Ultimate Strength of Tubular Joints
R. B. Pan, SPE-AIME, Exxon Production Research Co.
F. B. Plummer, Exxon Production Research CO.
J. G. Kuang, SPE-AIME,EssoExproU.K.
Introduction
The sizing of tubular joints for ultimate strength is an
important step in the design of offshore platforms. This
process is performed once platform members have been
designed to withstand operational and severe environ-
mental loading conditions. Even though nominal mem-
ber stresses may be at reasonable levels, the complex
behavior of tubular intersections can result in high-
stress amplification that can lead to failure. In many
cases, the walls of joint cans must be thickened or
member diameters must be increased to provide adequate
strength.
The procedure for designing tubular joints must be
simple and should lend itself to automation to handle the
large number of joints in most platforms. Considerable
computer output must be screened to determine max-
imum applied loads at each joint. Predicted joint strength
must be calculated for each member intersection and
compared with the applied loads. Joints with deficient
capacity are then sized again.
At present, empirical expressions represent the state of
the art for predicting the ultimate strength of tubular
joints. They are based on axially loaded laboratory joint
tests. Very little ultimate-strength data exist for bending
or combined axial and bending loads. Consequently,
bending and combined loading effects are usually ac-
counted for in an heuristic manner. Analytical methods
have not been successful because of the geometric, com-
putational, and analytical complexities involved. The
finite-element method probably could be applied but
would be too costly, time-consuming, and complicated
for practical joint design. To be acceptable, a finite-
Tubular-joint ultimate-strength equations that are helpful for offshore platform design are
presented. The formulas are based on datafrom 346 joint tests. They are easy to use and cover
more joint configurations than do present design formulas.
APRIL, 1977
element model would have to include nonlinear material
behavior, a fracture criterion, and, possibly, nonlinear
geometric terms to account for local buckling. Thus,
for the short term, the' empirical approach seems most
practical.
This paper presents a new set of joint-strength equa-
tions that are helpful for platform design. The expres-
sions are based on more data and cover more joint config-
urations than present procedures. The formulas are
presented along with some comparisons of the new pre-
dictions with those of current methods. An example
problem is also given to illustrate how the equations are
used in joint design.
Tubular-Joint Failure Behavior
Part of the problem in analytically predicting tubular-
joint strength is that many competing failure modes are
possible in even the simplest of joints. Thus, it is help-
ful for designers to have some insight into failure
mechanisms to produce both safe and efficient designs.
In the following sections we review a number of potential
failure modes for simple T-, X-, and K-joints to point out
trends in joint behavior and important design considera-
tions. For purposes of this discussion, the chord and
branch members are as defined in Fig. 1 (Type 1). The
chord generally has a large diameter and larger wall
thickness than the branches. The branch members are
coped and welded to the chord wall to form the joint.
T- and X-Joint Failure Modes
Fig. I summarizes a number of possible failure types
449
that can occur in unreinforced T- and X-joints. Types 1
through 5 illustrate tensile failures and Type 6 shows a
compressive failure. The tensile failures are character-
ized by a fracture or parting of the material and may be
either ductile or brittle. The presence of small notches or
flaws increases the likelihood of tensile failures. When
the stress intensity factor at the root of a notch exceeds the
fracture toughness of the material, 1 a crack can propa-
gate in an unstable manner. Compressive failures, on the
other hand, nearly always are accompanied by large
plastic deformation and a local collapse of the chord wall.
Failure Type 1 in Fig. 1 illustrates the elongation of the
branch member. This model develops the full strength of
a branch and is a very ductile failure. Fracturing, if it
occurs, will be near the intersection weld toe where
stresses are increased locally and defects are more likely
to occur. Failure Type 2 is similar to Type 1 except that
the fracture occurs in the weld metal. Welds should be
designed to avoid this type of failure and develop the full
design load of the member. In Failure Type 3 there is
usually large plastic deformation of the chord wall ac-
companied, in the latter stages, by fracturing of the chord
wall at the weld toe. Most of the tension loading data for
T- and X-joints considered in this paper are for this type
of failure. Joint designs must avoid this failure mode
since both the branch and the chord lose load carrying
I
(BRANCHl{]
CJ.
. / ' FAILURE AT BRANCH ADJACENT
,.--- TO WELD TOE
b, --------'"'
TYPE 1
1
r--- A
DUCTILE FAILURE -------
OF CHORD WALL
L.::..-
\ e"DRD WALlOUe'LE
TYPE 4
Fig. 1-Some possible failure modes for simple, axially loaded, tubular T- and X-joints.
450
capacity. Load Type 4 is still another possible failure that
could occur in T-joints, particularly when the chord
member has a long, unsupportyd length. It is caused by
bending compressive stresses in the chord wall and is not
really a true joint failure.
The final tensile failure (Type 5) shown in Fig. 1 is
basically a metallurgical problem that becomes more
critical as wall thicknesses increase beyond 1 to 2 in.
Lamellar tearing generally occurs adjacent to welds
because of large local temperature strains and possible
