Analysis-based design

equations for composite

tubular connections
W. Aritenang*, A. S. Elnashai and P. J. Dowling
Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7, UK
(Received January 1990; revised July 1990)

As an alternative solution for the calculation of the ultimate strength

of grouted tubular connections a set of design equations for plain
and weld-beaded composite connections is derived in this paper.
This is based on the fundamental load-transfer mechanisms for
bearing of weld-beads on grout and friction between steel and the
grout. The formulation accounts for all the important governing
parameters such as hoop strain in tubulars, confined grout strength,
weld-bead height, tubular thickness and length to diameter ratio.
Comparison between the developed design procedure and all existing
experimental data confirm the validity of this approach. Moreover,
the results obtained are an improvement over the UK Department of
Energy guidance notes and are far superior to those proposed by the
American Petroleum Institute.

Keywords: grouted tubular connections, analysis, design equations

Whereas existing design guidance for composite tubular
pile/platform connections (Figure 1) issued by the UK
Department of Energy I and the American Petroleum
Institute 2 seem to yield safe design, the economy of the
ensuing connections is questionable. Large, and inconsistent, safety factors ranging between 3.4 and 8.3 have
been observed when comparing test results with code
predictions 3. Moreover, the range of parameters
covered by design codes is significantly narrower than
that used in practice. This, coupled with recent demands
by oil companies to exceed the above ranges for very
deep water platforms, establishes the timeliness of a
comprehensive re-assessment of the current state-of-theart and practice in analysis and design of grouted
pile/sleeve connections.
As part of a programme of research funded by
UK DEn and oil companies and managed by the UK
Marine Technology Directorate, the authors conducted
experimental, analytical and numerical studies into the
behaviour of grouted connections with weld-beads. The
objectives of the project were to investigate load-transfer
mechanisms and failure modes of typical connections
and to suggest extensions and modifications of the
existing design formulae. Within this remit, a limited
experimental test series was undertaken and used not
only to identify failure modes, but also to derive loadslip curves for use in numerical analysis 4. A nonlinear
finite element model developed previously for frictionbased connections 5 was extended to account for bearing
* N o w at BPPT Jakarta, Indonesia

of the weld-bead on the highly confined grout 6. To

compliment the numerical model and to provide a simple
method for analysis and design, the procedure given
below was developed.

Nomenclature

G
c,
D

h
K
M
L
u
n
n'

R
o~
ob
~Y
ah
Ohult
t

grout strength parameter

weld-bead height parameter
radial stiffness parameter
length to diameter parameter
outer diameter
uniaxial grout strength
bond strength
bond strength parameter (normalized bond
strength)
weld-bead height
radial stiffness (as defined by UK DEn guidance)
bending moment per unit circumference
total length of connection
Poisson's ratio
total number of weld-beads at pile or sleeve
number of effective weld-beads on pile or sleeve
radius
weld-bead spacing
axial stress of tubular
bearing stress of grout
yield stress of steel tubular
hoop stress steel tubular
ultimate hoop stress of steel tubular
thickness

0 ] 4 ! -0296/92/030 ] 95 - 10
1992 Butterworth-Hcincmann Ltd

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

195

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenanl et al.

Subscripts

g
p
s

grout
pile
sleeve

Assumptions
In deriving a design formula, three requirements have to
be considered. Firstly, the formula has to be consistent
with the degree of accuracy used practically. Secondly,
it has to be in a simple form for use by practising
engineers. The third consideration is that parameters
used have a physical interpretation, so as to avoid the
use of unrealistic values. These three factors are usually
difficult to achieve simultaneously. The following
observations of the behaviour of weld-beaded connections are used as the basic assumptions in deriving the
required design formula.

Failure of the connection in most cases is associated

with hoop yielding of the steel tubular. However,
for very thin sleeves, the failure could be due to
axial yielding of the sleeve.
The bearing strength of a weld-bead is governed by
the triaxial strength of the grout, where the confining stress is supplied by the steel tubular.
The bottom weld-bead of the pile often fails at an
earlier stage of loading, therefore it rarely contributes to the maximum strength. If the bottom
weld-bead of the pile is above that of the sleeve, only
one bottom pile weld-bead will exhibit this effect.
Otherwise, two weld-beads will be affected.

Relation between hoop and radial stress

components
At failure the steel tubular yields such that, Oh,tt = Or.
The relationship between radial stress uR and hoop

Platform leg

G r o u t annulus

~.

