Offshore Tubular Connection Design

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections
Contents
• Tubular Joints
• Behaviour of Tubular connections
• Failure
Fail e modes
• API RP 2A Design Method
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
1 Department of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras-36
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
T b l
Tubular Connections
C ti
• The cross sections of one or more tubes serving as

braces are joined by fusion welding to the
undisturbed surface of another tube serving as a
chord member
• Also called Tubular Joints loosely
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Source : API RP 2A
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Simple Tubular Joints
• The branch members (braces) are welded individually to

th main
the i member
b (chord)
( h d)
• The chord then transfers loads from one branch member

to another
• This create sever localized shell bending stresses in the

chord
• A short length of joint can with increase thickness may

be used
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Localized Shell Bending
• The braces deliver their reactions to the chord in the

form of line loads
• The exact
e act distrib tion
distribution depends on the relati e
relative
flexibilities
• The localized shell bending in the chord reaches a

peak at these line loads with steep local gradients
• Contains punching shear, shell bending, membrane

stresses
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Stresses in Tubular Joints
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Gl b l Stress
Global St A l i
Analysis
• Global stress analysis to find the nominal axial and

bending stresses in the members
• Typical 20ksi (140 N/mm2) in a jacket bracing for a

one-time extreme wave load
• What are the stresses in the tubular connection?
• The local stress distributions are extremely complex
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Local Scale Stress Analysis
• No closed-form solutions exist for practical cases of

interest
• C
Can be
b investigated
i ti t d byb FEM,
FEM experimental
i t l stress
t
analysis, analytical shell theory
• Stresses near the weld intersection can be several

times higher than nominal, often exceeding yield
• For routine design, empirical formulas based on the

punching shear concept are proposed
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Punching Shear
• To formulate design criteria, the complex stress

distribution in chord is represented by a simple
punching
p g shear
• The average punching shear stress V p acting at the

perimeter of the brace-to-chord
brace to chord intersection is defined
as
g Vp =τ sinθ( fa + fb )
acting
Punching component normal to the chord wall

Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Punching Stress Concepts
acting
V p =τ sin θ ( f a + f b )
τ = t /T
θ = anglel b
between
t members
b
f a + f = nominal axial and bending
Stress in brace
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Elastic Stresses in
C li d
Cylinders S
Subjected
bj d to
Punching Shear
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Shell Theory
• Closed-form
Closed form solutions exist for very simple load
cases
• Punching shear capacity at first yield depends on

γ (=D/(2T)), β (=d/D) and Fy
• The line load capacity is proportional to the 1.5- 2.0

power of cylinder thick T
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Closed-Form
Closed Form Solutions For Axi
Axi-symmetric
symmetric Line Load
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Closed-form Solutions for Parallel Line Loads
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
St
Stresses in
i a T
T-Joint
J i t
• Due to the differences in relative flexibility of brace

and chord, the line load transferred across the weld
at their intersection is far from uniform
• It is also more efficient to carry loads in the plane of

the material than in carrying punching loads
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dundrova:
Brace: Membrane
Chord: Shell
Theoretical Elastic Stresses Axially Loaded

T Joint
T-Joint
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Peak Hot Spot Stress
• The results have confirmed experimentally (in terms

of measured strains where stress are above yield)
• The
Th peakk hot
h t spott stress
t i the
in th chord
h d is
i 7.3
7 3 times
ti th
the
nominal stress in the brace
• First yielding occurs with 2.5 ksi in the brace for 36

ksi chord material
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Thin-Shell Finite Element Models
• The cylindrical shells are subdivided into a mesh of

elements
l t which
hi h approximate
i t the
th membrane
b and
d out-of-
t f
plane (punching shear and localized shell bending)
behavior of the actual tubes
• Steep gradients adjacent to the brace-to- chord

intersection
• Hot spot stress = 2.5 - 2.7 times the nominal brace

stress
t f K joints
for j i t
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Three-Dimensional Iso-parametric Finite

