Tubular Joint API RP 2A Design

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections
Contents
Tubular Joints
Behaviour of Tubular connections
Failure
Fail e modes
API RP 2A Design Method
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Department of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras-36
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Source : API RP 2A
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Localized Shell Bending

The braces deliver their reactions to the chord in the
form of line loads
The exact
e act
flexibilities
distrib tion
distribution
depends
on
the
relati e
relative
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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Stresses in Tubular Joints
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Local Scale Stress Analysis

No closed-form solutions exist for practical cases of
interest
C
Can be
b investigated
i
ti t d by
b 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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
acting
g Vp = sin( fa + fb )
Punching component normal to the chord wall
16 July 2007
10
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Punching Stress Concepts
acting
V p = sin ( f a + f b )
= t /T
l b
between
t
members
b
= angle
f a + f = nominal axial and bending
Stress in brace
16 July 2007
11
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Elastic Stresses in
C li d
Cylinders
S
Subjected
bj
d to
Punching Shear
16 July 2007
12
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Shell Theory
Closed-form
Closed form solutions exist for very simple load
cases
Punching shear capacity at first yield depends on
(=D/(2T)), (=d/D) and Fy
The line load capacity is proportional to the 1.5- 2.0
power of cylinder thick T
16 July 2007
13
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Closed-Form
Closed
Form Solutions For Axi
Axi-symmetric
symmetric Line Load
16 July 2007
14
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Closed-form Solutions for Parallel Line Loads
16 July 2007
15
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
16
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
17
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Dundrova:
Brace: Membrane
Chord: Shell
Theoretical Elastic Stresses Axially Loaded

T Joint
T-Joint
16 July 2007
18
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
19
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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-oft 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
16 July 2007
20
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
21
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Three-Dimensional
Elements
Iso-parametric
Finite
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 for
f
" f
"surface
stresses
t
att the
th
mid-plane
id l
intersection using thin-shell element
16 July 2007
22
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

j
Thick Shell Finite Element Model of K-joint
16 July 2007
23
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
24
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Behaviour
of
Tubular Connections
16 July 2007
25
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Reserve Strength
The theoretical and experimental stress analyses are
useful in understanding the behavior of tubular
and indispensable in fatigue analysis
joints
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
16 July 2007
26
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Load Deflection Curve
16 July 2007
27
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
28
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Early
y Test Results
16 July 2007
29
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Observations (1)
For stocky chords with ((=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
16 July 2007
30
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
31
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Factors Affecting the Ultimate Strength
Fy and
(=D/(2T)) (as mentioned before)
Type of loading: axial (Ten/Comp), IPB,OPB

Load pattern: K, T/Y ,X
Geometric parameters: ((=d/D)
d/D), g/d
Chords own load
16 July 2007
32
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
F il
Failure
M
Modes
d
16 July 2007
33
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
34
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Distortion Patterns and Yield Regions
16 July 2007
35
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Failure pattern
For tubular connection with < 0.3, failure occurs by
punching in or pulling out the plug from the side of the
chord (punching shear failure)
When > 0.8, the chord fails by collapse
In the range in between, must estimate the interaction of
punching shear and general chord collapse
16 July 2007
36
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

General Collapse
Gross flattening
g or distortion of a
large part of the chord
Intersection between punching
shear and general bending of
chord wall
16 July 2007
37
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Failure Modes
Local failure of the chord
General collapse of the chord
Unzipping or progress weld failure
Material problems
Fracture and delaminating
Fatigue
16 July 2007
38
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
39
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
40
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Modes of General Collapse
p
16 July 2007
41
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
42
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
43
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
44
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Material Problems
Need plastic deformation to reach design
capacity
p
y
Fracture and fatigue
Lamellar tearing
Weldability (HAZ)
16 July 2007
45
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Static Strength
g Design
g
of Tubular Connections
16 July 2007
46
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
47
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

R l
Relevant
tD
Design
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.
16 July 2007
48
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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 n sin
f n is the nominal stress at the end of the brace
Axial and bending are treated separately
16 July 2007
49
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
50
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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!

16 July 2007
51
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
API RP2A WSD

21ST Edition (2000)
Section 4
C
Connections
i
16 July 2007
52
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Definitions
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
53
Validity Range
The validity range for application of the practice defined is as follows:
0.2
1.0
10
50
30
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.
16 July 2007
54
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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)
Simplified condition
Yield stress of brace member,

Not brace stub
Fyb ( sin )
1 .0
1 .5
Fyc (11 +
)
Chord yield stress or 2/3 of the tensile strength if less

16 July 2007
55
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
56
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
57
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
58
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
16 July 2007
59
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Examples
p
16 July 2007
60
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
61
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
62
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Based On Punching Shear
V p = f sin
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
0.6
V pa are different for different load cases
Qq, and Qf are empirical constants
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
63

Factor Qq
Influence of connection type, geometry and load pattern
Type
Axial
T
Tension
i
Axial
Compress
C
ion
Out-of- Plane
B di
Bending
(1.10-0.20/ ) Qg
TT & Y
X
3.72-0.67/
(1.10-0.20/
(1.100.20/
0 .3
for > 0 . 6
(1 0 . 833 )
= 1 . 0 for 0 . 6
16 July 2007
(1.37-0.67/ )Q
(0.750.20/ )Q
Q =
Q
In-plane
B di
Bending
64
Q g = 1 .8 0 .1g / Tfor 20
Q g = 1 .8 4 g / Dfor > 20
Q g 1 .0
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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 - A2
= 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
A=
16 July 2007
2
2 + 2
f AX
f IPB + f OPB
65
0.6 FYC
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Interaction Equations
2
Vp
V pa
Vp
1.0
+
V
IPB pa OPB
Vp
V
2
+ arcsin p
V
pa
V pa
16 July 2007
AX
66
Vp
+
1.0
10
IPB V pa OPB
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Based On Nominal Loads ((API RP 2A 2003)) Supplement
pp
2
2
Allowable Axial Load
Allowable Moment
(Inplane or Out-of plane)
FT
P =QQ
FS sin
yc
FT d
M =QQ
FS sin
yc
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
16 July 2007
67
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
68
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Qf is a factor to account for the p
presence of nominal
loads in the chord.
FSPc
FSM c
2
Q f = 1 + C1
C
A
2
3
P
M
p
y
The parameter A is defined as follows:

0.5
FSP 2 FSM 2
c
c
+
A =
Py M p
Wh
Where
Pc and
d Mc are the
h nominal
i l axial
i l lload
d and
db
bending
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
16 July 2007
69
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
70
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Interaction Equations
P
P
a
AX
M
+
M
M
+
1.0
IPB
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
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
71

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
1 := 45 deg
Brace 2 Data
d 2 := 406 mm
t 2 := 12.7 mm
2 := 30 deg
g
D := 762 mm
T c := 15.88 mm
Chord Data
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
16 July 2007
72
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Joint Geometry parameters
Gap between braces
gap := 50 mm
Geometric parameters
1 :=
:=
gap
D
1 = 0.667
2 :=
d2
D
2 = 0.533
D
= 23.992
2 Tc
= 0.066
gap
Qg := 1 + 0.2 1 2.8
D
Qg for K joint
16 July 2007
d1
Qg = 1.109
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
73

Brace 1 - Joint Strength calculation (K Joint Method)
Qu for axial load
Q uax1 := ( 16 + 1.2 ) 1
Q ulim1 := 40 1
1.2
1.2
Qg
Q uax1 = 30.53
Qg
Q ulim1 = 27.264
2
Allowable axial load
Fy T c
P a1 := Q uax1 Q f
1.6 sin
( 1)
Q uip1 := ( 5 + 0.7 ) 1
P a1 = 2347.7 kN
12
1.2
Q uip1 = 13.398
Q uop1 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ) 1
2.6
Q uop1 = 5.74
Allowable inplane bending

moment
Fy T c d 1
M a1IP := Q uip1 Q f
1.6 sin 1
Allowable out-off
out off plane bending
moment
Fy T c d 1
M a1OP
1OP := Q uop1
1 Q f 1.6 sin
1
Unity check ratio
UC1 :=
( )
M a1IP = 523.4 m kN
16 July 2007
( )
74
P1
P a1
2
2
M 1IP
M 1OP
M a1IP
M a1OP
M a1OP = 224.2 m kN
UC1 = 0.97
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Brace 2 - Joint Strength calculation (K Joint Method)
Qu for axial load
Q uax2 := ( 16 + 1.2 ) 2
Q ulim2 := 40 2
1.2
1.2
Qg
Q uax2 = 23.33
Qg
Q ulim2 = 20.835
2
Fy T c
P a2 := Q uax2 Q f
1.6 sin
( 2)
Q uip2 :=
: ( 5 + 0.7
0 7 ) 2
P a2 = 2537.2 kN
1.2
Q uip2 = 10.239
10 239
Q uop2 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ) 2
1.2
Q uop2 = 6.868

moment
Fy T c d 2
1.6 sin 2
Allowable out-off plane bending

momentt
Fy T c d 2
M a2OP := Q uop2
p Qf 1
1.66 sin 2
( )
M a2IP = 452.1 m kN
Unity check ratio
16 July 2007
( )
UC2 :=
P2
P a2
M a2OP
303 2 m kN
2OP = 303.2
M 2IP
M 2OP
M
+M
a2IP
a2OP
UC2 = 0.979
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
75

Brace 1 - Joint Strength calculation (Y Joint Method)
Qu for axial load
Q uax1 := ( 16 + 1.2 ) 1
1.2
Q uax1 = 27.535
Q ulim1 := 30 1
Q ulim1 = 20
P a1 := Q uax1 Q f
Fy T c
( )
P a1 = 2117.4 kN
1.6 sin 1
Q uip1 := ( 5 + 0.7
0 7 ) 1
1.2
Q uip1 = 13.398
Q uop1 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ) 1
2.6
Q uop1 = 5.74

moment
Fy T c d 1
1.6 sin 1

moment
Fy T c d 1
M a1OP := Q uop1 Q f
1.6 sin 1
Unity check ratio
UC1 :=
( )
M a1IP = 523.4 m kN
16 July 2007
( )
76
P1
P a1
M 1IP
M 1OP
M a1IP
M a1OP
M a1OP = 224.2
224 2 m kN
2
UC1 = 1.012
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Brace 2 - Joint Strength calculation (Y Joint Method)
Qu for axial load
Q uax2 := 2.8 + ( 20 + 0.8 ) 2

Q ulim2 := 2.8 + 36 2
1.6
Q uax2 = 17.113
1.6
Q ulim2 = 15.947
2
Fy T c
P a2 := Q uax2 Q f
1.6 sin
( 2)
Q uip2 := ( 5 + 0.7
0 ) 2
P a2 = 1861 kN
1.2
Q uip2 = 10.239
Q uop2 := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 ) 2
1.2
Q uop2 = 6.868

moment
Fy T c d 2
1.6 sin 2

moment
Fy T c d 2
M a2OP := Q uop2 Q f
11.6
6 sin 2
( )
M a2IP = 452.1 m kN
Unity check ratio
16 July 2007
( )
UC2 :=
P2
P a2
M 2IP
M 2OP
M
+ M
a2IP
a2OP
77
M a2OP = 303.2 m kN
2
UC2 = 1.161
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
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
16 July 2007
78
:= 90 deg
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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
for grouted (leg + pile)
T c :=
Geometric Parameters
:=
TP + TL
d
T c = 70.7 mm
:=
= 0.386
= 13.972
2 T c
1.6
Qu Factor for axial load
Quax := 2.8 + ( 20 + 0.8 )
Qu limit for axial load
Quaxmax := 2.8 + 36
Qu for inplane
p
bending
g
moment
Quip ::= ( 5 + 0.7 )
Qu for out-off plane bending

moment
Quop := 2.5 + ( 4.5 + 0.2 )
16 July 2007
Quax = 9.588
1.6
Quaxmax = 10.637
1.2
Quip = 4.711
4 711
2.6
Quop = 3.112
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
79

Ultimate capacity of chord
Chord Coefficients
Equivalent Moment
C1ax := 0.3
C2ax := 0.0
C3ax := 0.8
C1b := 0.20
C2b := 0.0
C3b := 0.40
Yield Axial Capacity of chord
Py := D Tc Fy
Plastic moment capacity of

chord
M p := D Tc Fy
Factor of Safety against

chord yielding
FSC := 1.2
16 July 2007
M c := M cIP + M cOP
80
Py = 1.514 10 kN
4
M p = 9.525 10 kN m
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Estimation of Qf for axial, inplane and out
out-off
off plane bending moment
2
Applied Load effect
Qf for axial load
AA :=
Pc
Mc
FSC
+ FSC
Py
Mp
AA = 0.025
FSC P c
FSC M c
2
C 2ax
C 3ax AA
Py
Mp
Q fax := 1 + C 1ax
Q fax = 1
Qf for inplane bending moment
FSC P c
FSC M c
2
C 2b
C 3b AA
Py
Mp
Q fip := 1 + C 1b
Q fip = 1
Qf for out-off plane bending
moment
FSC P c
FSC M c
2
C 2bb
C 3b AA
Py
Mp
Q fop
op := 1 + C 1b
b
Q fop = 1
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
81

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
Allowable Axial load
Fy T c
P a := Q uax Q fax
FS sin ( )

moment
Fy T c d
M aIP := Q uip Q fip
FS sin ( )
P a = 10405.2 kN
M aIP = 3887.5 m kN

moment
M aOP := Q uop Q fop
Fy T c d
M aOP = 2568.4 m kN
1.6 sin ( )
Interaction between axial,

axial inplane and out-off plane bending moment
Combined interaction ratio of
axial and bending effects
16 July 2007
UC :=
82
P
Pa
M IP
M OP
M
+ M
aIP
aOP
UC = 0.826
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
83
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
16 July 2007
84
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
85
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

For More Complex Joints
Crushing Load = i Pi sin 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
16 July 2007
86
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Eff ti Chord
Effective
Ch d L
Length
th
16 July 2007
87
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Adverse Load Patterns
16 July 2007
88
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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
16 July 2007
89
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
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() may be used to estimate
the beneficial or deleterious effect of various branch member
loading combinations on main member ovalizing
16 July 2007
90
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Computation
of Ovalizing Parameters
16 July 2007
91
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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

= 1.0
1 0 K
= 1.7 T&Y
= 2.4 x
16 July 2007
92
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

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 > 2.4

2 4 or a low value of results from interaction
other than the classical K-joint action, alternative design
methods should be used for investigation
16 July 2007
93
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
Ring Stiffened joints
16 July 2007
94
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Equivalent
q
chord wall thickness calculation for Ring
g Stiffened joints
j
16 July 2007
Dr. S. Nallayarasu
95

Equivalent
q
area method
Internal
e a d
diameter,
a e e , di
D-2t
Stiffener plate width
bs
= 1219-2*50=1119
9 50
9
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
16 July 2007
96
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Equivalent
q
moment of inertia method
Internal diameter, di
D-2t
Stiffener plate width
bs
Effective Chord Length, Le =

Centroidal distance, y
1.1(Dt)1/2
( 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
bf t f
Let 3
t s bs
b
t
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
Note: Te Not greater than 2t
12 I T
Le
Bs/ts is limited to 18 or less

16 July 2007
97
Dr. S. Nallayarasu

Tubular Joint API RP 2A Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Tubular Joint API RP 2A Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Localized Shell Bending

The localized shell bending in the chord reaches a

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Local Scale Stress Analysis

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Theoretical Elastic Stresses Axially Loaded

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Peak Hot Spot Stress

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Thin-Shell Finite Element Models

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Use of solid elements to model the finite thickness of the

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Load Deflection Curve

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Require extraordinary demands on the ductility of the chord

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

(=D/(2T)) (as mentioned before)

Type of loading: axial (Ten/Comp), IPB,OPB

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Distortion Patterns and Yield Regions

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Local Failure of the Chord

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Reserve Strength in Weld

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Need more detailed consideration if the

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections

Offshore Structures Tubular Connections