Figure 1 Section through a typical connection

196

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

Pile

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

stress ah can be expressed according to the theory of
elasticity 7. Because p,. = 0 (radial stress only acting
acting on one side), the equation becomes

ah =

a2b2po 1
(b 2 _ a2 ) R2

pob 2
(b 2 _ a2 )

(1)

Substituting the corresponding values of ab and ay

e t = [(fcu + Cayt/R) + Lry] ,rD

(9)

Failure modes
The failure of the connection is associated with one of
the following mechanisms

since t = (b - a), then

Sleeve yielding in axial direction

_
Oh

a.
( a2b2 + b2R2"~
(b + a)t ~,
~i
/

(2)

where oR---Pn. In equation (2). if the thickness is

relatively small, the square of the radius term can be
used as an approximate value both for ab and bR without
significant loss of accuracy. Therefore,

If the sleeve (or the pile) is very thin, the axial stress in
the sleeve could exceed its yield strength
P, = ~rD, t, ay

(10)

and
fb, = (rDst, Oy)/(TrDpL )

-- (ayt, D,)/(DpL )

(3)

oR = Oh R

Grout strength at weld-bead location

In a simple form, the confined strength of the grout
beneath the weld-bead can be related to its uniaxial
strength and confining stress as

(11)

Axial yielding of the pile will not normally occur

because the pile is usually significantly thicker than the
sleeve. It should be noted here that because of the
presence of the grout annulus, there is no possibility of
sleeve buckling taking place before yielding s
Sleeve yielding in hoop direction

ab = f~, + CaR

(4)

where, C is a parameter to be determined (representing

the effect of radial stress). Substituting oR from equation (3) into equation (4)

ab=f~. +C LR Oh

(5)

Since from experimental results the ultimate stress oh

corresponds to or, the equation becomes
t

ab = f~, + C ~ Or

(6)

The parameter C has to be determined from the corresponding failure criterion, and is unlikely to be a constant since it depends on the value of f, and OR.
However, it was found from numerical studies and
experimental observations that in typical grouted connection problems, the parameter C can be assumed to
have a constant value of four. Therefore, as an approximation, the equation can be written as
t

eb = f., + 4 -R Oh

(7)

The total strength of the connection is the sum of the

bearing strength from equation (7) and the friction
strength as shown below
Ptotal = eweld-bead "[- Pfriction

= [(abhn) + rILl r O

In equation (9) the parameters t and R correspond to

either the thickness and radius of either the sleeve or the
pile. The value of P, should be chosen as the least value
of the total strength of the pile-grout or the sleeve-grout
interface. Therefore, P, should be taken as the least of
the following values

(8)

Pt = [(ft, + Caytp/Rp)nh + LTrf]lrDp

(12a)

P, = [(re, + Cayts/R,)nh + LTrf] ,rDg

(12b)

or

Shear failure of the grout

If the grout strength is very low (e.g. in the early stages

of curing) or for very small weld-bead spacing, there is
a possibility that the bond strength could exceed the
shear strength of the grout. Therefore, the connection
capacity is determined by the shear strength of the grout
Zc, , hence
P, = zc, L r D p

(13)

Recent tests for the UK DEn 9 on specimens with

closely spaced weld-beads indicated that shear failure in
the grout may be a problem in such cases.
Effect of bottom weld-bead

Since the bottom weld-bead of the pile always fails first

it rarely contributes to the strength of the connection, so
the number of effective weld-beads should be reduced
by one or two (depending on the weld-bead arrangemerit), for use in equation (12).

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

197

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

Effect of weld-bead height

Bending moments at mid-thickness due to bearing
stresses at weld-beads can be estimated as
M = 1/2(t + h)ha b

(14)

This moment causes additional axial stress in the

tubular, given by

Aaa -

3h(t + h)
ab
t2

(15)

Due to the Poisson ratio effect, this axial stress increases

the existing hoop stress, so that the confined strength of
the tubular is reduced. Therefore, the % in equation (6)
should be corrected by OAOa. Hence equation (6)
becomes,

ah = fc, + C -R (ay - vAao)

(16)

Substituting the value of aa, and re-arranging the equation

oh =

ft, + C(t/R)ay
[ l + Cv(3ht + h2)/(tR)]

(17)

From equation (17) it is observed that the numerator is

the initial value of Ob as in equation (6) before taking
the bending effect into account. Therefore, the
denominator represents the effect of bending moment.

Ch
C~ =

[ 1 + Cv(3ht + h2)/(tR)]
tR
tR + Coh(3t + h)

(18)

r,, = 9~/-K(f,/35) 0.25

where, Ch is the parameter of weld-bead height effect.

This value of Ch should be used to correct the value
of P, obtained from equations (12a) and (12b). The
parameters t and R in equation (18) should be taken as
tp and Rp, and t, and Rg for correcting equations (12a)
and (12b), respectively.
If the parameter C is assumed to be a constant of value
4 as in equation (7), equation (18) becomes
Ch =

tR
tR + 4vh(3t + h)

(19)

Friction strength
The only term which has not been examined so far is the
friction strength 7-,. This is affected by surface
roughness, grout strength and radial stiffness of the
tubular. The surface roughness is difficult to express in
a general format. Therefore, due to lack of data, for the
present analysis the surface condition factor given by the
UK DEn guidance is adopted.
According to the UK DEn formula I and test results

198

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

by Wimpey Laboratories t, the grout strength affects

the bond strength of the connections. In the API
guidance 2, the friction strength is regarded as independent of the grout strength as long as the latter is within
the range 17.25 N m m - 2 to l l 0 N m m 2
From the
test results by Wimpey for the UK DEn 8, it is observed
that for f , within the range of 30 to 70 Nmm 2, the
variation of the bond strength is negligible. The bond
strength increases with the grout strength only if the latter is very low. This is justified by the observation that
for high grout strength (with the consequential increase
in shear capacity), the interface shear resistance
becomes the critical factor in the behaviour of the connection. This stage is likely to occur for f., of about
35 N mm -2. The parameters which affect the friction
strength above that value are the radial stiffness and the
surface condition of the steel tubulars.
In weld-beaded connections the mechanism of friction
is different to that of plain connections. The lateral
pressure beneath the weld-bead may be quite high, and
may significantly increase the friction strength in its
vicinity. Behind the weld-bead, however, voids are
formed due to relative displacement, hence the area
behind the weld-bead does not contribute to friction
strength. Moreover, since weld-bead connections carry
higher loads than friction-only connections, the axial
stress in the pile and sleeve become much higher, such
that the effect of dilation due to Poisson's ratio becomes
more apparent. It is believed that as a whole, there is no
significant effect of grout strength on the friction
strength. However, it should be noted that if the grout
strength is very low, there is a possibility that the bearing stress can exceed the shear strength of the grout. In
this case, neither grout crushing nor diagonal cracks will
occur. Instead, shear failure occurs, extending from one
face of a weld-bead to another. Based on the above
arguments, and after studying all the available data, it
was decided to use the following formulae for friction.
For plain connections

r u=9~/-k

for f~, < 35 N mm -2

for f., > 3 5 N m m -2

(20)
(21)

For weld-beaded connections

r, = %/-K

for any value of f.,

(22)

Effect of length to diameter ratio

The effect of the length to diameter ratio CL (as defined
by UK DEn), cannot be readily formulated in a
simplified form since it involves almost all of the important parameters. The use of a simplified analytical
approach as presented by the first author 4 has shown
this interdependence of the parameters. Different
geometric or material properties of the models will give
different values C~. for each corresponding length to
diameter ratio.
As a study case, a test model P1 from Reference 10
was used as a basic geometry for L/D = 2. The length
of the connection was then varied to obtain models with
L/Dp of 1, 4, 8, and 12. The analysis was performed
using the finite element model developed by the

Analysis-based deSign eouations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

following is taken into consideration:

Table 1 Comparison of CL from finite element and analytical

approach (assuming no 'bottom weld-bead effect')
CL

Finite element

Analytical approach

1
2
4
8
12

1.050
1.000
0.902
0.675
0.567

1.020
1.000
0.927
0.793
0.720

For connections with L/Dp = 1, CL can be assumed

as equal to 0.8.
For long connections with L/Dp = 4 and more, the
CL parameter can be adequately taken according to
the UK DEn as long as the earlier failure of the bottom weld-bead exists. However, if there is no earlier
failure of the bottom weld-bead, the Cz factors for
specimens with L/Dp = 8 and 12 should be taken as

Table 2

Comparison of CL from finite element and analytical

approach (assuming the bottom weld-bead is ineffective)

CL

Finite element

Analytical approach

1
2
4
8
12

0.850
1.000
1.050
0.831
0.720

0.818
1.000
1.016
0.905
0.885

for L/Dp = 8

Ct. = 0.567

for L/Dp = 12

These values of CL are valid provided there is no axial

yielding in either the sleeve or the pile, and also that the
grout strength is reasonably high so that no shear failure
Occurs.

