American and European Hydrostatic Tubular Beam-Column Equation Comparisons

IF 1.3 4区工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering-Transactions of the Asme Pub Date : 2023-01-27 DOI:10.1115/1.4056620

Albert Ku, Mark Richmond

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract For structural design engineers, there is an apparent gap in how the hydrostatic pressure is treated between the American and European systems. In API RP-2A, the beam-column equations treat the axial and bending capacities the same as there is no hydrostatic pressure. This is physically not correct, as member utilization is a combination of hydrostatic, axial, and bending actions. In contrast, the ISO and NORSOK beam-column equations include reductions of axial and moment capacities due to hydrostatic effect. In this paper, available actual test data are compared with the API and ISO capacity equations. A third set of capacity equations provided by Chen et al. is also considered. Unity check (UC) results show that, although API equations lack the proper hydrostatic reduction in axial/bending capacities, it is compensated by the separate checks of hoop buckling and ultimate strength. For engineering applications, similar member designs will be obtained by either the European or the American systems.

查看原文本刊更多论文

欧美静压管梁柱方程比较

摘要对于结构设计工程师来说，美国和欧洲的静水压力处理体系存在着明显的差异。在API RP-2A中，在没有静水压力的情况下，梁柱方程对轴向和弯曲能力的处理是相同的。这在物理上是不正确的，因为构件的使用是流体静力、轴向和弯曲作用的组合。相比之下，ISO和NORSOK梁柱方程包含了由于流体静力效应而导致的轴向和弯矩容量的减少。本文将现有的实际测试数据与API和ISO容量方程进行了比较。本文还考虑了Chen等人提供的第三组容量方程。统一校核(UC)结果表明，尽管API方程缺乏适当的轴向/弯曲能力的静压减小，但它可以通过环向屈曲和极限强度的单独校核得到补偿。对于工程应用，类似的构件设计将由欧洲或美国系统获得。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering-Transactions of the Asme 工程技术-工程：大洋

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

6.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering is an international resource for original peer-reviewed research that advances the state of knowledge on all aspects of analysis, design, and technology development in ocean, offshore, arctic, and related fields. Its main goals are to provide a forum for timely and in-depth exchanges of scientific and technical information among researchers and engineers. It emphasizes fundamental research and development studies as well as review articles that offer either retrospective perspectives on well-established topics or exposures to innovative or novel developments. Case histories are not encouraged. The journal also documents significant developments in related fields and major accomplishments of renowned scientists by programming themed issues to record such events. Scope: Offshore Mechanics, Drilling Technology, Fixed and Floating Production Systems; Ocean Engineering, Hydrodynamics, and Ship Motions; Ocean Climate Statistics, Storms, Extremes, and Hurricanes; Structural Mechanics; Safety, Reliability, Risk Assessment, and Uncertainty Quantification; Riser Mechanics, Cable and Mooring Dynamics, Pipeline and Subsea Technology; Materials Engineering, Fatigue, Fracture, Welding Technology, Non-destructive Testing, Inspection Technologies, Corrosion Protection and Control; Fluid-structure Interaction, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Flow and Vortex-Induced Vibrations; Marine and Offshore Geotechnics, Soil Mechanics, Soil-pipeline Interaction; Ocean Renewable Energy; Ocean Space Utilization and Aquaculture Engineering; Petroleum Technology; Polar and Arctic Science and Technology, Ice Mechanics, Arctic Drilling and Exploration, Arctic Structures, Ice-structure and Ship Interaction, Permafrost Engineering, Arctic and Thermal Design.