Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 February 2011
Accepted 20 July 2013
Available online 25 August 2013
Keywords:
Joint formulation
Circular hollow section
Tubular joint
Pushover analysis
Phenomenological representation
a b s t r a c t
This paper proposes a new loaddeformation formulation for circular hollow section (CHS) X- and K-joints to be
implemented in the pushover analysis of steel frames. The proposed formulation describes the loaddeformation
relationship of the CHS X- and K-joint through a simple function with the coefcients dependent on the ultimate
strength and the geometric parameters of the joint. The strength-dependent parameter follows the mean
strength equations in the latest IIW recommendations, while the geometric-dependent parameters derive
from the nite element results of the CHS X- and K-joints covering a practical geometric range. The proposed
joint formulation predicts closely the loaddeformation responses for planar CHS X- and K-joints measured in
the experiments. The non-dimensional loaddeformation formulation developed in the current study provides
a calibrated basis in the phenomenological representation of the nonlinear joint behavior in push-over analyses
of steel space frames. The experimental results from the large-scale 2-D and 3-D frame tests validate the accuracy
of the proposed formulation, which is implemented in a nonlinear pushover analysis as joint-spring elements.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The extended service of steel offshore platforms beyond their initial
design life of 20 years has become a common practice due to economical considerations [1]. The reassessment of such platforms requires advanced nonlinear frame analyses which should include an accurate
representation of the local joint responses under overloading conditions. The rigid joint assumption in the conventional frame analysis
often underestimates the deformation and over-estimates the ultimate
resistance of the critical joint. The rigid joint hypothesis therefore may
cause strong effects on the load-distribution and the sequence of the
component failure in the structure, leading to severe deviations in the
predicted frame behavior from the real structural response. However,
frame analyses with rigid-joint assumptions do not always provide conservative estimations on the ultimate strength of the structure, since
large deformation of the joint may mobilize adjacent redundant members and leads to higher structural resistances than the prediction by
rigid-joint frame analyses. Hence, improved understandings on the effect of nonlinear joint behavior on the frame response become necessary to develop a simple and calibrated engineering representation of
the nonlinear joint characteristics in pushover analyses.
The last three decades observe substantial experimental developments in the local joint exibility (LJF) for both uni-planar and multiplaner tubular joints. Bouwkamp [2] investigates the effect of joint exibilities on the elastic response of offshore jacket structures where a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6516 6827; fax: +65 6779 1635.
E-mail address: qianxudong@nus.edu.sg (X. Qian).
0143-974X/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.07.024
Nomenclature
A
B
C
P
PE
Pu
P
Pu
d0
d1
fu
fy
g
g
k0
l0
t0
t1
E
i
u
E
u
109
and brace loads in the joint response and the K-, X-, and Y-joint classications [21].
This study develops a nonlinear joint formulation which predicts
closely the loaddeformation responses for CHS X- and K-joints
subjected to brace axial compression. This proposed formulation describes the loaddeformation relationship for CHS X- and K-joints with
different geometric parameters covering a brace to chord diameter
ratio () from 0.3 to 1.0 and a chord radius to thickness ratio () ratio
from 7 to 25. The proposed loaddeformation relationship develops
from loaddeformation results computed using calibrated FE analyses.
The parametric formulation, proposed in the current joint representation,
provides a convenient approach to characterize the loaddeformation
curve and eliminates the need for the elasticplastic, large-deformation
nite element analyses on CHS X- and K-joints. The nonlinear pushover
analysis, performed in the numerical tool USFOS (an acronym for
Ultimate Strength for Framed Offshore Structures) [22], proves the validity of the proposed formulation by implementing the proposed formulation via spring elements between the chord and brace members in 2-D
and 3-D space frames.
This paper starts with an introduction including a review on the research of the joint exibility and the jointframe interaction. The next
section develops the joint phenomenological formulation to represent
the joint resistance with respect to the deformation due to the yielding
and plasticity mobilized under the remote brace loading. The study
compares the proposed joint formulation with calibrated nite element
results. The following section presents the verication of the proposed
formulation using experimental results reported on 2D and 3D frames.
The last section summarizes the main conclusions drawn from the current study.
2. Joint formulation
This section veries the accuracy of the elasticplastic, large deformation FE analysis based on the experimental results for CHS X-joints
and K-joints. A loaddeformation relationship develops subsequently
from calibrated FE analyses, covering a practical geometric range for
X- and K-joints.
2.1. Validation of nite element analysis
Alternatively, the phenomenological representation of the joint behavior through nonlinear joint springs, as shown in Fig. 1a, provides a
convenient method for practicing engineers. Ueda [16,17] develops
the elasticperfectly-plastic springs for CHS T-, Y- and K-joints. Choo
et al. [18] implement the joint spring elements described by piecewise linear loaddeformation curves in the nonlinear frame analysis.
The joint industry project, led by a UK company [19,20], develops the
MSL formulation, which includes the interaction between the chord
Table 1 lists the geometric parameters for the CHS X- and K-joint
specimens reported by van der Vegte [23] and Kurobane et al. [24], respectively. In Table 1, the ratio indicates the ratio of the brace diameter
over the chord diameter. The value stands for the chord radius to the
chord wall thickness ratio. The parameter refers to the chord length
to the chord radius ratio and denotes the ratio of the brace wall thickness over the chord wall thickness. The X-joint reported by van der Vegte
[23] experiences brace axial compression, as shown in Fig. 2a. Fig. 2b
shows the uni-axial true stress and true strain curve for the X-joint
(a)
Chord
Nodes for spring element
(Beam-column
element)
Load
Brace
(Beam-column element)
(b)
Deformation
Fig. 1. (a) Joint spring representation in the global frame analysis; and (b) loaddeformation characteristics of the joint spring.
110
Table 1
Geometric parameters of the X- and K-joint specimens in the reported test.
Joint
d0 (mm)
X-joint
K-joint
408.0
216.4
0.6
0.76
20
13.7
12
16
1.0
0.67
60
3.8
form of the function should remain universal for different types of joints
under various loading conditions. In addition, the function should adopt
a simplest possible form for curve tting and subsequent engineering
applications.
Fig. 4 shows the typical loaddeformation curve for an X-joint under
the brace axial compression and that for a gapped K-joint under balanced brace axial loads. Except for very thick-walled chords [27], the
X-joint under brace axial compression often exhibits a peak load as
the deformation increases. The joint resistance decreases gradually
after the peak load as the plastic deformation propagates in the chord
wall. In contrast, the gapped K-joint under balanced axial loads sustains
monotonically increasing loads until the joint resistance is limited by
the ductility of the material, or extensive plastic deformations in the
chord.
Coupling the physical response of the X- and K-joints with the requirements on the expected loaddeformation function, the proposed
load deformation formula follows,
P f Pu h
where Pand P u are the non-dimensional load and ultimate load, respectively, or,
P
P sin
f y t 20
Load
Saddle
(a)
t1
d1
t0
Pu
P u sin
f y t 20
where fy denotes the yield strength of the chord material, t0 refers to the
thickness of the chord member, and measures the intersection angle
between the brace and the chord. The parameter in Eq. (1) represents
the non-dimensional deformation of the joint,
d0
800
(MPa)
(b)
600
Crown
d0
400
f y = 331 MPa
200
E = 205 GPa
fu = 435 MPa
= 0.3
l0
0
Reaction
(c)
15
10
20
30
(%)
40
(d)
P / f yt02
10
5
Test
FE
0
0
0.25
/ d0
0.50
0.75
Fig. 2. A CHS X-joint test: (a) test set-up; (b) uni-axial true stress and true strain curve; (c) FE mesh; and (d) comparison of the loaddeformation curve between the test and FE analysis.
