OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway NUMBER GTe 2644

Dallas, Texas 75206

Ultimate strength of Tubular Joints

By
Robert B. Pan, Fred B. Plummer, Exxon Production Research Cp., and J. G. Kuang, Exxon
Production Malaysia, Inc'.'

THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

~Copyright1976 .
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc. (Society of Mining Engineers, The Metallurgical Society and Society of Petroleum. Enginee~s),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Amencan Society
of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic~ En-
gineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Tex., May 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations
may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by
whom the paper is presented.
- ~.. --- ~
.. ~===~=='I-~~---''-----'''-'----==-=~---''---=---'---'''':-''----,
I ABSTRACT
-----·----~·~··_··~~·"

loading conditions. Even though nominal member

stresses may be at reasonable levels the complex
Tubular joint ultimate strength equations behavior of tubular intersections can result in
that are helpful for offshore platform design high stress amplification that can lead to fail-
are presented. The formulae are based on data ure. In many cases the walls of joint cans must
from 346 jOlnt tests. They are easy to use and be thickened or member diameters must be in-
cover more joint configurations than present creased to provida adequate strength.
design procedures.
The procedure for designing tubular jo~~~~.
The ultimate strength behavior of platform must be simple and should lend itself to automa- -
tubular joints is highlighted by reviewing tion in order to handle the large number_of
potential failure mechanisms and pointing out joints in most platforms. Considerable computer
salient trends in available data. A brief _ output must be screened to determine maximum
review of the de'veIopment is presented which .- applied loads at each joint. Predicted joint
extends the work of Washio (1) and Gibstein (2). strength must be calculated for each member
Some comparisons are made between the new predic- intersection and compared with the applied loads.
tions and those of available methods. These Joints with deficient capacity are then re-sized.
give some indications of where conservatism may
exist and show the range of parameters over At present, empirical expressions represent
which current practice may overestimate the the state-of-the-art for predicting the ultimate
lower bound to available experimental data. An strength of tubular joints. They are based on
example problem is included to illustrate how axially loaded laboratory joint tests. Very
the new formulae can be used to design a typical little ultimate strength data exists for bending
K-joint. A final section discusses the needs or combined axial and bending loads. Conse-
for future research. quently, bending and combined loading effecLs are
usually taken into account in an heuristic manner.
Analytical methods have not been successful
INTRODUC'tION because of the geometric, computational, and
analytical complexities involved. The finite
The sizing of tubular joints for ulti~te element method could probably be applied but
strength is an important step in the design of would be too costly, time consuming and compli-
offshore platforms. This~process is' accomplished cated for practical joint design. A finite
once platform members have been designed to element model, to be acceptable, would have to
withstand operational and severe environmental include nonlinear material behavior, a fracture
-

criterion and possibly nonlinear geometric terms

References and illustrations at end of paper
300 ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF TUBULAR JOINTS DTG 2644

to account for local buckling. Thus~ for the type of failure and develop the full design load
short term, the empirical approach seems most of the member. In Failure type 3 there is usu-
practical. ally large plastic deformation of the chord wall
accompanied, in the latter stages, by fracture of
This-paper presents a new set of joint the chord wall at the weld toe. Most of the
strength equations that are helpful for platform tension loading data for T-joints and X-joints
design. The expressions are based on more data considered in this paper are for this type of
and cover more joint configurations than present failure. Joint designs must avoid this failure
procedures. The formulas are presented along mode since it results in both the branch and the
with some comparisons between the new predictions chord losing load carrying capacity. Load type 4
and those of current methods. An example problem is still another possible failure that could
is also given to illustrate how the equations are occur in T-joints particularly when the chord
used in joint design. member has a long unsupported length. It is
caused by bending compressive stresses in the
Tubular Joint Failure Behavior chord wall and is not really a true joint failure.
Part of the problem in being able to analyti The final tensile failure (type 5) shown in
cally predict tubular joint strength is the many Fig. 1 is basically a metallurgical probl~m that
competing failure modes that are possible in even becomes more critical as wall thicknesses increaSE
the simplest of joints. rhus it is _helpful for beyond one to two inches. Lamellar tearing
designers to have some insight into failure generally occurs adjacent to welds because of
mechanisms in order to produce both safe and large local temperature strains and possible
efficient designs. In the following sections we planes of weakness in the chord wall (due to
will review a number of potential failure modes impurities that are elongated in the plate roll-
for simple T-joints, X-joints and K-joints to ing process). These failures generally occur
point out trends in joint behavior and important shortly after fabrication and can be detected by
design considerations. For purposes of this inspection and repaired. This type of failure
discussion the chord and branch members are points out the need for more stringent require-
defined in Fig. I (type 1). The chord generally ments for the steel that is to be used in tubular
has a larger diameter and larger wall thickness platform joints. Specifications should include
than the branches. The branch members are coped X-ray inspection of the plate and fracture tough~
and welded to the chord wall to form the joint. ness requirements particularly in the through
thickness direction.
T-Joint and X-Joint Failure Modes
Failure type 6il~ustrates a compressive~
Figure ~ summarizes a riumber of possib~e failure of a T-joint. It is characterized by a
failure types that can occur in unreinforced T- local buckling or collapse of the chord wall in
joints and X-joints. Types I through 5 illus- the vicinity of the branch interse.ction*. The
strate tensile failures while type 6 shows a value of ultimate load is generally less for
compressive failure. The tensile £ailures are compressive type loading than for tensile loading
characterized by a fracture or parting of the on the same T-joint or X-joint (see Figs. 5 and
material-and may be either ductile or brittle. 6). Consequently, the compressive loading gener-
The presence of small notches or flaws increases ally governs in design.
the likelihood of tensile failures. When the
stress intensity factor at the root of a notch K-Joint Failure Modes
exceeds the fracture toughness of the material* a
crack can propagate in an unstable manner. A fairly large number of tubular K-joints
Compressive failures, on the other hand, are have been tested to failure with one branch
nearly always accompanied by large plastic defor- loaded in tension and the other in compression.
ma tion and a local c.ollapse of the chord wall. The typical failure** will resemble that shown in
Fig. 2.a. (preViously reported by Reber (5)).
Failure type 1 in,Fig. 1 illus~rates the The compression branch produced large plastic_-
elongation of the branch member. This mode deformation of the chord wall. A fractureini-
develops the full strength of the branch and is a tiated in the chord wall at the point of maximum
very ductile failure. Fracture, if it occurs, tensile stress at the weld toe of the tensi,
will be near the intersection weld toe where branch. The chord wall was fabricated from .18TM
stresses are locally increased and defects are A 537 Grade B steel. Figure 2.b. shows a
more likely to occur. Failure type 2 is similar
to type I except that fracture occurs in the weld 1 - - - - - - - - - _
metal. Welds should be designed to avoid this *For compressive loading it is assumed that buck-
ling of the member has been prevented in the
overall member design.
*A discussion of these fracture ~echanics con~-­ **Failure modes similar to types 1, 2, and 5 can
also occur in K-joints.
cepts is presented in reference 3.
OTe 2644 -R. B. PAN, F. B. PLUMMER, AND J. G. KUANG 301

