You are on page 1of 25

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.

Design Requirements for


Fixed Steel Structures in API
and ISO
Moises A. Abraham, Chevron
December 2012
Platong II Gulf of Thailand
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
Evolution of API RP 2A-WSD 21
st
Edition into the 22
nd
Edition.
Changes in the 22
nd
Edition of RP2A-WSD.
New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in the 22
nd
Edition.
Coexistence of API RP 2A-WSD 22
nd
Edition and API RP 2A-LRFD 2
nd
Edition.
Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with ISO 19900 Series.
Adopting ISO 19902 for RP2A-LRFD 2
nd
Edition.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API RP 2A-WSD 21
st
Edition.
Review of Calibration Methodology in the 1980s.
Topics of Discussion
References
2
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Evolution of API RP 2A-WSD 21
st
Edition into the 22
nd
Edition.
3
API RP 2A-WSD
21
st
Edition
API RP 2GEN
API RP 2MET
API RP GEO
API RP 2A-WSD
22
nd
Edition
API RP 2EQ
API RP 2SIM
API RP 2TOP
API RP 2MOP
Published
Will be published
in 2013
Being Developed
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Changes in the 22
nd
Edition of RP 2A-WSD
Balloted in 2011 and approved with 96% of the votes cast.
22
nd
Edition final table of contents to include 3 new sections i.e. Scope,
Normative References and Terms, Definitions and Acronyms. Three
sections were removed i.e. Section 14 Surveys, Section 17
Assessment of Existing Platforms and Section 18 Fire, Blast and
Accidental Loadings.
The 1989 edition of AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
(ASD) is included as a normative reference. LRFD in later editions of this
AISC specification are based on calibration with building design practices
and may not be applicable to offshore platforms.
Section 4.7 contains an updated guidance to determine Exposure
Category used in selecting required level of design for platforms.
Users are referred to API 2MET for wind, wave and current environmental
data previously included in 2A. The detailed steps to follow in applying the
data from API 2MET remain in 2A.
4
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Changes in the 22
nd
Edition of RP 2A-WSD
The newly required robustness assessment for new platforms is a check
for platform survival in a lower probability extreme event.
The elevation of the underside of the deck for new L-1 and L-2 platforms
must be no lower than the 1000-year return period max crest elevation
provided in API 2MET.
While the 22
nd
edition no longer recommends a minimum of 1.5m (5 ft) air
gap, the user is reminded to allow for any known or predicted seafloor
subsidence, water depth uncertainty, platform rotation, etc.
Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE) and Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE)
are defined in 2EQ. The ELE was the Strength Level Earthquake (SLE)
and the ALE was the Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE) in earlier editions
of RP 2A.
Simplified Fatigue was removed from the commentary to be consistent
with API 2MET. Wave conditions for which the simplified approach was
calibrated are no longer in 2MET. All new and reused structures are now
required to have a detailed fatigue analysis.
5
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Changes in the 22
nd
Edition of RP 2A-WSD
Revised Section 7.2.3 on Minimum Capacity requirements for tubular
joints (50% effective strength check). For the purposes of this
requirement, the chord capacity shall be determined using Equation 7.1
(Pa) with a factor of safety (FS) equal to 1.0.
API 2MOP Recommended Practice for Marine Operations identical to
ISO 19901-6 was issued in 2010 and is now a normative reference in the
22
nd
edition.
Section on in-place surveys has been removed and expanded on in the
new API 2SIM.
Section 17 on assessment of existing platforms and its commentary have
been moved to and expanded on in the new API 2SIM.
Any reused (not the same as change of use) platform must meet the
requirements of a new platform with special considerations provide to
account for fatigue damage experienced at the original platform location.
6
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
The new tubular joint strength equations are based on screened test
databases, augmented by an extensive new series of validated nonlinear
FE simulations.
Additional experimental information available of the effect of additional
chord loads on joint capacity was incorporated in the new formulation.
The increased reliability (reduced scatter) provided by the new static
strength formulation justified the reduction in load factor of safety to 1.6
from the previous value of 1.7.
Joint classification is unchanged from the 21
st
edition.
A new brace load interaction equation is adopted. This new interaction
equation provides a better fit to the available test data than does the arc
sine expression in the 21
st
edition.
New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in API RP 2A-
WSD 22
nd
Edition by Pecknold et al.
7
0 . 1
2
s +
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
opb
a
ipb
a a
M
M
M
M
P
P
IR
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in API RP 2A-
WSD 22
nd
Edition by Pecknold et al.
The punching shear design formulation has been fully eliminated.
The formulas for have been completely revised
The format of the basic capacity equations remain unchanged from the 21
st
edition:
The 0.8d multiplier in the 21
st
edition for has been eliminated and absorbed by
the coefficient.
The new and formulations more accurately reflect the influence of joint
geometry in particularly chord diameter-to-thickness ratio () and chord loads on
joint capacity and are a significant improvement over previous practice (21
st
edition). The strength load factor depends only on joint geometry (| and ). t is
excluded because it has only a minor effect.
8
u
u
sin
sin
2
2
FS
d T F
Q Q M
FS
T F
Q Q P
y
f u a
y
f u a
=
=
u
Q
f
Q
u
Q
f g u
Q Q Q Q , , ,
|
u
Q
a
M
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Interaction Curve for Tubular Joints Under Combined
Axial and Uni-directional Moment Loading
9
P
a
=Q
u
Q
f
F
yc
T
2
/(FS sinu)
M
a
=Q
u
Q
f
F
yc
T
2
d/(FS sinu)
Joint Strength Check
IR =|P/P
a
| +|M/M
a
|
ipb
2
+|M/M
a
|
opb
API WSD
API LRFD
ISO 19902
P
uj
=Q
u
Q
f
F
y
T
2
/(sinu)
M
uj
=Q
u
Q
f
F
y
T
2
d/(sinu)
Joint Strength Check
Uj=|P
B
/P
D
| +|M
B
/M
D
|
ipb
2
+|M
B
/M
D
|
opb
P
uj
=Q
u
Q
f
F
y
T
2
/(sinu)
M
uj
=Q
u
Q
f
F
y
T
2
(0.8d) / (sinu)
Joint Strength Check
IR=1-cos[(t/2)(P
D
/|
j
P
uj
)] +[(M
D
/|
j
M
uj
)
ipb
2
+(M
D
/|
j
M
uj
)
opb
2
]
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P
/
P
m
a
x
M/M
max
InteractionCurveforP+M
APILRFD(P+MipborMopb)
ISO(P+Mipb)
ISO(P+Mopb)
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Coexistence of API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition and API
RP 2A-LRFD 2nd Edition.
10
API RP 2A-WSD
21
st
Edition
API RP 2GEN
API RP 2MET
API RP GEO
API RP 2A-WSD
22
nd
Edition
API RP 2EQ
API RP 2SIM
API RP 2TOP (LRFD) ?
API RP 2MOP
API RP 2A-LRFD
1
st
Edition
(Withdrawn)
API RP 2A-LRFD
2
nd
Edition
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with
ISO 19900 Series.
11
API RP 2GEN
API RP 2MET
API RP GEO
API RP 2A-WSD
22
nd
Edition
API RP 2EQ
API RP 2SIM
API RP 2TOP LRFD
API RP 2MOP ?
API RP 2A-LRFD
2
nd
Edition
ISO 19900
ISO 19901-1
ISO 19901-4
ISO 19902
ISO 19901-2
?
ISO 19901-3
ISO 19901-6
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Adopting ISO 19902 for RP2A-LRFD 2
nd
Edition
API RP 2A LRFD has been withdrawn and a modified version of ISO
19902 will be adopted for RP 2A-LRFD 2
nd
Edition.
Task Group 19 composed of 22 members started the work in 2009.
Activities completed:
Task group has completed the review of 25 sections of ISO 19902.
Written comments on the DNV Report Comparison of API, ISO, and NORSOK
Offshore Structural Standards were submitted by task group members.
A code check comparison has been performed between API WSD and ISO
19902.
API will fund analytical studies (platform UC check comparisons). The project
will start in early 2013 and last for two years.
3 contractors perform 3 platform analyses.
Chevron will run one additional platform analysis.
12
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
13
Jacket dead load = 2000 kips
Deck dead load = 3000 kips
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
14
Pile Members Unity Check
___ ISO 19902
___ API 21
st
Edition
0.54
0.60
0.85
0.90
1.11
1.13
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
15
Row 2 Members Unity Check
___ ISO 19902
___ API 21
st
Edition
0.93
0.76
0.55
0.59
0.35
0.34
0.66
0.73
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
16
Joint Unity Check
___ ISO 19902
___ API 21
st
Edition
0.89
0.97
0.96
1.02
0.89
1.21
0.83
1.40
0.21
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.36
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Pile UCs above the mudline are similar in API and ISO.
When hydrostatics is included in the analysis, API and ISO yield different results
due to treatment of capped-end forces. The table below shows maximum UCs for
two water depths.
Hydrostatic pressure will dominate deep water jackets and compliant towers in
LRFD.
ISO equation 14.3-13 controls the design of critical joints. The intent of the
equation is to make critical joints stronger than braces, but the effect may be too
severe.
Different conical transition designs requirement between ISO and API.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
17
Hydrostatic
Head (ft)
API UC ISO UC ISO
Equation
276 0.92 0.76 13.2-31
350 1.41 0.96 13.2-31
zj
b
opb
d
B
ipb
d
B
d
B
j
U
M
M
M
M
P
P
U

s +
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2
Minimum
Capacity
check in API
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of Calibration Methodology by Fred Moses et al.
to Develop API RP 2A-LRFD in the 1980s
Every designed structural member (beam, column, brace, etc.) has a
probability of failure (P
f
). This P
f
can also be expressed as | (reliability index).
Objective: Derive load and resistance factors that provide a level of safety
close to current practice (WSD 12
th
edition) for each component design
check.
By carefully selecting load and resistance factors it is possible to achieve:
An averaged | similar to the average WSD |
A narrow spread of |
18
load. the is S and resistance the is R where
2 2
S R
S
R
V V
LN
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

|
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of Calibration Methodology by F. Moses to
Develop API RP 2A-LRFD in the 1980s
19
Source: OTC 5699
The average | for each
of the curves is similar,
but the spread of the
LRFD curve is smaller.
In the 1980s calibration,
| was between 2.01 and
2.78 for different
components i.e. yield,
bending, buckling,
tubular joints, etc.
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Acceptable probabilities of Failure from F. Moses Work (1988)
20
) ( | u =
f
P u Is Guassian probability distribution function
Range of API 2A-LRFD
Range of API 2A-WSD
(12
th
edition, used in
original calibration)
Pf of 3x10
-5
Proposed for L1 structures
(Permanently Manned)
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Target Probabilities of Failure in ISO 19902 and API Regional
Differences.
Partial action factors in ISO 19902 were derived
from F. Moses Work for the GOM. Hamonization in safety levels requires
location-dependent partial action factors.
A target probability of failure of 3x10
-5
per year has been proposed for new,
permanently manned, installations.
Fatigue damage design factors are harmonized in ISO and API
21
Environment Partial Action
Factor (
f,E
)
Mean RSR
Gulf of Mexico 1.58* 2.16*
Australia 1.59 2.18
North Sea 1.40 1.82
1.25 and 1.35 = =
D f E f , ,

Failure Critical Inspectable Not Inspectable
No 2 5
Yes 5 10
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Points of discussion
Code check equations have evolved in recent years (i.e. tubular joint checks). Has
this evolution changed the validity of the load and resistance factors developed by
Moses et al in the 1980s? Do we need to recalibrate?
Have the wind and wave probability distributions changed (mean and COV)?
Should partial action factors be revised to achieve the same performance levels?
Are code check comparisons between codes enough to validate and harmonize the
standards?
How do we reconcile the tubular joint check differences between ISO and API?
Research work is now in progress to incorporate strength provisions of the new
AISC specification into offshore design practices. How do we reconcile the deck
design approach in API 2TOP and ISO 19901-3?
Target reliabilities for offshore installations that are evacuated or unmanned during
the design event (loss of life is negligible) have been developed by cost-benefit
analysis (incremental cost of improving safety). These analyses performed in the
1980s guided updates to API. Do we need to revisit these analyses and reassess
target reliabilities?
22
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
References
OTC 5699, 1988, Calibration of the Draft RP2A-LRFD for Fixed Platforms, F. Moses and
R.D. Larrabee.
OTC 5882, 1988, Development of a Reliability-Based Alternative to API RP2A, J.R. Lloyd,
and D.I. Karsan.
OTC 23443, 2012, Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with ISO 19900 Series
and Usage of the API suite, D. Wisch, A. Mangiavacchi.
OTC 17310, 2005, New API Tubular Joint Strength Design Provisions, D. Pecknold, P.
Marshall and J. Bucknell.
OTC 23558, 2012, Insights into Using the 22
nd
Edition of API RP 2A Recommended Practice
for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress
Design, K. A. Digre and F.J. Zwerneman.
Load factor calibration for ISO 13819 Regional Annex: Component Resistance, Offshore
Technology Report, MSL Engineering Limited, 2001.
Implications for the Assessment of Existing Fixed Steel Structures of Proposed ISO 13819-2
Member Strength Formulations, PAFA Consulting Engineers, August 2000.
23
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of Calibration Methodology by Fred Moses et al.
to Develop API RP 2A-LRFD in the 1980s
For a Tension Yield Check, the random variables used in the original
calibration by Fred Moses:
Dead Load (D):
D
= 1.0*nominal and V
D
= 8%
Live Load (L):
L
= 1.0*nominal and V
L
= 14%
Extreme Environmental Load(W):
W
= 0.7*nominal and V
W
= 37%
Yield strength (R):
R
= 1.1*nominal and V
R
= 13%
Where R=Ao
y
with R>1.67(D+L) and R>1.25(D+L+W)
Assuming nominal values D
N
=1, L
N
=3, W
N
=4
The reliability index | can be easily calculated as 2.3.
Do we need to update the mean and V values?
In 2MET
W
= 0.76*nominal and V
W
= 41%?
24
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.
Load and Resistance Factors API LRFD & ISO 19902
Load factors in ISO 19902 are identical to those in API LRFD 1
st
edition, except:
1.35 only applies to the GoM (L1 structures), other regions have to determine
their own coefficient.
1.17 only applies to the GoM (L2 structures 15% loading reduction from L1).
ISO 19902 resistance factors are identical to those in API LRFD.
25