Hse

OTH 91 353
STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR TUBULAR COMPLEX JOINTS
Author Lloyds Register of Shipping 71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS
Health and Safety Executive - Offshore Technology Report
Crown copyright 1992 Applications for reproduction should be made to HMSO First published 1992 ISBN 0 11 886363 0
This report is published by the Health and Safety Executive as part of a series of reports of work which has been supported by funds formerly provided by the Department of Energy and lately by the Executive. Neither the Executive, the Department nor the contractors concerned assume any liability for the reports not do they necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Executive or the Department Results, including detailed evaluation and, where relevant, recommendations stemming from their research projects are published in the OTH series of reports. Background information and data arising from these research projects are published in the OTI series of reports.
HMSO
Standing order Service
Placing a standing order with HMSO BOOKS enables a customer to receive other tiles in this series automatically as published. This saves time, trouble and expense of placing individual orders and avoids the problem of knowing when to do so. For details please write to HMSO BOOKS (PC 13A/1). Publications Centre, PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT quoting reference 12.01.025. The standing order service also enables customers to receive automatically as published all material of their choice which additionally saves extensive catalogue research. The scope and selectivity of the service has been extended by new techniques, and there are more than 3,500 classifications to choose from. A special leaflet describing the service in detail may be obtained on request.
ii
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY PART 1 MULTI-PLANAR JOINTS 1. 2. INTRODUCTION DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Acrylic modelling 2.1.1 Strain gauge locations 2.1.2 Extrapolation procedures PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 3.1 SCF comparison for single-plane joints 3.1.1 Task 6 KT joint 3.1.2 Task 7 K joint 3.2 Determination of carry-over effects 3.3 Observations on carry-over effects 3.4 Calculation of SCFs for load combinations 3.4.1 Axial loading 3.4.2 Out -of-plane bending CONCLUSIONS TABLES FIGURES REFERENCES 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 59 66 V
3.
4.
APPENDIX A - Acrylic Modelling
67
iii
CONTENTS (cont)
Page
PART 2 OVERLAPPED JOINTS 1. 2. INTRODUCTION TEST DETAILS 2.1 Task 8A 2.2 Task 8.B 2.3 Veritec configuration PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 1 2 2 2 2 3
3.
4.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Task 8 4.2.1 Single brace loaded cases 4.2.2 Balanced axial loading 4.2.3 Unbalanced axial loading 4.2.4 Unbalanced OPB 4.2.5 Balanced OPB 4.2.6 Balanced IPB 4.2.7 Unbalanced IPB 4.3 Veritec configuration (balanced axial loading)
4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6
5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS TABLES FIGURES REFERENCES
7 8 26 39
APPENDIX A - Veritec Joint Configuration
40
iv
SUMMARY
The work covered in this report was carried out as part of the group sponsored project Stress Concentration Factors for Tubular Complex Joints. The primary objective of this project was to obtain improved methods of dealing with the fatigue aspects of complex joints and loadings. The main emphasis was on ring-stiffened joints, however, work was also performed on unstiffened multi-planar and overlapped joints. In fatigue analysis, single-plane SCF parametric equations are generally used for multi-planar joints and this required validation. In the multi-planar joint programme, covered in Part 1 of this report, 12 joint configurations were tested using acrylic modelling. Carry-over effects for axial loading and out-of-plane bending were determined. Typical multi-planar overall joint loading patterns were investigated to identify those patterns which give increased SCF levels when multi-planar effects are included. For the most common fatigue loading cases, the results obtained indicated that the use of the existing single-plane SCF equations for multi-planar joints was probably justifiable. However, some loading conditions produced very significant carry-over effects which required further investigation. A follow-up study, commissioned by the UK Department of Energy entitled Investigation of Stress Concentration Factors for Multi-planar Joints in Offshore Structures has been completed. The study investigated typical loading cases that occur in practice and lead to significant carry-over effects. The overlapped joint programme, covered in Part 2 of this report, was essentially an SCF comparison study between measured and predicted values from existing parametric equations. The measured SCFs were obtained by Koninkliike/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium (KSEPL) and Wimpey using finite element using finite element analysis techniques and by Lloyds Register using acrylic modelling. The eight joint configurations considered included the overlapped steel specimen from the UKOSRP II project, however, the steel SCF results were not included due to confidentiality restrictions at the time the report was prepared. An SCF comparison including the UKOSRP II results can be found in A review of stress concentration factors for tubular complex joints, by Smedley P. and Fisher P., Integrity of Offshore Structures - 4, Glasgow. Additionally, an acrylic model was tested with the same configuration as an overlapped steel joint tested by Veritec as part of another programme. An SCF comparison was made for this joint, including the steel and also finite element analysis SCF results which were made available by Veritec. From this programme of work, regarding measures SCFs, good agreement was obtained for the different techniques considered. In the SCF comparison with parametric equations, for all modes of loading considered, the closest agreement was obtained with the equations by Efthymiou/Durkin of KSEPL. The Veritec configuration results highlighted the differences that can be obtained in extrapolated SCFs due to different strain gauge positions and extrapolation procedures.
OTH 91 346 Investigation of Stress Concentration Factors for Multi-planar Joints in Offshore Structures (to be published). v
PART 1 MULTI-PLANAR JOINTS
1. INTRODUCTION
It is common practice to predict SCFs in a particular plane of a multi-planar complex joint by including only the effects from loads applied to braces which lie in that same plane. This report covers the Tasks 6.A and 6.B tests on multi-planar KT joints and Task 7 6.A on multi-planar K joints, which were devised to check the validity of this method, by establishing the significance of carry-over effects on the SCFs from brace loads in other planes. In the tests axial loads, out-of-plane (OPB) moments and in-plane (IPB) moments are applied to each brace member of the joint in turn. IPB moments have small effects and are not reported here. Superposition is used to calculate the distribution of SCFs for different patterns of axial loads and OPB moments applied to the joint. By evaluating the superposition, both with and without inter-plane carry-over effects, the importance of including such terms is established, together with the load patterns causing the greatest increase in SCF levels.
2. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 ACRYLIC MODELLING The acrylic modelling, as detailed in Figures 1, 2 and 3, involves the testing of 12 unstiffened joints. The tube wall thickness are changed between the four 6.A test (y = 12) and the corresponding 6.B tests (y = 24). The four 6.B tests on KT joints correspond to the four 7.A tests of K joints. The test model was built up from the basic 6.A1, 6.B1 and 7.A1 single-plane geometries by the addition of extra braces and strain gauges. 2.1.1 Strain gauge locations Two hundred strains gauges were present on the final 6.A4, 6.B4 and 7.A4 multi-planar joints. The position of these gauges relative to the chord-brace intersection line are as detailed in Appendix A1. Only the chord saddle gauges are used in this report and their locations are given on Figures 4 to 6 for the Task 6 KT joints, and on Figures 7 to 9 for the Task 7 K joints. 2.1.2 Extrapolation procedures The extrapolation methods available for determining SCFs are given in Appendix A2.
3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