(a)
800
111
(b)
(MPa)
Loading
600
f y = 480 MPa
400
Saddle
Pin support
f y = 532 MPa
Crown
E = 205 GPa
200
0
(c)
= 0.3
10
(%)
20
30
(d)
P sin / f yt02
30
10
Test
FE
0
0.25
0.50
/d0
0.75
Fig. 3. A CHS K-joint test: (a) loading and boundary conditions; (b) uni-axial true stress and true strain curve; (c) FE mesh; and (d) comparison of the loaddeformation curve between the
test and FE analysis.
where d0 denotes the chord diameter. In Eq. (1), f P u is a linear func
tion of P u and h is a logarithmic function of ,
h
pi2
P CP u 1A ln 1 B 1= A
:
In Eq. (5), CP u refers to the extreme value of the function. The derivative of the load P follows,
"
#
1 B
dP
B
2AC ln
:
1
p
d
1 B
e A
16
(a)
P / f yt02
p
e1= A 1
u
:
u
B
d0
The proposed joint formulation includes four independent parameters: P u , A, B and C. The current approach employs the mean strength
equations in IIW [28] forP u , which follows,
1
0:15
P u 3:16
10:7
1:6
0:3
P u 2 16
1
1
:
1:2 g=t 0 0:8
50
P sin / f yt02
(b)
40
12
30
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.6
=15
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.9
= 15
= 60o
20
4
0
stiffness of the curve. The joint displacement at the peak load derives
from Eq. (5) by setting P CP u , or by setting Eq. (6) to zero,
10
0.04
0.08
/d0
0.12
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
/d0
Fig. 4. Typical loaddeformation curves for: (a) an X-joint under axial brace compression; and (b) a K-joint under balanced axial brace loading.
112
balanced brace axial loading. The use of Eqs. (8) and (9) reduces the
number of undetermined coefcient to three: A, B and C. The value of coefcients A and B should remain in reasonable ranges to avoid a negative value of the dependent variable P, which requires a positive value
of the g function, or,
h
pi2
p2
A ln 1 B 1= A b 1 or e A N 1 B:
10
The deformation at the peak load in Eq. (7) should remain as a positive value, which requires,
A N 0 and B N 0:
11
Table 2
Coefcient in the proposed formulation for X-joints.
Coefcient Formulation
Proposed/FE
Mean Standard deviation No. of data
A
B
C
5:2
2
2:5 7:54:3
0:27
1.00
(2333.24 40 + 820)0.6 1.01
1.00
1.00
0.08
0.09
0.02
30
30
30
12
13
where E denotes the displacement at 0.8Pu. Table 3 shows the agreement in the u and k0 values obtained from the proposed joint formulation in comparison with Lu's deformation and the k0 results reported by
Choo et al. [18].
For X-joints under brace axial compression, a re-development of the
joint strength occurs at a large deformation level due to the direct contact of the compression braces, as observed in the BOMEL 2D and 3D
frame tests [32,33]. Fig. 6a shows the large deformation of the chord,
which leads to the contact of the two braces through the inner surface
of the chord. The direct contact of the two brace members leads to a
re-gained joint strength equal to the axial yield strength of the brace
member at a joint deformation of = 0.5d0. The initialization of the
strength re-development depends on the ratio, as shown in Fig. 6b,
which denes i to be the displacement corresponding to the initial contact of the two braces,
1
i 0:5d0 t 0 sin cos :
14
The value of i corresponds to the distance between the inner surfaces of the chord member near the saddle point, measured along a vertical axis corresponding to the mid-thickness of the brace wall, as
shown in Fig. 6c. Fig. 6d shows the close agreement between Eq. (14)
and the i values obtained from the nite element analysis, which prohibits self penetration of the chord inner surface in the contact algorithm. The proposed joint formulation includes this redevelopment of
joint strength for CHS X-joints under brace axial compression through
a bilinear model in the loaddeformation relationship, as shown by
the dashed line in Fig. 6b.
