Advertisement

Residual Strength of Cracked Tubular Joint Using Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis

  • Natarajan Vignesh ChellappanEmail author
  • Seeninaidu Nallayarasu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 23)

Abstract

Fixed offshore platforms have been used for extraction of oil and gas. These platforms were primarily constructed using steel frames made of tubular members welded at joint or specially fabricated joints. The tubular joints are vulnerable to fatigue-induced cracks which initiate at joints and may propagate through its design life. If the platform life is extended depending upon oil and gas availability, the initial cracks may extend beyond acceptable limits. In recent times, the research on evaluation of residual strength of cracked tubular connection has been considerably increasing since the platforms in various oil and gas fields are ageing. To determine the residual capacity of cracked T-tubular joints, a nonlinear finite element analysis has been carried out. The FEM model of uncracked T joint was validated with experimental result available in literature. The benchmark study has also been made on uncracked T-joints with a specific d/D, t/T and D/2T and compared with the results obtained from empirical equations (API RP 2A). The possible crack locations have been identified using the maximum SCF at crown and saddle points for axial loads. The cracks are introduced in the maximum SCF locations of tubular joint. The study has been extended to range of d/D and D/2T. A correlation has been established between lengths of crack to the residual strength for various crack locations investigated. The residual strength obtained has been compared with reduction factor (BS 7910). It was also found that the residual strength of joints decreases with increase in D/2T.

Keywords

T-tubular joints Crack Residual strength SCF Extended finite element (XFEM) analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    British Standards 7910 (2005) Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, vol 3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burdekin FM (2001) The static strength of cracked joints in tubular members. Offshore technology report OTO-2001/080, Healthy and Safety Executive, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lie ST, Li T, Shao YB (2017) Fatigue and fracture strength of a multi-planar circular hollow section TT-joint. 129:101–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lie ST, Li T, Shao YB (2014) Plastic collapse load prediction and failure assessment diagram analysis of cracked circular hollow section T-joint and Y-joint. Fatigue Fract Mater Struct 314–324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee MMK (1999) Strength of ring-stiffened tubular T-joints in offshore structures—a numerical parametric study. 51:239–264Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson TL (1995) Fracture mechanics. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lie ST, Lee CK, Chiew SP, Shao YB (2005) Mesh modelling and analysis of cracked uni-planar tubular K-joints. J Constr Steel Res 61:235–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lie ST, Lee CK, Wong SM (2003) Model and mesh generation of cracked tubular Y-joints 70:161–184Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lie S, Lee C, Chiew S (2006) Static strength of cracked square hollow section T joints under axial loads II: numerical. J Struc Eng 132:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1996) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46(1):131–150zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jitpairod K (2015) Fatigue behavior and xfem based life prediction of tubular x-joints with concrete filled chord. PhD thesis submitted to National University of SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ABAQUS (2012) ABAQUS theory manual, Version 6.12. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc, Pawtucket, Rhode IslandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Petroleum Institute (2014) Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms—working stress designGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riks E (1979) An incremental approach to the solution of buckling and snapping problems. Int J Solids Struct 15:524–551MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Det NorskeVeritas (2011) Recommended practice—C203. Fatigue design of offshore steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee MMK, Dexter EM (2004) Finite element modelling of multi-planar offshore tubular joints. ASME 126:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wardenier J Hollow sections in structural applications. Comite International pour la’ Development et Etude de la construction tubulaireGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taliie-Faz B, Dover WD, Brenan FP (2000) Static strength of cracked high strength steel tubular joints. Health and Safety Executive 78:1–53Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Welding Society (2006) D.1.1.-1 Structural welding code—steelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natarajan Vignesh Chellappan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seeninaidu Nallayarasu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ocean EngineeringIIT MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations