (defined as differences between
actual (total) stress and membrane plus bending combination). The details view shows
membrane, bending, membrane + bending, peak, and total stresses. The bending
stresses are calculated such that neutral axis is at midpoint of the path. Principal stresses
are recalculated from the component stresses and are invariant with the coordinate
system as long as stress is in the same direction at all points along the defined path
(ANSYS 14.5 User Guide).

88 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

4.0 EXPERIMENT

The objective of the testing program is to determine critical buckling loads for tubular
under compressive force which conducted according to ASTM E9. Only tubular pipe
for SB type 3 is used in the experiment. In total, 5 specimens are used in this testing.

Figure 11. Experiment set-up

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The tubular size selected as in Table 1 is based on loading applied to the SB structure.
Due to huge moment for SB type 2, bigger diameter needs to be selected. Total weight
of SB type 1 and 2 are more than 50 percent heavier than SB type 3. The weight ratios
(SB’s weight/weight of lifted structure) are 0.30, 0.41 and 0.15 percent for SB type 1, 2
and 3 respectively. The differences in sling loads for SB type 1 and 2 are due to the
eccentricity of padeyes (Figure 5) where eccentricity is varying on padeye’s
arrangement (Figure 2). For SB type 1 and 2, the eccentricities are 10mm and 30mm
respectively. No eccentricity should be considered for SB type 3 since the CL of top
padeye lay at similar line with CL of tubular pipe. SB type 2 having a biggest
eccentricity is since delta plate arrangement requires it to be installed far away from
upper padeye to ensure that it will not clash with shackle that was installed at the top of
padeye. Therefore, padeye type 2 produce highest moment among other types of SB
thus require thickest material in design.

The buckling load as specified in Equation (6) is depending upon geometry and elastic
modulus of column and not upon the strength of it. However, in AISC ASD, 9th Edition,
the equations for allowable compressive stresses, various imperfections such as effect of
residual stresses, the actual end restraint conditions, crookedness, and small unavoidable
eccentricities are empirically taken into account. To get a buckling stress, buckling load
is divided by area of cross section. Considering that buckling stress is found as above, it
is noted that allowable compressive stress is fall beyond elastic region for type 1 and 2

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 89

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

of the SB therefore, buckling load did not applied since excessive yielding occurs
before reaching the buckling.
For type 1, maximum moment allowed is 5.49E+05N.mm which equivalent to 75
percent of tubular yield strength. Design moment is 2.24E+05N.mm which at 41 percent
of allowable moment (based on API 2A Stress Criteria). The maximum moment
allowed is 1.19E+06N.mm which equivalent to 75 percent of pipe strength. Design
moment is 9.93E+05N.mm which at 84 percent of allowable moment. Therefore, by
using SB type 1, 31 percent of the pipe strength is used to resist bending moment while
for SB type 2, 63 percent of the pipe strength is used to resist bending moment.

FEA is performed to obtain the Von-Mises stress. The stress linearization is performed
for each type of SB to separate primary (structural) and secondary
(geometry) stress.

Figure 12 (a). Von-Mises stress for SB type 1

Figure 14(b). Stress linearization for SB type 1

90 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Figure 14(c). Buckling load for SB type 1

Figure 13 (a). Von-Mises stress for SB type 2

Figure 15(b). Stress linearization for SB type 2

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 91

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Figure 15(c). Buckling load for SB type 2

Figure 14 (a). Von-Mises stress for SB type 3

Figure 16 (b). Stress linearization for SB type 3

92 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Figure 16(c). Buckling load for SB type 3

As shown in Table 6, mathematical modelling for value of stress is consistent with FEA
analysis.

Table 6. Von-Mises stress on tubular

Von-Mises Stress (MPa)
SB Type Percentage of
Theory FEA Different
(%)
Type 1 106.80 103.59 3
Type 2 170.43 167.22 1.9
Type 3 85.82 84.5 1.5

The experiment results for 5 specimens of pipe used to design SB type 3 shows that the
pipe will be buckled at an average load of 23447.12N.

Table 7. Buckling load for specimens of SB type 3

Buckling
Specimen
Load (N)

S1 23781.80
S2 22128.31
S3 24368.38
S4 26203.11
S5 20754.02

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 93

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Figure 15. Buckling load for SB type 3 (Experiment)

Table 8. Buckling load and stress for tubular

Buckling Load (N) Buckling Stress (MPa) Yield
SB Stress
Theory FEA Experiment Theory FEA Experiment (MPa)
Type 1 209349.03 210642.90 NA 643.97 647.95 NA 240
Type 2 515899.66 590393.07 NA 772.20 883.70 NA 240
Type 3 22914.11 21520.93 23347.80 142.10 133.46 149.23 240

Table 9. Axial stress for tubular

Allowable
Design
Axial
SB Type Axial Stress
Stress
(MPa)
(MPa)
Type 1 30.87 119.68
Type 2 14.49 122.51
Type 3 65.10 72.44

94 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Result as shown in Table 9 indicate that for SB type 1, the utilization of axial stress is
only 26 percent of allowable while type 2 is only 12 percent. Remaining tubular pipe
strength is used to resist design stress due to bending moment. For SB type 3, the
utilization of axial stress is at 90 percent capacity.

Table 10. Details of lifting point geometry on SB

Padeye Characteristic Advantage Disadvantage

Type 1 - CL of upper and Only 2 shackles - Moment due to eccentricity
bottom padeyes required. will reduce capacity of
at a distance tubular.
from CL of - Bottom shackle require bigger
tubular. capacity due to de-rated
- Top and bottom capacity when pulling at
padeye at a certain angle from vertical
horizontal axis of shackle. By increasing
distance. the size of shackle, the size of
padeye will increase to
accommodate shackle
geometries.
Type 2 - CL of upper Smaller shackles used - Delta plate is installed away
padeye at a for bottom padeye due from upper padeye to avoid
distance from to shackle capacity are clashed with upper shackle,
CL of tubular. not required to be de- thus moment due to
- Upper and rated thus reduce the eccentricity will be higher
bottom padeye size of padeye. compared to type 1 and 2 thus
at a horizontal reduce the capacity of tubular.
distance. - 3 shackles required
- End plate using - More material required to
delta plate to fabricate delta plate.
connect two - More welding jobs.
shackles at
bottom padeye.
Type 3 - CL of upper No moment due to - Padeye main plate must check
padeye at similar eccentricity, therefore for axial buckling due to
elevation of reduce the thickness of horizontal load.
tubular CL. tubular. - Bottom shackle require bigger
capacity due to de-rated while
Only 2 shackles
pulling at certain angle from
required.
vertical axis of shackle. By
increasing the size of shackle,
padeye’s size will vary to
accommodate the shackle
geometries.

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 95

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Since SB type 1 and 2 are not categorised as long column as shown in Figure 7, its
failure is mainly caused by excessive yielding instead of buckling. Therefore, SB type 1
and 2 is considered as not buckling sensitive. SB type 1and 2 use respective 31 and 63
percent of the pipe strength to resist bending moment which resulting in heavier section
needed to be used. Weight of SB type 1 and 2 are more than 50 percent heavier
compared to SB type 3. Due to highest moment induced for SB type 2, it is not
recommended for used on heavy lifting since thicker material and relatively more
welding works and Non-Destructive Test) NDT are required that may increase chances
for cracks in the weldment or plate. The moment induced in SB type 1 and 2 resulted in
increased of length slot that require more filler material for welding and therefore
increase chances of having crack in the structure.

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Universiti Putra Malaysia for providing facility to
perform this study.

8.0 REFERENCES

DNV-OS-H205- Lifting Operations (VMO Standard - Part 2-5), April 2014

GL Nobel Denton, Guideline for Marine Lifting & Lowering Operations, June 2013

API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition - Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design, December 2014.

Ship Structure Committee, Significance and control of lamellar tearing of steel plate in
the Shipbuilding Industry, 1979.

William M.C.McKenzie Examples in structural analysis, Taylor & Francis e-Library,

2006 Taylor & Francis, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.

The Knowledge: Spreader bar design and application. Retrieved from

http://www.heavyliftnews.com/news/the-knowledge--spreader-bar-design-and-
application. (Access on 14-Aug-2015)

Rigzone. Training. How Does Heavy Lift Work?. Retrieved from http://www.rigzone.
com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=321&c_id=20 (Access on 15-Jun-2015)

Passionate About… Cranes and Lifting. Retrieved from http://www.offshore-

technology.com/features/feature1538/ (Access on 15-Jun-2015)

Chen W.F. and Duan, L. “Effective Length Factors of Compression Members”,

Structural Engineering Handbook, Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC, 1999

96 ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018

 Finite Element Analysis of Spreader Bar by Utilizing The Arrangement and Connection of
Padeyes

Lifting Arrangement. Retrieved from http://www.nli.no/index.php?groupid=1831

(Access on 15-Jun-2015)

Wang Yuan-qing, Liao Xiao-wei, Zhang Yuan-yuan & Shi Yong-jiu (2015).
Experimental study on the through-thickness properties of structural steel thick
plate and its heat-affected zone at low temperatures. Journal of Zhejiang
University- SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering),16(3), 217-228.

J.S.Arora,http://user.engineering.uiowa.edu/~design1/structuraldesignii/compresiondesi
gn.pdf (Access on 15-Jun-2015)

ANSYS Workbench 14.5 –User Guide

ISSN: 2180-1053 Vol. 10 No.2 June – December 2018 97