STRAIN BASED FAILURE

ASSESSMENT FOR
OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
UNDER SEISMIC LOADING

W Zhao, R Turner, J Liang

BOMEL LIMITED, UK

1
contents
 The engineering problem
 Issues to consider low cycle fatigue
 Solution by generalised Masing’s approach
 Concept of relative notch SCF
 Numeric implementation
 Examples
 Sensitivity study
 Conclusion

2
The engineering problem
 Many of the existing platforms from our offshore
operators are in seismic active zones
 New risk assessment requires quantification of
failure and more rigorous justification of structural
integrity for seismic events which may not be
considered at the design stage
 Each of the platforms have hundreds of hot spots
for potential failure by fatigue or fracture so
detailed FE analysis for each hot spot in the
platform is not practical

3
Seismic Analysis for Structure
with Non-linear Foundation

One ABAQUS
non-linear
analysis run of
a beam model
takes about 8
hours for a 40
sec seismic
event

4
 Low Cycle Fatigue
 Under seismic loading, hot spots in the structure will experience
reversals of high level stress or strain and low cycle fatigue
(LCF)
 Damage has been observed in steel structures under
earthquake by LCF, e.g. Northridge earthquake
 Normal S-N curves in offshore steel standards deal only with
fatigue of medium to low stress and high cycle
 Other strain based fatigue analysis approaches ignore sequence
effect and hence ignore true strain development
 A methodology is needed to assess LCF for large offshore
structures under random loading efficiently and consistently

5
Issues to be considered

1. Cyclic material behaviour – true stress/strain curves

2. Stress/ strain concentration factor in the elastic-plastic
range
3. Cycle counting methods -- Rainflow strain range counting
4. Damage analysis and damage summation
5. Integration of analysis to global structural analysis

Issues 1, 2 and 5 have been the limiting factors for

applications of LCF method in offshore structures. Issue 3
is easily resolved. Issue 4 has its uncertainty but has
accepted practises.

6
 Masing’s Hypothesis:
 Masing suggested that the stress-strain curve for reversed straining
MEASURED FROM THE POINT OF REVERSAL would be the cyclic
curve scaled by a factor of 2. It has been applied to a number of
situation for strain related studies.
e e e e p
 
s 2 2 2
e e s

2 2E
1
e p  s  n'
 
2  2k' 
Hence,
1

e e s  s  n'
  
2 2 E  2k' 

7
 Masing’s Hypothesis
s, s/2
Reversed
s-e curve
1
2e 2s  s  n'
  2 
2 2E  2k' 
1
s  s  n'
e   2 
Cyclic E  2k' 
s-e curve
1
e s  s  n'
  
2 2E  2k' 

8
e, e/2
Problem in using classic Masings
rule for random nominal stress
history
Classic Masing
400
Classic Masing

300

200
Stress strain
100
loops produced
from classic
0
-0.40% -0.20% 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60%

Masing’s rule
-100

-200

-300
show spurious
-400
high stresses
-500

-600

9
 Generalised Masing rule
 At each unloading path or reloading path,
the stress strain curve follows a track in
stress-strain space directed to a point
called the fiducial point, amount to energy
dissipation through the nonlinear property
of the material
 Instead of a scale factor of 2 in Classic
Masing, the generalised Masing rule uses a
changing scale factor, controlled by only
one point in the loop, to control the cyclic
loading/unloading loop.
 Although developed for soil under seismic
condition, principle of energy dissipation
is applicable for steel as well
 It offers simplicity and stability in numeric
implementation. But it reduces the effect
from extreme ratcheting. For a mean level
of fatigue under random loading, those
extremes may be ignored.

10
 SCF for offshore weld

 Linear SCF for offshore

tubular joint is available
but not for notch stress
 Kt = SCF x Snotch/ Shot

 Notch stress may be

related to fatigue weld
class ???

11
 Relative notch stress SCF for
different weld class
 Kn = stress range So of smooth specimen / stress range So of notched specimen
HSE S-N Curve HSE GN in seawater with adequate
4thEdition in air protection
ID
So at 107 Kn So at 107 Kn
B 0.64P 83 1.00 61 1.351
C 0.76P 70 1.19 52 1.604
D 1.00P 53 1.57 39 2.111
E 1.14P 47 1.77 34 2.407
F 1.34P 40 2.08 29 2.828
F2 1.52P 35 2.37 26 3.209
G 1.83P 29 2.86 21 3.861
W 2.54P 21 3.95 15 5.363
T' 67 1.24 53 1.563

12
Comparison of notch stress SCF
K t  SCF K n K 97
K97 = fatigue strength with mean curve / fatigue strength with design curve
For the B curve of smooth specimen, K97 = 1.233

Relative effective SCF Factor for similar welds in ref

S-N curve Kn Kn K97 [Radaj, D & Sonsino]
B 1 1.233
C 1.19 1.467
D 1.57 1.936 1.89
E 1.77 2.182 2.27
F 2.08 2.565 2.5
F2 2.37 2.922 3.12
G 2.86 3.526
W 3.95 4.870 4.03
T' 1.24 1.529

13
Strain concentration in the
inelastic range
Stress-Strain at Notches

Kt  K s Ke
2
Neuber’s rule:

e
Glinka’s modification: ( K t S ) 2
  s de
2E 0

14
 SCF in the inelastic range

 General Neuber’s formula

 When nominal stress is in the
elastic domain
 Kt may be replaced by Kf
(notch factor)
 When nominal stress is in the
plastic domain
 When nominal stress is in the
plastic domain – modified
Glinka’s formula

15
Cyclic strain analysis flow chart
Obtain nominal stress history from axial, in plane bending and
out of plane bending from existing analysis in SAFJAC

Determine theoretical SCFs

Determine relative effective notch

Repeat concentration factor, Kn K97
for every
stress
point
Determine parameters in the generalized
Masing’s rule

Determine s-e curve from generalised Masing’s rule

Determine true stress and strain based on

Neuber’s rule

True stress-strain history

Rainflow cycle counting

Maximum strain Damage calculation Minimum strain

16
 Example of strain history loops -
1 Mudline Acceleration at Leg A1 - Y Direction

Seismic
25
20

acceleration
15
2

10
Acceleration, m/s

5
0
history
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-10
-15
800
-20

Stress (Mpa)
-25
600
Tim e, s

400

200

Stress 0
Strain

Strain
-4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%

-200

loops -400

-600

17
 Example of strain history loops -
2
Nominal stress history
800.00
Nominal stress
600.00

400.00
Nominal stress (MPa)

Stress (Mpa)
200.00
1000

0.00 800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-200.00
600
-400.00

400
-600.00
time (s)
200

True strain history True Strain History -6.0% -4.0% Strain -2.0%
0
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%

8.0% -200

6.0% -400
4.0%

2.0%
time step
-600 Stress
Strain
Strain

-800
0.0%
1 1001 2001 3001

loops
-2.0% -1000

-4.0%

-6.0%

18
 Example of strain history loops -
3

Stress (Mpa)
600

400

200

0
-16.0% -14.0% -12.0% -10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
Strain
-200

True strain history

True Strain History
-400
10.0%

5.0%
-600
Stress
Strain
time step
0.0%
1 1001 2001 3001
Strain

-800
loops
-5.0%

-10.0%

-15.0%

-20.0%

19
Example of fatigue damage for a
platform for an earthquake analysis

A full strain based

damage analysis
run for the whole
platform takes
about 24 hours on
a PC.
Graph shows joints
with D > 0.1.

20
Benefit from cyclic strain analysis

 Direct link to random nominal stress history

 Reproduction of true stress-strain loops enable
counting of strain cycles and fatigue damage
calculation
 Maximum true strain – tensile or compressive can be
compared to strain based failure criteria
 Sensitivity study of other input parameters

21
 Sensitivity study - nominal stress

Strain-based fatigue
1000 Sy = 345 Mpa
4.1787

damage sum is
Sy = 245 Mpa y = 1.0788x
y, Damage (x)/Damage(x=1)

Power (Sy = 245

Mpa) proportional to the
100 Power (Sy = 345
Mpa) power of 4.31 of the
y = 1.0852x3.5488
normalised nominal
stress ranges when Sy =
10
345 MPa or to the power
of 3.72 of the normalised
1
nominal stress ranges
1 2 3 4 5 when Sy = 245 MPa.
x, Factor on base nominal stress ranges

22
Sensitivity study - Yield stress

2
Fatigue damage is sensitive
to yield stress but depends
on stress amplitude.
Damage (Sy =245)
Damage(Sy=345)/

1 For the cases considered, in

low stress range amplitude,
lower yield stress material
have higher damage.
0
1 2 3 4
With increasing stress range
Factor on nominal stress
lower yield stress material
have lower damage.

23
Conclusion
 A method has been established for strain based fatigue
analysis for offshore structure with generalised Masing’s
rule and approximate notch factors based on weld classes
 This method is fully integrated to normal structural
analysis programs in a seamless manner, enabling speedy
analysis for large number of hot spots in a structure
 The results from analysis include damage ratios as well as
maximum/minimum true strain for integrity assessment
 From sensitivity analysis for the current structure:
– The ratio of damage is proportional to ratio of nominal
stress to the power of 4
– Damage is sensitive to yield stress

24
Comparison of e-Nf curves
1

A36 HAZ BHN = 243 (Fcalculator)

Weld metal (H&S)

Grade 350
0.1
Grade 245
e

Program default

0.01

0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Nf

25
FE model for notch stress analysis

26
Comparison of VM notch stresses
Neuber's VM
600.0
ESED VM

Neuber's VM using s1 only

500.0 ESED's VM using s1 only

FE 3x0.5x1 NoWeld

FE 3x0.5x1
400.0
Von Mises stress (Mpa)

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
P / PL

27
Comparison of VM notch strain
12.0%
Neuber's Eeq

ESED Eeq
10.0%
Neuber's Eeq using s1 only

ESED's Eeq using s1 only

Von Mises equivalent strain

8.0% FE 3x0.5x1 NoWeld

FE 3x0.5x1

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

P / PL

28
Stress distribution around the weld
toe when the applied stress on the
brace= 100 MPa
700
8 Inc_VM
8 Inc_VM (1x2)
8 Inc_VM (0.5x1)
8 Inc_VM (4X4) Noweld
600 8 Inc._Pmax (0.5x1) Noweld

Von Mises Stress (Mpa)

500

400

300

200
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Distance from weld toe (mm)

29
30
Ratio of Neuber Prediction against FE result

20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%

0%
Von Mises
equivalent
stress
Von Mises
equivalent
strain
Max

P / PL= 0.7
principal
stress
Max
principal
strain
Von Mises
General comparison

equivalent
stress
Von Mises
equivalent
strain
Principal stress only

Max
P / PL= 1.4

principal
HS extension with Ktq= Kt

stress
HS extension with Ktq= 0.88 Kt

Max
principal
strain