Ultimate/Accidental Limit State Analysis and Design

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State
Analysis and Design

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
Analysis and Design for Robustness of Offshore Structures
NUS Keppel Short Course
1
Outline
Introduction Introduction
Plastic hinge concept
Pl ti th d f b d l t Plastic methods for beams and plates
Brief on mechanism analysis
Stiffness of beams including geometry
effect
Tensile fracture
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
2
Introduction
wave,
current
wind,
loads oads
Bracing
configuration
piles,
f d ti
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
3
foundation
Ch t i ti l b l l d Characteristic response - global load versus
global displacement for an offshore structure
load level member fracture ? load level
limit load
member fracture ?
wave,
current
wind,
loads
member instability
first plastic hinge
global post-collapse
load redistribution
first yield
Connections Members
piles,
foundation
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
4
deck displacement
Can reserve systems effects be
utilized?
For ULS design ductility For ULS design - ductility
requirements must be complied
with :
fracture, local buckling, cyclic
effects etc.
A id l i Accidental actions - systems
effects must be considered
Ship collision Explosions Fires Ship collision, Explosions, Fires,
Dropped objects, Specified
damages..
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
5
Definitions of ultimate resistance in Definitions of ultimate resistance in
intact and damaged conditions
capacity,intact structure
global load
reserve
strength
response,damaged
100-year
load level
residual strength
reserve
strength
global displacement
structure
residual strength
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
6
Nonlinear analysis of offshore structures Nonlinear analysis of offshore structures
challenges
Effects:
Nonlinear material, geometry, load,
Local and global failure modes:
Yielding, buckling,fracture,
Modeling
Beam columns, shell, solids, springs
St t i t ti t Stress-strain representations, stress-
resultant approach
Load control procedures
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
7
Design against accidental actions Design against accidental actions
according to e.g. NORSOK
Step1
Damage due to accidental
Plastic Plastic
Damage due to accidental
actions
Step 2
Elastic
Plastic
Elastic
Plastic
Step 2
Resistance of damaged
structure to design
Plastic Plastic
structure to design
environmental loads
Partial safety factors = 1,0
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
8
f y f
Material modelling for plastic
analysis
stress strain relationship stress strain relationship
o
o
y
Rigid-perfectly
plastic
y
Elastic-perfectly
plastic
c
y
~0.001 c
p
~20 c
p
c
u
~ 100 c
p
c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
9
y p p u p
Plastic hinge concept Plastic hinge concept
Plastic hinge
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
10
Plastic hinge
Elastic
Elastic-plastic
Fully plastic
Note distribution of plasticity
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
11
Note distribution of plasticity
Plastic moment rectangular cross-section g
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
12
Plastic moment circular cross-section
2
M f d
2
p y
M f d t =
Thin-walled tube: d >>t
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
13
Pl ti hi t Plastic hinge concept
Normalised
moment
Plastic
Elastic
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
14
Normalised max. strain
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
15
Plastic collapse resistance Plastic collapse resistance
Kinematic analysis
P
c
q q
w
2
q
e c
W P w o o =
2
e p
W M o ou =
External virtual work Internal virtual work
Kinematics
2
w o u
o
=

Kinematics
4
p
M
P =
Plastic collapse load
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
16
c
P
L
=
Plastic collapse load
Elastic-plastic collapse analysis of clamped beam
Total resistance