planes of weakness in the chord wall (caused by impur-
ities that are elongated in the plate-rolling process).
These failures generally occur shortly after fabrication
and can be detected by inspection and then repaired.
This type' of failure points out the need for more strin-
gent requirements for the steel that is to be used in tubu-
lar platform joints. Specifications should include X-ray
inspection of the plate and fracture toughness require-
ments, particularly in the through-thickness direction.
Failure Type 6 illustrates a compressive failure of a
T-joint. It is characterized by a local buckling or collapse
of the chord wall in the vicinity of the branch inter-
section. * The value of ultimate load is generally less for
compressive-type loading than for tensile loading on the
*For compressive loading it is assumed that buckling of the member has been
prevented in the over-all member design.
o !
/FAILURE IN WELD
•· d
TYPE 2
TYPE 3
EXAGGERATED DEFORMED
I SHAPE
(
\
A-A PLANE
A
LAMELLAR TEARING
OF CHORD WALL
U
.-Wi
I
LOCAL COLLAPSE
DF e"ORD WALL
TYPE 5
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 2A- Typical K-joint failure, ASTM A 537 Grade B steel.
same T- or X-joint (see Figs. 5 and 6). Consequently,
the compressive loading generally governs in design.
K-Joint Failure Modes
A fairly large number of tubular K-joints has been tested
to failure with one branch loaded in tension and the other
in compression. The typical failure* will resemble that
shown in Fig. 2A (previously reported by Reber2 ). The
compression branch produced large plastic deformation
of the chord wall. A fracture was initiated in the chord
wall at the point of maximum tensile stress at the weld toe
of the tension branch. The chord wall was fabricated from
ASTM A 537 Grade B steel. Fig. 2B shows a companion
specimen in which the chord wall was fabricated from
ASTM A 36 steel. Even though the maximum branch
loads for this member were only slightly less, the member
failed in a brittle manner with only slight plastic deforma-
tion around the compressive branch. This again under-
lines the need for fabricating joint cans from material
with good fracture toughness.
Geometric Parameters and Tubular-Joint
Failure Behavior
Empirical equations predicting tubular-joint strength
generally correlate the ultimate load with a number of
dimensionless ratios. It is important to know how ca-
pacity depends on these parameters so that joints can be
resized efficiently during design. The geometric parame-
ters considered in this paper are the following:
TID = ratio of the chord-wall thickness to its outer
diameter.
diD = ratio of the outer diameter of the branch to the
outer diameter of the chord.
8 = like intersecting angle between the axis of a
given branch and the axis of the chord.
glD = ratio of the gap (clear space distance between
the intersections of two branches with the
chord wall) and the outer diameter of the
chord. This ratio applies only to K-joints.
The parameter TID gives a measure of the radial stiff-
ness of the chord wall. This parameter has a reasonably
strong effect on joint strength over s~me ranges and,
thus, thickening of the chord wall can be effective in
improving joint strength.
The ratio diD is a measure of the concentration of the
'Failure modes similar to Types 1, 2, and 5 can also occur in K-joints.
APRIL, 1977
Fig. 28-Typical K-joint failure, ASTM A 36 steel.
branch loading. Joint strength strongly depends on this
factor, so that increasing the diameter of a branch
member or flaring a branch diameter near a joint is often
an effective strengthening approach.
The intersection angle, 8, can be viewed as affecting
joint strength in two ways. First, a sin8 term is used to
resolve the axial load into a component that is perpen-
dicular to the axis of the chord member. The second
effect is a measure of how the axial joint load tends to
increase in-plane stresses in the chord. This in-plane
effect is oflesser importance and was only included in the
K-joint equations of this paper.
The parameter glD applies only to the K-joint case. It
tends to be a measure of some additional strengthening
that occurs as the branches of a K-joint are moved closer
together. Above glD values of about 0.2 the failure load
appears to be independent of g/D. However, as the
branches come closer and eventually overlap, a marked
strengthening is noticed (see Fig. 3).
Ultimate Strength Correlations
Experimental data obtained from 214 K-joint (Table 1)
and 132 T-, Y·, and X-joint load tests (Table 2) are used
as the basis for this correlation. Ultimate strength is
assumed to depend on the yield strength,** (jy, of the
chord wall and the geometric parameters discussed in
the previous section. The form of the expression is
P u = (j yT 2 fl(dID) f2(TID) f3 (8) figlD) (1)
Each dimensionless function, Iv 12' 13, and 14, is taken
to have an independent influence on joint strength and,
thus, can be evaluated separately while holding the others
constant. This approach extends the work of Washio
et aI. 3 and Gibstein 4 by considering new configurations
and incorporating additional data.
K-Joint Formula
Washio et al. 3 found that for K-joints the ultimate
strength, P u' can be written as
P u sin8 = (j yT2 YRIT (1 +6.52dID)
(1-0.26 cos 2 8)ligID) , (2)
where R=D/2 is the outside chord radius. To determine
the influence of the gap ratio parameter, g ID, it is as-
"The yield strength is the average of (Tu determined in directions parallel and perpen-
dicular to the direction of rolling. If this information is not available, the nominal yield
strength should be used.
451
 x.
<HI.
KUROBANE
BOUWKAMP
+
o
WASHIO
EPR
NAKAJAMA L JISC
SAMMET T ZIMMERMANN
CD o NAVIKOV • KUROKAWA
N
C/) 5
0 P + = .8 0yT2 y'lUT (1+6.52 diD) (1-.26 COS2 E»/SIN e
U UK
4
~ I
.-<>-
CD !:
2:
C/)
C 3
;;
....
I j
~N
::>Ln •
CL u) II A