Final design expressions

authors 6 and a simplified analytical approach 4, by

assuming that no axial sleeve or pile yielding will occur
prior to grout failure. The results of these analyses are
presented in Table 1.
The above values were calculated based on the
assumption that due to the loading arrangement, the
bottom weld-bead does not fail. If the bottom weld-bead
is assumed ineffective, the results presented in Table 1
above are changed, as given in Table 2.
The difference in CL values from Tables 1 and 2 is
attributed to the relative importance of the bottom weldbead in short connections. This causes a significant
reduction in the average bond strength for models with
small L/DD, but the effect is diminished as the
L/Dp = 2, becomes higher. Consequently, Ct. which is
defined as a normalized value for the strength of
L/Dp = 2, becomes higher. In most cases, the earlier
failure of the bottom weld-bead is very likely to exist.
Therefore, the CL factors from Table 2 are more
realistic. It is noteworthy that the analytical approach
gives strength prediction higher than finite elements.
This is due to the fact that the effect of bond strength
reduction due to dilation is not accounted for in the
analytical treatment.
The comparison between all available experimental
and analytical results is presented in Table 3 below.
Based on the results presented in Table 3, it is concluded that the present CL factors from UK DEn
guidance notes are reasonable for the range of
geometries studied herein (model P1), provided the
Table 3

CL = 0.675

Weld-beaded connections
After including the most important parameters, the final
form of the equation for calculating the total strength of
the connection will be the lowest value from the following equations

P, = [(f~u + Cart,/R,)nhCh ~ + 9L,,~--K]rDgCL

(23)

where
C~ =

ts~
tsRs + Cvh(3ts + h)

or

P, = [(f~= + C%t/Rp)n'hC~, + 9LV-K] ,rDpCr.

(24)
where

tpRp
Chp = tpRp + Cvh(3tp + h)
The average bond strength fbu, which is defined as the
total load capacity P, divided by the outer surface of the
pile, becomes

fb~ = P,/(27rDpL)

(25)

Comparison of CL from various tests and analytical results

L/Dp

Billington and Lewis 12

Wimpey 13

Finite El 6

Analytical 4

Chitvers 11

DEn 1

1
2
4
8
12

0.816
1.000
0.877
0.947
0.840

0.732
1.000
1.193
0.974
0.000

0.850
1.000
1.050
0.831
0.720

0.818
1.000
1.016
0.905
0.885

1.200
1.000
0.920
0.000
0.000

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

199

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

13

12
11
10
9

To simplify the calculation, C has been evaluated from

a triaxial failure surface ~4, and values of (f~, + Cart~R),
which is the confined strength of the grout, are presented
in Figures 2 and 3, so that part of the equation can be
replaced by

t/R=o.01

=0.02

f.c = (f,u + Cart~R)

(26)

Hence the final form of the total strength equations

becomes

t/R=O.03 L

P, = [f~nhC~ s + 9L~-K] ~rD~C~

(27)

Pt = [fccn'hChp + 9L~-K] rDp C~

(28)

or
3

-tlR=0.12~
t/R=O.lq
tlR=0.16 o
t/R=0.18 "~
t/R=O,20 ~e~

with the following limitations

I0

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grout unconfined strength

80

P, < ~yA, (no earlier failure due to axial yielding

90 I00 1I0

of the sleeve or pile)

fcu ( N / m m 2 )

2 Unconfined strength vs C parameter of grout for different values of t / R

Figure

270
260

where A, is the cross-section area of the pile or sleeve.

fbu < To,

t/R=0.20~
t/R=0.18~
~-t/R=0.16 ~
~ ' t l R~=t/R=O.12
O.14t.
J~t/R=0.10-J 2. t / R = O . 0 9 ~
~t/R=O.00 3

250

240
230
220

The above design equations were used to calculate the

strength of some connection models tested elsewhere ~']5'16 and the results were presented in Table 4
and Figure 4a. A comparison with the results from other
design equations are also given in Figures 4b and 4c.

~ 7 " t / R'R ==0.06

0.05
~ - t / R = 0.04

E 200
~ 190
180

~u 170
160

~.tlR=O.03~

~tlR=O.02

~so
14o
~3o

t.

