Previous Research and Design Formulation

CHAPTER TWO

PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND DESIGN FORMULATION

2.1. Introduction

Research on tubular joints and frames was initiated in the 1950s due to industry demands

on a sound basis for design and construction of offshore platforms. Extensive research

has been conducted on both frame and joint in the last 40 years. Design formulations

have evolved many cycles based on the work carried out by various research groups to

incorporate larger geometric ranges and newly discovered failure modes.

This chapter summarizes the previous experimental and numerical research work on the

frame and joint behavior. The experimental tests on large-scale two-dimensional (2D)

and three-dimensional (3D) frames (BOMEL, 1992; Bolt and Billington, 2000)

conducted for the international Joint Industry Project (JIP) form the basis for the present

frame study. Research findings on the strength of tubular joints by different researchers

around the world are summarized. The current chapter also presents the design

-8-
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

formulations for two commonly adopted codes: international standard organization

(ISO19902, 2001) and Comité International pour le Développement et l’Etude de la

Construction Tubulaire (CIDECT, 1991).

2.2. Research on Frame Behavior

2.2.1. Experimental Benchmarking

Zayas et al. (1980) reports the first large scale frame test for two one-sixth scale 2D X-

braced double-bay frames, which stand more than 8m high, under cyclic loading. The

objective is to understand the frame cyclic inelastic behavior, which determines the

survivability of the offshore structures in the event of severe seismic ground excitations.

The tested frames consist of two types of detailing with nominal d0 /t0 ratio equal to 33

and 48. The displacement history applied on the frame represents severe seismic loadings.

This frame has since been named as Zayas frame after the name of its investigator. The

Zayas frame test provides substantial contribution to the offshore engineering research.

The JIP organized by Billington Osborne-Mass Engineering Limited (BOMEL) and other

academic and industrial organizations investigates experimentally two series of 2D large-

scale frames under static loading (BOMEL, 1992). The subsequent phase of the JIP (Bolt

and Billington, 2000) tests one large-scale 3D frame under a series of static loading

conditions. These are by far the largest frames tested worldwide. The 2D frames consist

of six X-braced two-bay frames and four K-braced single-bay frames. Chapter 8

illustrates the detail configurations of 2D frames. The experimental work investigates the

-9-
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

effect of joint behavior and framing redundancy on the X-braced frames, and the effect of

local joint behavior (including fracture failure) on the K-braced frames.

The 3D frame tests further explore the effect of reserve strength, via loading different

frame panels consisting of different joint types. Figure 2.1 illustrates the test set-up for

load case II of the 3D frame. In contrast to 2D frame, interaction between different panels

offers additional load-paths in the 3D structure. Both 2D and 3D frames demonstrate the

capacity of steel frames in redistributing loads beyond the first component (joint or

member) failure. The reserve strength involved in these frames contributes significantly

to their ability to withstand extreme environmental loading.

Fig. 2.1 Test set-up of BOMEL 3D frame and the corresponding X-joint failure.

The frame tests also report a new failure mode of the compressively loaded X-joint under

extremely large deformations, which mobilize re-development of the joint strength. This

phenomenon has not been captured in any of the isolated joint test during the past few

decades. Figure 2.1 shows the extreme deformation of the X-joint, for which the contact

of two brace members contribute to the re-development of the joint strength.

- 10 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

A JIP funded by 13 operators and the US Minerals Management Service is carried out by

PMB engineering Inc. to investigate behavior of offshore platforms subjected to large

hurricanes and to improve procedures used in analytical predictions (HSE, 2000). About

700 structures along the Hurricane Andrew path in August of 1992 were calibrated for

their safety factors for the jackets and foundations. The safety factor is obtained as the

ratio of the resistance over loading of the true structure divided by the ratio of the

computed resistance over loading. The safety factors for the foundations show

significantly higher values than the jacket. The trend of safety factors indicates that the

prediction of the jacket structural response is moderately conservative.

Health and Safety Executives (HSE) conducts its own benchmark study based on large-

scale BOMEL 2D frame tests (Nichols et al., 1997). The 11 participants performed

nonlinear analysis based on four tests on 2D double-bay frames. Uncertainties in the

results arise mainly from use of different software. The choices and decisions of the

analysts affect the accuracy of the modeling. Material properties impose a significant

effect on the accuracy of the analysis. The study concludes that the nonlinear analysis is

moving from the preserve of research to a practical engineering tool.

Kurobane and Ogawa (1993) report a series of tests on 15 complete trusses with CHS

members. The scale of these tests remains relatively small compared to the large scale

test carried out by BOMEL (BOMEL, 1992; Bolt and Billington, 2000). The effect of

failure sequence of member and joint is investigated. If the joint failure (buckling)

precedes the member failure, the available strength formulation predicts the joint strength

with sufficient accuracy. If the member buckling precedes the joint failure, however, the

- 11 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

joint is under combined bending moment and axial load and the joint strength is lower

than that predicted by axial load strength formulation. Under static loading, no significant

effect due to boundary conditions between the isolated and actual joints exists.