q
2
1
Beam end:
12
p
q L
M =
l
M M =
q
1
l
2
2 2
1 2
2 2
2 1
12
In the middle:
24 8
1
p
q L q L
M
q L q L
= +
M =M
p
=
1
12
M =
q
1
l
2
24
+
2 1
2 1
1
8 24 3
q L q L
q q = =
Total resistance
M =
q
2
l
2
8
+
=
2
1 2 1
16
4
M
q q q q
p
c
= = + =
ota es sta ce
M =M
p
M M
2
1 2 1
3 L
q q q q
c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
17
M =M
p
Comparison with usfos Comparison with usfos
Fy 330
D 0.5
t 0.02
Wp 0.004608 calculated mean diameter
Wp 0.004611 usfos p
Area 0.030159 calcuated mean diameter
Area 0.03016 usfos
I 0.000869 calculated mean diameter
I 8.70E-04 usfos
L 10
qc 0.243461 calculated
qc 240000 usfos referencew load 0.1E+6
disp 1 yield 2.60E-02 first yeild hinge calculated
disp2 6.94E-02 3 hinges calculated
plastic rotation 1.39E-02 calcuated
Plastic rotation
vs
displacement
Load factor vs
displacement
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
18
Load versus mid span deformation
q
1
q
L M
L q
w
p
1
1
2
4
1
= =
q
2
q
L M
L q
p
5 5
2
2
4
2
q
1
w
1
EI L M
w
q
q
q EI EI
w
p c
c
24 /
24 384
2
1
1
=
= =
w
2 EI L M
w
q
q
q
q
EI EI
q
w
p c
c
p
24 /
24 384
2
1
2 2
2
=
= =
Deformation in step 1
Deformation in step 2.
Deformation in step 1.
q / q
c
1
k =1
k =0.2
Hi t id
0.75
Hinge at mid span
Hinges at ends
0
2
w
M
p
l 2/ 24 EI
0 0.75 1
Load mid span deformation
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
19
Load - mid span deformation
Plastic rotation analysis
M
M
0
M
1 1/2M
p
0
1
Plastic rotation at ends

For rectangular cross-section
0 1
1 2
1 2 1 1
1
2 3 2 6
p
p p
M
M M
dx M
EI EI EI
u u u
| |
= = = = =
|
\ .
}
Plastic rotation at ends

For rectangular cross section
2
3
/ 4
6 /12 2
y
p
fy h
E h h
c
u

= =

A il bl f li l ti f tl l ti t i l Available for linear elastic-perfectly plastic material

/ 2
0.75
4 / 2/ 3
p y
ep y
h
h
u c
u c
= =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006

20
Strains in elasto-plastic region p g
Cantilever beam
2
2
2
0
0 0
4 1
2 1 1
3 3
h
y
y p p
y
M dy M M
h
c
o
c

(
(
= = =
` `
(
(

)
)
}
1
1
p
x
M M
| |
=
|
\ .
0
1 c
0
3
1
y
x
c
=
1/ 3 1/ 3
0
2 41
2 1
1
y y y
d d
c c c
c
u
(
(
} }
0
max 1 1
1
1
3
3
1
y y y
dx dx
h h h
x
c
u
c
A A
(
= = =
(

} }
41
y
ep
c
u
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
21
3
ep
h
u
Compactness requirements for various
cross-sections cross sections
b
Flytning
ytterste fiber
TVERRSNITT
ELLER
TVERR-
SNITTSDEL
TRYKKKRAFT
OG / ELLER
MOMENT
TVERRSNITTSKLASSE
Full
plastisk
Siste
flyteledd
Lokal
knekning
b
t
1.0
E
f
b
t
1.2
E
f
b
t
1.3
E
f
TVERRSNITT
LIVPLATE
TRYKKKRAFT
OG
TVERRSNITTSKLASSE
F ll Si t Fl t i L k l
t
t
b
t
a b
TRYKK
MOMENT
t
1.0
f
y
t
1.2
f
y
t
1.3
f
y
b
t
2.0
E
f
y
b
t
2.6
E
f
y
b
t
3.3
E
f
y
K
T

5
.
6
b
E
1 b
E
1 2 b
E
1 3
MOMENT
LIVPLATE
OG
MOMENT
Full
plastisk
Siste
flyteledd
Flytning
ytterste fiber
Lokal
knekning
d
t
2.5
E
f
y
d
t
3.8
E
f
y
d
t
4.2
E
f
y
d t
1/2d
b
t
b
t
MOMENT OG
TRYKKRAFT
TRYKK
E
T
E
N

K
A
N

B
E
S
T
E
M
M
E
S

E
T
T
E
R

P
K b
t
E
f
y

1
a
b
t
E
f
y

1.2
a
b
t
E
f
y
1.3
a
b
t
0.30
E
f
y
b
E 0 3
b
t
0.33
E
f
y
b
t
0.43
E
f
y
b
E 0 33 b
E 0 43
E
T
T
E
R