3.1 SCF COMPARISON FOR SINGLE-PLANE JOINTS 3.1.1 Task 6 KT joint Table 1 shows the single-plane average measured SCFs for balanced axial load and unbalanced OPB compared with the predicted SCFs derived from the equations of Wordsworth(1), Efthymiou/Durkin(2) and Kuang et al(3). Only the main braces are loaded since not all of the equations are really applicable for KT joints or where the T brace is of different diameter from the main braces (ie joints are treated as wide gap K joints). It can be seen from Table 1 that reasonable agreement is achieved, with predicted SCFs always higher than the measured values. 3.1.2 Task 7 K joint Table 36 shows the single plane average measured SCFs for balanced axial load and unbalanced OPB compared with the predicted SCFs derived from the Wordsworth(1), Efthymiou/Durkin(2), and Kuang et al(3) equations. It can be seen that reasonable agreement is achieved from all equations. The predicted SCFs are larger than the measured values in all cases, except for the Efthymiou equation under unbalanced OPB. 3.2 DETERMINATION OF CARRY-OVER EFFECTS Test strain gauge results are recorded for single loads or moments applied to each brace in turn with the chord ends reacted. The chord saddle SCFs obtained from these results are processed to give the carry-over effects detailed in Tables 2 to 17 for KT joints, and in Tables 37 to 44 for K joints. To enable the effects of load combinations to be obtained from superposition of the single load tests results, the SCFs have been based on extrapolation methods 3 and 4, involving the chord circumferential strains only. The symmetry of the structure and the positions of the loads required that given sets of SCFs should have equal absolute value, with the sign dependent on the symmetry or anti-symmetry of the loads applied. For these sets of SCFs is a value has been assigned based on the average of the group. The final set of SCFs is hence consistent with symmetry requirements. The SCF ratios given in Tables 2 and 17 and Tables 37 to 44, are obtained by dividing the actual SCFs by the maximum absolute SCF value occurring at the chord saddle of the loaded brace. Each column of the table gives the carry-over effect to the SCFs at the chord saddle positions of the unloaded braces. If required the actual recorded test SCFs can be obtained by multiplying the values in each column by the appropriate term given at the bottom of the table.
3.3 OBSERVATIONS ON CARRY-OVER EFFECTS
For the 8 KT joints tested, Tables 2 to 9 give the carry-over effects for axial load and Tables 10 to 17 give the carry-over effects for OPB applied. For the 4 K joints tested, Tables 37 to 40 give the carry-over effects for axial load and Tables 41 to 44 give the carry-over effects for OPB applied. The following general observations relate to the results given in these tables: (i) The carry-over effects for axial load are more significant than those for OPB. The distribution of chord stresses, resulting from loads applied to braces in a given plane, is little affected by the presence of the other bracing planes. The carry-over effects for the single-plane joints 6.A1, 6.B1 and 7.A1 given in Tables 2, 3, 10, 11, 37 and 41 are little different from the results for any of the single planes chosen from the multi-planar joints in the other tables. The carry-over effects in the 90o and 180o planes of the two-plane joints 6.A2, 6.B2, 7.A2, 6.A3, 6.B3 and 7.A3 are similar to the results for these planes from the 3-plane joints 6.A4, 6.B4 and 7.A4. An indication of the effect of tube wall thickness on carry-over effects is provided from the 6.A (y = 12) results and the 6.B (y = 24) results. A comparison of the results in Table 8 with Table 9, and Table 16 with Table 17 shows that changes of the order of 20-30% are present with the most significant changes applying to carry-over effects in the plane of the loaded brace. The carry-over effects both increase and decrease with increasing wall thickness. (iv) An indication of the effect of the addition central T-brace is provided from the 6.B KT joint results and the 7.A K joint results (y = 24). A comparison of the results of Table 9 with Table 40, and Table 17 with Table 44 shows that the carry-over effect between the inclined braces is of the same order, except for the plane containing the loaded brace. The decrease in carry-over noted for the KT joint is more likely to be due to the increased separation between the inclined braces than to the stiffening effect of the T brace.
(ii)
(iii)
3.4 CALCULATION OF SCFS FOR LOAD COMBINATIONS The SCFs for load combinations are obtained by superposition of the results from the single load tests given in Tables 2 to 17 and Tables 37 to 44.
For the single-plane predicted SCFs only carry-over effects on unloaded brace members in the same plane as the loading are included. The multi-planar prediction involves the full set of carry-over effects listed in Tables 2 to 17 and Tables 37 to 44. 3.4.1 Axial loading An examination of the signs of the carry-over effects in Tables 8 and 9 for joints 6.A4 and 6.B4 and Table 40 for joint 7.A1, shows that the multi-planar terms will have the greatest effect when all the braces in the 0o and 180o planes are either in tension or compression whilst all those in the 90o plane are either in compression or tension respectively. The results for this case are given in Table 18 and Table 45 showing that the multi-planar SCFs are two to three times those predicted by the single-plane calculation. Tables 19, 20, 21 and Tables 46, 47 and 48 shows results for joints where a uniform tension was kept in the 0o and 180o planes whilst varying the form of loading in the 90o plane. The SCFs from the multi-planar predictions are greater than the single-plane predictions except when the 90o plane is in tension. Tables 22 to 24 and Tables 49 to 51 show results for joints which have tension across one diagonal and compression across the other diagonal of the 0o - 180o plane, with load varying in the 90o plane. The multi-planar and single-plane predictions are not significantly different in overall magnitude but individual SCFs may be considerably affected, for example gauge e163 in Table 51. For the 90o joints, 6.A2, 6.B2 and 7.A1, the multi-planar carry-over effects have the maximum effect when all braces in the 0o plane are either in tension or compression whilst all those in the 90o plane are either in compression or tension respectively. The results in Tables 25 and 52 for these cases show that the multi-planar effects are 50-100% greater than the single-plane calculations. Tables 26, 27, 53 and 54 gives the results for balanced axial loading in the two planes of the 90o joints. The multi-planar effects are not significant for this case. In Tables 28 and 55 joints have tension in the braces of both planes and significant reductions in the SCFs are noted. For the 180o joints, 6.A3, 6.B3 and 7.B3 the maximum effect of multi-planar carry-over is when all brace members are either in tension or compression. Increases in SCFs of up to 70% occur for the KT joint (Table 29). In Tables 30 and 56 results are given for tension in the diagonal members of the KT and K joint, respectively; here only 50% increases can be noted. Tables 31 and 57 show results for joints which have tension across one diagonal and compression in the other which leads to small decreases in SCF. 3.4.2 Out-of-plane bending The carry-over effects for OPB are less significant than those for axial load (compare Tables 8, 9 and 40 with 16, 17 and 44 for joints 6.A4, 6.B4 and 7.A4). For the 0o and 180o planes the multi-planar effects will be most significant when all applied moments have the same sign. The effect of the signs of moments in the 90o plane is less obvious. 5
In Tables 32 and 58 results are given for the cases where positive moments were applied to the 0o and 180o planes, leaving the 90o plane unloaded. The multi-planar carry-over effects cause an increase of approximately 15% in the SCFs. Results in Tables 33 and 59 include the effects of positive moments in the 90o plane whilst in Tables 34, 35, 60 and 61 results are given for cases where moments of different signs were applied to the diagonals in the 0o and 180o planes. SCF changes are not significant for any of these cases. The carry-over effects for the 6.A2, 6.B2, 7.A2, 6.A3, 6.B3 and 7.A3 tests are similar to those of the component planes in the 6.A4, 6.B4 and 7.A4 tests. As the 6.A4, 6.B4 and 7.A4 tests show no significant effects for OPB, no further cases are presented.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This has been a limited study to establish the possible importance of including inter-plane carry-over effects when predicting the SCFs on complex multi-planar joints. With respect to axial loading it has been shown that such effects can be highly significant for certain patterns of loading. However, it may be that these particular loading patterns do not have a major influence in fatigue analyses of offshore structures; this requires further investigation. Carry-over effects were found to be less important for OPB.
This has since been undertaken in a separate study; see report OTH 91 346 Investigation of Stress Concentration Factors for Multi-planar Joints in Offshore Structures. 7
TABLES
1 2-9 10-17 18-31 36 37-40 41-44 45-57 58-61 Comparison of single-plane chord saddle SCFs with KT joint parametric equations SCF carry-over ratios for axial load (KT joint) SCF carry-over ratios for OPB (KT joint) Comparison of single-plane and multi-planar SCF predictions for axial load patterns (KT joint) Comparison of single-plane chord saddle SCFs with K joint parametric equations SCF carry-over ratios for axial load (K joints) SCF carry-over ratios for OPB (K joint) Comparison of single-plane and multi-planar SCF predictions for axial load patterns (K joint) Comparison of single-plane and multi-planar SCF predictions for OPB load patterns (K joint)
Table 1 Comparison of single-plane chord saddle SCF's with parametric equations
Loading
Joint
Average measured SCF 2.26 3.22 4.03 6.75
SCF from parametric equations Wordsworth 3.24 3.61 5.08 7.88 Efthymiou 3.30 3.59 4.67 7.02 Kuang 2.62 4.15 -