companion specimen in which the chord was fabri- The parameter g/D applies only to the K-
cated from ASTM A 36 steel. Even though the joint case. It tends to be a measure of some
maximum branch loads for this member were only additional strengthening that occurs as the
slightly less, the member failed in a brittle branches of a K-joint are moved closer together.
manner with only slight plastic deformation Above g/D values of approximately .2 the failure
around the compressive branch. This· again load appears to be independent of g/D. However,
underlines the need for fabricating joint cans as the joints come closer and eventually overlap,
from material with good fracture toughness. a marked strengthening is noticed (see_Fig. 3).

Geometric Parameters and Tubular Joint Failure ~_ Ultimate Strength Correlations

Behavior -
Experimental data obtained fro~ 214 K-joint
Empirical equations_to predict tubular (Table 1) and 132 T-, Y-, and X-joint_load tests
joint strength generally correlate the u1timate_ (Table 2) are used as the basis for this correla-
load with a number of dimensionless ratios. It tion. Ultimate strength is assumed to depend on
is important to know how capacity depends on the yield strength*, cry, of the chord wall and
these parameters so that joints can be resized the geometric parameters discussed in the pre-
in an efficient manner during design. The vious section. The form of the expression is
geometric parameters considered in this paper
are __ _ -
_ -

P
TID - Ratio of the chord wall thickness to u
its outer diameter
Eacn dimensionless function fl' fZ' f 3 and f4
diD -Ratio of the outer diameter of the are taken to have an independent influence on
branch to the outer diameter of the joint strength and thus can be evaluated separ-
chord. ately while holding the others constant. This
approach extends the work of Washio (1) and
e - The intersecting angle between the Gibstein (2) by considering new configurations
axis of a given branch and the axis and incorporating additional data.
of the chord.
K-Joint Formula
g/D - Ratio of the gap (clear space dis-
tance between the intersections of Washio found that for K-joints the ultimate
two branches with the chord wall) and strength. P ' can be written aB
the outer diameter of the chord. u
This ratio applies only to K-joints.
p
u
sine = cryT z - 2
IR/T(1+6.52d/D) (1-. 26cos 0)f (g/D)
4
The parameter TID gives a measure of the
radial stiffness of the chord wall. This parame-
ter has a reasonably strong effect-on joint where R=D/2 is the outside chord radius. To
strength over some ranges and thus thickening of determine the influence of the gap ratio parame-
the chord wall can be effective in improving ter g/D, it is assumed that
joint strength.

The ratio diD is a measure of how concen- P sinG

trated the branch loading is. Joint strength is I ---'u=--- = f 4 (g/D) _
very stronglyftependent on this factor so that Z
increasing the diameter ofa branch member or cr T /R/T(1+6.25d/D) (1-. 26cosZe)
y
flaring a branch diameter.near a joint is often
an effective strengthening approach.

The intersection angle, G, can be viewed as

affecting joint strength in two ways. First. a
sinG term is used to resolve the ~xial load and that the coefficients ao and al can be deter-
into a component which is perpendicular to the mined from the available test data. This data is
axis of the chord member. The second effect is
a measure of how the axial joint load tends to
increase in-plane stresses in the chord. This *The yield strength is the average of cry deter--
in-plane effect is of lesser importance and was mined in directions parallel and perpendicular
only included in the K-joint equations of this to the direction of rolling. If this deforma-
report. tion is not available the nominal yield strength
should be used.
~n? ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF TUBULAR JOINTS OTC 2644
4v’-

plotted in Fig. 3 along with a lower bound The K-joint comparisons are illustrated in
:urve. The expression for the funcEion_f4(g/D) Figs . 8 and 9. Without safety factors both API
–,
is and DnV formulae tend to overestimate joint
strength. The 1.8 AP1 safety factor would
.8 .16~D<.7 produce safe but in many cases very conservative
E4(g/D) = designs. The same comment generally applies to
{1.0544-l.59(g/D) -.5<g/D:.16 .:. the DnV equations when their 1.5 safety factor
for environmental loads or 2.0 safety factor for
operational loads are applied.
For values of g/D higher than approximately .16,
f4(g/D) is independent of g/D. The data in this The T-joint and Y-joint comparisons are
range is nearly normally distributed and the shown in Figs. 10 and 11. For some.practical
Lower bound line roughly corresponds to the 95 ranges of parameters it can be seen that both
percent confidence level. For g/D below .16 API and DnV predictions may fall above the lower
considerable strengthening occurs as the branches bound to available strength data.
become closer together and eventually overlap.
In this range the data is not normally distri- Finally Fig. 12 compares the new X-joint
buted and the scatter suggests that possibly formula with the equivalent DnV formula. The
~ther parameters should be involved in the DnV expression tends to slightly overestimate
correlation. We are”continuing to study this joint strength but the factors of safety would
problem and are hopeful that recent analytical make it conservative.
advances will shed new light on the behavior of
overlapping joints. A finite element model These comparisons show that the existing
ilevelopedby Leick and Potvin (6) will provide design formulae are generally safe if used with
some insight into the stress distribution in the recommended safety factors. A possible
overlapping joints and the possible importance exception is for-the Y-joint comparisons (Fig.
of branch member parameters. 10 and 11) which overestimate lower bound joint
strength for some ranges of the plotted parame-
The K-joint ultimate strength formula and a ters. On the other hand, it should be pointed
handy formula for calculating the gap, g, are out that there are parameter ranges over which
summarized in Figure 4. current formulae are very conservative. Addi-.
tional research that gives due consideration to
Formulas for T-joints, Y-joints and X-joints__ service conditions and the interaction of ulti-
mate strength and.fatigue is needed to further
The same apprmach was used to develop clarify these conclusions.
ultimate strength equations for T-joints and Y-
joints. Figure5 shows the rather go_odcorrela- Example Problem
tion of strength with the parameter d/D. A
similar correlation for X-joints is also given Parameters for an example design calculation
in Figure 6. It should be noted that X-joints are given in Figure 13. All members are fabri-
are strengthened considerably as d/D approaches cated from 36 ksi yield strength material, and
unity. the dimensions shown on the “stick” figure are
those required to withstand the environmental
The formulae for these joints are summar- and operational load conditions. The next step
ized in Fig. 7. is to insure that the joint can also withstand
these same design loads. First the computer
Safety Factor output is screened to determine the maximum
applied loads. These are shown in the following
It is important to note that no safety table. Minimum
factor is implicit in this formulation other Calculated Load
than that the Formulae are a lower bound to Design Load Criteria
available data and represent a rather remote Member Pu 0.4 a A
possibility of fa%lure. The designer must use
his judgement in assigning additional safety
factors. A 904 Kips 789 Kips

B 50 Kips 441 Kips

Comparison with Existing Procedures

Comparisons are made between these formulae The second column in this table is a minimum
which represent a lower bound to available data load criteria. Lightly loaded member intersec-
and accepted design rules, e.g. API RP 2A (1975) tions are generally designed to withstand some
and Det norske Veritas (1974). No safety factors fraction of the load that would cause the member
are included for the purpose of this comparison. to yield (here 40 percent of the yield load is
 OYC 2644 .R. B. PAN, F. B. PLUMMER, AND J.-G. KUANG 303
—

used). An axial load of 904 kips for member A 3. Procedures to calculate the ultimate
and 441 kips for member B will be used to size strength of joints with internal ring stiffeners
.—
the chord wall. should be developed.

The gap, g, between branches can be calcu- 4. Analytical procedures in general are
lated from the expression given in Fig. 4. For not, at present, well geared to solve tubular
m assumed eccentricity, f=o, the gap is +2.05 joint ultimate strength problems. Additional
inches. The ultimate load formula shown in Fig. basic research on analytical methods and frac-
4 can be rewritten in terms of the required ture criteria are required to make any substantial
chord wall thickness T.
1
progress.

5. The interrelation between fracture and.

Pu sin Q fatigue behavior of tubular joints is a fruitful
r= : area for research. Late in the fatigue life of
[ oy ~(1+”6.52 d/D)(i-.26=cos2Q) ‘---” a joint cracks may exist that could reduce its
capacity below that predicted by present me-
thods . Recently developed stress intensity
2/3 factors (7) for fatigue life prediction may shed

1
1
x (1.05 -1.59 g/D) some light on this matter but they are limited
in that they do not include nonlinear material
response. Additional work is also needed to
For an applied ‘load of”.904kipson member A the relate low-cycle fatigue behavior to ultimate
required chord wall thickness is 0.986 inch. strength predictions.
For an applied load of 441 kips on member B the
required chord wall thickness is 0.787 inch. AcKNowLEDGMENTS _.. .
Based on these calculations a designer would
1probably specify a one inch joint can at this We wish to thank the management of Exxon
joint. Production Research Company for supporting this
work, and Exxon Company, U.S.A. Platform Design
Group for information on large scale joint
(20NCLUDING REMARKS tests. Thanks also go to J. E. Brown and J. B.
Warden for their comments and insights into
The problem of developing procedures to design procedures.
?redict the strength of.tubular joints is a
complicated and difEicult task. Thus , current REFERENCES
nethcds are based on empirical formulae that are
correlated with laboratory test data. The new 1. Washio, K., Togo, T. and Mitsui, Y., ‘:Exper-
Iesign formulae presented herein are simple to imental Study on Local Failure of Chords in
we and extend the current methods to new joint Tubular Truss Joints (I),” Technology
types. They predict a lower bound to existing Reports of the Osaka University, 18, pp.
(Iata but contain no implicit safety factor. 559-581, October 1968.
Comparisons show that existing formulae with
recommended safety factors applied are generally 2. Gibstein,”M. B., “Static Strength of Tubular
safe but may be very overconservative for some Joints,” Det norske Veritas Report No. 73–
ranges of parameters. 86-C, May 15, 1973. .

A consolidation of available data on which 3. Tetelman, A. S. and McEvily, A. J., “Frac-

the correlations are based, is published to ture of Structural Materials”, John Wiley
stimulate future research. ~ere are a number and Sons, Inc; New York, 1967.
of facets of ultimate tubular joint strength
that in our opinion require additional work. 4. Weld, G. and Kristoffersen, T., “Develop-
ment of Method for Measuring Susceptibility
1. The most pressing needs are in the of Steel Plate to Lamellar Tearing,” OTC
area of ultimate strength for in-plane and out- 1915, 1973.
of-plane moment loadings-,or for combined axial
and bending loadings. There is little available 5. Reber, J. R., Jr., “Ultimate Strength
data to cover these cases for even the simplest Design of Tubular Joints,” OTC 1664, 1972.
joints.
6. Leick, R. D. and Potvin, A. B., “Automated
2. Formulae for ultimate axial capacity Mesh Generation for Tubular Joint Stress
of overlapping joints require additional work. Analysis,” Second National Symposium on
New analytical methods may provide the needed Computerized Structural Analysis and Design,
insight. George Washington University, Washington,
D.C., March 29-31, 1976.
~a
,–, ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF TUBULAR JOINTS OTC 2644

Pan,”R. B.-=nd Plummer, l?.B. , “A Fracture Welding ?t~search Council, Aug. 1961.
7.
Mechanics Approach to FTonoverlapping Tubu- ~8
lar K-Joint Fatigue Life Prediction,” OTC J. G. Bouwkamp, “Behavior of”tubular truss
“
2645, 1976. joints under static loads -phase II”,
University of California, Jan. 1968.
8. H. Sammet, “Die festigkeit Knotenblechloser
rohrvesbindungen im stahlbau”, Schweisstech- 19. J. G. Bouwkamp, “Behavior of tubular truss
nik, Zeitschrift fu alle Gebiete der joints under static loads -phase I“, Univer-
Schweiss, Schneid und Lottechnik, 13, pp. sity of California, July 1965.
481-485, 1963.
20. H. Kanatani, “Experimental Study on Welded
9. Nokajima and All, “Experimental study on Tubular Connections”, Memoirs of the Faculty
the strength of thin wall welded tubular of Engineering, Kobe University, No. 12,
joints”, 1st report, IIW Dec. XV-312-71.” 1966.
21. Noel, J. S., Beale, L. A., and Toprac, A.
LO. “Experimental determination of the ultimate A “An Investigation of Stresses in welded
strength of tubular joints”, EPR Company T~;oints” Technical Report, P550-3, Univer-
report, Sept. 1971. sity of Texas, Austin, March 1955.

11. Y. Kurobane & All, “Low cycle fatigue 22. Andrian, L. E., Sewell, K. A., and Womack,
research on tubular K-joints”, IIW Dec. XV- W. R., “Partial Investigation of Directly
291-70. Loaded Pipe T-Joints”, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, 1958.
12. Y. Kurobane, “Welded truss joints of tubu-
lar structural members”, memoirs of the ?3. Beale, L. A., and Toprac, A. A., “Analysis
faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto University, of Inplane T, Y and X welded Tubular Connec-
12, No. 1, Dec. 1964. tions”. Welding Research Council Bulletin,
October 1967.
L3. “Study on tubular joint_sused for marine
structure”, (in Japanese) The Society of 24. Toprac, A. A., Natarajan, M., Erzurumlu,
Steel Construction of Japan, March 1972. H ., and Kanoo, A. L. J., “Research in
Tubular Joints: Static and Fatigue Loads”.
L4. W. Zimmerman, “Tests on panel point type OTC 1062, 1969.
joints for large diameter tubes”, Otto Graf i
Institute..ofthe Stuttgart College of 25. Popov, v. s., “Research into the strength
Technology Sept. 1965.” of the joints between the lattice members
and chords in tubular welded structures”
L5. V. I. Novikov, V. A. Kovtunenko, “Assem- Aut. Svarkea, No. 3, pp. 30-31, 1972.
blies in which two tubular members meet
with no gusset”, Automatfc Welding, No. 2, ’26. Navikov, V. I., Koutunenko, V. A., and
pp. 26-29. Paton, E. O.Y “Direct Joining of Tubular
Section Components”, Automatic Welding,
L6. K. Kurokawa, T. Nakajima, M. Shimarizu, T. vol. 9, pp. 61-68, 1959.
Koshihara, “Research on fatigue strength of
thin wall welded tubular joints”, (in 27. “API recommended practice for planning,
Japanese) Summary of Technical papers of designing, and constructing fixed offshore
Annual Meeting of AIJ, 1972. platforms”, API-RP2A, 1974.

L7. J.-G. Bowkamp, “Research on tubular connec- 28. Det Norske Veritas, ““Rules for the design,
tions in structural work”, Bulletin No. 71, construction, and inspection of fixed
offshore structures”, 1974.
 TABLE 1
K Joints
D d T P
‘Y .2 @o ~o
Specimen (~) (-) (~) (kg/mm) 1 2 @ (T%

M-l 133 83 4 35 60 60 .465 12.

-2 ~ 133 83 4 35. 60 60 .465 9.7
-3 s 133 83 4 35 60 60 .465 11.2
B1-1 5 133 54 4 35 60 60 -.18 21.7
-2 $ 133 54 4 35 60 60 -.18 21.7
-3 133 54 4 35 60 60 -.18 21.7
1 165.2 76.3 1.6 35.5 45 90 0.0605 4.91
2 165.2 76.3 2.3 29.4 45 90 0.0605 6.17
165.2 60.5 2.3 34.5 45 90 0.0605 6.07
: 165.2 48.6 2.3 34.7 45 90 0.0605 5.97
5 165.2 76.3 2.3 30.0 90 0.0605 7.98
6 165.2 76.3 2 90 0.0605 13.92 ●
7!n 165.2 76.3 0.0605 28.80
; ~ 165.2 76.3 !! % i; % 0.0605 35.7
10 ~ %:; % ::: :;:; : :: ;:g~ 3;:~;
11 m. 165.2 76.3 2.3 90 45
12 165.2 60.5 2.3 34:9 90 45 0:0605 5:78
13 165.2 48.6 2.3 27.5 90 45 0.0605 4.76
14 165.2 76.3 2.3 29.1 90 0.0605 5.44
15 165.2 76.3 3.2 26.8 90 z 0.0605 10.97
16 165.2 76.3 6.0 36.7 90 45 0.0605 27.5
17 508 76.3 6.0 29.8 90 45 0.0605 24.2
1 - 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 6.9
2 101.6 27.7 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.1 6.77
3 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.2 7.24
4 101.6 27.7 3.16 4.09 60 60 0.2 5.65
5 101.6 27.7 3.16 4.09 60 60 0.2 5.85
6 101.6 27.7 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.3 7.08
7 101.6 34.0 .3.29 3.70 60 60 0 8.80
8 101.6 34.0 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.1 9.04
101.6 34.0 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.2 S.30
1: 101.6 34.0 3.29 4.09 60 60 0.2 6.70
11 101.6 34.0 3.29 4.09 60 60 0.2 6.95
12 101.6 34.0 3.29 43-.8 60 60 0.3 7.03
13 A 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 13.50
14 0 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 14.30
15 ~ 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 11.30
16 $ 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0 12.30
17 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.30
18 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.40
19 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.05 13.10
20 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.9
21 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.10
22 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.30
23 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 11.50
24 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.15 11.30
25 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.15 11.30
26 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 “0.15 11.60
27 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.80
28 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.80
29 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.80
30 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60. 0.20 8.80
31 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8.80
32 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8.80
33 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.25 8.80
34 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.30 7.45
35 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.00 12.90
36 101.6 60.5 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.10 12.25
37 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 9.35
38 101.6 60.5 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 10.60
39 101.6 60.5 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 10.10
40 101.6 60.5 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.30 8.73
 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED
K Joints -. — —
D d T P-
‘Y 2 & Qa
Specimen
—.— ._ (~) (kghm ) 12 g/D (~
Ton
(~~..w=
..(m)
41 101.6 3.i%”-”a-40.~ ’30 60 0.20 13.20 -
42 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 30 60 0.20 12.50
43 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 30 60 0.20 12.10
44 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 60 0.20 10.1
45 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 : 60 0.20 10.5
46 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 45 60 0.20 10.3
47 101.6 48.6”” 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
48 1!)1,6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
49 101.6 48.6 3.29 41.8 60 60 0.20 9.8
50 101.6 48.6 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 8.0
51 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20 7.9
52 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20
53 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 75 60 0.20 ;:;
54 101.6 48.6 3.16 40.9 90 60 0.20 7.9
55 101.6 48.6’” 3.16 40.9 90 60 0.20 8.5
0 0.20 8.1
S6 101,6 48.6 3.16 40.9 90 60
57 89;1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.28
58 89.1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.60-
59 89.1 42.7 3.33 43.3 60 60 0.20 9.50
60 89.1 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0.20 9.30
61 89.L 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0.20 9.15
62 89.1. 42.7 4.02 39.7 60 60 0.20 3.2..85
63 101.6 48.6’ 4.18 42.8 60 60 0.20 14.0
64 101.6 48.6- 4.11 44.7 60 60 0.20 14.75
65 101.6 48.6 4.11 44.7 60 60 0.20 14.90
66 .101.6 76.3 3.16 40:9 60 60- 0.20 13.80
67 101.6 76.3 3.16 40.9 60 60 0.20 12.90
> LO1.6 76.3 3.10 37.0 60 60 0.20 11.20

7 508 219 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.39 192

508 219 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.39 192
: ~ti 508 324 12.7 50.4 45 45 0.098 298
10 508 324 12.7 SO.4 45 45 0.098 314
&
11 508 324 12.7 28.1 45 45 0.098 203
12 508 324 12.7 28.1 45 45. 0.098 215
1 101.6 42.7 3.25 40.4 60 60 0.206 8.16
2“ 101.6 42.7 3.43 40.4 60 60 0.216 7.78
3 101.6 42.7 3,44 40.4 60 60 0.197 9.40
4 101.6 42.7 3.26 “40.4 6.0 90 0.197 7.99

9-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 6.17

9-2 ““ 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 6.67 -
9-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 6.87
9-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 7.00
9-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558- 7.00

1o-1 :..60.5. 34.0 2.65 41.1 .45 45 .558 6.50

10-2 :: 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 6.77
10-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .558 5.69
10-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .55’8 6.70
10-5 6.0.5 34.0 Z.65 41.1 45 45 .558 6.67

12-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.00

12-2 ‘“” 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.25
12-3 .60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205, 7.17
12-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.50
12-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.67

13-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.33

13-2 “’ 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.90
13-3 w 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.00
13-4 : 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.00
13-5 rim 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 .205 7.27
~
17-1 .g 60.5 34.0 “2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 10.16
L7-2 h 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 9.50
17-3 !E 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 9.50
17-4 ’60;5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 10.00
17-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 10.50
 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED
K Joints
D d T P=
‘Y ~ & &
Specimen (~) (~) (~) (kg/mm) 1 2 $#D (Ton)

18-1 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 8.75

18-2 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 -.148 8.60
18-3 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 2 45 -.148 8.26
18-4 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 8.25
18-5 60.5 34.0 2.65 41.1 45 45 -.148 8.27

24-1 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 .355 7.73

24-2 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 4.5 .355 8.50
24-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 .355 7.73

25-1 60.7 42.9 2.68 46,4 45 45 .0004 9.27

25-2 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 .0004 9.07
25-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 z .0004 9.20
26-1 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.354 10.27
26-2 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.354 10.40
26-3 60.7 42.9 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.354 10.67

27-1 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .722 6.2o

27-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .722 6.07
27-3 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .722 6.33

28-1 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .367 6.06

28-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .367 6.40
28-3 6“0.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .367 6.20

29-1 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .012 8.33

29-2 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .012 8.47
29-3 60.7 27.2 2.68 46.4 45 45 .012 8.50

37-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .188 7.34

37-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .188 8.25
37-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .188 8.04

38-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .561 7.67

38-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .561 7.33
38-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .561 6.40

39-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .207 9.07

39-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .207 9.00
39-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .207 8.86