(a)
P / f yt02
15
113
(b)
P / f yt02
25
20
10
15
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.6
= 10
FE
Proposed
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.9
= 10
10
FE
Proposed
0.12
0.15
0.03
0.06
/d0
(c)
P / f yt02
15
15
/d0
0.09
0.12
0.15
(d)
P / f yt02
10
10
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.6
= 20
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.9
= 20
FE
Proposed
FE
Proposed
0
0
0
0.03
0.06
/d0
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.03
0.06
0.09
/d0
0.12
0.15
Fig. 5. Comparison between the proposed loaddeformation formulation and FE results for CHS X-joints with: (a) = 0.6, = 10; (b) = 0.9, = 10; (c) = 0.6, = 20; and
(d) = 0.9, = 20.
Table 3
Comparisons of the critical deformation at the peak load and the joint stiffness with
reference studies for X-joint.
Parameters
u/d0
k0 P d0f sin
t2
y 0
Proposed/reference
Mean
Standard
deviation
No. of
data
1.10
1.09
0.20
0.15
30
30
114
(a)
(b)
P
Brace yielding
capacity
i = (0.5 d0 t 0)sin
Bilinear model
= 0.5d0
Eq. (5)
(c)
i / d0
0.5
(d)
0.4
0.5d0 t0
i = (0.5d0 t0 )sin
= cos 1(
0.3
0.2
0.5d1 0.5t1
)
0.5d 0 t0
by ABAQUS
i = (0.5d0 t0 )sin
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Fig. 6. (a) Contact of two compression braces under a large deformation level for X-joint; (b) schematic loaddeformation relationship for the X-joint with strength re-development;
(c) deformation level at the initial contact of the two compression braces; and (d) comparison of i obtained from FE analyses and Eq. (14).
(a)
The current study includes three types of joint formulation for each
frame analysis: 1) the rigid joint assumption, 2) MSL joint formulation
[22], and 3) the proposed joint formation. Fig. 9a compares the numerical analysis and the test results for Frame I. In Frame I, the buckling of
the top-bay compression brace (shown in Fig. 8a) dominates the
32
P sin / f yt02
(b)
24
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.6
= 15
16
FE
Proposed
8
0
0.015
0.030
0.045
0.050
/ d0
60
(c)
P sin / f yt02
45
d0 = 406 mm
= 0.9
= 20
30
15
0
0
FE
Proposed
0.02
0.04
/ d0
0.06
0.08
Fig. 7. (a) Load and boundary conditions for FE analyses of CHS K-joints; (b) the proposed loaddeformation formulation for the CHS K-joint with = 0.6, = 15; and (c) the proposed
loaddeformation formulation for the CHS K-joint with = 0.9, = 20.
115
Table 4
Coefcient in the proposed formulation for K-joints.
Formulation
2
0:075 1:5 26:4 e0:0017 0:0141:47 =1000
1.9
2267e
1.13
(a)
5944
1524
(b)
(c)
5944
Load
168OD7.1WT
6096
356ODx12.7WT
168OD4.5WT
Buckled
brace
168OD5.1WT
Buckled
brace
168OD9.5WT
168OD6.3WT
6096
6096
168OD6.3WT
168OD7.1WT
168OD9.5WT
Buckled
brace
168OD9.5WT
1524
1524
1524
6096
6096
1524
16
16
16
Load
168OD9.5WT
All members
168OD4.5WT
0.04
0.05
0.03
168OD4.5WT
Buckled
brace
168OD6.3WT
1.00
1.00
1.00
5944
168OD4.5WT
168OD9.5WT
No. of data
prediction on the global frame response than that using the MSL formulation and that based on the rigid joint assumption.
Load
168OD 7.1WT
Standard deviation
All members
168OD4.5WT
All members
168OD4.5WT
Fig. 8. Conguration of BOMEL 2D frames: (a) Frame I; (b) Frame II; and (c) Frame III.
356ODx12.7WT
frame strength. All three analyses predict this failure mechanism. The
proposed formulation leads to a slightly better prediction on the ultimate strength of the test frame than the MSL joint formulation.
Fig. 9b compares the global response for Frame II, in which the topbay X-joint is the critical structural component. This X-joint with = 1
under brace axial compression softens gradually due to increased plastic
deformations in the chord wall beyond the peak load. The contact of the
two braces at a further deformation redevelops the joint strength sufcient to cause buckling of the compression brace in the top bay. The
global load applied on the frame thus increases until the buckling of
that compression brace occurs. The MSL formulation shows the softening of the X-joint in line with the experimental observation. However,
the MSL formulation imposes a deformation limit on the X-joint and
leads to the termination of the analysis before the unstable brace buckling takes place. The proposed joint formulation predicts both the softening of the CHS joint due to plastic deformations in the chord wall
and the re-strengthening of the X-joint at a large deformation level.
The predicted frame response using the proposed joint formulation
thus reects correctly the buckling failure of the test frame, albeit that
this brace buckling occurs at a lower load level than that observed in
the test.
Without the horizontal member, Frame III shows a similar ultimate
strength level compared to Frame I, as shown in Fig. 9c. The absence
of the horizontal member generates signicant load re-distributions beyond the top bay brace buckling. This forces the buckling of the bottom
bay brace to occur at a small global displacement level. The frame analysis based on the proposed joint formulation provides a better
Mean
1524
A
B
C
6096
Proposed/FE
356ODx12.7WT
Coefcient
116
1000
(a)
1200
Brace buckling
Brace buckling
800
800
600
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
400
200
0
1000
(b)
Frame I
0
0.05
0.10
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
Joint yielding
400
Frame II
0
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
(c)
800
600
400
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
200
Frame III
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
frame exhibits a much lower strength and a much lower stiffness than
the test results. The proposed joint formulation predicts closely the softening of the joint and agrees well with the peak strength of the test frame.
(a)
(b)
3572
2418
1500
60.4OD
3.8WT
Load
Load
1000
60.5OD3.8WT
60.6OD2.2WT
60.6OD2.2WT
165.4OD5.7WT
165.5OD5.7WT
Buckled brace
Buckled brace
(c)
60.5OD
2.1WT
60.5OD
2.1WT
60.5OD
2.1WT
Load
1250
4054
139.9OD4.1WT
Buckled brace
(a)
200
(b)
Out-of-plane buckling
150
100
117
Brace buckling
100
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
50
Frame A
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
50
Frame B
0
0
0.02
0.01
0.10
(c)
150
0.20
Brace buckling
100
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
50
Frame T
0
0.02
0.04
Fig. 11. Comparison of the global loaddeformation response between the numerical analysis and experimental records for: (a) Frame A; (b) Frame B; and (c) Frame T.
typical for offshore jacket structures. The two longitudinal panels in the
horizontal plane (designated as Panel A and Panel B) are X-braced. In
Panel A (the bottom panel in Fig. 12a) the X-joints have thick jointcans. In Panel B (the top panel in Fig. 12a), the two level I X-joints do
not include joint-cans and the through chords run in opposite directions.
The transverse panels C and D are K-braced with intermediate diamond
bracing in between the two panels. In Panel C, neither of the gapped Kjoints has a joint-can. The distant transverse panel E is X-braced but
(b)
(a)
Panel E
Load Case I
Panel D
Panel C
Panel B
Buckled
brace
Panel A
Crack
Load
Level I
Level II
Panel C
Panel E
(c)
Panel E
Load Case II
(d)
Crack
Crack
Panel A
Load
Buckled
brace
Load
Buckled brace
Fig. 12. Conguration of BOMEL 3D frame test: (a) test model; (b) Load Case I; (c) Load Case II; and (4) Load Case III.
118
shown in Fig. 12b. Fig. 13a shows the comparison of three analyses with
the experimental results. The weld-toe crack near the tension brace in
the K-joint (Fig. 12a) initiates a slight decrease in the frame strength.
However, this crack does not grow extensively under increasing loads.
Instead, the diamond brace in level I redistributes the load to Panel D
and the K-brace in Panel D buckles at the peak frame load.
None of the three types of joint formulation includes a representation on the fracture failure in tubular joints. Both the MSL and the proposed formulation predict the weakening of the joint under plastic
deformation as well as the subsequent brace buckling in the frame.
The proposed formulation provides a close prediction on the ultimate
strength of the test frame.
In Load Case II, the X-braced Panel E experiences a vertical load applied in an upward direction as shown in Fig. 12c. The weakening of
the X-joint under plastic deformation in the chord wall leads to a ductile
frame response. Similar to Frame II in the BOMEL 2D frame (see Fig. 8b),
the large deformation of the joint enables contact of the two compression braces through the inner surface of the chord. This contact leads
to the redevelopment of the joint strength and causes the buckling of
the compression brace. Both the MSL joint formulation and the proposed joint formulation predict the weakening of the joint, as shown
in Fig. 13b. Similar to Frame II (in Fig. 8b), the deformation limit in the
MSL joint formulation terminates the frame analysis at a small deformation level, insufcient to mobilize the subsequent brace buckling. The
proposed joint formulation shows a good agreement with the test results for Load Case II. The rigid joint formulation estimates a relatively
smaller frame capacity than the test by forcing the compression brace
to buckle at a very small global deformation level.
In Load Case III, a horizontal load is applied along Panel A to the bottom X-braced panel. After all the compression braces in Panel A buckles,
the horizontal braces redistribute the load to Panel B and leads to the
crack in two joints shown in Fig. 12d. The test stops after the K-brace
in Panel C buckles. Similar to Load Case I, crack initiation is not captured,
which contributes to the difference between the proposed formulation
and test results. Fig. 13c shows that the proposed formulation predicts
the frame ultimate strength accurately.
1200
(a)
1250
(b)
1000
900
750
600
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
300
Load Case I
0
0.05
0.10
250
0.15
Load Case II
0
0.10
0.20
0.30
3000
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
500
(c)
2000
Test
MSL
Rigid
Proposed
1000
Load Case III
0
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the support of Lloyd's Register Foundation towards
funding the research and development program in the Centre for Offshore Research & Engineering in National University of Singapore. The
research scholarship provided by the National University of Singapore
is also gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to extend
their appreciation to Professor Peter Marshall for providing the very
useful suggestions on the research.
References
[1] American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended practice for planning, designing
and constructing xed offshore platforms. 21st ed. API RP2A-WSD; 2000.
[2] Bouwkamp JG, Hollings JP, Maison BF, Row DG. Effects of joint exibility on the response of offshore towers. 12th Offshore Technology Conference; 1981.
[3] Efthymiou M. Local rotational stiffness of unstiffened tubular joints. ReportPKER.85.199;
1985.
[4] Fessler H, Webster JJ, Mockford PB. Parametric equations for the exibility matrices
of single brace tubular joints in offshore structures. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers; 1986. p. 65973.
[5] Fessler H, Mockford PB, Webster JJ. Parametric equations for the exibility matrices
of multi-brace tubular joints in offshore structures. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers; 1986. p. 67596.
[6] Chen B, Hu Y, Tan M. Local joint exibility of tubular joints of offshore structures. Proc.
9th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 2001.
[7] Kohoutek R, Hoshyari I. Parametric formula of rigidity for semi-rigid tubular T-joints.
Proc. 1st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 1991.
[8] Romeijn A, Puthli RS, Wardenier J. Flexibility of uniplanar and multiplanar joints
made of circular hollow sections. Proc. 1st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; 1991.
[9] Hellan O. Nonlinear pushover and cyclic analysis in ultimate limited state design and
reassessment of tubular steel offshore structures. Doctor dissertation The Norwegian
Institute of Technology; 1995.
[10] Skallerud B, Amdahl J. Nonlinear analysis of offshore structure. Baldock, Hertfordshire
(England): Research Studies Press; 2001.
[11] Chakrabarti P, Mukkamala A, Abu-Odeh I. Effect of joint behavior on the reassessment
of xed offshore platforms in the bay of Campeche, Mexico. 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 2005. p. 13545.
[12] Mirtaheri M, Zakeri HA, Alanjari P, Assareh MA. Effect of joint exibility on overall
behavior of jacket type offshore platforms. Am J Eng Appl Sci 2009;2:2530.
[13] Hyde TH, Leen SB. Prediction of elasticplastic displacements of tubular joints under
combined loading using an energy-based approach. J Strain Anal Eng Des 1997;32:
43554.
119
[14] Leen SB, Pan W, Hyde TH. Investigation of an iterative sub-structure method for elastic and elasticplastic framework analysis. Comput Struct 2006;84:6908.
[15] Pan W, Leen SB, Hyde TH. Static analysis of frame by localized representation of
tubular joint. Proc. 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering; 2002.
[16] Ueda Y, Rashed SMH, Nakacho K. Flexibility and yield strength of joints in analysis
of tubular offshore structures. Proc. 5th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 1986.
[17] Ueda Y, Rashed SMH, Nakacho K. Improved joint model and equations for exibility
of tubular joints. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 1990;112:15768.
[18] Choo YS, Qian XD, Foo KS. Nonlinear analysis of tubular space frame incorporating
joint stiffness and strength. 10th International Jack-up Platform Conference; 2005.
[19] Dier AF, Hellan O. A non-linear tubular joint response model for pushover analysis. Proc.
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 2002.
[20] Dier AF, Lalani M. Strength and stiffness of tubular joints for assessment/design
purpose. 26th Offshore Technology Conference; 1995.
[21] Zettlemoyer N. Life extension of xed platforms. Tubular structure XIII; 2010 313.
[22] USOFS. USFOS course manual. Marintek SINTEF group; 2001.
[23] Van der Vegte GJ. The static strength of uniplanar and multiplanar tubular T- and
X-joints. Doctor dissertation The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 1995.
[24] Kurobane Y, Ogawa K, Ochi K, Makino Y. Local buckling of braces in tubular K-joints.
Thin-Walled Struct 1986;4:2340.
[25] Patran MSC. User's manual. MSC Software Corporation; 2010.
[26] ABAQUS. ABAQUS/Standard User's Manual Version 6.10-EF. Rising Sun Mills (USA):
Hibbitt Karlsson and Sorensen Inc.; 2010.
[27] Choo YS, Qian XD, Liew JYR, Wardenier J. Static strength of thick-walled CHS X-joints
part I. New approach in strength denition. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59:120128.
[28] IIW. Static design procedure for welded hollow section joints recommendations.
3rd ed. International Institute of Welding; 2008.
[29] Togo T. Experimental study on mechanical behavior of tubular joints. Doctor dissertation Japan: Osaka University; 1967.
[30] Greenwood PE, Nikulin MS. A guide to chi-squared testing. New York: Wiley; 1996.
[31] Lu LH, GDd Winkel, Yu Y, Wardenier J. Deformation limit for the ultimate strength of
hollow section joints. Tubular structure VI; 1994 3417.
[32] Bolt HM, Billington CJ. Result from large scale ultimate strength tests of K-braced
jacket frame structures. 26th Offshore Technology Conference. BOMEL Ltd; 1995.
[33] Bolt HM, Billington CJ, Ward JK. Result from large scale ultimate load tests on tubular
jacket frame structures. 25th Offshore Technology Conference. BOMEL Ltd; 1994.
[34] Choo YS, Qian XD, Wardenier J. Effects of boundary conditions and chord stresses on
static strength of thick-walled CHS K-joints. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:31628.
[35] Kurobane Y, Ogawa K. New criteria for ductility design of joints based on complete CHS
truss tests. 5th International Symposium on Tubular Structures; 1993. p. 57081.
[36] Bolt HM, Billington CJ. Results from ultimate load tests on 3D jacket type structures.
31th Offshore Technology Conference; 2000.
[37] BOMEL. Brief description of 3D test set up and structural conguration. BOMEL
Reference C636\06\313R. BOMEL limited; 1999.
[38] Qian X, Zhang Y, Choo YS. A load-deformation formulation with fracture representation based on the J-R curve for tubular joints. Eng Fail Anal 2013;33:34766.