Draft 3 RP-C208 Non-Linear FE-methods

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
DNV-RP-C208
Draft 3 November 2012
Determination of Structural Capacity

by Non-linear FE-analysis Methods
JANUARY
2013
CONFIDENTIAL
This document is a draft not intended for external distribution
DRAFT
Det Norske Veritas
Page 2
Draft 3 November 2012, DNV-RP-C208
TABLE OF CONTENT
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
5
5
5
6
7
LIMIT STATE SAFETY FORMAT

CHARACTERISTIC RESISTANCE
TYPE OF FAILURE MODES
USE OF LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS
EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR THE RESISTANCE
DUCTILITY
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE
PERMANENT DEFORMATIONS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

VALIDITY
DEFINITIONS
SYMBOLS
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
7
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
DEFINITION OF FAILURE
10
MODELLING
11
DETERMINATION OF CHARACTERISTIC RESISTANCE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT STATISTICAL VARIATION
11
REQUIREMENT TO THE SOFTWARE
12
REQUIREMENT TO THE USER
12
REQUIREMENTS TO THE FEM ANALYSIS
12
4.1 GENERAL
4.2 SELECTION OF FE SOFTWARE
4.3 SELECTION OF ANALYSIS METHOD
4.3.1
Implicit versus explicit solver
4.3.2
Solution control for explicit analysis
4.3.3
Solution control for dynamic implicit analysis
4.3.4
Solution control for static implicit analysis
4.4 SELECTION OF ELEMENTS
4.5 MESH DENSITY
4.5.1
General
4.5.2
Mesh refinement study
4.6 GEOMETRY MODELLING
4.7 MATERIAL MODELLING
4.7.1
General
4.7.2
Material models for metallic materials
4.7.3
Stress strain measures
4.7.4
Evaluation of strain results
4.7.5
Stress - strain curves for buckling and ultimate capacity analyses
4.7.6
Strain rate effects
4.8 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
4.9 LOAD APPLICATION
4.10 APPLICATION OF SAFETY FACTORS
4.11 EXECUTION OF NONLINEAR FE ANALYSES, QUALITY CONTROL
4.12 REQUIREMENTS TO DOCUMENTATION OF THE FE ANALYSIS
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
21
22
22
22
22
23
REPRESENTATION OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES
23
5.1 DESIGN AGAINST TENSILE FAILURE

5.1.1
General
5.1.2
Tensile failure resistance from non-linear analysis calibrated against a known solution
5.1.3
Tensile failure in base material. Simplified approach.
Det Norske Veritas
23
23
24
24
Page 3
5.1.4
Failure of welds
26
5.2 FAILURE DUE TO REPEATED YIELDING (LOW CYCLE FATIGUE)
26
5.2.1
General
26
5.2.2
Determination of cyclic loads
26
5.2.3
Cyclic stress strain curves
27
5.2.4
Low cycle fatigue of welded joints
28
5.2.5
Low cycle fatigue of base material
29
5.2.6
Shake down check
31
5.3 ACCUMULATED STRAIN (RATCHETING)
31
5.4 BUCKLING
31
5.4.1
General
31
5.4.2
Determination of buckling resistance by use of linearised buckling values
31
5.4.3
Buckling resistance from non-linear analysis using code defined equivalent tolerances
34
5.4.4
Buckling resistance from non-linear analysis that are calibrated against code formulations or
tests
36
5.4.5
Strain limits to avoid accurate check of local stability for plates and tubular sections yielding
in compression.
36
5.5 REPEATED BUCKLING
37
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
38
COMMENTARY
40
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
8
COMMENTS TO 4.1 GENERAL

40
COMMENTS TO 4.4 SELECTION OF ELEMENTS
40
COMMENTS TO 5.1.1 GENERAL
40
COMMENTS TO 5.1.3 TENSILE FAILURE IN BASE MATERIAL.
41
COMMENT TO 5.2.2 DETERMINATION OF CYCLIC LOADS
41
COMMENT TO 5.2.3 CYCLIC STRESS STRAIN CURVES
41
COMMENT TO 5.2.4.1 ACCUMULATED DAMAGE CRITERION
41
COMMENTS TO 5.2.6 SHAKE DOWN CHECK
42
COMMENTS TO 5.4.1. GENERAL
42
COMMENTS TO 5.4.5 STRAIN LIMITS TO AVOID ACCURATE CHECK OF LOCAL STABILITY FOR PLATES
43
AND TUBULAR SECTIONS YIELDING IN COMPRESSION.
EXAMPLES
44
8.1
8.2
CONVERGENCE TEST OF LINEARIZED BUCKLING OF FRAME CORNER

44
EXAMPLE OF DETERMINATION OF BUCKLING RESISTANCE BY USE OF LINEARIZED BUCKLING VALUES
47
8.2.1
Step i) Build model
47
8.2.2
Step ii): Linear analysis of the frame
48
8.2.3
Step iii) Determine the buckling eigenvalues
49
8.2.4
Step iv) Select the governing buckling mode and the point for reading the representative stress
50
8.2.5
Step v: Determine the von-Mises stress at the point for the representative stress Rep from step
ii.
50
8.2.6
Step vi: Determine the critical buckling stress
50
8.2.7
Step vii: Select empirically based buckling curve
50
8.2.8
Step viii: Determine the buckling resistance Rd
50
8.3 EXAMPLE OF DETERMINATION OF BUCKLING RESISTANCE FROM NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS USING CODE
51
DEFINED EQUIVALENT TOLERANCES
8.3.1
Description of model
51
8.3.2
Results
52
8.4 EXAMPLE OF DETERMINATION OF BUCKLING RESISTANCE FROM NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS THAT ARE
53
CALIBRATED AGAINST CODE FORMULATIONS OR TESTS
8.4.1
Step i: Prepare model
53
8.4.2
Step ii: Determine relevant buckling modes
54
8.4.3
Step iii: Select object for calibration and prepare model
55
8.4.4
Step iv: Determine the appropriate buckling mode for the calibration object
56
8.4.5
Step v: Determine magnitude of the equivalent imperfection
57
8.4.6
Step vi: Perform non-linear analysis of the model with imperfections
57
Det Norske Veritas
Page 4
8.5
EXAMPLE: LOW CYCLE FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF TUBULAR JOINT SUBJECTED TO OUT OF PLANE
LOADING.
8.6 EXAMPLE: LOW CYCLE FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF PLATE WITH CIRCULAR HOLE.
8.7 GROSS YIELDING OF SHELL PLATING IN BIAXIAL MEMBRANE AND BENDING MODE
8.8 EXAMPLE: STRAIN LIMITS FOR TENSILE FAILURE DUE TO GROSS YIELDING OF PLANE PLATES
(UNIAXIAL STRESS STATE)
8.8.1
T-section cantilever beam
8.8.2
T-section cantilever beam with notch
8.8.3
Example: Yield check of T-beam with circular hole
Det Norske Veritas
59
63
65
68
68
70
72
Page 5
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the document
This document is intended to give guidance on how to establish the structural resistance by use of nonlinear FE-methods. It deals with determining the characteristic resistance of a structure or part of a
structure in a way that fulfils the requirements in DNV offshore standards.
Non-linear effects that may be included in the analyses are e.g. material and geometrical non-linearity,
contact problems etc.
The characteristic resistance should represent a value that meet the requirement that there is less than
5% probability that the resistance is less than this value. This definition of the characteristic resistance
is similar to what is required by many other structural standards using the limit state safety format and
these recommendations are expected to be valid for determination of capacities to be used with such
standards.
The recommendations are foreseen to be used for cases where the characteristic resistance is not
directly covered by codes or standards. The goal is that analyses carried out according to the
recommendations given in this document will lead to a structure that meets the requirements to the
minimum safety margin in the standard.
This document is not intended to replace formulas for resistance in code and standards for the cases
where they are applicable and accurate, but to present methods that allows for using non-linear FEmethods to determine resistance for cases that is not covered by codes and standards or where accurate
recommendations are lacking.
1.2
Validity
The document is valid for marine structures made from structural steels meeting requirements to
offshore structures with a yield strength of up to 500 MPa.
The recommendations presented herein are adapted to typical offshore steels that fulfil the
requirements specified in DNV-OS-C101 or an equivalent offshore design standard. The specified
requirements are made under the assumption that the considered structure is operating under
environmental conditions that are within the specification of the applied offshore standard. If the
offshore unit is operating outside these specifications, the failure criterion presented in this
recommended practice can only be utilized if it can be documented that both the weld and parent
material has sufficient toughness in the actual environmental conditions.
1.3
Definitions
This Recommended Practise use terms that is defined in DNV-OS-C101. The following additional
terms are defined below:
conservative load
load that maintain is orientation when the structure deforms (e.g. gravity loads)
characteristic
resistance
the resistance that for a particular failure mode is meeting the requirement of having a
prescribed probability that the resistance falls below this value (usually 5% fractile)
ductility
the ability to deform beyond the proportionality limit without significant reduction in the
capacity due to fracture or local buckling (originally ductility refer to the behaviour of
the material, but is here also used for the behaviour of structures and structural details)
follower load
load that change direction with the structure (e.g. hydrostatic pressure)
gross yielding
yielding across the entire structural component e.g. a flange
Det Norske Veritas
Page 6
low cycle fatigue
low cycle fatigue is defined as the progressive and localised damage caused by repeated
plastic strain in the material. In low cycle fatigue assessments are carried out by
considering the cyclic strain level.
net area
area of a section through a cross-section or part of a cross-section where the area of

holes and openings are subtracted
net section ratio
the ratio between the net area and the gross area of the tension part of a cross-section
redundant structure
a structure may be characterized as redundant if loss of capacity in one of its structural

elements will lead to little or none reduction in the overall load-carrying capacity due to
load redistribution
Shake down
shakedown is a state in which a structure after being loaded into the elasto-plastic range
will behave essentially linear for all subsequent cycles
von-Mises
equivalent strain
1.4
Symbols
1
2
2
= + + ( )2 + 3 2 + 2 + 2
2
span of plate
flange outstand
damping matrix
Outer diameter of tubular sections
modulus of elasticity
stress-strain curve parameter
external forces
yield stress/yield strength
internal forces
Ramberg-Osgood parameter
eigenvalue for governing buckling mode
characteristic element size of smallest element
mass matrix
number of cycles to failure
design resistance
design action effect
characteristic resistance
characteristic action effect
time, thickness
displacement vector
strain
Det Norske Veritas
Page 7
critical strain
von Mises equivalent strain
p_ult
p_y1
fully reversible 1st principal hot spot strain range
time step
partial factor for actions
Poissons ratio
1 ,2
principal stresses
engineering (nominal) stress
critical buckling stress
linearized local buckling stress
true (Cauchy) stress
engineering (nominal) strain
fatigue ductility coefficient
p_y1
true (logarithmic) strain
fully reversible local equivalent strain range
material factor
reduced slenderness
density
representative stress
fatigue strength coefficient
linearized buckling stress disregarding local buckling modes
2
2.1
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Limit state safety format
A limit state can be defined as: A state beyond which the structure no longer satisfies the design
performance requirements. See e.g. /1/.
Limit states can be divided into the following groups:
Det Norske Veritas
Page 8
Ultimate limit states (ULS) corresponding to the ultimate resistance for carrying loads.
Fatigue limit states (FLS) related to the possibility of failure due to the effect of cyclic loading.
Accidental limit states (ALS) corresponding to failure due to an accidental event or
operational failure.
Serviceability limit states (SLS) corresponding to the criteria applicable to normal use or durability.
This document deals with limit states that can be grouped to ULS and ALS. This standard does also
address failure modes from cyclic loading for cases that cannot adequately be checked according to
the methods used in codes for check of FLS. This is relevant for situations where the structure is
loaded by a cyclic load at a high load level but only for a limited number of cycles (low-cycle fatigue).
The safety format that is used in limit state codes is schematically illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Sd< Rd
Figure 2-1
Illustration of the limit state safety format
The requirement can be written as:

Sd Rd
(1)
Sd
= Sk f
Design action effect
Rd
= Rk / M
Design resistance
Det Norske Veritas
Page 9
Sk
Characteristic action effect
Partial factor for actions
Rk
Characteristic resistance
Material factor
It can be seen from this figure that it is important that the uncertainty in the resistance is adequately
addressed when the characteristic resistance is determined.
2.2
Characteristic resistance
The characteristic resistance should represent a value which will imply that there is less than 5%
probability that the resistance is less than this value.
The characteristic resistance given in design codes is determined also of considerations of other
aspects than the maximum load carrying resistance. Aspects like post-peak behaviour, sensitivity to
construction methods, statistical variation of governing parameters etc. are also taken into account. In
certain cases these considerations are also reflected in the choice of the material factor that will be
used to obtain the design resistance. It is necessary that all such factors are considered when the
resistance is determined by non-linear FE-methods.
2.3
Type of failure modes
When steel structures are loaded to its extreme limit they will either fail by some sort of instability
(e.g. buckling) that prevent further loading or by tension failure or a combination of the two. For
practical cases it is often necessary to define characteristic resistance at a lower limit in order to be
able to conclude about structural integrity without excessive analysis. Examples of this can be limiting
the plastic strain to avoid cyclic failure for dynamically loaded structures or deformation limit for
structural details failing by plastic strain in compression. See Section 3.1.
The following types of failure modes are dealt with in this Recommended Practise:
2.4
Tensile failure
Failure due to repeated yielding (low cycle fatigue)
Accumulated plastic strain
Buckling
Repeated buckling
Use of linear and non-linear analysis methods
Traditionally, offshore structures are analysed by linear methods to determine the internal distribution
of forces and moments, and the resistances of the cross-sections are checked according to design
resistances found in design codes. These design resistance formulae often require deformations well
into the inelastic range in order to mobilise the code defined resistances. However, no further checks
are normally considered necessary as long as the internal forces and moments are determined by linear
methods. When non-linear analysis methods are used, additional checks of accumulated plastic
deflections and repeated yielding will generally be needed. These checks are important in case of
variable or cyclic loading e.g. wave loads.
2.5
Empirical basis for the resistance
All engineering methods, regardless of level of sophistication, need to be calibrated against an

empirical basis in the form of laboratory tests or full scale experience. This is the case for all design
formulas in standards. In reality the form of the empirical basis vary for the various failure cases that
are covered by the codes from determined as a statistical evaluation from a large number of full scale
representative tests to cases where the design formulas are validated based on extrapolations from
known cases by means of analysis and engineering judgements. It is of paramount importance that
Det Norske Veritas
Page 10
capacities determined by non-linear FE-methods build on knowledge that is empirically based. That
can be achieved by calibration of the analysis methods to experimental data.
2.6
Ductility
The integrity of a structure is also influenced by other factors than the value of the characteristic
resistance. The ability of a structural detail to maintain its resistance in case of overload is highly
influencing the resulting reliability of the structure. It is therefore necessary to consider not only the
value of the resistance when determining the characteristic resistance, but also to judge how the load
deflection relationship is for a particular failure mode.
The check for ductility requires that all sections subjected to deformation into the inelastic range
should deform without loss of the assumed load-bearing resistance. Such loss of resistance can be due
to tensile failure, instability of cross-sectional parts or member buckling. The design codes give little
explicit guidance on this issue, with exception for stability of cross-sectional parts in yield hinges,
which normally are covered by requirement to cross-sectional class 1. See e.g. DNV OS-C101 /13/.
Steel structures behave generally ductile when loaded to their limits. The established design practise is
based on this behaviour, which is beneficial both with respect to simplifying the design process and
improving the performance of the structure. For a ductile structure, significant deflections may occur
before failure and thus give a collapse warning. Ductile structures also have larger energy absorption
capabilities against impact loads. The possibility for the structure to redistribute stresses lessens the
need for an accurate stress calculation during design as the structure may redistribute forces and
moments to be in accordance with the assumed static model. This is the basis for use of linear analyses
for ULS checks even for structures, which behave significantly non-linear when approaching their
ultimate limit states.
2.7
Serviceability Limit State
Use of non-linear analysis methods may result in more structural elements being governed by the
requirements to the Serviceability Limit State and additional SLS requirements may be needed
compared with design using linear methods. E.g. when plate elements are used beyond their critical
load out of plane deflections may need to be considered from a practical or aesthetic point of view.
2.8
Permanent deformations
All steel structures behave more or less non-linear when loaded to their ultimate limit. The formulas
for design resistance in DNV Offshore standard /13/ or similar codes and standards are therefore
developed on the basis that permanent deformation may take place before the characteristic resistance
is reached.
3
3.1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Definition of failure
In all analyses a precise definition of failure should be formulated. The failure definition needs to
correspond with the functional requirement to the structures. In certain cases like buckling failure it
may be defined by the maximum load, while in other cases it need to be selected by limiting a suitable
control parameter e.g. plastic strain.
For Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and Accidental Limit States (ALS) the definition of failure needs to
reflect the functional requirement that the structure should not loose is load-carrying resistance during
the dimensioning event. That may e.g. imply that in an ULS check the failure is defined as the load
level where the remaining cycles in the storm that includes the ULS loadcase, will not lead to a
progressive or cyclic failure unless a specific check for these failure modes are carried out. See
also 5.2. Another example is in case of an ALS check for blast pressure one may consider the failure
criterion to be the limiting deflection for the passive fire protection.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 11
Care should be made to ascertain that all relevant failure modes are addressed either directly by the
analysis or by additional checks. Examples are local buckling, out of plane buckling, weld failure etc.
3.2
Modelling
It shall be checked that the analysis tool and the modelling adopted represent the non-linear behaviour
of all structural elements that may contribute to the failure mechanism with sufficient accuracy. The
model should be suitable to represent all failure modes that are intended to be checked by the analysis.
It should be made clear which failure modes the model will adequately represent and which failure
modes that are excluded from the analysis and that are checked by other checks.
3.3
Determination of characteristic resistance taking into account statistical variation
When FE-methods are used to determine the structural resistance it is necessary to take due account of
the statistical variation of the various parameters such that the results will be equal to or represent an
estimate to the safe side compared with what would be obtained if physical testing could be carried
out.
The model should aim to represent the resistance as the characteristic values according to the
governing code. In general that means 5 % fractile in case a low resistance is unfavourable and 95 %
fractile in case a high resistance is unfavourable.
In cases where data of the statistical variation of the resistance is uncertain one need to establish a
selection of the governing parameters by engineering judgement. The parameters should be selected
such that it can be defended that the characteristic resistance established meets the requirement that
there is less than 5% probability that the capacity is below this value.
All parameters that influence the variability of the resistance need to be considered when establishing
the characteristic resistance.
It is therefore necessary to validate the analysis procedure according to one of the following methods:
a) Selection of all governing parameters to be characteristic or conservative values.
In this method all parameters that influence the result (key parameters) are selected to give
results to the safe side. E.g. element type, mesh size, material curve, imperfections, residual
stresses etc.
For structures or structural details where the resistance is dominated by the value of the yield
stress, using the specified minimum yield stress according to offshore steel material standards
will represent the requirements to the characteristic resistance. Other parameters with
statistical variation that will influence the resistance e.g. plate thickness should be selected as
a safe estimate of the expected value in order to meet the required statistical requirement for
the resulting resistance. In cases of doubt a sensitivity assessment may be necessary.
In some cases values are given in the codes for analysis of specific problems see e.g. 5.4.3.
b) Validation against code values
In this method a selected code case is used for calibration (denoted code calibration case). The
case should represent the same failure mode that is to be investigated. The key parameters e.g.
element type, mesh size, material curve, imperfections, residual stresses etc. should be
selected so the analysis provide the resistance predicted by the code for the code calibration
case. The same parameters are then used when the resistance of the actual problem is
determined.
If the analysis is calibrated against ordinary code values that meet the requirements to
characteristic resistance then the resistance of the analysed structure also will meet the
requirement.
c) Validation against test
In this method one or more physical tests that is judged to fail in a similar way as the problem
to be analysed are selected for calibration (denoted test calibration case). First the key
parameters e.g. element type, mesh size, material curve, imperfections, residual stresses etc.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 12
are varied so the analysis simulate the test calibration case satisfactory. (Giving the same or
less resistance.) Then the actual problem are analysed using the same key parameters. It
should be ascertained that the statistical variation of the problem is duly covered such that the
requirements for determination of resistance by use of FE-methods corresponds to the
requirements for determination of resistance from testing as given in Annex D of Eurocode
1990 /3/ or in ISO 19902 /9/.
3.4
Requirement to the software
The software used shall be documented and tested for the purpose.
3.5
Requirement to the user
The user should be familiar with FE-methods in general and non-linear methods in particular.
The analysts need to understand the structural behaviour of the problem in question.
The user shall know the theory behind the methods applied as well as the features of the selected
software.
When documenting structures to meet a code described reliability level with use of non-linear methods
for determination of the resistance it is necessary the engineers understand the inherent safety
requirements of the governing code.
REQUIREMENTS TO THE FEM ANALYSIS
4.1
General
The term non-linear FE- analysis covers a large number of analysis types for different purposes and
objects. The content of this section is written with analyses of steel structures in mind. The objective is
to document structural capacity of the structure in a way that fulfils the requirements for determining
characteristic resistance in DNV offshore standards and other similar standards, such as the Norsok Nseries and the ISO 19900 suite of standards.
4.2
Selection of FE software
The software must be tested and documented suited for analysing the actual type of non-linear
behaviour. This includes:
Non-linear material behaviour (yielding, plasticity)

Non-linear geometry (Stress stiffening, 2nd order load effects)
Other types of non-linearity that may need to be included are:
Contact
Temperature effects (e.g. material degradation, thermal expansion)
Non-linear load effects (e.g. follower loads)
4.3
Selection of analysis method
4.3.1
Implicit versus explicit solver
Both implicit and explicit equation solvers may be used to solve the general equation system:
Where
() + () + () = ()
(2)
Det Norske Veritas
Page 13
M is the mass matrix,
C is the damping matrix
u is the displacement vector,
Fint is the internal forces and
Fext is the external forces
In dynamic analyses, explicit solvers are attractive for large equation systems, as the solution scheme
does not require matrix inversion or iterations, and thus, are much more computational effective
solving one time step than solvers based on the implicit scheme. However, unlike the implicit solution
scheme, which is unconditionally stable for large time steps, the explicit scheme is stable only if the
time step size is sufficiently small. An estimate of the time step required to ensure stability for beam
elements is:
=
(3)
where Ls is the characteristic element size of the smallest element and C is the speed of sound waves
in the material. Similar expressions exist for shells and solids.
This makes the explicit scheme well suited for shorter time transients as seen in for instance impact or explosion response analyses. For longer time transients the number of time steps will, however, be
much larger than needed for an implicit solution scheme. For moderately non-linear problems, implicit
Newton Raphson methods are well suited, gradually incrementing the time and iterate to convergence
for each time step.
4.3.2
Solution control for explicit analysis
Most explicit FE codes calculate the governing size of the time step based on equations similar to
Equation (3). For problems of longer duration, one often wants to save analysis time by reducing the
number of time steps. This can be done by accelerating the event or mass scaling. Accelerating the
event reduces the simulation time and thus computational time, the mass scaling increases the time
step reducing the computational time, see Equation (3).
The time saving methods are only useful if the inertia forces are small. Thus, it must be documented
that the kinetic energy is small compared to the deformation energy (typically less than 1 %) when
explicit analyses are used to find quasi-static response.
Due to the typical large number of time steps in explicit analyses, the numerical representation of
decimal numbers is important for the stability of the solution. The software options to use high
precision (double precision) float are generally preferred.
4.3.3
Solution control for dynamic implicit analysis
A large number of time integration procedures exists (e.g. The Newmark family of methods and the Method). For non-linear analyses they should be used in combination with Newton iterations. As a
rule of thumb the time step should not be larger than 1/10 of the lowest natural period of interest.
The most commonly used integration procedures can be tuned selecting the controlling parameters.
The parameters should in most cases be selected to give an unconditional stable solution.
For the -method ( HHT method) ref. /26/ the parameters , and can be selected by the user. The
method is unconditionally stable if:
1
1
1
(4)
= (1 )2 , = and 0
4
2
3
Selecting less than 0 gives some numerical damping. In order to avoid noise from high frequency
modes, parameters that give some numerical damping can be useful. Table 4-1 presents some
combinations of parameters that give unconditional stability.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 14
Table 4-1 Combinations of , and for unconditional stability
4.3.4
0.25
0.5
-0.05
-0.1
0.2756
0.3025
0.55
0.6
Comment
Trapezoidal rule, no numerical
damping
Numerical damping
Numerical damping
Solution control for static implicit analysis
In case the dynamic effects are not important, the equation system to solve may be reduced to
() = ()
(5)
In such cases the implicit equation solvers are in general better suited, as the dynamic terms cannot be
excluded in an explicit analysis.
Instead of time, applied load or displacement boundary conditions are normally incremented in a static
solution. The selection of a load control algorithm for the analysis should be based on the expected
response and need for post peak-load results.
A pure load control algorithm will not be able to pass limit points or bifurcation points when the
inertia effects are not included.
Using a displacement control algorithm, limit points and bifurcation points can be passed, but the
analysis will stop at turning points.
For snap-back problems (passing turning point), or limit/bifurcation point problems that cannot be
analysed using displacement control, an arch length method is needed.
Figure 4-1 Limit, Bifurcation and Turning points

4.4
Selection of Elements
The selection of element type and formulation is strongly problem dependent. Points to consider are:
Shell elements or solid elements

Elements based on constant, linear or higher order shape functions
Full vs. reduced, vs. hybrid integration formulations
Number of through thickness integration points(shell)
Volumetric locking, membrane locking and transverse shear locking
Hourglass control/artificial strain energy (for reduced integration elements)
In general higher order elements are preferred for accurate stress estimates; elements with simple
shape functions (constant or linear) will require more elements to give the same stress accuracy as
higher order elements. Constant stress elements are not recommended used in the area of interest.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 15
Some types of elements are intended as transition elements in order to make the generation of the
element mesh easier and are known to perform poorly. Typically 3-noded plates/shells and 4-noded
tetrahedrons are often used as transition elements. This type of elements should if possible be avoided
in the area of interest.
Proper continuity should be ensured between adjacent elements if elements of different orders are used
in the same model.
For large displacements and large rotation analyses, simple element formulations give a more robust
numerical model and analysis than higher order elements.
Care should be taken when selecting formulations and integration rules. Formulations with (selective)
reduced integration rules are less prone to locking effects than full integrated simple elements;
however the reduced integration elements may produce zero energy modes (hourglassing) and
require hourglass control. When hourglass control is used, the hourglass energy should be monitored
and shown to be small compared to the internal energy of the system (typically less than 5 %).
4.5
Mesh density
4.5.1
General
The element mesh should be sufficiently detailed to capture the relevant failure modes:
For ductility evaluations, preferably several elements should be present in the yield zone in order
to have good strain estimates.
For stability evaluations, sufficient number of elements and degrees of freedom to capture relevant
buckling modes, typically minimum 6 elements per expected half wave should be used.
The element aspect ratio should be according to requirements for the selected element formulation in
the areas of interest.
Care is required in transitioning of mesh density. Abrupt transitioning introduces errors of a numerical
nature.
Load distribution and load type also have an influence on the mesh density. Nodes at which loads are
applied need to be correctly located, and in this situation can drive the mesh design, at least locally.
4.5.2
Mesh refinement study
Often it will be necessary to run mesh sensitivity studies in order to verify that the results from the
analyses are sufficiently accurate.
The analyst should make sure that the element mesh is adequate for representing all relevant failure
modes. In the general case mesh refinement studies may be done by checking that convergence of the
results are obtained e.g. by showing that the results are reasonably stable by rerunning the analysis
with half the element size. See example in section 8.1 .
4.6
Geometry modelling
Geometry models for FE analyses often need to be simplified compared to drawings of the real
structure. Typically small details need to be omitted as they interfere with the goal of having a good
regular element mesh.
The effect the simplifications may have on the result should be evaluated. Typical simplifications
include:
Cut-outs or local reinforcements are not included

Eccentricities are not included for beam elements or in thickness transitions in shell models
Weld material is not included
Welded parts are modelled as two parts and joined using contact surfaces,
Det Norske Veritas
Page 16
For buckling analyses it is necessary to introduce equivalent geometric imperfections in order to

predict the buckling capacity correctly, see Section 5.4. A common way to include the imperfections is
to use one or more of the structures eigenmodes and scale these such that the buckling capacity is
predicted correctly for the calibration model.
For problems where the geometry of the real structure deviates from the theoretical one, the analyses
needs to reflect that possible geometrical tolerances may have impacts on the result. Example is
fabrication tolerances of surfaces transferring loads by contact pressure.
4.7
Material modelling
4.7.1
General
The selected material model should at least be able to represent the non-linear behaviour of the
material both for increasing and decreasing loads (unloading). In some cases the material model also
needs to be able to account for reversed loading.
The material model selected needs to be calibrated against empirical data (see 3.3). The basic principle
is that the material model needs to represent the structural behaviour sufficiently for the analysis to be
adequately calibrated against the empirical basis.
4.7.2
Material models for metallic materials
For metallic materials time independent elasto-plastic models are often used. The main components in
such models are:
A yield surface, defining when plastic strains are generated.

von Mises plasticity is commonly used for metals. The model assumes that the yield surface is
unaffected by the level of hydrostatic stress.
A hardening model defining how the yield surface changes for plastic strains
Commonly used are isotropic hardening (expanding yield surface) and kinematic hardening
(translating yield surface) or a combination of both.
A flow rule (flow potential) defining the plastic strain increment a change in stress gives.
The yield surface function is often used as a flow potential (associated flow).
The von Mises yield function is considered suitable for most capacity analyses of steel structures.
The hardening rule is important for analyses with reversed loading; a material model with kinematic
(or combined kinematic/isotropic) hardening rule should be used in such analyses.
Figure 4-2 The von Mises yield surface shown in the 1-2 plane with isotropic (left)
and kinematic (right) hardening models
Det Norske Veritas
Page 17
Figure 4-3 Isotropic vs Kinematic hardening

4.7.3
Stress strain measures
Stress and strain can be measured in several ways:
From material testing the results are often given as Engineering stress-strain curves (calculated
based on the initial cross section of the test specimen).
FE software input is often given as True stress-strain (calculated based on updated geometry)
Other definitions of strains are also used in FE formulations, eg the Green-Lagrange strain, and the
Euler-Almansi strain.
For small deformations/strains, all strain measures gives similar results. For larger
deformations/strains the strain measure is important, e.g. the Green-Lagrange measure is limited to
small strains only. Figure 4-4 shows a comparison of some strain measures. Limitations in the
formulations on the use of the selected element type should always be noted and evaluated for the
intended analysis.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 18
Figure 4-4 Comparison of some strain measures

The relationship between Engineering (Nominal) stress and True (Cauchy) stress (up to the point of
necking) is:
true = eng (1 + eng )
(6)
The relationship between Engineering (Nominal) strain and True (Logarithmic) strain is:
true = ln(1 + eng )
(7)
The stress-strain curve should always be given using the same measure as expected by the software/
element formulation.
4.7.4
Evaluation of strain results
As element strain in FE- analyses is an averaged value dependent on the element type and element
size, the reported strain will always depend on the computer model. It is often necessary to re-mesh
and adjust the analysis model after the initial analyses are done in order to have a good model for
strain estimates.
Strain extracted from element integration points are the calculated strain based on element
deformations. Most FE software presents nodal averaged strains graphically. At geometry
intersections the nodal average value may be significantly lower than the element (nodal or integration
point) strain if the intersecting parts are different loaded. When evaluating strain results against
ductility limits, the integration point strains or extrapolated strains from integration points should be
used.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 19
4.7.5
Stress - strain curves for buckling and ultimate capacity analyses
When defining the material curve for the analysis, the following points should be considered:
Characteristic material data should normally be used, see section 3.3.

The predicted buckling capacity will depend on the curve shape selected, thus equivalent
imperfection calibration analyses and final analyses should be performed using the same material
curves.
The extension of the yield zones and predicted stress and strain levels depend on the curve shape
selected. Acceptance criteria should thus be related to the selected material curve, the curve need
not represent the actual material accurately as long as the produced results are to the safe side.
The stiffness of most steels reduces slightly before the nominal yield stress is reached; in fact yield
stress is often given as the stress corresponding to 0.2% plastic strain
Some steels have a clear yield plateau; this is more common for mild steels than for high strength
steels.
One should avoid using constant stress (or strain) sections in the material curves, due to possible
numerical instability issues.
For common offshore steel material qualities the properties shown in Table 4-2, Figure 4-5 and
Figure 4-6 are considered reasonable when ductility (plastic strain) or stability is the acceptance
criteria. The stress-strain values are given using the engineering stress-strain measure. Table 4-3 and
Figure 4-7 show the corresponding True stress-strain values.
The yield and ultimate stress properties should be adjusted for thickness effects according to the
material standard used. The curves should also be adjusted for temperature effects as appropriate.
Table 4-2 Proposed non-linear properties for common offshore steels (Engineering
stress-strain)
E [MPa]
prop/yield
Ep1/E
prop [MPa]
yield [MPa]
yield2 [MPa]
ult [MPa]
p_y1
p_y2
p_ult
Ep2/E
S235
210000
0.9
0.001
211.5
235
238.4
320
0.004
0.02
0.2
0.0022
S355
210000
0.9
0.001
319.5
355
358.4
450
0.004
0.02
0.15
0.0034
The parameters in Table 4-2 are explained in Figure 4-5.
Det Norske Veritas
S420
210000
0.9
0.001
378.0
420
421.3
500
0.004
0.01
0.12
0.0034
S460
210000
0.9
0.001
414
460
461.3
530
0.004
0.01
0.1
0.0036
Page 20
Table 4-3 Proposed non-linear properties for common offshore steels (True stress
strain)
E [MPa]
prop [MPa]
yield [MPa]
yield2 [MPa]
ult [MPa]
p_y1
p_y2
p_ult
S235
210000
211.7
236.2
243.4
384.5
0.0040
0.0198
0.1818
S355
210000
320.0
357.0
366.1
530.0
0.0040
0.0197
0.1391
Figure 4-5 Parameters to define stress strain curves
Det Norske Veritas
S420
210000
378.7
422.5
426.3
561.2
0.0040
0.0099
0.1128
S460
210000
414.8
462.8
466.9
584.3
0.0040
0.0099
0.0948
Page 21
Figure 4-6 Material curves according to Table 4-2 (Engineering stress-strain)
Figure 4-7 Material curves according to Table 4-3 (True stress-strain)
4.7.6
Strain rate effects
The proposed material curves in Section 4.7.5 can be used for strain rates up to 0.1 s-1. For impact
loads higher strain rates may be experienced, and the increased strength and reduced ductility may be
considered.
The Cowper-Symonds (CS) model is one model often used to simulate strain rate effects:

= 1 +
(8)
Det Norske Veritas
Page 22
As seen, the relative effect will be the same for all static stress (strain) levels. Thus the model must be
calibrated for the expected maximum stress (strain), otherwise the effect may be overestimated for
large strains.
The constants C and p should be based on experiments and the maximum strain level expected. In lack
of data, C = 4000 [s-1] and p=5 is proposed for common offshore steel materials.
4.8
Boundary conditions
The selected model boundary condition needs to represent the real condition in a way that will lead to
results that are accurate or to the safe side.
Often it is difficult to decide what the most correct or a conservative boundary condition is. In such
cases sensitivity studies should be performed.
4.9
Load application
Unlike linear elastic analyses, where results from basic load cases can be scaled and added together,
the sequence of load application is important in non-linear analyses. Changing the sequence of load
application may change the end response.
The loads should be applied in the same sequence as they are expected to occur in the simulated
condition/event. E.g. for an offshore structure subjected to both permanent loads (such as gravity and
buoyancy) and environmental loads ( such as wind, waves and current); the permanent loads should be
incrementally applied first to the desired load level, then the environmental load should be
incremented to the target level or collapse.
In some cases the initial load cases (e.g. permanent loads) may contribute positively to the load
carrying capacity for the final load case, in such cases a sensitivity study on the effect of reduced
initial load should be performed.
The analyst needs to evaluate if the loads are conservative (independent of structure deformation) or
non-conservative (follow structure deformation) and model the loads correspondingly.
The number of time/load increments used to reach the target load level may also influence the end
predicted response. Increment sensitivity studies should be performed to ensure that all failure modes
are captured.
4.10 Application of safety factors

Applying load and resistance safety factors in a non-linear analysis can be challenging as application
of safety factors on the capacity model side for one failure mode may influence the capacity of another
failure model. One example of this is yielding vs. column buckling capacity.
In general it is more practical to prepare one capacity model representing the desired characteristic
capacity for all failure modes to be analysed for, and then apply all the safety on the load side,
defining a target load level that accounts for both load and resistance safety. Using this approach, the
same model may be used for both ULS and ALS type of analyses without recalibration of the model:
>
(9)
where Rk is the characteristic resistance found from the analysis, and Sk is the characteristic load
effect.
4.11 Execution of Nonlinear FE analyses, quality control

The following points should be considered in a quality control of Non-linear FE analyses:
Boundary conditions
Det Norske Veritas
Page 23
Calibration against known values

Inertia effects in dynamic analyses
Element formulation/ integration rule suited for the purpose
Material model suited for the purpose
Mesh quality suited for the purpose, mesh convergence studies performed for stress strain results.
Equivalent imperfections calibrated for stability analyses
Time/load increments sufficient small, convergence studies performed
Numerical stability
Reaction corresponds to input
Convergence obtained for equilibrium iterations
Hour glass control for reduced integration, hourglass energy remains small
Sensitivity analysis both from idealisation and numerical points of views could be provided in
particular around singularities, for boundary conditions, etc.
Reference recommendations in Standards, Codes or Rules that are applicable directly to the
studied system, or to a similar system with different dimensions.
Reference similar analyses for system or subsystems that are validated from analytical or
experimental sources.
Evaluation of analysis accuracy based on performed sensitivity studies
4.12 Requirements to documentation of the FE analysis

The analysis should be documented sufficiently detailed to allow for independent verification by a
third party, either based on review of the documentation, or using independent analyses. The
documentation should include description of:
Purpose of the analysis
Failure criteria
Geometry model and reference to drawings used to create the model
Boundary conditions
Element types
Element mesh
Material models and properties
Loads and load sequence
Analysis approach
Application of safety factors
Results
Discussion of results
Conclusions
Sensitivity studies and other quality control activities performed in connection with the analyses
should also be documented
REPRESENTATION OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES
5.1
5.1.1
Design against tensile failure

General
An accurate analysis of tensile failure is demanding as numerous factors affect the problem and
determination of the results from the analysis is highly influenced on how the analysis is carried out.
The recommendations given in this document is not valid for failure that is related to unstable fracture
due to either insufficient material toughness, defects outside fabrication specifications or cracks. In
such cases fracture mechanics methods need to be used.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 24
In general accurate prediction of tensile failure needs to be made by analyses that are calibrated
against tests or a known solution where the conditions for tensile failure are similar as in the structural
detail being investigated. This method is described in 5.1.2 below.
Simplified tensile failure criteria for the base material are presented in Section 5.1.3.
Welds are assumed to be made with overmatching material that ensures that plastic straining and
eventual failure takes place in the base material. Welds should therefore be checked according to
ordinary code methods based on the forces carried by the welds. See 5.1.4.
5.1.2
Tensile failure resistance from non-linear analysis calibrated against a known solution
The most accurate method to check a structure against tensile failure is by calibrating the non-linear
FE analysis against a known solution. In this method the following steps should be followed.
i) Select a test or a problem with known capacity (e.g. from a design code) as the reference
object. The reference object should have the similar conditions for tensile failure as the actual
problem e.g. with respect to degree of triaxial stress state.
ii) Model and analyse the reference object following recommended modelling and analysis
technique.
iii) Determine the selected strain parameter that is judged to best describe the problem (e.g.
principal strain) at failure for the reference object.
iv) Model the actual object using the same analysis technique as for the reference object i.e. mesh
density, element type, material properties, etc.
v) Determine the capacity against tensile failure for the structure as the load corresponding to the
load level when the failure strain as determined in iii) is reached.
5.1.3
Tensile failure in base material. Simplified approach.
5.1.3.1 General
There is not a universal method available that can be used for predicting tensile failure for practical
engineering applications by FE-methods. Tensile failure can be assessed by the following simplified
procedure for some selected situations if a calibrated solution as given in 5.1.2 is not attainable. The
simplified check is different for uniaxial tension and biaxial tension. The simplified check of tensile
failure for uniaxial tension is a two-step check:
1. tensile failure due to gross yielding along the failure line (see 5.1.3.2)
2. tensile failure due to cracks starting from local strain concentrations (see 5.1.3.3)
Simplified check for biaxial tension is given in 5.1.3.4.
Tensile failure in structures modelled by beam elements is best checked on the basis of the total
deflection e.g. as given in DNV-RP-C204 /17/.
This method is valid for structures made with typical offshore steel that will meet requirements to
ductility and toughness. The structural details need to meet fabrication requirements for offshore steel
structures.
5.1.3.2 Strain limits for tensile failure due to gross yielding of plane plates (uniaxial stress state)
With gross yield strain is understood the averaged linear plastic strain that can be decomposed to an
axial and a bending strain component. Local cut outs or holes need to be included in the model if the
ration of the net area and the gross area of the tension part is less than specified in Table 5-1. Local
strain caused by non-loaded attachments like doubler plates or brackets does not need to be
considered. For tensile failure in plane structural elements where the stress is dominated by uniaxial
tension stress and shear the recommended limits for the critical strains are given in Table 5-1.
The tension stresses both due to axial tension and in-plane and out-of plane membrane stress due to
bending and in-plane shear should be extrapolated based on the linearized distributed principal stress
Det Norske Veritas
Page 25
to the plate edge corners both transvers to the plate as well as through thickness. Shear strain due to
out-of-plane bending should be checked separate as averaged shear across the failure line.
The strain shall be calculated as the maximum principal plastic strain along the likely failure line. The
failure line should be assumed as a straight line.
The averaged plastic strain can be found by curve fitting a straight line using the method of least
squares.
Uniaxial stress state can be assumed as long as the lowest principal stress along the failure line is zero
or negative (compression).
Table 5-1
Critical strain and net area ratio for uniaxial stress state 1), 2)
Equivalent plastic critical linearized strain 1)

S235
S355
S420
Critical gross yield strain
0.05
0.04
0.03
Net section ratio
0.94
0.95
0.96
1) The strain can be calculated as average values over a length of up to 2 times the thickness
2) Any strain due to cold-forming should be subtracted from above values (equivalent strain)
S460
0.03
0.97
The material model should be according to 4.7.5. For shell and solid models the strain should be based
on average strains calculated on the basis of all elements across the cross-section. The strain should be
based on integration points and linearly extrapolated to the most critical point of the section. The
element mesh should be sufficiently dense to establish accurate strain values or values to the safe side.
Sensitivity analyses may be required to show that the result is sufficient reliable.
5.1.3.3 Strain limits for local tensile failure plane plates (uniaxial stress state)
When the cross-section is weakened by cut-outs or holes that are included in the analysis the local
strain should be checked. The equivalent plastic strains given in Table 5-2 is valid for cases where the
following requirements are followed:
Maximum element length to be 0.25 of the shortest length of the cut-out or minimum 16
elements around edge of openings
The strain is taken as the maximum plastic principal strain averaged over the integration points
for the element with the larges strain
The material model according to Section 4.7.5
Shear strain due to out-of-plane bending should be checked separately as the average plastic
shear strain across the failure plane extrapolated from the nearest planes of integration points.
Critical plastic out-of-plane shear strain to be according to Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Critical local maximum principal plastic strain for uniaxial stress states 1)
Maximum principal plastic critical strain

S235
S355
S420
Critical local yield strain
0.15
0.12
0.10
1) Any strain due to cold-forming should be subtracted from above values (equivalent strain)
S460
0.09
5.1.3.4 Gross yielding of shell plating in biaxial membrane and bending mode
Gross yielding can be checked in case of biaxial membrane and bending by determining the average
linearized strain in a t*t*t cube at the point of the largest strain. The strains should be checked
separately for strains due to membrane stresses combined with in-plane shear and for shear due to outof-plane bending. The strains should be determined by fitting a straight line to the maximum principal
membrane plastic strain based on the integration points and extrapolated to the external corner nodes.
The curve fitting could be made based on the method of least squares. From the linearized strain the
Det Norske Veritas
Page 26
equivalent strain should be determined at each corner and at the midpoint of the cube. The largest
equivalent strain should be less than:
< 2(1)
=
(10)
1 + 2
1 2 + 1 2 + 2 2
Where 1 and 2 are the principal stresses at the most loaded corner of the considered cube.
The element mesh should be sufficient dense to establish accurate strain values or values to the safe
side. Sensitivity analyses may be required to show that the result is sufficient reliable.
Plastic strain should be less than the values given in Table 5-3. The material model should be
according to 4.7.5.
Shear strain due to out-of-plane bending should be checked separately as the average plastic shear
strain across the failure plane extrapolated from the nearest planes of integration points. Critical plastic
shear strain due to out-of-plane bending to be according to Table 5-1.
Table 5-3
Average cube equivalent plastic strain for check of biaxial stress states
Maximum principal plastic critical strain

S235
S355
S420
S460
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.09
1) Any strain due to coldforming should be subtracted from above values (equivalent strain)
5.1.4
Failure of welds
The welds may or may not be represented with separate elements. For cases where the welds are not
modelled the check of the strength of welds should be based on stress resultants determined by
integration of stresses from the closest elements and checked against ordinary code checks e.g. EN
1993-1-8 /7/ or the relevant code for the problem at hand.
If welds are modelled the linearized stress components (axial, bending, shear) should be determined
from integration of the stresses in the elements representing the welds and checked against ordinary
code checks e.g. EN 1993-1-8 /7/ or the relevant code for the problem at hand.
Normally it is required that in welded connections the welds are stronger than the base material
(overmatch). See also Section 2.6.
5.2
5.2.1
Failure due to repeated yielding (low cycle fatigue)

General
Non-linear FE-analyses may imply that the structure is assumed to be loaded beyond proportionality
limits. This means that the structure may be weakened against subsequent load cycles by repeated
yielding leading to a possible cyclic failure. This is called low cycle fatigue and need to be treated
different from how high cycle fatigue checks are carried out.
The fatigue damage due to loads that leads to repeated yielding, i.e. cyclic plastic strains, will be
under-estimated if conventional linear elastic methods, such as those presented in DNV-RP-C203 ref
/25/, are applied. The methodology presented in the following must therefore be applied if repeated
yielding occurs.
5.2.2
Determination of cyclic loads
Failure due to repeated yielding is associated with Ultimate Limit States (ULS) or Accidental Limit
States (ALS). The cyclic loads should meet the same requirements as for a single extreme load when it
comes to partial safety factors and selection of return periods.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 27
Depending on the nature of the actual loads it may be necessary to carry out a check against failure
due to repeated plastic straining. This check is necessary as non-linear analysis allow the parts of the
structure to undergo significant plastic straining and the ability to sustain the defined loads may be
reduced by the repeated loading. For offshore structures this is evident for environmental loads like
waves and wind. When cyclic loads are present it is necessary to define a load history that will imply a
probability of failure that is similar or less than intended for static loads. See also 3.1
The load-history for the remaining waves in a 10 000 year dimensioning storm investigated for
southern North Sea conditions have been found to have a maximum value equal to 0.93 of the
dimensioning wave, a duration of 6 h and a Weibull shape parameter of 2.0. This applies for check of
failure modes where the entire storm will be relevant, such as crack growth. When checking failure
modes where only the remaining waves after the dimensioning wave (e.g. buckling) need to be
accounted for, a value of 0.9 of the dimensioning wave may be used /24/.
All the remaining cycles in the storm of the maximum wave action may be assumed to come from the
same direction as the dimensioning wave.
5.2.3
Cyclic stress strain curves
It is required that the cyclic stress-strain curve of the material is applied. The use of monotonic stressstrain curve must be avoided since it may provide non-conservative fatigue life estimates, especially
for high strength steels. It is required that the welds are produced with overmatching material.
Consequently the cyclic stress-strain properties of the base material should be used when assessing
welded joints.
Unless the actual cyclic behaviour of the material is known the true cyclic stress strain curves
presented in Figure 5-1 can be applied. Kinematic hardening, as illustrated in Figure 4-3 should be
assumed. The curves are described according to the Ramberg-Osgood relation:
10
+ .
The value of the coefficient K is given in Table 5-4.

=
Table 5-4 Ramberg-Osgood parameters for base material

Grade
S235
S355
S420
S460
K
410
600
670
750
Det Norske Veritas
(11)
Page 28
Figure 5-1 The true cyclic stress-strain curve for common offshore steel grades
5.2.4
Low cycle fatigue of welded joints
5.2.4.1 Accumulated damage criterion

The number of cycles to failure, N, for welded joints due to repeated yielding is estimated by solving
the following equation

= (2)0.1 + (2)0.5
2
Where:
(12)
hs is the fully reversible 1st principal hot spot strain range

E
is the modulus of elasticity (material constant)
'
f
is the fatigue strength coefficient (material constant)
'
f
is the fatigue ductility coefficient (material constant)
The parameters in Equation (12) are given in Table 5-5 for air and seawater with cathodic protection.
Note that it is allowed to apply parameters for air regardless environment provided that the detail is
crack free and that the loads are subjected during a short time period, e.g. during a storm.
Table 5-5 Data for low cycle fatigue analysis of welded joints
Environment
f'
f'
Air
Seawater with cathodic protection
175
160
0.095
0.060
Det Norske Veritas
Page 29
Figure 5-2 -N curves for welded tubular joints in seawater with cathodic protection and air.
5.2.4.2 Derivation of hot spot strain amplitude
It is recommended to derive the hot spot strain by applying the principles of the procedure given in
Section 4 of DNV-RP-C203 ref /25/. The procedure in ref /25/ is originally developed for assessing
the hot spot stress of a linear elastic material in relation to high cycle fatigue assessments. However,
by substituting 1st principal stresses with 1st principal strains it may also be applied for determining hot
spot strains.
It is recommended to mesh with elements of size t*t in the hot spot region.
The strain gradient towards the hot spot may be steep because the cyclic plastic strains often will be
localised in a limited area near the hot spot. In order to reflect steep strain gradient in a good manner it
is recommended to use finite elements with mid side nodes, such as 8-noded shell elements or 20noded brick elements.
For modelling with shell elements without any weld included in the model a linear extrapolation of the
strains to the intersection line from the read out points at 0.5t and 1.5t from the intersection line can be
performed to derive hot spot strain. For modelling with three-dimensional elements with the weld
included in the model a linear extrapolation of the strains to the weld toe from the read out points at
0.5t and 1.5t from the weld toe can be performed to derive hot spot strain.
5.2.5
Low cycle fatigue of base material
5.2.5.1 Accumulated damage criterion

Despite that the fatigue capacity of structures very often is governed by welded joints there are
situations where the origin of a fatigue crack is in the base material. This is often due to geometrical
details, such as notches, that cause rise in the cyclic stress-strain level. A low cycle fatigue check of
the base material may therefore be necessary.
As opposed to assessments of welded joints where the fatigue damage is determined by means of the
cyclic hot spot strain, low cycle fatigue analysis of base material is based on the local maximum
equivalent strain of the considered detail.
The number of cycles to failure, N, for base material due to repeated yielding is estimated by solving
the following equation
Det Norske Veritas
Page 30

= (2)0.1 + (2)0.43
2
where
(13)
is the fully reversible local equivalent strain range
is the modulus of elasticity (material constant)
f'
is the fatigue strength coefficient (material constant)
f'
is the fatigue ductility coefficient (material constant)
Values of the parameters in Equation (13) are given in Table 5-6 for air and seawater with cathodic
protection. Note that it is allowed to apply parameters for air regardless environment provided that the
detail is crack free and that the loads are subjected during a short time period, e.g. during a storm.
Table 5-6 Data for low cycle fatigue analysis of base material
Environment
f'
f'
Air
Seawater with cathodic protection
175
160
0.091
0.057
Figure 5-3 -N curve for low cycle fatigue for tubular joint in seawater with cathodic
protection.
5.2.5.2 Derivation of local equivalent strain amplitude
The equivalent strain is obtained from the local maximum of the considered detail. The local strain
state will be under estimated if the finite element mesh is too coarse. A mesh sensitivity study should
therefore be carried out to ensure that the applied strain is not under estimated. Reference is made to
Section 4.5.2 regarding mesh refinement.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 31
5.2.6
Shake down check
Structures loaded beyond the elastic range may alter their response behaviour for later cycles.
However, if a structure is behaving essentially linear for all cyclic loads after the first few cycles
following the dimensioning load, it will be said to achieve shake down and further checks of failure
due to repeated yielding or buckling is not necessary.
In the general case it is necessary to define a characteristic cyclic load and to use this load with
appropriate partial safety factors. It should be checked that yielding only take place in the first few
loading cycles and that later load repetitions only cause responses in the linear range. This will then
serve as an alternative to a low cycle fatigue check as described in 5.2.4.
It is necessary to show that the structure behave essentially linear for all possible load situations and
load cycles.
5.3
Accumulated strain (Ratcheting)
For cases where the structure will be loaded by cyclic loads in a way that incremental plasticity may
accumulate and in the end lead to tensile failure or excessive deformations the maximum accumulated
strain need to be checked against the strain values in Table 5-1 for uniaxially loaded plates and
Table 5-3 for biaxially loaded plates.
The criteria for excessive deformations may alternatively be determined on a case by case basis due to
requirements to the structural use or performance. Cases where accumulated strain may need to be
checked can be structure that are repeatedly loaded by impacts in the same direction or functional
loads that change position or angle of attack. Examples of the first are protection structures that are hit
by swinging loads and the latter may be wheel loads on stiffened plate decks.
5.4
Buckling
5.4.1
General
The buckling resistance of a structure or structural part is a function of the structural geometry, the
material properties, the imperfections and the residual stresses present. When the buckling resistance
is determined by use of non-linear methods it is important that all these factors are accounted for in a
way so the resulting resistance meets the requirement to the characteristic resistance or is based on
assumptions to the safe side.
Three different methods for carrying out the analysis are proposed in the following:
a) Linearized approach: Apply the FE-method for assessing the buckling eigenvalues (linear
bifurcation analysis)and determine the ultimate capacity using empirical formulas,
b) Full non-linear analysis using code defined equivalent tolerances and/or residual stresses and
c) Non-linear analysis that is calibrated against code formulations or tests.
Either of these methods can be used to determine the resistance of a structure or part of a structure and
recommendations for their use are given in the following sections.
The proposed methods are valid for ordinary buckling problems that are realistically described by the
FE-analysis. Care should be exercised when analysing complex buckling cases or cases that involve
phenomena like snap through, non-conservative loads, interaction of local and global stability
problems etc.
5.4.2
Determination of buckling resistance by use of linearised buckling values
5.4.2.1 General
If the linearized buckling values (eigenvalues) are calculated for a structure or part of the structure the
buckling resistance can be determined according to the following steps:
Det Norske Veritas
Page 32
i) Build the model. The element model selected for analysis need to represent the structure so that any
simplifications are leading to results to the safe side. If certain buckling failure modes are not seen as
appropriate to be represented by the model their influence on the resulting resistance can be
established according to 5.4.2.2 below.
ii) Perform a linear analysis for the selected representative load case SRep showing maximum
compressive and von-Mises stresses.
iii) Determine the buckling eigenvalues and the eigenmodes (buckling modes) by the FE-analysis
iv) Select the governing buckling mode (usually the lowest buckling mode) and the point for
determining the buckling representative stress. The point for reading the representative stress is the
point in the model that will first reach yield stress when the structure is loaded to its buckling
resistance.
v) Determine the von-Mises stress at the point for the representative stress Rep from step ii).
vi) Determine the critical buckling stress as the eigenvalue for the governing buckling mode times the
representative stress:
ki = kg Rep
(14)
Determine the reduced slenderness as:
(15)
vii) Select empirically based buckling curve to be used based on the sensitivity of the problem with
respect to imperfections, residual stresses and post buckling behaviour. Relevant buckling curves can
be selected from codes, but if not available the following may be used:
Table 5-7 Buckling curves.
Type of buckling
Column and stiffened plate
and plate without
redistribution possibilities
+ 2
1.0
= 1.0 for 0.673
Plate with redistribution

possibilities
0.22
for > 0.673

2
Curves to be selected from specific shell buckling codes such as

DNV-RP-C202 /23/ or Eurocode EN-1993-1-6 /6/
Shell buckling
= 0.5 1 + 0.2 +
=
(16)
0.15 for strict tolerances and low residual stresses

0.3 for strict tolerances and moderate residual stresses
Det Norske Veritas
Page 33
0.5 for moderate tolerances and moderate residual stresses
0.75 for large tolerances and severe residual stresses
viii) Determine the buckling resistance Rd as:
(17)
1,4
1,2
buckling factor
1
Critical stress (Euler)
Plate
0,8
Column
Shell
0,6
0,4
0,2
reduced slenderness
Figure 5-4 Examples of buckling curves showing sensitivity for imperfections etc. for
different buckling forms
Empirical based buckling curves are needed to account for the buckling resistance reduction effects
from imperfections, residual stresses and material non-linearity. The effect is illustrated in Figure 5-4.
For all buckling forms the usable buckling resistance is less than the critical stress for reduced
slenderness less than 1.2. Above this value, plates with possibility of redistributing stresses to
longitudinal edges may reach buckling capacities above the critical, column buckling problems will be
less than the critical value, but approach the critical value for large slenderness. Shell buckling is more
sensitive to imperfections and the difference between the buckling capacities that may be exploited in
real shell structures are considerably less than the critical also for large slenderness.
Members will buckle as columns for cross-section classes 1,2 and 3 with exception of tubular sections
exposed to external hydrostatic pressure. For definition of cross-sectional classes see DNV-OS-C101
/13/.
5.4.2.2 Correction for local buckling effects
There may be cases where a reliable finite element representation of local buckling phenomena is not
feasible. This may for instance be torsional buckling of stiffener or local stability of stiffener flange
and web. For such cases the eigenvalue analysis should be carried out without the local buckling
modes represented and the interaction of local and global buckling may be accounted for in a
conservative manner by linear interaction as shown in Equation (18).
(18)
1
1
1
=
+
ki kig kil
Det Norske Veritas
Page 34
kig is the linearized buckling stress when local buckling modes are disregarded and kil is the
linearized local buckling stress.
5.4.3
Buckling resistance from non-linear analysis using code defined equivalent tolerances
The buckling resistance of a structure or part of a structure can be determined by performing nonlinear analyses where the effects of imperfections, residual stresses and material non-linearity is
accounted for by use of a defined material stress-strain relationship and the use of empirically
determined equivalent imperfections. This method is only valid for buckling problem similar to the
cases where the equivalent imperfections are given in Table 5-8.
The material model to be used with the equivalent imperfections is shown in Figure 5-5 or with the
models proposed in 4.7.5.
E/100
Stress
E
1
Strain
Figure 5-5 Material model for analysis with prescribed equivalent imperfections
Det Norske Veritas
Page 35
Table 5-8 Equivalent imperfections.

Component
Member
Shape
bow
Magnitude
L/300 for strict
tolerances and low
residual stresses
L/250 for strict
tolerances and
moderate residual
stresses
L/200 for moderate
tolerances and
moderate residual
stresses
L/150 for large
tolerances and
severe residual
stresses
L/400
longitudinal
stiffener girder
webs
bow
plane plate
between
stiffeners
Longitudinal
stiffener or
flange
outstand
buckling
eigenmode
s/200
bow twist
0.02 rad
It is required that an eigenvalue analysis is carried out to determine the relevant buckling modes.
Usually the pattern from the buckling can be used as the selected pattern for the imperfections, but in
certain cases e.g. when the shape of the buckling load differ from the deflected shape from the actual
loads it may be necessary to investigate also other imperfection patterns.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 36
It may be useful to divide the imperfections into local and global imperfections as shown in Figure 5-6
Example of local (left) and global (right) imperfections for stiffened panel The values in Table 5-8
apply to the total imperfection from local and global.
Figure 5-6 Example of local (left) and global (right) imperfections for stiffened panel
5.4.4
Buckling resistance from non-linear analysis that are calibrated against code
formulations or tests
Buckling resistance can be found by non-linear methods where the effect of imperfections, residual
stresses and material non-linearity is taken care of by use of equivalent imperfections and/or residual
stresses by calibrating the magnitude of the imperfections (and, or the residual stresses) to the
resistance of a known case that with regard to the stability resistance resembles the buckling problem
at hand.
The following procedure based on that an equivalent imperfection is accounting for all effects
necessary to obtain realistic capacities is proposed as follows:
i) Prepare a model that is intended to be used for the analysis.
ii) Perform an eigenvalue analysis to determine relevant buckling modes.
iii) Select the object for calibration and prepare a model using the same element type and mesh density
as intended for the model to be analysed.
iv) Perform eigenvalue analysis of the calibration object and determine the appropriate buckling mode
for the calibration object
vi) Determine the magnitude of the equivalent imperfection that will give the correct resistance for the
calibration object
vii) Define an equivalent imperfection for the most relevant failure mode for the problem under
investigation based on the results from the calibration case
The definition of the equivalent imperfection may in certain cases not be obvious and it will then be
required to check alternative patterns for the equivalent imperfections.
Usually an imperfection pattern according to the most likely of the buckling eigenmodes will be
suitable to be used. Exceptions may be cases where the pattern of the deflected shape from the loads
differ from the shape of the buckling eigenmodes. In cases of doubt several patterns may be needed.
Example of the use of this procedure is included in the Section 8.1.
5.4.5
Strain limits to avoid accurate check of local stability for plates and tubular sections
yielding in compression.
5.4.5.1 General
For cases where compressed parts of the cross-section (as a flange) are experiencing plastic strain in
compression, but one want to avoid an accurate stability analysis of the local buckling effects the
stability can be assumed to be satisfactory if the plastic strain are limited to the values given below.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 37
The requirements are valid for plates that are loaded in the longitudinal direction and longituninally
supported on one or both sides and for tubular sections.
Plates supported on both longitudinal edges:
355
2.7 2 0,0016
0 < < 0.10
(19)
Where b is distance between longitudinal supports and t is plate thickness

Plates supported on one edge (flange outstand)
2
355
= 0.29 0,0016
0 < < 0.10
(20)
Where c is the plate outstand and t is plate thickness

