This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Development of design guidance for neoprene-lined clamps for offshore application
Prepared by MSL Engineering Limited for the Health and Safety Executive 2002
RESEARCH REPORT 031
Health & Safety Executive
Development of design guidance for neoprene-lined clamps for offshore application
MSL Engineering Limited Platinum Blue House 1st Floor 18 The Avenue Egham Surrey TW20 9AB United Kingdom
The document is concerned with a test programme investigating the slip capacity of neoprene-lined clamps. In Phase I of the project, which is reported separately, a total of sixteen full-scale tests were conducted at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Based on the results of the Phase I tests, interim recommendations were made for the estimation of frictional coefficients. The results indicated some surprising effects, and further tests were recommended. The further tests have now been conducted under Phase II of the project and are reported herein. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), ExxonMobil, Shell UK Exploration and Production and MSL Engineering Limited. Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
© Crown copyright 2002 First published 2002 ISBN 0 7176 2577 X All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
K. In addition. 3 . Based on the results of the Phase I tests. and further tests were recommended. Canada. damage or delay.FOREWORD This document has been prepared by MSL for three sponsoring organisations: Health and Safety Executive ExxonMobil Shell U. Newfoundland. A project steering committee including representatives of the sponsoring organisations oversaw the work and contributed to the development of this document. The further tests have now been conducted under Phase II of the project and are reported herein. In Phase I of the project. However. however caused. The tests were conducted at Memorial University. interim recommendations were made for the estimation of frictional coefficients. a total of sixteen full-scale tests were conducted at Memorial University of Newfoundland. The document is concerned with a test programme investigating the slip capacity of neoprene-lined clamps. Exploration and Production. no responsibility of any kind for injury. The following individuals served on the committee: Mr P Bailey Mr J Bucknell Dr A Dier Mr D Galbraith (Chairman) Mr M Lalani Mr B McCullough The Project Manager at MSL was Mr J Bucknell who carried out the work with guidance and support from Dr A Dier and Dr K Chen. loss. MSL themselves partly funded the work described herein. which is reported separately. resulting from the use of the recommendations can be accepted by MSL Engineering or others associated with its preparation. The results indicated some surprising effects. The participants do not necessarily accept all the recommendations given in this document. The recommendations presented in this document are based upon the knowledge available at the time of publication. death.
....................................................3 4...............4 Failure Criterion – Quasi-Static Load (T1A &T1B............................................................................6 1.23 Bolt Pre-Load (T1A & T1B............................................................................. T4 & T4A) ................................. RESULTS................. INTRODUCTION....................5 4...................... T1..........................25 Cyclic Loading (T4C & T1C) ......17 3...........................................................................................2 2......... T18 & T18A)...................1 3................................2 3.12 Test Instrumentation.................19 Loading Schedule ........................4............4 Clamp Specimen ..JIP – DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR NEOPRENE – LINED CLAMPS FOR OFFSHORE APPLICATION – PHASE II FINAL REPORT CONTENTS Page No FOREWORD ............................... General .......................................................................1 1...................................................................................................2 Testing Procedure.................................3 Post-Test Procedures .................7 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF TESTS ....................................................4.........................................23 Neoprene Hardness (T1A............2 4........................................................................................................................................... 3..............................................12 Test Rig ..1 Pre-Testing Procedures .6 Summary of Phase I Programme......15 Test Procedures ..................17 3.................................................................1 4..........................................................................................19 3.............3 3.18 3............. T2 & T3) ...................T1............................................4.........23 4......3 1..............10 DESCRIPTION OF TEST CONFIGURATION AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................................................................12 3...........................................26 4 ....................................
....................................................1 5.....5.....................30 5...... DISCUSSION AND GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN/ASSESSMENT.....................................36 REFERENCES FIGURES FOR SECTION 4 5 .....................................................................2 Discussion ....30 Design/Assessment Guidelines .............................................................................33 6................... CONCLUDING REMARKS ...
1. It was against the above background that MSL launched this current Joint Industry Project. Phase I covered a programme of 16 full-scale neoprene-lined clamp tests. Stressed neoprene-lined clamps rely on applied stud bolt pre-loads to generate compressive forces normal to the interface between the clamp liner and the surface of the clamped brace. The liner provides tolerance against lack of fit of the clamp saddle around the tubular brace. With the support of HSE and two major North Sea operators. The neoprene liner is usually plain for structural connections designed to transmit axial or rotational loads. Phase I of this current JIP was concluded in May 1999 with the issue of a final report(1) to the sponsoring organisations. and continues to be. In general. The tests in Phase I encompassed both axial and torsional loading and were designed to investigate the influence of a variety of parameters. and no data in the public domain. widespread throughout the world. 1. Neoprene-lined clamps contain a liner that lies between the clamp steelwork and the enclosed member. including the bolt 6 . on the slip capacity of these clamps. The project was intended to generate test data so that more reliable design guidance could be formulated.1 INTRODUCTION General This report is concerned with a second phase of a Joint Industry Project (JIP) investigating the experimental slip capacity of neoprene-lined clamps. the linear is made of polychloroprene (neoprene) sheet that is bonded to the inner surface of the clamp saddle plates. especially pipelines repair of damaged members (dented or corroded) attachment of new structural members. a static slip test on a neoprene-lined clamp exhibited a slip capacity significantly less than that expected from the guidance available at that time. As part of a Joint Industry Project conducted by MSL entitled “Demonstration Trials of Diverless Strengthening and Repair Techniques”. The strength is considered to be dependent on the magnitude of the normal force. although ribbed linings are sometimes used to accommodate potentially large lack of fit tolerances. both for the rational assessment of the reliability of neoprene-lined clamps currently in service and for the safe design of such clamps in future applications. The following applications of such clamps may be given: •= •= •= •= attachment of retrofitted appurtenances such as conductors and risers temporary attachments for lifting purposes. Despite the widespread use of neoprene-lined clamps through the world. there were only limited data. the relative stiffness of the steel and liner and the effective coefficient of friction at the liner/brace interface. The use of such clamps in the offshore industry has been.
and the benefits that will result through generation of data in the above three areas. The primary Phase I finding is that coefficient of friction for neoprenelined clamps is substantially below the range of values adopted in practice. Clamp tests with loading rates different to those used in Phase I. T13.2 Summary of Phase I Programme The Phase I testing programme involved a total of 16 tests. Further tests were recommended in the following three areas where new data would lead to a substantial and significant enhancement of the interim guidance created in Phase I: •= •= •= Clamp tests with imposed interface pressures lower than those used in the Phase I programme. 1. T9 and T10) clamp length to diameter (L/D) ratio (Tests T1. Hence. T14 and T15) thickness of the neoprene liner (Tests T1 and T16) clamp brace pinching (liner/brace interference) (Tests T16 and T17). axial slip (Tests T1. test repeatability. In addition to the primary findings.load. pipe surface condition. In light of the extensive use of neoprene-lined clamps. neoprene thickness. some existing structural neoprene-lined clamps potentially have capacities that may be less than the design intent. clamp length/diameter ratio and pipe radial stiffness. T7 and T8) brace stiffness (D/T) ratio (Tests T1. The programme was designed to investigate the influence of the following parameters on the slip strength of neoprene-lined clamps: •= •= •= •= •= •= •= •= •= stud bolt preload (Tests T1. this Phase II of the subject JIP was instigated. T2 and T3) repeatability (Tests T1 and T4) failure criterion (Tests T1 and T4A) surface conditions of the clamped tubular member (Tests T1. T11 and T12) torsional v. Clamp tests with neoprene liners having hardness values different to that adopted in Phase I. The Phase I test programme is summarised on the pullout table at the back of this document. the following results were also achieved during the Phase I tests: •= The failure load for all axial tests was defined as the position at which the load-slip curve was seen to deviate substantially from the trendline defining its 7 . Interim guidance was prepared on the basis of the test results generated in Phase I.
The combination of lower bolt pre-loads.60% of the stud bold yield strength. Application of the torsional load would reduce the clamp slip capacity. 8 . The clamp axial slip capacity varied little with either the pipe surface condition or the pipe radial stiffness (i.e. The developed guidance had to be considered as being of an interim nature until further data became available due to the unexpected slip behaviour of the clamp. For a given stud bolt pre-load level. The reduction in axial capacity was proportional to the reduction in total applied bolt load. at least for a preload level of 40% .45° between the clamp and tubular for pure torsional load or when an axial displacement of 1. torsional moment alone and combined axial and torsional loadings respectively. The increase in the applied stud bolt load did not lead to a corresponding increase in the clamp axial capacity. and possibly liners of greater Shore hardness may give higher apparent coefficients of friction. significant drop in bolt load with the increase of the slip was shown. the axial capacity of the clamp was also seen to reduce. As the clamp length was reduced. it could also lead to a rather conservative prediction of the torsional capacity at high values of co-existing axial load. applied loading rate effects typical of those due to wave action. The interim guidance can be considered conservative. interim guidance was formulated for clamp slip capacities under axial load alone. particularly with regard to the relationship between applied bolt load and clamp capacity. •= •= •= •= With the above observations achieved in the Phase I test programme. Reducing the circumferential length of the pipe/neoprene interface could lead to an increase of the clamp slip capacity. •= •= The axial tests were repeatable and similar failure loads could be derived from tests with identical conditions according to the definition of failure. For combined axial and torsional loadings. The failure torque was defined as the position with a relative rotation of 0.25 mm was reached under the combination of tensile and torsional loads. There were insufficient test data to permit a proper clarification of the role of bolt load. No increase in clamp slip capacity was obtained by increasing the neoprene thickness. particular for small bolt preloads where no data exists in the Phase I test programme. pipe diameter to thickness ratio) according to the definition of failure criterion. It is for this purpose that Phase II of this current JIP was launched.initial slope. with a corresponding reduction in total applied bolt load. although such reduction was not so marked for the initial 4 to 5 mm slip.
9 .The remainder of this document presents the Phase II JIP test programme in detail. viz: •= •= •= •= •= Section 2 – Objective and Scope of Tests Section 3 – Description of Test Configuration and Procedures Section 4 – Test Results Section 5 – Design/Assessment Guidance Section 6 – Concluding Remarks.
Testing Programme The testing programme involves a total of 6 tests.Tests T1A and T1B (along with Phase I Tests T1.Tests T18 and T18A (along with Test T1A) Cyclic loading effect (Test T4C) Failure definition (full cyclic and half cyclic loading) (Test T1C) Phase I test rig was utilised for the first two tests on T1A and T1B.2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF TESTS Objective The objective of Phase II of the JIP is to conduct a programme of tests that. In order to apply a sinusoidal-type loading in both tensile and compressive direction (tests on T4C and load steps 1 through 5 of tests on T1C). will enable cost-effective. as summarised in Table 2. the Phase I test rig was slightly modified to remove slack in the bearings. 10 .1. T2 & T3) Neoprene hardness . robust and safe guidance for the design of neoprene-lined clamps to be established. in combination with the Phase I results. The programme has been designed to investigate the influence of the following parameters on the slip strength of neoprene-lined clamps: •= •= •= •= Interface pressure .
Test No.) Bolt Load (% fy) T1A Incremental T1B Incremental T4C Full Cyclic & Half Cyclic T18 Incremental T18A Incremental T1C Half Cyclic Notes: IRHD International Rubber Hardness Degree Table 2.1: Summary of Test Programme for Phase II CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 11 . Of Bolts Bolt Size (nom. Brace Surface Condition Black oxide Black oxide Black oxide Black oxide Black oxide Black oxide 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 60 60 70 50 60 800 800 800 800 800 800 324/17 8 M36 20% 324/17 8 M36 20% 324/17 8 M36 20% 324/17 8 M36 20% 324/17 8 M36 10% 324/17 8 M36 20% Nature Of Test Loading Clamp Length (mm) Neoprene Thickness (mm) Brace D/T (mm) Neoprene Hardness (IRHD) No.
Here.1 Clamp Specimen The clamp test specimen.3.4.2 and illustrated in Figure 3.1: 3.1. The clamp was structurally typical of many clamps used for the retrofitting of risers to existing installations and for the handling of pipe spools. The modified end connection and load cell – tubular interface (flange joint) are illustrated in Figure 3. was utilised in the Phase II tests. The same test rig configuration used for application in axial tensile loading in the Phase I tests. 3. Modifications to the end connections have been made to permit load reversal. CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 12 . DESCRIPTION OF TEST CONFIGURATION AND PROCEDURES A complete description of the test configurations and procedures is provided in the Annex. total) bolt stiffeners 600 mm 460 mm neoprene lining side plates 800 mm saddle plates Figure 3.2 Test Rig Clamp Test Specimen Phase II tests were restricted to pure axial loading of the clamp along the longitudinal axis of the pipe. as shown in Figure 3.3. is illustrated in Figure 3. as used in the Phase I trials. a summary of the more salient points is given. stud bolt centrelines (8 No.
2: Test Rig Configuration for Axial Loading Only CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 13 .hydraulic actuator load cell tubular section clamp test specimen hydraulic actuator load cell tubular section Figure 3.
Figure 3.3: Photograph of Axial Load Rig 14 .
The locations and identification numbers for each of strain gauges are shown in Figure 3. Sufficient travel lengths were specified for the LVDTs such that the entire loading regime could be recorded. The identification numbers of each of the stud bolts are also shown in Figure 3. •= •= 15 .5.Figure 3.3 Modified End Connection and Load Cell – Tubular Interface Test Instrumentation Strain Measurement •= •= Strains were measured by means of linear 120-Ohm electrical resistance strain gauges.4: 3. A total of six strain gauges were mounted on the pipe to verify loading of the specimen. Each bolt was instrumented with two strain gauges in a half bridge configuration to monitor the total load on each bolt. LVDTs were aligned to ensure that displacement were measured perpendicular to specimen or reaction surfaces. Figure 3. A total of five LVDTs were positioned about the specimen to record the relative displacement of the clamp with respect to the pipe.5. Dummy gauges were provided on blocks of steel to allow for temperature compensation of measured values. •= •= Displacement Measurement •= •= Displacements were measured by means of temperature compensating Linear Voltage Displacement Transducers (LVDTs).6 presents the locations of the LVDTs.
