S. A. Karamanos J. L.

Tassoulas
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712

Hydrostatic Effects in Tubular Member Design

This paper summarizes some important results concerning the analysis and design of tubular compliant-tower members. The tubes are subjected to a combination of structural loads and external pressure, which may cause buckling. The paper focuses on the effects of external pressure on the ultimate capacity. Analytical results are compared with experimental data and design equations. The comparison is aimed towards better understanding of pressurized tubular beam-column behavior.

Introduction Offshore compliant towers have been considered for use in deep water (600-1000 m) and make use of tubular members which are subjected to a combination of structural loads and external pressure. The accurate prediction of the ultimate capacity of such members constitutes a very important design issue. In general, offshore tubes may be unstiffened or stiffened. In great depths, the use of unstiffened tubes becomes rather uneconomical, and, instead, ring-stiffened tubes are considered. Ring-stiffeners may be internal or external, and, by providing additional cross-sectional stiffness against ovalization, they increase ultimate pressure capacity. So far, the research on offshore tubular members has been mainly experimental. Unstiffened tubes were tested in pressurized bending by Corona and Kyriakides (1988). The main conclusion was the reduction of bending capacity because of the presence of pressure. The authors also presented a crosssectional numerical formulation for the prediction of this interaction. Analytical results were found to be in good agreement with experiments. The same interaction was studied by Karamanos and Tassoulas (1991) using a rigorous finite element analysis. The behavior of pressurized unstiffened beam-columns was extensively investigated in the experimental work by CBI (1989) and SwRI (1988). Tubular members with diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t) equal to 42 and 63, and slenderness ratio (KL/r) equal to 50 and 72, were tested under axial, bending, and pressure loading. In addition, stub tubular members with D/ t ratios ranging between 31 and 75 were tested under various loading conditions by CBI (1985). Relatively short ring-stiffened tube were tested by CBI and SwRI and the results were reported by Miller and Kinra (1981), Miller et al. (1982) and CBI (1983). The experiments investigated the ultimate pressure capacity in the presence of axial tension or compression.
Contributed by the OMAE Division and presented at the 13th International Symposium and Exhibit on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Houston, Texas, February 27-March 3, 1994, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY or M E CHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the OMAE Division, March 30, 1994; revised manuscript received June 29, 1994. Associate Technical Editor: S. K. Chakrabarti.

Extensive analytical research on the behavior of unstiffened members has been conducted by Chen and his associates (Sohal and Chen, 1988; Chen and Han, 1985, Toma and Chen, 1979, 1983). The formulation was based on the beam-column equation, where the inelastic effects were considered through the appropriate M-P- 4> equations, which were transformed into M-P-<j>-p equations to account for the effects of external pressure. Local buckling effects were introduced through a simplified kinematic model (Sohal and Chen, 1987). Recently, Karamanos and Tassoulas (1993) presented a comprehensive analytical investigation on the response of unstiffened and stiffened tubes under external pressure and structural loads. The formulation was based on a nonlinear finite element technique which simulated rigorously the effects of internal and external ring stiffeners. The present paper summarizes some important results of that work and focuses on the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the design of stiffened tubular beamcolumns. Technique For the purposes of this research, a nonlinear finite element technique was developed. The nonlinear formulation accounts for large strains and displacements, as well as for inelastic behavior through a J2-flow theory of plasticity with isotropic hardening. The effects of initial imperfections (out-of-roundness and out-of-straightness) are also included. The members under consideration are fabricated tubes with longitudinal seam, which introduces residual stresses in the longitudinal direction. Moreover, experimental measurements showed that fabricated tubes have circumferential residual stresses, which are responsible for material anisotropy with respect to the longitudinal and the circumferential directions. In this research, the longitudinal and circumferential residual stress distributions proposed by Chen and Ross (1977) are adopted. Internal and external stiffeners are rigorously simulated through a special element referred to as a "stiffener element." Finally, the well-known arc-length method is implemented in order to obtain equilibrium configurations beyond the maximum load. Details of the formulation can be found in the work by Karamanos and Tassoulas (1993).
Transactions of the ASME

246 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Copyright 1994 by ASME

1.2 1
o

"W'"o
CP..
#

3
API formula experiments o analysis

0.8 4 0.6 0.4 0.2

-i 1 1 1 r

v
Offshore Tubes CBl & SwRI tests pure pressure

0 12
Fig. 2

4 6 8 10 spacing parameter (L ID)

1.5 2.5 buckling pressure parameter (a

0.5

3.5 la)

Fig. 1

Effects of stiffener spacing on ultimate pressure

Comparison with experimental data for stiffened tubes

Results and Discussion The results obtained using the analytical technique, as well as some available experimental data, focus on the investigation of the predictive capability of the available design equations. In most of the graphs presented in this paper, the values of axial force, moment, pressure, and curvature are normalized by the yield force Py, the plastic moment Mp, the yield pressure py, and the curvature parameter kI=t/Dz, respectively.

