1 vistas

Cargado por raghu_thinks

- FEM Analysis for Spherical tanks
- Zippener v Braced
- THE COLLAPSE BEHAVIOROFTHE RECTANGULAR HOLLOW PIPES UNDERCOMPRESSION LOAD
- The analysis and behavior of thin-steel hyperbolic paraboloid she.pdf
- Um 3 U4 Literatur
- Steel Frame Design Examples
- Fec Er Ind
- Variable Section Buckling
- 4. Breaking Spaghetti Nives Bonacic Croatia IYPT 2011 (1)
- 6-Beam-Column Members.pdf
- unit16.pdf
- Buckle Arrestor
- !! Stability assessments according to Eurocode 3.pdf
- SESS 6061 Advanced Finite Element Analysis_CW2
- Design manual of welded and cold-formed hollow sections
- Ex3_LTBeam
- Www.nbmcw.com 24473 Innovations in Plat
- 574_ftp
- 12. Explore Columns_Questions
- Strength of Materials

Está en la página 1de 8

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

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.

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;

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

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

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

Ed/Ek Eo/Ek

1 0.8

• • Data used in fit

• Data used in fit

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

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

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

200

- FEM Analysis for Spherical tanksCargado porSaad Bakhtyar
- Zippener v BracedCargado porbfrantic
- THE COLLAPSE BEHAVIOROFTHE RECTANGULAR HOLLOW PIPES UNDERCOMPRESSION LOADCargado porIAEME Publication
- The analysis and behavior of thin-steel hyperbolic paraboloid she.pdfCargado porAndrei Crismariu
- Um 3 U4 LiteraturCargado porKarthik Channamsetty
- Steel Frame Design ExamplesCargado porLee GP
- Fec Er IndCargado porsophiaduke
- Variable Section BucklingCargado porLuigiForgerone
- 4. Breaking Spaghetti Nives Bonacic Croatia IYPT 2011 (1)Cargado porManuel Gutarra
- 6-Beam-Column Members.pdfCargado porKellen Brumbaugh
- unit16.pdfCargado porIgor
- Buckle ArrestorCargado porHo Ngoc Thanh Quang
- !! Stability assessments according to Eurocode 3.pdfCargado porAnonymous hprsT3WlP
- SESS 6061 Advanced Finite Element Analysis_CW2Cargado porCédric Bontemps
- Design manual of welded and cold-formed hollow sectionsCargado portetrapetron
- Ex3_LTBeamCargado porYoussef Ali
- Www.nbmcw.com 24473 Innovations in PlatCargado porSunil Pulikkal
- 574_ftpCargado porsanh137
- 12. Explore Columns_QuestionsCargado porAnonymous Uwj7UD7
- Strength of MaterialsCargado porAbi Nesh
- Module 2 Lecture 5 Forming Analysis-SlabMethodCargado porsunilsharma853380
- Homework3 Confined Column AnalysisCargado porQingzhi Liu
- Reliability Analysis of Concrete Filled Steel Tube Columns by FOSM and Subset Simulation TechniqueCargado porIRJET Journal
- chap8-revCargado porgino
- Drive Shaft Literature SurveyCargado porNitin Sk
- (150211) Assignment 03Cargado porJeevahan Sivalingam
- Shear Strength beamsCargado porstylistik
- Unrestrained BeamCargado porRidhima4
- Gusset GuidanceCargado pordfv91
- Stability-of-structures-Z.J.-Bazant-and-L.-Cedolin-OUP,-Oxford,-1991,-£70,-ISBN-0-19-505529-2_1992Cargado porcisco

- The Effect of Wave in-Deck in Conventional Pushover AnalysisCargado porraghu_thinks
- is 1893Cargado porsaf
- OTC 18984Cargado porraghu_thinks
- OMAE-17-1047Cargado porraghu_thinks
- Sesam Floatover Analysis WhitepaperCargado porraghu_thinks
- (1982) Deformation characteristics of tubular members with reference to impact loads from collision and dropped objects.pdfCargado porraghu_thinks
- (1977) Tests on Interactive Buckling of Stiffened Plates.pdfCargado porraghu_thinks
- A Modal Superposition Method for Non-linear StructuresCargado porraghu_thinks
- (1985) Residual Strength of Dented Tubulars- Impact Energy CorrelationCargado porraghu_thinks
- (2015) Seismic Performance Evaluation and Retrofit of Fixed Jacket Offshore Platform StructuresCargado porraghu_thinks
- Non-linear Dynamic Analysis With Deterministic and Random Seas-The Case of Minimum PlatformsCargado porraghu_thinks
- (1980) Design Specification of Tolerances for Geometric Imperfections in Concrete Cooling TowersCargado porraghu_thinks
- OMAE2014-24246Cargado porraghu_thinks
- ISOPE-I-18-586Cargado porraghu_thinks
- Long-term Dynamic Behavior of Monopile Supported Offshore Wind Turbines in SandCargado porraghu_thinks
- Caisson Foundations for Competitive Offshore Wind Farms in ITALYCargado porraghu_thinks
- Seismic Considerations in Design of Offshore Wind TurbinesCargado porraghu_thinks
- OMAE2008-57203Cargado porraghu_thinks
- On Fatigue Damage Assessment for Offshore Support StructuresCargado porraghu_thinks
- Caa Paper 99004Cargado porraghu_thinks
- Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Based Seismic Design Criteria - Adriatic SeaCargado porraghu_thinks
- Shear Wave Velocity Measurements and Soil–Pile System Identifications in Dynamic Centrifuge TestsCargado porraghu_thinks
- Challenges in Predicting Power Output From Offshore Wind FarmsCargado porraghu_thinks
- OTC 7482Cargado porraghu_thinks
- A Probabilistic Evaluation of Wind Turbine Fatigue Design RulesCargado porraghu_thinks
- OTC 5882Cargado porraghu_thinks
- OTC 3616Cargado porraghu_thinks
- Structural Integrity of Offshore Wind Turbines-PresentationCargado porraghu_thinks
- On the Energy Dissipation of Jacket Type Offshore Platforms With Different Pile–Leg InteractionsCargado porraghu_thinks

- model essay spm averageCargado porapi-256958965
- G3 Station User Manual en Rev03 110520Cargado porVictor_id077
- Squid Load BalanceCargado porJuan Yamaca
- Mills a. J. Helms Mills J. Bratton J. an (4)Cargado porlogan159
- The Nuts & Bolts of Succession Planning_portugueseCargado porDionatan Angelo Moretti
- Anatella Tutorial BasicCargado porMyScribd_ielts
- Effect of Fire in ConcreteCargado porS Praveenkumar
- s00125-017-4318-zCargado porDesi Hutapea
- Processing of Bopp FilmCargado porHassan Ali Khan
- Improving Aircraft Safety and Reliability by Aircraft Maintenance Technician TrainingCargado porflyingbeauty
- People v. Jonathan Rose. Ind. No. 17-0750. Decision and OrderCargado porDavid Codrea
- Composite Nanofiltration MembranesCargado poryukuss
- hdfc segmentationCargado porSudhakar Pandey
- Chapter5.pdfCargado porNoviani Puji Fitria
- 07032011 BookCargado porCity A.M.
- GPS102 B User ManualCargado portoutiwai
- Development tutorial · rovo89_XposedBridge Wiki · GitHub.pdfCargado porMelodySong
- LP_2_Engl_VICargado porMohammad Waked
- Electrovalvula DKI, DKU y DKORCargado porJuan Carlos Bermudez Cardenas
- Kingston letter re sewer pipe repairCargado porDaily Freeman
- 1-s2.0-S0141813017302994-mainCargado porYuliet Susanto
- Question Bank MD ICargado porvsambardekar
- Tes PhalenCargado porJoko Munandar
- Lateral Torsional Buckling of I-beamsCargado porRobert Vochescu
- Globotek Holdings Inc 131-page prospectus dated Jan. 2011Cargado porHarry the Greek
- GeoSwath Plus Compact Data SheetCargado porSapto Nugroho
- esl blake garcia 1Cargado porapi-297423331
- EEE 41 Midterms 1s1314Cargado porCarlo Jonas Cariño
- Getourguide Executive SummaryCargado porAnton Rifco
- CLARITAS English Pronunciation and the Brazilian LearnerCargado porLali Queiróz