Steel Design Project

Student: Thomas Fallon – 207202

Lecturer: Nagi Abdussamie

Unit: JEE320 Applied Offshore Structural Design

Course: Bachelor of Engineering (Ocean Engineering)

Date Due: 22 June 2018

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the design and analysis of a tubular steel joint such as what would be used in an
offshore jacket structure. Working with given loads and some dimensions it follows recommendations
given by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and NORSOK for strength design of the tubular
members and the joints. As well as this, a fatigue analysis was conducted according to Det Norske
Veritas guidelines to ensure that the structure will withstand the cyclic loads of the ocean during its
working life. The analysis found that the load and resistance factor design method used in the NORSOK
guidelines produced a joint with a smaller wall thickness values than the working stress design method
used in the API guidelines. The brace angle results for both methods were relatively similar. A
sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of certain parameters on the final result. It
was found that wall thickness due to corrosion wastage had the highest effect.

ii
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction/Background ........................................................................................................... 5

2. Design Methodology and Procedure .......................................................................................... 5

3. Problem Definition and Load Cases .......................................................................................... 7

4. Sensitivity Analyses ................................................................................................................... 8

5. Results and Discussions ............................................................................................................. 9

6. Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 14

7. References ................................................................................................................................ 15

iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Iterative process for determining wall thickness ............................................................... 6

Figure 2: Joint configuration and orientation ................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis results ................................................................................................ 9

Figure 4: UC/SC results for chord member using API (left) and NORSOK (right) guidelines ..... 10

Figure 5: Ring spacing results using API guidelines ...................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Ring spacing results using NORSOK guidelines ............................................................ 12

Figure 7: Results varying angle of braces for API (left) and NORSOK (right) ............................. 12

Figure 8: Results varying gap between braces for API (left) and NORSOK (right) ...................... 13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geometric Parameters for chord/braces ............................................................................ 8

Table 2: Environmental parameters for joint................................................................................... 8

Table 3: Sensitivity analysis cases .................................................................................................. 9

Table 4: Chord wall thickness results ............................................................................................ 10

Table 5: API ring design results .................................................................................................... 11

Table 6: Results for joint interaction ratio ..................................................................................... 12

Table 7: Minimum thickness requirements for braces .................................................................. 13

Table 8: Fatigue life results ........................................................................................................... 14

Table 9: Final member geometry .................................................................................................. 14

iv
1. Introduction/Background
This report details the design of a steel tubular member and joint using a software package developed
in accordance with API-RP-2A WSD 21st Edition (2007), NORSOK Standard N-004 Rev. 2 (2004) and
DNV-RP-C203 (2011). Both the chord and brace members were designed to be subjected to combined
loads and the members and joints checked for strength and fatigue failure.

The design of tubular members for the use in offshore fixed structures is typically approached with one
of two design philosophies: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) or Working Strength Design
(WSD). The main difference between these methods is that WSD compares the actual and allowable
stresses while LRFD compares the required and actual strengths.

In this report the both the API WSD method (API 2007) and NORSOK LRFD method (NORSOK 2004)
are compared for member and joint strength. The fatigue strength of the resulting joints are checked
using DNV guidelines (Veritas 2011).

2. Design Methodology and Procedure

This project was broken down into three parts based on the class recommendations used for the design.
These tasks are described as follows:

1. Chord Member Design: find the optimal wall thickness of the chord member subjected to
combined loads and hydrostatic pressure in accordance with API-RP-2A and NORSOK N-004.
This is to be done with and without ring stiffeners
2. Joint Design (Strength): investigate the effect of input parameters on the strength of a TYK
joint in accordance with API-RP-2A and NORSOK N-004 and determine optimal design
3. Joint Design (Fatigue): perform fatigue analysis on joint designed in task 2 in accordance with
DNV-RP-C203

TASK 1

Both of the design guidelines offer acceptance benchmarks for the chord member which are called the
Unity Check (UC) for API and Strength Check (SC) for NORSOK. For a design to satisfy the
requirements these values must be less than or equal to 1. With that in mind, the wall thickness was
varied from the minimum value of 6mm and 11mm for API and NORSOK up to 50mm to determine
an acceptable UC or SC value. Figure 1 shows the iterative process for determining the UC and SC
values for a range of wall thicknesses. This is applicable to both the API and NORSOK guidelines. The
equations used in this process are too numerous for this report however the equation for UC and SC are
given in equations 1, 2 and 3 below.

5
Figure 1: Iterative process for determining wall thickness

2 +𝑓 2
𝐶𝑚 √𝑓𝑏𝑥
𝑓𝑎 𝑏𝑦
𝑈𝐶1 = + 𝑓 (1)
𝐹𝑎 (1− 𝑎 )𝐹𝑏
𝐹𝑒 ′

2 +𝑓 2
𝑓 √𝑓𝑏𝑥 𝑏𝑦
𝑎
𝑈𝐶2 = 0.6𝐹 ∗ 𝐹𝑏
(2)
𝑦

1.75 2 2
+𝑀𝑧,𝑆𝑑
𝑁 √𝑀𝑦,𝑆𝑑
𝑆𝐶 = (𝑁 𝑆𝑑 ) + 𝑀𝑅𝑑
(3)
𝑡,𝑅𝑑

UC & SC value of 0.9 was chosen for the analysis as this allows a margin of error in manufacture and
design changes. The above equations are used when not considering hydrostatic pressure however this
must be considered for this application. Incorporating hydrostatic pressure into the UC and SC
equations will result in an increased thickness requirement to achieve the same UC/SC value.

Rather than increasing the thickness of the whole member, ring stiffeners can be added to overcome the
hoop buckling stress. In the design of the chord with ring stiffeners for this task, internal flat bar
stiffeners were used as they were deemed to be the easiest for construction while the weld connections
are less susceptible to corrosion. For the calculation of the required moments of inertia (Ic) for both
guidelines the same equation is given below

𝑡𝐿𝐷 2 𝐹ℎ𝑒
𝐼𝑐 = 8𝐸
(4)

For the calculation of moment of inertia (I) and thus the sizing of the flat bar, an effective width of shell
is given as 1.1(Dt) 0.5. Using this the equation for the neutral axis (NA) and I the dimensions of the web
can be calculate by equating the two equations.
2
1 ℎ𝑤 1 2
𝐼 = 12 × 𝑡𝑓 × ℎ𝑓3 + (𝑡𝑓 × ℎ𝑓 ) × ((ℎ𝑓 + 2
)− 3
𝑁𝐴) + 12 × 𝑡𝑤 × ℎ𝑤 + ((𝑡𝑤 × ℎ𝑤 ) × (𝑁𝐴 − ℎ𝑤 ))
(5)

Once this has been calculated and the ring geometry determined, the spacing between the rings can be
investigated to optimise the weight of the member. To do this, the UC values for a range of wall
thicknesses lower than the thickness calculated earlier for combined loads with hydrostatic pressure

6
was plotted against a range of ring spacing from 1m (smallest reasonable distance for manufacture) to
the maximum chord length given.

From this the weight of each thickness at a UC/SC value of 0.9 can be compared and the final chord
design determined. The method is the same for both guidelines with the only difference being the
starting thicknesses.

TASK 2

Similar to the UC/SC benchmarks in Task 1, the benchmark for checking the joint strength is called the
Interaction Ratio (IR) and must be less than 1 to satisfy the requirements for both the API and NORSOK
guidelines. The IR has to be calculated for each of the three braces using the chord thickness determined
in Task 1. Since the angles of each joint are not given, a range of values are compared to determine
acceptable ranges, similarly, the gap between each of the braces is not specified so the effect of this is
to be investigated. For the inputs into Task 3, these graphs can be used to choose values within an
acceptable range. The equation for the API IR is given below in equation 6.

𝑃 𝑀 2 𝑀
𝐼𝑅 = |𝑃 | + (𝑀 ) + |𝑀 | ≤ 1.0 (6)
𝑎 𝑎 𝑖𝑝𝑏 𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑏

Similarly, the NORSOK IR equation is given below.

2
𝑁𝑆𝑑 𝑀𝑦.𝑆𝑑 𝑀𝑧,𝑆𝑑
𝐼𝑅 = +( ) + ≤ 1.0 (7)
𝑁𝑅𝑑 𝑀𝑦,𝑅𝑑 𝑀𝑧,𝑅𝑑

In both of these equations the numerators represent the applied stress while the denominators are the
allowable stress calculated using each respective method.

TASK 3

To conduct the fatigue analysis, the thickness of the brace members was calculated using the same
method as task 1. Similarly, the angles calculated in task 2 were used. The gap between the braces was
assumed to be 150mm. Once these values have been established, the Stress Concentration Factors (SCF)
and Hot Spot Stress Ranges (HSSR) at 8 points for both the brace and chord at each joint can be
calculated. This will give a total of 48 values for the HSSR from which the maximum is then taken and
used to calculate the fatigue life. The equation used for the S-N curve used to calculate the predicted
number of cycles to failure is given below.
𝑘
𝑡
log 𝑁 = log 𝑎̅ − 𝑚 log (Δ𝜎 (𝑡 ) ) (8)
𝑟𝑒𝑓

Once this has been calculated, the total fatigue damage can be calculated for the given wave
environment. As there is only one wave environment given, the period for this is used to extrapolate the
number of cycles encountered for a period of one year. Inverting the damage will give a value for the
fatigue life in years. This process is shown in equation 9 below.
24×3600×365 𝑛 1
𝑛= 𝑇𝑃
→ 𝐷 = 𝑁 → 𝐹𝐿 = 𝐷 (9)

3. Problem Definition and Load Cases

7
The joint consists of a chord with three braces as shown below in Figure 2. The chord and all three
braces are subjected to combined axial loads and in-plane and out-of-plane bending moment. The
geometric parameters and loads for each member are given in Table 1.