Elements
• Use of solid elements to model the finite thickness of the

shell and the weld geometry at their intersection
• Avoid the paradoxical results that are sometimes

obtained
bt i d forf " f
"surface”
” stresses
t att the
th mid-plane
id l
intersection using thin-shell element
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
j
Thick Shell Finite Element Model of K-joint
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
P
Parametric
t i Equations
E ti
• Ro
Routine
tine design of simple joints can use
se empirical
formulas obtained from prior stress analyses of
similar configurations
• The general form is based on static strength

consideration
• Specific coefficients are derived from the

detailed finite element or experimental stress
analysis
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Behaviour
of
Tubular Connections
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Reserve Strength
• The theoretical and experimental stress analyses are
useful in understanding the behavior of tubular joints
and indispensable in fatigue analysis
• Th
They do
d not provide
id a practical
i l measure off ultimate
li
strength
• Most tubular joints have a tremendous reserve

strength beyond first yield
• Considerable reserve strength beyond theoretical

yielding due to triaxiality, plasticity, large deflection
effects, and load redistribution
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Load Deflection Curve
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Load Deflection Behavior
• For small load ⇒ elastic
• Beyond yield ⇒ plastic deformation
• At a load 2.5 – 8 times that at first yield, the

connection fails
• By pullout failure
• By localized collapse of the chord for compression loads
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Early
y Test Results
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Observations (1)
• For stocky chords with γ ((=d/(2T))

d/(2T)) Less than 7,the
material shear strength would govern (i.e. allowable
V p = 0.4 Fy )
• Using the punching shear concept,
concept the axial load capacity
is proportional to the brace perimeter and chord thickness
to the 1.7 power
• This result is qualitatively consistent with shell theory
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Observations (2)
The overall strength level is due to
•The
The difference between elastic and plastic bending section moduli
• plastic load redistribution
• restraint
i to plastic
l i flflow d
due to tri-axial
i i l stresses
• strain hardening
• Require extraordinary demands on the ductility of the chord

material
• Due to the dependence on the strain hardening, F yshould not

exceed 2/3 of the tensile strength
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Factors Affecting the Ultimate Strength
• Fy and γ (=D/(2T)) (as mentioned before)
• Type of loading: axial (Ten/Comp), IPB,OPB
• Load pattern: K, T/Y ,X
• Geometric parameters: β ((=d/D)

d/D), g/d
• Chord’s own load
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
F il
Failure M
Modes
d
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Failure Criteria
• Reaching the elastic limit of the material
• Reaching the material yield strength
• Detection of first cracking in a tension joints
• Maximum load a joint will sustain in compression

b f
before gross d
deformation
f ti occurs
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Distortion Patterns and Yield Regions
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Failure pattern
• For tubular connection with β < 0.3, failure occurs by

punching in or pulling out the plug from the side of the
chord (punching shear failure)
• When β > 0.8, the chord fails by collapse
• In the range in between, must estimate the interaction of

punching shear and general chord collapse
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
General Collapse
• Gross flatteningg or distortion of a

large part of the chord
• Intersection between punching

shear and general bending of
chord wall
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Failure Modes
• Local failure of the chord
• General collapse of the chord
• Unzipping or progress weld failure
• Material problems
• Fracture and delaminating
• Fatigue
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Local Failure of the Chord
In the vicinity of the brace member
• Plastic failure of chord face at radial line loads
• Punching shear at the material strength
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

General Collapse
p of the Chord
Involves more of collapse with
a) Ovalisation
b) Beam bending
c) Beam shear
d) Sidewall web bucking
e) Longitudinal distress
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Modes of General Collapse
p
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Unzipping
pp g or Progress
g Failure
• Uneven distribution of load
across the weld
• Peak load can be a factor of

two higher than the nominal
load
• Local
L l yielding
i ldi may occur for
f
load distribution
• If the weld is a weak, it may

‘’unzip’’ before redistribution
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Reserve Strength in Weld
• Design rules are intended to prevent this unzipping,
t ki advantage
taking d t off the
th hi
higher
h reserve strength
t th iin
weld allowable stresses than is normally else where
in the joint
j
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Material Problems
• Need plastic deformation to reach design
capacity
p y
• Fracture and fatigue
• Lamellar tearing
• Weldability (HAZ)
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Static Strength
g Designg
of Tubular Connections
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Compact Connections
• A connection can develop the full static capacity of

the members jointed if
• The main member is compact
p ((D/T less than 15 or 20))
• The branch member thickness is limited to 50 or 60% of the

main member thickness
• A pre-qualified weld detail is used
• Need more detailed consideration if the

above conditions are not met
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
R l
Relevant
tDDesign
i C Codes
d
• API RP 2A WSD
• API RP 2A LRFD
• AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code
• ISO 19902 (DIS only)
Marshall, P.W., Design of welded Tubular Connections:

Basis and Use of AWS Code Provisions, Elsevier:
Amsterdam, New York, 1992.
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Local Failure
• In terms of punching shear (AWS & WSD)
• The main member acts as a cylindrical shell in

resisting the concentrated radial line loads delivered
t it att the
to th branch
b h member
b footprint
f t i t
• Simplified
p localized shell stresses
• Acting punching shear V p = f nτ sin θ
• f n is the nominal stress at the end of the brace
• Axial and bending are treated separately
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Nominal Punching Shear Stress
• Actual localized stress: Shell: bending,

g, member stress
and shear stresses
• Conservative representation of the average shear

stress at failure
• Safety factors
• AWS D1.1: 1.8
• API RP2A WSD: 1.7
17
• Independent of the footprint length etc!

Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
API RP2A WSD

21ST Edition (2000)
Section 4
C
Connections
i
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Definitions
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Validity Range
The validity range for application of the practice defined is as follows:
0.2 ≤ β ≤ 1.0
10 ≤ γ ≤ 50
30˚ ≤ θ ≤ 90˚
Fy ≤ 72 kksii (500 MP
MPa))
g/D > -0.6 (for K joints)
The commentary discusses approaches that may be adopted for
joints that fall outside the above range.
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
API Recommendations
• Strength
St th off connections
ti
• Larger than the design load
• Not less than 50% of the effective member
strength (buckling load or yield load)
Yield stress of brace member,
Not brace stub
• Simplified condition
Fyb (γτ sin θ )

≤ 1 .0
1 .5
Fyc (11 + )
β
Chord yield stress or 2/3 of the tensile strength if less

Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Simple Joints
• Without overlap,
overlap no gussets
gussets, diaphragms or stiffeners
• Classifications as K, T&Y, or X based on load pattern
• K-joints : the punching load in a brace should be essentially balanced by

loads on other braces in the same plane on the same side of the joint
• T- and Y- joints : the punching load is reacted as beam shear in the chord
• X-joints: the punching load is carried through the chord to braces on the
opposite side
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
K- Connections
• For balanced K-connections

• the inward radial loads from
one branch member is
compensated by outward
loads on the other
• Ovalizing is minimized, and capacity
approaches the local punching shear
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
T or Y Connections
• For T and Y connections

•• the radial load from the
single branch member is
reacted by beam shear in
the main member or chord
• The resulting ovalizing leads
to tower capacity
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
X Connections
C ti
• For cross or X connections, the load from one

branch is reacted by the opposite branch
• The resulting double dose of ovalizing in the
main member leads to still further reductions
in capacity
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Examples
p
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Design Criteria
• Based on punching shear
• Although failure mechanisms and strength properties may be
different when approaching 1.0
• At present, insufficient experimental evidence exists to precisely
quantify
tif the
th degree
d off increased
i d strength
t th
• Nominal loads
• Equivalent results
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Based On Punching Shear
V p = τf sin θ
• f = nominal axial, in-plane bending or out -of- plane

bending stress in the brace
• Allowable punching shear stress

Fyc
V p = Qq Q f ≤ 0.4 Fyc
0.6γ
• V pa are different for different load cases
• Qq, and Qf are empirical constants

Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Factor Qq
Influence of connection type, geometry and load pattern
Type Axial Axial In-plane Out-of- Plane

T
Tension
i Compress
C B di
Bending B di
Bending
ion
K (1.10-0.20/ β ) Qg
3.72-0.67/ β (1.37-0.67/β )Q
β
TT & Y (1.10-0.20/ β
X (1.10- (0.75-
0.20/ β 0.20/ β )Qβ
0 .3 Q g = 1 .8 − 0 .1g / Tfor γ ≤ 20
Qβ = for β > 0 . 6
β (1 − 0 . 833 β ) Q g = 1 .8 − 4 g / Dfor γ > 20
Qβ = 1 . 0 for β ≤ 0 . 6 Q g ≥ 1 .0
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Factor Qf
• To account for the presence of nominal

l
longitudinal
it di l stress
t iin th
the chord
h d
• Qf = 1.0 - λγA2
= 1.0 of all extreme are in tension
•Where = 0.030 for brace axial stress

0.045 for brace IPB
0.021 for brace OPB
2 + 2 2
A= f AX f IPB + f OPB
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
65 0.6 FYC Department of Ocean Engineering

Interaction Equations
2 2
⎛ Vp ⎞ ⎛ Vp ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
⎝ V pa V
⎠ IPB ⎝ pa ⎠OPB
2 2
Vp 2 ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ Vp ⎞
+ arcsin ⎜ p ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
10
V pa π ⎜V
AX ⎝ pa ⎠ IPB ⎝ V pa ⎠OPB
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Based On Nominal Loads ((API RP 2A – 2003)) Supplement
pp 2
2
FT
Allowable Axial Load P =QQ yc
FS sin θ
a u f
Allowable Moment FT d
M =QQ yc
FS sin θ
a u f
(Inplane or Out-of plane)

Where
Pa = allowable capacity for brace axial load
Ma = allowable capacity for brace bending moment,
Fy = the yield stress of the chord member at the joint for 0
0.8
8 of the
tensile strength, if less), ksi (MPa)
FS = safety factor = 1.60
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Qf is a factor to account for the p presence of nominal
loads in the chord.
⎡ ⎛ FSPc ⎞ ⎛ FSM c ⎞ ⎤
Q f = ⎢1 + C1 ⎜ ⎟⎟ − C 2⎜ ⎟⎟ − C A 2
⎥
⎢⎣ ⎜ P ⎜ M
3
⎥⎦
⎝ y ⎠ ⎝ p ⎠
The parameter A is defined as follows:

0.5
⎡⎛ FSP ⎞2 ⎛ FSM ⎞2 ⎤
A = ⎢⎜ c ⎟
+⎜ c ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ Py ⎠ ⎝ M p ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎣ ⎦
Wh
Where Pc and
d Mc are the
h nominal
i l axial
i l lload
d and
dbbending
di resultant
l
(i.e. M2c = M2ipb + M2opb
Py is the yield axial capacity of the chord
Mp is the plastic moment capacity of the chord, and
C1, C2 and C3 are coefficients depending on joint and load type
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Interaction Equations
2 2
P ⎛M ⎞ ⎛M ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ p
≤ 1.0
P a AX ⎝M a ⎠ ⎝M ⎠
IPB a OPB
Where
• P and M are applied axial load and

moment in brace member
• Pa and Ma are allowable axial load and

bending moment in brace member
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Calculate the interaction ratio for a balanced K jjoint with the chord and brace details shown below
subjected to axial, inplane and out-off plane bending moments. Neglect the stresses in the chord
member. Yield strength of the connection shall be taken as 345 MPa. Compare the results when
the calculation is carried out using Y joint empirical coefficients.
Joint Data
Brace 1 Data d 1 := 508 ⋅ mm t 1 := 15.88 ⋅ mm θ 1 := 45 ⋅ deg
Brace 2 Data d 2 := 406 ⋅ mm t 2 := 12.7 ⋅ mm θ 2 := 30 ⋅ deg

g
Chord Data
D := 762 ⋅ mm T c := 15.88 ⋅ mm
Yield Strength F y := 345 ⋅ MPa
Loads on brace 1 P 1 := 900 ⋅ kN M 1IP := 275 ⋅ kN ⋅ m M 1OP := 125 ⋅ kN ⋅ m
Loads on brace 2 P 2 := 1275 ⋅ kN M 2IP := 225 ⋅ kN ⋅ m M 2OP := 145 ⋅ kN ⋅ m
Chord Load factor Q f := 1
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Joint Geometry parameters
Gap between braces gap := 50⋅ mm
d1 d2
Geometric parameters β 1 := β 1 = 0.667 β 2 := β 2 = 0.533
D D
D
γ :=
2⋅ Tc γ = 23.992
gap
= 0.066
D
3
Qg := 1 + 0.2⋅ ⎛⎜ 1 − 2.8⋅ ⎞
gap
Qg for K joint ⎟ Qg = 1.109
⎝ D ⎠
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Brace 1 - Joint Strength calculation (K Joint Method)
Qu for axial load 1.2

Q uax1 := ( 16 + 1.2 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1 ⋅Qg Q uax1 = 30.53
1.2
Q ulim1 := 40 ⋅ β 1 ⋅ Qg Q ulim1 = 27.264
2
Fy ⋅ T c
P a1 := Q uax1 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable axial load 1.6 ⋅ sin θ ( 1) P a1 = 2347.7 ⋅ kN
12
1.2
Q uip1 := ( 5 + 0.7 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1 Q uip1 = 13.398
2.6
Q uop1 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1 Q uop1 = 5.74
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 1
Allowable inplane bending M a1IP := Q uip1 ⋅ Q f ⋅
moment 1.6 ⋅ sin θ 1 ( ) M a1IP = 523.4 m⋅ kN
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 1
Allowable out-off
out off plane bending
1OP := Q uop1
M a1OP 1 ⋅ Q f ⋅ 1.6 ⋅ sin θ
moment 1 ( ) M a1OP = 224.2 m⋅ kN
2 2
P1 ⎛ M 1IP ⎞ ⎛ M 1OP ⎞
Unity check ratio UC1 := + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
P a1
⎝ M a1IP ⎠ ⎝ M a1OP ⎠ UC1 = 0.97
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Brace 2 - Joint Strength calculation (K Joint Method)

Q uax2 := ( 16 + 1.2 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 2 ⋅ Qg Q uax2 = 23.33
1.2
Q ulim2 := 40 ⋅ β 2 ⋅ Qg Q ulim2 = 20.835
2
Fy ⋅ T c
P a2 := Q uax2 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable axial load 1.6 ⋅ sin θ ( 2) P a2 = 2537.2 ⋅ kN
1.2
Q uip2 :=
: ( 5 + 0.7
0 7⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 2 Q uip2 = 10.239
10 239
1.2
Q uop2 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 2 Q uop2 = 6.868
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 2
M a2IP := Q uip2 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable inplane bending
moment
1.6 ⋅ sin θ 2 ( ) M a2IP = 452.1 m⋅ kN
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 2
Allowable out-off plane bending M a2OP := Q uop2
p ⋅ Qf ⋅ 1
momentt 1.66 ⋅ sin θ 2 ( ) 2OP = 303.2
M a2OP 303 2 m⋅ kN
2 2
P2 ⎛ M 2IP ⎞ ⎛ M 2OP ⎞
Unity check ratio UC2 := + ⎜M ⎟ +⎜M ⎟
P a2 UC2 = 0.979
⎝ a2IP ⎠ ⎝ a2OP ⎠
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Brace 1 - Joint Strength calculation (Y Joint Method)

Q uax1 := ( 16 + 1.2⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1
Q uax1 = 27.535
Q ulim1 := 30⋅ β 1
Q ulim1 = 20
2
Fy ⋅ T c
P a1 := Q uax1 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable axial load 1.6⋅ sin θ 1 ( ) P a1 = 2117.4⋅ kN
1.2
Q uip1 := ( 5 + 0.7
0 7⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1
Q uip1 = 13.398
2.6
Q uop1 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 1
Q uop1 = 5.74
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 1
Allowable inplane bending M a1IP := Q uip1 ⋅ Q f ⋅
moment 1.6⋅ sin θ 1 ( ) M a1IP = 523.4 m⋅ kN
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 1
Allowable out-off plane bending M a1OP := Q uop1 ⋅ Q f ⋅
moment 1.6⋅ sin θ 1 ( ) M a1OP = 224.2
224 2 m⋅ kN
2 2
P1 ⎛ M 1IP ⎞ ⎛ M 1OP ⎞
Unity check ratio UC1 := + ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟
P a1 M a1IP
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ M a1OP ⎠ UC1 = 1.012
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Brace 2 - Joint Strength calculation (Y Joint Method)

Q uax2 := 2.8 + ( 20 + 0.8 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 2
Q uax2 = 17.113
1.6
Q ulim2 := 2.8 + 36 ⋅ β 2
Q ulim2 = 15.947
2
Fy ⋅ T c
P a2 := Q uax2 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable axial load
( 2)
1.6 ⋅ sin θ P a2 = 1861 ⋅ kN
1.2
Q uip2 := ( 5 + 0.7
0 ⋅γ )⋅β 2
Q uip2 = 10.239
1.2
Q uop2 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ⋅ γ ) ⋅ β 2
Q uop2 = 6.868
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 2
M a2IP := Q uip2 ⋅ Q f ⋅
Allowable inplane bending
moment
1.6 ⋅ sin θ 2 ( ) M a2IP = 452.1 m⋅ kN
2
Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d 2
Allowable out-off plane bending M a2OP := Q uop2 ⋅ Q f ⋅
moment 6 ⋅ sin θ 2
11.6 ( ) M a2OP = 303.2 m⋅ kN
2 2
P2 ⎛ M 2IP ⎞ ⎛ M 2OP ⎞
Unity check ratio UC2 := + ⎜M ⎟ + ⎜M ⎟
P a2 UC2 = 1.161
⎝ a2IP ⎠ ⎝ a2OP ⎠
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Design of Tubular Joint to API RP 2A

Check the tubular connection between a jacket leg (1976mm x 38mm) and horizontal brace
(762mm x 32mm) subjected to loads listed below. The jacket is designed with a grouted main
pile (1824mm x 50mm)
50mm). The yield strength of jacket leg
leg, brace and pile is 345 MPa
MPa. Use API
RP 2A guidelines using nominal loads method.
Brace Loads P := 8000⋅ kN M IP := 200⋅ kN⋅ m M OP := 600⋅ kN⋅ m
Chord Loads Pc := 3000⋅ kN M cIP := 600⋅ kN⋅ m M cOP := 0⋅ kN⋅ m
Brace data d := 762⋅ mm t := 32⋅ mm θ := 90⋅ deg
Yield Strength Fy := 345⋅ MPa
Leg Diameter and thickness D := 1976⋅ mm T L := 50⋅ mm
Pile Diameter and thickness DP := 1976⋅ mm T P := 50⋅ mm
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Estimation of Qu for axial,
axial inplane and out-off plane bending moment
Since the brace to chord angle is given as 90 degrees, the joint is classified as T joint and
appropriate formula for the computation of Qu shall be selected.
Equivalent chord thickness 2 2

for grouted (leg + pile) T c := TP + TL T c = 70.7⋅ mm
d D
γ :=
Geometric Parameters β := β = 0.386 2⋅ T c γ = 13.972
D
Qu Factor for axial load 1.6

Quax := 2.8 + ( 20 + 0.8⋅ γ ) ⋅ β
Quax = 9.588
1.6
Qu limit for axial load Quaxmax := 2.8 + 36⋅ β Quaxmax = 10.637
Qu for inplane
p bending
g 1.2
Quip ::= ( 5 + 0.7⋅ γ ) ⋅ β
moment Quip = 4.711
4 711
Qu for out-off plane bending 2.6

moment Quop := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2⋅ γ ) ⋅ β
Quop = 3.112
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Ultimate capacity of chord
Chord Coefficients C1ax := 0.3 C2ax := 0.0 C3ax := 0.8
C1b := 0.20 C2b := 0.0 C3b := 0.40
Equivalent Moment 2 2
M c := M cIP + M cOP
Yield Axial Capacity of chord 5

Py := π ⋅ D⋅ Tc⋅ Fy Py = 1.514 × 10 ⋅ kN
Plastic moment capacity of 2 4

chord M p := D ⋅ Tc⋅ Fy M p = 9.525 × 10 ⋅ kN⋅ m
Factor of Safety against

chord yielding FSC := 1.2
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Estimation of Qf for axial, inplane and out
out-off
off plane bending moment
2 2
⎛ Pc ⎞ ⎛ Mc ⎞
Applied Load effect AA := ⎜ FSC ⋅ ⎟ + ⎜ FSC ⋅ ⎟ AA = 0.025
Py Mp
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Qf for axial load ⎛ FSC ⋅ P c ⎞ ⎛ FSC ⋅ M c ⎞ 2

Q fax := 1 + C 1ax ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − C 2ax ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − C 3ax ⋅ AA
Py Mp
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Q fax = 1
Qf for inplane bending moment ⎛ FSC ⋅ P c ⎞ ⎛ FSC ⋅ M c ⎞ 2

Q fip := 1 + C 1b ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − C 2b ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − C 3b ⋅ AA
Py Mp
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Q fip = 1
Qf for out-off plane bending

⎛ FSC ⋅ P c ⎞ ⎛ FSC ⋅ M c ⎞ 2
moment Q fop b ⋅⎜
op := 1 + C 1b Py
⎟ − C 2bb ⋅ ⎜
Mp
⎟ − C 3b ⋅ AA
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Q fop = 1
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Estimation
E ti ti off allowable
ll bl axial,
i l inplane
i l and
d out-off
t ff plane
l bending
b di
moment capacity
Factor of Safety joint capacity FS := 1.6
2
Fy ⋅ T c
Allowable Axial load P a := Q uax ⋅ Q fax ⋅
FS ⋅ sin ( θ ) P a = 10405.2 ⋅ kN
2
Allowable inplane bending Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d
moment M aIP := Q uip ⋅ Q fip ⋅
FS ⋅ sin ( θ ) M aIP = 3887.5 m⋅ kN
2
Allowable out-off plane bending Fy ⋅ T c ⋅ d
moment M aOP := Q uop ⋅ Q fop ⋅
1.6 ⋅ sin ( θ ) M aOP = 2568.4 m⋅ kN
Interaction between axial,

axial inplane and out-off plane bending moment
2 2
Combined interaction ratio of P ⎛ M IP ⎞ ⎛ M OP ⎞
axial and bending effects UC := + ⎜M ⎟ + ⎜M ⎟
Pa UC = 0.826
⎝ aIP ⎠ ⎝ aOP ⎠
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Design Practices
• Design Based on Actual Loads
• Design based on Planer connections
• Design for minim

minimum
m 50% brace strength
• Can length (minimum requirements)
• Brace stub
• Offset or Eccentricities
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Load Transfer Across Chord

• When load is transferred across the chord, it should
b d
be designed
i d against
i t generall collapse
ll
• For d < 0. 9 D
P= P(1) + L/2.5D (P)2) – P(1)) if L < 2.5D
P= P(2) if L > 2.5D
• P (1) uses nominal chord thickness
• P (2) uses chord

h d can iincreased
d thi
thickness
k
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

For More Complex Joints
• Crushing Load = ∑ i Pi sin θ i
• Approximate closed ring analysis
• Any reinforcement within the effective chord length

can be included
• Alternatively , compute the ovalizing

parameter as in AWS D1.1
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Eff ti Chord
Effective Ch d L
Length
th
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Adverse Load Patterns
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
GROUTED LEG JOINTS

Main piles along the leg with grouted annulus will give
additional strength to the tubular connections
connections. The pile wall
and the leg wall will act together for compressive loads as
well as for small tensile loads and can be taken as equivalent
thickness as per the following formula
TC = TP 2 + TL 2
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Multi-planar
p Joints
• Many tubular space frames have bracing in multiple planes
• For some loading conditions, these different planes interact
• In AWS, an “ovalizing parameter”(α) may be used to estimate

the beneficial or deleterious effect of various branch member
loading combinations on main member ovalizing
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
α
Computation of Ovalizing Parameters
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Ovalizing Parameter Alpha
• To be evaluated separately for each branch and for

each load case
• Influence of braces
• Cosine term and exponential decay term
• Compatible with values for strength design

α = 1.0
1 0 →K
α = 1.7 → T&Y
α = 2.4 → x
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Ovalizing Parameter Alpha
• Automatically
A t ti ll take
t k care off load
l d pattern
tt f ll in
falls i between
b t th
the
standard cases
• no need to use interpolated values
• When α > 2.4

2 4 or a low value of α results from interaction
other than the classical K-joint action, alternative design
methods should be used for investigation
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Ring Stiffened joints
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Equivalent
q chord wall thickness calculation for Ring
g Stiffened joints
j
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Equivalent
q area method
Internal
e a d diameter,
a e e , di = D-2t = 1219-2*50=1119
9 50 9
Stiffener plate width = bs
Effective Chord Length, Le = 1.1(Dt)1/2= 272
Area, A = (Le*t)+(bs*ts)+(bf*tf )
Equivalent thickness, Te = A/Le
Note: Te: Not greater than 2t

Bs/ts is limited to 18 or less
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
Equivalent
q moment of inertia method
Internal diameter, di = D-2t
Stiffener plate width = bs
Effective Chord Length, Le = 1.1(Dt)1/2
Centroidal distance, y =
( Le * t * t / 2) + ((bs * ts ) * (t + bs / 2)) + (bf * tf ) * (t + bs + tf / 2)
( Le * t ) + (bs * ts ) + (bf * tf )
Equivalent moment of Inertia =

3 3
Let 3 t t s bs b bf t f t
+ Le * t * ( y − )2 + + bs t s ( y − t − s ) 2 + + b f * t f * (t + bs + s − y ) 2
12 2 12 2 12 2
E i l t thi
Equivalent thickness,
k Te = 3
12 I T
Le
Note: Te Not greater than 2t
Bs/ts is limited to 18 or less
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007

Offshore Tubular Connection Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Tubular Connection Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• Behaviour of Tubular connections

• API RP 2A Design Method

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• The cross sections of one or more tubes serving as

• Also called Tubular Joints loosely

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• The branch members (braces) are welded individually to

• The chord then transfers loads from one branch member

• This create sever localized shell bending stresses in the

• A short length of joint can with increase thickness may

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

Localized Shell Bending

• The braces deliver their reactions to the chord in the

• The localized shell bending in the chord reaches a

• Contains punching shear, shell bending, membrane

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• Global stress analysis to find the nominal axial and

• Typical 20ksi (140 N/mm2) in a jacket bracing for a

• What are the stresses in the tubular connection?

• The local stress distributions are extremely complex

Local Scale Stress Analysis

• No closed-form solutions exist for practical cases of

• Stresses near the weld intersection can be several

• For routine design, empirical formulas based on the

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• To formulate design criteria, the complex stress

• The average punching shear stress V p acting at the

Punching component normal to the chord wall

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• Punching shear capacity at first yield depends on

• The line load capacity is proportional to the 1.5- 2.0

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

Closed-form Solutions for Parallel Line Loads

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• Due to the differences in relative flexibility of brace

• It is also more efficient to carry loads in the plane of

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

Theoretical Elastic Stresses Axially Loaded

Peak Hot Spot Stress

• The results have confirmed experimentally (in terms

• First yielding occurs with 2.5 ksi in the brace for 36

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• The cylindrical shells are subdivided into a mesh of

• Steep gradients adjacent to the brace-to- chord

• Hot spot stress = 2.5 - 2.7 times the nominal brace

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

Three-Dimensional Iso-parametric Finite

• Use of solid elements to model the finite thickness of the

• Avoid the paradoxical results that are sometimes

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• The general form is based on static strength

• Specific coefficients are derived from the

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

• Most tubular joints have a tremendous reserve

• Considerable reserve strength beyond theoretical

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections

Load Deflection Behavior

• For small load ⇒ elastic

• Beyond yield ⇒ plastic deformation

• At a load 2.5 – 8 times that at first yield, the

Offshore Structures – Tubular Connections