Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 26
ABSTRACT
Reliability analysis of single tubular joints and offshore platforms with tubular joints is
presented. The failure modes considered are yielding, punching, buckling, and fatigue
failure. Element reliability as well as systems reliability approach are used and
illustrated by several examples. Finally, optimal design of tubular joints with reliability
constraints is discussed and illustrated by an example.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is well known that the majority of structural failures of jacket type platforms are
failure in the welded tubular joints. Therefore, in estimates of the reliability of such an
offshore platform it is important to include the different failure modes of the tubular
joints. In this paper four different failure modes are considered, namely
Yielding
Punching
Buckling
Fatigue.
Although fatigue failure is included in this reliability analysis time dependence as
such is not treated. The analysis is performed at a given time. For the sake of simplicity
only K-joints are considered. T-joints, Y-joints, etc. can be analysed in an analogous
way. The four failure modes are considered separately, i.e. no mechanical interaction
between them is included in the reliability analysis.
In section 2 fundamental reliability concepts such as safety margin, reliability
index, model uncertainty, etc. are briefly presented. Then, in section 3, modelling of the
four failure modes is shown. The corresponding safety margins are introduced.
Relatively simple safety margins are used for this purpose. This fact necessitates that
1
Reliability Engineering, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 171-184.
71
Chapter 26
model uncertainties are included. On this basis the reliability of the tubular K-joints can
be estimated with regard to each of the failure modes considered. To estimate the
reliability of a tubular joint with regard to all the failure modes mentioned a systems
approach is needed. This is also necessary if the reliability of the tubular joints is
included in the estimate of the total reliability of the platform. Therefore, in section 4,
systems reliability concepts and methods are presented with special emphasis on
modelling of the residual strength of a tubular joint after failure has taken place.
3. FAILURE MODES
This section deals with the four failure modes mentioned in the introduction. The main
purpose is to formulate safety margins. The K-joint used for illustration is shown in
figure 1. Four critical sections are considered. They are indicated in figure 1 by I, II, III
and IV. The load effects in each critical section are supposed to be an axial force N and
a bending moment M. The loading is assumed to be l concentrated forces Pi, i = 1,,l,
and the structure is assumed to have linear elastic behaviour so that M and N can be
written
l l
M = ai Pi , N = bi Pi (3)
i =1 i =1
72
Chapter 26
M = Z - N
P P
+ (7)
Z NU Z M M U
The third failure mode is local stability failure (buckling) of the four tubular
members (cross-sections I, II, III and IV) forming the joint. According to the API-based
model for stability strength (see Miller [4]) the stability criterion can be written
N M
+ =1 (8)
NB M B
where NB and MB are functions of the yield stress Y. The corresponding safety margin
MB is
N M
M B = ZB - + (9)
N B M B
73
Chapter 26
74
Chapter 26
natural to define failure of the joint or of the structure as failure in two failure elements
(reliability modelling at level 2). To obtain these so-called significant pairs of failure
elements at level 2 the joint or the structure is modified by assuming in turn failure in
the significant failure elements and adding fictitious loads corresponding to the load-
carrying capacities (residual strength) of the elements in failure. For brittle failure (e.g.
fatigue) the residual strength is equal to zero. For other types of failure the reduced
strength can be taken into account by reducing the modulus of elasticity for the tubular
member in question. Thereby the flexibility of the structure is increased corresponding
to the formation of a failure mode.
The modified joint or structure is then reanalyzed and new reliability indices b
for the remaining failure elements are calculated. Failure elements with small b -values
are then combined with the failed element to form significant pairs of failure elements.
At level 2 the reliability of the joint or of the structure is modelled by a series system
where the elements are parallel systems with two elements (the significant pairs of
elements).
lower and upper bounds of the optimization variables. Alternatively the reliability
indices of the failure elements can be used as constraints. Then instead of (13) the
constraints are
bi ( t ) bimin , i = 1,..., N (15)
where bi is the reliability index of failure element i, bi is the lower bound of the
min
75
Chapter 26
inequality (13), is used as a constraint, the optimization problem can be solved using a
procedure where a sequence of element reliability constraint problems formed by
linearization of (13) in terms of element reliability indices is formulated, see reference
[9].
76
Chapter 26
The reliability of the joint is estimated using the first-order reliability method
presented in sections 2 and 4 with failure of the joint defined as failure modeling at
level 1. The series system modeling the significant failure modes is shown in figure 4.
It is seen that the most critical failure mode is fatigue failure in failure element 12
which has the reliability index b12 = 3.62.
77
Chapter 26
78
Chapter 26
modeled by removing from the structure the brace where the fatigue failure element is
located.
Another critical failure element is element 61 which models punching failure in
K-joint E. Failure of this type of failure modes is modeled by reducing the stiffness of
the brace where the failure element is located. This is a simple model of the behavior
observed in experiments with punching failure 91 tubular joints, reference [3]. The
stiffness reduction is obtained by reducing fictitiously the modulus of elasticity of the
actual brace element by a factor g P (0 g P 1).
The model for punching failure can also be used when an element fails in
buckling failure mode. Yield failure can be modeled by introducing a yield hinge and
adding fictitious forces which correspond to the actual local forces producing yielding.
If g P = 0.5 is used the reliability model of the platform corresponding to failure
defined at level 2 can be established using the method described in section 4 ( Db1 =1.1
and Db 2 = 1). The significant failure modes are shown in figure 7. Also shown are the
equivalent failure elements with linear safety margins which model the parallel systems
in the reliability model.
79
Chapter 26
Two
analytical derivatives and the NLPQL algorithm, reference [12]. The solution is shown
in table 3.
Next the problem where the systems reliability index corresponding to failure
modeled at level 1 is required to be greater than b 0 = 4 is considered. The problem is
S
80
Chapter 26
10. CONCLUSIONS
A method to estimate the reliability of tubular joints in offshore structures is presented.
Failure modes corresponding to yielding, buckling, punching, and fatigue failure are
used. The reliability is estimated using a first-order reliability method and failure of the
joint is defined as the event that one of the failure elements fails. In an example the
significant failure modes are due to punching and fatigue.
The reliability of the total structure can be estimated by the same methods
defining failure of the structure as simultaneous failure of a number of failure elements.
A new technique to model failure in e.g. punching is described. By this technique the
softening of the joint is modeled by reducing the modulus of elasticity of the damaged
structural members.
The problem of optimal design of a structure with respect to some reliability
constraints is formulated as an optimization problem. In an example the optimal tubular
diameters and wall thicknesses are determined such that the structural weight is
minimized.. The general non-linear optimization algorithm NLPQL is used.
The failure modes used in this paper do not take into account the interaction
between the different failure modes of a joint. This interaction should be further
investigated. The residual strength of a joint after failure has not yet been satisfactorily
modeled. For this purpose more experimental work is needed. The uncertainties related
to the interaction between different failure modes in a joint and the uncertainties related
to the modeling of the residual strength after failure may be treated by including further
model uncertainty variables.
11. REFERENCES
[1] Thoft-Christensen, P. & Baker, M.J. Structural Re1iability Theory and Its
Applications. Springer-Verlag, 1982.
[2] Hoadley, P. E. & Yura, J.A. UltimateStrength of Tubular Joints Subjected to
Combined Loads, University of Texas, Austin, 1983.
[3] Yura, J. A., Zettlemayer, N. & Edwards, I. P. Ultimate Capacity Equations for
Tubular Joints. OTC., Houston, Texas, OTC 3690, 1980, pp. 113-125.
[4] Miller, C.D. Buckling Design Methods for Steel Structures - A State-of-the-Art. In
Faulkner, D. et al.: Integrity of Offshore Structures. Applied Science Publishers,
London, 1981, pp. 397-418.
[5] Almar-Ns, A. (ed). Fatigue Handbook, Tapir, Trondheim, 1985.
[6] Wirshing, P. H. Fatigue Reliability for Offshore Structures. ASCE J. Structural
Eng. Vol. 110, 1984, No. 10,' pp. 2340-2356.
[7] Thoft-Christensen, P. & Murotsu, Y. Application of Structural Systems Reliability
Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1986 .
[8] Srensen, J. D. & Thoft-Christensen, P. Structural Optimization with Reliability
Constraints. Proc. 12th IFIP Conf. on System Modelling and Optimization,
Sprin-ger-Verlag, 1986 pp. 876-885.
[9] Srensen, J. D. Reliability-Based Optimization of Structural Elements. Structural
Reliability Theory, Paper No. 18, The University of Aalborg, 1986.
[10] Thoft-Christensen, P. Structural Reliability Theory. Proc. ESRA Pre-Launching
Meeting, Ispra, Italy, 1985, pp. 82-99.
[11] Hohenbichler, M. An Approximation to the Multivariate Normal Distribution.
LOG 6-82, Danish Academy of Engineers, Lyngby, 1982, pp. 79-100.
81
Chapter 26
82