40-1 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .145 9.60

40-2 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .145 10.87
40-3 60.7 34.0 2.68 46.4 45 45 .145 10.70

41-1 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 .216 ‘9.28

41-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 : 45 .216 9.45
41-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 .216 9.30

42-1 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.136 11.35

42-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.136 11.00
42-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.136 11.32

43-1 60;7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.49 11.65

43-2 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.49 12.50
43-3 60.7 48.8 2.68 46.4 45 45 -.49 12.62

11-1 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .558 7.47

11-2 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .558 7.50
11-3 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .558 8.00
11-4 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .558 7.50
11-5 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .558 7.47
 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED

K Joints
D d T P
G;m2
Specimen (~) (mm) (~) % % g/n (T% _,
1471 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .205 7.97
14-2 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .205 8.00
14-3 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .205 S.20
14-4 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .205 8.00
14-5 60.5 34.0 3.3 42.4 45 45 .205 8.25 . . ,. ..
11-CIC-40-
.4 165.07 76.3 4.65 49.5 90 45 0 19.8
40-.6 165.07114.3 4.65 49.5 90 45 0 3S.2
70-.4 316.
S 139.8 4.4 42.0 90 45 0 29.0
70-.6 316.8 165.2 4.4 42.0 90 45 0 44.0
TK-40-.6 164.5 114.3 4.7 50.0 45 45 .06 48.5
1 419 168.3 10.0 34.7 60 60 .114 61.4
2 419 168.3 10.0 34.7 60 60 .114 61.8
3 419 168.3 10.0 34.7 60 60 .114 60.2
5 419 16S.3 10.0 24.4 60 60 .114 4s.7

1 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 .18 34

2 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 .18 26
3 219 194 9.0 21.0 45 45 .18 15
..
SK-93 267.9 101.4 9.0 37.4 90 45 .42 40
SK–6 269.4 102 5.9 – 38.9 90 45 .42 33.9
SK-5 267.1 .101.8 5.0 33.5 90 45 .42 21.9
SK-4 266.1 101.7 3.9 ‘40.1 90 45 .42 12

D d T
‘Y 13; 0;
Specimen (in) fin) (in) (ksi) g/D (;IPS)

1 12.75 6.625 .25 42 90 45 .123 1.37

2 12.75 6.625 .25 42 90 45 -.127 209
‘3 12.75 6.625 .25 42 90 45 -.377 277
II-2 6.625 4.5 .312 45.3 90 45 -.319 194.5
II-3 6.“625 2.375 .219 45 90 45 .067 56.6
II-4 6.625 3.5 .219 46.7 90 45 -.137 134.4
II-6 8.625 -3.5 .219 46.5 90 45 -.01 56.6
H-7 8.625 4.5 .219 45.2 90 45 -.129 130.8
II-8 ‘S.625 5.5625 .219 45.1 45 -.27S 162.6
11-9 10.75 3.5 .188 47.6 n 45 .107 31.8
LL-10 10.75 4.5 .188 44.4 90 45 -.005 49.5
II-n_ 10.75 ‘ 5.5625 .18S 45.2 90 45 -.129 120.2
11-12 .10.75 .18S 46.7 90 45 -.146 152
11-14 8.625 .219 46.6 90 45 -.166 123.7
11-15 10.75 .188 46.3. 90 45 -.143 127.3
11-16 10.75 .188 46.1 90 45 -.181 123.7
11-17 10.75 5.5625 .188 45.1 90 45 -.301 162.6
1-10 6.625 2.375 .280 42.0 90 45 .067 60.0
 TABLE 2

T Joints Compression 2!Joins - Tension

. -.

D d Tn P D d T u P
‘Y ~ ~~
Specimen (m) (W) (~) (TOn/cm) (Ton) Specimen (~) (~) (@@ (TOn/Zm2) (T%
.
c-A 1 139.8 139.8 6.5 3.29 44.8 A-E 165.2 76.3 7.0 3.45 33.0
2 ,, 114.3 “ ,, 34.1 A-E ~ 165.2 60.5 7.0 3.46 30.0
,, 101.6 1, 29.4
3 ,6.,3- :; B-D 139.8 76.3 6.4 3.06 30.5
4 ,, ,, 20.8 B-E j 139.8 60.5 6.4 3.05 26.5
5 ,, 48.6 ‘t !, 13.3 C-D 114.3 76.3 4.5 4.69 26.0
C-B 1 ,, 139.8 “ 3.5 56.8 c-E 114.3 .60.5 4.5 4.75 23.3
t, t, J
2 101.6 “ 33 D-E 76.3 60.5 4.0 4.13 .19.2
,, 89.1 “ ,, 28- —=-
,8 t,
: 48.6 “ 2.5.3 l.q 323.9- 60.3 6.35 2.95 19.96
5 ,, 42.7 “ 3.90 13.7 2 ~. 323.9 101.6 6.35 2.95 25.40
6 ,* 34.0 “ 4.0 12.0 3? 323.9 273.0 6.35 2.95 ..43.09
C-D 1 ,, 139.8 4.5 4.09 37.0 43 323.9 323.9 6.35 2.95 49.90
2 ,, 114.3 “ 11 25.8 .—
3 !, 101.6 “ ,, 22.5 1-T-40-O.2 164 42.7 “ 4.7 4.5 19.7
4 ,, 76.3 “ ,, 16.3 40-0.4 m 164 76.3 4.5 25.5
4.7
,, -48.6 “ ,, 10.42 70-0.2 ‘-” 320.4 60.5 4.5 4.23 22.5 _.
114.3 114.3 4.0 4.34 25.7 70-0.4 : 320.4 139.8 4.5 4.23 35.7
,, 89.1 “ 4.36 16.8 100-0.2 b 455.7 89.1 4.9 4.0 30.4
,, 76.3 “ 4.30 14.0 100-0.4 455.7 165.2 4.9 4.0 31.4
t, 60.5 “ 4.43 11.0
,, 34.0 “ 4.30 7.0
!..
. 165.2 76.3 7.0 3.46 21.9
.,
-E 165.2 60.5 7.0 3.46 20.7 Specimen D d T P_
B-D 139.8 76.3 6.4 3“.
07 21.5 ‘Y
B-E 139.“8 60.5 6.4 3.07 16.9 No. (ire) (in) (in) (k.si) (laps)
D-E 76.3 60.5 4.0 3.75 11.5
—“--T-1 12.750 2.875 0.500 42 102
1-CB-40-O.2 164.5 42.7 4.7 4.5 8.6 1’-2 12.750 2.875 0.250 42 56
76.3 4.7 4.5 11.9 T-3 16.000 3.500 0.250 42 54
40-0.4 164.5
m 60.5 4.5 4.2 6,0 T-4 12.750 5.563 0.250 42 82
+“ 70-0.2 -319.5 T-5 -& 8.625 5.563 0.250 42 105
70-0.4 319.5 139.8 4.5 4.2 10.4
89.1 4.9 4.0 6.5 T-6 . 22.750 5.563 0.250 42 70
~ 100-0.2 455.7
100:0.4 455.7- 165.2 4.9 4.0 10.0 T-7 ; 12.750 5.563 0.250 42 82
-“- T-8 12.750 2.375 0.250 42 44
2’-9 12.750 4.000 0.250 42 56
D, d> t, a P T-10 12.750 10.750 0.250 42 95
Specimen”(in.) (in.) (in.) (k:;) (k%) T-n 12.750 12.750 0.250 42 110

l= 8.625” 5:563 0.250 41.0 62

2 & 12.75 5.563 0.250 41.0 38
3 ~ 12.75 5.563 0.250 41.0 43
4 12.75 5.563 0.250 41.0” 39 ““-

1 8.625 4.500 0.18S “36.0 20

2 8.625 4.500 0.281 36.0 56
3 z. 8.625 4.500 0.406 36.0 100
4 7 12.75 “4.500 0.250 36.0 42
5 + 12.75 4.500 0.375 36.0 67
6 m 12.75 4.500 0.500 36.0 112
7 18.00 4.500 0.297 36.0 45
8 18.00 4.500 0.375 36.0 60
9 18.00 “4.500 0.5 36.0 104

1
 TABLE 2- CONTINUED

X Joint - compression .. . X Joint - Tension

.. . . .. . .—..—
—.. —=..-—. . . . . .

D.d T P D d T a P
‘Y * =x
Specimen (~) (~) (~) (TOn/cm) (Ton) Specimen (~) (~) (mm) (xs/L12) (Ton
‘;

1.CS-40-O.2 165.2 42.7 4.7 4.9 7.4 A-1 219 8S 5 60 26

40-0.4 165.2 76.3 4.7 4.9 10.4 A-2 219 88 5 60 26.4
40-0.6 165.2 114.3 4.7 4.9 14.0 B-1 219 114 5 60 32.2
40-1.0 165.2 165.2 4.7 4.9 33.0 B-2 219 114 60 31
B-3 a> 219 114 : 60 37.4
5“ 70-0.2 31s.5 60.5 -4.4 4.3 5.0 B-4 ~ 219 5 60 35.2
: 70-0.4 318.5 139.8 4.4 4.3 8.33 c-1 219 F3 5 60 38.4
m 70-0.6 318.5 165.2 4.5 4.2 9.6 c-2 : 219 133 5 60 40.4
70-1.0 31s.5 318.5 4.5 4.2 31.5 D-1 219 16S 5 60 63
D-2 219 16S 5 60 62
100-0.2 457.2 89.1 4.8 4.0 5.5 D-3 219 168 5 60 70.6
165.2 4.8 4.0 8.2 - ---
100-0.4 457.2 m
u
CG1 ~ 139.s 139.s 6.5 3.29 45 ti-3 159 S3 5 35 16.2
CG2 139.8 114.3 6.5 3.29 25 A2-4 ~! I-59 S3 5 35 1s.2
2
CG3 @ 139.8 101,6 6.5 3.29 20.1
CG4 139.s 76.3 6.5 3.29 15.s
CG5 139.s 48.6 6.5 3.29 11.7 1 139 S9 4.5 41.6 18
~ 2$ 139 89 4.5 41.6 22
3-60* ~ 139 89 4.5 41.6 34.5
D d T P 4-30” 139 89 41.6
‘Y
Specimen (in) (in) (in) (ksi) (kx) 5-30” ? 139 89 H 41.6 ~.5
&300 & 139 89 4.5 41.6 30.75

EPR-6’O 8.625 S.625 .406 42. 275 193.7 4s.3 6.67 34 16.9
193.7 101.6 6.59 34 24.8
:} 193.7 159. 6.65 34 42.
D d T c P
Y.2 =x
Suecimen (m) (~) (m@ (k~hu ) (Ton)
1-’2S-40-0.2 164.5 42.7 4.7 48. 15.6
1 190.1. 4s.3 4.69 32.0 4.8 40-0.4 165.6 76.3 4.6 4s. 22.0
2 193.7 48.3 6.5 34.0 9.8
193.7 48.3 9.39 29.0 17.s 40-0.6 165.6 114.3 4.6 48. 31.7
: 1S8.9 101.6 4.65 32.0 7.s 40-1.0 165.6 165.2 4.6 ‘ 48. .7s.1
.5
6 ‘~ 193.7 103..6 6.50 34.0 35.5
193.7 101.6 9.30 29.0 2S.5 70-0.2 321.2 60.5 4.4 45. 14.6
190.0 L59.O 4.56 32.0 12.s m
7 AU 70-0.+ 321.2 139.8 4.4 45. 1s.3
8 193.7 359.0 6.5 34.0 23.0
193.7 159.0 9.35 29.0 46.0 z
_ 70-0.6 321.2 165.2 4.4 43. 19.3
9
a 70-1.0 321.2 318.5 4.4 43. 96.0
100-0.2 455.7 89.1 4.9 41. 16.2
100-0.4 455.7
.... . 165.2
. 4.9 41. 20.1
.
 I

I I

rl
iBRANCH]
FAILURE AT BRANCH ADJACENT
/. .-. TOwELQTOE >
—

a“

I
;-A
~ “m’N”L”

I
DUCTILE

+’ “k~~
FAILURE
OF CHORD WALL
.“
-\cRAcK

bJ
LA

I
(

A-APLANE
)
EXXAGERATECI

‘WE
DEFORMED

. .=.

— b“
i=+

&
.1

6=”
LOCAL COLLA?SE
/-oFmFmL’
LAMELL.4R TE.4RIN3
OF CHORD WALL

~~ -.
“\ “
lCHORD WALL BUCKLE

TYPE4 __ __ __ .= ~ ==_ m . . .. . .

Fig. 1 - Some possible fai lure mode”; f-o; ’sirnpl~

axially loaded tubular T-joints ans X-joints.

.. . . .. s:

(a)

Fig: 2
(b)
 X* KUROBANE + WASHlO
oa~ BOUWKAMP o EPR
: W&MJEATMA L JISC
T- ZIMMERMAN
❑ NAVIKOV * KUROKAWA

51

PUK. = CJyT2~ (1+6.52 d/D) (l-.26 COS2 @) (1.0544-1.59 g/D)/SIN @

I I I I I I I
o. I I I I I
& 5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 “3 “4 “5 “6 “7
& ‘“
g/D
Fig. 3 - Influence of the gap ratio parameter,
9/0. on the ultimate strength of tubular K-joints.

P. P,

.16< g/D< .7
P~k=ayT2~(l +6.52 d/D)(l -.26 COS20) ;805 , 59g,D} /SIN 0 FOR
{ .-. { -.5< g/D< .16

dl d2
WHERE g= (~ + f)(COTO1 + COT02)- -# ~ + —)
SlN02

NOTE: THIS IS A LOWER BOUND TO AVAILABLE DATA ...... SAFETY FACTOR IS NOT INCLUDED.

Fig. 4- Overl apping and non -overlapping K-joint

ultimate strength formula.
 I T-, Y-JOINT ‘ ● ,
● °
10 ■ m
“ h
● A

5 COMPRESSION
I o KANATAN 1
A
❑ JISC

o BEAL AND TOPRAC

ASMU
TENSION
. KANATAN I
❑ n
~ JISC
● BEAL AND TOPRAC
a TO PRAC AND NATARAJAN

Pu. = a UYT2~(d/D)/SIN @
.3 I I 1 I I I I I II I I I . .
.1 .5
d/D
Fig. 5 - Ultimate strength of tubular T-, Y-joint.

COMPRESSIONTENSION
look X - JOINT 0 JISC
●

F Pux”=aouyT2(d/D)m/SIN
—— @
A
❑
DnV
A

KANATANI
POPOV

“=--=
■
50 e + SAMMET
[ ~ aO= 41.5\ 0 EPR
+ NOVIKOV

Ha. = 30
x

n= m = 3.42

1 I I I I I I I L
.1 .5 1
d/D
Fig. 6 - Ultimate strength of tubular X-joint.
 VALIOITY RANGE
JOINT AND LOAD TYPE ULTIMATE STRENGTH FORMULA
19 Gorr G93

~3.1uy T2fi[diD)/SINf? .19<d/D<l

‘%
-*!—. 30”< e <90”
+&?!

Puy = 11.5 Ov T2 fi(d/0)/SIN 8 .19<d/D<l

‘ e—. 30”< e <90”

+z!f?!

P.X = 16.31 Uy T2(d/O)w/SIN 6 .19< d/0<.8

:13.

PUX =30 Uy T2 (d/O) .&/SIN-O .8<d10<l

30”< e <90”
P
+

PUX = 22.75 Uy T2 (d/D) .w/SIN 8 .19<d10<.8

,’() -
+

PUX = 41.5 fly T2(d/D)3.42/SIN 8 .8<d/D<l

30”< e G 90”

+P

NOTE: THESE FORMULAS ARE LOWER BOUNOS TO AVAILA8LE DATA - SAFETY

FACTOR IS NOT INCLUDED

Fig, 7 .- Ultirnat..e .sjre&g=$.h==of, tubular T-j Y-, and

X-j( nts.
●

El = 45°

n= ‘ d/D = .3

API S.F. 1.8 NOT INCLUDED

( I 1 I I 1 I I
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
R/T
Fig. 8 - Comparison between API and non-overlapping
K-joint ultimate strength formula.
 \
1.5

—— .— —— —— —— —— —-— ——
1

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

0 I I [
‘o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5
g/D
Fig. 9 - Comparison between DnV and non-o verlappi ng
K-joint ultimate strength formula.

d/D> .6 0R@<90°

~
d/D <
K
a
1 1 .— —. — —— —
> .

n=

API S.F. 1.8 NOT INCLUDED

0
10 2Q 30 40 50 60 70 D
R/T
Fig. 10 - Comparison between API and T-,Y-joint
ultimate strength formula (for compressive- Ioading).
 2
/

COMPRESSION

1.5

>
n‘1

.5

DnV S.F. NOT INCLUDED

I I I I I I I I

o .5 1
dlD
Fi~, 11- Cotnpar” Ison between DnV-and T-, Y-joint
UI lmate strength formula.

1.5

1 —. —— ————— —

.5

DnVS.,F. NOT INCLUDED

c I 1 I 1 I I ! I 1
.

~igo.

12 - Comparison between DnV and X-joint ultimate

strength formula (for compressive loading).

50 KIPS

I
C#’

4!?!!!2
Fig.
‘“38’s’
54”+x 0.7%’W.T.

13 - Example problem.