P
K
T

5
.
6

0
.
1
5
,

N
p

=

f
d

1
.
0
N
N
p

0
.
1
0
,

N

=

s

0
.
1
0
,

N

=

s
t
d
1
d
2
t
t
b
b
t
a b
MOMENT OG
TRYKKRAFT
K
A
P
A
S
I
T b
t
E
f
y

0.3
a
b
t
E
f
y

0.33
a
b
t
E
f
y

0.43
a
b
t
1.1
E
f
y
b
t
1.25
E
f
y
b
t
1.5
E
f
y
P
A
S
I
T
E
T
E
N

K
A
N

B
E
S
T
E
M
M
E
S

E
3

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
0
.
1
5

0

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
5

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
9

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
TVERRSNITTS-
KLASSE 1 OG 2
d
t
b
t
1
t
1
t
1
d
t
0.056
E
f
y
d
t
0.078
E
f
y
d
t
0.112
E
f
y
b
E
K
A
d
t

2
.
5
0
(
1

-

0
.
9
3
d
t

2
.
2
0
(
1

-

0
.
2
d
t

3
.
8
0
(
1

-

0
.
5
5
d
t

4
.
2
0
(
1

-

0
.
5
9
TVERRSNITTS-
KLASSE 3
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
22
b
2
b
1
t
1
t
1
b
t
0.4
E
f
y
Bending moment axialforce Bending moment axial force
interaction
Mechanism analysis works well for
beam and frames where the resistance is
d b b di governed by bending
In many structures the resistance
contribution from axial force important contribution from axial force important,
either initially (truss-works) or during
force redistribution (beams under finite
deformations)
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
23
Pl ti hi t Plastic hinge concept
Bending moment- axial force interaction
Generalised yield criteria
2 M N
| |
Tube
1
2
sin 1 0
p p
M N
F
M N t

| |
= + =
|
|
\ .
Tube
Tube
2
1 0
p p
M N
F
M N
| |
= + =
|
|
\ .
Compression
p p
\ .
Rectangular cross.
Bending
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
24
Plastic resistance for beam with concentrated
l d t id (1) load at midspan (1)
P

w
D,t
Pipe section

E q u i l i b r i u m

8 2
M w
R N
N
Pipe section

8 2
/ 2
R = N +

B e n d i n g m o m e n t a x i a l f o r c e i n t e r a c t i o n

p
N
N

cos 0
2
p p
M N
F
M N
| |
H
= =
|
|
\ .

( ) ? N N w =
U n k n o w n
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
25
U n k n o w n
p
M
M
Plastic resistance for beam with
concentrated load at midspan (2) concentrated load at midspan (2)
P

w

Kinematics

Plastic elongation in each hinge Plastic elongation in each hinge

2
2
2
1 1
~
2 2 2 2
w
u w

| |
= +
`
|
\ .

)

w
u w =

Plastic rotation in each hinge

/ 2
w
u =

/ 2
w
u =

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
26

concentrated load at midspan (2) concentrated load at midspan (2)
P

w

Kinematics

Plastic elongation in each hinge
2
2
1 1 N w N

| |

2
1 1
~
2 2 2 2 2 2
N w N
u w
k k
| |
= +
`
|
\ .

)

u =
Plastic rotation in each hinge

w
w

/ 2
w
u =

/ 2
w
u =

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
27
concentrated load at midspan (3)
P
w
Plastic flow - normality
criterion

F
M
u

c
(
(
(
c
(
(
v
criterion
p
N
N
p
N
N
1
p
F
u
N
= =
(
(
c
(
(
c
(
v
M
p
v
M
1
2
1
i
p
w
M
w
N
t t
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
| |
(
(
|
0
M N
F
t
| |
|
p
M
p
M
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
28
1
sin
2 2
p p
N
w
N N
t t
(
(
|
(
|

(
\ .

cos 0
2
p p
N
F
M N
t
= =
|
|
\ .
Plastic resistance for beam with concentrated
l d id (4) load at midspan (4)
P

w

Results of analysis

w N w t

1
2
p
w N w
D N D
t
= s

Wh /D > 1 When w/D > 1

0 1
p
w
N N M
D
= = s
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
29

D

Plastic resistance curve for beamwith Plastic resistance curve for beam with
w
P

w
Collapse model for beam with fixed ends

w w w w
R
1 <
D
w

D
w

D
w
+ )
D
w
( - 1 =
R
R 2
o
u
arcsin

1 >
w w
=
Ru
t
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
30
1 >
D

D 2
Ro
Plastic resistance curve for beamwith Plastic resistance curve for beam with
P
w
P
8
6
8
Transition from bending &
mebrane to pure tension at
The displacment at this
transition is denoted
2
4