C22J1. The nominal yield stress ay is equal to 387.8 MPa (56.24 ksi). In the first curve (case 1), capped-end compression is included and the stiffeners are external with radial and longitudinal dimensions equal to 25.4 mm (1.00 in.) and 3.68 mm (0.145 in.), respectively. In the second curve (case 2), no cappedend compression is assumed and the stiffeners are external with radial and longitudinal dimensions equal to 18.3 mm (0.72 Hydrostatic Pressure. The hydrostatic pressure effects are in.) and 6.35 mm (0.25 in.), respectively. These dimensions taken into account by the API specification (1993) through are chosen such that they just satisfy the stiffener size requireequations D2.5-1. According to API, the elastic buckling hoop ment imposed by API formula D.2.5-6. In both cases, residual stress is given by stresses are included and the initial out-of-roundness is chosen equal to the API allowable imperfection [e = {Dmax-Dmin)/ ahe = 2ChE (1) D = 0.01]. Because of the bigger stiffener size and the presence D of capped-end compression, the first curve indicates higher where C/, depends on the tube geometry. More specifically, Ch pressure capacity for relatively small stiffener spacing. On the increases with decreasing diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t and other hand, for large values of spacing, the effects of the decreasing stiffener spacing Ls/D. The elastic buckling hoop stiffener size and the capped-end compression are negligible. stress ahe is compared with the yield stress ay. If o>,c>0.55a,,, The third curve corresponds to the API specification predicthe ultimate hoop stress is given by tions and provides good estimates of the analytical results. / \0,4 Extensive experimental data were reported by Miller and ohc = 0.7oJ^\ (2) Kinra (1981), Miller et al. (1982), and CBl (1983). These results are depicted in Fig. 2 together with analytical predictions and whereas if <jhe<0.55<jy compared with the API specification formula. Four experiahc = ahe (3) mental points are below the specification curve. Two of them, accurately predicted by the analytical technique, had relatively The ultimate pressure phc predicted by API is given by small size stiffeners, which accounts for the low-pressure cat pacity. Another specimen collapsed prematurely because of PhC = ^ohc (4) failure of the stiffener weld (Miller et al., 1982). The low test result of the fourth specimen was not explained. In the recent work by Karamanos and Tassoulas (1993), it was found that the major parameter that affects the pure Bending Capacity Under Pressure. Previous experimental pressure response of stiffener tubes is the stiffener spacing. and analytical works have shown that the presence of pressure The influence of other parameters, such as the stiffener size, reduces the bending capacity of offshore tubes. Extensive crossthe stiffener position (internal or external), the presence of sectional deformation, because of the presence of hoop capped-end compression and residual stresses were also ex- compression, is responsible for this type of instability. The amined. In this paper, some characteristic results are shown. recent API specification (1993) does not account for the foreIn Fig. 1, the pressure capacity of a tube with outside di- going interaction. Nevertheless, a simplified method has been ameter and thickness 168.3 mm (6.625 in.) and 4.0 mm (0.157 proposed by Loh (1990), based on the specification formula in.), respectively, is presented. Its material curve may be ap- D.3.3-1 for axial-hoop stress interaction proximated with a Ramberg-Osgood curve 2 (6) A2 + B + 2vAB=l n-r (5) where

>-m

with E, a'y, and n equal to 203,860 MPa (29,560 ksi), 358.6 MPa (52.0 ksi) and 16, respectively. A tube with similar crosssectional and material characteristics (specimen C22J1) was tested by CBI (1989). Therefore, this tube is referred to as tube Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

A= B ^
Phc

(7) (8)

NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 247

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

0.3 0.25

i ' SI

i_

1_

i.