Tubular sections without hydrostatic pressure:
2
355
= 8.5 0,0016
0 < < 0.10
(21)
The strain shall be calculated as plastic strain an may be taken as the average value through a crosssection of the compressed plated for element length no less than 2 times the plate thickness. Material
properties should be according to 4.7.
For structural parts meeting requirements to sectional class 3 or 4 no plastic strain due to compressive
stresses can be allowed without an accurate buckling analysis.
For definition of sectional classes see DNV-OS-C101 /13/.
5.5
Repeated buckling
For cases where buckling of parts of the structure may occur before the total capacity of the entire
structure is reached, it is necessary to investigate if the buckling may cause reduced capacity against
cyclic loads. When significant cyclic loads are present one should limit the capacity to the load level
that corresponds to the first incident of buckling or a cyclic check needs to be carried out. See 5.2.2 for
determination of cyclic loads.
For cyclic loads following an extreme wave or wind load, it is regarded acceptable to disregard failure
due to repeated buckling of the following cases:
Buckling of the individual plates in a stiffened plate structure if the plate to span ration is less
than 120.
Member buckling if all parts of the cross-section meet requirements to Cross-sectional class 1
and the reduced member slenderness as a column is above 0.5.
Failure due to low cycle fatigue according to 5.2 needs to be checked also for these cases.
It should be noted that structural parts that is yielding in tension may buckle when unloaded and that if
cyclic loads leads to yielding in tension one need to check against buckling through the entire
dimensioning load cycle.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 38
In certain cases sufficient capacity may be proved by disregarding the structural part that suffer
buckling in the cyclic capacity checks.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
/1/
ISO2394, General principles on reliability for structures, Second edition 1998-06-01
/2/
API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms Working Stress Design, Errata and supplement 3 October 2007
/3/
EN 1990, Eurocode - Basis of structural design, April 2002
/4/
EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. Part 1-1 General rules and rules for
buildings
/5/
EN 1993-1-5, Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-5: Plated structural elements,
October 2006
/6/
EN 1993-1-6, Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength and Stability of Shell
Structures, February 2007
/7/
EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of Joints,

2005/AC:2009
/8/
ISO 19900 Petroleum and natural gas industries General requirements for offshore structures.
First edition 2002-12-01
/9/
ISO 19902 Petroleum and natural gas industries Fixed steel offshore structures, First edition
2007-12-01
/10/
Norsok Standard N-001, Integrity of offshore structures, Edition 7, June 2010
/11/
Norsok Standard N-004, Design of steel structures, Revision 3 October 2004
/12/
Norsok Standard N-006, Assessment of structural integrity for existing offshore load-bearing
structures, Edition 1, March 2009
/13/
DNV-OS-C101, Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method) April 2010
/14/
DNV-RP-C201 Buckling Strength of Plated Structures, October 2008
/15/
DNV-RP-C204 Design against Accidental Loads, April 2005
/16/
ECCS publication No. 125, Buckling of Steel Shells. European Design Recommendations, 5th
Edition, J.M. Rotter and H. Smith Editors.
/17/
DNV-RP-F110 Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines Structural Design due to High

Temperature/High Pressure October 2007
/18/
DNV-SINTEF-BOMEL: ULTIGUIDE, Best practice for use of non-linear analysis methods in

documentation of ultimate limit state for jacket type offshore structures, April 1999.
/19/
Skallerud, Amdahl: Nonlinear analyses of offshore structures, Research studies press ltd., 2002
( ISBN 0-86380-2583)
/20/
Corrocean ASA: Design of offshore facilities to resists gas explosion hazards. Engineering
handbook. Oslo 2001.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 39
/21/
ASME Boiler &Pressure Vessel Code 2010 Edition July 1, 2010 VIII Division 2, Alternative
Rules RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PRESSURE VESSELS,
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Pressure Vessels
/22/
EN 13445-3:2009 Unfired pressure vessels Part 3: Design, July 2009
/23/
DNV-RP-C202 Buckling Strength of Shells
/24/
Hagen, , Solland, G. Mathisen, J. Extreme storm wave histories for cyclic check of offshore
structures OMAE 2010-20941
/25/
DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures October 2011
/26/
H. M. Hilber, T. J. R. Hughes and R. L. Taylor: Improved numerical dissipation for time

integration algorithms in structural dynamics, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, 5 (1977), page 283-292.
/27/
Skallerud, Eide, Amdahl, Johansen: On the capacity of tubular T-joints subjected to severe
cyclic loading. Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering - OMAE, v 1, n Part B, p 133-142, 1995.
Weignad, Berman: Behaviour of butt-welds and treatments using low-carbon steel under cyclic
inelastic strains, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, v 75, p 45-54, August 2012.
/28/
/29/
Boge, Helland, Berge: Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering - OMAE, v 4, p 107-115, 2007, Proceedings of the 26th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2007, OMAE2007.
/30/
Scavuzzo, Srivatsan, Lam: Fatigue of butt welded steel pipes. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP, v 374, p 113-143, 1998,
Fatigue, Environmental Factors, and New Materials.
Belytschko, Liu, Moran, Nonlinear Finite Elements and Continua and Structures, John
Wiley&Sons, Ltd., November 2009
/31/
/32/
Maresca, Milella, Pino: A critical review of triaxiality based failure criteria, IGF 13 Cassino 27
e 28 Maggio, 1997
/33/
Kuhlmann: Definition of Flange Slenderness Limits on the Basis of Rotation Capacity Values,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 14 (1989) 21-40
/34/
Gardner, Wang, Liew: Influence of strain hardening on the behavior and design of steel
structures, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics Vol. 11. No. 5 (2011)
855-875
/35/
DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems August 2012
Det Norske Veritas
Page 40
COMMENTARY
7.1
Comments to 4.1 General
The element model selected for analysis need to represent the structure so that any simplifications are
leading to results to the safe side. This is especially important for the selection of boundary conditions
and the representation of the load. The analyst needs to assess the possibility that simplification may
lead to an overrepresentation of the resistance. An example may be the representation of neighbouring
elements that also are subjected to buckling. In the case that the stiffness of the adjoining structure is
uncertain it is recommended to use boundary condition corresponding to simple support. If there are
uncertainties with respect to simplification in load it is recommended to vary the load pattern and
perform alternative analyses to check the effect.
The requirements to characteristic resistance in other codes for offshore structures like ISO 19902 /9/
is similar and the analysis carried out according to the recommendations in this RP is expected to fulfil
the requirements also in this code.
7.2
Comments to 4.4 Selection of Elements
Guidance on selection of suitable elements for non-linear analysis can be found in text books e.g. /31/.
7.3
Comments to 5.1.1 General
The value of the acceptable strain will be a factor of:
Stress triaxiality
Load history
Cold deformation
Material properties
Material inhomogeneity
Different material properties of material being joined. (Even material with the same strength
specification may differ due to statistical variance if not from same batch)
Presence of defects
The calculated strain values will be a function of:
Element type
Element density
Material properties
Flow rules
Sequence of load modelling
The acceptable strain values can therefore not be given with large accuracy without considerations of
the conditions of the actual problem. The RP propose to either use a simplified tensile failure criterion
or to calibrate a problem specific criterion according to a specified procedure.
Parent material has in general better toughness properties than weld material. It is therefore regarded
as good design practice to ensure that large plastic deformation occurs in the parent material and not in
the weld. This is normally the case for full penetration welds where the overmatching material ensures
limited plastic deformation in the weld. Weld material may however contain defects of considerable
size. In such cases a fracture mechanics assessment is necessary in order to determine if fracture in the
weld may be the governing failure mode.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 41
7.4
Comments to 5.1.3 Tensile failure in base material.
There are several models describing the local phenomenon of tensile failure. Common for most of
these is that the strain and stress state during the entire loading sequence until failure is considered
important for describing the damage process properly. Unfortunately, high degree of complexity is a
common feature of many of the models, and the theoretical and practical knowledge required to
perform a finite element analysis based on these criteria is above the level that can be expected of a
common engineer.
7.5
Comment to 5.2.2 Determination of cyclic loads
The check against cyclic failure should be carried out with the use of a dimensioning load history that
has the prescribed probability of occurrence as required for a single extreme load. For environmental
loads like wave and wind it should be established a dimensioning storm that the structure should
survive. It would be in line with check for other failure modes to check the structure for one single
storm from each of the critical directions, but without adding the calculated damage from different
directions.
The load-history for the remaining waves in a 10 000 year dimensioning storm investigated for
southern North Sea conditions have been found to have a maximum value equal to 0,93 of the
dimensioning wave, a duration of 6 h and a Weibull shape parameter of 2,0. This applies for check of
failure modes where the entire storm will be relevant, such as crack growth.
When checking failure modes where only the remaining waves after the dimensioning wave (e.g.
buckling) need to be accounted for, a value of 0,9 of the dimensioning wave may be used ref /24/.
The load-history for the remaining waves in a 100 year dimensioning storm investigated for southern
North Sea conditions have been found to have a maximum value equal to 0,95 of the dimensioning
wave, a duration of 6 h and a Weibull shape parameter of 2,0. The largest remaining waves after the
dimensioning wave (e.g. for cases like buckling) the largest wave is found as 0.92 of the dimensioning
wave.
7.6
Comment to 5.2.3 Cyclic stress strain curves
Note that the cyclic stress strain curves are only intended for low cycle fatigue analysis. The cyclic
stress strain curve is different from the monotonic curve and the stress value is often below due to
cyclic softening. This is the case for the material presented in this RP, cf. Figure 4-7 and Figure 5-1.
7.7
Comment to 5.2.4.1 Accumulated damage criterion
Laboratory test results presented in references /27/-/30/ make basis for the established -N curve for
welded joints. The proposed mean and design curve for air along with the laboratory test data is
presented in Figure 7-1. Note that some of the results presented in the figure are not obtained directly
from the referred articles. In some cases further analysis and interpretation was needed to obtain the
data on a proper format.
The mean curve is established based on judgement. The results reported by Weigans and Berman ref
/28/ are obtained from testing of dog-bone specimens cut out from a butt welded plate. These results
have therefore been weighted less than results from ref /27/ and ref /29/ which is based on full scale
testing of tubular joints. The fatigue test results presented in ref /30/ are from pipes with wall
thicknesses of less than 10mm. The fatigue strength of welded joints is to some extent dependent on
the wall thickness and since the thickness of structural elements normally is significantly larger than
this the results have been weighted less.
Because the fatigue test data comes from several different sources it was not found reasonable to
establish the standard deviation from a regression analysis. Instead, a standard deviation of 0.2 in log
N scale is assumed for constructing the design curve in air. A standard deviation of 0.2 is identical to
Det Norske Veritas
Page 42
what is used in high cycle fatigue (DNV-RP-C203 ref /25/). It is a general opinion in fatigue that the
statistical deviation in fatigue test results, decreases with decreasing fatigue life. Hence, assuming a
standard deviation value of 0.2 should be conservative.
The high cycle fatigue design curve in DNV-RP-C203 is defined as the mean curve minus two
standard deviations. In order to account for limited test data, the design curve has been established by
subtracting three standard deviations. Three standard deviations on log N corresponds to a factor of
1030.2 4, i.e the design curve is below the mean curve by a factor of approximately four on fatigue
life.
The design curve for seawater with cathodic protection is constructed by reducing the fatigue life by a
factor of 2.5 on life. This is identical to the reduction used in DNV-RP-C203 for fatigue lives less than
106.
Figure 7-1 Mean and design curve for welded joints along with laboratory test results.
7.8
Comments to 5.2.6 Shake down check
When a structure is loaded beyond linear limits the response for subsequent cycles will be changed. It
is therefore necessary to investigate the behaviour through the full cycles also for the next cycles. See
e.g. /19/ for more guidance.
7.9
Comments to 5.4.1. General
The modelling of geometrical imperfections, out of straightness etc. is central for achieving a credible
and safe estimate of the buckling and ultimate strength limit. The less redundant the structure is the
more important it will be to model the geometrical deviations from perfect form in a consistent way
using the eigen-mode, postbuckling shapes, combinations thereof or similar. For redundant structures
the sensitivity of the ultimate load bearing capacity to the size of the geometrical imperfections will be
negligible. For such cases the triggering of the governing modes rather than accounting for actual
tolerance size will be most important for the analyses.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 43
Guidance on analysis of stability problems may be found in e.g. /16/.
7.10 Comments to 5.4.5 Strain limits to avoid accurate check of local stability for plates
and tubular sections yielding in compression.
The strain limits for plates are established from analysis of flanges meeting rotational capacities
according to cross-section class 1 and 2 and by comparison with tests. See /33/ and /34/. Strain limits
are also compared with recommendations given in the DNV pipeline standard /35/.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 44
EXAMPLES
8.1
Convergence test of linearized buckling of frame corner
A frame of beams with I-section is analysed. The frame with boundary conditions is shown in
Figure 8-1. The loading is applied as a displacement of the web of one end of the frame, 2, =
0.01 m. Three different mesh densities and two element types are included in a convergence study,
to ensure a sufficiently refined mesh. See Figure 8-3. The element types used are 4 node rectangular
shell elements and 8 node rectangular shell elements.
The analyses are performed using the FEM-software ABAQUS.
Figure 8-1 Geometry of test example
Det Norske Veritas
Page 45
Figure 8-2 Displacement/boundary conditions
Det Norske Veritas
Page 46
Figure 8-3 Top: coarse mesh. Middle: fine mesh. Bottom: very fine mesh
Det Norske Veritas
Page 47
For the eigenvalue analyses and the linear analyses elastic material properties were used and for the
buckling capacity analyses non-linear material properties were used. Details are shown in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 Material properties
Density,
7850 kg/m3
Youngs modulus, E
210 GPa
Poissons ratio,
0.3
The loading is applied as displacement on the web of one end of the frame, as shown in Figure 8-2.
Hence, the eigenvalue defines the displacement corresponding to linearized buckling.
A convergence study is performed by analysing 6 cases and the resulting buckling displacements are
listed in Table 8-2. From these results all combinations of mesh size and element type except the
coarse 4 node combination seems to be sufficiently refined. However, the stress results wanted are
also highly dependent on the mesh refinement, and a fine mesh in the area where high stress values are
reached is preferable. An analysis using the very fine mesh is time consuming, hence the mesh size
and element type combination chosen is the 4 node elements with fine meshing.
Table 8-2 Convergence study of frame
Case
number
Mesh size
Element type
Linearized buckling displacement [m]
Coarse
4-node
0.0653
Fine
4-node
0.0624
Very fine
4-node
0.0618
Coarse
8-node
0.0616
Fine
8-node
0.0615
Very fine
8-node
0.0615
In summary the convergence test has shown that case number 2 and case 4 will produce sufficient
accurate results of the linearized buckling value. Case 2 is preferred as the analysis is more efficient
compared to case 4. The increased mesh refinement of case 3, 5 and 6 will not improve the accuracy
for the actual problem.
8.2
Example of Determination of buckling resistance by use of linearized buckling

values
8.2.1 Step i) Build model

The same problem as shown in
Figure 8-1 will be used in this example and the boundary conditions are as in Figure 8-2. The material
properties are shown in Table 8-3.
Density,
Youngs modulus, E
7850 kg/m3
210 GPa
Poissons ratio,
0.3
Yield strength, Y
355 MPa
Det Norske Veritas
Page 48
The analysis follows the steps as given in 5.4.2. Step 1 is completed as the model from the example
in 8.1.
8.2.2
Step ii): Linear analysis of the frame
The results from a linear analysis are shown in Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5 for the von-Mises and
membrane compression stresses respectively.
The linear analysis is performed with the same applied displacement as in the eigenvalue analysis
2, = 0.01 m, equivalent to an applied load i y-direction = 75.7 kN.
Figure 8-4 Stress distribution of von-Mises stress from linear analysis
Det Norske Veritas
Page 49
Figure 8-5 Stress distribution of compressive stress from linear analysis (min principal
membrane) (Min. In-plane principal stress)
8.2.3
Step iii) Determine the buckling eigenvalues
Eigenvalue analysis is performed to find the buckling modes and eigenvalues of the frame. The first
eigenvalue is = 6.24, and the corresponding buckling mode shape is shown in Figure 8-6.
Figure 8-6 First buckling mode
Det Norske Veritas
Page 50
8.2.4
Step iv) Select the governing buckling mode and the point for reading the representative
stress
The lowest buckling mode is judged to be a realistic buckling shape for this case and is selected.
The reference stress is taken as the maximum von-Mises stress in the structural part subjected to
buckling.
8.2.5
Step v: Determine the von-Mises stress at the point for the representative stress Rep
from step ii.
Stress from linear analysis:

= 97.4 MPa
8.2.6
Step vi: Determine the critical buckling stress
The critical buckling stress for the governing buckling mode is determined as:
= = 608 MPa
The reduced slenderness is determined as:
8.2.7
=
= 0.76
Step vii: Select empirically based buckling curve
The buckling curve used here is taken from Table 5-7. The curve selected is the one for column and
stiffened plate and plate without redistribution possibilities as it is judged that the corner plate cannot
redistribute stresses in a way so the plate curve could be used.
=
+ 2 2
1.0
= 0.5 [1 + 0.2 + 2 ]
is set to 0.3 for the following calculations.

8.2.8
Step viii: Determine the buckling resistance Rd
With = 0.76 then the buckling factor is = 0.767

=
Assuming a material factor = 1.15, the buckling resistance is

=
0.767 355 0.0757

= 0.184 MN
1.15 97.4
Det Norske Veritas
Page 51
8.3
8.3.1
Example of determination of buckling resistance from non-linear analysis using

code defined equivalent tolerances
Description of model
The same problem as shown in

Figure 8-1 will be used in this example and the boundary conditions are as in Figure 8-2. The material
properties are shown in Table 8-3 and the material model is shown in Figure 8-7.
Figure 8-7 Material model for analysis with material non-linearity
A non-linear analysis (using the arc-length method) is performed, where the effects of imperfections,
residual stresses and material non-linearity is accounted for by use of a defined material stress-strain
relationship and the use of empirically determined equivalent imperfections. The shape of the
governing buckling mode is taken as the lowest buckling mode as shown in Figure 8-6, and is used as
the pattern for the equivalent imperfection. The magnitude of the equivalent imperfection is
calculated using the tolerances given in Table 5-8.
The analysed frame can be considered equivalent to a component of longitudinal stiffener or flange
outstand, hence the magnitude is given as
= 0.02 rad = 0.02
where c is half the width of the flange. Two values of c are analysed, the largest c; = , where
= 0.975m is the distance between where the webs cross in the corner of the frame and the midpoint
of the flange curvature, and an average c; =
outside the curved area. See Figure 8-1
+
2
, where = 0.5 m is the width of the flange
= 0.0195
= 0.0122
Det Norske Veritas
Page 52
Figure 8-8 Stress distribution for non-linear analysis with largest initial imperfection at
maximum applied force
8.3.2
Results
Figure 8-9 displays the force-displacement curves for the displaced end of the frame for the linear
analysis and the force-displacement corresponding to the critical buckling stress where imperfections
are taken into consideration as calculated in Section 8.2, and from the non-linear analyses.
Figure 8-9 Force-displacement from non-linear analyses, linear analysis and the
calculated critical value
Det Norske Veritas
Page 53
8.4
8.4.1
Example of determination of buckling resistance from non-linear analysis that are

calibrated against code formulations or tests
Step i: Prepare model
A conical transition subjected to external hydrostatic pressure and axial tension is chosen for this
analysis. The geometry of the conical transition and the calibration object is shown in Figure 8-10. The
applied loading is defined as a hydrostatic pressure = 1.01MPa and an axial tension = 58.4MN.
The boundary conditions are modelled using constraints with kinematic coupling between a reference
point in the cross-section centre and the nodes on the circumference of the conical transition ends. At
the bottom all translations and rotations of the reference point are constrained and the top reference
point is constrained in the horizontal plane (x- and z-direction). Load and boundary conditions and
element mesh are shown in Figure 8-11. The conical transition is modelled using 4-node shell
elements (S4R). Material properties are listed in Table 8-4.
Figure 8-10 Geometry of conical transition (on top) and calibration object (bottom),
dimensions in mm
Det Norske Veritas
Page 54
Figure 8-11 Left: Load and boundary conditions. Right: Element mesh

Density,
7850 kg/m3
Youngs modulus, E
210 GPa
Poissons ratio,
0.3
Yield strength, Y
420 MPa
Density water, w
1030kg/m3
8.4.2
Step ii: Determine relevant buckling modes
Eigenvalue analysis is performed to find the buckling modes for the conical transition. The first
relevant buckling mode (with positive eigenvalue) was mode 3, shown in Figure 8-12.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 55
Figure 8-12 Buckling mode shape for conical transition
8.4.3
Step iii: Select object for calibration and prepare model
The calibration object is selected as a cylinder. The diameter and wall thickness are equal to the lower
cylindrical part of the conical transition, while the length is chosen as 2/3 of the conical transition
length (lower part, conical part and a part of the top part). The load and boundary conditions, element
type and mesh density used is the same as for the model of the conical transition, see Figure 8-13.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 56
Figure 8-13 Left: Load and boundary conditions. Right: Element mesh
8.4.4
Step iv: Determine the appropriate buckling mode for the calibration object
Eigenvalue analysis is performed to find the buckling modes for the calibration object. These buckling
modes are compared to the buckling modes found for the conical transition and a mode with similar
pattern is selected. Figure 8-14 shows the first cylinder buckling mode. This shows a similar pattern to
the buckling mode of the conical transition Figure 8-12, hence this is determined to be an appropriate
buckling mode.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 57
Figure 8-14 Buckling mode shape for cylinder
8.4.5
Step v: Determine magnitude of the equivalent imperfection
To determine the magnitude of the equivalent imperfection a non-linear analysis of the cylinder with
imperfections is performed. The imperfection shape from the chosen buckling mode was transferred to
the non-linear analysis, and the same load and boundary conditions as for the eigenvalue analysis were
applied. The material model shown in Figure 5-5 is used for the non-linear analysis.
The imperfection is scaled so the buckling capacity of the cylinder is equal to the buckling capacity for
cylinders given in N-004 /11/. To obtain this capacity the magnitude of the imperfection was found to
be 40 mm.
8.4.6
Step vi: Perform non-linear analysis of the model with imperfections
A non-linear analysis of the conical transition with imperfections is performed. The load and boundary
conditions remain the same, and the material model and magnitude of the calibrated imperfection from
Step v is used. The load proportionality factor for this case is shown in Figure 8-15. The maximum
load proportionality factor is = 0.936489. Thus the buckling capacity of the conical
transition subjected to the given load combination is; hydrostatic pressure = 0.95MPa and an axial
tension = 54.7MN. Figure 8-16 shows the von Mises stress at maximum load on the deformed
conical transition.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 58
Figure 8-15 Load proportionality factor for conical transition with initial imperfection
Det Norske Veritas
Page 59
Figure 8-16 Deflected shape showing von Mises stress at maximum load deformations
scaled with a factor of 10
8.5
Example: Low cycle fatigue analysis of tubular joint subjected to out of plane
loading.
This example presents a low cycle fatigue analysis of a tubular T-joint subjected to an out-of-plane
fully reversible load of 50 kN. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the design life based on
Det Norske Veritas
Page 60
the recommendations in Section 5.2.4 The assumed geometry and dimensions are given in Table 8-5
and Figure 8-17.
Table 8-5 Dimensions

Chord diameter
Chord thickness
Chord length
Brace diameter
Brace thickness
Brace length
D=
T=
L=
d=
t=
l=
[mm]
324.4
15.9
1800
168.3
11.5
500
Figure 8-17 Geometry of test example, dimensions in mm
It is assumed that the cyclic stress-strain behaviour is well described by the Ramberg-Osgood
relationship:
1

= +
The values for the Ramberg-Osgood parameters are presented in Table 8-6 for the chord and the brace.
Table 8-6 Ramberg-Osgood parameters
Chord
Brace
K
[MPa]
731.7
699.5
n
0.096
0.108
In order to obtain the cyclic strains a finite element analysis was carried out using the FEM-software
ABAQUS a 8-node shell element (S8R) model was established as shown in Figure 8-18.
The chord was constrained at each end for all translational and rotational degrees of freedom. The outof-plane load was applied by means of a reference point located at the cross-section centre of the brace
end. This reference point is connected to the circumference of the brace end by means of kinematic
coupling. The load was applied using two steps as illustrated in Figure 8-19.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 61
Figure 8-18 Boundary and loading conditions for tubular joint
Figure 8-19 Load steps
Figure 8-20 (a) shows an overview of the finite element mesh. Figure 8-20 (b) shows a close-up of the
brace-chord intersection area. The finite element mesh in the hotspot region is established such that the
strain at 0.5t and 1.5t at both the brace and chord side easily could be obtained at the element midnode.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 62
Figure 8-20 Left: (a) Meshed model, Right: (b) Close-up of brace-chord intersection
area
The hotspot strain range is obtained according to the following procedure:

1. Establish the strain component ranges ( , , , etc.) by subtracting the strain
component values of load step 1 by the values of load step 2. In ABAQUS this is done by
using the Create Field Output option.
2. Extract the 1st principal strain range at 0.5t and 1.5t away from the hotspot, i.e. the brace-chord
interaction.
3. The hotspot strain range is calculated by means of the following equation:
3
1
= 0.5 1.5
2
2
Det Norske Veritas
Page 63
Figure 8-21 1st principal strain range

Figure 8-21 shows the principal strain range due to the out-of-plane cyclic loading. Based on the 1st
principal strain range at 0.5t and 1.5t the hotspot strain range is calculated. The hotspot strain range is
calculated both by using the mid-node values and by extrapolating from the integration points and is
presented in Table 8-7.
Table 8-7 Hotspot strain range

