Está en la página 1de 8

OTC 7152

Impact Damage and Assessment of Offshore Tubulars


P.A. Frieze, Paul A. Frieze & Assocs., and S-R. Cho, U. of Ulsan

Copyright 1993, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 25th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 3-6 May 1993.

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

ABSTRACT * solution procedures can only try to replicate the test as


reported which will not always reflect the experiment to
Two series of experiments are described in which tubulars
the degree actually required for a simulation.
typical of offshore construction are subjected to dynamic lateral
impact and then residual strength tests. Apart from some of the test specimens of [4]. all the above cited
test series have been conducted on the basis that the behaviour
Model material selection and preparation which involves heat
they are attempting to simulate occurs statically. Yet they seek
treatment are reported together with the lateral impact test
to represent the consequences of vessels and dropped objects
procedure. Damage in the form of local dents and overall bows
impacting a tubular forming part of an offshore structure. The
is reported and dimensionless semi-empirical relationships
minimum design vessel impact speed is usually 2 rriJs which
presented which relate this damage to the initial kinetic energy.
locally translates into a strain rate at which at least the yield
It is possible to identify the range of parameters for which
stress will be enhanced above its static value during the event.
damage will not occur.
The static value is the one generally reported by
To determine residual strength a selection of damaged and experimentalists when conducting such tests. For assessment
undamaged tubulars was subjected to axial compression alone of damage, this oversight can possibly be partially rectified by
and when combined with external pressure. The test rig and using a value of yield stress taken from the mill certificate.
procedure are briefly described and results presented. A semi-
However, from a simulation standpoint, the use of a static
empirical relationship between axial compressive residual
approach omits a number of important energy balances. For
strength and extent of damage is presented.
example, as will be demonstrated later, most impacts involve
Finally, a method is presented by which full scale measurements rebounds so that not all of the impact energy is converted to
of damaged tubulars can be interpreted for use in the residual damage as it is during a static simulation of the event. Also,
strength equations. although it may not contribute significantly in the forms of
damage under consideration, distorted shapes which occur
INTRODUCTION
dynamically can differ from those generated by the equivalent
A significant number of studies have been devoted to the static event. Some of the static test series aimed to achieve
problem of damage to tubular members which comprise offshore dent damage only whereas, as shown later, both dent and
structures. These have included experimental [1-7), analytical overall bow damage occurs during dynamic impacts.
[8-14] and numerical [15, 16] investigations. The objective of the
The relative importance of dynamics can be judged from an
analytical and numerical studies has generally been to reproduce
examination of the ratios of natural periods to typical impact
aspects of the experimental results, usually the residual strength
durations. According to [17], the natural periods for tube wall
behaviour. In this respect, some of the theoretical solutions
stretching lie in the range 7-100 x 10~ s, for tube wall shear 13-
provide close estimates but rarely consistently. The reasons for
189 x 10~ s, and for overall shell modes 0.015-0.40 s. For
this are detailed but include the following:-
thin-walled tubular beams, natural periods lie between 0.015
the solution procedure simulates the behaviour after and 1 s [18]. From [19], vessel impact durations occur between
damage without first re-creating the damage process; 0.2 and 2 s indicating only overall vibration modes are of
relevance. However, in the case of dropped objects, shorter
References and figures at end of paper. durations are to be expected so local shell vibration modes will
be of importance in these circumstances.

193
2 IMPACT DAMAGE AND ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE TUBULARS OTC 7152

In an attempt to overcome this deficiency, a set of dynamic period. A pair of infra-red switches was also used to measure
impact tests on tubulars was undertaken at Glasgow University velocity, generally as a check on the value obtained from the
involving 23 specimens. Many of these were then subjected to diodes but as the primary value should these malfunction. The
axial compressive residual strength tests together with five models were also strain-gauged to record strain histories during
undamaged specimens. Four of the damaged models were and after impact. Interpretation of the sequence of denting
subjected to combinations of axial compression and external following impact was aided by the use of a video in the early
pressure. tests.
The lateral impact tests are reported first followed by a Overall bending damage was determined with the same
description of the residual strength experiments. Both involve equipment used to measure initial out-of-straightness. The
the development of semi-empirical relationships for determining measurements were made on the side opposite the dent.
damage and residual strength. The paper concludes by Overall bending damage was calculated by subtracting the initial
describing how field measurements of damaged tubulars can be out-of-straightness value. The corresponding centroidal value
minimised but still provide sufficient information for their residual was found by adding the change in distance between the
strength evaluation. specimen centroid and the side opposite to that of the dent [20].
LATERAL IMPACT TESTS To determine the extent of local denting, the outside diameter
was measured in the plane coinciding with the position of
Model Selection and Preparation
maximum indentation every 5 mm for 50 mm each side of this
Although most offshore tubulars are fabricated, because of the point and then every 10 mm. Dent depth was found by -._/
difficulty in obtaining realistic scaled-down versions suited to subtracting these values from the initial outside diameter
testing, heat-treated cold-drawn seamless tubes were selected records. Table 2 lists the extent of local (dd) and overall (d0 )
from which to construct the models. The nominal outside damage recorded for each of the models together with the
diameter was 50.8 mm while two thicknesses were chosen, 1.22 striker mass and initial and rebound velocities. Model Flp is F1
mm and 2.03 mm, to provide diameter to thickness ratios of but was the subject of a second impact since the first (F1)
approximately 40 and 24. Lengths of 1.0, 1.4 and 1.8 m produced negligible residual strains.
corresponding to length/diameter ratios of 20, 28 and 36 were
Damage Prediction
adopted to suit the test facilities.
From Table 2, it can be appreciated that not all of the striker
Heat-treatment was necessary to eliminate the residual stresses
initial kinetic energy is absorbed as damage to the struck model,
due to cold-drawing and reduce the untypically high yield stress
and that both local and overall damage generally exist as a
(500-600 N/mm2) of the as-supplied material. Following trials,
consequence of the impact. Derivation of the semi-empirical
described in detail in [20], two treatments were selected to
damage prediction equations is based on two relations. Firstly,
achieve the desired yield values, around 250 to 300 N/mm2 •
that between energy absorbed ~ during formation of a local
They were:
dent and normalised dent depth 6d = dJD as suggested in [10]
temperature 550°C, hold 2 hours, cool slowly
temperature 550°C, hold 3 hours, cool slowly Ed - 100 mp D 6~2 .... (1)
In the event, the values sought were not realised. This was where mP = al/4 is the plastic moment of resistance of the tube
thought to be a consequence of the shorter heating time of the wall. Secondly, that between energy absorbed during formation
tubulars compared with that of the trial specimens. of a plastic hinge in a simply supported beam Ea and the
normalised central deflection 60 = dJL
After heat-treatment, the thickness, circularity and straightness
of each tube were surveyed. Thickness and outside diameter .... (2)
were measured at 60 locations at the end, quarter- and mid-
length cross-sections. Initial longitudinal profiles were where MP = 0 2taY.
established by measuring at these same locations relative to a
In conjunction with the present results, an examination of the
straight line datum.
basic variables indicated µ = NPL,t/E;D was the most suitable
Material properties were determined from at least six tensile parameter by which to relate initial and absorbed energies where
specimens from each heat-treated parent tube. Static values of NP = nDtay and E; is the striker initial kinetic energy. The
tensile yield stress were measured while elastic modulus was following equations gave good fits to the data whilst also
obtained from the initial slope of the stress-strain curves. Table achieving a continuous transition to theµ axis:
1 summarises the geometric and material properties of the 23
models prepared. EjEk - 0.348 (2.59 - log µ) 2 log µ < 2.59
Test Procedure and Results
- 0 logµ ;;?: 2.59 ....(3)
Impacts were generated using a striker and runway (Fig. 1).
The striker weight could be varied as could its impact velocity by EjEk - 0.241 (2.82 - log µ) 2 logµ < 2.82
releasing it from different heights on the runway. The ends of
the specimens were simply supported during the tests. The - 0 log µ ;;?: 2.82 .... (4)
striker was aligned with specimen mid- length.
Light..lemitting-diodes were attached to both the striker and the In constructing these equations and their derivatives below,
·model so that time-displacement histories could be recorded. models with small dents and bows, i.e. 6d < 0.0085 and 60 <
From these, striker velocities just before and after impact could 0.0004, were ignored. This was necessary to avoid distortion of
be determined as well as impact duration and model vibration the measures of accuracy used in the derivation process. The

194
OTC 7152 P. A. FRIEZE and S-R. CHO 3

accuracy achieved in connection with local energy absorption During the tests, lateral deflections at mid-and quarter-points
was bias = 1.006 and coefficient of variation (cov) = 0.335: the were measured and overall axial load-displacement monitored
corresponding values for overall bow energy absorption were via direct input to an X-Y plotter. Up to 1 kN load was used for
0.999 and 0.252. The fit between the test results and these model alignment although axial load was then applied under
equations can be seen In Figures 2 and 3. displacement control. Load Increments were selected on the
basis of anticipated collapse load but were reduced to about 0.5
Substituting equations (3) and (4) into (1) and (2):
kN as failure was approached. Beyond peak load, increments
6d - 0.107 (2.73 - log µ) 413 (E,/N/i 213 logµ< 2.73 were determined from the slope of the load-shortening curve
and on one or two occasions, load was totally removed before
Np reloading.
- 0 log µ ~ 2.73 .... (5)
.BasuJts
60 - 0.196 (2.81 - log µ) 2 (E,/N.V1 logµ< 2.81
For the undamaged models, collapse resulted in the formation
('{ y
of a sharp single-lobe buckle in the case of the thinner-walled
- 0 loQ µ ~ 2.81 .... (6)
sections but a smooth or non-existent lobe in the thicker-walled
models. The overall shape was of dog-leg type. In the
The accuracy of the fit for 6d is bias of 0.993 and cov of 0.228
damaged models, significant increases in extent of both local
whilst for 60 the bias is 0.999 and the cov is 0.252. Plots of the
and overall distortions occurred. Detailed load-shortening, load-
ratios of measured to predicted damage versus log µ for local
lateral deflection, and load- strain curves are presented in [20].
~ and overall damage are presented in Figures 4 and 5. The
Typical load-shortening curves are shown in Figs 6 and 7 for an
accuracy of these formulations for damage can be appreciated
undamaged and damaged model respectively. Table 4
by the comparison presented in Table 3. Here the accuracies
summarises the test results and pertinent normalised geometry
found by estimating damage extents using the procedures
and material property parameters. Compressive (static) yield
reported in [8,10,11] for the data listed in Table 1 are compared
stress is assumed equal to 1.05 times the corresponding tensile
with those of the present formulations: the advantages of the last
value [23].
are clear.
Compressive Strength Assessment
From Figs 2 and 3, it is seen that the results ignored in the
derivation of the above formulations are all less than the mean To derive a prediction procedure, 63 data were used consisting
prediction. On the basis, therefore, that in this range these of the present results and those reported in [1-3,5,7,14].
formulations are effectively upper bounds for energy absorption, Differences in methods of measuring damage were found.
their intercepts with the logµ axes can be taken as the boundary Consequently in the case of overall bending, where possible
separating impacts likely to cause damage and not. The reported values were modified in accordance with the equations
average intercept is logµ= 2.70 orµ""' 500. Substituting forµ, presented in the next section because out-of-straightness
damage will therefore not occur for impacts in which the striker measurements to the side opposite the dent give non-
initial kinetic energy Ek is less than NPLV500D. Here L conservative estimates of the plastic neutral axis position
corresponds to the length of simply supported tubulars. For especially in deeply dented members. Models involving
braces and legs of typical offshore structures, L should be eccentric loading were also ignored as were the present results
replaced by a value representing the distance between points of involving external pressure.
contraflexure. On the basis of the results presented in [21,22].
The basis selected for the assessment procedure was the Perry
these can be taken as 0.7 and 0.6 for braces and legs
equation
respectively.
DAMAGED TUBULAR STRENGTH ....(7)
Model Preparation where aer is the Euler buckling stress, au is the axial ultimate
compressive residual strength and 6 is the imperfection factor.
Twelve of the impacted models listed above and five undamaged
The last has a specific relationship with actual out-of-
ones were selected for testing. Four of the former were chosen
straightness and geometry in its original derivation in connection
to investigate the effect of external pressure on axial
with columns but has since been widely used to account for all
compressive strength. Details of the models are listed in Table
imperfection effects, e.g. initial distortions, residual stresses,
4. Here, 60 refers to total out-of-straightness whereas above it
boundary conditions. After surveying the trends of how 6 related
related to impact-generated overall damage.
to various combinations of the basic geometry, material and
To achieve model concentricity for testing and provide a means damage parameters, the following relationship was found to
by which undamaged tubular effective length could be estimated, provide the best fit to the available data when used in
32 strain gauges were attached to the undamaged models. conjunction with equation (7)
Eighteen gauges were used in the case of the damaged models.
6 - 0.90 D!t (6d 6.) 05 .... (8)
Test Rig and Procedure
After rearranging equation (7) the axial compressive residual
The test rig for the combined loading tests consisted of a
strength of damaged tubulars can be found from
pressure chamber mounted inside a 2000 kN tension-
compression universal testing machine. Special end couplings au - 0.5 {aye + a,,,(1 + 6) -
were developed involving plugs fitting inside each tube, designed
to transmit compressive load as uniformly as possible and {(aye + a"'(1 + 6)) 0 ·5 - 4 a,,, ay}°·5} •.•. (9)
provide support against premature local buckling, and hardened
spherical seatings to simulate simple supports [20]. For the Figure 8 presents a plot of the ratios of measured strength to
axial compression tests, the chamber was not required. strength as derived from equation (9) for the considered data.

195
4 IMPACT DAMAGE AND ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE TUBULARS OTC 7152

The accuracy achieved is mean= 1.001 and cov = 0.132. This CONCLUSION
ignores model A4 of [1] since the originating authors also found
Dynamic impact tests have been conducted on 23 model
it to be inconsistent with other results and omitted it from
tubulars representative of members of offshore structures:
subsequent comparisons [5]. Some models were reported to
details of the tests are presented. Based on expressions for
have no recorded dent damage. In these cases, the initial
work done during denting and overall bowing, equations have
ovality was taken to represent c5d. It has not been possible to
been derived relating energy absorption and damage extent to
check whether initial out-of-straightness can be similarly
a parameter involving the tubular geometry, material properties
interpreted as 60 • This accuracy can be compared with that
and the striker initial kinetic energy. In design, these equations
achieved by others:
can be used to determine the likely damage that will occur. In
* [5], mean = 0.99, COV = 6.7%, non-linear finite element assessment, the amount of input energy to cause the damage
program, correlation with 39 data which excluded model A4 could be estimated. For certain values of the parameter,
plus three others included in the present comparison; damage is found not to occur.

* [3], mean= 1.02, COV = 9.1%, analytical prediction of 21 Axial compressive strength tests were also conducted on 12
data from one source. damaged and five intact tubulars: four of the former were
simultaneously subjected to external pressure. Details of the
If the accuracy of the individual test series in the database is
tests are given together with an expression for deriving the
examined, they generally lie in the range of mean 0.964 to 1.029
residual axial compressive strength of damaged tubulars. The
and cov 0.085 to 0.150. The notable exception is the test series
expression is based on 63 test results and demonstrates a close
of [7] for which the corresponding values are 0.826 and 0.275,
fit so that it can be used for both assessment and design.
based on only three models. Two possible sources of
discrepancies have been identified. The procedure for recording Based on the geometry of the impacted tubulars, an equation is
out-of-straightness was not specified so it was not possible to derived which relates two simple measurements of the damage
compensate as noted above for any error in recording this to the remaining variables needed to accurately quantify the
variable. The typical stub column test stress-strain curve extent of such damage. These simple measurements are the
presented suggests a yield stress of some 47 ksi is appropriate easiest of any field recordings to conduct and thus assist in the
whereas the listed value is 44.7 ksi. assessment of the residual strength of damaged tubulars.
The present procedure is simple and of an accuracy that
NOMENCLATURE
indicates it can be used for both assessment and design.
Similarly to the application of the formulations for dent and bow d extent of damage
damage, appropriate account is required of effective lengths. D diameter
E energy
Interpretation of Damage Measurements of Full Scale Tubulars
L tubular length
Because of the difficulty in performing accurate and meaningful m moment capacity of tube wall
measurements of damage to struck tubulars in hostile offshore M moment capacity of tube cross-section
environments, the minimum set of simple recordings required to N axial load
generate the parameters required in the above calculations for t tube wall thickness
predicted strength was assessed in [20]. Based on the c5 non-dimensional extent of damage;
measurements do2 and Ddmin in Fig. 9, and knowing tubular imperfection parameter
outside diameter D0 and thickness t !.. non-dimensional slenderness parameter
µ non-dimensional energy absorption parameter
....(10) a stress
0 angle
60 - {(da2 - DJ + (Dj2 - Rd)}/L .... (11)
subscripts
where
Rd - Ddmax (1 - cosB J/2 ....(12) c compression
er Euler critical buckling
.... (13) d local
i simply supported
DdmaxfD0 - 1 + 2.45 (Dj Ddmln - 1) exp(- 2.4 Dd,,.,,100 (14) k initial kinetic
0 overall
Expression (14) was derived empirically using the damaged
p plastic
tubular data listed in Table 1 - the fit is shown in Fig. 10.
u ultimate
Equations (12) and (13) follow from geometry considerations
y yield
after introducing the following simplifications [20]:
Acknowledgement
* the dented section consists of a flattened segment of length
s,, two segments of radius R2 and circumferential angle 0 2 , Some of the studies described herein were supported by MTD,
and a segment of radius R1 and circumferential angle 20 1 - Science and Engineering Research Council. This support is
see Fig. 9. This assumption does not require continuity. of gratefully acknowledged.
slope at the ends of the flattened segment;

* 0 1 is greater than rc/2 for all the models examined;

* 0 1 + 0 2 ._. re for shallow dented sections and ._. 0.95rc as


c5d ._. 0.2 so that the slope discontinuity at the ends of the
flattened segment is negligible.

196
'OTC 71S2 P. A. FRIEZE and S-R. CHO 5

REFERENCES
1. Smith, C S, Kirkwood, W and Swan, J W: "Buckling 11. Ellinas, C P, Supple, W J and Walker, AC: "Buckling of
Strength and Post-Collapse Behaviour of Tubular Bracing Offshore Structures: A State-of-the-Art Review, Granada,
Members including Damage Effects," Proceedings 2nd London, 1984.
International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore
12. Richards, D M and Andronicou, A: "Residual Strength of
Structures (BOSS '79), BHRA Fluid Engineering, 1979,
Dented Tubulars: Impact Energy Correlation," Proceedings
303-326.
of Fourth International Symposium on Offshore Mechanics
2. Smith, C S, Somerville, J W and Swan, J W: "Residual and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Dallas, 1989.
Strength and Stiffness of Damaged Steel Bracing
13. Ronalds, B F: "Vessel Impact Design for Steel Jackets,"
Members," Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Offshore TEchnology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC
Paper OTC 3981, 1981, 273-282.
6384, 1990, 339-350.
3. Rashed, S M H, Taby, J and Moan, T: "Theoretical and
14. Duan, L, Chen, W F and Loh, J T: "Analysis of Dented
Experimental Study of the Behaviour of Damaged Tubular
Tubular Members using Moment Curvature Approach,"
Members," Proceedings of First Indian Conference in
Thin-Walled Structures, 15, 1993, 15-41.
Ocean Engineering, 1981 .
15. Padula, J A and Ostapenko, A: "Load-Shortening Behavior
4. S<preide, TH and Amdahl, J: "Deformation Characteristics
of Damaged Tubular Members," Offshore Technology
of Tubular Members with Reference to Impact Loads from
Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 6382, 1990, 317-325.
Collision and Dropped Objects," Norwegian Maritime
Research, Vol 10, No 2, 1982. 16. Macintyre, J: "An Analytical Study of Damaged Tubular
Member Behaviour," PhD Thesis, University of Toronto,
5. Smith, C S: "Assessment of Damage in Offshore Steel
1991.
Platforms," in Marine and Offshore Safety, Ed. Frieze, PA.
McGregor, R C and Winkle, I E, Elsevier Science 17. de Oliveira, J G: "Simple Methods for Estimating the
Publishers, Amsterdam, 1984, 279-307. Energy Absorption Capacity of Steel Tubular Members
used in Offshore Structures," Div. Marine Structures,
6. Landet, E, Lotsberg, I and Axhag, F: "Ultimate Capacity of
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Report No
Dented Tubular Members," Proceedings of Eighth
SK/R50, 1979.
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, ASME, The Hague, 1989, 667-675. 18. Miller, B L: "Wave Slamming on Offshore Structures,"
National Maritime Institute, Report No NMI R81 (OT-R-
7. Ricles, J M, Lamport, W B and Gillum, T E: "Residual
8041), March 1980.
Strength of Damaged Offshore Steel Tubular Members,"
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 19. Moan, T: "Loads and Load Effect Analysis for Offshore
6938, 1992, 585-595. Steel Structures," Second WEGEMT, Trondheim, 1979.
8. de Oliverira, J G: "Design of Steel Offshore Structures 20. Cho, S-R: "Design Approximations for Offshore Tubulars
against Impact Loads due to Dropped Objects," against Collisions," PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow,
Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Offshore 1987.
Engineering Structures, Ed. Carneiro, F.L.L.B. et al, Rio de
21. Hu, K-K and Lai, D C: "Effective Length Factor for
Janeiro, 1981, 466-483.
Restrained Beam-Column," Journal of Structural
"---" 9. Guedes Soares, C and S<preide, T H: "Plastic Analysis of Engineering, ASCE, Vol 112, No 2, February, 1986, 241-
Laterally LOaded Circular Tubes," Journal of Structural 256.
Engineering, ASCE, Vol 109, No 2, February, 1983, 451-
22. Earl, C P and Tier, M J: "A Rational and Economical
467.
Approach to the Calculation of K-Factors," Offshore
10. Ellinas, C P and Walker, A C: "Effects of Damage on Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 6162, 1989.
Offshore Tubular Bracing Members," Proceedings IABSE
23. Transport and Road Research Laboratory: "Recommended
Colloquium on Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore
Standard Practices for Structural Testing of Steel Models,"
Structures, Copenhagen, 1983, 253-261.
TRRL, Crowthorne, Supplementary Report 254, 19n.

197
6 IMPACT DAMAGE AND ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE TUBULARS OTC 7152

Table 1: Model Geometry and Material Properties

Actual Impact Outside diameter Dia. to Thickness Initial Static tensile Elastic modulus
Model Length test D0 (mm) mid- t(mm) out-of- yield str. ay E (N/mm2) D/t L/D dJL
No L(mm) length surface straight. (N/mm2 ) (x105) (x103)
L; (mm) Mean COV (%) D(mm) Mean cov (%) do;(mm) Mean cov (%) Mean cov (%)
A3 1400 1350 50.88 0.12 49.65 1.23 1.46 0.37 472 4.25 2.00 4.73 40.4 27.2 0.26
A4 1000 950 50.89 0.35 49.69 1.20 1.41 0.28 472 4.25 2.00 4.73 41.4 19.1 0.28
81 1400 1350 50.86 0.15 49.66 1.20 2.18 0.72 491 2.52 2.05 8.20 41.4 27.2 0.51
83 1000 950 50.92 0.11 49.72 1.20 0.70 0.50 482 2.36 2.04 9.99 41.4 19.1 0.50
84 1400 1350 50.86 0.22 49.66 1.20 1.03 0.28 482 2.36 2.04 9.99 41 .4 27.2 0.20
C1 1000 950 50.97 0.21 49.76 1.21 1.59 0.91 441 3.00 2.32 12.5 41.1 19.1 0.91
C2 1000 950 50.91 0.18 49.69 1.22 1.81 0.31 441 3.00 2.32 12.5 40.7 19.1 0.31
C3 1400 1350 50.86 0.14 49.64 1.22 1.79 3.68 441 3.00 2.32 12.5 40.7 27.2 2.63
C4 1400 1350 50.85 0.24 49.63 1.22 1.71 0.25 441 3.00 2.32 12.5 40.7 27.2 0.18
D1 1400 1350 50.91 0.09 49.71 1.20 1.71 0.43 480 2.56 2.11 6.77 41.4 27.2 0.31
D2 1000 950 50.98 0.1 0 49.77 1.21 1.18 0.14 480 2.56 2.11 6.77 41.1 19.1 0.14
03 1400 1350 50.91 0.08 49.70 1.21 1.57 0.64 485 3.07 2.10 7.83 41.1 27.2 0.48
04 1400 1350 50.90 0.14 49.69 1.21 1.70 0.28 485 3.07 2.10 7.83 41.1 27.2 0.20
E3 1400 1350 50.91 0.11 48.86 2.05 3.17 0.15 467 1.26 2.21 · 4.56 23.8 27.6 0.11
F1 1400 1350 50.91 0.09 48.88 2.03 1.48 0.49 425 1.40 2.22 7.92 24.1 27.6 0.35
F2 1000 950 50.90 0.12 48.87 2.03 1.97 0.71 425 1.40 2.22 7.92 24.1 19.4 0.71
F3 1800 1750 50.86 0.12 48.84 2.02 1.28 2.83 425 1.40 2.22 7.92 24.2 35.8 1.57
G1 1000 950 50.95 0.14 48.91 2.04 1.37 0.1 7 429 1.96 2.00 2.56 24.0 19.4 0.17
G2 1400 1350 50.92 0.05 48.87 2.05 1.24 0.12 429 1.96 2.00 2.56 23.8 27.6 0.09
G3 1800 1750 50.93 0.14 48.89 2.04 1.43 0.16 429 1.96 2.00 2.56 24.0 35.8 0.09
H1 1400 1350 50.90 0.07 48.86 2.04 1.44 0.49 431 3.01 2.16 8.80 24.0 27.6 0.35
H2 1400 1350 50.92 0.16 48.90 2.02 3.06 3.48 421 3.29 2.12 11.2 24.2 27.6 2.49
H3 1000 950 50.94 0.19 48.91 2.03 2.23 0.19 421 3.29 2.12 11.2 24.1 19.4 0.19

Table 2: Lateral Impact Test Results Table 3: Comparison of Damage Prediction Accuracies

Mass Impact Rebound Extent of damage Reference Dent damage Out-of-straight.


Model of velocity velocity Dent Out- of- Mean cov Mean cov
No striker (m/s) (m/s) depth straight. Present 0.993 0.233 1.000 0.240
(kg) dd (mm) d0 (mm) (10) 1.63 1.06 2.28 0.799
A3 18.8 2.34 (2.24)* 0.94 3.5 4.12 (11) 3.48 0.604 - -
A4 18.8 2.43 (2.77) 1.16 4.6 3.51 (8) - - 2.08 0.415
81 23.5 2.52 (2.63) 1.47 3.1 3.90
83 28.3 1.57 (1.75) 0.89 2.8 1.69
84 28.3 - (2.27) - 2.2 2.37 Table 4: Residual Strength Test Results
C1 41.1 1.18 (1.26) 0.53 2.0 1.13
C2 41.1 2.32 (2.64) 0.84 10.4 14.96 Comp. yld 60 Ultimate Collapse
C3 41 .1 0.92 (1.07) 0.69 0.5 0.17 Model str. a.,. od (x10-3 ) I.. stress pressure
C4 41 .1 2.06 (2.15) 1.04 6.8 12.03 No (N/mm2) (aJa~) (N/mm2)
D1 28.3 1.16 (1.15) 1.04 0.2 0.52 A1* 505 0.003 0.5 1.238 0.704 -
D2 28.3 2.52 (2.83) 1.12 6.2 5.87 A2* 505 0.002 0.2 0.884 0.885 -
03 28.3 2.55 (2.84) 1.24 5.3 7.78 81 516 0.062 2.3 1.272 0.447 -
04 41.1 2.59 ( - ) 1.09 9.1 20.70 82* 506 0.004 0.1 0.797 0.817 -
E3 28.3 2.49 (2.66) 2.14 0.4 0.51 C2 463 0.209 14.9 0.809 0.259 -
F1 50.0 0.55 (0.82) 0.31 0.0 0.00 C4 463 0.137 8.7 1.134 0.269 0.98
F1p 4 1.1 1.91 (1.97) 1.13 0.8 1.13 D2 504 0.125 5.8 0.884 0.461 -
F2 41.1 1.78 (1.65) 1.45 2.1 1.99 03 509 0.107 5.5 1.249 0.376 -
F3 28.3 2.53 (2.99) 1.70 1.2 2.76 04 509 0.183 14.7 1.249 0.181 1.91
G1 28.3 2.24 (2.73) 1.37 1.7 1.73 E1* 484 0.001 0.4 1.231 0.641 -
G2 28.3 2.59 (2.81) 1.84 1.8 3.40 E2* 484 0.002 0.3 0.879 0.750 -
G3 41.1 1.69 (1 .86) 1.41 0.2 -0.54 F1p 446 0.016 0.6 1.155 0.611 -
H1 18.8 2.90 (2.96) - 0.3 0.40 F2 446 0.043 1.4 0.825 0.777 -
H2 41.1 2.55 (2.55) 1.39 3.2 6.06 G1 451 0.035 1.6 0.873 0.818 -
H3 41.1 1.08 (1.16) 0.64 0.0 0.01 G2 451 0.037 2.4 1.223 0.538 1.94
* Initial velocities measured using infra-red switches H1 453 0.006 0.5 1.180 0.675 -
Negative out- of- straightness denotes towards striker H2 442 0.065 5.4 1.176 0.394 2.98
.. ..
* Intact models, od are initial ovalit1es

198
OTC 71S2 P. A. FRIEZE and S-R. CHO 7

Fig. 1: Test arrangement for lateral impact tests

Ed/Ek Eo/Ek
1 0.8
• • Data used in fit

0.8 Equation (3) 0.6 x Data ignored in fit


• Data used in fit

0.6 x Data ignored in fit 0.4

0.4 0.2

0.2
•• 1.5 2
x 2.5 logµ
'-....- 0 .x;i-----:><:
-0.2
1.5 2 2.5 logµ 3 ,

Fig. 2: Comparison between data and close-fit curve for Fig. 3: Comparison between data and close-fit curve for
local energy absorption during lateral impact tests overall energy absorption during lateral impact tests

Measured/predicted Measured/predicted
1.5 dent ratio
• 1.5 overall bow ratio

I •• • • • •
•• •• Mean0.999 • •
•• • • • • • •

0.5 Mean - 2 std dev = 0.539
II
• • 0.5
• •
Mean - 2 std dev = 0.495

0 ..__ _ _ _....._ _ _ _ _....._ _ _ _...... 0 ..__ _ _ __.._ _ _ _ _..__ _ _ _......

1.5 2 logµ 2.5 1.5 2 logµ 2.5

Fig.4: Comparison between data and equation (5) predictions Fig.5: Comparison between data and equation (6) predictions
for dent damage during lateral impact tests for overall damage during lateral impact tests

199
8 IMPACT DAMAGE AND ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE TUBULARS OTC 7152

0.1 Al 0.1 C2

0.6

0.4


e/elt
Fig. 6: Typical axial load-shortening curve for intact model Fig. 7: Typical axial load-shortening curve for damaged model

Dmax/Do
1.5 Measured/Predicted 1.10
residual compressive ,,.,..
strength • 'l. ')
•• !::,
• _,. ct1::, •• 1.08 e' t'l,
1.0
Mean 1.001 "' 0 !::,
,., "1
{\ ~

1.06
0 fl .
c:P •+

1.04
0.5

o Present
• [1,2]
•x [3)
[7]
1.02

!::, [5) )K [14)


0.0 1.00
0.0 0.5 1. 0 /... 1.s 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Dmin/Do
Fig. 8: Comparison of data and predictions for Fig. 10: Relationship between maximum and minimum
axial compressive residual strength diameters for dented tubulars

St
L

Plastic Neutural
Axis of
Dent Section

Fig. 9: Damaged tubular member geometry

200