/@@&

OTC 7799

Strength and Stiffness of Tubular Joints for Assessment/Design

Purposes
A.F. Dier and M. Lalani, MSL Engineering Ltd.

Copyright 1995, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 27th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A.,1-4 May 1995.

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee folfowing review of information contained in an abstsact submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s) The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officars, Parmisslon to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Ttiular joints are integral components of ofihore The continuing need to demonstrate the structural
structures and, as such, many codes aaliress their integrity and safety of offshore steel platforms
design. 7he strengths predicted by the codes ojien requires that they are subject to periodic structural
dl~er widely due to the adoption of dl~erent analysis and assessment. Initially, a linear elmtic
philosophies during codefimudation and to dl~erences analysis for extreme event loading is conducted for
in the underlying alztabases used during curve jitting the jacket structure, modelling the actual condition of
and calibration exercises. In the assessment of emkting the platform (as-built plus all subsequent
structures, a hierarchy of analysis methoak, j?om modifications). The joint components are subjected to
elastic analysis with improved code checti to non- code checking (to API RP2A(1J or HSE Guidance
linear 3-D pushover analysis, may be employed. To Notes@J, for example) or specific assessment
avoki potentially unnecessary and expensive o~hore depending on whether the joints are undamaged or
strengthening work, d ir impomnt that these darnaged. In a number of instances, joint utilisation
assessments are based on best estimates of joint ratios may exceed unity, as a result of increased
strength (mean or characteristic, depending on applied loads or code updates, for example. In these
application) and joint stiJlhess behavior. cases a hierarchy of analysis methods, of increasing
complexity, can be adopted to assess with greater
77ukpaper gives the background to and interim results accuracy the integrity and adequacy of the structure
of a major international joint industry project in this under consideration. This hierarchy can be defined as
area. Based on the most extensive carefilly screened follows:
database ever assembled, the robusmess of present
design formulations have been examined, and new (a) Elastic analysis with improved code checks
formulations have been developed where present codes for joints.
are found wanting. Other Lrsues, such as chord load,
can length and material yield to ultimate strength have Elastic analysis with modelling of joint
(b)
ako been dressed. For the first time, expressions rotation for the joints in question. Code
have been developed fir P-8 and M% joint stlfiess check to API RP2A.
responre, as may be used in advanced analysis
including the simulation of joint behaviour during (c) As (b), but with improved code checks for
pushover analysir. The paper goes on to describe the
joints.
expected jiture developments in this jieki of
technology.
References
andjtguresat endofpaper.

941
2 Strength and Stiffness of Tubular Joints for Assessment/Design
(d) As (b), but with full modelling of joint non-
linear behaviour, uncoupled and coupled.
(e) As (d), but with improved code checks for
joints.
(0 System reliability, utilising one of (a) to (e)
above for characterizing joint and system
resistance parameters.
(g) 2-D pushover analysis (non-linear joint and
member behavior).
0-0 3-D pushover analysis.
(i) System reliability, utilising (g) or (h) above
for characterisation.
The above hierarchy is nominal, and may be (and
often is) adjusted depending on the structure under
consideration and the findings from preceding
analyses. This is particularly valid for options (~ to
(i). Two specific technical issues become clear from
the above analysis methods:-
(i) The improved joint code checks noted above
recognise that codes do not atways give best
estimates of joint strength, for example API
RP2A and the HSE Guidance Notes
essentially represent 1980 and 1985
technology, respectively, and no fundamental
changes have been made since that time. It is
also recognised that a number of technological
advances have taken place regarding the
ultimate limit state of tubular joints from 1980
to date, including the generation of pertinent
new data and information. Refined criteria
can be established for use in the structural
appraisal of existing installations, whereby
reliability of capacity algorithms can be
increased without compromising safety
(Assessment Criteria).
(ii) In order to apply options (b) to (i) above,
information on joint stiffness has to be
available. For most options this implies that
knowledge of the fill non-linear load
deformation (I% and MOand their interaction)
is required, although elastic L.JFs (local joint
flexibilities) suffice for applying options (b)
and (c). Non-linear load deformation data, in
tie form of P6 or M@ curves, is only
sometimes reported in the literature. It is not,
therefore, always possible to identify a load
deformation curve from the literature that
942
Purposes OTC 7799
closely corresponds (ie. having similar joint
parameters) to the joint being studied. Even
then, it is not clear how reliable or
representative the reported curve is.
Although some measure of a single curves
reliability may be gleaned from comparing its
ultimate strength with that obtained from
(mean) strength equation, there are no such
parametric equations for, say, the deformation
at peak load. Thus, what is required is the
formulation of closed-form expressions which
can be used to generate non-linear load
deformation data for joints of practical
geometries. It may be noted that implicit in
generating reliable load deformation curves,
it is necessary to have reliable estimates of
ultimate stren-@s, and this bears on issue (i)
above.
Recognizing the present day need for development of
the above technologies, and following favorable
findings from feasibility investigations, a joint
industry initiative was instigated(3J with the following
two main objectives:
to develop industry-accepted assessment
criteria for use in the reappraisal of existing
steel platforms
to develop close&form expressions which will
enable non-linear load deformation curves to
be readily created for the range of joint types,
Ioadcases and geometries that commonly
occur in practice.
The results of the joint industry initiative will enable
the above hierarchy of analyses to be conducted in a
technical y-appropriate, safe and cost-effective
manner. This, in turn, allows rational decisions to be
made concerning the structural integrity of existing
joints and jacket systems without recourse to potential
expensive strengthening measures which might
inappropriately be deemed necessary through the
adoption of outdated recommended practice& Whilst
the first objective above concerns strength criteria for
existing installations, it is recognised that the
developed criteria will represent 1994-95 technology
and, therefore, would be expected to be considered by
codedraflhg bodies. In particular, the current 1S0
efforts on producing a harmonised offshore code can
be mentioned in this respect.
 OTC 7799 A.F. Dier and M. L&mi
DATABASES
A considerable number of joints have been tested
worldwide over the last three decades, and testing still
continues. These generally have been on steel models
although, more recently, joint behaviour has been
explored through the media of Finite Element
analysis(45Jand lead-tin alloy models@). These latter
studies are useftd in identifying specific aspects of
behaviour, but should always be calibrated against the
steel model data.
Although steel model data is generally accepted as
being more reliable, a scrutiny of the literature shows
that there is a wide range in the standard of reporting,
and in the standard of quality of the testing procedures
adopted by various investigators. It is therefore
necessary to formalise and impose appropriate
screening criteria such that derived strength
formulations using the screened data can be
considered to represent real joints. There are obvious
criteria (eg. chord yield strength and thickness should
be measured and not just minimum specified or
nominal values quoted) but many are more subtle such
as ensuring that the test boundary conditions have not
influenced the result or that chord/brace member
yielding has not affected the measured response. The
screening criteria established for the project were
vetted by experts worldwide.
It is noteworthy that the size of the screened database
is significantly larger than those used in the
development of the current API and HSE
recommendations. Table 1 indicates the number of
screened results, by brace loading type, used to
develop API~, HSE(8) and the present formulations.
In part, the large increase in the present database
reflects the inclusion of test data generated in the last
decade. However, it also reflects that the previous
limit on minimum chord diameter (140mm or 125mm
for API and HSE respectively) has been relaxed to
loomm.
STATIC STRENGTH
There are a number of codes(l 29-13)that address the
static strength of joints and their provisions are
generally based on appraisals of test data. Inspection
of these codes and other guidance show that for any
given joint type (TN, K, DT/X) and load type (axial,
in-plane bending or out-of-plane bending), different
formulations exist. This extends beyond simple
scaling of numerical coefilcients to fundamental
differences in which joint strength is supposedly
943
3
affected by joint parameters (J!3, T etc.). These
differences may be attributed to variability in the
underlying databases, in the appraisals of those
databases and in the various philosophies adopted (eg.
use of first crack loads or ultimate loads in tension
loaded joints). For each joint and load type, the
predictive power of existing formulations were
compared with the present database as it was expected
that at least some of the formulations would capture
the effect of joint parameters reasonably well. The
mean and characteristic strengths of the present
database can be predicted by the existing formulations
adjusted by numerical scaling factors. The predictive
performance of each formulation may be ascertained
by comparing the coefficients of variation (COVS)
and the various sensitivity plots of the ratio of
measured to predicted strength against@, -f etc. This
process could be used to select the most appropriate
formulation (from the scaled existing formulations) for
each joint and load type.
The above approach is somewhat traditional and no
fundamentally new formulation capturing better the
real effect of joint parameters would result.
Therefore, for some appropriate cases, approaches
were developed from first principles. In particular,
the effect of chord loads in joint strength was
considered at the outset. Chord loads are often found
to drive joint strength and are incorporated in present
codes through the following equation:
P = QfQu
FYT2
In the above equation, P is the allowable load, FY and
T are the yield strength and thickness of the chord
material, Qu is the basic strength factor (which varies
for joint and load type) and Qf is the chord load
factor. Traditionally, test data are examined and Qu
formulations are derived, ignoring any effect of
equilibrating chord loads which arise in the tests, and
then Qf is subsequently applied. Although this may
bean appropriate approach for design, it is considered
to be unduly conservative for assessment criteria. In
the present work, studies were undertaken to identify
the effect of chord loads ab initio, and then adjust the
database to account for chord loads before establishing
Qu. It should be noted that this is not that simple, as
the best fit Qf term is dependent on the choice of Qu
and vice versa.
In some instances, radically new formulations were
found to improve the otherwise rather poor COVS of
existing formulations. As an example, consider K
4 Strength and Stiffness of Tubular Joints for Assessment/Design
joints, Figure 1, in which the API formulations (with
factors of safety set to unity) are compared to new
MSL formulations. The API formulation is lower
bound whereas that of MSL is based on mean
strengths. As can be seen, the strength of all K
joints, and particularly those of overlapped K joints,
are much better predicted with the new MSL
formulation.
Other issues, such as chord length, can length, effect
of end boundary conditions, and yield to tensile
material strength ratio, have all been appraised during
the development of the assessment criteria. The
assessment criteria, taken as a whole, may be used to
ascertain more accurately the strength of tubular joints
in a safe and rational manner.
LOAD DISPLACEMENT CURVES
Only about 30% of the tests in the screened database
have associated load deformation data, in the form of
P6 or MO curves. These have been carefully
appraised to establish the method of deformation
measurement, and any appropriate adjustments were
made (eg. to correct for the inclusion of brace
deformations). Load deformation curves for axially
loaded joints are shown schematically in Figure 2.
The response is fairly linear up to point 1, after which
the joint continuously softens until a peak (point 3) is
reached. For tension loaded joints, failure is sudden
when cracks, initiated at point 2, have grown
sufficiently to cause gross separation of the brace
from the chord. For compression loaded joints a
reduced strength is observed which extends over a
considerable range of deformation. The load at the
peak (point 3) may be predicted by the (mean
strength) assessment criteria equations. It has been
showni14J that it is possible to derive P and 6
expressions to capture the other points along the
curve. For instance, in the case of initial softening or
joint yield @oint 1) for compression loaded DT joints,
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate that data is reasonably
tightly banded.
From a computational standpoint for implementation
into frame analysis software, it is somewhat messy to
integrate a patchwork of expressions describing the 3
or 4 (P, 8) points along a curve and so a more elegant
approach was sought. Rather than having discrete
points, by which the response curve would be
approximated to piecewise linear functions, a single
expression was called for. In the first instance a
simple polynomial expression was tried. However,
even with a 6th order polynomial the fit to a typical
944
Purposes OTC 7799
Pa curve was rather poor with the predicted response
oscillating about the experimental curve, see Figure 5.
A parametric formula, incorporating just three
independent coefficients, was finally found and which
models load deformation curves very well. It easily
adapts to load deformation curves which have a flat
post-peak plateau and has proven to be stable during
curve fitting. For a given joint and load type, fitted
curves were found for the available experimental
curves. Expressions were then found that related the
fitted coefficients back to the joint parameters. One
of the fitted coefficients corresponds to the ultimate
strength and therefore only two new expressions, one
each for the other two coefllcients, had to be found.
Thus, complete P6 or Mi3 curves can be relatively
easily generated from surprisingly simple formulae.
The original fitted curve and the predicted curve are
shown superimposed on the experimental response in
Figure 6. The simplicity and elegance of the load
deformation prediction equations will ease
implementation of joint non-linear response into
algorithms.
Future work in this area will be directed at coupling
the P6 and MO curves to simulate more realistically
actual joint behaviour within fiarnes. Also, studies
will be undertaken on how best to incorporate chord
load effects, although even now approximate account
can be made through the appropriate adjustment of PU
(or MU).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
On the basis of the studies conducted to date,
significant increase in the reliability of joint strength
formulations can be achieved, leading to more rational
appraisal of existing installations where joints
constitute the weak points. In turn, this leads to the
availability of an important tool in the decision-
making process for cost effective and safe IMR
operations.
The availability of formulations, for the first time,
that predict the full non linear Pa or MO response of
popular joint types, loadcases and geometries which
occur in practice, allows the effects of both linear and
non linear joint flexibility to be accounted for in
advanced analysis, including pushover analysis.
Much interest is being shown in system failure rather
than component failure at the present time.
Knowledge of joint loaddeformation response is a
pre-requisite to assess accurately system response.
OTC 7799 A.F. Dier and M. Lalani 5

NOMENCLATURE 7. Yura, J. A., Zettlemoyer, N. and Edwards,

I.F. Ultimate Capacity Equations for
F De-sign strength of chord member Tubular Joints. Paper OTC 3690, Offshore
Nf Moment Technology Conference, Houston, May 1980.
P Axial force
Qf Chord stress factor 8. Department of Energy. Background to New
Qu Joint basic strength factor Static Strength Guidance for Tubular Joints in
T Chord wall thickness Steel Offshore Structures. Offshore
b Brace/chord diameter ratio Technology Report OTH 89 308, HMSO,
Y Chord radius/T London, 1990.
6 Axial displacement at joint
o Brace rotation 9. Det norske Veritas. Rules for Classification
of Fixed Offshore Installations. 0s10,
Norway, July 1993.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Acts,
The authors wish to recognise the contributions of Mr Regulations and Provisions for the Petroleum
R Ossei and Ms V Trembath in compiling databases Activity. Volume 2, 1993.
and conducting spreadsheet calculations referred to in
this paper. 11. American Welding Society. Structural
Welding Code - Steel. ANSI/AWS D1. 1-92,
1992.
REFERENCES
12. Canadian Standards Association. Code for
1. American Petroleum Institute. the Design Construction and Installation of
Recommended Practice for Planning, Fixed Offshore Structures. S473, June 1992.
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Working Stress Design. API 13. CEN (European Committee for
RP2A-WSD, 20th Edition, 1993. Standardisation). Eurocode 3: Design of
Steel Structures - Part 1.1: General Rules
2. UK Health and Safety Executive. Offshore and Rules for Buildings. European
Installations: Guidance on Design, Prestandard ENV 1993-1-1, April 1992.
Construction and Certification. 4th Edition,
1990. (Formerly issued by the Department of 14, Lalani, M. Post-yield and Post-peak
Energy). Behaviour of Tubular Joints in Offshore
Structures, Tubular Structures V, E & FN
3. Assessment Criteria, Reliability and Reserve Spon, 1993.
Strength of Tubular Joints - Invitation to
Participate, MSL Engineering Limited, Dec.
Ref. P168PO01, October 1993. TABLE 1: Number of screened results

Brace Load
4. Dexter, E., Haswell. J., and Lee, M.K. A
Comparative Study on Out-of-plane Moment
Capacity of Tubular Joints, Tubular m
Structures V, E & FN Spon, 1993.
Compression 83 123 438

5. Healy, B and Zettlemoyer, N. In-plane Tension 21 44 60

Bending Strength of Circular Tubular Joints,
In-plane Bending 16 ~ 33 47
Tubular Structures V, E & FN Spon, 1993. I I
Out-of-plane Bending 17 20 30
6. Fessler, H., Hyde, T.H. and Khalid, Y.,
The Static S~en@ of T-joints Under Total 137 220 575
I I 1 1 I

Bending in Different Directions, Tubular

Structures
V,E &FNSpon,1993.

945
 Purposes OTC 7799

?*.

&a

.*
2,W
. . .
.
. .
s..

& .. :
.
*
L/
.*....
.
. .
r .
i

am tom Xc-a lam mm mu! ,002 row

0

ii ?rtdkrcd I.. d .<mdi~ 1. Arl

m-

eu . . ...*- , 1.

2W

1.$0

8
..

.
* x

f{..~ -
0$4

.nca .mca .v3.c4

fl

b] ?rcdi<tcd [od .c,ord!. ~ ,. MSL

Fig. 1: Measured/Predicted Loads for K joints

r
Pu .._ -L1---.l 2 = CRACK INITL4TIC)N
/ 3 3 = UL.mmTE LOAD
/

I
/ p (OtiPRISSION

I II NSION

[ .- .- -.

or FORHATION.

Fig. 2: Typical Load/Deformation curves

946
 CJ
n

1500
50 I 1
. -.
.
,.
2
o
*O _
. 2020
P
-30
u
~
Q
G 20
c
F
.-
.
:.
10
I
3
.. Iwo
5

I
0
0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 [
BETA so 0

00 J
0,0 >0 100 1>0 200 150 100 1$0 100 4s.0
Odwmztim [m]

Fig. 3: Normalised Yield Load Against Beta

Fig. 5: Sixth Order Polynomial fit to Typical Test Curve

)03 o

.
.

0
0 I
del[ar&D/Pr(x IOE-:)
4 5

r
Fig. 4: Normalised Deformation at Yield Against Beta 4
Fig. 6: Fit of New Formulation to Typical Test Curve
 - . ___

_ _- .
. _ ___+ __ ___ ___ ,_ _. __ _.._= ==:. ,. . -.- - ..-=- .. ..... ..... ... .- -c- -. _ ._ __==. -_
-m

-.-.. . - . ..===. *..=.Q

.- ._. :__- -. ..:= .._>* ,
=_.._ ._- =+<.
>T=-z-_.=.. .._ .. .
___. .3-.. --

~ . . .. . . T._-=;._=_: <-= -:.=: =_-_,>;= :-::: : ->. _ ._ .=.= -. z_..-_ .

>. . .. .=._ .. . .. .. . . . . . .. _=_..= ...
----- =___
G._

-- ..7 -. : . ..+ ~ .. ~.=..=__ ,= .-. ... _ .=,

.- -= -. ., .. .---:... .7. . .= _.. _ ~-__ ~: ~

.__- _

_% ___ ._.. _. __ .== ___+_ _.

_. _A ___
.. =. _= - _._ . . .- .. _ .= ._ _= ~_:_ ._j ___ T__ T..
.= .-.
~_ ..__. _.. Q= _._._~ _. ..= ~. ~., ___ _._ .,

.<. .
_____ ~.. . __. .- =
.= ___ .-: :.:. _- =
. . =-- .
. = _:. _= =. .. _=Q .-__._r __ _

- ___ _______ __ ___ : __. .
______ _____ __ -. _. . _=. =- _. ,. _: _ _


.

..-- _. ...= _- _______ ___ =:_= = =_ _. _=___ .:-L_ =, . .. .
-_ ___ _- .. --_-;
_.___ _. ._ . ._=. _, ._=

=. = :=-
.

.
. ___