Nodal value
Extrapolated from integration points
0.0053
0.0051
Air environment is assumed. Hence, the characteristic design life due to the cyclic loading is obtained
by solving the following equation, ref. Section 5.2.4:
hs f
= (2N)0.1 + f (2N)0.5
2
E
= 642/693 cycles
8.6
Example: Low cycle fatigue analysis of plate with circular hole.
In this example a low cycle fatigue analysis of a plate with a circular hole subjected to a far field stress
range of 275MPa is presented. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the design life based on the
Det Norske Veritas
Page 64
recommendations in 5.2.5. The dimension of the plate is presented in Figure 8-22. The plate material
is of grade S355.
Figure 8-22 Geometry of considered specimen

The cyclic equivalent strain is obtained by performing a finite element analysis with the FEM-software
ABAQUS. A 8-node shell element (S8R) model is established as shown in Figure 8-23. The material
modelling is according to specifications in Section 4.7.5. The cyclic load is applied by specifying two
load steps as illustrated in Figure 8-24. The far field stress of 275MPa is obtained by means of the
shell edge load option in ABAQUS.
Figure 8-23 Finite element model
Figure 8-24 Load steps

The equivalent strain range is obtained according to the following procedure:
1. Perform a strain convergence study. The mesh around the hole is refined until the strain value in
the relevant nodal point converges. Based on the convergence study it was found sufficient to
use 48 elements around the hole.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 65
2. Establish the strain component ranges ( , , , etc.) by subtracting the strain
component values of load step 1 by the values of load step 2. In ABAQUS this is done by
using the Create Field Output option.
3. Calculate the equivalent strain range (see 1.3) based on the strain component ranges.
4. Calculate the design fatigue life based on the seawater with cathodic protection curve.
Figure 8-25 shows the equivalent strain range due to the specified cyclic loading of the plate. The
highest local equivalent strain range is l = 0.00579. Hence by solving Equation (12) in Section 5.2.5
a design fatigue life of N = 701 is obtained.
Figure 8-25 Equivalent strain range
8.7
Gross yielding of shell plating in biaxial membrane and bending mode
The current example presents the yield check of a plate with attached lifting ear. The objective is to
determine the allowable vertical load according to the recommendations in this recommended practice.
The material grade of the plate and lifting ear is S355.
The geometry of the lifting ear is only partly modelled in order to simplify the finite element analysis,
see Figure 8-26. The load is applied by means of a reference point that is attached to the shaded area in
the figure. All four plate edges are assumed to be fixed, i.e. zero displacement and rotation.
The loading and boundary conditions will results in a biaxial stress/strain state. Hence, the criterion
presented in Section5.1.3.4 is applied for assessing the integrity of the connection.
The yield check will be carried out based on stress and strain output of a finite element analysis carried
out in ABAQUS. 20-noded solid elements with reduced integration (C3D20R) are used. The finite
element size is between 16mm and 20mm which correspond to the thicknesses of the plate and lifting
ear.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 66
Figure 8-26 Sketch of the considered geometry.
Figure 8-27 shows a result colour plot of the plastic shear strain component
. Based on the finite
element results the location of the cube is set in front of the attached plate, indicated by an arrow in
Figure 8-27. The cube size is 20mm x 16mm x 16.7mm which is closest to the ideal t*t*t cube
specified in Section 5.1.3.4. The size of the finite element is identical to the cube. Hence, the check
will be carried out based on the integration point values only from this element. (High plastic shear
strain values are shown for the end elements of the lifting ear plate, but failure due to vertical shear in
the vertical plate is not relevant.)
Figure 8-27 Contour colour plot of the plastic shear strain component PE12 ( ). The
location of the cube is indicated by arrow.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 67
The plastic strain components in all eight (Gauss) integration points are extracted. For this example the
out-of-plane shear strain is the dominating component. Hence, the yield check will be performed for
shear strain due to out-of-plane bending according to section 5.1.3.4.
F
E
G
H
C
D
Figure 8-28 Numbering of cube corners
The failure plane is considered to be the element surface in extension of the lifting ear (surface
BCGF). The average plastic shear strain at the failure plane is obtained by the following procedure:
in all eight (Gauss) integration points.

1. Establish plastic shear strain component
2. Average the plastic shear strain component in the two integration point planes parallel to the
failure plane (planes 2367 and 1458). Numbering of the corner points of the cube and the
integration points are shown in Figure 8-29.
3. Linearly extrapolate the averaged plastic shear strain values to the failure plane.
F
H
G
6
7
5
8
2
4
B
C
A
D
Figure 8-29 Sketch of the solid element along with integration point and corner
numbering.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 68
Linearly extrapolated PE12 for failure plane
Avg. PE12 for plane 2367
Avg. PE12 for plane 1458
G
7
Figure 8-30 .Extrapolation of strain values to the failure plane

Based on the finite element analysis and subsequent post-processing of results the critical load was
determined between 810 and 820kN. The results are presented in Table 8-8.
Table 8-8 Analysis results.

Location
Surface BCGF
Average plastic shear strain

810kN
820kN
-2
-3.510
-4.110-2
The design resistance will be found as the characteristic resistance divided with the appropriate
material factor.
8.8
8.8.1
Example: Strain limits for tensile failure due to gross yielding of plane plates
(uniaxial stress state)
T-section cantilever beam
Gross yielding check of a T-section cantilever beam, subjected to axial and shear force and moment
loading, is presented in this example. The finite element software ABAQUS is used to perform the
analyses.
The geometry and boundary conditions of the beam are shown in Error! Reference source not
found.. Loading is applied to a reference point coinciding with the neutral axis of the beam cross
section, using kinematic coupling between cross section and reference point. The beam is modelled
using 4-node shell elements with reduced integration (S4R) with mesh size of 16 mm x 16 mm.
Material grade is S355, modelled according to Section 5.1.3.2.
The magnitude of the applied forces and moments are given by axial force , shear force =
0.15 and bending moment = 0.45 .
The loading and boundary conditions results in a stress state dominated by uniaxial stress. Hence, the
criterion presented in Section 5.1.3.2 is applied for assessing the beam.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 69
Figure 8-31 Geometry and boundary conditions for cantilever beam

According to the criterion presented in section 5.1.3.2, the strain should be calculated as the linearized
maximum principal plastic strain along the likely failure line and checked against the limit for the
critical strain. The limit is a critical gross yield strain of 0.04 for this example.
Error! Reference source not found. shows a contour plot of the maximum principal plastic strain
and the chosen failure line, the 3rd element column from the clamped end. For the chosen failure line
the maximum principal plastic strain is obtained from integration points and linearized using the
method of least squares.
Based on the finite element results and the linearization the critical load is determined between
= 489 kN and = 500kN. The maximum principal plastic strain distribution and corresponding
linearized distribution for load level = 489kN are shown in Error! Reference source not found.
and analysis results are shown in Table 8-9.
[kN]
489
500
Maximum linearized
principal plastic strain
3.910-2
4.210-2
Figure 8-32 Maximum principal plastic strain contour plot, with chosen failure line
highlighted
Det Norske Veritas
Page 70
Figure 8-33 Maximum principal plastic strain and linearized maximum principal plastic
strain distributions for web
material factor.
8.8.2
T-section cantilever beam with notch
Gross yielding check of a T-section cantilever beam with a notch in the free edge of the web is
presented in this example. The geometry and boundary conditions are shown in Figure 8-34.
The model, loading and analysis setup and procedure are the same as in 8.8.1.
In addition to the gross yielding criterion presented in 5.1.3.2, the local tensile failure criterion
presented in 5.1.3.3 must be applied when assessing the beam.
Figure 8-34 Geometry and boundary conditions for cantilever beam with notch
For the gross yielding two likely failure lines were chosen; one at mid-notch and one at the notch
corner displaying the highest strain values, see Figure 8-35. The maximum principal plastic strain is
obtained from integration points and linearized using the method of least squares. Both failure lines
must comply with the criterion of an allowable maximum principal plastic linearized strain of 0.04. In
Det Norske Veritas
Page 71
addition, the local strain, as the maximum principal plastic strain averaged over the element with the
largest strain, must not exceed the critical strain value of 0.12.
Figure 8-35 Maximum principal plastic strain contour plot, with chosen failure lines
highlighted
Based on the finite element results and the linearization the critical load is determined between
= 310 kN and = 320kN. The maximum principal plastic strain distributions and corresponding
linearized distributions for both failure lines at load level = 310kN are shown in Figure 8-36 and
analysis results are shown in Table 8-10.
[kN]
310
320
Line 1
3.910-2
4.410-2
Maximum linearized principal plastic strain

Line 2
Element with largest strain
-2
3.110
7.610-2
-2
3.610
8.610-2
material factor.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 72
Figure 8-36 Maximum principal plastic strain and linearized maximum principal plastic
strain distributions for web
8.8.3
Example: Yield check of T-beam with circular hole
In this example yield checks of a T-beam with a circular hole subjected to axial and shear loads and
moment loading is presented. The objective is to check the gross and local yielding specified in
Sections 5.1.3.25.1.3.3. The dimension of the T-beam is presented in Figure 8-22. The T-beam
material is of grade S355. The geometry is fixed at the end near the hole and the load is applied in the
opposite end.
Figure 8-22 Geometry of the T-Beam.

The boundary conditions and applied moment and loads (Fx, Fy and Fz) are shown in Figure 8-23. The
magnitude of the forces are given by Fy = 0.15Fx and Mz = 0.45Fx. The check is carried out for a
load situation where Fx = 385kN.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 73
Figure 8-23 Illustration of the boundary condition and the load directions.
The yield checks are carried out using non-linear finite element analysis with ABAQUS. The element
type used in the analysis is 8-node shell element (S8R). The hole has been meshed with 16 elements
around the circumference with a nearly quadratic element shape. The global mesh of the component
has an approximate size of 75mm x 75mm. The global and local mesh near the hole is shown in
Figure 8-37.
Figure 8-37 Global and local mesh.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 74
The distribution of the plastic strain is shown on figure 8-26. The gross yield criterion presented in
Section 5.1.3.2 is based on the linearized 1st principal plastic strain through the tensile part of the cross
section (assessment line). The basis for the linearized strain is shown in Figure 8-38. The strain value
is 6.3% which is above the criterion of 4%.
Figure 8-38 Linearized 1st principal strain along the assessment line.
The local yield criterion is based on the element with the highest mean 1st principal plastic strain value
obtained from the four integration point as specified in Section 5.1.3.3. A values of 8.8% is assessed
which is below the criterion of 12%.
Figure 8-26 Equivalent plastic strain.
Det Norske Veritas
Page 75
Det Norske Veritas

Draft 3 RP-C208 Non-Linear FE-methods

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

Draft 3 RP-C208 Non-Linear FE-methods

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Determination of Structural Capacity

Det Norske Veritas

LIMIT STATE SAFETY FORMAT

PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

REPRESENTATION OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES

5.1 DESIGN AGAINST TENSILE FAILURE

Det Norske Veritas

COMMENTS TO 4.1 GENERAL

CONVERGENCE TEST OF LINEARIZED BUCKLING OF FRAME CORNER

Det Norske Veritas

Det Norske Veritas

yielding across the entire structural component e.g. a flange

Det Norske Veritas

area of a section through a cross-section or part of a cross-section where the area of

net section ratio

a structure may be characterized as redundant if loss of capacity in one of its structural

Outer diameter of tubular sections

stress-strain curve parameter

yield stress/yield strength

stress-strain curve parameter

eigenvalue for governing buckling mode

characteristic element size of smallest element

number of cycles to failure

design action effect

characteristic action effect

Det Norske Veritas

von Mises equivalent strain

stress-strain curve parameter

stress-strain curve parameter

fully reversible 1st principal hot spot strain range

partial factor for actions

engineering (nominal) stress

critical buckling stress

linearized local buckling stress

true (Cauchy) stress

stress-strain curve parameter

engineering (nominal) strain

fatigue ductility coefficient

stress-strain curve parameter

true (logarithmic) strain

fully reversible local equivalent strain range

fatigue strength coefficient

linearized buckling stress disregarding local buckling modes

stress-strain curve parameter

stress-strain curve parameter

stress-strain curve parameter

Det Norske Veritas

Illustration of the limit state safety format

The requirement can be written as:

Design action effect

Det Norske Veritas

Characteristic action effect

Partial factor for actions

Type of failure modes

Use of linear and non-linear analysis methods

Empirical basis for the resistance

All engineering methods, regardless of level of sophistication, need to be calibrated against an

Det Norske Veritas

Serviceability Limit State

Det Norske Veritas

Determination of characteristic resistance taking into account statistical variation

Det Norske Veritas