R
/
R
0w/D =1 R/R
0
=t/2
transition is denoted
characteristic displacment w
c
0
2
0 1 2 3 4
Bending only
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
31
0 1 2 3 4
Deformation w/D
Plastic resistance curve for beam with
d l d id (7) concentrated load at midspan (7)
P
K K

Kinematics- Plastic elongation in each hinge
2
2
2
1 1
~
N w N
u w

| |
= +
`
|
w N
u w =

In real structures beam ends ends are not fully fixed. The axial flexibility of

2 2 2 2 2 2
u w
k K
+
`
|
\ .

)

2
u w
K
=

the adjacent structure may be represented by a linear spring with stiffness K.
This affects the kinematic relationship for plastic axial elongation. Closed
form solution is no longer possible, but simple incremental equation may be
l d i ll
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
32
solved numerically
Elastic-plastic resistance curve for tubular p
beam with conc. Load at midspan
Factor c includes the effect of elastic flexibility at ends
Bending & membrane
5,5
6
6,5
Rigid plastic
Bending & membrane
Membrane only
k
k
w
F - R
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
0
0.1
0.2
0,3
0 5
Rigid-plastic
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
R/
1
0.5
0.05
c=
Kw 4c
c
2
c 1
=
0
0,5
1
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation
w
A f
c
y
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
33
Tensile Fracture
According to plastic theory no limitation to
resistance and energy dissipation in beams gy p
with axial restraint
Ultimately the member will undergo Ultimately the member will undergo
fracture due to excessive straining
In order to predict fracture a strain model In order to predict fracture a strain model
for the plastic hinges must be developed
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
34
Strain hardening paradox
In plastic analysis the stress-strain curve is
assumed rigid-plastic or linear-elastic perfectly
plastic
If the material behavior is really like this, the
b b h b i l i l b l d member behaves brittle in a global sense and
plastic theory cannot be applied
St i h d i i i l i di t ib ti l ti Strain hardening is crucial in distributing plastic
strains axially in the member, so that significant
energy dissipation can be achieved
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
35
energy dissipation can be achieved
M
c
Y
c
max o
h
o
Y
o
h
o
Y
M
Strain
Stress
distribution
Approximate stress
distribution
S d b b l l
40
45
50
Stress-strain distribution - bilinear material
c
25
30
35
40
S
t
r
a
i
n

c
Hardening parameter H =0.005
Maximum strain
c
cr
/c
Y

=50
40
P
x
k
5
10
15
20
S
=40
=20
No hardening
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
x/
Axial variation of maximumstrain for a cantilever beam
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
36
Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam
with circular cross-section
Assumption: Bilinear stress-strain relationship
Tensile Fract re Tensile Fracture
The critical strain in parent material depends The critical strain in parent material depends
upon:
- stress gradients
- dimensions of the cross section
- presence of strain concentrations
- material yield to tensile strength ratio material yield to tensile strength ratio
- material ductility
Critical strain (NLFEM or plastic analysis)
zone plastic of length : 5 ,
t
65 . 0 0.02 t
cr
> + = c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
37
p g ,
cr
Critical deformation for tensile fracture in yield hinges

( ) 1 / c 4c 1
2c
c
d
w
1 cr f w
f
1
c
+ = c
2
| |
displacement factor
2
cr cr P
lp lp
1
w
d
W
W
1 4 c
3
2
1 c
c
1
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=

Y
l i l h f
H
W
W
1
P
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
plastic zone length factor

1 H
W
W
1
W
c
P y
cr
P y
lp
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
. \
=
axial flexibility factor
2
c
c
|
|
|
|
= axial flexibility factor
f
c 1
c
|
|
.
\
+
=
non-dim. plastic stiffness
|
|
.
|
\
|
= =
y cr
y cr p

f f
E
1
E
E
H
c
1
= 2 for clamped ends
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness
kl s 0.5l the smaller distance from location of collision load
c
cr
= critical strain for rupture
E
f
y
y
= yield strain
f
y
= yield strength
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
38
to adjacent joint
W = elastic section modulus
W
P
= plastic section modulus
f
cr
= strength corresponding to c
cr
d
c
= D diameter of tubular beams
= 2h
w
twice the web height for stiffened plates
= h height of cross-section for symmetric I-profiles
Deformation at rupture for a fully clamped beam Deformation at rupture for a fully clamped beam
as a function of the axial flexibility factor c
5
3 5
4
4.5
2.5
3
3.5
w
/
D
/D = 30
c= 0
/D = 20
c = 0
1
1.5
2
= 0.05
= 0.5
= 1000
= 0.05
= 0.5
= 1000
0
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
39
c
cr
/c
y
Tensile fracture in yield hinges
D t i ti f H Determination of H
f
f
A
2
A
2
A
1
=A
2
E
H E
f
cr
E
H E
f
cr
A
1
A
1
A
2
c
cr

c
cr
Determination of plastic stiffness
H E
f
Even if the stress strain curve lies
below the true relationship such that
the energy dissipation for the fiber is
smaller, the hardening exaggeration
Use true yield
c
, g gg
may give too large energy dissipation
in the member as a whole
y
stress
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
40
Erroneous determination of plastic stiffness
Tensile fracture in yield hinges
Recommended values for c
cr
and H for
different steel grades g
Steel grade c
cr
H
S 235 20 % 0 0022 S 235 20 % 0.0022
S 355 15 % 0.0034
S 460 10 % 0.0034
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
41
Bending moment axial force history
M,P
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
42
Stiffness matrix for beam with
axial force
w
u
B

N
Q
A
M
A
Q
B
M
B
u
N
w(x)
w
A
w
B
X
X = x
( )
0 EIw X N w Q
w M
+ =
Differential equilibrium equation
( )
, 0
A A
xx A
EIw X N w Q
w M
+ =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
43
axial force
A 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2
A
Q
12EI

6EI

12EI

6EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| | | |

1

|
|
|
=
tan
1
|
|
|
=

`
)
tanh
A
3 2 2 4
A
M
Q
=
4EI 6EI 2EI
12EI 6EI

w
(
(
(
(
(
(

| | |
| |
u
`
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
B
B
3 5 2 2
3
B
B
Q
M
4EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| |
| u
)
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
symmetry

E
N
2
N
t
| =
2
E
2
EI
N
l
t
=
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
44
E N
l
axial force
5
2
3
4
|4
N t
-1
0
1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-
v
a
l
u
e
|2
|3
E
N
2
N
t
| =
-4
-3
-2
|3
|5
-6
-5
Axial force = N/N E
|1
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
45
Buckling of column E l 1 Buckling of column Example 1
N N
A B
l
K =

(
2EI
2
2
3 4
4 3
| |
| |
K = = = 0 0
1
2
3 4
, ; 4
3
2
4
2
| |
| |
N N
E
=
Critical force
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
46
Buckling of column Example 2
N
A B
l
K
4EI
|
0 2 N N = = K
K =
3
|
0 2
E
N N = = K
1
Buckling length k
= =
1
2
07 .
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
47
Buckling of column Example 3

N
A B
l
K =

(
2EI
6 3
- 3 2
3
5 2
2
2
3

| |
| |
2 2 2
3 5 2
0 12 9 0 l l | | | = = K
Critical force
2
3 5 2
12 9 0.25
E
N N | | | = =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
48
The stiffness matrix for beam with axial force contains
ll i f i d d di h b kli all information needed to predict the exact buckling
load for beams subjected to end forces
A 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2
A
Q
12EI

6EI

12EI

6EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| | | |

1

|
|
|
=
tan
1
|
|
|
=

`
)
tanh
A
3 2 2 4
A
M
Q
=
4EI 6EI 2EI
12EI 6EI

w
(
(
(
(
(
(

| | |
| |
u
`
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
B
B
3 5 2 2
3
B
B
Q
M
4EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| |
| u
)
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
symmetry

E
N
2
N
t
| =
2
E
2
EI
N
l
t
=
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
49
E N
l

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State

Analysis and Design

Plastic rotation at ends

Plastic rotation at ends

A il bl f li l ti f tl l ti t i l Available for linear elastic-perfectly plastic material

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006

Plastic rotation in each hinge

Critical deformation for tensile fracture in yield hinges

plastic zone length factor

You might also like