Previous Research and Design Formulation

Previous Research and Design Formulation
- 8 -
CHAPTER TWO
PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND DESIGN FORMULATION

2.1. Introduction
Research on tubular joints and frames was initiated in the 1950s due to industry demands
on a sound basis for design and construction of offshore platforms. Extensive research
has been conducted on both frame and joint in the last 40 years. Design formulations
have evolved many cycles based on the work carried out by various research groups to
incorporate larger geometric ranges and newly discovered failure modes.
This chapter summarizes the previous experimental and numerical research work on the
frame and joint behavior. The experimental tests on large-scale two-dimensional (2D)
and three-dimensional (3D) frames (BOMEL, 1992; Bolt and Billington, 2000)
conducted for the international Joint Industry Project (JIP) form the basis for the present
frame study. Research findings on the strength of tubular joints by different researchers
around the world are summarized. The current chapter also presents the design

- 9 -
formulations for two commonly adopted codes: international standard organization
(ISO19902, 2001) and Comit International pour le Dveloppement et lEtude de la
Construction Tubulaire (CIDECT, 1991).
2.2. Research on Frame Behavior
2.2.1. Experimental Benchmarking
Zayas et al. (1980) reports the first large scale frame test for two one-sixth scale 2D X-
braced double-bay frames, which stand more than 8m high, under cyclic loading. The
objective is to understand the frame cyclic inelastic behavior, which determines the
survivability of the offshore structures in the event of severe seismic ground excitations.
The tested frames consist of two types of detailing with nominal d
0
/t
0
ratio equal to 33
and 48. The displacement history applied on the frame represents severe seismic loadings.
This frame has since been named as Zayas frame after the name of its investigator. The
Zayas frame test provides substantial contribution to the offshore engineering research.
The JIP organized by Billington Osborne-Mass Engineering Limited (BOMEL) and other
academic and industrial organizations investigates experimentally two series of 2D large-
scale frames under static loading (BOMEL, 1992). The subsequent phase of the JIP (Bolt
and Billington, 2000) tests one large-scale 3D frame under a series of static loading
conditions. These are by far the largest frames tested worldwide. The 2D frames consist
of six X-braced two-bay frames and four K-braced single-bay frames. Chapter 8
illustrates the detail configurations of 2D frames. The experimental work investigates the

- 10 -
effect of joint behavior and framing redundancy on the X-braced frames, and the effect of
local joint behavior (including fracture failure) on the K-braced frames.
The 3D frame tests further explore the effect of reserve strength, via loading different
frame panels consisting of different joint types. Figure 2.1 illustrates the test set-up for
load case II of the 3D frame. In contrast to 2D frame, interaction between different panels
offers additional load-paths in the 3D structure. Both 2D and 3D frames demonstrate the
capacity of steel frames in redistributing loads beyond the first component (joint or
member) failure. The reserve strength involved in these frames contributes significantly
to their ability to withstand extreme environmental loading.

Fig. 2.1 Test set-up of BOMEL 3D frame and the corresponding X-joint failure.
The frame tests also report a new failure mode of the compressively loaded X-joint under
extremely large deformations, which mobilize re-development of the joint strength. This
phenomenon has not been captured in any of the isolated joint test during the past few
decades. Figure 2.1 shows the extreme deformation of the X-joint, for which the contact
of two brace members contribute to the re-development of the joint strength.

- 11 -
A JIP funded by 13 operators and the US Minerals Management Service is carried out by
PMB engineering Inc. to investigate behavior of offshore platforms subjected to large
hurricanes and to improve procedures used in analytical predictions (HSE, 2000). About
700 structures along the Hurricane Andrew path in August of 1992 were calibrated for
their safety factors for the jackets and foundations. The safety factor is obtained as the
ratio of the resistance over loading of the true structure divided by the ratio of the
computed resistance over loading. The safety factors for the foundations show
significantly higher values than the jacket. The trend of safety factors indicates that the
prediction of the jacket structural response is moderately conservative.
Health and Safety Executives (HSE) conducts its own benchmark study based on large-
scale BOMEL 2D frame tests (Nichols et al., 1997). The 11 participants performed
nonlinear analysis based on four tests on 2D double-bay frames. Uncertainties in the
results arise mainly from use of different software. The choices and decisions of the
analysts affect the accuracy of the modeling. Material properties impose a significant
effect on the accuracy of the analysis. The study concludes that the nonlinear analysis is
moving from the preserve of research to a practical engineering tool.
Kurobane and Ogawa (1993) report a series of tests on 15 complete trusses with CHS
members. The scale of these tests remains relatively small compared to the large scale
test carried out by BOMEL (BOMEL, 1992; Bolt and Billington, 2000). The effect of
failure sequence of member and joint is investigated. If the joint failure (buckling)
precedes the member failure, the available strength formulation predicts the joint strength
with sufficient accuracy. If the member buckling precedes the joint failure, however, the

- 12 -
joint is under combined bending moment and axial load and the joint strength is lower
than that predicted by axial load strength formulation. Under static loading, no significant
effect due to boundary conditions between the isolated and actual joints exists.
2.2.2. Ultimate Strength Prediction
Moses and Liu (1992) present a description of the system reliability formulation, in
which they conclude three most important factors affecting the accuracy of the structural
models: material behavior describing brittle, ductile and strain-hardening situations,
reliable system geometry, and correlation between component failure events. The
material property refers to the post-yield material behavior. The system geometry,
imperfection and boundary conditions for example, affect the failure mode of the
structure. The sequence of component (joints or members) failure can lead to different
load re-distribution and consequently different ultimate strength level.
In the BOMEL JIP (BOMEL, 1992), the pushover analyses are performed using
BOMELs software SAFJAC (Strength Analysis of Frames and JACkets), which has
been applied to the re-analysis of existing jacket structures. The program employs plastic
hinges and automatic mesh refinement. The nonlinear joint behavior utilizes the load-
deflection and moment-rotation characteristics through piece-wise linear spring elements.
The analysis starts with one quadric element per member. Mesh refinement applies
members where plasticity has been developed. The calibration study against the 2D X-
braced frame shows good correlation with the test results. The difference in the peak
loads between the numerical computation and test results are within 10%.

- 13 -
Hellan (1995) reports an extensive numerical study on the push-over and cyclic frame
analysis. The nonlinear numerical tool, USFOS (an acronym for Ultimate Strength for
Framed Offshore Structures), has been verified to produce the accurate column and
beam-column behavior. A robust procedure has been presented to calibrate the nonlinear
formulation incorporating residual stresses and geometric imperfection. The basic
principle behind USFOS is to represent each individual member in the structure by one
finite element (USFOS Manual, 2003). Equation 2.1 (USFOS Manual, 2003) shows the
4
th
-order differential equation for a beam under end forces. The shape function in USFOS
adopts the exact solution to Eq. 2.1, enabling one element per member. The nonlinear
member behavior is simulated by incorporating plastic hinges at the ends and the mid
point of the member.
4 2
4 2
0
d w P d w
dx EI dx
+ = (2.1)
Hellan (1995) also investigates the effect of joint flexibility on the ultimate strength of
models representative of North Sea platforms. Inclusion of the joint flexibility on the
member buckling model introduces only minor reduction in the frame strength. This
leads to the conclusion that rigid connection modeling is appropriate for conventional
jackets as long as the joint capacity does not exhaust.
Shell (van de Graaf et al., 1994) performs a series of nonlinear ultimate strength analysis
with USFOS to evaluate the nonlinear behavior of both the structure and foundation
system. The study on the Tern Platform shows a failure rate of 10
-10
in a year against the
extreme environmental loading including structural uncertainty.

- 14 -
Gierlinski (1994) performs an extensive study on an eight-legged X-braced jacket
structure using RASOS (Reliability Analysis System for Offshore Structures). The effect
of damage has been taken into account by introducing a severe imperfection of 1% of the
member length into one of the braces. The members are modeled with 2-node beam-
column elements. Plastic hinges are allowed to be developed for either yielding in tension
or buckling in compression.
The numerical study reported by Skallerud and Amdahl (2002) shows that X-braced and
redundant structures provide more system strength in addition to the design capacity.
They maintain a higher load level at a much larger deformation as compared to K- and
diagonal-braced structures. On the other hand, the portal action provides critical
alternative load paths under large deformations if the leg members are of large sizes. The
initial imperfection, both geometric imperfections and residual stresses, has a significant
effect on the buckling strength for members under compression. The joint flexibility is
reported to be significant when the loading effects are close to the joint capacity. In such
cases, nonlinear modeling of joint capacity is essential.
2.3. Research on CHS Joints
Research on CHS tubular joints has been carried out over the last four to five decades. In
the early years (50s to 60s), the design of tubular joints was largely based on experience
and trial-and-error due to lack of theoretical basis. It was the industry demand that
propelled research work to be carried out in universities and research institutes. More
than fifty years have passed since the first installation of offshore structure. The

- 15 -
understanding on the CHS joint behavior is still not comprehensive today, as reflected by
the semi-empirical formulation in most of the latest design codes.
2.3.1. Experimental Research
Experimental research on the strength of tubular joints was initiated in the early 50s in
the University of Texas and University of California. The research work carried out at
that time was based on a trial-and-error process (Marshall, 1992). In 1963, Johnston
reviews the available information on tubular connections and organized a joint-industry
research to address the problem (Johnston, 1963). Toprac (1961) provides a complete and
informative description on his T-joint in-plane bending (IPB) tests with = 1.0. Toprac
(1966) further investigates the joint parameters , and for T-joints. In his study,
varies from 0.21 to 0.64 and ranges from 12 to 32. The ratio remains in the range
from 7.7 to 15.4. Tremendous reserve strength in simple tubular joints is observed in
Topracs study. Washio et al. (1968) report an experimental study on uni-planar K-joints.
In the 1970s, there was a rapid expansion of the research on tubular joints. This was
reflected by the release of nine editions of American Petroleum Institute (API)
recommended practice. Many tests were carried out and the joint database was expanded.
Hence, the effort at that time was emphasized on the simplified techniques in obtaining
elastic stress distribution. Pan et al. (1976) summarize the failure behavior of simple uni-
planar tubular X-, T- and K-joints mainly based on the joint test data reported by Washio
et al. (1968) and Gibstein (1973). Six possible failure modes are observed for X- and T-
joints. They include the brace tensile failure, tensile failure of the weld, tensile crack in
the chord, plastic deformation of the chord, chord wall buckling, lamellar tearing for

- 16 -
thick-walled joints and local collapse of chord wall. Two failure modes are captured for
K-joints. These refer to the crack failure at weld toe of the tensile brace and brittle tensile
failure of the chord. A series of ultimate strength formulations are proposed for T-, Y-, X-
and gapped K-joints. Table 2.1 shows the geometry range of the joint database for the
strength formulation (Pan et al., 1976). Equation 2.2 (Pan et al., 1976) shows the general
format of the strength equation. In Eq. 2.2, f
1
to f
4
are dimensionless functions, each of
which imposes an independent influence on the joint strength. These are hence
determined separately by holding the others constant.
( )
=
0
4 3
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
d
g
f f
d
t
f
d
d
f t f P
y u
(2.2)
Table 2.1 Geometry range for the joint database by Pan et al. (1976)
Joint type d
0
(mm)
X-joint 139 457 0.19 1.00 10.3 47.6 90
0
T-joint 76 457 0.19 1.00 9.5 46.5 90
0
K-joint 61 508 0.27 0.89 9.2 51.6 30
0
- 90
0

Table 2.2 Geometry range for Yuras database
Joint Load d
0
(mm)
X-joint Axial 140 457 0.19 1.00 10.3 47.6 90
0
Axial 140 456 0.17 0.84 10.8 46.5 90
0

IPB 219 457 0.19 0.81 11.0 47.6 90
0
T-joint
OPB 165 507 0.19 0.90 18.4 -47.6 90
0

Axial 165 456 0.17 0.84 17.5 - 46.5 45
0

Y-joint
OPB 507 0.90 20.8 30
0

Axial 165 508 0.17 0.69 13.8 51.6 30
0
- 90
0

IPB 507 0.64 0.90 22.2 30
0
- 90
0
K-joint
OPB 507 0.64 0.90 22.8 30
0
- 90
0


- 17 -
In 1980, Yura et al. (1980) summarize the results of 137 ultimate strength tests on simple
uni-planar tubular joints. A set of ultimate capacity equation is proposed for different
types of joints under brace axial loading, IPB and OPB. A deformation limit is proposed
for both axially loaded and moment loaded tubular joints to determine the joint strength
when peak load does not exist in the load-deformation curves. Table 2.2 shows the
geometry range in Yuras database.
Kurobane et al. (1984) review the test results of 747 joint specimens, with the objective
to derive a strength equation for CHS joints under brace axial loading. The authors find it
impractical to evaluate the CHS joint strength by pure analytical models. The
mathematical equation adopted by Kurobane et al. (1984) is similar to that of the Pan et
al. (1976), with additional dimensionless functions incorporated as shown in Eq. 2.3.
( ) ( )
2 0 0 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 0 0 0 0
, '
y
c
u y
u
f
d d g g l d
P f f f f f f n f f t
d t t t d f

=

(2.3)
Table 2.3 Geometry range for Kurobanes database (brace axial load)
Joint d
0
(mm)
X-joint 60 1400 0.19 1.0 6.5 49.0 60
0
- 90
0

T- /Y-joint 60 1400 0.19 1.0 8.5 49.5 45
0
- 90
0

K-joint 60 - 1400 0.19 1.0 7.5 51.0 30
0
- 90
0

Multiple regression analyses are performed to determine the dimensionless functions f
0
to
f
6
. Kurobanes joint database is relatively larger than the previous two databases. Two
screening criteria are applied to ensure the formulation is built upon reliable sources. The
first criterion removes results with insufficient detail of the reported joint test, such as
lack of geometric properties and chord yield strength. The second criterion requires that

- 18 -
the joint should not fail prematurely with insufficient chord plastification. Table 2.3 lists
the geometry range of the joint database.
Kurobane et al. (1986) report the study on local buckling behavior of CHS K-joints under
brace axial loading. Eight overlapped K-joints and three gapped K-joints are tested to
failure. The local buckling strength formulation derives from the test results, as shown in
Equation 2.4 (Kurobane et al., 1986). To avoid brace local buckling, the brace diameter
to thickness ratio should be limited to 0.1E/f
y
.
0.244 0.446
1
1
0.433
b s
y y y
f f t E
f f d f

=

(2.4)
Stamenkovic and Sparrow (1983) report 105 test results on the load interaction behavior
of CHS T-joints, which is the first study on the brace load interaction for CHS T-joints. A
linear relationship between the brace axial load and IPB exists for different joints.
Makino et al. (1986) describe the tests on 25 T-joints and 10 K-joints under combined
brace loads. The interaction between brace axial load and OPB moment for T-joint can be
represented by a straight line. The compressive chord stress for K-joints under brace IPB
can be included in the chord stress function proposed by Kurobane et al. (1984).
Sanders and Yura (1986) report 11 additional test results on X-joint subjected to tensile
brace loading. The available design formulation is compared against the 57 test
specimens reported by Ochi et al. (1984). The available formulation then appears to be
unreliable, especially for joints with = 1.0.

- 19 -
Scola et al. (1990) report 5 uni-planar T-joints and 7 multi-planar V-joints tests. The joint
stiffness characteristics and ultimate strength are compared for T- and V-joints. Paul et al.
(1993) present an experimental study on 20 multi-planar TT- and V-joint specimens. The
effect of geometry on the joint ultimate strength is investigated. A new equation for the
strength of multi-planar TT-joints is proposed. Paul et al. (1994) summarize the test
results on 58 multi-planar joint specimens. The joint ultimate strength formulation is
presented for multi-planar TT- and KK-joints. Makino and Kurobane (1994) present the
results on 9 KK-joint experiments. The ultimate KK-joint capacity is governed by local
deformation of the chord wall. The ultimate strength of the KK-joint can be predicted by
uni-planar K-joint formulation. Van der Vegte (1995) describes 12 tests on uni-planar
and multi-planar X-joints subjected to brace axial compression, IPB and OPB.
Makino et al. (1996) consolidate both the experiment and numerical results worldwide
and establish a joint database in the Kumamoto University in Japan. The joint database
includes both uni-planar and multi-planar joints under different brace loading conditions.
Different failure modes, including chord and brace failure, are incorporated in the
database. The range of the geometric parameters and the size of the database are shown in
Table 2.4. For FE models, only calibrated results are included in the database. There are,
in total, 1544 test specimens and 786 numerical models. Among them, 1419 test
specimens and 274 FE models are uni-planar CHS joints. Due to the difficulty involved
for multi-planar joint tests with complicated geometry, numerical analysis is a good
alternative. Although the ratio decreases to 4.2 in the database, most of these joints are
of small chord diameter less than 100 mm. In the ISO 19902 (2001) database, joints with
chord diameter less than 100 mm are removed from the screened database due to possible

- 20 -
size effects on welding (Dier and Lalani, 1998). Therefore, these models are not
representative of the behavior of real thick-walled joints.
Table 2.4 Geometry range and No. of specimens in Kumamotos database.
No. of specimens
Joints d
0
(mm)
Test FE Total
X-joint 61 1400 0.19 1.0 4.2 49.1 30
0
- 90
0
311 114 425
T-joint 76 1400 0.19 1.0 7.3 49.4 30
0
- 90
0
446 146 592
K-joint 60 - 762 0.19 - 1.0 5.9 51.0 30
0
- 90
0
662 14 676
XX-joint 406 -1000 0.22 0.60 7.3 25.4 90
0
9 191 200
TX-joint 406 0.22 0.60 7.3 - 25.4 90
0
20 28 48
TT-joint 191 406 0.22 0.77 13.3 22.4 90
0
0 170 170
KK-joint 120 - 318 0.19 0.76 6.0 40.0 45
0
- 68
0
96 123 219

The test on the effect of chord stresses was first carried out by Togo (1967). The joint
specimens in Togos study are of small chord diameter (101.6 mm). The effect of tensile
chord stress appears to be insignificant in Togos tests. Boone et al. (1982) present the
test results on ten large-scale X-joints under chord axial and IPB stresses. Three brace
loading conditions are investigated: brace axial loading, IPB and OPB. The ratio in
Boones test is 0.67. Weinstein and Yura (1985) extend Boones test to cover a larger
geometric range with = 1.0 and 0.35. The effect of compression chord stresses on X-
joints subjected to brace axial compression is tested by Kang et al. (1998a). Three tests
are carried out for X-joints with the same geometric properties. The main dimensionless
geometric parameters include = 0.52 and = 11.6. Kang et al. (1998b) report four tests
on X-joints with compressive chord loads subjected to brace OPB. The four joints tested
are of a unique set of geometric parameters, with equal to 0.61 and = 11.4.

- 21 -
2.3.2. Numerical Research
The numerical research on the strength of tubular joints was initiated in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. Robert (1980) investigates the effect and feasibility of different finite
element types, which compares the application of 3D solid elements, thick-shell elements
and thin-shell elements. 3D solid elements and thick-shell elements provide good
predictions on the tubular joint behavior.
Connelly and Zettlemoyer (1989) present a numerical investigation on the effect of frame
behavior on tubular joint capacities. The frame assemblage is simulated with beam
elements and the detail joints with shell elements. The FE study on the K-joint integrated
in a frame shows that joint capacities in a frame can be significantly higher than the
isolated joints. This implies the effect of framing on the tubular joints. The brace load
interaction curve for a K-joint contained in a frame does not follow axial-moment
interaction curve obtained for an isolated joint. The frame geometry size including the
bay size and member thickness impose little effect on the joint load path for the joint
investigated. On the other hand, van der Valk (1991) performs a numerical study on the
X- and K-joint integrated in the frame. The joint models employ shell elements and the
frame uses beam elements. Van der Valk concludes that the ultimate strength of a joint
contained in a frame follows that of an isolated joint if the boundary conditions are
appropriately represented. Based on the isolated joint study, the overlapped K-joint
strength depends on the direction of the brace loading. Joints with through-brace in
tension show about 10% higher in the ultimate strength than joints with through-brace in
compression.

- 22 -
Van der Vegte (1995) presents an extensive investigation on the uni-planar and multi-
planar X- and T-joints. The numerical analyses utilize eight-noded thick-shell elements.
One layer of shell elements surrounding the brace-chord intersection approximates the
geometry of welds. This simplification of welds demonstrates sufficient accuracy based
on the calibration against test results. Effects of the chord length are investigated on X-
joint strength. The study on the length of joint can reveals that the provisions on the joint
can length in API (2000) is insufficient. Ultimate joint strength formulations are proposed
for uni-planar and multi-planar X- and T-joints based on the Ring model.
Davies and Crockett (1996) propose the use of six-node prism elements in combination
with four-node shell elements to model the fillet weld. Multiple point constraints ensure
the compatibility between the solid elements and the shell elements. The numerical
analysis of T-DT RHS and CHS joints investigates the three dimensional effects, and
proposes suggestions on the design formulations.
Healy (1994) presents an extensive numerical study on the strength of overlapped K-
joints under IPB and brace axial loading. The hidden weld in the overlapped joints is
simulated. The ultimate strength of the overlapped joints was found to be 1.25 2.25
times of the gapped joints. The joints with through-brace in compression are weaker than
the joints with through-brace in tension.
Lee and Wilmshurst (1995) present a numerical study on CHS DK-joints. Different FE
aspects on the accuracy of analysis are studied: the mesh discretisation, boundary
conditions and material properties. The weld geometry is modeled by a ring of shell
elements around the brace-chord intersection. The length of chord has a minimal effect

- 23 -
on the strength of DK-joints. A relatively reasonable value of 14 is suggested to avoid
the chord ends effect. The effect of six boundary conditions on K-joint is marginal.
Dexter and Lee (1999a) report the behavior of axially loaded tubular K-joints. Four-
noded linear shell elements are used, with shell elements simulating the weld geometry
around the brace-chord intersection. The chord length takes = 14. Different ratios are
studied, with the maximum equal to 1.5. The ultimate joint strength is defined based on
four criteria: peak loads in the load-deformation history, brace yield strength, 20% tensile
plastic strain in the shell outer surface, and Yuras deformation limit. The 20% tensile
plastic strain accounts for the tensile crack failure observed in the joint tests under brace
tensile loading. The value of this plastic strain level is arbitrary in nature. A variety of
failure modes exist: chord bending, brace bending, brace local buckling, brace member
failure and chord member failure.
Dexter and Lee (1999b) present the K-joint ultimate strength variation with respect to
different geometric properties. The K-joint strength increases with the ratio. The
amount of strength increase, however, depends on the ratio. The non-dimensional joint
strength, P
u
sin /f
y
t
0
2
, increases with . An increase of ratio to 1.5 reduces the joint
strength by promoting the brace punching action into the chord wall. The beneficial effect
of overlap ratio is observed for most of the joints with high ratios. The enhancement
becomes more pronounced for high and low joints. No beneficial effect of overlap
exists for joints with low ratio. Completely overlapped joints with more than 100%
overlap ratio exhibit a lower strength than the corresponding 90% overlap joints. A new

- 24 -
strength formulation is proposed based on the FE study. The comparison of the
formulation with the test results ensures its accuracy in application.
Gazzola and Lee (2002) propose a new strength formulation for overlapped CHS K-joints
based on the extensive numerical FE joint study. The new strength formulation is
compared with the ISO (2001) recommendations. The ISO formula shows a relatively
poor estimation for joints with low and medium to low joints. Generally, the ISO
formulation provides a 13% under-estimation of the joint strength.
Cofer and Will (1992) present a new numerical approach in analyzing tubular joint under
tensile brace loads, which utilizes the continuum damage mechanics to account for the
initiation and propagation of cracks A damage variable is introduced to evaluate fracture
failure in the material. The calibration of the numerical approach against the X- and T-
joint tests shows close correlation between the FE model and experimental observation.
This approach is adopted by Jubran and Cofer (1995a) in their numerical investigation of
the tubular joint behavior. The proposed design equations are modified based on Ring
model using regression analysis to fit test and numerical data (Jubran and Cofer, 1995b).
Two types of joint configuration, X- and T-joints, under different brace loading
conditions are investigated.
The effect of the chord stresses was investigated numerically by many researchers.
Pecknold et al. (1998a; 1998b) study the chord stress effect on the ultimate strength of
CHS X-joints. X-joints with low ratios employs shell elements, while joints with =
1.0 utilizes 3D elements to simulate explicitly the weld geometry. Detrimental effect of

- 25 -
the tensile chord stresses is observed and a new chord stress function incorporating
geometric dependence and tensile chord stress effect is proposed. Kang et al. (1998b)
report a numerical investigation on the compressive chord stress effect for X-joints under
brace compression. Twenty-node solid elements simulate the joint geometry. Kang et al.
(1998c) extend the study to the compressive chord stress effect on brace OPB loaded X-
joints. The calibration of the numerical analysis against experimental results shows that
API recommendations are conservative up to 50% of chord utilization ratio. Van der
Vegte et al. (2001) report a numerical study on the chord stress effect on X-joints. A
dependence of the chord stress effect is observed. Tensile chord stress imposes a
deleterious effect on the joint ultimate strength. Van der Vegte et al. (2002) extend the
chord stress study to uni-planar gapped K-joints. A contradiction between the definitions
of chord stress level is reported for CHS and RHS joints. The geometric dependence and
the tensile chord stress effect again exist in K-joints.
Puthli and van der Vegte (2002) review various FE analysis approaches for the static
strength of tubular connections. The feasibility of different finite element types is
compared. The limitation of conventional FE analysis on modeling fracture failure of
tubular joints is identified.
2.3.3. Analytical Models
Be it impractical to predict the ultimate strength of CHS joints with a simple analytical
model due to the complex stress fields and associated failure modes in a joint, three
general models have been proposed in the literature to evaluate the CHS joint strength.

- 26 -
2.3.3.1. Punching Shear Model
In the punching shear model, a full plastification of the punching shear area is assumed
(Wardenier, 1982). The maximum shear stress of a cross-section derives from von Mises
yield criteria based on the Mohrs circle.
Von Mises yield criterion (Beer and Johnston, 1992) follows:
( )
2 2
2 1
2
2
2
1 y
f f f f f = + + (2.5)
where f
1
and f
2
refer to principle stresses. The maximum shear stress and the
corresponding axial stress (based on Mohrs circle) become:
( )
2 1 max
2
1
f f v = (2.6)
( )
2 1
2
1
f f f
v
+ = (2.7)
Hence, f
1
and f
2
can be expressed in f
v
and v
max
, and substituted into in Eqs. 2.5 and 2.6.
2 2
max
2
3
y v
f v f = + (2.8)
Under pure shear condition, f
v
= 0, and the maximum shear stress is equal to / 3
y
f .
The brace-chord intersection area can be conservatively simplified as the area between a
tube and a flat plate, as shown in Fig. 2.2 (Wardenier, 1982). The punching shear area is
approximated as a circular intersection for = 90
0
, and an elliptical intersection for <
90
0
. For joints with = 90
0
under brace axial loads, the punching shear capacity is given
in Eq. 2.9 (Wardenier, 1982).

- 27 -
( )
max 1 0 1 0
3
y
ps
f
P v d t d t = = (2.9)
Figure 2.3 illustrates the elastic and plastic bending stress distribution around the circular
intersection. The elastic bending capacity and plastic bending capacity based on punching
shear failure mode is expressed in Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 respectively (Wardenier, 1982).

Fig. 2.2 Simplification of the punching shear area for CHS brace-chord intersection.

Fig. 2.3 Elastic and plastic stress distribution in the punching shear model.
3
4
sin
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
y
p y
f
t d dA
d
v M
= (2.10)
v
p
= v
max
d
1
0.5d
1
sin
dA = 0.5d
1
t
0
d
v
p
= v
max
sin
d
1
0.5d
1
sin
dA = 0.5d
1
t
0
d
Plastic distribution
under axial load
Plastic distribution
under moment load

- 28 -
3
sin
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
max
y
p
f
t d dA
d
v M
(2.11)
The geometry of welds causes a slightly larger punching shear area for realistic joints.
Equation 2.12 summarizes Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 using a constant C (Wardenier, 1982).
1
2
0 0
2
1
2 d t Cf f t Cd M
y y
= = (2.12)
Transformation factors need to be applied for joints with < 90
0
, as shown in Eqs. 2.13
2.15 for three brace loading conditions (Wardenier, 1982).
( )
2
sin 2
sin 1+
= f for axial load (2.13)
( )
2
sin 4
sin 3 1+
= f for IPB (2.14)
( )
2
sin 4
sin 3 +
= f for OPB (2.15)
2.3.3.2. Ring Model
The Ring model is first proposed by Togo (1967) for simple tube to tube connections.
This model is extended and developed for more joint configurations by some researchers
(Paul, et al., 1993; van der Vegte, 1995). In this model, the circular chord around the
brace-chord intersection is approximated by a ring of effective length B
e
. Figure 2.4
shows schematically the brace loads on an X-joint with = 90
0
. The effective width B
e

can be determined by experiments or numerical results.

- 29 -

Fig. 2.4 Simplification of brace load in the Ring model for an X-joint.

Fig. 2.5 Ring model for an X-joint under brace axial load.
Figure 2.5 illustrates the ring model failure mechanism for a quarter X-joint under brace
axial load (van der Vegte, 1995). The brace load applies at the outer edge of the brace,
and the outer diameter of the chord evaluates the joint strength instead of the mean
diameter of the chord. The Ring model assumes two plastic hinges at the ultimate limit
d
1
/2
d
0
/2
2
P
u
/2
P
A

M
A

Plastic hinge
d
1
t
1

0.5P
u
d
0
d
0
t
0

B
e
3(d
0
t
0
)
0.5P
u
/B
e

- 30 -
state. The joint strength equation derives from the plastic moment expressions at the two
plastic hinge locations corresponding to
1
and
2
(van der Vegte, 1995)
( ) ( )
0
1 1
1 cos
2
A A
d
M M P = + (2.16)
( ) ( )
0 0
2 1
1 cos 1 sin
2 2 2 2
u
A A
d P d
M M P

= + +

(2.17)
At the two plastic hinge locations, M (
1
) and M (
2
) equal the plastic moment capacity
of a rectangular cross-section with width B
e
and height t
0
, as shown in Eq. 2.18.
2
0
1
4
p y e
M f t B = (2.18)
The ultimate strength for an X-joint under brace axial load follows (van der Vegte, 1995),
2
0
0
2
1
u
e
y
P
B
f t
d
=

(2.19)
Similar analytical models have been derived for other joint configurations such as T-joint,
multi-planar T- and X-joints (van der Vegte, 1995). The effective with B
e
is incorporated
into constants determined by regression analyses.
2.3.3.3. Yield Line Model
The geometry of CHS joints introduces complicated stress fields around the brace-chord
intersection. This gives rise to many difficulties in analyzing the joint strength using yield
line theory, which has been successfully applied to RHS joints (Cao et al., 1998).
However, application of yield line theory has been attempted on CHS X-joints by some

- 31 -
researchers (Makino, et al. 1989; Soh et al., 2000), and the results compared with
numerical and test data show a good correlation. Up to now, yield line theory has not
been applied to other CHS joint configurations.

Fig. 2.6 Yield line pattern for X-joints subjected to brace axial load.
The basic principle behind the yield line theory for CHS joints is to evaluate the ultimate
joint strength by equating the external virtual work done by the applied brace load to the
internal virtual work by bending and membrane stresses, as illustrated in Eq. 2.20. The
model assumes that the chord is a rigid-plastic body and the brace members are rigid
bodies. The collapse mechanism assumed for X-joints with low ratios is the elliptical
yield line in the XY-plane as shown in Fig. 2.6, which is modified by Soh et al. (2000) so
that the evaluation of internal virtual work is made mathematically simpler.
=
ext int
W W (2.20)
Soh et al. (2000) develops the X-joint strength formulation using the yield line theory,
based on two models for X-joints with small and approaching 1.0 respectively. The
X
Z

P
P
X
Y
X
Y
Original yield line pattern
Modified yield line pattern by Soh et al.

- 32 -
comparison against available formula and test results shows good agreement. The
disadvantage of the yield line theory is that the joint ultimate strength remains in a
complicated mathematical form.
2.4. Design Formulations for Static Strength of CHS Joints
The design codes for offshore structures are based on two types of analyses. The first
refers to the analysis concerning the action, or combination of actions, whose amplitude
has a low probability of occurrence. For example, the International Standard
Organization (ISO) requires the structure to be designed for the extreme wave loading
with a return period of 100 years. This typically leads to the analysis of structures under
static loading. This is the primary concern of the current study. The other type is the
analysis concerning the action of repeated loads in time. This leads to the fatigue analysis
based on the knowledge of these actions.
The purpose of design codes is to provide fully validated strength formulation of tubular
joints for use in the industry, and if possible to develop closed-form formulations for
different joint configurations and loading conditions. The rule of thumb for a design
formula is that it should be kept as simplified as possible.
2.4.1. ISO 19902
The ISO 19902 (2001) develops a set of formulation for the joint characteristic strength,
which is defined as one with 95% survivability. ISO formulation develops from the MSL
joint database (Dier and Lalani, 1998). Joints with chord diameter d
0
< 100 mm are
removed due to potential size effects. The screened joint database includes 118 and 541

- 33 -
joint specimens with and without the presence of chord stresses. The characteristic static
strengths of uni-planar joints follow:
2
0
sin
y
u u f
f t
P Q Q =
(2.21)
2
0 1
sin
y
u u f
f t d
M Q Q =
(2.22)
P
u
and M
u
refer to the joint characteristic axial and moment capacity respectively. Q
u

denotes the joint ultimate strength parameter incorporating the joint types and geometry.
The expressions of Q
u
are listed in Appendix A for three basic types of uni-planar joints.
Q
f
is the chord stress parameter, in terms of the maximum chord stress on either side of
the brace, as listed in Appendix A. The Q
f
term includes different parameters for both
brace and chord loading modes. Q
u
and Q
f
factors are established by curve-fitting on the
screened database. The effect of chord stress is accounted for (Dier and Lalani, 1998) in
the derivations of both Q
u
and Q
f
, since the joint database contains joints with chord load
induced by equilibrium in the formulation of Q
u
. The Q
f
factor incorporates neither the
joint geometry effect nor the effect of tensile chord stress. The Q
f
factor is still under
scrutiny within the ISO technical committee (BOMEL, 2001).
The joint classification in ISO 19902 (2001) depends on both the geometric configuration
and the loading conditions. For a joint classified as 50% K and 50% X, the characteristic
joint strength becomes:
( ) ( ) 0.5 0.5
u u u
k x
P P P = + (2.23)

- 34 -
The effect of overlap for K-joint is incorporated into the ISO formulation. However, no
variation in the joint strength with respect to a change in overlap ratio exists. For T-, Y-
and X-joints under tensile brace loading, the reserve strength beyond the first joint crack
is allowed by introducing a set of ultimate joint strength equations.
2.4.2. CIDECT
The joint strength formulation in CIDECT (1991) develops a set of equations for the
ultimate joint strength. The joint design resistance (P*) should be greater than the
characteristic load (Q
k
) multiplied by the load factor (
s
) as shown in Eq. 2.24 (CIDECT,
1991).
* k
s k
m
P
Q P =
(2.24)
The joint design strength P
*
is shown in Appendix A for different joint types. The P
k
and
m
are the characteristic joint strength and the safety factor. In CIDECT formulation, two
types of failure modes are considered: chord plastification and punching shear failure.
The punching shear failure is included for joints with d
1
d
0
2t
0
.
The effect of chord stress in CIDECT formulation is based on Kurobanes chord stress
equation developed for K-joints, with extension for other joint types. The chord stress
function f (n), as shown in Appendix A, depends purely on the chord stress ratio n.
Similar to the Q
f
in the ISO 19902, f (n) is independent of joint geometry and the tensile
chord stress effect is ignored.

- 35 -
2.5. Summary
Research work carried out over the last four to five decades on tubular joints and
structures has identified the need to better evaluate the effect of joint-frame interaction.
The significance of joint stiffness and capacity on the frame behavior is reported in many
studies (BOMEL, 1992; van der Valk, 1991 and Kurobane, et al., 1986).
In the joint databases established worldwide throughout the last forty years, scarce details
exist on thick-walled joint behavior. The advantage of thick-walled joints, in reducing
wave loads and enhancing fatigue life, increases their applications in jack-up structures
for drilling and production of oil and gas fields.
Analytical formulations developed are normally associated with different assumptions
involved with loading and stress distribution, which may not be valid for certain joints
under various loading conditions. As a result, design formulations are based on semi-
empirical equations rather than analytical models.

Previous Research and Design Formulation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Previous Research and Design Formulation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Previous Research and Design Formulation

S-ar putea să vă placă și