~1 ( t .. · ,
~
N
PUK-:= OyT'- y'lUT (1+6.52 d/DII1-.26 COS' (3){1.0544-1.59 g/Dl/SIN
O~----!..;;-----A;:-_---J=-~~_ _~_--.J:--_-L_ _...L.._--.J_ _-L_ _..L_--l_ _.-J
e
....> -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
o 9/D
Fig. 3-lnfluence of the gap ratio parameter, 9 10, on the ultimate strength of tubular K-joints.

sumed that tion in overlapping joints and the possible importance of

P u sinO = figlD)
O"y T 2 YRIT (1 +6.25 dID)(l-O.26 cos 2 0)
= a o+a 1(gID), (3)
and that the coefficients ao and a 1 can be determined from
the available test data. These data are plotted in Fig. 3
along with a lower-bound curve. The expression for the
function fiflD) is
0.8 0.16 ~ glD
figlD) = Fig. 6. It should be noted that X-joints are strengthened
11.0544 - 1.59 (gID) - 0.5 < glD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
For values of glD higher than about 0.16, figlD) is
independent of giD. The data in this range are distributed
nearly normally and the lower-bound line roughly cor-
responds to the 95-percent confidence level. For glD
below 0.16, considerable strengthening occurs as the
branches become closer together and eventually overlap. '
In this range the data are not distributed normally and the
scatter suggests that possibly other parameters should be
involved in the correlation. We are continuing to study
this problem and are hopeful that recent analytical ad-
vances will shed new light on the behavior of overlapping
joints. A finite-element model developed by Leick and
Potvin 5 will provide some insight into the stress distribu-
branch-member parameters.
The K-joint ultimate-strength formula and a handy
formula for calculating the gap, g, are summarized in
Fig. 4.
Formulas for T-, Y·, and X-Joints
The same approach was used to develop ultimate-
strength equations for T- and Y-joints. 'Fig. 5 shows the
rather good correlation of strength with the parameter
< 0.7 diD. A similar correlation for X-joints also is given in
~ 0.16 considerably as diD approaches unity .
The formulas for these joints are summarized in Fig. 7.
Safety Factor
It is important to note that no safety factor is implicit in
this formulation other than that the formulas are lower
bounds to available data and represent a rather remote
possibility of failure. The designer must use his judg-
ment in assigning additional safety factors.
Comparison With Existing Procedures
These formulas, which represent lower bounds to avail-
10
T-, V-JOINT
..
he
e
e

5 COMPRESSION
o KANATANI
cJISC
, 0 SEAL AND TOPRAC
\ "SMU
TENSIOI\f
• KANATANI
·JISC
• SEAL AND TOPRAC
.. TOPRAC AND NATARAJAN

P = 0y T2 v'R7'i'(1 + 6.52d/0)(1- .26COS20)

uk
{.81.05-1.59010 }ISIN e FOR { .16 .. 0/0<.7
-.5< 0/0< .16
.5
WHERE 0=(2.. +f)(COT01+COT02)-...!..(~+~)
2 2 SIN0 SIN0 1 2 Pu = a OyT2 VD7Tld/D)/SIN e
NOTE: THIS IS A LOWER BOUND TO AVAILABLE DATA ...... SAFETY FACTOR IS NOT INCLUDED,
.3 :--~---'--..L..-'---J-L-JL.!::-L..L-L....L-LJ
.1 d/D.5 1
fig. 4-0veriapping and nonoveriapping K-joint
Ultimate-strength formulas. Fig. 5-Ultimate strength of tubular T- and V-joints.

452 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 1-EXPERIMENTAL DATA OBTAINED FROM K-JOINT LOAD TESTS
0 d T (T
I/ HI H, Pm,'
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/sq mm) (degrees) (degrees) 9/ 0 (tons)
Sammet'O
A2-1 133 83 4 35 60 60 0.465 12.
A2-2 133 83 4 35 60 60 0.465 9.7
A2-3 133 83 4 35 60 60 0.465 11.2
81-1 133 54 4 35 60 60 -0.18 21.7
81-2 133 54 4 35 60 60 -0.18 21.7
81-3 133 54 4 35 60 60 -0.18 21.7
Nakajima"
1 165.2 76.3 1.6 35.5 45 90 0.0605 4.91
2 165.2 76.3 2.3 29.4 45 90 0,0605 6.17
3 165.2 60.5 2.3 34.5 45 90 0.0605 6.07
4 165.2 48.6 2.3 34.7 45 90 0,0605 5.97
5 165.2 76.3 2.3 30.0 45 90 0.0605 7.98
6 165.2 76.3 3.2 32.0 45 90 0.0605 13.92
7 165.2 76.3 4.5 35.5 45 90 0.0605 28.80
8 165.2 76.3 6.0 28.3 45 90 0.0605 35.7
9 165.2 76.3 6.0 28.7 45 90 0.0605 32.4
10 165.2 76.3 1.6 36.5 90 45 0.0605 4.01
11 165.2 76.3 2.3 34.6 90 45 0.0605 7.65
12 165.2 60.5 2.3 34,9 90 45 0.0605 5.78
13 165.2 48.6 2.3 27.5 90 45 0.0605 4.76
14 165.2 76.3 2.3 29.1 90 45 0,0605 5.44
15 165.2 76.3 3.2 26.8 90 45 0.0605 10.97
16 165.2 76.3 6.0 36.7 90 45 0,0605 27.5
17 508 76.3 6.0 29.8 90 45 00605 24.2
Washio et al. 3
1 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 6.9
2 101.6 27.7 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.1 6,77
3 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.2 7.24
4 101.6 27.7 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.2 5.65
5 101.6 27,7 3.16 40.9 60 60 0,2 5,85
6 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0,3 7.08
7 101.6 34.0 3.29 37.0 60 60 0 8.80
8 101,6 34.0 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.1 9.04
9 101.6 34.0 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.2 8.30
10 101.6 34.0 3.29 40.9 60 60 0.2 6.70
11 101.6 34.0 3,29 40.9 60 60 0.2 6.95
12 101.6 34.0 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.3 7.03
13 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 13.50
14 101.6 48.6 3.29 41,8 60 60 0 14,30
15 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.~ 60 60 0 11.30
16 101,6 48,6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 12.30
17 101.6 48.6 3,29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.30
18 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.40
19 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.10
20 101,6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.9
21 101,6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0,10 11.10
22 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.30
23 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.50
24 101.6 48,6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.15 11.30
25 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0,15 11.30
26 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.15 11.60
27 101,6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.80
28 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9,80
29 101.6 48.b 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.80
30 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 8.80
31 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8.80
32 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8,80
33 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8.80
34 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.30 7.45
35 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.00 12.90
36 101.6 60.5 3.29 41.8 60 60 010 12.25
37 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 9.35
38 101.6 60,5 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 10.60
39 101.6 60.5 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 10.10
40 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.30 8.73
41 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 30 60 0.20 13.20
42 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 30 60 0.20 12.50
43 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 30 60 0.20 12.10
44 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 45 60 0.20 10.1
45 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 45 60 0.20 10.5
46 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 45 60 0.20 10.3
47 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
48 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
49 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
50 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 8.0
51 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20 7.9
52 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20 7.9

APRIL, 1977 453

 TABLE 1-Cont'd.
0 d T ITo /II O2 P ma ,
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/sq mm) (degrees) (degrees) g/O (tons)
53 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20 8.9
54 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 90 60 0.20 7.9
55 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 90 60 0.20 8.5
56 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 90 60 0.20 8.1
57 89.1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.28
58 89.1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.60
59 89.1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.50
60 89.1 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0.20 9.30
61 89.1 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0,20 9.15
62 89.1 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0.20 11.85
63 101.6 48.6 4.18 42.8 60 60 0.20 14.0
64 101.6 48.6 4,11 44.7 60 60 0.20 14.75
65 101.6 48.6 4.11 44.7 60 60 0.20 14.90
66 101.6 76.3 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 13.80
67 101.6 76.3 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 12.90
68 101.6 76.3 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 11.20
EPRC '2
7 508 219 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.39 192
8 508 219 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.39 192
9 508 324 12.7 50.4 45 45 0,098 298
10 508 324 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.098 314
11 508 324 12.7 28.1 45 45 0.098 203
12 508 324 12.7 28.1 45 45 0.098 215
Kurobane '3'4
1 101.6 42.7 3.25 40.4 60 60 0.206 8.16
2 101.6 42.7 3.43 40.4 60 60 0,216 7.78
3 101.6 42.7 3.44 40.4 60 60 0.197 9.40
4 101.6 42.7 3.26 40.4 60 90 0.197 7.99
9-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.558 6.17
9-2 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0,558 6.67
9-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.558 6.87
9-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.558 7.00
9-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.558 7.00
10-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.558 6.50
10-2 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.558 6.77
10-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.558 5.69
10-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.558 6,70
10-5 60,5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,558 6.67
12-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.205 7.00
12-2 60.5 34,0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.205 7.25
12-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,205 7.17
12-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,205 7.50
12-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.205 7.67
13-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.205 7,33
13-2 60,5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,205 7,90
13-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,205 7.00
13-4 60.5 34,0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.205 7,00
13-5 60.5 34.0 2,65 41.1 45 45 0.205 7.27
17-1 60.5 34,0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0,148 10,16
17-2 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.148 9.50
17-3 60.5 34.0 2,65 41.1 45 45 0,148 9.50
17-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0.148 10,00
17-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 0.148 10.50
18-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 0,148 8,75
18-2 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 ·0.148 8.60
18"3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -0.148 8.26
18-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 - 0.148 8.25
18-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41,1 45 45 - 0,148 8.27
24-1 60,7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.355 7.73
24-2 60,7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.355 8.50
24-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.355 7.73
25-1 60,7 42,9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.0004 9.27
25-2 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.0004 9,07
25-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.0004 9.20
26-1 60,7 42,9 2.68 46.4 45 45 ·0.354 10.27
26-2 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.354 10.40
26-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.354 10.67
27-1 60,7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.722 6.20
27-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.722 6,07
27-3 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.722 6.33
28-1 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.367 6.06
28-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.367 6.40
28-3 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.367 6.20
29-1 60.7 27,2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0,012 8.33
29-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.012 8.47

454 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 1-Cont'd
0 d T uy II, 11 2 Pm~\
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/sq mm) (degrees) (degrees) g/O (tons)
-- -- --
29-3 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.012 8.50
37-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.188 7.34
37-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.188 8.25
37-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.188 8.04
38-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.561 7.67
38-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.561 7.33
38-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.561 6.40
39-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.207 9.07
39-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.207 9.00
39-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.207 8.86
40-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.145 9.60
40-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.145 10.87
40-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.145 10.70
41-1 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.216 9.28
41-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.216 9.45
41-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.216 9.30
42-1 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.136 11.35
42-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.136 11.00
42-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.136 11.32
43-1 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.49 11.65
43-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.49 12.50
43-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 0.49 12.62
11-1 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.558 7.47
11-2 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.558 7.50
11-3 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.558 8.00
11-4 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45' 45 0.558 7.50
11-5 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.558 7.47
14-1 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.205 7.97
14-2 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.205 8,00
14-3 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.205 8.20
14-4 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.205 8.00
14-5 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 0.205 8.25
JISC'"
II-CK-40-0.4 165.07 76.3 4.65 49.5 90 45 0 19.8
II-CK-40-0.6 165.07 114.3 4.65 49.5 90 45 0 38.2
II-CK-70-0.4 316.8 139.8 4.4 42.0 90 45 0 29.0
II-CK-70-0.6 316.8 165.2 4.4 42.0 90 45 0 44.0
II-TK-40-0.6 164,5 114.3 4.7 50.0 45 45 0.06 48.5
Zimmermann '6
1 419 168.3 10.0 34.7 60 60 0.114 61.4
2 419 168,3 10.0 34.7 60 60 0. 1 14 61.8
3 419 168.3 10.0 34.7 60 60 0.114 60.2
5 419 168,3 10.0 24.4 60 60 0.114 487
Novlkov"
1 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 018 34
2 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 0.18 26
3 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 0.18 15
Kurokawa et al. 18
SK-93 267.9 101.4 9.0 37.4 90 45 0.42 40
SK-6 269.4 102 5.9 38.9 90 45 0.42 33.9
SK-5 267.1 101.8 5.0 33.5 90 45 0.42 21.9
SK-4 266.1 101.7 3.9 40.1 90 45 0.42 12

0 d T tT" II, Ii, P

Specimen (in.) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (degrees) (degrees) g/O (kips)
Bouwkamp ' 92 1
1 12.75 6.625 0.25 42 90 45 0.123 137
2 12.75 6.625 0.25 42 90 45 -0.127 209
3 12.75 6.625 0.25 42 90 45 - 0.377 277
11-2 6.625 4.5 0.312 45.3 90 45 - 0.319 194.5
11-3 6.625 2.375 0.219 45 90 45 0.067 56.6
11-4 6.625 3.5 0.219 46.7 90 45 -0.137 134.4
11-6 8.625 3.5 0.219 46.5 90 45 0.01 56.6
11-7 8.625 4.5 0.219 45.2 90 45 -0.129 130.8
11-8 8.625 5.5625 0.219 45.1 90 45 -0.278 162.6
11-9 10.75 3.5 0.188 47.6 90 45 0.107 31.8
11-10 10,75 4.5 0.188 44.4 90 45 - 0.005 49.5
11-11 10.75 5.5625 0.188 45.2 90 45 - 0.129 120.2
11-12 10.75 6.625 0.188 46.7 90 45 -0.146 152
11-14 8.625 3.5 0.219 46.6 90 45 '-0.166 123.7
11-15 10.75 3.5 0.188 46.1 90 45 -0.143 127.3
11-16 10.75 4.5 0.188 46.1 90 45 - 0.181 123.7
11-17 10.75 5.5625 0188 45.1 90 45 --0.301 162.6
1-10 6.625 2.375 0.280 42.0 90 45 0.067 60.0

APRIL, 1977 455

 TABLE 2-EXPERIMENTAL DATA OBTAINED FROM T-, Yo, AND X-JOINT LOAD TESTS
T-Joint, Compression 0 d T (T'l Pm"
0 d T" (T'l P m• x Specimen (in.) (in.) (in,) (ksi) (kips)
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (ton/sq cm) (tons) T-8 12.750 0.250 42 44
2.375
Kanatani 22 T-9 12.750 4.000 0.250 42 56
C-A 1 139.8 139.8 6.5 3.29 44.8 T-10 12.750 10.750 0.250 42 95
C-A2 139.8 114.3 6.5 3.29 34.1 T-11 12.750 12,750 0.250 42 110
C-A3 139.8 101.6 6.5 3.29 29.4
C-A4 139.8 76.3 6.5 3.29 20.8 X-Joint, Compression
C-A5 139.8 48.6 6.5 3.29 13.3
0 d T (T"
P"""
CoB 1 139.8 139.8 6.5 3.5 56.8
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (ton/sq cm) (tons)
C-B2 139.8 101.6 6.5 3.5 33
C-B3 139.8 89.1 6.5 3.5 28 JISC15
CoB 4 139.8 48.6 6.5 3.5 15.3 1-CS-40-0.2 165.2 42.7 4.7 4.9 7.4
C-B5 139.8 42.7 6.5 3.90 13.7 1-CS-40-0.4 165.2 76.3 4.7 4.9 10.4
C-B6 139.8 34.0 6.5 4.0 12.0 1-CS-40-0.6 165.2 114.3 4.7 4.9 14.0
CoD 1 139.8 139.8 4.5 4.09 37.0 1-CS-40-1 .0 165.2 165.2 4.7 ~.9 33.0
C-D2 139.8 114.3 4.5 4.09 25.8 1-CS-70-0.2 318.5 60.5 4.4 4.3 5.0
C-D3 139.8 101.6 4.5 4.09 22.5 1-CS-70-0.4 318.5 139.8 4.4 4.3 8.33
C-D4 139.8 76.3 4.5 4.09 16.3 1-CS-70-0.'6 318.5 165.2 4.5 4.2 9.6
C-D5 139.8 48.6 4,5 4.09 10.42 1-CS-70-1.0 318.5 318.5 4,5 4.2 31.5
C-C 1 114.3 114.3 4,0 4.34 25,7 1-CS-100-0.2 457.2 89.1 4.8 4.0 5.5
C-C2 114.3 89.1 4.0 4.36 16.8 1-CS-100-0.4 457.2 165.2 4.8 4.0 8.2
C-C3 114.3 76.3 4.0 4.30 14.0
4.0 4.43 11.0 Kanatani 22
C-C4 114.3 60.5
CG-1 139.8 139.8 6.5 3.29 45
C-C5 114.3 34.0 4.0 4.30 7.0
A-D 165.2 76,3 7,0 3.46 21.9 CG-2 139.8 114.3 6.5 3.29 25
A-E 60,5 7,0 3.46 20.7 CG-3 139.8 101.6 6.5 3.29 20.1
165.2
B-D 76.3 6.4 3,07 21.5 CG-4 139.8 76.3 6.5 3.29 15.8
139.8
B-E 139.8 60.5 6.4 3.07 16.9 CG-5 139.8 48.6 6,5 3.29 11.7
D-E 76.3 60.5 4.0 3,75 11,5
0 d T (T" p",."
JISe 15 Specimen (in.) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (kips)
1-CB-40-0.2 164.5 42,7 4.7 4.5 8.6 EPR-6 '2 0.406 42. 275
8.625 8.625
1-CB-40-0.4 164.5 76,3 4.7 4,5 11.9
1-CB-70-0.2 319.5 60.5 4.5 4,2 6.0 0 d T (T,{ P",,,,
1-CB-70-0.4 319.5 139.8 4.5 4.2 10.4 Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/sq mm) (tons)
1-CB-100-0.2 455.7 89,1 4.9 4.0 6.5 4
Gibstein
1-CB-100-0.4 455.7 1652 4,9 4.0 10.0
1 190,1 48.3 4.69 32.0 4.8
0 d T IT,/
2 193.7 48.3 6.5 34.0 9.8
PIII;I\
3 193,7 48.3 9.39 29.0 17.8
Specimen (in.)
~ ~ (ksi) (kips)
4 188.9 101,6 4.65 32.0 7.8
Noel et a/. 23 5 193.7 101.6 6.50 34,0 15.5
1 8.625 5.563 0.250 41,0 62 6 193.7 101.6 9.30 29.0 28.5
2 12,75 5.563 0.250 410 38 7 190.0 159.0 4.56 32.0 128
3 12.75 5563 0,250 410 43
8 193.7 159.0 6.5 34.0 230
4 12.75 5.563 0.250 41.0 39 460
9 193.7 159.0 9.35 29.0
Andrian et al,"4
Sammet 'O
1 8,625 4.500 0.188 36.0 20 A2-1 159 5 35 9.6
83
2 8.625 4,500 0.281 36.0 56 A2-2 159 83 5 35 9,3
3 8.625 4500 0.406 36,0 100
4 12.75 4.500 0.250 36.0 42 X-Joint. Tension
5 1275 4.500 0.375 36.0 67 0 d T (T" P,,,,,,
6 1275 4.500 0500 36.0 112 Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/sq m~ (tons)
7 18.00 4.500 0.297 36,0 45
8 18.00 4.500 0.375 36.0 60 Popov"
9 18.00 4,500 0,5 36.0 104 A-1 219 88 5 60 26
A-2 219 88 5 60 26.4
T-Joint, Tension B-1 219 114 5 60 32.2
0 d T B-2 219 114 5 60 31
(T ,/
P",."
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (ton/sq em) (tons) B-3 219 114 5 60 37.4
B-4 219 114 5 60 35.2
Kanalani 22
C-1 219 133 5 60 38.4
A-E 165.2 76,3 70 3.45 33.0 C-2 219 133 5 60 40.4
A-E 1652 60.5 7.0 3.46 30.0 0-1 219 168 5 60 63
B-D 139.8 76.3 6.4 3.06 30.5 0-2 219 168 5 60 62
B-E 139.8 60,5 6.4 3,05 26.5 0-3 219 168 5 60 70.6
CoD 114,3 76.3 4.5 4.69 26,0
C-E 114.3 60.5 4.5 475 23.3 Sammet'O
D-E 76.3 60,5 4,0 4.13 19.2 A2-3 159 83 5 35 16.2
A2-4 159 83 5 35 18,2
Noel et al. 23
1 323.9 60.3 6.35 2.95 1996 Novikov et al. 2'
2 323.9 101,6 6.35 2.95 25.40 1 139 89 4.5 41.6 18
3 323.9 273.0 6.35 2.95 43.09 2 139 89 4.5 41.6 22
4 323.9 323.9 6.35 2.95 49.90 3-60 139 89 4.5 41.6 34,5
4-30 139 89 4.5 41.6 44
JISC's 5-30 139 89 4.5 41.6 435
1-T-40-0.2 164 42.7 4.7 4.5 19.7 6-30 139 89 4.5 41.6 30.75
1-T-40-0.4 164 76.3 4.7 4.5 25.5
1-T-70-0.2 320.4 605 4.5 4.23 22.5 Gibstein 4
1-T-70-0.4 320.4 139.8 4.5 4.23 35.7 10 193.7 48.3 6.67 34 16.9
1-T-100-0.2 455.7 891 4.9 4.0 30.4 11 193.7 101.6 6.59 34 24.8
1-T-100-0.4 455.7 165.2 4,9 4.0 31.4 12 193.7 159. 6.65 34 42.
JISC's
0 d T IT ,/ P 1l1il \ 1-TS-40-0, 2 164.5 42.7 4.7 48. 15.6
8pecimen (in.) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (kips) 1-T8-40-0.4 165.6 76.3 4.6 48. 22.0
Noel et al. 23 1-T8-40-0.6 165.6 114.3 4.6 48. 31.7
T-1 12.750 2.875 0.500 42 102 1-TS-40-1.0 165.6 165.2 4.6 48. 78.1
T-2 12.750 2.875 0.250 42 56 1-TS-70-0,2 321.2 60.5 4.4 45. 14.6
T-3 16.000 3.500 0.250 42 54 1-TS-70-0.4 321.2 139.8 4.4 45. 18.3
T-4 12.750 5.563 0.250 42 82 1-TS-70-0.6 321.2 165.2 4.4 43. 19.3
T-5 8.625 5.563 0.250 42 105 1-TS-70-1.0 321.2 318.5 4.4 43. 96.0
T-6 12.750 5.563 0.250 42 70 1-TS-100-0.2 455.7 89.1 4.9 41. 16.2
T-7 12.750 5.563 0.250 42 82 1-TS-1 00-0.4 4557 165.2 4.9 41. 20.1

456 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 OMPRESSION TENSION able data, are compared with accepted design rules, such
100 x - JOINT • JISC as those of the American Petroleum Institute 6 and"Det
Pux = e .. DnV
80 0 yTZld/D)m ISIN
KANATANI
norske Veritas. 7 No safety factors are included for the
• POPOV purpose of tl)is comparison.
50
• SAMMET The K-joint comparisons are illustrated in Figs. 8 and
EPR
+ NOVIKOV 9. Without safety factors, both API and Det norske Ver-
cD
= 30
itas formulas tend to overestimate joint strength. The 1.8
ZIN
Ci) 1->
80

m = 3.42 API safety factor would produce safe but, in many cases,
)( I;)
:::l
D.
very conservative designs. The same comment generally
80 = 22.75 ..
applies to the Det norske Veritas equations when the
10 safety factors of 1.5 for environmental loads and 2.0 for
operational loads are applied.
The T- and Y-joint comparisons are shown in Figs. 10
5 and 11. For some practical ranges of parameters it can be
seen that both API and Det norske Veritas predictions
.1 .5
may fall above the lower bound to available strength data .
dID Finally, Fig. 12 compares the new X-joint formula
Fig. 6-Ultimate strength of tubular X-joint. with the equivalent Det norske Veritas formula. The Det

VALIDITY RANGE
JOINT AND LOAD TYPE ULTIMATE STRENGTH FORMULA
19 ~ DIT ~ 93

.19 ~ diD ~ 1

Pu = 11.5 a y T 2 V D/T(d/D)/SIN e .19 ~ diD ~ 1

y

.19 ~ diD ~.8

P
U
= 30 ay T 2 (d/D)·64 ISIN e .8 ~ diD ~ 1
x

.19~ diD ~.8

.8 ~ diD ~ 1
300 ~ e ~ 90 0

NOTE: THESE FORMULAS ARE LOWER BOUNDS TO AVAILABLE DATA - SAFETY

FACTOR IS NOT INCLUDED
Fig. 7-Ultimate strength of tubular T·, Y·, and X-joints.