B-4. 1

\ j.. .J ! C1JC E B

CB1 stub columns Group 3 D/t=S8.8 L/D=3.0 \ 3-07

0.2 a. CBl-SwRI tests 0.1S 'Group I D/t=42.2 as 1 0.1 UD=24.9 0.05--

\ \
C4JC

...,

Loh formula experiments E S analysis

1 1

\.
\

0.2

, r0.4 0.6 0.8 normalized moment

C2JB ^rffl 1 1.2

Loh formula & experiments S B analysis

0

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 normalized moment

Fig. 3 Comparison between experimental data and analytical results (CBI, 1989)

Fig. 4 Comparison between experimental data and analytical results (CBI, 1985)

V = 5 . 4 * (9) Py Ob is the bending stress, and ab is the maximum bending stress given by the specification formula D.2.3-2. For a given value of pressure p, Eq. (6) may be solved in terms of A, and the moment capacity under pressure MnX is calculated as follows: Mnl=AMjl (10) C22J1 D/t=42 e=0.01 with residual sir. zero pressure 1 1.5 2 normalized curvature
Fig. 5 Moment-curvature curves of tube C22J1 for Ls/D=3.0 and LJ D=10.0

where ace is the capped-end compressive stress, and Mn is the maximum bending moment, which corresponds to Ob. Experimental data on unstiffened tubes are shown in Fig. 3 together with the analytical predictions. The tubes are moderately thick (D/t = 42.2), they have no intermediate stiffeners, and the end sections are about 25 tube diameters apart. Therefore, they may be classified as unstiffened. The tubes are initially pressurized with capped-end compression. Then, keeping the pressure constant, they are subjected to bending until instability occurs. The results are compared with Eq. (10), which predicts the shape of the actual interaction curve, but clearly underestimates the ultimate bending capacity. The main reason for this inconsistency is due to the strain-hardening effects, which are totally neglected in calculating M. Both experimental and analytical results indicate that the ultimate moment is above the nominal plastic moment. There are no experimental results on the pressurized bending capacity of stiffened tubes. However, based on the stub column tests reported by CBI (1985) and the analytical predictions, the specification formula seems to be quite conservative. In these tests, the undeformed ends of the tube may be considered to have very heavy, practically rigid, stiffeners. In Fig. 4, experimental and numerical results from one test group are compared with Loh's formula. The ultimate moment prediction under zero pressure Mn is based on the unstiffened tube geometry and is rather conservative, mainly because of strain hardening. This phenomenon, also observed in the case of unstiffened tubes, is accentuated in this case because of the presence of stiffeners. More specifically, stiffeners prevent extensive cross-sectional deformation, allow additional deformation into the strain hardening region and result in higher values of ultimate moment. In the same graph, the underestimation of the maximum pressure capacity is expected because of the undeformed end-sections, which provide the maximum possible stiffness against ovalization. The bending response of stiffened tubes is further examined in Fig. 5. The tube under consideration has the cross-sectional and material characteristics of tube C22J1. The stiffeners are 248 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994

internal, with radial and longitudinal dimensions equal to 25.4 mm (1.00 in.) and 3.68 mm (0.145 in.), respectively. The two curves represent the bending responses for stiffener spacing equal to three and ten tube diameters. The second spacing value (L s /D= 10) is quite large and the tube may be regarded as unstiffened. Clearly, the use of stiffeners not only increases the ultimate moment, but also results in a more ductile response. The reason for this effect is the additional stiffness provided by stiffeners against cross-sectional ovalization. Finally, Fig. 6 shows the effects of pressure on the bending response of stiffened tubes. The level of pressure is reported with respect to the collapse pressures, which is equal to 15.42 MPa (2236 psi) for this tube. Obviously, together with the ultimate moment reduction, there is a significant reduction in rotational capacity. Axial Capacity Under Pressure. The axial capacity of tubes under external pressure is of major importance in the design of offshore platforms. Most of the vertical members of these structures are subjected to loading combinations where the uniform axial stress ranges from twice to four times the maximum bending stress (Marshall et al., 1992). The axial capacity of tubes under zero pressure is shown in Fig. 7 for different values of the slenderness ratio KL/r. The tube is assumed to have the cross-sectional and material characteristics of tube C22JI. Both circumferential and longitudinal residual stresses are assumed to be nonzero, whereas the Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

C22J1 D/t**42 L/D*3.0 e=0.01 with residual sir. -pip = 0.00 -pip = 0.2 2 pip =0.45 1 1.5 2 normalized curvature 2.5

Of course, this argument is based on the assumption that the tube remains elastic with constant cross section. However, stiffened tubes are designed for high levels of pressure, and, therefore, inelastic behavior and extensive ovalization are expected to be an important factor for the axial capacity. Let Pa0 and P c r l be the axial capacities without and with pressure, respectively. According to the API specification, Pai is equal to P cr0 , provided that its sum with the capped-end compression Pce does not exceed the value of the local buckling force Pxc (which is equal to the yield force Py for D/t values less than 60). The foregoing restriction is implied by the API strength formula D.3.2-2, when the moment is equal to zero (14) =^ = 0 M Furthermore, two simplified formulas have been proposed to account for the pressure effects on the axial buckling load. However, they have not yet been adopted by the specification. In the first method, proposed by Dorgant (1990), the yield stress of the tube material is modified in order to account for pressure effects. Considering the von Mises yield theory, the reduced yield stress can be written as cos
Oyi = moy

ir(Pcrl+Pc

Fig. 6 Bending-moment curves for three levels of pressure (tube C22J1, Ls/D = 3.0)

4Q

(15)

where a indicates the level of hoop stress with respect to the yield stress {a = ah/ay), and m is the yield stress reduction factor. Using Bleich's parabola (Eq. (11)), the ratio of the thrust capacity under pressure over the zero pressure thrust capacity can be expressed as
i= =
fcrO

'l-0.25wX2\ 1-0.25X2/

(16)

On the other hand, the exponential curve (Eq. (13)) results in / 2 = H = m 0.658 < m " 1 ) x 2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 normalized slenderness ratio
Fig. 7 Buckling curve for tube C22J1; comparison with design equations

(17)

It can be easily verified that the two curves provide almost identical results. Following the procedure proposed by Loh (1990), the tangent modulus may be modified in order to account for the presence of pressure and the result can be written as follows:
/3 =

initial out-of-roundness is chosen equal to the API allowable imperfection (e = 0.01). For the initial out-of-straightness, a value of A equal to 1/4000 is used (A is the ratio of the maximum initial deflection to the tube length). The stiffeners are internal, with radial and longitudinal dimensions equal to 25.4 mm (1.00 in.) and 3.68 mm (0.145 in.), respectively. The analytical results are compared with two specification formulas for inelastic buckling. The first formula is the well-known Bleich parabola, adopted by the API specification (1993) -Pcr = -P,(l-0.25A 2 ) (11)

firl

Q>1

A+"^A2 + 4B 2(1-0.25X 2 ) y\ _ 2(T 4ae Vy\ 1-l Oyi

(18)

and
,4 = 1
(Tee

(19)
(20)

where X is the normalized slenderness ratio defined as follows:

X=

Oy\

:0.5<77(a + V 4 - 3 a 2 )
KLE

(21)

and

KL

(12)

(KL/ry

(22)

On the other hand, the recent AISC-LRFD specification (1986) proposes the following, more conservative, exponential formula: P c r = P^0.658 x2 (13) Clearly, the analytical results follow the AISC-LRFD curve, whereas the parabolic curve appears to be unconservative. It has been shown elsewhere (Chen and Han, 1985) that the effects of lateral pressure on the classical beam-column equation are canceled by the presence of capped-end compression.

The stiffened tube analyzed in pressurized axial compression has the cross-sectional and material characteristics of tube C22J1 and slenderness ratio (KL/r) equal to 50. Therefore, it will be referred to as tube C22J1_50. The initial out-ofroundness e is chosen equal to 0.01, and residual stresses are assumed to follow the distributions proposed by Chen and Ross (1977). The stiffeners are internal, their radial and longitudinal dimensions are 25.4 mm (1.00 in.) and 3.68 mm (0.145 in.), respectively, spaced at a distance of 1.92 tube diameters.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 249

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

ultimate pressure 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 normalized axial force 1 0.4 0.6 normalized moment Tube C22J1 SO D/t=42 e=0.01 Ml/4000 with residual sir. zero pressure analysis API interaction - motlif. yield stress (f ) modif. tang, modulus (f )

ft.

Fig. 8 Effects of pressure on axial capacity for stiffened tube C22J1 (KL/r= 50)

The maximum initial out-of-straightness is taken equal to 1/ 4000 of the tube length (A = 1/4000). In Fig. 8, the reduced axial load capacity of tube C22J1_ 50, because of the presence of pressure, is compared with three reduction formulas. The analytical results are in very good agreement with Eqs. (16) and (18) for low and intermediate pressure levels. In addition, the API interaction formula (Eq. (14)) is a reasonable bilinear approximation of the analytical results. Nevertheless, the analytical results deviate from these formulas for high pressure levels. This is due to extensive plasticity and ovalization effects near the collapse pressure. It must be noted that, in all three simplified formulas, P c r 0 is calculated through Eq. (13) (exponential curve). Beam-Column Behavior and Design. Having examined the effects of hydrostatic external pressure on axial and bending capacity, the pressure effects on axial-bending interaction are investigated. Before presenting the analytical results, it is necessary to summarize the API specification (1993) provisions for beam-column stability. For axial and bending loading interaction, the global stability criterion D.3.2-1 expressed through the well-known stability equation with amplification factor, as well as the cross-sectional strength criterion D.3.22, must be met M -=1 (l+P/Pe)M and M_ (24) cos 2P ''M The foregoing formulas are independent of hoop compression. To account for pressure effects, the specification requires that the applied external pressure be less than the ultimate pressure phc given by Eq. (4). In order to account for the interaction between pressure and structural loads, the axial force P in Eq. (24) should be the sum of the externally applied axial force and the capped-end compression Pce. It should be noted that the local-buckling API interaction formula D.3.4-1 may be neglected, since, for the D/t values of interest, the elastic local buckling axial stress is very large. Consequently, according to the new API-LRFD rules, only the axial capacity of beam-columns is affected by the presence of external pressure. However, it has been shown that, in the case of pure bending, the presence of pressure decreases the capacity. It is possible to account for pressure effects on beamcolumns by replacing Pa0 and M in Eq. (23) by PCIl and M n l , 250 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994
TT_P

normalized moment
Fig. 9 Analytical results for beam-column C22J150; comparison with design equations

(23)

which account for pressure effects. The value of the reduced axial capacity Pai can be estimated by multiplying P cr0 with one of the reduction formulas presented in the previous section (Eqs. (16), (17), or (18)) or by the API bilinear formula (Eq. (14)). In addition, the value of the interaction curve on the horizontal axis Mnl (i.e., the ultimate moment under pressure) can be calculated through Eq. (10). Consequently, the beamcolumn Eq. (23) may be rewritten as M (25) 1 {\-P/Pe)Mnl In Fig. 9, the analytical results for tube C22J1_50 for zero pressure are seen to compare well with Eq. (23), where the thrust capacity PQl0 was calculated through the exponential Eq. (13). In the second graph of Fig. 9, the interaction curve of tube C22J1_50 for a relatively high value of pressure equal to 10.34 MPa (1500 psi, p/py = 0.55), is compared with Eq. (25). The pressurized axial capacity is calculated through Eqs. (18) and (13) and the pressurized moment capacity M i is obtained from Eq. (10). The comparison appears to be very good for axial dominant loading cases, but very conservative for bending response. The interaction curves for another stiffened fabricated tube, referred to as tube SP3, are reported in Fig. 10. The outside diameter and thickness of the tube are equal to 1168.4 mm (46.0 in.) and 28.58 mm (1.125 in.), respectively. The material is assumed to be bilinear, with yield stress of 413.8 MPa (60 ksi), Young's modulus of 200,000 MPa (29000 ksi), and postTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

(10) provides rather conservative predictions because of the underestimation of M. The effects of pressure on the axial capacity are taken into account by API through a bilinear curve defined by Eq. (14), providing reasonable predictions. Analytical results are also in good agreement with the formulas proposed by Dorgant and Loh. It should be noted that, for calculating the zeropressure ultimate thrust Pcr0, the experimental curve (Eq. (13)), rather than the parabolic curve (Eq. (11)), was found to be in better agreement with the analytical results. Finally, the pressure effects on the beam-column response may be calculated through the modified interaction formula (Eq. (25)). Nevertheless, the predictions are conservative for bending-dominant loading cases, because of the inaccurate estimate of the pressurized moment capacity M,n. _,
0.4 normalized 0.6 moment
r

0.8

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Shell Oil Co. The authors would like to thank Shell engineers Peter W. Marshall, C. Dave Edwards and Denby G. Morrison for coordinating the research and providing useful comments and suggestions. References
American Institute of Steel Construction, 1986, "Manual of Steel Construction," Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition. American Petroleum Institute, 1993, "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsLoad and Resistance Factor Design," API RP2A-LRFD, First Edition. Chen, W. F., and Han, D. J., 1985, Tubular Members in Of/shore Structures, Pitman, London. Chen, W. F., and Ross, D. A., 1977, "Tests of Fabricated Tubular Columns," ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 619-633. Chicago Bridge & Iron, 1989, "Hydrostatic Beam-Column Tests (Phase II)," Final ReportContract No. C92731, API Project No. 87-56 Plainfield, IL. Chicago Bridge & Iron, 1983, "Collapse Tests of Fabricated Cylinders Under Combined Axial Compression and External Pressure," Final ReportContract No. 21738, API Project No. 82/83-46 Plainfield, IL. Chicago Bridge & Iron, 1985, "Collapse Tests of Short Tubular Columns Subjected to Combined Loads," Final Report, Pennzoil/Joint Industry Project, Plainfield, IL. Corona, E., and Kyriakides, S., 1988, "On the Collapse of Inelastic Tubes Under Combined Bending and Pressure," International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 24, pp. 505-535. Dorgant, P. L., 1990, "Titan Member Design Equations," Interoffice Memorandum, Shell Oil Co., Nov. Karamanos, S. A., and Tassoulas, J. L., 1991, "Stability of Deep-Water Pipelines Under Combined Loading," Offshore Technology Research Center, Report No. 6/91-B-18-1O0, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. Karamanos, S. A., and Tassoulas, J. L., 1993, "Stability of Tubes Under External Pressure and Structural Loading,"Offshore Technology Research Center, Report, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. Loh, J. T , 1990, " A Unified Design Procedure for Tubular Members," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6310, pp. 365-378, Houston, TX. Marshall, P. W., Edwards, C. D,, and Morrison, D. G., 1992, private communication. Miller, C. D., and Kinra, R. K., 1981, "External Pressure Tests of Stiffened Fabricated Steel Tubes," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4107, pp. 371386, Houston, TX. Miller, C. D., Kinra, R. K., and Marlow, R. S., 1982, "Tension and Collapse Tests of Fabricated Steel Cylinders," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4218, pp. 635-659, Houston, TX. Sohal, S. I., and Chen, W. F , 1987, "Local Buckling and Sectional Behavior of Fabricated Tubes," ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 519-533. Sohal, S. I., and Chen, W. F., 1984, "Moment-Curvature Expressions for Fabricated Tubes," ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 110, No. 11, pp. 2738-2757. Southwest Research Institute, "Effects of External Hydrostatic Pressure on . Tubular Beam-Columns," Final ReportProject No. 06-1184, API Project No. 86/87-56, San Antonio, TX. Toma, S., and Chen, W. F., 1979,' 'Analysis of Fabricated Tubular Columns,'' ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 105, No. 11, pp. 2343-2366. Toma, S., and Chen, W. F , 1983, "Design of Vertical Chords in Deep-Water Platforms," ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 109, No. 11, pp. 27332746.

0.4 0.6 normalized moment

Fig. 10 tions Analytical results for tube SP3; comparison with design equa-

yielding modulus equal to 7400. The tube has residual stresses and initial out-of-roundness e equal to 0.01. The thrust-bending interaction is determined for zero pressure and for a pressure-level of about 8.43 MPa (1222.0 psi,/>//>,, = 0.42). Again, Eq. (23) predicts quite accurately the thrust-moment interaction for zero pressure. However, the pressurized interaction is underestimated by Eq. (25) due to the low value of Mnl. Conclusions In this paper, the effects of external pressure on the capacity of tubular members was investigated by means of a rigorous finite element technique. The results were compared with experimental data and design formulas. The API formula for hoop compression provides a reasonable lower bound for the ultimate pressure phc of tubes. On the other hand, the ultimate moment capacity Mn under zero pressure is underestimated by the API specification. Experiments and analysis indicate that moment values beyond the nominal plastic moment can be reached, especially for stiffened tubes. In the API specification, there is no provision for the pressure effects on the ultimate moment (Mni). The use of Eq.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 251

Downloaded 01 Nov 2009 to 218.208.37.227. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm