DNV 2.7-3 Pad eye Design

[hungrydinosaur]

Hi All,

DNV 2.7-3 provides guidance for padeye design (formulas) in Appendix A (Page 43). In any design the Rpad (radius of padeye) and Rpl (radius of plate) are same. Then why are these two being assumed differently?
When I put the value of Rpl to 60 mm (this is already designed/fixed value of padeye), the Rpad comes out to be 56.36 mm. What should be the final/correct value to be used?


Regards,

HD

 

[boo1]

To check tearout you are not providing all the required parameters for us to calc R(pad):
thickness of plate
thickness of padeye including cheekplates
Rad of cheek plates
Dist of hole to edge

 

[hungrydinosaur]

Boo,

Attached is the padeye details. I am confused, why Rpl and Rpad are different? What should I take in the final design?

Regards,

HD

 

[boo1]

Reviewing DNV 2.7-1 Att A(attached padeye section), Rpad considers the combined composite action of the plate and the cheeks. The Rpad is used for the tearout check.

 

[NOLAENG]

Well that is convoluted way of checking shear stress by solving for an equivalent radius.