Balanced axial Unbalanced OPB Balanced Axial Unbalanced OPB
6.A1 6.A1 6.B1 6.B1
Note:
Only braces a and c are loaded, hence parametric equations for K joint are used for comparison.
Table 2 Task 6.A1 - SCF ratio at the chord saddle positions for axial load
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 a 1.00 1.00 .67 .67 .26 .26 Loaded brace b .28 .28 1.00 1.00 .28 .28 c .26 .26 .67 .67 1.00 1.00
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs a b c 2.89 4.92 2.89
Table 3 Task 6.B1 - SCF ratio at the chord saddle positions for axial load
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 a 1.00 1.00 .61 .61 .39 .39 Loaded brace b .38 .38 1.00 1.00 .38 .38 c .39 .39 .61 .61 1.00 1.00
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs a b c 6.42 8.63 6.42
10
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 a .95 1.00 .75 .71 .27 .23 -.65 -.30 -.47 -.43 -.35 -.28 a 3.16 b .26 .26 .97 1.00 .26 .26 -.28 -.15 -.27 -.21 -.28 -1.5 b 5.76 Loaded brace c .27 .23 .75 .71 .95 1.00 -.35 -.28 -.47 -.43 -.65 -.30 c 3.16 d -.30 -.65 -.43 -.47 -.28 -.35 1.00 .95 .71 .75 .23 .27 d 3.16 e -.15 -.28 -.21 -.27 -.15 -.28 .26 .26 1.00 .97 .26 .26 e 5.76 f -.28 -.35 -.43 -.47 -.30 -.65 .23 .27 .71 .75 1.00 .95 f 3.16
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 a 1.00 1.00 .66 .56 .41 .36 -.66 -.33 -.38 -.36 -.38 -.34 a 6.47 b .37 .34 1.00 .82 .37 .34 -.32 -.19 -.19 -.18 -.32 -.19 b 9.67 Loaded brace c .41 .36 .66 .56 1.00 1.00 -.38 -.34 -.38 -.36 -.66 -.33 c 6.47 d -.33 -.66 -.36 -.38 -.34 -.38 1.00 1.00 .56 .66 .36 .41 d 6.47 e -.19 -.32 -.18 -.19 -.19 -.32 .34 .37 .82 1.00 .34 .37 e 9.67 f -.34 -.38 -.36 -.38 -.33 -.66 .36 .41 .56 .66 1.00 1.00 f 6.47
11
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 133 126 145 139 155 151 a .98 1.00 .70 .66 .27 .26 .47 .40 .28 .29 .36 .33 a 3.03 b .26 .27 1.00 .92 .26 .27 .22 .19 .15 .15 .22 .19 b 5.42 Loaded brace c .27 .26 .70 .66 .98 1.00 .36 .33 .28 .29 .47 .40 c 3.03 d .40 .47 .29 .28 .33 .36 1.00 .98 .66 .70 .26 .27 d 3.03 e .19 .22 .15 .15 .19 .22 .27 .26 .92 1.00 .27 .26 e 5.42 f .33 .36 .29 .28 .40 .47 .26 .27 .66 .70 1.00 .98 f 3.03
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 133 126 145 139 155 151 a .99 1.00 .62 .55 .38 .39 .36 .37 .21 .25 .34 .35 a 6.61 b .37 .37 1.00 .89 .37 .37 .21 .21 .12 .14 .21 .21 b 9.22 Loaded brace c .38 .39 .62 .55 .99 1.00 .34 .35 .21 .25 .36 .37 c 6.61 d .37 .36 .25 .21 .35 .34 1.00 .99 .55 .62 .39 .38 d 6.61 e .21 .21 .14 .12 .21 .21 .37 .37 .89 1.00 .37 .37 e 9.22 f .35 .34 .25 .21 .37 .36 .39 .38 .55 .62 1.00 .99 f 6.61
12
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 133 126 145 139 155 151 a .97 1.00 .74 .65 .27 .22 -.78 -.30 -.56 -.47 -.40 -.28 .40 .44 .26 .32 .33 .36 a 2.94 b .27 .25 1.00 .98 .27 .25 -.35 -.16 -.32 -.23 -.35 -.16 .20 .21 .15 .17 .20 .21 b 5.20 c .27 .22 .74 .65 .97 1.00 -.40 -.28 -.56 -.47 -.78 -.30 .33 .36 .26 .32 .40 .44 c 2.94 d -.26 -.59 -.37 -.39 -.24 -.31 1.00 1.00 .73 .73 .25 .25 -.59 -.26 -.39 -.37 -.31 -.24 d 3.25 Loaded brace e -.13 -.23 -.17 -.21 -.13 -.23 .24 .24 1.00 1.00 .24 24 -.23 -.13 -.21 -.17 -.23 -.13 e 6.19 f -.24 -.31 -.37 -.39 -.26 -.58 .25 .25 .73 .73 1.00 1.00 -.31 -.24 -.39 -.37 -.59 -.26 f 3.25 g .44 .40 .32 .26 .36 .33 -.30 -.78 -.47 -.56 -.28 -.40 1.00 .97 .65 .74 .22 .27 g 2.94 h .21 .20 .17 .15 .21 .20 -.16 -.35 -.23 -.32 0.16 -.35 .25 .27 .98 1.00 .25 .27 h 5.20 i .36 .33 .32 .26 .44 .40 -.28 -.40 -.47 -.56 -.30 -.78 .22 .27 .65 .74 1.00 .97 i 2.94
13
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 133 126 145 139 155 151 a 1.00 1.00 .65 .56 .39 .35 -.72 -.30 -.42 -.32 -.42 -.33 .32 .39 .21 .27 .28 .37 a 6.34 b .37 .34 1.00 .90 .37 .34 -.35 -.18 -.21 -.16 -.35 -.18 .17 .22 .11 .15 .17 .22 b 8.98 c .39 .35 .65 .56 1.00 1.00 -.42 -.33 -.42 -.32 -.72 -.30 .28 .37 .21 .27 .32 .39 c 6.34 d -.30 -.60 -.34 -.37 -.31 -.35 1.00 1.00 .57 .57 .36 .36 -.60 -.30 -.37 -.34 -.35 -.31 d 6.53 Loaded brace e -.19 -.33 -.19 -.20 -.19 -.33 .40 .40 1.00 1.00 .40 .40 -.33 -.19 -.20 -.19 -.33 -.19 e 8.73 f -.31 -.35 -.34 -.37 -.30 -.60 .36 .36 .57 .57 1.00 1.00 -.35 -.31 -.37 -.34 -.60 -.30 f 6.53 g .39 .32 .27 .21 .37 .28 -.30 -.72 -.32 -.42 -.33 -.42 1.00 1.00 .56 .65 .35 .39 g 6.34 h .22 .17 .15 .11 .22 .17 -.18 -.35 -.16 -.21 0.18 -.35 .34 .37 .90 1.00 .34 .37 h 8.96 i .37 .28 .27 .21 .39 .32 -.33 -.42 -.32 -.42 -.30 -.72 .35 .39 .56 .65 1.00 1.00 i 6.34
14
Table 10 Task 6.A1 - SCF ratio at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B.
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 a -1.00 1.00 -.26 .26 -.16 .16 a 2.62 Loaded brace b -.19 .19 -1.00 1.00 -.19 .19 b 3.29 c -.16 .16 -.26 .26 -1.00 1.00 c 2.62
Table 11 Task 6.B1 - SCF ratio at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B.
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 a -1.00 1.00 -.32 .32 -.24 .24 a 5.02 Loaded brace b -.24 .24 -1.00 1.00 -.24 .24 b 6.32 c -.24 .24 -.32 .32 -1.00 1.00 c 5.02
15
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 a -.97 1.00 -.28 .28 -.16 .16 -.10 -.19 -.05 -.17 .09 -.12 a 2.78 b -.17 .17 -1.00 .98 -.17 .17 -.0.00 -.08 -.05 -.07 -.0.00 -.08 b 3.68 Loaded brace c -.16 .16 -.28 .28 -.97 1.00 .09 -.12 -.05 -.17 -.10 -.19 c 2.78 d .19 .10 .17 .05 .12 -.09 -1.00 .97 -.28 .28 -.16 .16 d 2.78 e 08 0.00 .07 .05 .08 0.00 -.17 .17 -.98 1.00 -.17 .17 e 3.68 f .12 -.09 .17 .05 .19 .10 -.16 .16 -.28 .28 -1.00 .97 f 2.78
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 a -.99 1.00 -.32 .28 -.25 .23 -.15 -.19 -.08 -.17 .10 -.16 a 5.20 b -.22 .22 -1.00 .87 -.22 .22 -.02 -.09 -.02 -.06 -.02 -.09 b 6.70 Loaded brace c -.25 .23 -.32 .28 -.99 1.00 .10 -.16 -.08 -.17 -.15 -.19 c 5.20 d .19 .15 .17 .08 .16 -.10 -1.00 .99 -.28 .32 -.23 .25 d 5.20 e .09 .02 .06 .02 .09 .02 -.22 .22 -.87 1.00 -.22 .22 e 6.70 f .16 -.10 .17 .08 .19 .15 -.23 .25 -.28 .32 -1.00 .99 f 5.20
16
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 133 126 145 139 155 151 a -.97 1.00 -.26 .24 -.17 .17 -.05 .07 -.03 .04 -.08 .09 a 2.74 b -.18 .19 -1.00 .89 -.18 .19 -.03 .03 -.02 .02 -.03 .03 b 3.55 Loaded brace c -.17 .17 -.26 .24 -.97 1.00 -.08 .09 -.03 .03 -.05 .07 c 2.74 g -.07 .05 -.04 .03 -.09 .08 -1.00 .97 -.24 .26 -.17 .17 g 2.74 h -.03 .03 -.02 .02 -.03 .03 -.19 .18 -.89 1.00 -.19 .18 h 3.55 i -.09 .08 -.04 .03 -.07 .05 -.17 .17 -.24 .26 -1.00 .97 i 2.74
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 133 126 145 139 155 151 a -.97 1.00 -.31 .28 -.23 .24 -.06 .05 -.03 .02 -.09 .07 a 5.22 b -.23 .24 -1.00 .89 -.23 .24 -.03 .03 -.01 .01 -.03 .03 b 6.58 Loaded brace c -.23 .24 -.31 .28 -.97 1.00 -.09 .07 -.03 .02 -.06 .05 c 5.22 g -.05 .06 -.02 .03 -.07 .09 -1.00 .97 -.28 .31 -.24 .23 d 5.22 h -.03 .03 -.01 .01 -.03 .03 -.24 .23 -.89 1.00 -.24 .23 e 6.58 i -.07 .09 -.02 .03 -.05 .06 -.24 .23 -.28 .31 -1.00 .97 f 5.22
17
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 133 126 145 139 155 151 a -1.00 .99 -.28 .25 -.16 .15 -.10 -.22 -.04 -.19 .09 -.14 -.08 .06 -.04 .04 -.09 .08 a 2.70 b -.17 .17 -1.00 .88 -.17 .17 -.0.00 -.09 -.05 -.08 -.0.00 -.09 -.04 .03 -.02 .02 -.04 .03 b 3.56 c -.16 .15 -.28 .25 -1.00 .99 .09 -.14 -.04 -.19 -.10 -.22 -.09 .08 -.04 .04 -.08 .06 c 2.70 Loaded brace d .17 .08 .16 .04 .12 -.07 -1.00 1.00 -.27 .27 -.14 .14 -.08 -.17 -.04 -.16 0.7 -.12 d 2.93 e .08 .01 .07 .05 .08 .01 -.18 .18 -1.00 1.00 -.18 .18 -.01 -.08 -.05 -.07 -.01 -.08 e 3.80 f .12 -.07 .16 .04 .17 .08 -.14 .14 -.27 .27 -1.00 1.00 .07 -.12 -.04 -.16 -.08 -.17 f 2.93 g -.06 .08 -.04 .04 -.08 .09 -.14 .10 .19 .04 .14 -.09 -.99 1.00 -.25 .28 -.15 .16 g 2.70 h -.03 .04 -.02 .02 -.03 .04 .09 0.00 .08 .05 .09 0.00 -.17 .17 -.88 1.00 -.17 .17 h 3.56 i -.08 .09 -.04 .04 -.06 .08 .14 -.09 .19 .04 .22 .10 -.15 .16 -.25 .28 -.99 1.00 i 2.70
18
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f g g h h i i Gauge 71 34 94 82 118 104 172 160 189 183 199 195 133 126 145 139 155 151 a -.98 1.00 -.32 .29 -.24 .22 -.16 -.21 -.07 -.18 .09 -.18 -09 .05 -.04 .02 -.11 .06 a 5.28 b -.23 .23 -1.00 .89 -.23 .23 -.03 -.10 -.03 -.06 -.03 -.10 -.04 .02 -.03 .02 -.04 .02 b 6.53 c -.24 .22 -.32 .29 -98 1.00 .09 -.18 -.07 -.18 -.16 -.21 -.11 .06 -.04 .02 -.09 .05 c 5.56 Loaded brace d .18 .15 .17 .08 .15 -.08 -1.00 1.00 -.28 .28 -.22 .22 -.15 -.18 -.08 -.08 0.8 -.15 d 5.56 e .10 .04 .07 .04 .10 .04 -.25 .25 -1.00 1.00 -.25 .25 -.04 -.10 -.04 -.04 -.04 -.10 e 6.16 f .15 -.08 .17 .08 .18 .15 -.22 .22 -.28 .28 -1.00 1.00 .08 -.15 -.08 -.15 -.15 -.18 f 5.56 g -.05 .09 -.02 .04 -.06 .11 -.21 .16 .18 .07 .18 -.09 -1.0 0 .98 -.29 .22 -.22 .24 g 5.28 h -.02 .04 -.02 .03 -.02 .04 .10 .03 .06 .03 .10 .03 -.23 .23 -.89 .23 -.23 .23 h 6.5 3 i -.06 .11 -.02 .04 -.05 .09 .18 -.09 .18 .07 .21 .16 -.22 .24 -.29 -1.00 -1.00 .98 i 5.28
19
Table 18 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for axial loadings Applied nominal brace loads
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d -1.00 e -1.00 f -1.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00
6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.03 10.90 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.91 12.46 b94 9.57 15.81 b82 8.95 15.04 c118 5.03 10.90 c104 4.91 12.46 Gauge positions d172 -5.54 -13.34 d160 -5.54 -13.34 e189 -10.95 -19.81 e183 -10.95 -19.81 f199 -5.54 -13.34 f195 -5.54 -13.34 g133 4.91 12.46 g126 5.03 10.90 h145 8.95 15.04 h139 9.57 15.81 i155 4.91 12.46 i151 5.03 10.90
6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.07 24.55 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 11.61 26.12 b94 17.16 27.99 b82 15.21 25.47 c118 12.07 24.55 c104 11.61 26.12 Gauge positions d172 -12.32 -28.29 d160 -12.32 -28.12 e189 -16.14 -28.94 e183 -16.14 -28.29 f199 -12.32 -28.29 f195 -12.32 -28.94 g133 11.61 26.12 g126 12.07 24.55 h145 15.21 25.47 h139 17.16 27.99 i155 11.61 26.12 i151 12.07 24.55
20
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 0.00 e 0.00 f 0.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.03 8.47 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.91 8.08 b94 9.57 12.32 b82 8.95 11.24 c118 5.03 8.47 c104 4.91 8.08 0.00 -7.80 d160 0.00 -7.80 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 -8.87 e183 0.00 -8.87 f199 0.00 -7.80 f195 0.00 -7.80 g133 4.91 8.08 g126 5.03 8.47 h145 8.95 11.24 h139 9.57 12.32 i155 4.91 8.08 i151 5.03 8.47