2.2.2. Ultimate Strength Prediction

Moses and Liu (1992) present a description of the system reliability formulation, in

which they conclude three most important factors affecting the accuracy of the structural

models: material behavior describing brittle, ductile and strain-hardening situations,

reliable system geometry, and correlation between component failure events. The

material property refers to the post-yield material behavior. The system geometry,

imperfection and boundary conditions for example, affect the failure mode of the

structure. The sequence of component (joints or members) failure can lead to different

load re-distribution and consequently different ultimate strength level.

In the BOMEL JIP (BOMEL, 1992), the pushover analyses are performed using

BOMEL’s software SAFJAC (Strength Analysis of Frames and JACkets), which has

been applied to the re-analysis of existing jacket structures. The program employs plastic

hinges and automatic mesh refinement. The nonlinear joint behavior utilizes the load-

deflection and moment-rotation characteristics through piece-wise linear spring elements.

The analysis starts with one quadric element per member. Mesh refinement applies

members where plasticity has been developed. The calibration study against the 2D X-

braced frame shows good correlation with the test results. The difference in the peak

loads between the numerical computation and test results are within 10%.

- 12 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

Hellan (1995) reports an extensive numerical study on the push-over and cyclic frame

analysis. The nonlinear numerical tool, USFOS (an acronym for Ultimate Strength for

Framed Offshore Structures), has been verified to produce the accurate column and

beam-column behavior. A robust procedure has been presented to calibrate the nonlinear

formulation incorporating residual stresses and geometric imperfection. The basic

principle behind USFOS is to represent each individual member in the structure by one

finite element (USFOS Manual, 2003). Equation 2.1 (USFOS Manual, 2003) shows the

4th-order differential equation for a beam under end forces. The shape function in USFOS

adopts the exact solution to Eq. 2.1, enabling one element per member. The nonlinear

member behavior is simulated by incorporating plastic hinges at the ends and the mid

point of the member.

d 4w P d 2w
+ =0 (2.1)
dx 4 EI dx 2

Hellan (1995) also investigates the effect of joint flexibility on the ultimate strength of

models representative of North Sea platforms. Inclusion of the joint flexibility on the

member buckling model introduces only minor reduction in the frame strength. This

leads to the conclusion that rigid connection modeling is appropriate for conventional

jackets as long as the joint capacity does not exhaust.

Shell (van de Graaf et al., 1994) performs a series of nonlinear ultimate strength analysis

with USFOS to evaluate the nonlinear behavior of both the structure and foundation

system. The study on the Tern Platform shows a failure rate of 10-10 in a year against the

extreme environmental loading including structural uncertainty.

- 13 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

Gierlinski (1994) performs an extensive study on an eight-legged X-braced jacket

structure using RASOS (Reliability Analysis System for Offshore Structures). The effect

of damage has been taken into account by introducing a severe imperfection of 1% of the

member length into one of the braces. The members are modeled with 2-node beam-

column elements. Plastic hinges are allowed to be developed for either yielding in tension

or buckling in compression.

The numerical study reported by Skallerud and Amdahl (2002) shows that X-braced and

redundant structures provide more system strength in addition to the design capacity.

They maintain a higher load level at a much larger deformation as compared to K- and

diagonal-braced structures. On the other hand, the portal action provides critical

alternative load paths under large deformations if the leg members are of large sizes. The

initial imperfection, both geometric imperfections and residual stresses, has a significant

effect on the buckling strength for members under compression. The joint flexibility is

reported to be significant when the loading effects are close to the joint capacity. In such

cases, nonlinear modeling of joint capacity is essential.

2.3. Research on CHS Joints

Research on CHS tubular joints has been carried out over the last four to five decades. In

the early years (50’s to 60’s), the design of tubular joints was largely based on experience

and trial-and-error due to lack of theoretical basis. It was the industry demand that

propelled research work to be carried out in universities and research institutes. More

than fifty years have passed since the first installation of offshore structure. The

- 14 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

understanding on the CHS joint behavior is still not comprehensive today, as reflected by

the semi-empirical formulation in most of the latest design codes.

2.3.1. Experimental Research

Experimental research on the strength of tubular joints was initiated in the early 50’s in

the University of Texas and University of California. The research work carried out at

that time was based on a trial-and-error process (Marshall, 1992). In 1963, Johnston

reviews the available information on tubular connections and organized a joint-industry

research to address the problem (Johnston, 1963). Toprac (1961) provides a complete and

informative description on his T-joint in-plane bending (IPB) tests with β = 1.0. Toprac

(1966) further investigates the joint parameters α, β and γ for T-joints. In his study, β

varies from 0.21 to 0.64 and γ ranges from 12 to 32. The α ratio remains in the range

from 7.7 to 15.4. Tremendous reserve strength in simple tubular joints is observed in

Toprac’s study. Washio et al. (1968) report an experimental study on uni-planar K-joints.

In the 1970’s, there was a rapid expansion of the research on tubular joints. This was

reflected by the release of nine editions of American Petroleum Institute (API)

recommended practice. Many tests were carried out and the joint database was expanded.

Hence, the effort at that time was emphasized on the simplified techniques in obtaining

elastic stress distribution. Pan et al. (1976) summarize the failure behavior of simple uni-

planar tubular X-, T- and K-joints mainly based on the joint test data reported by Washio

et al. (1968) and Gibstein (1973). Six possible failure modes are observed for X- and T-

joints. They include the brace tensile failure, tensile failure of the weld, tensile crack in

the chord, plastic deformation of the chord, chord wall buckling, lamellar tearing for
- 15 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

thick-walled joints and local collapse of chord wall. Two failure modes are captured for

K-joints. These refer to the crack failure at weld toe of the tensile brace and brittle tensile

failure of the chord. A series of ultimate strength formulations are proposed for T-, Y-, X-

and gapped K-joints. Table 2.1 shows the geometry range of the joint database for the

strength formulation (Pan et al., 1976). Equation 2.2 (Pan et al., 1976) shows the general

format of the strength equation. In Eq. 2.2, f1 to f4 are dimensionless functions, each of

which imposes an independent influence on the joint strength. These are hence

determined separately by holding the others constant.

⎛d ⎞ ⎛ t0 ⎞ ⎛ g ⎞
Pu = f y t 02 f 1 ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ f 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ f 3 (θ ) f 4 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.2)
⎝ d0 ⎠ ⎝ d0 ⎠ ⎝ d0 ⎠

Table 2.1 Geometry range for the joint database by Pan et al. (1976)

Joint type d0 (mm) β γ θ

X-joint 139 – 457 0.19 – 1.00 10.3 – 47.6 900
T-joint 76 – 457 0.19 – 1.00 9.5 – 46.5 900
K-joint 61 – 508 0.27 – 0.89 9.2 – 51.6 300 - 900

Table 2.2 Geometry range for Yura’s database

Joint Load d0 (mm) β γ θ

X-joint Axial 140 – 457 0.19 – 1.00 10.3 – 47.6 900
Axial 140 – 456 0.17 – 0.84 10.8 – 46.5 900
T-joint IPB 219 – 457 0.19 – 0.81 11.0 – 47.6 900
OPB 165 – 507 0.19 – 0.90 18.4 -47.6 900
Axial 165 – 456 0.17 – 0.84 17.5 - 46.5 450
Y-joint
OPB 507 0.90 20.8 300
Axial 165 – 508 0.17 – 0.69 13.8 – 51.6 300 - 900
K-joint IPB 507 0.64 – 0.90 22.2 300 - 900
OPB 507 0.64 – 0.90 22.8 300 - 900

- 16 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

In 1980, Yura et al. (1980) summarize the results of 137 ultimate strength tests on simple

uni-planar tubular joints. A set of ultimate capacity equation is proposed for different

types of joints under brace axial loading, IPB and OPB. A deformation limit is proposed

for both axially loaded and moment loaded tubular joints to determine the joint strength

when peak load does not exist in the load-deformation curves. Table 2.2 shows the

geometry range in Yura’s database.

Kurobane et al. (1984) review the test results of 747 joint specimens, with the objective

to derive a strength equation for CHS joints under brace axial loading. The authors find it

impractical to evaluate the CHS joint strength by pure analytical models. The

mathematical equation adopted by Kurobane et al. (1984) is similar to that of the Pan et

al. (1976), with additional dimensionless functions incorporated as shown in Eq. 2.3.

⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ d g − g c ⎞ ⎛ l0 ⎞ ⎛ fy ⎞ 2
Pu = f 0 ⎜ 1 ⎟ f1 ⎜ 0 ⎟ f 2 ⎜ 0 , ⎟ f 3 ⎜ ⎟ f 4 (θ ) f 5 ( n ' ) f 6 ⎜ ⎟ f y t0 (2.3)
⎝ d 0 ⎠ ⎝ t0 ⎠ ⎝ t0 t0 ⎠ ⎝ d 0 ⎠ ⎝ fu ⎠

Table 2.3 Geometry range for Kurobane’s database (brace axial load)

Joint d0 (mm) β γ θ
X-joint 60 – 1400 0.19 – 1.0 6.5 – 49.0 600 - 900
T- /Y-joint 60 – 1400 0.19 – 1.0 8.5 – 49.5 450 - 900
K-joint 60 - 1400 0.19 – 1.0 7.5 – 51.0 300 - 900

Multiple regression analyses are performed to determine the dimensionless functions f0 to

f6. Kurobane’s joint database is relatively larger than the previous two databases. Two

screening criteria are applied to ensure the formulation is built upon reliable sources. The

first criterion removes results with insufficient detail of the reported joint test, such as

lack of geometric properties and chord yield strength. The second criterion requires that

- 17 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

the joint should not fail prematurely with insufficient chord plastification. Table 2.3 lists

the geometry range of the joint database.

Kurobane et al. (1986) report the study on local buckling behavior of CHS K-joints under

brace axial loading. Eight overlapped K-joints and three gapped K-joints are tested to

failure. The local buckling strength formulation derives from the test results, as shown in

Equation 2.4 (Kurobane et al., 1986). To avoid brace local buckling, the brace diameter

to thickness ratio should be limited to 0.1E/fy.

0.244 0.446
fb ⎛ E t1 ⎞ ⎛ fs ⎞
= 0.433 ⎜
⎜ f y d1 ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.4)
fy ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ fy ⎠

Stamenkovic and Sparrow (1983) report 105 test results on the load interaction behavior

of CHS T-joints, which is the first study on the brace load interaction for CHS T-joints. A

linear relationship between the brace axial load and IPB exists for different β joints.

Makino et al. (1986) describe the tests on 25 T-joints and 10 K-joints under combined

brace loads. The interaction between brace axial load and OPB moment for T-joint can be

represented by a straight line. The compressive chord stress for K-joints under brace IPB

can be included in the chord stress function proposed by Kurobane et al. (1984).

Sanders and Yura (1986) report 11 additional test results on X-joint subjected to tensile

brace loading. The available design formulation is compared against the 57 test

specimens reported by Ochi et al. (1984). The available formulation then appears to be

unreliable, especially for joints with β = 1.0.

- 18 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

Scola et al. (1990) report 5 uni-planar T-joints and 7 multi-planar V-joints tests. The joint

stiffness characteristics and ultimate strength are compared for T- and V-joints. Paul et al.

(1993) present an experimental study on 20 multi-planar TT- and V-joint specimens. The

effect of geometry on the joint ultimate strength is investigated. A new equation for the

strength of multi-planar TT-joints is proposed. Paul et al. (1994) summarize the test

results on 58 multi-planar joint specimens. The joint ultimate strength formulation is

presented for multi-planar TT- and KK-joints. Makino and Kurobane (1994) present the

results on 9 KK-joint experiments. The ultimate KK-joint capacity is governed by local

deformation of the chord wall. The ultimate strength of the KK-joint can be predicted by

uni-planar K-joint formulation. Van der Vegte (1995) describes 12 tests on uni-planar

and multi-planar X-joints subjected to brace axial compression, IPB and OPB.

Makino et al. (1996) consolidate both the experiment and numerical results worldwide

and establish a joint database in the Kumamoto University in Japan. The joint database

includes both uni-planar and multi-planar joints under different brace loading conditions.

Different failure modes, including chord and brace failure, are incorporated in the

database. The range of the geometric parameters and the size of the database are shown in

Table 2.4. For FE models, only calibrated results are included in the database. There are,

in total, 1544 test specimens and 786 numerical models. Among them, 1419 test

specimens and 274 FE models are uni-planar CHS joints. Due to the difficulty involved

for multi-planar joint tests with complicated geometry, numerical analysis is a good

alternative. Although the γ ratio decreases to 4.2 in the database, most of these joints are

of small chord diameter less than 100 mm. In the ISO 19902 (2001) database, joints with

chord diameter less than 100 mm are removed from the screened database due to possible
- 19 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

size effects on welding (Dier and Lalani, 1998). Therefore, these models are not

representative of the behavior of real thick-walled joints.

Table 2.4 Geometry range and No. of specimens in Kumamoto’s database.

No. of specimens
Joints d0 (mm) β γ θ
Test FE Total
X-joint 61 – 1400 0.19 – 1.0 4.2 – 49.1 300 - 900 311 114 425
T-joint 76 – 1400 0.19 – 1.0 7.3 – 49.4 300 - 900 446 146 592
K-joint 60 - 762 0.19 - 1.0 5.9 – 51.0 300 - 900 662 14 676
XX-joint 406 -1000 0.22 – 0.60 7.3 – 25.4 900 9 191 200
TX-joint 406 0.22 – 0.60 7.3 - 25.4 900 20 28 48
TT-joint 191 – 406 0.22 – 0.77 13.3 – 22.4 900 0 170 170
0 0
KK-joint 120 - 318 0.19 – 0.76 6.0 – 40.0 45 - 68 96 123 219

The test on the effect of chord stresses was first carried out by Togo (1967). The joint

specimens in Togo’s study are of small chord diameter (101.6 mm). The effect of tensile

chord stress appears to be insignificant in Togo’s tests. Boone et al. (1982) present the

test results on ten large-scale X-joints under chord axial and IPB stresses. Three brace

loading conditions are investigated: brace axial loading, IPB and OPB. The β ratio in

Boone’s test is 0.67. Weinstein and Yura (1985) extend Boone’s test to cover a larger

geometric range with β = 1.0 and 0.35. The effect of compression chord stresses on X-

joints subjected to brace axial compression is tested by Kang et al. (1998a). Three tests

are carried out for X-joints with the same geometric properties. The main dimensionless

geometric parameters include β = 0.52 and γ = 11.6. Kang et al. (1998b) report four tests

on X-joints with compressive chord loads subjected to brace OPB. The four joints tested

are of a unique set of geometric parameters, with β equal to 0.61 and γ = 11.4.

- 20 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

2.3.2. Numerical Research

The numerical research on the strength of tubular joints was initiated in the late 1970s

and early 1980s. Robert (1980) investigates the effect and feasibility of different finite

element types, which compares the application of 3D solid elements, thick-shell elements

and thin-shell elements. 3D solid elements and thick-shell elements provide good

predictions on the tubular joint behavior.

Connelly and Zettlemoyer (1989) present a numerical investigation on the effect of frame

behavior on tubular joint capacities. The frame assemblage is simulated with beam

elements and the detail joints with shell elements. The FE study on the K-joint integrated

in a frame shows that joint capacities in a frame can be significantly higher than the

isolated joints. This implies the effect of framing on the tubular joints. The brace load

interaction curve for a K-joint contained in a frame does not follow axial-moment

interaction curve obtained for an isolated joint. The frame geometry size including the

bay size and member thickness impose little effect on the joint load path for the joint

investigated. On the other hand, van der Valk (1991) performs a numerical study on the

X- and K-joint integrated in the frame. The joint models employ shell elements and the

frame uses beam elements. Van der Valk concludes that the ultimate strength of a joint

contained in a frame follows that of an isolated joint if the boundary conditions are

appropriately represented. Based on the isolated joint study, the overlapped K-joint

strength depends on the direction of the brace loading. Joints with through-brace in

tension show about 10% higher in the ultimate strength than joints with through-brace in

compression.

- 21 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

Van der Vegte (1995) presents an extensive investigation on the uni-planar and multi-

planar X- and T-joints. The numerical analyses utilize eight-noded thick-shell elements.

One layer of shell elements surrounding the brace-chord intersection approximates the

geometry of welds. This simplification of welds demonstrates sufficient accuracy based

on the calibration against test results. Effects of the chord length are investigated on X-

joint strength. The study on the length of joint can reveals that the provisions on the joint

can length in API (2000) is insufficient. Ultimate joint strength formulations are proposed

for uni-planar and multi-planar X- and T-joints based on the Ring model.

Davies and Crockett (1996) propose the use of six-node prism elements in combination

with four-node shell elements to model the fillet weld. Multiple point constraints ensure

the compatibility between the solid elements and the shell elements. The numerical

analysis of T-DT RHS and CHS joints investigates the three dimensional effects, and

proposes suggestions on the design formulations.

Healy (1994) presents an extensive numerical study on the strength of overlapped K-

joints under IPB and brace axial loading. The hidden weld in the overlapped joints is

simulated. The ultimate strength of the overlapped joints was found to be 1.25 – 2.25

times of the gapped joints. The joints with through-brace in compression are weaker than

the joints with through-brace in tension.

Lee and Wilmshurst (1995) present a numerical study on CHS DK-joints. Different FE

aspects on the accuracy of analysis are studied: the mesh discretisation, boundary

conditions and material properties. The weld geometry is modeled by a ring of shell

elements around the brace-chord intersection. The length of chord has a minimal effect
- 22 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

on the strength of DK-joints. A relatively reasonable α value of 14 is suggested to avoid

the chord ends effect. The effect of six boundary conditions on K-joint is marginal.

Dexter and Lee (1999a) report the behavior of axially loaded tubular K-joints. Four-

noded linear shell elements are used, with shell elements simulating the weld geometry

around the brace-chord intersection. The chord length takes α = 14. Different τ ratios are

studied, with the maximum τ equal to 1.5. The ultimate joint strength is defined based on

four criteria: peak loads in the load-deformation history, brace yield strength, 20% tensile

plastic strain in the shell outer surface, and Yura’s deformation limit. The 20% tensile

plastic strain accounts for the tensile crack failure observed in the joint tests under brace

tensile loading. The value of this plastic strain level is arbitrary in nature. A variety of

failure modes exist: chord bending, brace bending, brace local buckling, brace member

failure and chord member failure.

Dexter and Lee (1999b) present the K-joint ultimate strength variation with respect to

different geometric properties. The K-joint strength increases with the β ratio. The

amount of strength increase, however, depends on the γ ratio. The non-dimensional joint

strength, Pusinθ /fyt02, increases with γ. An increase of τ ratio to 1.5 reduces the joint

strength by promoting the brace punching action into the chord wall. The beneficial effect

of overlap ratio is observed for most of the joints with high τ ratios. The enhancement

becomes more pronounced for high γ and low β joints. No beneficial effect of overlap

exists for joints with low τ ratio. Completely overlapped joints with more than 100%

overlap ratio exhibit a lower strength than the corresponding 90% overlap joints. A new

- 23 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

strength formulation is proposed based on the FE study. The comparison of the

formulation with the test results ensures its accuracy in application.

Gazzola and Lee (2002) propose a new strength formulation for overlapped CHS K-joints

based on the extensive numerical FE joint study. The new strength formulation is

compared with the ISO (2001) recommendations. The ISO formula shows a relatively

poor estimation for joints with low γ and medium to low β joints. Generally, the ISO

formulation provides a 13% under-estimation of the joint strength.

Cofer and Will (1992) present a new numerical approach in analyzing tubular joint under

tensile brace loads, which utilizes the continuum damage mechanics to account for the

initiation and propagation of cracks A damage variable is introduced to evaluate fracture

failure in the material. The calibration of the numerical approach against the X- and T-

joint tests shows close correlation between the FE model and experimental observation.

This approach is adopted by Jubran and Cofer (1995a) in their numerical investigation of

the tubular joint behavior. The proposed design equations are modified based on Ring

model using regression analysis to fit test and numerical data (Jubran and Cofer, 1995b).

Two types of joint configuration, X- and T-joints, under different brace loading

conditions are investigated.

The effect of the chord stresses was investigated numerically by many researchers.

Pecknold et al. (1998a; 1998b) study the chord stress effect on the ultimate strength of

CHS X-joints. X-joints with low β ratios employs shell elements, while joints with β =

1.0 utilizes 3D elements to simulate explicitly the weld geometry. Detrimental effect of

- 24 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

the tensile chord stresses is observed and a new chord stress function incorporating

geometric dependence and tensile chord stress effect is proposed. Kang et al. (1998b)

report a numerical investigation on the compressive chord stress effect for X-joints under

brace compression. Twenty-node solid elements simulate the joint geometry. Kang et al.

(1998c) extend the study to the compressive chord stress effect on brace OPB loaded X-

joints. The calibration of the numerical analysis against experimental results shows that

API recommendations are conservative up to 50% of chord utilization ratio. Van der

Vegte et al. (2001) report a numerical study on the chord stress effect on X-joints. A β

dependence of the chord stress effect is observed. Tensile chord stress imposes a

deleterious effect on the joint ultimate strength. Van der Vegte et al. (2002) extend the

chord stress study to uni-planar gapped K-joints. A contradiction between the definitions

of chord stress level is reported for CHS and RHS joints. The geometric dependence and

the tensile chord stress effect again exist in K-joints.

Puthli and van der Vegte (2002) review various FE analysis approaches for the static

strength of tubular connections. The feasibility of different finite element types is

compared. The limitation of conventional FE analysis on modeling fracture failure of

tubular joints is identified.

2.3.3. Analytical Models

Be it impractical to predict the ultimate strength of CHS joints with a simple analytical

model due to the complex stress fields and associated failure modes in a joint, three

general models have been proposed in the literature to evaluate the CHS joint strength.

- 25 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

2.3.3.1. Punching Shear Model

In the punching shear model, a full plastification of the punching shear area is assumed

(Wardenier, 1982). The maximum shear stress of a cross-section derives from von Mises

yield criteria based on the Mohr’s circle.

Von Mises yield criterion (Beer and Johnston, 1992) follows:

f12 + f 22 + ( f1 − f 2 ) = f y2
2
(2.5)

where f1 and f2 refer to principle stresses. The maximum shear stress and the

corresponding axial stress (based on Mohr’s circle) become:

1
v max = ( f1 − f 2 ) (2.6)
2

1
fv = ( f1 + f 2 ) (2.7)
2

Hence, f1 and f2 can be expressed in fv and vmax, and substituted into in Eqs. 2.5 and 2.6.

f v2 + 3v max
2
= f y2 (2.8)

Under pure shear condition, fv = 0, and the maximum shear stress is equal to f y / 3 .

The brace-chord intersection area can be conservatively simplified as the area between a

tube and a flat plate, as shown in Fig. 2.2 (Wardenier, 1982). The punching shear area is

approximated as a circular intersection for θ = 900, and an elliptical intersection for θ <

900. For joints with θ = 900 under brace axial loads, the punching shear capacity is given

in Eq. 2.9 (Wardenier, 1982).

- 26 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

fy
Pps = vmax ( π d1t0 ) = π d1t0 (2.9)
3

Figure 2.3 illustrates the elastic and plastic bending stress distribution around the circular

intersection. The elastic bending capacity and plastic bending capacity based on punching

shear failure mode is expressed in Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 respectively (Wardenier, 1982).

Plastic distribution
under axial load

Plastic distribution
under moment load

Fig. 2.2 Simplification of the punching shear area for CHS brace-chord intersection.

vp = vmax sinφ vp = vmax

dA = 0.5d1t0dφ dA = 0.5d1t0dφ

0.5d1sinφ φ 0.5d1sinφ φ

d1 d1

Fig. 2.3 Elastic and plastic stress distribution in the punching shear model.

π ⎛d ⎞ π fy
M y = 2∫ v p ⎜ 1 sin ϕ ⎟dA = d12 t 0 (2.10)
0
⎝ 2 ⎠ 4 3
- 27 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

π ⎛d ⎞ fy
M p = 2 ∫ v max ⎜ 1 sin ϕ ⎟dA = d12 t 0 (2.11)
0
⎝ 2 ⎠ 3

The geometry of welds causes a slightly larger punching shear area for realistic joints.

Equation 2.12 summarizes Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 using a constant C (Wardenier, 1982).

M = Cd 12 t 0 f y = 2Cf y t 02 d1 βγ (2.12)

Transformation factors need to be applied for joints with θ < 900, as shown in Eqs. 2.13 –

2.15 for three brace loading conditions (Wardenier, 1982).

1 + sin θ
f (θ ) = for axial load (2.13)
2 sin 2 θ

1 + 3 sin θ
f (θ ) = for IPB (2.14)
4 sin 2 θ

3 + sin θ
f (θ ) = for OPB (2.15)
4 sin 2 θ

2.3.3.2. Ring Model

The Ring model is first proposed by Togo (1967) for simple tube to tube connections.

This model is extended and developed for more joint configurations by some researchers

(Paul, et al., 1993; van der Vegte, 1995). In this model, the circular chord around the

brace-chord intersection is approximated by a ring of effective length Be. Figure 2.4

shows schematically the brace loads on an X-joint with θ = 900. The effective width Be

can be determined by experiments or numerical results.

- 28 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

d1 – t1
0.5Pu /Be
0.5Pu

d0

d0 – t0
Be ≈ 3(d0 – t0)

Fig. 2.4 Simplification of brace load in the Ring model for an X-joint.

d1/2 Pu/2
PA

MA
Plastic hinge

ψ1

ψ2

d0/2

Fig. 2.5 Ring model for an X-joint under brace axial load.

Figure 2.5 illustrates the ring model failure mechanism for a quarter X-joint under brace

axial load (van der Vegte, 1995). The brace load applies at the outer edge of the brace,

and the outer diameter of the chord evaluates the joint strength instead of the mean

diameter of the chord. The Ring model assumes two plastic hinges at the ultimate limit

- 29 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

state. The joint strength equation derives from the plastic moment expressions at the two

plastic hinge locations corresponding to ψ1 and ψ2 (van der Vegte, 1995)

d0
− M (ψ 1 ) = M A + PA (1 − cosψ 1 ) (2.16)
2

d0 ⎛ π ⎞ Pu d 0
M (ψ 2 ) = M A + PA ⎜1 − cos ⎟ + (1 − sinψ 1 ) (2.17)
2⎝ 2⎠ 2 2

At the two plastic hinge locations, M (Ψ1) and M (Ψ2) equal the plastic moment capacity

of a rectangular cross-section with width Be and height t0, as shown in Eq. 2.18.

1 2
Mp = f y t0 Be (2.18)
4

The ultimate strength for an X-joint under brace axial load follows (van der Vegte, 1995),

Pu 2
= (2.19)
2⎛B ⎞ 1− β
f t ⎜ e⎟
y 0
⎝ d0 ⎠

Similar analytical models have been derived for other joint configurations such as T-joint,

multi-planar T- and X-joints (van der Vegte, 1995). The effective with Be is incorporated

into constants determined by regression analyses.

2.3.3.3. Yield Line Model

The geometry of CHS joints introduces complicated stress fields around the brace-chord

intersection. This gives rise to many difficulties in analyzing the joint strength using yield

line theory, which has been successfully applied to RHS joints (Cao et al., 1998).

However, application of yield line theory has been attempted on CHS X-joints by some

- 30 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

researchers (Makino, et al. 1989; Soh et al., 2000), and the results compared with

numerical and test data show a good correlation. Up to now, yield line theory has not

been applied to other CHS joint configurations.

Y
P

Z
X
δ

Original yield line pattern

X Y

P Modified yield line pattern by Soh et al.

Fig. 2.6 Yield line pattern for X-joints subjected to brace axial load.

The basic principle behind the yield line theory for CHS joints is to evaluate the ultimate

joint strength by equating the external virtual work done by the applied brace load to the

internal virtual work by bending and membrane stresses, as illustrated in Eq. 2.20. The

model assumes that the chord is a rigid-plastic body and the brace members are rigid

bodies. The collapse mechanism assumed for X-joints with low β ratios is the elliptical

yield line in the XY-plane as shown in Fig. 2.6, which is modified by Soh et al. (2000) so

that the evaluation of internal virtual work is made mathematically simpler.

Wext = Wint (2.20)

Soh et al. (2000) develops the X-joint strength formulation using the yield line theory,

based on two models for X-joints with small β and β approaching 1.0 respectively. The

- 31 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

comparison against available formula and test results shows good agreement. The

disadvantage of the yield line theory is that the joint ultimate strength remains in a

complicated mathematical form.

2.4. Design Formulations for Static Strength of CHS Joints

The design codes for offshore structures are based on two types of analyses. The first

refers to the analysis concerning the action, or combination of actions, whose amplitude

has a low probability of occurrence. For example, the International Standard

Organization (ISO) requires the structure to be designed for the extreme wave loading

with a return period of 100 years. This typically leads to the analysis of structures under

static loading. This is the primary concern of the current study. The other type is the

analysis concerning the action of repeated loads in time. This leads to the fatigue analysis

based on the knowledge of these actions.

The purpose of design codes is to provide fully validated strength formulation of tubular

joints for use in the industry, and if possible to develop closed-form formulations for

different joint configurations and loading conditions. The rule of thumb for a design

formula is that it should be kept as simplified as possible.

2.4.1. ISO 19902

The ISO 19902 (2001) develops a set of formulation for the joint characteristic strength,

which is defined as one with 95% survivability. ISO formulation develops from the MSL

joint database (Dier and Lalani, 1998). Joints with chord diameter d0 < 100 mm are

removed due to potential size effects. The screened joint database includes 118 and 541
- 32 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

joint specimens with and without the presence of chord stresses. The characteristic static

strengths of uni-planar joints follow:

f y t02
Pu = Qu Q f (2.21)
sin θ

f y t02 d1
Mu = Qu Q f (2.22)
sin θ

Pu and Mu refer to the joint characteristic axial and moment capacity respectively. Qu

denotes the joint ultimate strength parameter incorporating the joint types and geometry.

The expressions of Qu are listed in Appendix A for three basic types of uni-planar joints.

Qf is the chord stress parameter, in terms of the maximum chord stress on either side of

the brace, as listed in Appendix A. The Qf term includes different parameters for both

brace and chord loading modes. Qu and Qf factors are established by curve-fitting on the

screened database. The effect of chord stress is accounted for (Dier and Lalani, 1998) in

the derivations of both Qu and Qf, since the joint database contains joints with chord load

induced by equilibrium in the formulation of Qu. The Qf factor incorporates neither the

joint geometry effect nor the effect of tensile chord stress. The Qf factor is still under

scrutiny within the ISO technical committee (BOMEL, 2001).

The joint classification in ISO 19902 (2001) depends on both the geometric configuration

and the loading conditions. For a joint classified as 50% K and 50% X, the characteristic

joint strength becomes:

Pu = 0.5 ( Pu )k + 0.5 ( Pu ) x (2.23)

- 33 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

The effect of overlap for K-joint is incorporated into the ISO formulation. However, no

variation in the joint strength with respect to a change in overlap ratio exists. For T-, Y-

and X-joints under tensile brace loading, the reserve strength beyond the first joint crack

is allowed by introducing a set of ultimate joint strength equations.

2.4.2. CIDECT

The joint strength formulation in CIDECT (1991) develops a set of equations for the

ultimate joint strength. The joint design resistance (P*) should be greater than the

characteristic load (Qk) multiplied by the load factor (γs) as shown in Eq. 2.24 (CIDECT,

1991).

Pk
γ s Qk ≤ P* = (2.24)
γm

The joint design strength P* is shown in Appendix A for different joint types. The Pk and

γm are the characteristic joint strength and the safety factor. In CIDECT formulation, two

types of failure modes are considered: chord plastification and punching shear failure.

The punching shear failure is included for joints with d1 ≤ d0 – 2t0.

The effect of chord stress in CIDECT formulation is based on Kurobane’s chord stress

equation developed for K-joints, with extension for other joint types. The chord stress

function f (n’), as shown in Appendix A, depends purely on the chord stress ratio n’.

Similar to the Qf in the ISO 19902, f (n’) is independent of joint geometry and the tensile

chord stress effect is ignored.

- 34 -
 Previous Research and Design Formulation

2.5. Summary

Research work carried out over the last four to five decades on tubular joints and

structures has identified the need to better evaluate the effect of joint-frame interaction.

The significance of joint stiffness and capacity on the frame behavior is reported in many

studies (BOMEL, 1992; van der Valk, 1991 and Kurobane, et al., 1986).

In the joint databases established worldwide throughout the last forty years, scarce details

exist on thick-walled joint behavior. The advantage of thick-walled joints, in reducing

wave loads and enhancing fatigue life, increases their applications in jack-up structures

for drilling and production of oil and gas fields.

Analytical formulations developed are normally associated with different assumptions

involved with loading and stress distribution, which may not be valid for certain joints

under various loading conditions. As a result, design formulations are based on semi-

empirical equations rather than analytical models.

- 35 -