Figure 2: Joint configuration and orientation

Table 1: Geometric Parameters for chord/braces

Chord Brace A Brace B Brace C

Outside Diameter (D or d) (m) 1.31 1.26 1.16 1.26

Length (l) (m) 6.22 5.22 4.22 5.22

Axial Load (P) (kN) 1510 1010 910 1110

In-Plane Bending Moment (Mip) (kN.m) 610 510 360 660

Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (Mip) (kN.m) 410 395 285 460

The wave environment parameters for the joint are given in Table 2 below. These are used in the
calculation of the strength of the members, joint and fatigue of the joint.

Table 2: Environmental parameters for joint

Significant Wave Height (Hs) (m) 3.1

Maximum Wave Height (m) 5.77

Peak Wave Period (Tp) (s) 7.1

Vertical Distance from SWL to the chord centre (z) (m) 70.5

4. Sensitivity Analyses

8
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine which parameters would most affect the results. The
API guidelines for member strength were investigated for the cases shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Sensitivity analysis cases

Case Description

1 The chord centre from the SWL is located 10% deeper (z value).

2 Yield strength: ordinary and high strength steel (Fy value).

3 The axial load in the chord member is increased by a factor of 1.2 (P value).

4 15% wastage of the original wall thickness due to corrosion in all members (final t value).

5 Ring spacing in the chord member (l value).

The results shown in Figure 3 below show that case 4 by far has the greatest effect. The axial load and
steel type and ring spacing make relatively little difference however surprisingly the location of the
joint in the water column has a large effect. This is likely due to the stresses caused by hydrostatic
pressure at the given depth being relatively high when compared to the stresses caused by the applied
loads.

Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis results

5. Results and Discussions

9
TASK 1

The strength and unity checks for the chord thickness are plotted in Figure 4 for thicknesses up to 50mm
with and without hydrostatic pressure.

Figure 4: UC/SC results for chord member using API (left) and NORSOK (right) guidelines

It can be seen that the inclusion of the hydrostatic pressure increases the wall thickness requirements as
would be expected. It appears that using the API guidelines produces much more conservative results
than the NORSOK guidelines with the required thickness being greater. The wall thicknesses and
weight of the member per meter are shown below in Table 4. A density of 7850 kg/m3 was assumed for
the steel.

Table 4: Chord wall thickness results

API NORSOK

Wall thickness Without 7.399 4.602

Hydrostatic Pressure (mm)

Wall thickness With 16.771 5.627

Hydrostatic Pressure (mm)

Weight Without Hydrostatic 237.88 148.27

Pressure (kg/m)

Weight With Hydrostatic 535.31 181.16

Pressure (kg/m)

RING STIFFENER DESIGN

For the design of the chord member with stiffening rings the chord thickness was varied between the
thickness calculated above without and with hydrostatic pressure. Using this thickness, the required
web height and spacing is calculated to meet the specified UC/SC value of 0.9. For this task, the web
height was assumed to be the same as the wall thickness. A plot of the ring spacing vs UC value for the
API guidelines is shown in Figure 5.

10
Figure 5: Ring spacing results using API guidelines

The results plotted above for the UC values of 0.9 are also shown below in Table 5. Using these results
the weight of each of the above displayed thicknesses can be calculated.

Table 5: API ring design results

Thickness (mm) 9.40 10.22 11.04 11.86 12.68 13.50 14.31 15.13 15.95 16.77

Weight (kg/m) 305.85 331.46 357.14 382.85 408.59 434.32 460.05 485.77 511.48 537.17

Ring Spacing (m) 1.36 1.65 1.97 2.30 2.66 3.03 3.43 3.86 4.31 4.78

Comparing this to the value calculated for the weight of the member without stiffeners given in Table
4 it can be seen that for all but the largest wall thickness the stiffeners produce a more efficient member
by weight. Thus the thickness selected to be used in the following calculations is 9.5mm with a ring
spacing of 1.36m.

The results for the design of rings on the NORSOK design member produced results showing that the
addition of rings and a reduction in thickness will produce a more efficient member. However, as the
thickness of the member was calculated to be only 5.6mm reducing the thickness any further would be
impractical and thus no rings will be used for that design.

11
Figure 6: Ring spacing results using NORSOK guidelines

TASK 2

The respective API and NORSOK chord thicknesses calculated in task 1 were applied to the joint to be
analysed in task 2. For this task, two unknown parameters were investigated, the angles of each brace
with respect to the chord and the gap between each of the braces. Figure 7 below shows how the
calculated interaction ratios are affected by the change in brace angle. For this a gap of 75mm was
assumed, which is in allowable range of both guidelines. The thickness of 6mm for the chord member
found using NORSOK guidelines in task 1 did not meet the joint strength check requirements, thus the
thickness of the chord was increased to 11mm to meet the requirements.

Figure 7: Results varying angle of braces for API (left) and NORSOK (right)

From this it can be seen that to comply with the guidelines for API, all angles of braces should be less
than those specified in Table 6. The IR requirement used was 0.9.

Table 6: Results for joint interaction ratio

Brace A Brace B Brace C

12
 API 37.8 40.3 31.86

NORSOK 48.6 46.6 40.9

To investigate the effect of the gap between the braces, it was increased identically for both from the
minimum allowable gap value of –Dx0.6 (where D is the chord diameter) to 1000mm. The angles used
for this investigation were 45 degrees for braces A and C with 90 degrees used for B.

Figure 8: Results varying gap between braces for API (left) and NORSOK (right)

As can be seen from Figure 8 the API results show a large difference between the positive and negative
gap values with the inflection point being approx. 50mm. A similar trend was seen in the NORSOK
guidelines where the inflection point is located at 0mm. However, the IR values for the NORSOK
method continue to increase following this inflection point while the API values remain constant.

TASK 3

The thickness of the chord used in task 2 was also used in task 3 for the fatigue analysis. From this, the
thickness of the braces is assumed to be 20 percent of the thickness of the chord which is in the range
given by the DNV guidelines.

A strength check was conducted using the method from task 1 to determine the minimum thickness for
each member. The results can be seen below in Table 7. These as well as the angles shown in Table 6
were used as inputs for the fatigue analysis.

Table 7: Minimum thickness requirements for braces

Brace A Brace B Brace C

API - Min. Wall Thickness (mm) 15.26 13.37 15.41

NORSOK - Min. Wall Thickness (mm) 5.04 4.47 5.94

SCF’s are calculated using the given applied loads reduced by a factor of 100 as the assumed cyclic
loads. When using the thickness calculated using the API guidelines the resulting Fatigue Life (FL) was

13
calculated as 1.5 years. This is obviously much too small and thus the input parameters should be
altered. The geometric parameter that can be altered is the thickness of the chord. Increasing the
thickness of the chord to 29mm results in a FL of 45.8 years which is much more acceptable, however
it is still low considering that these calculations should then include design fatigue factors (DFF) which
considers corrosion, ability to inspect and criticality of the joint. DNV guidelines specify a DFF of 3
for joints that are unable to be inspected (this joint would be considered unable to be inspected as it is
located 70m below the water surface). With this applied, the FL is reduced to 16.5 years requiring
another increase in the chord is required. The results for the fatigue analysis for both API and NORSOK
joints is shown in

Table 8: Fatigue life results

Task 1 chord thickness Increased chord thickness DFF=3

Fatigue life – API (years 1.5 (17mm) 45.8 (29mm) 49.9 (35mm)

Fatigue Life – NORSOK 0.0704 (7mm) 43.13 (15mm) 47.5 (18mm)

(years)

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

An analysis was conducted on a joint between tubular members that would be used in an offshore jacket
structure. Two different approaches were used and the results compared. The design of the joint was
broken down into three tasks: member strength design, joint strength design, and fatigue design. For
each of these tasks a unity check (also called strength check or interaction ratio) value of 0.9 was used
as the target which leaves an allowance for manufacture error or installation damage. The wall thickness
and angles of the braces for both methods are shown below in Table 9 which meet the strength and
fatigue requirements.

Table 9: Final member geometry

Chord Brace A Brace B Brace C

API Thickness (mm) 35 15.26 13.37 15.41

Angle (mm) - 37.8 40.3 31.86

NORSOK Thickness (mm) 18 5.04 4.47 5.94

Angle (mm) - 48.6 46.6 40.9

14
7. References

API (2007). Reccommended practice for planning, designing and constricting

fixed offshore platforms - Working Stress Design. API-RP-2A WSD 21st
Edition.

NORSOK (2004). Design of Steel Structures. NORSOK N-004.

Veritas, D. N. (2011). Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. DNV-RP-

C203.

15