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.07 18.85 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 11.61 19.96 b94 17.16 21.94 b82 15.21 18.84 c118 12.07 18.85 c104 11.61 16.96 0.00 -15.97 d160 0.00 -15.97 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 -12.80 e183 0.00 -12.80 f199 0.00 -15.97 f195 0.00 -15.97 g133 11.61 16.96 g126 12.07 18.85 h145 15.21 18.84 h139 17.16 21.94 i155 11.61 16.96 i151 12.07 18.85
21
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e 0.00 f -1.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.03 8.40 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.91 7.16 b94 9.57 12.32 b82 8.95 11.24 c118 5.03 8.55 c104 4.91 8.99 2.45 -5.35 d160 2.45 -5.35 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 -8.87 e183 0.00 -8.87 f199 -2.45 10.24 f195 -2.45 -10.24 g133 4.91 7.16 g126 5.03 8.40 h145 8.95 11.24 h139 9.57 12.32 i155 4.91 8.99 i151 5.03 8.55

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.07 18.88 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 11.61 15.31 b94 17.16 21.94 b82 15.21 18.84 c118 12.07 18.82 c104 11.61 18.61 4.19 -11.78 d160 4.19 -11.78 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 -12.80 e183 0.00 -12.80 f199 -4.19 -20.16 f195 -4.19 -20.16 g133 11.61 15.31 g126 12.07 18.88 h145 15.21 18.84 h139 17.16 21.94 i155 11.61 18.61 i151 12.07 18.82
22
Table 21 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for axial loadings

a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.03 6.04 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.91 3.70 b94 9.57 8.84 b82 8.95 7.45 c118 5.03 6.04 c104 4.91 3.70 5.54 -2.26 d160 5.54 -2.26 Gauge positions d172 e189 10.95 2.08 e183 10.95 2.08 f199 5.54 -2.26 f195 5.54 -2.26 g133 4.91 3.70 g126 5.03 6.04 h145 8.95 7.45 h139 9.57 8.84 i155 4.91 3.70 i151 5.03 6.04

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.07 13.15 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 11.61 7.80 b94 17.16 15.89 b82 15.21 12.22 c118 12.07 13.15 c104 11.61 7.80 Gauge positions d172 12.32 -3.65 d160 12.32 -3.65 e189 16.14 3.34 e183 16.14 3.34 f199 12.32 -3.65 f195 12.32 -3.65 g133 11.61 7.80 g126 12.07 13.15 h145 15.21 12.22 h139 17.16 15.89 i155 11.61 7.80 i151 12.07 13.15
23
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 0.00 e 0.00 f 0.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.06 1.81 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.30 2.08 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 -2.06 -1.81 c104 -2.30 -2.08 0.00 -1.07 d160 0.00 1.07 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 0.00 1.07 f195 0.00 -1.07 g133 -2.30 -2.08 g126 -2.06 -1.81 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 2.30 2.08 i151 2.06 1.81

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 3.88 3.73 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.14 3.93 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 -3.88 -3.73 c104 -4.14 -3.93 0.00 -2.04 d160 0.00 2.04 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 0.00 2.04 f195 0.00 -2.04 g133 -4.14 -3.93 g126 -3.88 -3.73 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 4.14 3.93 i151 3.88 3.73
24
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 1.00 e 0.00 f -1.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.06 1.74 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.30 1.17 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 -2.06 -1.74 c104 -2.30 1.17 2.45 1.37 d160 2.45 3.52 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 -2.45 -1.37 f195 -2.45 -3.52 g133 -2.30 -3.00 g126 -2.06 -1.81 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 2.30 3.00 i151 2.06 1.88

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 3.88 3.76 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.14 2.28 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 -3.88 -3.76 c104 -4.14 -2.28 4.19 2.15 d160 4.19 6.23 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 -4.19 -2.15 f195 -4.19 -6.23 g133 -4.14 -5.58 g126 -3.88 -3.70 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 4.14 5.58 i151 3.88 3.70
25
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.06 -.62 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.30 -2.30 b94 0.00 -3.49 b82 0.00 -3.79 c118 -2.06 -4.24 c104 -2.30 -6.46 5.54 4.47 d160 5.54 6.61 Gauge positions d172 e189 10.95 10.95 e183 10.95 10.95 f199 5.54 6.61 f195 5.54 4.47 g133 -2.30 -6.46 g126 -2.06 -4.24 h145 0.00 3.79 h139 0.00 3.49 i155 2.30 -2.30 i151 2.06 -.62

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 3.88 -1.97 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.14 -5.23 b94 0.00 -6.05 b82 0.00 -6.62 c118 -3.88 -9.43 c104 -4.14 13.09 Gauge positions d172 12.32 10.28 d160 12.32 14.36 e189 16.14 16.14 e183 16.14 16.14 f199 12.32 14.36 f195 12.32 10.28 g133 -4.14 -13.09 g126 -3.88 -9.43 h145 0.00 -6.62 h139 0.00 -6.05 i155 4.14 -5.23 i151 3.88 -1.97
26
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d -1.00 e -1.00 f -1.00
6.A2 Predicted chord saddle SCG's

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.31 8.00 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 5.37 10.15 b94 10.35 14.26 b82 10.27 14.76 Gauge positions c118 5.31 8.00 c104 5.37 10.15 d172 -5.37 -10.15 d160 -5.31 -8.00 e189 -10.27 -14.76 e183 -10.35 -14.26 f199 -5.37 -10.15 f195 -5.31 -8.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.66 18.86 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 12.07 21.86 b94 18.24 24.59 b82 15.14 21.89 Gauge positions c118 12.66 18.86 c104 12.07 21.86 d172 -12.07 -21.86 d160 -12.66 -18.86 e189 -15.14 -21.89 e183 -18.24 -24.59 f199 12.07 -21.86 f195 -12.66 -18.86
27
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d -1.00 e 0.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.14 2.20 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.43 3.40 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 Gauge positions c118 -2.14 -2.20 c104 -2.43 -3.40 d172 -2.43 -3.40 d160 -2.14 -2.20 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 2.43 3.40 f195 2.14 2.20
Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 3.83 3.79 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.12 5.92 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00
Gauge positions c118 -3.83 -3.79 c104 -4.12 -5.92 d172 -4.12 -5.79 d160 -3.83 -3.79 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 4.12 5.92 f195 3.83 3.79
28
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 1.00 e 0.00 f -1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.14 2.08 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.43 1.46 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 Gauge positions c118 -2.14 -2.08 c104 -2.43 -1.46 d172 -2.43 1.46 d160 2.14 2.08 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 -2.43 -1.46 f195 -2.14 -2.08

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 3.83 3.87 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.12 2.32 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 Gauge positions c118 -3.83 -3.87 c104 -4.12 -2.32 d172 4.12 2.32 d160 3.83 3.87 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 -4.12 -2.32 f195 -3.83 -3.87
29
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 5.18 8.42 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 5.27 9.00 b94 9.66 12.22 b82 9.00 11.56 Gauge positions c118 5.18 8.42 c104 5.27 9.00 g172 5.27 9.00 g160 5.18 8.42 h189 9.00 11.56 h183 9.66 12.22 i199 5.27 9.00 i195 5.18 8.42

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 12.43 19.12 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 12.60 19.16 b94 17.43 21.97 b82 15.49 19.37 Gauge positions c118 12.43 19.12 c104 12.60 19.16 g172 12.60 19.16 f160 12.43 19.12 h189 15.49 19.37 h183 17.43 21.97 i199 12.60 19.16 i195 12.43 19.12
30
a 1.00 b 0.00 c 1.00 g 1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00


31
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 2.16 1.92 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.24 1.90 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 Gauge positions c118 -2.16 -1.92 c104 -2.24 -1.90 g172 -2.24 -1.90 g160 -2.16 -1.92 h189 0.00 0.00 h183 0.00 0.00 i199 2.24 1.90 i195 2.16 1.92

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar 4.05 3.94 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.05 3.95 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 Gauge positions c118 -4.05 -3.94 c104 -4.05 -3.95 g172 -4.05 -3.95 g160 -4.05 -3.94 h189 0.00 0.00 h183 0.00 0.00 i199 4.05 3.95 i195 4.05 3.94
32
Table 32 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B. loading Applied nominal brace moments
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 0.00 e 0.00 f 0.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -3.76 -4.22 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 3.67 4.27 b94 -5.05 -5.34 b82 4.47 4.78 c118 -3.76 -4.22 c104 3.67 4.27 0.00 1.24 d160 0.00 -1.24 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 .90 e183 0.00 -.90 f199 0.00 1.24 f195 0.00 -1.24 g133 -3.67 -4.27 g126 3.76 4.22 h145 -4.47 -4.78 h139 5.05 5.34 i155 -3.67 -4.27 i151 3.76 4.22

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -7.92 -8.63 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 7.95 9.27 b94 -9.86 -10.21 b82 8.87 9.47 c118 -7.92 -8.63 c104 7.95 9.27 0.00 2.15 d160 0.00 -2.15 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 1.36 e183 0.00 -1.36 f199 0.00 2.15 f195 0.00 -2.15 g133 -7.95 -9.27 g126 7.92 8.63 h145 -8.87 -9.47 h139 9.86 10.21 i155 -7.95 -9.27 i151 7.92 8.63
33
Table 33 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B. loadings Applied nominal brace moments
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00 g 1.00 h 1.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -3.76 -3.08 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 3.67 4.34 b94 -5.05 -4.12 b82 4.47 5.18 c118 -3.76 -3.08 c104 3.67 4.34 Gauge positions d172 -4.03 -2.80 d160 4.03 2.80 e189 -5.37 -4.48 e183 5.37 4.48 f199 -4.03 -2.80 f195 4.03 2.80 g133 -3.67 -4.34 g126 3.76 3.08 h145 -4.47 -5.18 h139 5.05 4.12 i155 -3.67 -4.34 i151 3.76 3.08

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -7.92 -6.18 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 7.95 9.88 b94 -9.86 -7.89 b82 8.87 10.56 c118 -7.92 -6.18 c104 7.95 9.88 Gauge positions d172 -8.32 -6.16 d160 8.32 6.16 e189 -9.23 -7.87 e183 9.23 7.87 f199 -8.32 -6.16 f195 8.32 6.16 g133 -7.95 -9.88 g126 7.92 6.18 h145 -8.87 -10.56 h139 9.86 7.89 i155 -7.95 -9.88 i151 7.92 6.18
34
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 0.00 e 0.00 f 0.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -2.25 -2.31 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.27 2.28 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 2.25 2.31 c104 -2.27 -2.28 0.00 -.75 d160 0.00 -.75 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 0.00 .75 f195 0.00 .75 g133 2.27 2.28 g126 -2.25 -2.31 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 -2.27 -2.28 i151 2.25 2.31

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -3.91 -3.95 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.10 4.20 b94 0.00 0.00 b82 0.00 0.00 c118 3.91 3.95 c104 -4.10 -4.20 0.00 -1.51 d160 0.00 -1.51 Gauge positions d172 e189 0.00 0.00 e183 0.00 0.00 f199 0.00 1.51 f195 0.00 1.51 g133 4.10 4.20 g126 -3.91 -3.95 h145 0.00 0.00 h139 0.00 0.00 i155 -4.10 -4.20 i151 3.91 3.95
35
a 1.00 b 0.00 c -1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00 g -1.00 h 0.00 i 1.00

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -2.25 -1.17 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 2.27 2.35 b94 0.00 1.22 b82 0.00 .41 c118 2.25 3.45 c104 -2.27 -2.20 Gauge positions d172 -4.03 -4.78 d160 4.03 3.29 e189 -5.37 -5.37 e183 5.37 5.37 f199 -4.03 -3.29 f195 4.03 4.78 g133 2.27 2.20 g126 -2.25 -3.45 h145 0.00 -.41 h139 0.00 -1.22 i155 -2.27 -2.35 i151 2.25 1.17

Calculation method a71 Single plan Multi-planar -3.91 -1.51 a34 Single plan Multi-planar 4.10 4.81 b94 0.00 2.32 b82 0.00 1.09 c118 3.91 6.40 c104 -4.10 -3.59 Gauge positions d172 -8.32 -9.83 d160 8.32 6.80 e189 -9.23 -9.23 e183 9.23 9.23 f199 -8.32 -6.80 f195 8.32 9.83 g133 4.10 3.59 g126 -3.91 -6.40 h145 0.00 -1.09 h139 0.00 -2.32 i155 -4.10 -4.81 i151 3.91 1.51
36
Table 36 Comparison of sinlge-plane chord saddle SCF's with parametric equations
Loading Balanced axial Unbalanced OPB
Joint 7.A1 7.A1
Average measured SCF 3.03 7.9
SCF from parametric equations Wordsworth 3.69 8.73 Efthymiou 3.99 7.74 Kuang 3.65 -
37
Measuring position Brace a a b b Gauge 76 4 133 117 a 1.00 1.00 .56 .56 a 6.89 Loaded brace b .56 .56 1.00 1.00 b 6.89
Table 38 Task 7.A2 - SCF at the chord saddle positions for axial load
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d Gauge 76 4 133 117 192 198 201 204 a 1.00 .90 .56 .47 -.60 -.32 -.48 -.35 a 6.75 b .56 .47 1.00 .90 -.48 -.35 -.60 -.32 Loaded brace c -.32 -.60 -.35 -.48 .90 1.00 .47 .56 d -.35 -.48 -.32 -.60 .47 .56 .90 1.00 d 6.75
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs b c 6.75 6.75
38
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d Gauge 76 4 133 117 163 139 186 176 a 1.00 .92 .54 .51 -.34 -.37 -.35 -.37 a 7.00 b .54 .51 1.00 .92 -.35 -.37 -.34 -.37 Loaded brace e -.37 -.34 -.37 -.35 .92 1.00 .51 .54 f -.37 -.35 -.37 -.34 .51 .54 .92 1.00 f 7.00
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs b e 7.00 7.00
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 76 4 133 117 192 198 201 204 163 139 186 176 a 1.00 .87 .55 .46 -.62 -.27 -.49 -.29 .30 .38 .30 .38 a 6.79 b .55 .46 1.00 .87 -.49 -.29 -.62 -.27 .30 .38 .30 .38 b 6.79 Loaded brace c -.34 -.64 -.37 -.52 1.00 1.00 .53 .53 -.64 -.34 -.52 -.37 c 6.09 d -.37 -.52 -.34 -.64 .53 .53 1.00 1.00 -.52 -.37 -.64 -.34 d 6.09 e .38 .30 .38 .30 -.27 -.62 -.29 -.49 .87 1.00 .46 .55 e 6.79 f .38 .30 .38 .30 -.29 -.49 -.27 -.62 .46 .55 .87 1.00 f 6.79
39
Table 41 Task 7.A1 - SCF ration at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B.
Measuring position Brace a a b b Gauge 76 4 133 117 a -1.00 1.00 -.39 .39 a 5.69 Loaded brace b -.39 .39 -1.00 1.00 b 5.69
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d Gauge 76 4 133 117 192 198 201 204 a -1.00 .95 -.40 .36 -.11 -.19 .01 -.21 a 5.61 b -.40 .36 -1.00 .95 .01 -.21 -.11 -.19 Loaded brace c .19 .11 .21 -.01 -.95 1.00 -.36 .40 d .21 -.01 .19 .11 -.36 .40 -.95 1.00 d 5.61
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs b c 5.61 5.61
40
Measuring position Brace a a b b e e f f Gauge 76 4 133 117 163 139 186 176 a -1.00 .97 -.40 .38 -.06 .06 -.07 .06 a 5.74 b -.40 .38 -1.00 .97 -.07 .06 -.06 .06 Loaded brace e -.06 .06 -.06 .07 -.97 1.00 -.38 .40 f -.06 .07 -.06 .06 -.38 .40 -.97 1.00 f 5.74
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs b e 5.74 5.74
Measuring position Brace a a b b c c d d e e f f Gauge 76 4 133 117 192 198 201 204 163 139 186 176 a -1.00 .96 -.40 .37 -.12 -.20 0.00 -.21 -.09 -.06 -1.0 .06 a 5.63 b -.40 .37 -1.00 .96 0.00 -.21 -.12 -.20 -.10 .06 -.09 .06 Loaded brace c .22 .13 .23 .01 -1.00 1.00 -.39 .39 -.13 -.22 -.01 -.23 d .23 .01 .22 .13 -.39 .39 -1.00 1.00 -.01 -.23 -.13 -.22 e -.06 .09 -.06 .10 .20 .12 .21 -0.00 -.96 1.00 -.37 .40 f -.06 .10 -.06 .09 .21 -0.00 .20 .12 -.37 .40 -.96 1.00 f 5.63
Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs b c d e 5.63 5.34 5.34 5.63
41
a 1.00 b 1.00 c -1.00 d -1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 10.49 19.95 a4 8.98 20.12 b133 10.49 19.95 b117 8.98 20.12 Gauge positions
c192
-9.32 -20.95 c198 -9.32 -20.62
d201 -9.32 -20.62 d204 -9.32 -20.62
e163 8.98 20.12 e139 10.49 19.95
f186 8.98 20.12 f176 10.49 19.95
Single plane Multi-planar
42
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

c192
0.00 -11.30 c198 0.00 -11.30
d201 0.00 -11.30 d204 0.00 -11.30
e163 8.98 13.08 e139 10.49 15.66
f186 8.98 13.08 f176 10.49 15.66
43
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d -1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

c192
2.86 -8.44 c198 2.86 -8.44
d201 -2.86 -14.16 d204 -2.86 -14.16
e163 8.98 12.38 e139 10.49 15.83
f186 8.98 13.77 f176 10.49 15.48
44
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

c192
9.32 -1.98 c198 9.32 -1.98
d201 9.32 -1.98 d204 9.32 -1.98
e163 8.98 6.03 e139 10.49 11.37
f186 8.98 6.03 f176 10.49 11.37
45
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 3.09 3.06 a4 2.80 2.75 b133 -3.09 -3.06 b117 -2.80 -2.75 Gauge positions
c192
0.00 -.97 c198 0.00 .97
d201 0.00 .97 d204 0.00 -.97
e163 -2.80 -2.75 e139 -3.09 -3.06
f186 2.80 2.75 f176 3.09 3.06
46
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 1.00 d -1.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 3.09 3.24 a4 2.80 2.06 b133 -3.09 -3.24 b117 -2.80 -2.06 Gauge positions
c192
2.86 1.89 c198 2.86 3.83
d201 -2.86 -1.89 d204 -2.86 -3.83
e163 -2.80 -3.45 e139 -3.09 -2.89
f186 2.80 3.45 f176 3.09 2.89
47
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 3.09 -1.23 a4 2.80 -4.29 b133 -3.09 -7.36 b117 -2.80 -9.80 Gauge positions
c192
9.32 8.35 c198 9.32 10.28
d201 9.32 10.28 d204 9.32 8.35
e163 -2.80 -9.80 e139 -3.09 -7.36
f186 2.80 -4.29 f176 3.09 -1.23
48
a 1.00 b 1.00 c -1.00 d -1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 10.54 15.10 a4 9.30 16.56 Gauge positions b133 10.54 15.10 b117 9.30 16.56
c192
-9.30 -16.56 c198 -10.54 -15.10
d201 -9.30 -16.56 d204 -10.54 -15.10
49
a 1.00 b -1.00 c -1.00 d 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar 2.97 2.77 a4 2.89 3.72 Gauge positions b133 -2.97 -2.77 b117 -2.89 -3.72
c192
-2.89 -3.72 c198 -2.97 -2.77
d201 2.89 3.72 d204 2.97 2.77
50
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 1.00 d -1.00

c192
2.89 2.06 c198 2.97 3.17
d201 -2.89 -2.06 d204 -2.97 -3.17
51
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00

c192
9.30 2.04 c198 10.54 5.99
d201 9.30 2.04 d204 10.54 5.99
52
a 1.00 b 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

e92
10.03 14.87 c198 10.77 15.94
f01 10.03 14.87 d204 10.77 15.94
53
a 1.00 b -1.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

e192
-2.89 -2.91 c198 -3.22 -3.19
f201 2.89 2.91 d204 3.22 3.19
54
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar -7.85 -8.54 a4 7.47 8.52 b133 -7.85 -8.54 b117 7.47 8.52 Gauge positions
c192
0.00 1.69 c198 0.00 -1.69
d201 0.00 1.69 d204 0.00 -1.69
e163 -7.47 -8.52 e139 7.85 8.54
f186 -7.47 -8.52 f176 7.85 8.54
55
a 1.00 b 1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e 1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar -7.85 -6.16 a4 7.47 9.22 b133 -7.85 -6.16 b117 7.47 9.22 Gauge positions
c192
-7.40 -5.71 c198 7.40 5.71
d201 -7.40 -5.71 d204 7.40 5.71
e163 -7.47 -9.22 e139 7.85 6.16
f186 -7.47 -9.22 f176 7.85 6.16
56
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 1.00 d 1.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar -3.40 -1.04 a4 3.36 4.09 b133 3.40 5.80 b117 -3.36 -2.68 Gauge positions
c192
-7.40 -8.00 c198 7.40 6.79
d201 -7.40 -6.79 d204 7.40 8.00
e163 3.36 2.68 e139 -3.40 -5.80
f186 -3.36 -4.09 f176 3.40 1.04
57
Table 61 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for O.P.B loadings Applied nominal brace moments
a 1.00 b -1.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 e -1.00 f 1.00

Calculation method a76 Single plane Multi-planar -3.40 -3.42 a4 3.36 3.38 b133 3.40 3.42 b117 -3.36 -3.38 Gauge positions
c192
0.00 -.61 c198 0.00 -.61
d201 0.00 .61 d204 0.00 .61
e163 3.36 3.38 e139 -3.40 -3.42
f186 -3.36 -3.38 f176 3.40 3.42
58
FIGURES
1-2 3 4-6 7-9 Geometric details of Task 6 KT joints Geometric details of Task 7 K joints Location of chord saddle strain gauges on KT joint Location of chord saddle strain gauges on K joint
59
Loading condition: axial load and out-of-plane bending applied to each main brace in turn Figure 1 Task 6.A
60
Loading condition: axial load and out-of-plane bending applied to each main brace in turn Figure 2 Task 6.B
61
Loading condition: axial load and out-of-plane bending applied to each main brace in turn Figure 3 Task 7.A
62
63
64
65
REFERENCES
1 WORDSWORTH A.C Stress concentration factors at K and KT tubular joints. Fatigue in offshore structural steel, ICE, London, 1981. EFTHYMIOU M and DURKIN S. Stress concentrations in T/Y and gap/overlap K-joints. BOSS conference, Delft, 1985 KUANG J.G. POTVIN A.B., LEICK R.D. and KAHLICH J.L. Stress concentration in tubular joints. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, August 1977.
66
APPENDIX A - ACRYLIC MODELLING CONTENTS

Page A1. A2. STRAIN GAUGE POSITIONING EXTRAPOLATION PROCEDURES 68 69
67
A1. STRAIN GAUGE POSITIONING

The strains gauge locations for all joints in this programme of work were essentially similar. Sets of three strain gauge rosettes were fitted at five separate locations around one quadrant of the brace to chord intersection whilst at the two opposing crown and saddle positions four single element gauges were fitted, three of them on a single axis aligned normal to the tube junction. At each location the gauge nearest to the junction was positioned approximately 0.2 (rt) from the junction to avoid the local notch effect. At the saddle position the second gauge was placed at approximately 5o of the chord arc from the junction on the chord side and 0.65 (rt) on the brace side. At the crown position the second gauge was placed at approximately 0.4 (rtRT) from the junction on the chord side and 0.65 (rt) on the brace side. The third gauge was spaced back from the second a distance equal to the separation of the first two gauges.
68
A2. EXTRAPOLATION PROCEDURES

The extrapolation methods used to determine the brace to chord intersection SCFs at various positions are described below:METHOD 1 A linear extrapolation of the SCFs corresponding to the principal stresses at the two rosettes nearest the junction. At the rosette nearest the intersection the largest of the numerical principal stress SCFs is used and at the second rosette the SCF which is algebraically nearest to it. Thus, with SCFs of -3 and 1 at the nearest rosette and -1 and 2 at the other one, the extrapolation would be carried out through -3 and -1. METHOD 2 As for Method 1 except that a non-linear extrapolation is used on a quadratic curve through the three measuring points. METHOD 3 A linear extrapolation is carried out of the SNCFs based on the strains normal to the intersection at the two points nearest to the intersection. This is then converted to an SCF using SNCF90 (ie the SNCF corresponding to the strain parallel to the intersection at the measuring point nearest to the intersection). SNCF + ( m X SNCF90) SCF = 1 - m2 where m = Poisson's Ratio METHOD 4 As for Method 3 but using a non-linear extrapolation on a quadratic curve through the three measuring points. METHOD 5 Data given in this method is either the SNCF at an isolated single element gauge or the SCF corresponding to the greatest principal stress at an isolated rosette.
69
The method of extrapolation which can be employed at the various gauge configurations at each position around the junction are therefore as follows:(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Single isolated rosette or single element gauge Two single element gauges aligned normal to the intersection with one orthogonal gauge Three single element gauges aligned normal to the intersection with one orthogonal gauge Two 45o rosettes, each with one element aligned normal to the intersection Three 45o rosettes, each with one element aligned normal to the intersection 5 3 3&4 1&3 1, 2, 3 & 4
70
PART 2 OVERLAPPED JOINTS
71
72
1. INTRODUCTION
Work on overlapped joints is this project has been rather limited since it was known at the beginning that other work was already planned. Some such work has now been completed (ie the Efthymiou and Durkin paper presented at the 1985 BOSS Conference). The main work in this project (ie Tasks 8.A and 8.B) consisted of eight overlapped joints which were investigated using mainly finite element (FE) techniques with some back-up acrylic modelling. One specimen was similar to the steel overlapped K joint tested in the UKOSRP II programme. Towards the end of the project Veritec kindly made available the results of two steel overlapped joint tests including also associated FE results. An acrylic model test of one of these configurations has also been completed and the details of this and the Veritec joint are reported here in Appendix A. It was never intended to produce SCF equations for overlapped joints in this project, the work essentially being an SCF comparison study. For completeness all specimen geometric details are included in this report together with SCF comparisons of measured and predicted values from various sources.
73
2. TEST DETAILS
The overlapped joint tests carried out in this project were as follows: 2.1 TASK 8.A Four N joint with brace angles of 90o and 45o, see Figure 1. All four specimens were analysed by KSEPL (the Hague) using the PMB Shell FE program and by Wimpey using the PAFEC FE system employing semi-loof elements. Specimens 8.A1 and 8.A2 were also tested using acrylic modelling as back-up to the FE results. 2.2 TASK 8.B
Four K joints with both brace angles 60o, see Figure 2. These four specimens were only analysed by KSEPL. 2.3 VERITEC CONFIGURATION One K joint with both brace angels 60o, see Figure 3. This joint configuration was tested using an acrylic model at a scale approximately 1/3.45 of the steel joint.
74
3. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
SCFs have been measured for different loading conditions; Figures 4 and 5 show the loading cases considered by KSEPL for Tasks 8.A and 8.B respectively. Only the more common loading cases were considered by Wimpey and in the acrylic model tests. The comparison of measured and predicted SCFs for Task 8 are given in Tables 1 to 16. The SCF comparison for the Veritec configuration is given in Table 17; here only the balanced axial loading case was considered. Figures 6 to 12 show typical SCF distribution plots for the more important loading cases.
75
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION In the Task 8 SCF comparisons, Tables 1 to 16, for the single loaded brace cases the measured SCFs have been compared with predicted values from the Wordsworth/Smedley(1), Efthymiou/Durkin(2) and Kuang et al(3) T/Y simple joint parametric equations. For the more usual cases where both braces are loaded the only SCF parametric equations that specifically include overlapped joints are those presented by Efthymiou and Durkin at the 1985 BOSS Conference(2). In the past the offshore industry has used the simple non-overlapped K joint equations substituting for the g/D (brace gap to chord diameter) parameter a value of 0.01. In the SCF comparisons, with both braces loaded, the Efthymiou equations have been considered together with those of Wordsworth(4) and Kuang et al(3) with g/D = 0.01. 4.2 TASK 8 4.2.1 Single brace loaded cases
From the SCF comparisons, Tables 1 to 16, it can be seen that generally there is reasonable agreement for all measured and predicted SCFs. 4.2.2 Balanced axial loading
Balanced axial loading is a common loading case for K joints. The effect of the high degree of overlap, in the joints considered, is that a large proportion of the load is transferred through the common weld between the braces. This tends to produce the maximum brace stresses in the common weld by virtue of the through brace acting as a chord to the overlapping brace. From the SCF comparison, Tables 1 to 16, it can be seen that generally SCFs are considerably reduced compared with the single brace loaded cases. With respect to measured and predicted SCFs for balanced axial loading, all equations considered are generally conservative. The closet agreement is obtained using the Efthymiou equations which is not surprising since these formulae were specifically developed for overlapped joints. In addition, most of the measures SCFs in Task 8 were obtained by KSEPL using the same FE technique as used to develop the equations. Typical plots of the chord and brace measured SCF distribution are shown in Figures 6 and 7. It can be seen that reasonable agreement is obtained for the different SCF measurement methods considered.
4.2.3
Unbalanced axial loading
Here, unbalanced axial loading from Task 8.B is considered. Although high SCFs are produced in this case, see Tables 5 to 8 and 13 to 16, two braces loaded axially in the same sense is not a common case. In the SCF comparisons the closest agreement 76
is obtained using the Efthymiou equations. The equations used to obtain the Kuang SCFs were developed for balanced axial loading and, as can be seen, give a high underprediction when used for the unbalanced axial loading case. 4.2.4 Unbalanced out-of-plane bending
This is considered to be an important case for K and N type joints, as this geometry is often subjected to out-of-plane bending (OPB) due to vertical wave loading in conductor guide frame areas. When both braces are loaded in the same sense a carry-over effect is produced from one brace to the other which increases the chord and brace saddle SCFs well above the single brace loaded cases, see Tables 1 to 16. This is the opposite effect to that for balanced axial loading, as discussed in Section 4.2.2. With respect to SCF comparison, Table 1 to 16, using the Wordsworth and Kuang equations could lead to high underprediction. As for the balanced axial loading case the Efthymiou equations give the closet agreement with measured SCFs, the maximum underprediction being 13% (specimen 8.B3 for both chord and brace sides). Typical plots of the chord and brace measured SCF distribution are shown in Figures 8 to 10; good agreement is obtained for the different SCF measurement methods considered. 4.2.5 Balanced out-of-plane bending
The reverse effect to the unbalanced OPB case discussed in Section 4.2.4 occurs, with the SCFs being relatively low, see Tables 1 to 16. In this case all equations give highly conservative SCFs including those of Efthymiou. Although the Efthymiou equations give the closet agreement there is a maximum overprediction approaching 400% (specimen 8.B4 chord side). For a typical SCF distribution plot see Figure 11. 4.2.6 Balanced in-plane bending
For chord SCFs the parametric equations tend to overpredict and in general the Efthymiou equation gives the closest agreement, see Tables 1 to 8. For the brace, Task 8.A specimens - Tables 9 to 12, all equations tend to underpredict the maximum SCF that occurs in the common weld. For the Task 8.B specimens, Tables 13 to 16, the Efthymiou equation gives close agreement. Using the Efthymiou equation the maximum underprediction is 32% for specimens 8.A1 and 8.A2. For a typical SCF distribution plot see Figure 12.
4.2.7
Unbalanced in-plane bending
From Tables 1 to 8 it can be seen that for the chord, reasonable agreement is obtained between measured and predicted SCFs with in general the Efthymiou equation giving the closest agreement. As for balanced IPB there is some 77
underprediction of brace SCFs, Tables 9 to 16, with the Efthymiou equation giving the closest agreement.
78
4.3 VERITEC CONFIGURATION (BALANCED AXIAL LOADING) The details of the Veritec steel, FE and LRS acrylic model tests are given in Appendix A. An SCF comparison of measured and predicted values from parametric equations is given in Table 17. The equations have been applied in the same way as outlined in Section 4.1 for Task 8 with both braces loaded. When comparing the measured SCFs it can be seen that very good agreement has been obtained by Veritec for the steel and FE results. It should be noted that Veritec have used the same PMB Shell FE program as used by KSEPL in Task 8 and by Efthymiou in developing the published equations(2). The measured SCFs from the acrylic model test tend to be lower than the Veritec results. With respect to the steel joint, this is partially due to the different strain gauge positions and extrapolation procedures adopted, see Appendix A, Section A4. Regarding predicted SCFs from parametric equations, these are all conservative, the closest agreement being with the Efthymiou equations, as also found in Task 8.
79
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Stress concentration factors for a limited number of overlapped N and K joints have been determined using a number of different techniques, namely FE analysis, acrylic and steel modelling. These measured SCFs have been compared with existing parametric equations including those published by Efthymiou/Durkin. For the common balanced axial loading case, from previous work, overlapping tends to produce lower SCFs than for the non-overlapped case. From the work carried out in Task 8, SCFs were much lower than for the single brace loaded cases. In the SCF comparisons with parametric equations the predicted SCFs were generally conservative, with the closest agreement being obtained using the Efthymiou equations. This was the case for both Task 8 and the Veritec joint configuration. For unbalanced axial loading, which is not a common loading case, relatively high SCFs were produced, see section 4.2.3. For the major OPB case (ie unbalanced with both braces loaded in the same sense), again from previous work, SCFs tend to be higher than for the non-overlapped case. From the work carried out in Task 8, for unbalanced OPB the SCFs were much higher than for the single brace loaded cases. In the SCF comparisons, using the Wordsworth and Kuang equations, substituting 0.01 for the g/D term, could leave to high underprediction. As for the balanced axial loading case the Efthymiou equations gave the closest agreement with measured SCFs, maximum underprediction being 13%. For the IPB cases the parametric equations can underpredict the maximum brace SCF in the common weld between the braces. Generally, the Efthymiou equations gave the closest agreement with a maximum underprediction of 32%. The main conclusion from the overlapped joint work carried out in this project is that considering all modes of loading the Efthymiou equations give the closest agreement to measured SCFs. However, some caution should be exercised with respect to brace SCFs where there is significant IPB. The Veritec configuration investigation highlighted the differences in strain gauge positions and extrapolation procedures between the DEn recommendations and those used elsewhere (ie by Veritec). This non-standardisation can lead to differences in extrapolated SCFs and requires further investigation.
80
TABLES
1-4 Comparison of maximum measured chord SCFs and parametric equations for Task 8.A Comparison of maximum measured chord SCFs and parametric equations for Task 8.B Comparison of maximum measured brace SCFs and parametric equations for Task 8.A Comparison of maximum measured brace SCFs and parametric equations for Task 8.B Comparison of maximum measured SCFs and parametric equations for Veritec configuration
5-8
9-12
13-16
17
81
Table 1 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.A1 ( c = 14.3, i = 0.5)
Loading Measured SCF's KSEPL Axial load vertical brace Axial load inclined brace Balanced axial load OPB vertical brace OPB inclined brace Balanced OPB Unbalanced OPB IPB vertical brace Balanced IPB Unbalanced IPB 7.0 4.5 2.1 4.8 3.1 1.9 7.8 2.0 1.5 2.8 1.3 2.0 8.6 Wimpey 7.2 4.8 1.8 Acrylic 5.6 4.2 1.5 4.4 3.1 1.1 7.7 1.7 1.5 2.2 Max SCF's chord side Parametric SCF's Efthymiou 7.4 4.3 2.7 4.9 2.9 3.7 7.9 2.3 2.5 2.8 Wordsworth 8.0 4.3 4.1 6.0 3.4 4.0 6.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 Kuang 6.5 3.6 3.1 5.1 3.0 5.1* 5.1* 2.5 2.5* 2.5*
* T/Y equations used
82
Table 2 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.A2 ( c = 14.3, i = 0.86)
Loading Measured SCF's KSEPL Axial load vertical brace Axial load inclined brace Balanced axial load OPB vertical brace OPB inclined brace Balanced OPB Unbalanced OPB IPB vertical brace Balanced IPB Unbalanced IPB 12.8 7.1 4.0 7.7 4.8 2.8 12.5 2.8 1.8 4.0 1.4 2.7 12.9 11.7 2.2 1.3 3.2 Wimpey 11.2 7.3 2.7 Acrylic 9.4 6.5 2.2 7.1 4.6 Max SCF's chord side Parametric SCF's Efthymiou 13.5 7.7 4.3 8.4 5.0 6.4 13.5 3.7 3.4 4.5 Wordsworth 13.7 7.3 7.0 10.3 5.8 6.9 11.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 Kuang 13.4 7.4 5.7 8.2 4.8 8.2* 8.2* 4.2 4.2* 4.2*
83
Table 3 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.A3 ( c = 24, i = 0.5)
Loading Measured SCF's KSEPL Axial load vertical brace Axial load inclined brace Balanced axial load OPB vertical brace OPB inclined brace Balanced OPB Unbalanced OPB IPB vertical brace Balanced IPB Unbalanced IPB 11.2 7.5 2.8 7.9 5.2 2.8 13.0 2.8 1.8 3.9 1.6 2.9 13.6 Wimpey 10.7 7.2 2.5 Efthymiou 12.4 7.1 3.4 7.6 4.6 5.8 12.3 3.3 3.5 3.9 Max SCF's chord side Parametric SCF's Wordsworth 13.4 7.2 5.3 10.0 5.7 6.0 12.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 Kuang 9.9 5.5 4.4 8.6 5.0 8.6* 8.6* 3.1 3.1* 3.1*
84
Table 4 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.A4 ( c = 24, i = 0.86)
Loading Measured SCF's KSEPL Axial load vertical brace Axial load inclined brace Balanced axial load OPB vertical brace OPB inclined brace Balanced OPB Unbalanced OPB IPB vertical brace Balanced IPB Unbalanced IPB 20.0 12.8 4.7 12.8 8.7 4.1 21.5 4.0 2.1 6.5 2.2 4.7 24.0 Wimpey 20.4 13.2 5.1 Efthymiou 22.6 13.0 5.6 13.2 7.9 10.0 21.3 5.2 4.7 6.2 Max SCF's chord side Parametric SCF's Wordsworth 23.1 12.3 9.2 17.3 9.8 10.4 21.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 Kuang 20.4 11.3 8.1 13.9 8.1 13.9* 13.9* 5.1 5.1* 5.1*
85
Table 5 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.B1 ( c = 12, i = 0.5)
Loading Measured SCF's KSEPL Axial load through brace Axial load overlapping brace Balanced axial load Unbalanced axial load OPB on through brace OPB on overlapping brace Balanced OPB Unbalanced OPB IPB through brace IPB overlapping brace Balanced IPB Unbalanced IPB 4.3 4.9 1.7 8.6 3.4 3.4 1.1 6.2 1.7 1.8 Efthymiou 4.9 4.9 1.9 8.0 3.4 3.4 2.1 6.5 1.9 1.9 Max SCF's chord side Parametric SCF's Wordsworth 5.2 5.2 2.8 7.5 4.0 4.0 2.3 4.9 2.0 2.0 Kuang 4.4 4.4 2.2 2.2 3.4 3.4 3.4* 3.4* 2.1 2.1
1.7 2.2
2.0 2.3
2.0 2.0
2.1* 2.1*
86
1.9 3.4
2.7 3.6
3.2 3.2
3.4* 3.4*
87
2.3 3.5
3.2 3.5
3.1 3.1
2.7* 2.7*
88
Table 8 Comparison of maximum chord SCF's and values obtained from parametric equations Specimen 8.B4
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
FIGURES
1 2 3 4 5 6-7 8-10 11 12 Geometric details of Task 8.A specimens Geometric details of Task 8.B specimens Geometric details of Veritec configuration Loading conditions for Task 8.A Loading conditions for Task 8.B Measured SCF distribution plots for balanced axial loading Measured SCF distribution plots for unbalanced OPB Measured SCF distribution plot for balanced OPB Measured SCF distribution plot for balanced IPB
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
REFERENCES
1 WORDSWORTH A.C and SMEDLEY G.P. Stress concentrations at unstiffened tubular joints. European offshore steels research seminar, Cambridge, 1978. EFTHYMIOU M. and DURKIN. Stress concentrations in T/Y and gap/overlap K-joints. BOSS conference, Delft, 1985. KUANG J.G., POTVIN A.B., LEICK R.D. and KAHLICH J.L. Stress concentration in tubular joints. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, August, 1977. WORDSWORTH, A.C. Stress concentration factors at K and KT tubular joints. Fatigue in offshore structural steel, ICE, London, 1981.
2 3
112
APPENDIX A - VERITEC JOINT CONFIGURATION CONTENTS

Page A1. A2. INTRODUCTION VERITEC JOINT CONFIGURATION INVESTIGATION DETAILS A2.1 STEEL JOINT A2.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS A2.3 ACRYLIC MODEL A3. A4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS DISCUSSION OF RESULTS TABLES FIGURES 41 42 42 42 42 43 44 45 48
113
A1. INTRODUCTION
Results from two steel overlapped joint tests and associated FE work have been made available by Veritec. The detailed investigation of one of these joint configurations is presented in this appendix. Measured SCFs from the steel joint tests and from FE analysis using the PMB Shell program, supplied by Veritec, are compared with those obtained by LRS from an acrylic scale model of the joint. In addition, the measured SCFs are compared with those predicted by the parametric equations as described in Section 4.1 of the main report.
114
A2. VERITEC JOINT CONFIGURATION INVESTIGATION DETAILS

The joint parametric configuration and loading condition is given in Figure A1. Three SCF measurement techniques were considered as follows: A2.1 STEEL JOINT The main strain gauge locations are shown in Figure A2. The strain gauges consisted of strips containing five cross gauges 2mm apart and fitted normal top the weld toe with the nearest gauge a distance of 2mm from the toe. In addition to these strain gauges shown, single gauge rosettes were placed close to the weld toe to enable the direction of the principal stresses to be found. A2.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS In addition to the steel joint strain gauge measurements, Veritec also analysed the joint configuration using the PMB Shell FE program. It should be noted that this is the same FE package as used by KSEPL for the Task 8 work and by Efthymiou in developing his published equations. A2.3 ACRYLIC MODEL A scale model of the steel joint of approximately 1/3.45 was tested. Strain gauges were placed at locations around the chord/brace intersection periphery identical to those on the steel joint as shown in Figure A3. The strain gauges consisting of three single rosettes were placed at the same positions, normal to the intersection, as previously used in acrylic model tests (ie DEn recommendations 0.2 rt etc). The SCF extrapolation procedures were again as used in previous acrylic model tests. It should be noted that the acrylic model did not include a weld fillet.
115
A3. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Stress concentration factors are presented for the balanced axial loading condition. Figures A4 to A7 show the average SNCF distributions obtained normal to the weld toe/intersection for the steel and acrylic joints. Table A1 gives the extrapolated SNCFs and SCFs obtained from the steel and acrylic joints at the four different locations. Table A2 shows the chord and brace SCFs for all three measuring techniques. The maximum SCFs are compared with predicted values from parametric equations in Table A3.
116
A4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

For the K joint configuration investigated, results have been obtained using three different techniques (ie strain gauged steel joint, strain gauged acrylic model and FE analysis). The measured results obtained from the steel and acrylic joints are discussed first, as both of these techniques obtained SCFs by extrapolating strain gauge measurements. The SCFs obtained from the steel and acrylic joints are then compared with SCFs determined from FE analysis and those predicted using parametric equations. Figures A4 to A7 show the average SNCF distributions normal to the weld toe/intersection at the four locations around the joint periphery. The difference in stress sampling points (ie strain gauge locations) between the steel and acrylic specimens can be clearly seen, also that SNCFs from the steel joint are generally higher than from the acrylic model. Table A1 shows the extrapolated SNCFs and SCFs at the weld toe and brace/chord intersection for the steel and acrylic specimens respectively. For the steel joint, Veritec have extrapolated from the gauge 4 mm from the weld toe whereas LRS, for the acrylic model, have used the maximum of linear and non-linear extrapolation from the DEn recommended nearest gauge distance 0.2 rt. Hence there are three reasons for differences in extrapolated SNCFs between the steel joint and acrylic model (ie strain gauge positions, measured strains and extrapolation procedure). The steel joint chord and brace SCFs shown in Table A1 were obtained by using the SNCFs, normal and parallel to the weld toe, from the cross gauges and the principal stress direction from the rosette gauge. The equivalent SCFs for the acrylic model were determined using the procedure as used in previous acrylic model tests. Table A2 shows a comparison of these SCFs and those obtained from the FE analysis. It can be seen that good agreement has been achieved by Veritec for the steel joint and SCFs derived from the FE analysis. The SCFs from the acrylic model tend to be lower, particularly on the brace sides of the joint. With respect to the steel joint this difference is partially due to reasons already discussed (ie gauge positions, extrapolation method etc). Table A3 shows an SCF comparison of maximum measured values and those predicted from parametric equations. In all cases the equations are conservative with the closest agreement being obtained using the Efthymiou equations, particularly with the FE results. This is not surprising since the Efthymiou equations apply specifically for overlapped joints and were developed using the same PMB Shell FE package as used by Veritec.
117
TABLES
A1 A2 A3 Extrapolated SNCFs and SCFs for steel and acrylic joints Chord and brace measured SCF comparison Comparison of maximum measured SCFs and parametric equations
118
119
120
FIGURES
A1 A2 A3 A4-A7 Parametric configuration and loading condition Steel joint main strain gauge locations Acrylic specimen strain gauge locations Average SNCF distributions normal to the weld toe/intersection
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

Hse

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hse

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

OTH 91 353

STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR TUBULAR COMPLEX JOINTS

Author Lloyds Register of Shipping 71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS

Health and Safety Executive - Offshore Technology Report

Standing order Service

APPENDIX A - Acrylic Modelling

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS TABLES FIGURES REFERENCES

APPENDIX A - Veritec Joint Configuration

PART 1 MULTI-PLANAR JOINTS

3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

3.3 OBSERVATIONS ON CARRY-OVER EFFECTS

Table 1 Comparison of single-plane chord saddle SCF's with parametric equations

Average measured SCF 2.26 3.22 4.03 6.75

Balanced axial Unbalanced OPB Balanced Axial Unbalanced OPB

6.A1 6.A1 6.B1 6.B1

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs a b c 2.89 4.92 2.89

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs a b c 6.42 8.63 6.42

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

Ratio multiplier to give actual SCFs

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

Table 21 SCF's at the chord saddle positions for axial loadings

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A2 Predicted chord saddle SCG's

6.B2 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A2 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A2 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B2 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B3 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.B4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's

6.A4 Predicted chord saddle SCF's