APRIL, 1977 457

norske Veritas expression tends slightly to overestimate Calculated Minimum Load
joint strength but the factors of safety would make it Design Load, Criteria,
conservative. Member Pu (kips) 0.4 0"y A (kips)
These comparisons show that the existing design for- A 904 789
mulas are generally safe if used with the recommended B 50 441
safety factors. A possible exception is for the Y-joint
comparisons (Figs. 10 and 11), which overestimate The second column in this table is a minimum-load crite-
lower-bound joint strength for some ranges ofthe plotted rion. Lightly loaded member intersections are generally
parameters. On the other hand, it should be poip.ted out designed to withstand some fraction of a load that would
that there are parameter ranges over which current for- cause the member to yield (here, 40 percent of the yield
mulas are very conservative. Additional research i~ load is used). Axial loads of 904 kips for Member A and
needed to further clarify these conclusions by duly con- 441 kips for Member B will be used to size the chord
sidering service conditions and the interaction of ulti- wall.
mate strength and fatigue. The gap, g, between branches can be calculated from
the expression given in Fig. 4. For an assumed eccentric-
Example Problem ity,!==O, the gap is +2.05 in. The ultimate load formula
Parameters for an example design calculation are given in shown in Fig. 4 can be rewritten in terms of the required
Fig. 13. All members are fabricated from material of chord-wall thickness, T.
36-ksi yield strength, and the dimensions shown in the T= [ P sinO
figure are those required to withstand the environmental O"y VR(1 + 6.52 d/D)(1-0.26 cos 2 0)
and operational load conditions. The next step is to assure

~ .59 glD) J
that the joint also can withstand these same design loads.
First, the computer output is screened to determine the X (1.05 _ 2/3 (5)
maximum applied loads. These are shown in the follow-
ing table. For an applied load of 904 kips on Member A, the

2r--------------------,
diD> .6 OR e < 90°

diD"';; .6
ii:
2r----------------------. « >-
:::l 1
e = 45° >- D.
:::l
D.
9/0> .16

API S.F. 1.8 NOT INCLUDeD

o0=---:'=---:!=----=L:----!':40:---.l:--~-~-----I80
RIT
Fi~. 1O-Comparisonof API rule with T- and Y-joint
API S.F. 1.8 NOT INCLUDeD ultimate-strength formula (for compressive loading).

2,--------------------,
O=--_-:-:-_~-----II:_-...l.---L-----l.--..l.---.J
o ~ ~ ~ m 00
RIT COMPRessION
FI'g. a-Comparison of API rule with nonoverlapping K-joint
ultimate-strength formula. 1.5

'.5 >c:
'? >-
>- :::l
:::l D.
D.

.5
DnV - S.F. NOT INCLUDED
.5

DnV S.F. NOT INCLUDeD

O'----'-_--'-_--'--_-'----l_-.L_-l.-_..l..----JL.---..l
o0=-----.-:--,----..J,.2~-9-/D----'.3L----
.. L4- - - - - - J .5 o ~

diD
Fig. 9-Comparison of Det norske Veritas rule with Fig. 11-Comparison of Det norske Veritas rule with T- and
nonover1apping K-joint ultimate-strength formula. V-joint ultimate-strength formula.

458 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

required chord-wall thickness is 0.986 in. For an applied
load of 441 kips on Member B, the required chord-wall
thickness is 0.787 in. Based on these calculations, a
designer probably would specify a I-in. joint can at this
joint.
Concluding Remarks
The problem of developing procedures to predict the
strength of tubular joints is a complicated and difficult
task. Thus, current methods are based on empirical for-
mulas that are correlated with laboratory test data. The
new design formulas presented here are simple to use and
extend the current methods to new joint types. They
predict a lower bound for existing data but contain no
implicit safety factor. Comparisons show that existing
formulas with recommended safety factors applied are
generally safe but may be very conservative for some
ranges of parameters.
A consolidation of available data on which the correla-
tions are based is published to stimulate future research.
There are a number of facets of ultimate tubular-joint
strength that, in our opinion, require additional work.
1. The most pressing needs are in the area of ultimate
strength for in-plane and out-of-plane moment loadings,
or for combined axial and bending loadings. There are
little available data to cover these cases for even the
simplest joints.
2. Formulas for ultimate axial capacity of overlapping
joints require additional work. New analytical methods
may provide the needed insight.
3. Procedures to calculate the ultimate strength of
joints with internal ring stiffeners should b.e developed.
4. Analytical procedures in general are not presently
well structured to solve tubular-joint ultimate strength
problems. Additional basic research on analytical
methods and fracture criteria is required to make any
subs tantial progress.
5. The interrelation between fracture and fatigue be-
havior of tubular joints is a fruitful area for research. Late
in the fatigue life of a joint, cracks may occur that could
reduce its capacity below that predicted by present
methods. Recently developed stress-intensity factors 8
for fatigue-life prediction may shed some light on this
matter, but they are limited in that they do not include
nonlinear material response. Additional work is also
1.5~--------------------'
>t:
9 )(
)( ::>
::> a..
a..
.5
DnV S.F. NOT INCLUDED
OL-_L----'_--i._-..L_--'-_---l.-_-'-_~ _ __'___'
o .5
diD
Fig. 12-Comparison of Oet norske Veritas rule with X-joint
ultimate-strength formula (for compressive loading).
APRIL, 1977
needed to relate low-cycle fatigue behavior to ultimate
strength predictions.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the management of Exxon Production
Research Co. for supporting this work, and the Exxon
Co., U. S.A., Platform Design Group for information on
large-scale joint tests. Thanks also go to J. E. Brown and
J, B. Wardell for their comments and insights into design
procedures.
References
I. Tetelman, A. S. and McEvily, A. J.: Fracture ofStructural Mate-
rials, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1967).
2. Reber, J. R., Jr.: "Ultimate Strength Design of Tubular Joints,"
paper OTC 1664 presented at the Fourth Annual Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, May 1-3, 1972.
3. Washio, K., Togo, T. and Mitsui, Y.: "Experimental Study on
Local Failure of Chords in Tubular Truss Joints (I)," Technology
Reports, Osaka U. (Oct. 1968) 559-581.
4. Gibstein, M. B.: "Static Strength of Tubular Joints," Report No.
73-86-C, Det norske Veritas (May IS, 1973).
5. Leick, R. D. and Potvin, A. B.: "Automated Mesh Generation for
Tubular Joint Stress Analysis," paper presented at Second Na-
tional Symposium on Computerized Structural Analysis and De-
sign, George Washington U., Washington, March 29-31,1976.
6. "API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Con-
structing Fixed Offshore Platforms," API-RP2A, API (1974).
7. "Rules for the Design, Construction, and Inspection of Fixed
Offshore Structures," Det norske Veritas (1974).
8. Pan, R. B. and Plummer, F. B.: "A Fracture Mechanics Approach
to Nonoverlapping Tubular K-Joint Fatigue Life Prediction,"
J. Pet. Tech. (April 1977) ; Trans., AIME, 263.
9. Wold, G. and Kristoffersen, T.: "Development of Method for
Measuring Susceptibility of Steel Plate to Lamellar Tearing,"
paper OTC 1915 presented at the Fifth Annual Offshore Technol-
ogy Conference, Houston, April30-May 2, 1973.
10. Sammet, H.: "Die festigkeit Knotenblechloser rohrvesbindungen
im stahlbau," Schweisstechnik, Zeitschrift fu aIle Gebiete der
Schweiss, Schneid und Lottechnik (1963) 481-485.
II. Nakajima, T~: "Experimental Study on the Strength of Thin Wall
Welded TubularJoints, " Doc. XV-312-71, International Institute
of Welding, London ( 1971).
12. "Experimental Determination of the Ultimate Strength of Tubular
Joints," Exxon Production Research Co., Houston (Sept. 1971).
13. Kurobane, Y. and Makino, Y.: "Low-Cycle Fatigue Research on
Tubular K-Joints," Doc. XV-291-70, International Institute of
Welding, London (1970).
14. Kurobane, Y.: "Welded Truss Joints of Tubular Structural Mem-
bers," Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto U.,
Japan. (Dec. 1964) 12, No.1.
50 KIPS
1
54" ¢ x 0.75" W.T.
Fig. 13-Example problem.
459
15. "Study on Tubular Joints Used for Marine Structure," (in
Japanese) The Society of Steel Construction of Japan (March
1972).
16. Zimmennann, W.: "Tests on Panel Point Type Joints for Large
Diameter Tubes," Otto Graf Institute, Stuttgart College of Tech-
nology, Stuttgart (Sept. 1965).
17. Novikov, V. I. Kovtunenko: "Assemblies in Which Two Tubular
Members Meet With No Gusset," Automatic Welding (1968) No.
2,26-29.
18. Kurokawa, K. Nakajima, T., Shimarizu, M., and Koshihara, T.:
"Research on Fatigue Strength of Thin Wall Welded Tubular
Joints," (in Japanese) Summary of Technical papers of Annual
Meeting of AU, Japan (1972).
19. Bouwkamp, J. G.: "Research on Tubular Connections in Struc-
tural Work," Bull. No. 71, Welding Research Council (Aug.
1961).
20. Bouwkamp, J. G .: "Behavior of Tubular Truss Joints Under Static
Loads ~ Phase I," U. of Califomia, Los Angeles (July 1965).
21. Bouwkamp, J. G.: "Behavior of Tubular Truss Joints Under Static
Loads~ Phase II," U. of California, Los Angeles (Jan. 1968).
22. Kanatani, H.: "Experimental Study on Welded Tubular Connec-
tions," Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kobe U., Kobe,
Japan (1966) 14, No. 12.
23. Noel, J. S., Beale, L. A., and Toprac, A. A.: "An Investigation of
460
Stresses in Welded T-Joints," Technical Report P550-3, U. of
Texas, Austin (March 1965).
24. Andrian, L. E., Sewell, K. A., and Womack, W. R.: "Partial
Investigation of Directly Loaded Pipe T-Joints," Southern
Methodist U., Dallas (1958).
25. Beale, L. A. and Toprac, A. A.: "Analysis ofIn-PlaneT, Yand X
Welded Tubular Connections," Bull., Welding Research Council
(Oct. 1967).
26. Toprac, A. A., Natarajan, M., Erzurumlu, H., and Kanoo,
A. L. J.: "Research in Tubular Joints: Static and Fatigue Loads,"
paper OTC 1062 presented at the First Annual Offshore Tech-
nologyConference, Houston, May 18-21, 1969.
27. Popov, V. S.: "Research Into the Strength of the Joints Between
the Lattice Members and Chords in Tubular Welded Structures,"
Aut. Svarkea (1972) No.3, 30-31.
28. Navikov, V. I., Koutunenko, V. A., and Paton, E. 0.: "Direct
Joining .of Tubular Section Components," Automatic Welding
(1959) 61-68. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March 10,
1976. Paper accepted for publication Oct. 19, 1976. Revised manuscript received Jan.
17, 1977. Paper (SPE 6257, OTC 2644) was first presented at the Eighth Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, held in Houston, May 3-6,1976. ©Copyright 1977
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paperwll be included inthe 1977 Transactions volume.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY