Professional Documents
Culture Documents
API RP2 Turbuler Joint Design PDF
API RP2 Turbuler Joint Design PDF
The New API RP 2A, 22nd Edition Tubular Joint Design Practice
D.I. Karsan, Paragon Engineering Services Inc., P.W. Marshall, MHP Systems Engineering, D.A. Pecknold, U. of Illinois at
Urbana Campaign, W.C. Mohr, EWI, J. Bucknell, MSL Services Corporation
Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Since the early 1990s, API sponsored a series of research
projects to develop advanced formulation for design of nonoverlapping tubular T, Double T (DT-X), and K offshore
platform joints (API RP2A Upgrade Plan, 1990). The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, sponsored by
API, developed nonlinear finite element models and verified
them against available test results. These models were then
used to simulate a wide variety of geometries and static
loading conditions, establishing a broader database than
available test results. Advanced closed form parametric
formulations were developed and verified against these
analytical results to reduce scatter and generate more reliable
formulation than provided in the API RP 2A WSD 14th
through 21st Editions. One significant feature of the new static
design formulations is better representation of the chord load
and geometry effects and the boundary conditions that are not
possible with physical testing (Pecknold 2000, 01, 02, 05).
The Task Group also evaluated and upgraded the tubular joint
fatigue design procedures. The welded joint X and X fatigue
design curves in the RP 2A Editions 11 thru 21 have been
replaced by a basic SN curve with a slope m=3 that changes to
5 at ten million cycles. Fatigue life correction factors for
seawater, thickness, and use of weld profile control, grinding,
and peening have also been introduced. In addition, the
comprehensive Efthymiou 1988 equations replaced the Alpha
Kellogg Stress Concentration Equations. The Simplified
Fatigue Design Procedure has been maintained, with the
allowable peak hot spot stresses rechecked for the new SN
curve. SN curves and fatigue design requirements for cast
nodes and grouted joints have also been introduced.
Introduction
The API tubular joint static design technology has been
under continuous development since the first edition of the API
OTC 17236
OTC 17236
>
= d/D 1.0
= D/2t 50
90
72 ksi (500 MPa)
-0.6 (for K joints)
Ma
Qu Q f
Qu Q f
F yc T 2
FS sin
F yc T 2 d
FS sin
FSPc
FSM ipb
Qf =
API Eq. (4.3-2)
2
C2
1 + C1
p
Py
C3 A
Py
0.5
API Eq (4.3-3)
M
p
C1
0.2
0.3
C2
0.2
0
C3
0.3
0.8
0.2
-0.2
0.2
0
0
0.5
0.2
0.4
where:
For axially loaded braces with a classification that is a mixture
of K, Y and X joints, take a weighted average of Pa based on the
portion of each in the total load. Note that the FS value is
reduced from 1.7 to 1.6.
(Pa)c=
OTC 17236
Tn =
Tc =
r =
=
L =
IR = P + M + M
Pa M a ipb M a
1.0
API Eq (4.3-5)
opb
OTC 17236
Log10 (k1)
m
7
3 for N<10
7
5 for N>10
Cast Joints
(CJ)
3 for N<10
7
5 for N>10
Improvement
Factor on S
Improvement
Factor on N
1.25
Hammer peening
1.56
- 0.1
Varies
For welds with profile control, where the weld toe has been
profiled (by grinding if required) to merge smoothly with the
parent metal, and magnetic particle inspection demonstrates
the weld toe is free of surface and near-surface defects, the
improvement on fatigue performance can be considered as
shown in the Table, where is the ratio of branch/chord
thickness. This improvement is in addition to the use of
hotspot stress at the actual weld toe location, and the reduced
OTC 17236
OTC 17236
Axial
Tension
Axial
Compression
In-plane
Bending
Out-of-Plane Bending
(5+0.7)1.2
2.5+(4.5+0.2)2.6
(16+1.2)1.2 Qg
but 40 1.2 Qg
2.8 + (20+0.8)1.6
T/Y
30
23 for 0.9
20.7 + ( - 0.9)
(17 - 220) for
> 0.9
0.3
(1 0.833)
for >0.6
Q =
1.0
for 0.6
(b) Qg is the gap factor defined by:
Qg =
Qg =
Linear interpolation between the limiting values of the above two Qg expressions may be used for -0.05 < g/D < 0.05.
Fyb = yield stress of brace or brace stub if present (or 0.8 times the tensile strength if less), ksi (MPa)
(c) The Qu term for tension loading is based on limiting the capacity to first crack. The Qu associated with full
ultimate capacity of tension loaded Y and X joints is given in the Commentary.
(d) The X joint, axial tension, Qu term for > 0.9 applies to coaxial braces (i.e. e/D 0.2 where e is the eccentricity of
the two braces). If the braces are not coaxial (e/D > 0.2) then 23 should be used over the full range of .
(e) Where the working points of members at a gap connection are separated by more than D/4 along the chord
centerline, or where a connection has simultaneously loaded branch members in more than one plane, the
connection may be classified as a general or multi-planar connection, and designed as described in the
Commentary.
OTC 17236
TABLE 2 API RP 2A TUBULAR STATIC STRENGTH STATISTICS. NEW EDITION 22 vs. PREVIOUS EDITION 21 FOR TEST AND
FINITE ELEMENT ANALSIS DATABASES
Brace
Loading
Balanced
Axial
In-Plane
Bending
Out-of-Plane
Bending
Statistical
Parameter
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
Number
K Joints
Test Database
Edition 22
Edition 21
1.34
1.38
0.17
0.18
161
1.47
1.29
0.15
0.09
6
1.54
1.15
0.19
0.14
7
FE Database
Edition 22
Edition 21
1.14
1.18
0.11
0.42
440
1.32
0.94
0.17
0.50
242
1.2
0.84
0.11
0.14
306
X Joints
Axial
Compressio
n
Axial
Tension
In-Plane
Bending
Out-of-Plane
Bending
Mean Bias
COV
Number
1.17
0.09
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
N Number
Mean Bias
COV
2.40
0.28
1.16
0.11
1.31
0.12
65
1.47
1.33
339
2.65
0.54
34
1.55
0.19
1.27
0.21
1.35
0.11
1.13
0.20
1.52
0.23
17
1.39
0.06
40
N Number
0.97
0.35
0.75
0.23
80
Y Joints
Balanced
Axial
Axial
Tension
In-Plane
Bending
Out-of-Plane
Bending
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
Number
Mean Bias
COV
Number
1.21
0.11
1.45
0.20
1.18
0.14
64
2.56
0.29
1.24
0.32
46
3.45
0.29
16
1.41
0.16
1.00
0.32
1.34
0.10
29
1.45
0.26
18
1.07
0.26
27
0.90
0.34
1.31
0.08
0.89
0.17
18
OTC 17236
4
D/4 or 12in.
(300mm) MIN.
SEAM
WELD
d
2
d2 or 24in.
(600mm) MIN.
GAP 2in.
(50mm) MIN.
d2 or 24in.
(600mm) MIN.
d2 /4 or 6in.
(150mm) MIN.
d
1
d1 or 24in.
(600mm) MIN.
4
1
D/
A
X.
6in. (150mm)
MIN.
d2 or 24in.
(600mm) MIN.
4
1
d2
10
OTC 17236