OTC 4854

Ultimate Strength of Tubular Joints Subjected to

Combined Loads
by P.W. Hoadley, Clarkson U., and J.A. Yura, U. of Texas

Copyright 1985 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 17th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 6-9,1985. The materialls sUbJect to correction by the author. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT
tubular members. For example, in-plane bending and
out-of-plane bending moments can be combined
Nine tests were conducted on double-tee tubular
joints subjected to various combinations of axial vectorially for circular members which have the same
bending strength in all directions. However, in
load, in-plane bending and out-of-plane bending in joints the bending capacity and stiffness are
the branch. These tests along with three reference
different in the two bending directions, so moments
tests (axial load alone, in-plane bending alone, and
are nondimensionalized in the API recommendations by
out-of-plane bending) were used to study interaction
equations for joint design. The static ultimate the bending strength, Mu " in the respective
directions, as shown below.
loads are compared with the API RP-2A interaction
equation. It was found that the API method gives
(1)
conservation results if predicted strengths are used
for the reference tests. If experimental strength When both axial load, P, and bending moment are
or accurate theoretical prediction are used, the API applied to a thin-walled circular section, the
interaction equations are slightly unconservative.
plastic capacity interaction equation is:
A new equation is recommended in which the
interaction between axial load and out-of-plane
bending is almost linear. P/P y + 2/TT arcsin (M/M p ) = 1.0 (2)