~ u R =0.0~~'
g

Plain connections
The friction strength of a plain connection has already
been given as in equations (20) and (21). Therefore the
total strength of the connection is

120

loo

90

80

o
'~

70

(no earlier failure due to shear)

61)
511
40
3(1
2O
19
0 ~

P = [9V~K(fc.135)25]rDpL forfc, < 35 N mm -2

(29)
and

10

P = [9~/-K] ~rDpL for f~, > 35 N mm -2

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Grout unconfined strength fcu (N/ram2)

Comparison between the above formula and the UK

DEn approach is presented in Figures 5a and 5b.

F i g u r e 3 Unconfined strength vs confined strength of

grout for different values of t / R

~'

(30)

"~ 22

~ 18
16

formula

~ 18
~ 16

-~ DEn f

18

API formula

12

12

o 10

~ 10

~ 4
0''

-Q
E

ill

,I,

0.4 0.6 0.8 I .0 I .2 I .4 I .6

Bond s t r e n g t h p r e d i c t i o n / e x p e r i m e n t a l

a
Figure 4

0.4 0.6 0.8 1,0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Bond s t r e n g t h p r e d i c t i o n / e x p e r i m e n t a l

Comparison of prediction/experimental results for weld-beaded connections. (a), Proposed formula; (b), DEn formula; (c), API

formula;

200

2
0

i I lil
i i i ~ I I I I I I
E
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
z Bond s t r e n g t h p r e d i c t i o n / e x p e r i m e n t a l

.~

Eng. S t r u c t . 1 9 9 2 , Vol. 14, No 3

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

Table 4

Table 4 continued . . .

Prediction of bond strength using the proposed equa-

tions

Model

fc,

fb, Expt

fb, Design

(N mm -2)

(N mm -2)

(N mm-2)

Design/
expt

Series P (Reference 10)

Model

fc,

fbu Expt

fbu Design

(N mm -2)

(N mm-2)

(N mm -2)

Design/
expt

Series O (Reference 10)

P1
P2

0.0146
0.0146

54.21
47.59

2.789
2.933

2.673
2,570

0.958
0.876

Q1
Q2

0.0105
0.0105

31.76
36.29

2.143
2.073

1.976
2.040

0.922
0.984

P3
P4

0.0106
0.0106

53.42
50.37

2.283
2.213

2,314
2.262

1.013
1,022

Q3
Q4

0.0105
0.0105

30.10
27.61

3.302
2.916

2.886
2.784

0.874
0,955

P5
P6

0.0093
0.0093

59.61
51.27

1.862
1.700

2.274
2.146

1.221
-1.262

Q5
Q6

0.0105
0.0105

36.26
33.50

3,814
3,899

3,749
3.646

0.983
0.935

P7
P8

0.0131
0.0131

53.08
53.26

P9
PIO

0.0100
0.0100

53.57
52.06

Pll
P12

0.0088
0.0088

P13
P14

27.50
27.78
28.13
46.40
77.80
74.76

3,591
3,616
3,324
3,514
4,781
4,592

2.998
2.961
2.932
3.652
4.356
4,290

0.835
0.818
0.880
1.040
0.911
0.934

P15
P16

50.00
60.50
51.50
50.10
63.00
63.90

2.274
2.425
1.970
2,561
2,080
2.759

1.650
1.908
1.474
1.895
1,993
2.833

0.726
0.787
0.748
0.740
0.958
1.027

2.705

2.597

0.960

Series UTA (Reference 16)

58.81
55.60

2.078
2.139
1.792
1,862

2.284
2.259
2.213
2.184

1.102
1.056
1,235
1,173

0,0120
0.0120

49.91
54.37

2,422
2.406

2.497
2.561

1.031
1.061

UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT5
UT6

0.0095
0.0095

57.47
52.68

2,143
2.055

2.311
2.247

1.078
1.093

2.193
2.107

1.236
1.115

P17
P18

0.0085
0.0085

57.14
53.42

1.774
1.890

P19
P20

0.0121
0.0121

51.20
53.08

1.802
3.001

2.259
2.293

1,253
0,764

0.0191
0.0191
0.0179
0.0200
0.0220
0.0220

Series W
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6

0.0136
0.0136
0.0146
0.0146
0.0153
0.0153

Series R (Reference 15)

P21
P22

0.0201
0.0201

21.20
18.60

2.377
2.582

2,509
2.458

1.055
0.952

P23
P24

0.0170
0.0170

20.30
23.10

2.746
2.664

2.371
2.435

0.863
0.914

P25
P26

0.0155
0.0155

31.80
18.20

2.786
2.131

2,531
2.274

0.908
1.067

-~
~ 7

P27
P28

0.0253
0.0253

22.40
19.10

2.664
2.786

2.875
2.803

1.079
1.006

P29
P30

0.0207
0.0207

20.90
23.10

2.664
3.360

2.699
2.737

1.0,13
0.814

P31
P32

0.0182
0.0168

20.70
26.90

2,791
2.569

2.597
2.725

0.930
1.061

~5

2"

.(~

Series R (Reference 10)

E 0
~_ 0.4
a

R1
R2

0.0105
0.0105

38.15
45.89

1.732
1.862

1,557
1.616

0.904
0.868

R3
R4

0.0105
0.0105

35.56
39.35

2.494
2,599

2.534
2,610

1.016
1.004

R5
R6

0.0095
0.0095

33.94
45.89

2.213
2,354

1,976
2,057

0,893
0.874

R7
R8

0.0125
0.0125

35.79
44.73

2.494
2.512

2,300
2,440

0.922
0.971

~ 6
~ 5

R9
R10

0.0105
0.0105

46.75
50.83

2.354
2.073

2.207
2.271

0.938
1.096

~ 4
~ 3!

,I,1, I,

0.6

0.8

,171,

1.0
1.2
1.4
Prediction/experimental

1.6

1.8

DEn formula

fbu mean = ( 9 K fcu O" 5) i O. 75

~2
o

Series b (Reference 15)

Proposed formula
fbu = 9 K 0"s (fcu/35) 0.25

Rll
R12

0.0108
0.0108

30.50
29.40

2.417
2.303

2.838
2.808

1,174
1.219

~0

R13
R14

0.0108
0.0108

23.70
22.30

3.032
2.622

2.969
2,908

0.979
1.109

R15
R16

0.0108
0.0108

24.30
21.30

3.319
3.319

3.345
3.315

1.008
0,999

"~ 0.4
z

I!
0.6

,m,
0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

,C-II2.0

1.8

Prediction/experimental

Figure 5 Bond strength prediction for plain connections. (a), Proposed formula; (b)m DEn formula

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

201

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

0.8-ol

1.4
1.3
u~
1.2

1.1

1.0
0.9

D3
.

0.8

-o

0.7--

m
"o
(.-

0.6-

t s = 20 mm
ts=12.5mm

0.5--

ts=8mm

~N 0.4
Proposed

~"

0.7

o=
en

formula

~ ] ~ 1 ~ ~

DEn

i
Z

0.~

0.1

ts=5mm

0.2

"-~ 0.0

0.6-

10

I
10

I
20

I
30

Figure 6 Comparison

I
40

I
50

I
60

I
70

I
80

strength

fcu

of bond strength

I
90

Figure 8 Effect of pile thickness,

I
I
I
l
100 110 120 130

0.8
0.7

m
"o
c.
o

parameter

= 15.88 rnm

== . "

Fbu = fb.(35/f~.) 2~

N 0.4

o.~
I
2

I
4

I
6

I
I
I
I
8
10 12 14
Sleeve thickness

Figure 7 Effect of sleeve thickness,

I
I
16
18
t s (mm)

experimental

I
20

I
22

I
23

tp=25.4mm

40

50
40

ox 30

DEn

- ~ 20
E
~ 10
mx

~...

_,,

--

u.~ -~0

",

.1"

(31)

The overall comparison of the bond strength predictions

using the proposed equations and the existing design
formulae is given in Figures (5a) to (5c). The results are
presented in terms offb, prediction divided by the corresponding experimental value, and the number of
occurrences in certain intervals. The figures show that
the proposed equation is slightly better than the DEn
formula, and far better than that proposed by the API.
The proposed formula reduces the scatter in fb, from
the range 0.7 to 1.4 in the UK DEn prediction to the

~,o

",

~--. -40
-50

I
2

I
4

I
6

Sleeve

'~'

API
-e
I i i i i i J 2i2
8 10 12 14 16 18 20

thickness

ts

(mm)

Figure 9 Effect of sleeve thickness

Eng. S t r u c t .

1992,

Vol.