Figure 3.6: Locations of LVDTs 16 .5: Bolt and Strain Gauge Locations Figure 3.
at the mid length of each stud bolt. ensuring that the attached strain gauges were not damaged. The tubular member was placed into the lower clamp half. Each of the stud bolts was carefully inserted through the holes in the flange plates of the clamp halves. Digital signals were conditioned to output as load. 1. or IRHD 70) for the clamp was in accordance with MSL document entitled “Specification for Clamp Lining and Bonding” and consistent with procedures employed for the Phase I tests. The tubular was lightly manually wire brushed immediately prior to the clamp installation for each test.1 Pre-Testing Procedures Calibration of Stud Bolts Two strain gauges were mounted. 4. diametrically opposite each other. •= 3. 2. IRHD 60.4. 17 .Data Acquisition •= All transducers were connected to a data acquisition system that consists of a terminal block. stroke (displacement) and strain. The lower clamp half was supported at a height of approximately six inches (152 mm) from the floor of the laboratory. Application of Neoprene Liner The supply and application of the neoprene-liner (IRHD 50. Preparation of Tubular Members The existing uncoated specimen from the Phase I tests was utilised in the Phase II tests. Every effort was made to ensure the highest quality bond of the liner to the clamp.4 Test Procedures 3. ensuring that all contact surfaces remain fully soaked throughout the installation. a high-speed analogue/digital card mounted in an IBM compatible personal computer and a data acquisition software used to configure the system and set up data acquisition parameters. Each bolt was calibrated by installing it into a tensile testing machine and applying incremented tensile loading up to 80% of nominal tensile yield. below. Spherical washers and nuts were applied and hand tightened. The upper clamp half was lowered onto the tubular member to align directly above the lower clamp half. 3. the neoprene liners of each of the clamp halves and the tubular member were liberally doused with water from a hose. Assembly of the Clamp Specimen During steps 1 to 4.
evenly. Initial datum (zeroed) readings of all instrumentation was again checked.4.2 Testing Procedure After completion of the steps described in Section 3. A sufficient length of bolt protruded above the top plate of the upper clamp half to accommodate the hydraulic stud bolt tensioning system. The operation of all instrumentation and data acquisition system was checked. A qualified Hydratight technician supervised the tension operation. including all strain and displacement gauges. 3. The leads from the strain gauges on each of the bolts and on the tubular were connected to the appropriate channels of the data acquisition system.ensuring that the split line on each side of the clamp remained even along the length of the clamp and approximately equal either side of the clamp. The specimen was bedded down by applying load cycles not greater than 5% of the estimated failure load. 8. data from each instrumentation point. The bolts were hand-torque.1. Tensioning of Stud Bolts The stud bolts were simultaneously tensioned using the Hydratight hydraulic tensioning system. 5. The operation of all instrumentation and data acquisition system was checked. Visible and/or audible events were manually recorded and photographed as appropriate. using a standard wrench. the application of loading proceeded in accordance with the following procedure: •= Throughout all loading and unloading operations. 7. The procedure for the tensioning involved a three-stage pressure application.4. Installation of the Test Rig •= •= •= •= The specimen was installed into the appropriate test rig and the LVDT instrumentation was set up. Strain gauge readings from each stud bolt were continuously monitored throughout the tensioning procedure to confirm: (a) (b) the desired average bolt load had been achieved to within 5% maximum variation of load between bolts did not exceed 10% of the target load. were continuously recorded. 6. Initial datum (zeroed) readings of all instrumentation were taken. 18 . calibrated and logged by the computerised data acquisition system.
All stud bolt nuts were completely slackened off using the Hydratight tensioning system and readings of all instrumentation were again taken.5 Loading Schedule Digital files were generated by the data acquisition system.5. Test T1A T1B T4C T18 T18A T1C Load Type Incremental Tensile Incremental Tensile Sinusoidal Tension-Compression Incremental Tensile Incremental Tensile Sinusoidal Tension-Compression & Tensile-half of sine wave Test Overview Termination Condition 20 mm slip 20 mm slip Predetermined number of cycles 20 mm slip 20 mm slip Predetermined number of cycles Table 3. As mentioned above. for each specimen configuration except Tests T1C and T4C.1 presents an overview of the loading schedule. each specimen was subjected to two loading and unloading cycles. Test T1C comprised of sinusoidal loading cycles (at 5 different loads) and half cycle loading cycles (again at 5 different loads). then sampled and converted to the control signal by the Digital/Analogue channels of the data acquisition system. Test T4C contains 7 full cycle sinusoidal loading cycles. Test T4C was comprised of seven load steps and Test T1C contained ten. supporting clamp halves appropriately. •= 3. 3. The two clamp halves were split and the interfaces surveyed. Table 3.4.3 Post-Test Procedures Following the completion of load application to the test specimen the following basic procedures were followed: •= •= •= All instrumentation readings were recorded at the point of complete load removal.1: 19 .•= With the exception of Tests T1C and T4C. taking photographs and notes as appropriate. The electrical connection leads from the stud bolts to data-logger were disconnected and all stud bolts were carefully removed. the test contained two loading cycles. The actual loading schedules used are summarised in Section 3.
proceeding to 75 kN. sinusoidal loading in tensile and compressive directions about a mean load of zero. the load increments were reduced to intervals of 10 kN.5 Figure 3.e. Loading cycle one was incremental loading of 5-minute durations commencing at 50 kN. positive portion only. the loadings are summarised as follows: Tests T1A.2. Here. Figure 3. at a rate of 700 lbs (approximately 31. Specifications of each of the 10 loading cycles are summarised in Table 3. 40000 2 30000 1 . i.7: Test T1C Typical Load Step in Test T4C Test T1C included a total of 10 load steps.5 10000 Load (lbs) Displacement (mm) 0 0 1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585 1651 -0 .2 kN) per minute. After this.5 1 20000 0 .7 presents a typical loading cycle in Test T4C. All loading steps were similar. Loading cycle two involved a linear increase of the load. the first five being sinusoidal and the latter being the tensile load. then 100 kN. T1B. from zero load to a point where 20 mm slip was measured between the clamp and the tubular.Details of loadings are given in the Annex in the form of load-time plots.5 LO AD LBS AVERAG E BO LT LO AD LBS LVDT 1 M M -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 . of similar cycles as shown in Figure 20 . continuing until a relative displacement of 4 mm of the tubular in the clamp was measured. The only variations between load steps were frequency and amplitude of the cyclic load and the total number of times each load was applied (cycle numbers).5 -3 0 0 0 0 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 T im e (s ) -2 . T18 & T18A These four tests were comprised of two loading cycles each. Test T4C A total of 7 loading steps were comprised in this test. periods and the steepness of 1/16 are explained below. after which the load was gradually reduced back to zero. The amplitudes.
of Cycles 10 10 5 5 5 Amplitude (kN) 24 51 99 150 188 220 220 Amplitude (kN) 24 51 99 150 188 Period (seconds) 7.5 Period (seconds) 7.0 10.2: No.5 1 56 111 166 221 276 331 386 441 496 551 606 661 716 771 826 881 936 991 1046 1101 1156 1211 1266 1321 -5 0 0 0 T im e (s ) 1376 -1 Figure 3.5 13.8.0 9.0 9.2 12. amplitude and number of cycles are presented in Table 3. 6–10 Tension only) Specifications of Loading Steps in Tests T4C and T1C 21 .0 Comment Steepness of 1/16 Steepness of 1/16 1-year return wave Steepness of 1/16 100-year return wave Steepness of 1/16 Steepness of 1/16 Comment Steepness of 1/16 Steepness of 1/16 1-year return wave Steepness of 1/16 100-year return wave Test T1C (Loading Cycles 1–5: Tension–Compression.5 LOAD LBS A V E RA G E BO LT LO A D LB S LVDT 1 M M 15000 0 5000 -0 .8: The 10th Loading Step of Test T1C Test T4C Loading Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Loading Cycle 1&6 2&7 3&8 4&9 5 & 10 Table 3.0 10.5 13.2. of Cycles 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 No.2 12.5 35000 1 Displacement (mm) Load (lbs) 25000 0 .0 10. 55000 2 45000 1 .3.0 12. The variations in the frequency.
in the design of the clamp. The design wave height and period used for the 100-year event were 15. 22 . The water depth was taken as 35. the load on the riser was 13. to be similar to what existing clamps may experience. the clamp notional design axial slip capacity is 188 kN.0 m). The clamp was therefore designed to resist the wave load on approximately 7. At 8 m water depth the lateral wave load on the riser was 25. It was assumed that the clamp had been designed with an interface pressure of 3.2 MPa (i. At 8 m water depth. It was further assumed that. periods and steepness values in Table 3.e. For the determination of the wave periods associated with the intermediate load steps a wave steepness of 1/16 has been assumed.6 kN/m.8 m and 10. consistent with Test T1A).9 kN/m. The clamp was assumed to be located at an elevation close to the first horizontal frame below the waterline (-8. therefore.4 m.3 m of riser.2 was used for the coefficient of friction and a factor of safety of 1.2 were proposed. it was assumed that the test specimen had been used to attach a 26′′ retrofit riser to a typical UK Southern North Sea platform.The amplitudes. On this basis.1 m and 12 seconds respectively. in consultation with the Project Steering Committee. The wave height and period used for the 1-year event were 10.7 was applied to the extreme event load. For this purpose.5 seconds respectively. a value of 0. the load on the clamp during the 1-year return period wave was 99 kN.
In loading cycle one of Tests T1A and T1B.4. represent an investigation of the influence of bolt pre-load on clamp axial slip capacity. The initial trendlines are also shown. in Tests T1A and T1B. a ductile form of slip can be seen in each of the tests. the total stud bold loads were lower. relatively low axial loads were applied with a low loading rate. Once again. However. T2 & T3) Tests T1A and T1B.3 and 4. Due to the creep effect observed in Test T4A. in the following subsections. together with Tests T1. respectively. These tests called for incremental loading until 4 mm of displacement was measured between the tubular and the clamp. In order to provide greater accuracy in the definition of the failure criterion. Compared with Tests T1 and T4. The load-slip curves of Tests T1A and T1B are presented in Figures 4. Tests T1. It was observed during Test T4A that sliding did not stop during the hold periods and equilibrium was never established. The results are grouped. In Test T1B the nominal pre-load of each bolt was 10% of tensile yield. T4 and T4A had a similar test programme except for the load application rate.4 that the unloading paths are approximately parallel to the initial slope. It was observed in Phase I 23 . Typical load-slip curves obtained from Tests T1 and T4 in Phase I are reproduced in Figure 4. T2 and T3 conducted in Phase I. T4 & T4A) It has been observed from the tensile tests in Phase I that the slip behaviour of the clamp is extremely ductile. Test T4A was also carried out in Phase I. On the basis of the above observations. As reported in the Phase I final report.3 and 4.1.1 Failure Criterion – Quasi-Static Load (T1A &T1B. T4 and T4A in Phase I. the load in Test T4A was applied in increments with a period of 5 minutes between each load increment. 4. the failure criterion defined in Phase I for axial quasi-static load is retained herein.4 respectively. Based on the observations from Tests T1. where the load was gradually and continuously ramped at a slow rate.2 Bolt Pre-Load (T1A & T1B. the pre-load of each bolt in Tests T1. It can be observed from Figures 4. 50% and 60% of tensile yield. whereupon the load was reduced to zero. see Figure 4. a failure criterion was defined in Phase I for clamps under axial loading. For Test T1A the bolts were tensioned to a nominal pre-load of 20% of tensile yield. The figures show the mean slip of the two clamp halves for each test. according to the parameter under investigation. T4 and T4A. T2 and T3 were 40%. Further details may be found in the Annex. the failure load could not be defined by selecting a certain amount of limiting slip.2.T1. 4. especially of the condition of the liner following each test. The failure load was defined as the position at which the load-slip curve was seen to deviate substantially from the trendline defining its initial slope. T1. RESULTS This section presents the main results of the various tests conducted in Phase II. Tests T1A and T1B in Phase II have an identical test frame and specimen configurations to those of T1.
The central bolts. see little or no loss in load until about 3 mm of relative displacement. numbers 1 and 8 (see diagram below). however.5. 50% of tensile yield was taken as the design limit of the bolt pre-load level. A similar bolt load variation pattern was also observed in Phase I tests.6. and 7. 6. the reduction is not so marked. see a small increase in load. numbers 2. The loads in the bolts were continuously monitored during the tensioning operation by means of the attached strain gauges. Applied Bolt Pre-Load at Start of Test (KN) Average 106 55 212 274 Total 848 440 1696 2192 % of tensile yield 20% 10% 40% 50% Test ID T1A T1B T1 T2 Bolt Load Variation The variation of the pre-load in each bolt for Test T1A is shown in Figure 4. Similar variations in bolt loads were observed for Test T1B. At the other end of the clamp bolts 4 and 5. until about 3 mm of clamp displacement relative to the pipe.tests that a pre-load of 60% of tensile yield caused excessive bulging of the liner during bolt preload application and damage of the neoprene liner during slip. each bolt having been previously calibrated to 80% of yield. 24 . The average applied pre-loads at the start of Tests T1A and T1B are presented in the table below. The plots shown a significant drop in bolt load over the duration of the tests. for the first 4-mm of slip. The reduction of bolt load was also observed in Phase I tests. The variation of the average bolt load for each of Tests T1A and T1B is shown in Figure 4. 3. Hence. where the pre-loads at the start of Tests T1 and T2 in Phase I are also included for reference. The bolts at the end of the clamp from which the pipe was pulled. Bolt Pre-load The bolts were simultaneously tensioned using Hydratight hydraulic tensioning tools. initially. experienced an immediate fall-off in load. at which time a similar rate of load reduction to the end bolts occurs. In all quasi-static tensile tests the variation in the bolt loads followed a similar pattern. They then see a similar rate of load loss as the other bolts.
Those obtained in Phase I for Tests T1 and T2 are also included for reference.3 Neoprene Hardness (T1A.044 0. T1 and T2 are shown.3 and 4. in Figure 4.4 respectively. The corresponding estimated design capacities for Tests T1A and T1B are 220 kN and 110 kN respectively. based on the definition discussed in Section 4.7). as already mentioned. were utilised.Slip The load-slip behaviour recorded in Tests T1A and T1B are shown in Figures 4. the design capacities for Tests T1 and T2 were estimated as 441 kN and 552 kN respectively (µ = 0.1. For Test T1A the neoprene liner had a hardness of 60 IRHD. Given the feature that all these fours tests behaved very similar shown in Figure 4.034 During the failure load determination for Tests T1A and T1B. It can be observed that the increase in the applied stud bolt load does not necessarily lead to a corresponding increase in the clamp axial capacity. results in a reduction in the apparent friction coefficient for each of the Tests T1A.2 Fy) T1B (Fb = 0. The apparent friction coefficient is defined as the failure load divided by the total applied bolt pre-load per clamp half. The load-slip behaviour of each of the Tests T1A.5 Fy) Failure Load 150 115 150 150 Apparent Friction Coefficient 0.3 and 4.3 and 4. for comparison. the load cycle 2 curves in Figures 4.131 0. the failure load of Test T1B presented in the above table may be considered to be conservative. T1 and T2. The failure load for each test. together with the corresponding apparent friction coefficient.7. The figures show the mean slip of the two clamp halves for each test. which more actually represent the practical load application rate. factor of safety Γ = 1. 4. The load-slip curves for Tests T1 and T2 in Phase I are reproduced in Figure 4.1.2. This. T1B. the nature and magnitude of clamp failure remain similar.4. As reported in Phase I final report. is given in the table below. The neoprene hardness in Tests T18 and T18A were 70 IRHD and 50 IRHD respectively.4 Fy) T2 (Fb = 0. The linear trend line through the initial slope of the curves has been plotted on Figures 4. Test ID T1A (Fb = 0.1 Fy) T1 (Fb = 0.4.7. T18 & T18A) Tests T18 and T18A were carried out to assess the effect of neoprene hardness on clamp displacement by comparison with Test T1A of Phase II. 25 .088 0. in turn. A ductile form of slip can be seen in each of the test. For a bolt load of 20% of tensile yield and above.
4 Cyclic Loading (T4C & T1C) Tests T4C and T1C represent an application of cyclic loading on the neoprene-lined clamp to determine slip due to simulated wave action on a riser fitted to a platform in the UK Southern North Sea (see Section 3.2.5. each bolt having been previously calibrated to 80% of yield. Slip The load-slip behaviour recorded in Tests T1A.Bolt Pre-Load The bolts were simultaneously tensioned. Once again. The apparent friction coefficient is defined as the failure load divided by the total applied bolt pre-load per clamp half.100 0. The failure load for each test. The applied bolt pre-loads at the start of Tests T1A. The estimated design capacity for all three tests is 220 kN. It can be seen that the apparent friction coefficient increases with neoprene hardness. T18 and T18A are given in the table below. Seven loading steps were conducted in 26 . is tabulated below. The linear trend lines through the initial slope of each curve have been plotted on the figure and the slopes can be seen to correlate with neoprene hardness. The load in the bolts was continuously monitored during the tensioning operation by means of the attached strain gauges. T18 and T18A are shown in Figure 4.1.5). together with the corresponding apparent friction coefficient. using Hydratight hydraulic tensioning tools.077 The correlation between neoprene hardness and the apparent friction coefficient is presented in Figure 4. The curves show the mean slip of the two clamp halves for each test.8. Test ID T1A T18 T18A Neoprene Hardness 60 70 50 Failure Load (kN) 150 160 130 Apparent Friction Coefficient 0. above.9. based on the definition discussed in Section 4. 4. a ductile form of slip can be seen in each of the tests.088 0. The description of the bolt pre-load variation and observations therefrom are discussed in Section 4. Test ID T1A T18 T18A Neoprene Hardness 60 70 50 Applied Bolt Pre-Load at Start of Test (KN) Average 106 100 105 Total 848 800 840 % of tensile yield 20% 20% 20% Bolt Load Variation Variation of the bolt pre-load for Tests T18 and T18A followed a similar pattern to that for Test T1A shown in Figure 4.
The load pattern is presented in Table 3. It can be seen in Figure 4. The average pre-loads at the start of each step for Tests T4C and T1C are presented in the following table. an increase in load during the tensile half27 . The first five loading steps for Test T1C were identical to those in Test T4C and represent the repeatability of the application of cyclic loading performed in Test T4C on the neoprene-lined clamp.10. using Hydratight hydraulic tensioning tools. The cyclic loading steps in Tests T4C followed a sinusoidal tension-compression pattern with different amplitudes and frequencies. Test ID T4C – Step 1 T4C – Step 2 T4C – Step 3 T4C – Step 4 T4C – Step 5 T4C – Step 6 T4C – Step 7 T1C – Step 1 T1C – Step 2 T1C – Step 3 T1C – Step 4 T1C – Step 5 T1C – Step 6 T1C – Step 7 T1C – Step 8 T1C – Step 9 T1C – Step 10 Neoprene Hardness 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Applied Bolt Pre-Load at Start of Test (KN) Average Total % of tensile yield 117 963 20% 117 963 20% 117 963 20% 117 963 20% 115 920 20% 113 904 20% 111 888 20% 114 912 20% 113 904 20% 113 904 20% 113 904 20% 112 896 20% 111 888 20% 112 896 20% 112 896 20% 112 896 20% 112 896 20% Bolt Load Variation The bolt load variation for step 5 in Test T4C is presented in Figure 4. The second five loading steps represent the application of half-cycle pulse loading on the neoprene-lined clamp with the same assumptions as the first five steps.10 that bolt numbers 1 and 8. For Test T1C ten loading steps were carried. A new neoprene liner with hardness of 60 IRHD was fitted for Test T1C. Similar variation pattern was observed for other loading steps in Test T4C. Bolt Pre-Load The bolts were simultaneously tensioned. which are the closest ones to the loading cell. The comparison of the results of the two tests determined whether the clamp slip seen in the previous tests was a product of shear deformation of the neoprene lining or actual slippage due to the applied force. At the other end of the clamp bolts 4 and 5.Test T4C with a neoprene hardness of 60 IRHD. Half-cycle wave loading shows the response of the clamp when subjected to a push-push action instead of the push-pull action of full-cycle loading. each bolt having been previously calibrated to 80% of yield. The load in the bolts was continuously monitored during the tensioning operation by means of the attached strain gauges. experienced a fall-off in load during the tensile half-cycle and an increase in load during the compressive half-cycle.2 in Section 3. The rates of load increase and loss were similar.5.
14 presents a single cycle of each step in Test T4C. Test T4C had the identical specimen configurations and similar bolt pre-load levels to Test T1A. It was observed during tests that even this residual displacement was recovered within a very short period of time.15 reveals that the clamp slip response in Tests T4C and T1C are similar.11 presents the average bolt pre-load variations for each of the loading steps in Tests T4C. It can be seen from Figure 4.13 that the load-slip response forms a closed hysteresis loop. The amplitudes of Steps 1 to 4 in these tests did not exceed their static axial load capacity. 6 and 7 see little or no loss/increase in load during the entire tensile-compressive cycle.15. As addressed in the test procedures. The rates of load increase and loss were similar and approximately equalled to those of bolts 1 and 8. Full-cycle Tests T4C and T1C showed that the load-slip response formed a stable hysteresis loop. following three successive tests.15 that a residual displacement of clamp relative to pipe is within ±0. The comparative load-slip behaviour of Tests T4C and T1C is shown in Figure 4.4 mm for Steps 1 to 4 when the applied load reduced to zero. the neoprene liner was to be replaced whenever visual damage became evident or. The above observations are similar to the findings of the quasi-static tests as already described in Section 4. higher load amplitude results in a larger loop area.13. Similar load-slip behaviour was observed for all load steps in Tests T4C. there is little difference in response for full. a ductile form of slip appeared in each of the load steps of Tests T4C and T1C. It can be seen from Figure 4. 3. Figure 4.16.12. The central bolts. numbers 2. Slip As seen in the quasi-static axial loading tests.16 that the clamp has similar slip behaviour under cyclic loading and quasistatic loading. The five pulse loading steps simulate the tensile half of the 28 . The first five loading steps of Test T1C were carried out to assess the repeatability of the clamp slip behaviour under cyclic load. The load-slip response for step 5 of Test T4C is shown in Figure 4.2. It can be observed that the slope and area of the load-slip hysteresis loop depend on the frequency and amplitude of the applied cyclic load. As mentioned above. It can be seen from Figure 4.or half-cycle loading. 5 half-cycle loading steps were conducted in Test T1C. As can be seen. Generally. Comparisons of the average bolt pre-load variations among the loading steps in Test T4C. The variation of the bolt pre-load for Test T1C followed a similar pattern to that for Test T4C. Figure 4. sliding at interface) of the clamp. In order to determine whether the observed residual displacements of the clamp are purely from the shear deformation of the neoprene lining or if they represent true slip movement (ie. The peak load-slip responses of each loading step in Test T4C are compared with that of Test T1A in Figure 4. full-cycle steps in Test T1C and half-cycle steps in Test T1C are shown in Figure 4. Test T1C was conducted using a new neoprene liner with the same hardness as that in Test T4C. Figure 4.cycle and a load loss during the compressive half-cycle were observed. in any case.
Given the above observations. this may be because the loading rate in the half-cycle is slightly higher.19 that the residual displacement of the clamp under the half-cycle loading is so small that it can be neglected.18 for loading Step 10 of Test 1C. With the application of axial load less than the failure load. Comparisons of the clamp load-slip response among the full-cycles tests in T4C and T1C and the half-cycle tests in T1C are shown in Figure 4. A typical example is shown in Figure 4.17 presents one loading cycle of Step 5 in Test T1C. The clamp displacement. the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) 2) 3) A clamp under cyclic load has a similar deformation response to that when subjected to static load. at least up to an amount of 2 mm. The residual displacement observed in the full-cycle tests can be taken as the pure shear of the neoprene. which is recoverable within a short period of time. results purely from the neoprene undergoing shear deformation. The clamp load-slip response under the tensile half-cycle loading steps was again observed to form a stable hysteresis loop. It can be seen from Figures 4. In part. the shear deformation of the neoprene results in a small amount of residual displacement.19.18 and 4.five full-cycle steps respectively. 29 . Figure 4. The neoprene liner under the half-cycle load is slightly stiffer than when experiencing a full-cycle load.
To assist in the development of design guidance. At very high loads the relatively low modulus of rubber results in the real contact area approaching the geometric area. although typical of offshore practice.8 which is typical of values suggested by liner manufacturers. the constant of proportionality between F and the real contact area is of the same order as the shear modulus. A most illuminating. For dry contacts.2). DISCUSSION AND GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN/ASSESSMENT This section is concerned with the development of guidance for the slip capacity of stressed neoprene-lined clamps based on the results of the Phase I tests and of the test programme described in Section 4. Superimposed are lines corresponding to the apparent coefficients of friction inferred from the tests. The friction force F is proportional to the real surface contact area. In only one test (Test T1B) were bolt loads so low that a lower failure load was inferred. The figure shows the results of Tests T1A. For rubber. The failure load has been taken as the load when significant departure from the initial linear elastic behaviour occurs. It is not known how applicable it is to synthetic rubbers such as neoprene but it would seem to explain the results of most of the tensile tests in both Phase I and Phase II.1 Discussion It is appropriate to begin with the tests that were not subject to cyclic loading. where F is the tangential friction force and W the applied normal load.” The above passage suggests that the bolts loads in the majority of tests. This corresponds to when relative displacement occurs under sustained loads (see Test T4A curve in Figure 4. reference is made to Figure 5. were sufficiently high so that the limiting value of slip load F was reached. Quoting from Reference (2) (underline inserted): “The coefficient of friction is defined by µ = F / W . can be found in Reference (2). but it becomes more pronounced at high loads. as pertains to natural rubbers. 30 . but falls with increasing normal load. The evidence of liner extrusion due to preloading the bolts tends to confirm that liner was highly stressed. rather than taking the ultimate slip load (ie. but it is reduced by surface contamination. Also shown is the line corresponding to µ=0. which for normally rough surfaces under light loads is much less than the geometric area of contact. and hence approximately similar factors of safety against true slip. maximum value. However. At light loads the dependence is weak.1. With this failure criterion. T1B. Figure 4. T1.5. the load occurring at a slip of 15 mm or more). the coefficient of dry friction is not constant. T2 and T3 in which the preload was the parameter under investigation. albeit short. 5. discussion of friction behaviour. and F tends to a limiting. a more conservative failure criterion has been used herein. which is a plot of the interface shear capacity against the interface pressure.7 illustrates the similarity of clamp slip loads over a wide range of bolt loads. most specimens again give a similar failure load. and the real contact area was approaching the geometric area.
T1A and T18 (IRHD values of 50.2 is formulated in terms of a limiting interface shear capacity (this is 0. q=FB /DL (N/mm2) Figure 5. For interface pressures less than that corresponding to about that in Test T1A (q = 3 N/mm2 in fact).1 The limiting interface shear capacity was observed to be a function of the neoprene hardness. 0. τ =Pc/DL (N/mm 2) µ=0.1. uncertainties exist in the small interface pressure region. effectively ending with a slope of µ= 0.1: Plot of Interface Shear against Interface Pressure The design guidance given in Section 5. and there is no test data available for an interface pressure less than that of Test T1B (1.5 N/mm2 is put on the interface pressure as the liner of specimen T3 in Phase I was extruded when the stud bolt preload was applied and it also suffered damage during the slip test.100 T1A.8.2 0. µ=0. A limit of 8. 31 .29 N/mm2 for the results of Tests T1A.8 0.088 T1.35 Interface Shear Capacity.05 0 0 1 Τ1Β µ=0. the limiting interface shear capacity is ramped down in a parabola form.024 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Interface Pressure. Assuming that these test results are indicative of their respective plateau regions.131 Τ18 µ=0. T1 and T2 all having neoprene hardness IRHD = 60). measured in International Rubber Hardness Degrees (IRHD).2.25 0. The parabola is given by: τ = � 2q q 2 � 0.29 � � 3 − 9 � … 5.1 0.19 at the origin.044 T2. µ=0.034 Τ18Α µ=0.The results from Tests T18 and T18A for different neoprene hardness are also presented. µ=0.7 N/mm2).60 and 70 respectively) in Figure 5.077 T3. Although it is conservative compared with a slope of 0. the limiting interface shear capacity can be plotted against IRHD as shown in Figure 5.15 0. µ=0.3 0. see Tests T18A.
2: Effect of Neoprene Hardness on Interface Shear Capacity The curve shown in the figure is a suitably simple yet accurate approximation to the data. environmental loads are short term in nature.32 0. not shown on Figure 5. 32 .2.1. Firstly.3 0. Γ should not be taken as less than unity as such values could lead to creep of the liner material (recall Test T4A in Figure 4. it should not be forgotten that the design/assessment provisions are essentially based on mean values of a relatively small data sample and therefore are not even characteristic or lower bound. Γ.2 in which the sine function is based on degrees angular measure.2 are combined and the coefficients rounded off for the purposes of the design/assessment provisions in Section 5.5 N/mm2 at a slightly higher shear capacity than Tests T1 and T2.2 40 50 60 IRHD T18 T1A T18A 70 80 Figure 5.and 5. and this allows a less onerous interpretation to be assigned to Γ. Indeed.0. Both sets of results indicate that the design guidance is conservative.26 0. The design/assessment provisions include a factor of safety. Gravity loads) applied to the clamp.24 0. For long term loads (eg. some ad hoc tests on flat plate specimens confirmed the µ=0.8 line for low interface pressures.34 Interface Shear.1. τ (N/mm 2) 0. Equations 5.22 0.2). However. Two other sets of results. Secondly. the results of the tests conducted at Karlsruhe fall in the region of an interface pressure of 2.28 0.29 * 1. are worth mentioning. its equation is given by: τ= = 0. as discussed below.15 * sin(IRHD) ≈ sin (IRHD) 3 … 5.
Cyclic loading tests, especially those of half-cycle tests in T1C, reveal that the relative displacement of the clamp is almost entirely due to neoprene shear deformation. The response of the clamp took the form of closed hysteresis loops, with only negligible deformation following load removal, see Figure 4.19(e). Rubber-like material is highly sensitive to creep, during which the material continues to deform under a given load. Figure 5.3, reproduced from Reference (2), shows that for a certain types of rubber, creep varies approximately linearly with the logarithm of time under load. It would appear that the durations of the cyclic tests were such that no substantial creep occurred, and that this is the essential difference between the cyclic and quasi-static tests. In the design/assessment provisions, it is therefore recommended that the factor of safety Γ may be taken as unity for designing clamps subject to environmental loads. For assessment purposes of existing clamps, a factor lower than unity may be justified for the storm event. This is because the storm event occurs infrequently and very minor slippage (certainly less than 0.1 mm) does not have any significant structural consequence. The data presented in Figure 4.19(e) would suggest that a clamp load of 200 kN should be perfectly acceptable which, when compared with the quasi-static limit of 150 kN, leads to an allowable Γ of 150/200 = 0.75.
Shear Creeping Curves for Different Rubber Materials
The provisions in Section 5.2 for torsional and combined axial/ torsional loads follow the Phase 1 findings and recommendations. 5.2 Design/Assessment Guidelines Base on the above observations, design guidance can be formulated as follows. The clamp slip capacity under axial load alone has been updated with the test results in Phase II. The clamp slip capacities under either torsional moment or combined axial and torsional loading are reproduced from Phase I.
Slip capacity of one clamp half under axial load alone:
Pc = αDL Γ αDL � 2q q 2 � � � − 9 � Γ � � 3
when 3.0 N/mm2 ≤ q ≤ 8.5 N/mm2
when q < 3.0 N/mm2
In the above: α is a limiting stress to be taken as α =
sin (IRHD) (degree angular measure). 3
D and L are respectively the tubular diameter and length of the clamp, both to be expressed in units of millimetres to give Pc in unit of Newtons. q is the radial pressure at the neoprene liner/tubular interface, to be calculated as: 9 =
FB , where FB is the total stud bolt load. DL
Γ is a factor of safety which is selected according to the following: i. ii. iii. For long term (gravity) loads, Γ should not be taken as less than unity. For designing new clamps for environmental loads, Γ = 1.0. For the assessment of existing clamps for environmental loads, Γ less than unity may be used with caution. On the basis of the project results, Γ = 0.75 may be acceptable.
The total axial capacity of a clamp is thus 2Pc, but note that in many situations the axial load is transferred to only one clamp half in the first instance. The above formulation assumes that there is no interference, i.e. that the tubular outside diameter is not greater than the inside diameter of the neoprene liner. If there is interference, a lower capacity may result. (ii) Slip capacity of clamp under torsional moment: Mc = Pc D
Where Pc is defined in item (i) and D the tubular diameter. Note that the value of Mc above is the total torsional capacity. Because the axial stiffness of stud bolts is much greater than the circumferential shear stiffness of neoprene, the applied torsion is effectively resisted by both halves of the clamps even where the torsional loading is applied to only one half in the first instance. 34
Combined axial and torsional loading: The applied axial force P and torsional moment M should satisfy the following inequality:
P M + Pc M c ≤ 1.0
with Pc and Mc evaluated as above.
This is important as many existing clamps have neoprene/steel interface pressures corresponding to lower bolt loads. as opposed to a new design. The following parameters were investigated in the Phase II test programme: •= •= •= Bolt pre-load Neoprene hardness Cyclic loading effects The Phase II tests. The programme of Phase II consisted of six axial slip tests under either quasi-static loadings or cyclic loadings that simulate wave action in the UK Southern North Sea.2. The tests with clamps having different neoprene hardness (IRHD value) have confirmed that hardness affects capacity. have allowed the conservatism of the Phase I design guidelines to be removed. In other words the displacement is largely due to neoprene shear deformation as opposed to true slip. The provisions encapsulate the above observations. A further relaxation may be used if the clamp is existing. The cyclic loading tests indicate that at the design capacity. the relative displacement of the clamp and member is recoverable.6. It is only when the loads are applied statically that time dependent phenomena such as creep are manifested. Design guidance has been formulated based on the results of both Phase I and Phase II test programmes. 36 . CONCLUDING REMARKS A programme of slip tests have been carried out on neoprene-lined clamps as used in offshore applications. see Section 5. with lower bolt loads than those in Phase I. It is recommended that the factor of safety be adjusted depending on whether quasi-static or dynamic loading is being considered.
NR Technical Bulletin. Doc. 5th Edition. 2. Ref. Rev 1. CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 . CH10010R005. 1992. “Engineering Design with Natural Rubber”. The Malaysian Rubber Produces’ Research Association.REFERENCES 1. “Development of Design Guidance for Neoprene-Lined Clamps for Offshore Application”. JIP Phase I Final Report. MSL Engineering Limited. ISSN-0956-3856. May 1999.
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98 .
FIGURES FOR SECTION 4 CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98 .
Figure 4.1: Load-Slip Response for Tests T1 and T4 (Reproduced from Phase 1 Final Report) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
2: Load-Slip Response for Tests T1 and T4A (Reproduced from Phase 1 Final Report) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .Figure 4.
3: Load-Slip Response for Test T1A CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .450 400 350 300 250 Loading Cycle 2 (higher loading rate) Loading Cycle 1 (lower loading rate) Linear (Initial slope) Applied axial load (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 10 Clamp slip (mm) 15 20 25 0 5 Figure 4.
4: Load-slip Response for Test T1B CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .400 350 300 250 200 Loading Cycle 2 (higher loading rate) Loading Cycle 1 (lower loading rate) Linear (Initial slope) Linear (Initial slope) Applied axial load (kN) 150 100 50 0 10 15 Clamp slip (mm) 20 25 30 0 5 Figure 4.
5: Bolt Pre-Load Variation during Test T1A CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .130 2 4 7 6 120 110 100 8 90 3 1 Bolt load (kN) 80 5 70 4 1 60 50 5 8 40 5 10 Clamp slip (mm) 15 20 25 -5 0 Figure 4.
6: Average Bolt Load Variation for Tests T1A and T1B CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .1 Fy) 20 0 5 10 Clamp slip (mm) 15 20 25 30 -5 0 Figure 4.120 100 80 Test T1A (Fb=0.2 Fy) Bolt load (kN) 60 40 Test T1B (Fb=0.
7: Load-Slip Response for Tests T1.500 Test T2 (Fb=0.1 Fy) 400 300 Applied Axial Test Load (kN) 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 -100 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.4 Fy) Test T1A (Fb=0. T1A and T1B CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 Fy) Test T1 (Fb=0.2 Fy) Test T1B (Fb=0. T2.
600 500 Test T18A (IRHD 50) Test T1A (IRHD60) 400 Test T18 (IRHD 70) Applied axial load (kN) 300 200 100 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) 0 5 Figure 4.8: Load-Slip Response for Tests T1A. T18 and T18A CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
12 0.9: Correlation between neoprene hardness and the apparent friction coefficient CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .02 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 Neoprene Hardness (IRHD) 40 45 Figure 4.08 0.1 0.0.06 Apparent Friction Coefficient 0.04 0.
10: Bolt Load Variation in Test T4C (Step 5) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .130 5 125 7 4 2 120 115 6 3 Bolt load (kN) 110 105 8 4 1 100 1 95 5 8 90 -1 0 Clamp slip (mm) 1 2 3 -3 -2 Figure 4.
118 Step 2 117 Step 1 Step 3 116 Step 4 115 114 Bolt load (kN) Step 5 113 Step 6 112 111 Step 7 110 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -4 -3 Figure 4.11: Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of One Cycle for Each Step in Test T4C CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
2 0.1 0.12 (a): Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of 24 kN Amplitude Cycle CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .118 117 Test T4C (Step 1) 116 115 Bolt Load (kN) 114 113 Test T1C (Step 1) 112 111 Test T1C (Step 6) 110 -0.1 0 0.2 Figure 4.3 -0.3 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -0.
4 0.118 117 Test T4C (Step 2) 116 Bolt Load (kN) 115 114 Test T1C (Step 2) 113 Test T1C (Step 7) 112 -0.6 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -0.6 -0.2 0.12 (b): Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of 51 kN Amplitude Cycle CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .2 0 0.4 Figure 4.
5 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -1.12 (c): Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of 99 kN Amplitude Cycle CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 0 0.118 117 Test T4C (Step 3) 116 Bolt Load (kN) 115 114 Test T1C (Step 3) 113 Test T1C (Step 8) 112 -0.5 1 1.5 -1 Figure 4.
5 Figure 4.5 1 1.5 Test T4C Step 4 115 114.5 116 115.5 2 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -2 -1.5 Bolt Load (kN) 114 Test T1C Step 4 113.116.12 (d): Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of 150 kN Amplitude Cycle CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 Test T1C (Step 9) 112 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 113 112.
5 -1 0 1 2 3 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) -3 -2 Figure 4.115.5 114 113.5 Bolt Load (kN) Test T1C (Step 10) 113 112.12 (e): Average Bolt Pre-load Variation of 188 kN Amplitude Cycle CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 112 Test T1C (Step 5) 111.5 115 Test T4C (Step 5) 114.
13: Load-Slip Response of Step 5 for Test T4C (188 kN Amplitude Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .250 200 150 100 50 0 Applied axial load (kN) -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -1 0 Clamp slip (mm) 1 2 3 -3 -2 Figure 4.
300 Step 5 200 Step 6 Step 7 Step 4 100 Step 3 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 Applied axial load (kN) Step 2 -100 Step 1 -200 -300 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.14: Load-Slip Response of One Cycle for Various Test T4C Load Steps CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1 -0.5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.5 2 2.200 100 0 -1.5 -2 -100 T4C -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) T1C Figure 4.15 (a): Load-Slip Response for Tests T4C and T1C (Step 1) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
5 0 0.5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.200 100 0 -1 -0.5 1 1.15 (b): Load-Slip Response for Tests T4C and T1C (Step 2) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 -2 -1.5 2 2.5 -100 T4C -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) T1C Figure 4.
5 0 0.5 -1 -0.5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.5 -2 -100 T4C -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) T1C Figure 4.15 (c): Load-Slip Response for Tests T4C and T1C (Step 3) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 2 2.5 1 1.200 100 0 -1.
5 0 0.5 -2 -100 T4C -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) T1C Figure 4.5 2 2.5 1 1.200 100 0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.15 (d): Load-Slip Response for Tests T4C and T1C (Step 4) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
5 2 2.5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.5 1 1.200 100 0 -1.5 0 0.5 -1 -0.5 -2 -100 T4C -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) T1C Figure 4.15 (e): Load-Slip Response for Tests T4C and T1C (Step 5) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
5 4 4.Load Cycle 1 (low loading rate) T1A .Tensile Peak T4C .5 0 0.Load Cycle 2 (high loading rate) 0 1 1.16: Load-Slip Response for Tests T1A and T4C CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 3 3.300 250 200 150 Applied Axial Test Load (kN) 100 50 T4C .5 -50 Axial Displacement of clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.Compressive Peak T1A .5 2 2.5 5 -0.
250 200 Step 10 of Test 1C Step 5 of Test 1C 150 100 50 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0 1 2 Applied Axial Test Load (kN) -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 Time (Second) Figure 4.17: Applied Axial Load of Step 5 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .
5 0 -100 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.5 -0.18: Load-Slip Response of Step 10 in Test T1C CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 2 2.5 1 1.200 Applied Axial Load (kN) 100 0 0.
5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -0.25 0.50 25 0 -0.25 0 0.19 (a): Load-Slip Response of Step 1 in Tests T4C and T1C and Step 6 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 -25 T4C-Step 1 T1C-Step 1 T1C-Step 6 -50 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.
5 0 0.19 (b): Load-Slip Response of Step 2 in Tests T4C and T1C and Step 7 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .100 50 0 -0.5 1 Applied Axial Load (kN) -1 -50 T4C-Step 2 T1C-Step 2 T1C-Step 7 -100 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.
150 75 0 -0.19 (c): Load-Slip Response of Step 3 in Tests T4C and T1C and Step 8 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 1 Applied Axial Load (kN) -1 -75 T4C-Step 3 T1C-Step 3 T1C-Step 8 -150 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.5 0 0.
5 1 1.200 100 0 -1 -0.19 (d): Load-Slip Response of Step 4 in Tests T4C and T1C and Step 9 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .5 0 0.5 -100 T4C-Step 4 T1C-Step 4 T1C-Step 9 -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.5 2 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2 -1.
5 Applied Axial Load (kN) -2.5 1 1.5 -100 T4C-Step 5 T1C-Step 5 T1C-Step 10 -200 Axial Displacement of Clamp Relative to Pipe (mm) Figure 4.5 2 2.5 0 0.19 (e): Load-Slip Response of Step 5 in Tests T4C and T1C and Step 10 in Test T1C (One Cycle) CH10010R006 Rev 1 January 2001 .200 100 0 -1 -0.5 -2 -1.
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98 Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.25 10/02 .
ISBN 0-7176-2577-X RR 031 £25.00 9 780717 625772 .