INTRODUCTION where P is the axial load at yield and Mp is the

Equations describing the ultimate strength of
tubular joints are based on tests of simply loaded
joints where branch members, which are welded t~ a
continuous chord member, are subjected to only ax~al
loads, in-p'lane bending (IPB) or out-of-plane
bending (OPB). A recent study used data from 747
ul timate axial load tests in order to develop axial
strength equations [5]. Fewer experimental results
are available on tubular connections subjected to
bending. Yura et a1. includes 16 IPB tests and 17
OPB tests as the data base for ultimate bending
strength equations [10]. Tubular joint design has
progressed to a point where the available empirical
equations yield reasonably accurate estimates of
ultimate load for the three basic loading cases.
These three cases, however, rarely occur alone
because the welded construction used in tubular
trusses leads to moment-resisting connections.
Therefore, the interaction between the three basic
loads needs to be addressed.
Design methods, such as the American Petroleum
Institute (API) recommendations for tubular joint
design [1], suggest an interaction equation for
joints based on experience with combined loading on
References and illustrations at end of paper.
125
PlasticYbending capacity [8]. The 15th Ed~tion of
API RP-2A [1] recommends an interaction equation for
tubular joints similar to Eq. (2) where Py and 11p'
are replaced by the joint strength for axIal loaa
and bending.
A recent experimental study by Stamenkovic [7]
on combined axial load and in-plane bending showed a
linear interaction relationship, but the test setup
itself and the definition of failure used by the
researchers give a first yield load, not ultimate
strength, as discussed in detail elsewhere [4,6].
Tests combining axial load, in-plane bending, and
out-of-plane bending are difficult to perform
because the large displacements cause secondary
moments which must be properly monitored. In
addition, for combined in-plane and out-of-plane
bending, the branch does not deflect in the
direction of the resultant load because of different
joint stiffness in the in-plane and out-of-plane
directions. Presently, there are no reliable data
which describe the interaction of loads on ultimate
joint strength.
A research project sponsored by the American
Petroleum Institute and a consortium of nine
companies was undertaken to stUdy the load
interaction effects in tubular joints. Phase I of
this project deal t with the effect of chord stress
2 ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF TUBULAR JOINTS SUBJECTED TO COMBINED LOADS
on the ax ial, IPB, and OPB strength [3]. The
results from Phase II on branch loading interaction
will be presented herein.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Twelve identical DT specimens, tested to
ultimate, were subjected to various combinations of
axial load and IPB, axial load and OPB, IPB and OPB,
and then all three load types simultaneously, as
shown in Table 1. Three reference tests, A-1, 1-7,
and 0-8 were conducted to measure the ultimate
axial, IPB, and OPB strengths, respectively. Two
tests combined axial and IPB load (AI), two tests
combined axial and OPB load (AO), two tests combined
IPB and OPB moments (10), and three tests combined
all three load cases simultaneously (AIO). Note
that in the reference tests 1-7 and 0-8, a small
amount of axial load is present in order to secure
the specimen in the test frame.
Test Specimen and Setup.--The test specimens
were constructed by a major fabricator to the
specifications shown in Fig. 1. The 10.75xO.25
(273x6.3 mm) branch members were butt-welded to the
16xO.312 (406x7.9 mm) chord. Both the chord and
branch material came from a single heat. The
measured dimensional properties and the results of
the material tests are summarized in Table 2. The
static yield strength, Fy ' 'and the ultimate tensile
strength, Fu ' listed are the average from two
coupons.
The test frame is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The
specimen was centered in the test frame with the
chord horizontal and the branch vertical between two
vertica 100 kip (450 kN) hydraulic compression rams.
These branch rams were attached to hemispherical
bearings which allowed branch rotation in any
direction without significant moment resistance. A
hydraulic ram pinned t_o one of the chord ends was
used to apply IPB load and another ram pinned to a
spreader beam was used to apply OPB load, as shown
in Fig. 3. These rams produced shear at the
hemispherical bearings. A moment arm of 58 in.
(1.47 m) from the bearings to the crown of the chord
was used to calculate IPB and OPB moments.
When applying both in-plane load and out-of-
plane load the center of the specimen moves
laterally in both directions, as shown in Fig. 4.
If the support for the IPB jack cannot move, then a
component of the jack force would restrain out-of-
plane movement of the joint, as shown by the dashed
line. The support for the in-plane jack must move
the same amount as the out-of-plane deflection to
prevent the restraining and twisting of the
specimen. In the same way, the OPB jack must
translate with the specimen as in-plane deflection
occurs. An apparatus called a Robert's Mechanism
was attached to the IPB jack and the OPB jack which
always keeps these two rams parallel to their
original direction, regardless of the magnitude and
orientation of the joint displacement. The
operation of a RObert's Mechanism is illustrated in
Fig. 5. One end of the jack is pinned at point A to
the Robert's Mechanism and the other end is pinned
to the specimen. The mechanism deforms if the
specimen translates perpendicular to the line of
action of the jack so the deflected line of action
12.6
- - - ---------
OTC 4854
of the jack remains parallel to its original line of
action. Therefore, for any in-plane deflection, the
RObert's Mechanism continually keeps the OPB jack
perpendicular to the centerline of the specimen.
Likewise, the mechanism continually keeps the IPB
jack in line with the centerline of the specimen
during OPB deformation. A photograph of the
Robert's Mechanisms in the test frame is shown in
Fig. 6. More details on the design of the Robert's
Mechanism and on its use in testing structures are
given elsewhere [9].
General Test Procedure.--The same general test
procedure was followed in the testing of all but one
of the specimens. First the desired branch axial
load was applied and maintained. Then, in-plane
load or out-of-plane load was applied until failure.
In the Ala and 10 specimens with biaxial bending,
the desired level of in-plane load was applied and
maintained; out-of-plane load was then applied until
failure occurred. This procedure was used in all
tests except Test AIO-19 in which proportional
load ing was used.
Once first yielding was noted by flaking of
whi tewash applied to the specimen, static data
points were taken by closing the valve(s) to the
primary load ram(s) preventing any further flow of
hydraulic fluid and preventing further deformation.
After several minutes, the load reduced to its
static level and data were recorded. The moments
reported herein include the secondary p6 moments
produced by the branch axial loads times the joint
displacement.
TEST RESULTS
Reference Tests.--The three reference tests
have been reported previously [3]. In Test A-1 with
branch axial load alone, the ultimate load was 78.8
kips. The maximum OPB capacity was 400 kip-in.
determined by Test 0-8. This OPB capacity includes
a 16 kip-in. secondary (Pt.) moment caused by a sm all
axial branch load required to keep the hemispherical
bearings seated. The maximum IPB moment in Test 1-7
was 1050 kip-in. These three reference tests are
used to nondimensionalize the data from the combined
load tests.
In-Plane Bending with Axial Load.--Two tests
were performed to investigate the interaction
between branch axial load and in-plane _bending.
Test AI-20 combined 32% and Test AI-17 combined 67%
of the ultimate branch axial load with IPB load. In
all cases the in-plane bending action produced
noticeable ovaling of the chord in the vicinity of
the branch intersection, as shown in Fig. 7. The
chord cross section on the tension side of the
branch deformed to an elliptical shape with the
major axis vertical. In the same way the chord
cross section on the compression side of the branch
deformed to an elliptical shape with the major axis
horizontal.
Mom ent-rotation curves for Tests 1-7, AI-20,
and AI-17 are shown in Fig. 8. Note the large
reduction in ductility from Test AI-20 to Test AI-17
due to the increase in axial load. Also, a slight
reduction in stiffness is realized.
- =--- ----
 OTC 4854 HOADLEY, YURA 3