= 15.88 mm

50 1 t p = 12.7 mm
40

~
~

~~

-10

formula

"

20

'0
~~

______...~

o.
x 30

Proposed

"o u
oo~ -10
~ -30

202

for f~. < 35 N m m -~

Discussion

results

5O

results

increase in grout strength does not have a noticeable

effect on the bond strength. Figure 6 shows the comparison of bond strength parameters using the equation
given in Reference 1 and equation (31).

In comparing the effects of other parameters, it is

necessary to eliminate the effect off~,. However, this is
not possible since the grout strength f~, always varies
from one specimen to another. To overcome this
problem, Wimpey Laboratories~ introduced a 'bond
strength parameter'. This is used to normalize the bond
strength f~, from test results. It has been found that this

L t-i
o

experimental

and there is no need for a bond strength parameter for

0.2

o.0

tp(mm}

f~, greater than 35 N mm -2 since above that value the

~
@ 0.3
Z

35

formula only gives good agreement for grout strength of

about 50 N mm -2. The use of bond strength parameter
becomes important since any discrepancies in transforming the bond strength into the bond strength parameter
will cause inaccuracy in the test results. Based on the
above-proposed equation, it is believed that the bond
strength parameter is better expressed as

0.6

30

for plain c o n -

0.5

25

(N/ram2}

nections

20

Pile thickness

Grout

15

0.5-0.4

t =4mm
5

~ "~
o~o~ -20
~ -30
a.
~ -40
-50

(design equations).

14, No 3

\, ~
\

/'Proposed
/
formula
/"
API

3oi20 I-

',
~,

1oF
I

~~

b c /
o -10 I-

"~ -40

I
2

I
4

-50F

= I I lj2 I 116 I 210 i

6 8 10
14
18
22

Sleeve

thickness

t s (ram)

o
C

posed

formula

" , "-~-

~-

",,, .....

",

.... ~ A P I

. 6 . ,'0,l 1'.1
Sleeve

thickness

(a), tp = 2 5 . 4 0 ram; (b), tp = 1 5 . 8 8 ram; (c), tp = 1 2 . 7 0 m m

DEn

ts

1'81'0 Z
(mm)

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

40-

5O
4O

..4. . . . . . . . . . . .

-e API

Ir

~-

30

t s = 5 mm

t s = 4 mm
30-

m e

20-

t-~.

lO-

~,~

API

..4

Proposed formula

~ ~

20

mx

10

co X

\
~'- ~

~--~

DEn

DEn

:~ ~ -lO oo~

P r o p o s e d formul~

-10

-20 -

e~

e~

-30 --

-20

-40

-30
I

-40

I
10

I
I
I
I
I
15
20
25
Pile t h i c k n e s s tp (mm)

I
30

ts=8mm

20--

e-

e~

20

co.
to X

10

~,~

tn

DEn

10--

~x
0

,,,,,,,,,,,o,,~ ~

ql

~---.__.._.._._._~

-I0

osed f o r m u l a
-"~ API

~.- r -

I
20

I
25

I
30

(mm)

t s = 12.5 mm

Proposed formula

~. -20
-30

-30 -40

10

3O

m~

20

10-

~Ox

~.9
~5~ -10

-20

.
m
w

I
15

3O

30-..,,,.

Pile t h i c k n e s s t

40

40-

I
10

15
20
25
Pile t h i c k n e s s t (mm)
P

-4C

/"-
10

30

API
"'-J____l.---,---"r15
20

Pile t h i c k n e s s

"I
25

I
30

tp (mm)

t s = 20 mm
, j DEn

Proposed formula

-1o
,~

-20 a. -30 -40 5

"'-.
I

-50

I
10

API

................
I
15

I
20

Pile t h i c k n e s s

Figure 10 Effect o f pile thickness

ts = 20 m m

I
25

I
30

{mm)

(design equations).

(a), ts = 4 ram;

range of 0.8 to 1.3, whilst the API formula exhibits

more scatter, i.e. between 0.4 and 1.6. This comparison
is based on all available test data for which strength and
geometric parameters are quoted in the literature.
In comparing the radial stiffness effects, the present
authors considered more specific factors, i.e. the effect
of varying the pile thickness and the sleeve thickness. It
is clear from Figures 7 and 8 that the effect of these
variations could be different. In Figure 7 it is observed
that the increase in the pile thickness tp from 15.88 mm
to 25.4 mm did not result in any difference in the bond

(b), ts = 5 mm;

(c), ts = 8 ram;

(d), ts = 12.5 mm;

(e),

strength. On the other hand, the increase in sleeve

thickness t, had a significant effect on bond strength.
Comparison between the predictions show that the proposed formula agrees better with the experimental
results, except when the thickness of the sleeve ts is
very small. This could be due to sleeve yielding in the
axial direction. As can be seen, for t, = 4 mm, the
increase in pile thickness from 12.5 mm to 15.88 mm
and 25.4 mm did not affect the bond strength. Contrary
to the conclusion of Chilvers 11 the sleeve thickness
effect is noticeable. From Figure 8 it is observed that

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

203

Analysis-based design equations for composite tubular connections: W. Aritenang et al.

scatter due to the omission of significant governing

parameters.

40
30
Q.

20

'-o_

10

References
sf,/

~o~
~. -20 -

/IP

DE~

_.

roposed formula

-30 -40

I
0

I
1

I
2

I
3

Weld-bead height h (ram)

Figure 11 Effect of weld-bead height (design equations)

there is a significant increase in bond strength as the

sleeve thickness increases. The comparison between the
design formulae in predicting the effect of sleeve
thickness variation is presented in Figures 9a and 9c,
whilst the effect of pile thickness variation is presented
in Figures lOa and lOe. The figures show that the proposed equation gives results closer to the test results
compared with both the DEn and API design equations.
The effect of weld-bead height is also illustrated in
Figure 11. Although experimental results are insufficient, it is clear that the assumption of linear variation
in bond strength with weld-bead height could reduce the
safety margin.

Conclusion
A set of design equations for the calculation of the
ultimate strength of grouted tubular .connections have
been proposed, both for plain and weld-beaded connections. The proposed equations give results that are more
consistent with experimental data than the existing UK
DEn code formula. The API predictions show the most

204

Eng. S t r u c t . 1 9 9 2 , Vol. 14, No 3

1 UK - Department of energy Guidance on the design and construction of offshore installation, (3rd Edn) HMSO London, 1984
2 American Petroleum Institute 'Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms', API RP2A,
(16th Edn) April 1986
3 Carroll, B. C., Elnashai, A. S. and Dowling, P. J. 'Assessment of
design recommendation for offshore composite connections', Eng.
Foundation Conf. on Composite Construction, New Hampshire, 7
June 1987, pp. 18-33
4 Aritenang, W. 'Behaviour of composite tubular connections in offshore structures', Ph.D Thesis, Imperial College, University of
London, 1989
5 Elnashai, A. S. 'Non-linear analysis of composite tubular joints',
Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1984
6 Elnashai, A. S. and Aritenang, W. 'Nonlinear modelling of weldbeaded composite tubular connections', Eng. Struct. 1991, 13,
34 - 42
7 Timosbenko, S. P. and Krieger, S. W. 'Theory of plate and shells ',
(2nd Edn) McGraw Hill, 1984, pp.507-514
8 U K - Department of Energy 'The strength of grouted pile-sleeve
connections for offshore structure,, Static Test Relating to Sleeve
Buckling', Offshore Technology Report, OTH 85 223, HMSO London, 1985
9 Forsyth, P. and Tebbet, I. E. 'New test data on the strength of
grouted connections with closely spaced weld-beads', Offshore
Technology Conf., paper 5833, Houston, 1988
10 UK - Department of Energy 'Report of the working party on the
strength of grouted pile/sleeve connections for offshore structures',
Offshore Technology Publication, OTP- 11, HMSO London,
September 1982
11 Chilvers, C. 'Finite element analysis in grouted connections', Ph.D.
Thesis, The City University. London 1986
12 Billington, C. J. and Lewis, G. H. G. 'The strength of large mameter
grouted connections', Offshore Technology Conf., paper 3083,
Houston. 1978, pp. 291-297
13 UK - Department of Energy 'A study of length, longitudinal stiffening and size effects on grouted pile-sleeve connections', Offshore
Technology Report, OTH 86 239, HMSO London, 1986
14 Kotsovos, M. D. 'A mathematical description of the strength properties of concrete under complex loading', Mag. Concrete Res., 1979
31, (108), 151-157
15 UK - Department of Energy 'The strength of grouted pile-sleeve
connections', Offshore Technology Report, OTH 86210, HMSO
London, 1986
16 Lamport, W., Jirsa, M. J. and Yura, J. A. 'Grouted pile-to-sleeve
connection test', University of Texas, PMFSEL Report no. 86-87,
June 1986