Out-of-Plane Bending with Axial. Load.-:-Two

tests were performed to investigate the interac~ion interaction equation is presented in
between branch axial load and out-of-plane bendIng. nondimensionalized form and will be compared with
Twenty-five percent and 67% of the ultimate axial current API recommendations and other interaction
equations that have been proposed to date.
load were maintained in Tests AO-4 and AO-13,
respectively, as the O.PB loa.d wa.s .a~plied.
Deformation in the immedIate JOInt VICInIty was Axial Load and OPB.--The interaction between
axial load and out-of-plane bending is shown in Fig.
similar for both tests. Moment-rotation curves for
Tests 0-8 AO-4, and AO-13 are shown in Fig. 9. 12. The axial load is normalized by the ultimate
Note the r'eduction in ductility and stiffness with axial load obtained in Test A-1, where axial load
alone was applied. The OPB moment is normalized by
increased branch axial load. An unstable condition
the ultimate OPB moment obtained in Test 0-8, where
resulted in Test AO-13 as the high level of axial
OPB moment was applied along with a small axial load
load could not be maintained without unchecked OPB
(5% of ultimate) as required by the test setup.
deformation.
Therefore, the data point for Test 0-8 should not
lie on the moment axis, as shown in Fig. 1~ For
Out-of-P lane Bending with In-Plane Bending.-
clarity, however, the axial load present in the
Two tests were used to determine the interaction
reference bending tests, 1-7 and 0-8, is ignored in
between in-plane and out-of-plane bending. In these
all subsequent plots. The interaction between the
tests a small branch axial load, less than 7% of
the uitimate axial load, was applied and maintained two parameters PIP and (M/Mu)OPB is approximately
in order to properly seat the spherical heads. Test linear. This isUnot surprising, since first
yielding occurs at the same location for both the
0-8, described earlier, was used as the reference
axial and OPB load cases. The following equation
case. An in-plane load of 23 kips, about 66% of the
represents a lower bound to the data:
ultimate in-plane load, was applied and maintained
in Test 10-14 while the OPB load was applied. An
IPB load of 11.7 kips, about 34% of the ultimate IPB (3)
load, was maintained in Test 10-15 while the OPB
Axial Load and 1PB.--The interaction between
load was applied.
axial load and in-planebending is shown in Fig. 13.
Moment-rotation curves for Tests 0-8, 10-15, Again, the axial load is normalized by the Ultimate
axial load obtained in Test A-1. The IPB moment is
and 10-14 are shown in Fig. 10. Note the decrease
normalized by the ultimate 1PB moment obtained in
in ductility caused by increasing IPB moment.
Deformation of the joint for these tests was similar reference Test 1-7. The following equation
represents a lower bound to the data:
to a typical out-of-plane failure. The chord wall
flattened on the tension side and bulged out on the
(4)
compression side.
Out-of-Plane Bending with In-Plane.Bending and IPB and OPB.--The interaction between in-plane
Axial Load.--Three tests were performed to study the bend ing and OPB is sho wn in Fig. 14. The IPB and
OPB moments are normalized by the ultimate moments
interac tion bet ween ax'ial load, in-pI ane bend ing,
and out-of-plane bending. In Tests AIO-16 and AIO- obtained in Tests 1-7 and 0-8, respectively.
Although a small value of axial load existed in
18 the axial load was applied and maintained. In-
these two tests, it will be neglected for the
plane load was applied next and maintained. The
development of an interaction equation between IPB
out-of-plane load was then increased from zero. to
and OPB. A linear interaction and a vector addition
failure. In Test AIO-19 all three loads, ~xial, In- of the two parameters are shown in Fig. 14. The
plane and out-of-plane load, were Increased
vector addition of IPB and OPB terms yields slightly
simultaneously from zero to failure in the same
unconservative results while a linear addition of
proportion as the load at failure in Test AIO-18.
the terms is extremely conservative. Using the
The moment-rotation curves for Tests AIO-16 and AIO-
18 were similar to the curves presented previously. terms for OPB and IPB developed in the previous two
sections, an equation can be assembled by adding the
two terms directly. This equation, shown below, is
The moment-curvature relationships for in-plane
plotted in Fig. 14 and represents a reasonable lower
and out-of-plane bending for Test AIO-19 are shown
bound to the data.
in Fig. 11. The OPB moment at first yielding was 39
kip-in. with an axial load of 33.5 kips. The OPB
moment continued to increase throughout the test (M/M u ) bp~ + (M/M u )h1 = 1.0 (5)
without reaching an ultimate value. The OPB moment
C0E!bined Axial Load, IPB and OPB.--An
at the end of the test was 280 kip-in. at a branch
interaction equation for axial load, IPB and OPB is
rotation of 8.09 degrees. The in-plane moment,
constructed by combining the terms developed in the
however reached a maximum of 352 kip-in. at an IPB
preceding sections, as shown below:
rotatioJ of 0.76 degrees. At this stage, the branch
axial load was 49.3 kips. An unstable condition
(6 )
resul ted at the end of the test as any amoun t of
axial load caused unchecked deflection out-of-plane. This equation is illustrated in Fig. 15. All of the
test data are plotted in Fig. 15, including three
DEVELOPMENT OF ,AN INTERACTION EQUATION
tests which combined axial load, IPB load, and OPB
The data presented previously are used to load. It can be seen that this equation represents
a reasonable lower bound to the data; the range of
develop an interaction equation between axial load,
experimental value over predicted value is 1.0 to
in-plane bending, and out-of-plane bending. This
1.15. The value of this interaction equation for

127

---- - - - - - -----------=------ ~------=-- -=-- - ::::::::-- - - - - -- ~- -- - --- - ~ - ---=-.=- - --=-------=-----

each of the tests is listed in column (5) of Table
1. The value of Pu, M for OPB and Mu for IPB are
taken from Tests A-1, &7, and I-8, respectively.
COMPARISONWITH
OTHER INTERACTIONEQUATIONS
Equation (7) shown below is presented in the
15th Edition of API RP-2A [11. This interaction
equation is plotted in Fig. 16 with the data
collected in this study. The values of Pu and Mu
are those measured in Tests A-1, I-7, and O-8. The
values computed for Eq. (7) are shown in column (6)
of Table 1.
P/Pu +2/narcsin d(M/Mu)~pB+ (M/Mu)~pB. 1.0 (7)
Much of the data falls slightly below the
interactioncurve, which indicatesthis equation is
unconservativefor some cases if the measured values
(or theoreticallyaccurate values) of Pu and M are
used. The ratio of experimental strengt% to
predicted capacity from Eq. (7) is 0.82 to 1.12, as
shown in Table 1.
Designers would not have access to the
experimental values of ultimate axial load and
moment, but must rely on predicted values computed
by code equations. It would be profitable to
compare Eqs. (6) and (7) using predicted values of
Pu and Mu, since this would provide a more valid
evaluation of the degree of the degree of
conservatismin design recommendations. In the 13th
Edition of API RP-2A, equations for Pu and M are
based on punching shear strengthusing an adjus!ment
factor, Qq, to account for type of loading and
geometry. The predicted ultimate (factor of safety
removed)axial load, IPB moment, and OPB moment are
shown below:
A Pu= 72.3 kips (Test = 78.8 kips)
IPB Mu = 366 kip-in. (Test = 1056 kip-in.)
OPB Mu = 185 kip-in. (Test = 400 kip-in.)
The amount of conservatismis a functionof the
interactionequation itself and the predictedvalues
~f P and M.u. Ideally, the amount of conservatism
equaYs 1, Indicatingthe code correctlypredicts Pu
and Mu and the interaction equation correctly
predicts behavior. Columns (7) and (8) of Table 1
show that Eqs. (6) and (7) yield similar results,
Eq. (6) being slightly more conservative. The API
Code predicted the axial load fairly accurately for
this case, being within 9$ of the measured value.
but the measured values of ultimate IPB and OPB
moments are 2.9 and 2.2 times the values predicted,
respectively. Because the API 13th Edition does not
give good prediction of the basic bending
capacities,the interactionbetween loads cannot be
accurately predicted. The average value for the
ratio of test vs. ultimate prediction for Eq. (6) is
?.1 and for Eq. (7) is 2.0.
In the 15th Edition of API RP-2A,Pu and Mu for
the DT joint used in this study are as follows:
A Pu = 57.1 kips (Test . 78.8 kips)
IPB Mu = 650 kip-in.(Test = 1056 kip-in.)
OPB Mu . 330 kip-in. (Test = 400 kip-in.)
,.
These values are used with Eqs. (6) amd (7) to
compute the ratio of test load to predicted failure
load given in columns (9) and (10) in Table 1.
Again, Eqs. (6) and (7) yield similar results
with Eq. (6) being more conservativein most cases.
The IPB and OPB moment capacitiesare predictedmore
accurately than in the 13.thEdition, being within
70% of measured values. Therefore, the interaction
is predicted more accurately. On the average, the
amount of conservatism for Eq. (6) is 1.44 and for
Eq. (7) is 1.36. In general, the 15th Edition of
API RP-2A is an improvement over the 13th Edition
with respect to load interaction because the
referencecases are predictedwith better accuracy.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The data presented herein constitute the only
data on load interaction for tubular joints
currently available because the testing of joints
subjected to combined loads is extremely
complicated. Twelve DT joints were tested to
determine the interaction between axial load, in-
plane moment, and out-of-planemoment in the branch.
The data indicatean approximatelinear relationship
between axial load and OPB moment. A vector
addition of IPB and OPB moments assumed by the API
Code is not supportedby the data combining the two
moments. The data show that the relationship
between IPB and OPB moment lies between a linear
relationshipand a vector addition. An interaction
equation, Eq. (6), was developed which representsa
lower bound to the data. The API arc sin
interaction equation was found to be slightly
unconservativein most cases, if the actual measured
values of Pu and Mu are used. Equation (6) and the
arc sin interactionequation are very conservative
if the predicted values of Pu and Mu from the 13th
Edition of API RP-2A are used. If the predicted
values of Pu and Mu are computed using the 15th
Edition,the interactionequation gives reasonable
results. Further experimental tests should be
conducted to verify the proposed interaction
equation for other joint geometries.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report documents the results of Phase II
of a two-phase project on the static strength of
tubular joints. This phase was sponsored by
American Bureau of Shipping, Brown & Root Inc.,
Exxon Production Research Company, Gulf Oil
Corporation,Marathon Oil Company, McDermott Inc.,
Phillips Petroleum Company, Shell Oil Company, and
Standard Oil Company of California.
REFERENCES
1. American Petroleum Institute, Recommended
Practic~ for Planning, Desi ~m
ning
Constructing Fixed Offshore~latforms, RP-2A,
Isth Edition, March 1983; 15th Edition,
October, 1984.
2. Billington, C. J., Lalani, M., and Tebett, I.
E I!Background to New Formulae for the
Uitimate Limit State of Tubular Joints,tt
Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings,
Paper No. 4189, Houston, Texas, MaY 1982.
OTC 4854 HOADLEY,YURA 5

3. Boone, Thomas J., Yura, Joseph A., and Hoadley,

peter w., I!
Ultimate Strength of Tubular Joints:
Chord Stress Effects,!!Offshore Technology
Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 4828, -May
1984.
4. Hoadley, Peter W., and Yura, Joseph A.,
!IultimateStrength of Tubular Joints Subjected
to Combined Loads, PMFSEL Report 83-3,
Universityof Texas at Austin, December 1983.
Kurobane, Y., and Makino, Y., and Ochi, K.,
5.
Ultimate Resistance of Unstiffened Tubular
Joints,!!Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No.~~ February 1984.
7. Stamenkovic, Alex, and Sparrow, Keith D.,
~!LoadInteractionin T-Joints of Steel CircUlar
Hollow Sections,tf Journal .- of _
Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 9, September
1983.
8. Wardenier, J. Hollow Section Joints, Delft
UniversityPress, Delft, Netherlands,1982.
9. Yarimci, E., Yura, J. A., and Lu, L. W.,
!!Techniquesfor Testing StructuresPermitted to
Sway,t!Experimental Mechanics, Journalof the
Society for Experimental Stress Analysis, Vol.
7, No. 8, August 1967.

6. Marshall, P. W., Discussion of !Load 10. Yura, J. A., Zettlemoyer, N., and Edwards, I.
Interaction in T-Joints of Steel Circular F ItUltimateCapacity Equations for Tubular
Hollow Sections by A. Stamenkovic and K. J;ints,I~
Offshore Technology
Conference

Sparrow, Journal of Structural Engineering, Proceedings,Paper No. 3690, May 1980.
ASCE, Vol. 110, No.~1, November 1984.

TABLE 1 TEST RESULTS

Normalizedby Normalizedby predictedvalues of F~ and M

measured values u
of Pu and Mu API 13th Ed. API 15th Ed.
P M
Test OPB IPB
Eq. 6 _&q.7 Eq. 6 Eq. 7 Eq. 6 Eq. 7
kips kip-in. kip-in.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lo)

A-1 78.8 --- --- 1.0 1.0 1.09 1.09 1.38 1.38
0-8 3.5 400 --- 1.0 1.0 2.20 2.16 1.26 1.21
1-7 4.8 --- 1056 1.0 1.0 2.94 2.89 1.69 1.64

AO-4 19.7 319 --- 1.01 0.84 1.95 1.77 1.26 1.10
Ao-~3 52.6 177 --- 1.04 0.96 1.59 1.39 1.37 1.28

AI-20 25.2 --- 885 1.01 0.95 2.59 2.48 1.59 1.52
AI-17 52.7 --- 687 1.08 1.12 2.27 2.17 1.59 1.64

IO-15 5.5 377 347 ;.03 1.04 2.39 2.24 1.38 1.27
10-14 5.0 268 678 1.01 0.82 2.62 2.35 1.50 .1.32

AIO-16 19.8 335 328 1.15 0.96 2.31 2.07 1.45 1.25
AIO-18 49.6 153 410 1.08 1.00 2.00 1.72 1.47 1.39

AIO-19 49.3 140 352 1.01 0.95 1.82 1.58 1.38 1.32

i~o
 TABLE
2 MSASUREDNATERIALAND SECTION PROPERTIES

OUTSIDE INSIDE F Fu PERCENT

2USS SIZB DIANRTER DIANRTER TNICKNESS y ELONGATION
(in) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (ksi) (%)

1O-3I4XII4 10. so 10.28 0.260 48.0 67.2 41 1 I---Ill

16x5/ 16 16.05 15.41 0.317 46.6 68.2 43

UPPER BRANCH
LOAO RAM

Note: 1 ksi = 6.S9 NPa, 1 in. = 25.4 m, 1 kip = 4.45 kN

IA a

T
SHEAR COLLAR (TYP)

.
-HEMISPHERICAL HEAO
(TYP)

/--CHORD LATERAL f3RACE

(TYP)
k * t /

-7
A
10.75.0.0. X 0.250

=?

160.0. X 0.312 -1-1

CHORO LEVEL -OPB

1
1

b ANGLE (TYPI LOAO

/ RAM
r

-# W12
E 70 PIPE FLANGE 1 m COLUMN
ELECTROOE
-U-J (TYP)
ENo O!LATE
7

~PIPE FLANGE

L
& L

5-10
4
w
ELEVATION
STEEL: API 5LX GRAOE X42
fig. Z-Elevation of teSt setuP.

PLAN

Fig. I-Specimen details.

 OPB LOAD APPARATUS

ORIGINAL
ROBERTS POSITION
MECHANISM
/ DEFLECTED
W12 COLUMN /
.
/ ITYPJ 1 /
\ /
/
/
/
/
EADER BEAM /
/
/
/

Do
Fig. 5Robwts mechanism,
ANTI-TwIsT MECHANISM~

SECTION A-A

Fig. 3-Laleral load system

IPB DEFLECTION

ORIGINAL
CENTER DEFLECTED
CENTER IPB
LOAD
+ ,.
0 PB ,/
DEFLECTION 4
,/N
I F # ,
+

1 I
A
,1

1+
OPB I +-- jack support stationary
LOAO f
+-jock suppart moveoble

Fig.
4-Combined load testing methods.
Fig. 6Lsteral load system undeformed position,
 -0
I 0-8 ( p/pu=0.044)
07:
L
.
y RfJ-4 (P/R
)=.250
Z >-----
-: .
-m - ,W
A
l-- ? 1-
Z / A.
w
Em /4 RO-13 (P/Pu)=.668
0: - b

E
// M
.A- -
a +
A 1 ut457ABLE WE TO PA MOMENT
m .
M
n
,, ! * .-- 0: ,4

kd . . :! $~:, ,:*- A
..-. _
v,, ,,/
AL=P
~+
,!
,,
i
AO
0
0.0 2.0

Ffg. 7-Chord ovaling effect due to IPB.

OP:O ROT9TI;; (DEGRE::)

Fig. 9Moment-mtation CU!VRSfor combined load and OPB.

a
0
N

]_7 (P/PU)=0.061 -0 0-8

UJs
.A------A. ..~

!/
u-la o- -A------
m: 10-15
~. R 1-20 (P/Pu )=.320 y (f4/Mu ),p@=.329
-A --
y
------- ------ ----~ z A-
-. ---0-
z *~ -
++: u- 0
-m b 10-14 (M/Mu )1#.642 >e
-m / __ ---* . -
~1 -17 (PPu)=.66g /\ ~ 1-
,
//
w
t- ~% u z %

z t Id P
IIJg
=(KJ ? A ( BuCKLE OUT OP PLANE Z.a
~a b

o /4 IA
x /~
M
z 4
lA m ,4P
a CL
a -to M
m+
Q
J

M
o
0 I

? P

1,?l
0
.

5[ Al ~+ 10 AL=P

+ AL
?
a 8.0
4.0
0.0 2.0
I PB Ro_i RTIo N k0EGi3EES)

Fig. 10Moment-ro@.tlon curves for combined IPB and OPB

Fig. O-Moment-rotation curves for oombined axial load and IPB.
 RIO-19 :-
Ml .352 in-hips -0
g, =0.76.
1
V bv Au 49.3 klps =(U \
Mops. 2.90 In kiw
l\ eo. 8.0s.
6L \
a
\ \
k \
5+
,20PB x \
$,* ~ ~B
11 \
/ -In

G \
L [0 eipE 0 PB \

/ \ \
\
/ MOPS-140 in klw
e.= 2.02
/\ A
9 % AO-13

()
k -r
L+ # = 1.0 \
i
e
WPn bPn
G P

\u OPB \
\
\
2
\
7 --I-----.4 N \
*B &
\
WPB \ \
F3rd Yielding. @
AO \
34 [oanP OPB) \
~4 ~.
$ 0
1.0 2.0 - 3.0 -4.0 8. u
ROTI%ON60[OE%EES)
4.
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P/Pu

FirJ. 1 IMoment-rotation curves for Test AIO-19. Fig. 12interaction between axial load and OPB

0 0-8

E \
.-!!
z \
,m \
Z&
\
\
\
\
m
G

\
I-u \

0 \>

\
0

( M/Mu l,p~

Fig.
13interaction between axial load and IPB. Fig. 14interaction between IPB and OPB
 In

cdlld
+
f+

-i
a
4 I 1 # 1 I 1 1 , , 1-
01 8 O 9 o v o z o o ti
d/ d

If)
-7

m L o
w
T *
g
o
J
a

m
n n
6J -

*m
N 0.
--0

+ ~
al z ~
as

T
a.
) T , , , , , , , ,

01 8 o 9 o v o z o-G
Ild/d