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 21st Edition into the 22nd Edition.

Changes in the 22nd Edition of RP2A-WSD.
New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in the 22nd Edition.
Coexistence of API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition and API RP 2A-LRFD 2nd
Edition.
Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with ISO 19900 Series.
Adopting ISO 19902 for RP2A-LRFD 2nd Edition.
Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API RP 2A-WSD 21st
Edition.
Review of Calibration Methodology in the 1980s.
Topics of Discussion
References

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 2

 Evolution of API RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition into the 22nd
Edition.
API RP 2GEN

API RP 2MET

API RP GEO

API RP 2A-WSD API RP 2A-WSD

21st Edition 22nd Edition

API RP 2EQ

API RP 2SIM

Published
API RP 2TOP
Will be published
in 2013
API RP 2MOP
Being Developed

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 3

 Changes in the 22nd Edition of RP 2A-WSD

Balloted in 2011 and approved with 96% of the votes cast.

22nd 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 4

 Changes in the 22nd 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 22nd 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 5

 Changes in the 22nd 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
22nd 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 6

 New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in API RP 2A-
WSD 22nd Edition by Pecknold et al.
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 21st 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 21st edition.
2
P M M
IR

1.0
Pa M a ipb M a opb

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 7

 New Tubular Joint Strength Provisions in API RP 2A-
WSD 22nd Edition by Pecknold et al.

The punching shear design formulation has been fully eliminated.

The formulas for Qu , Q , Qg , Q f have been completely revised
The format of the basic capacity equations remain unchanged from the 21st edition:
FyT 2
Pa Qu Q f
FS sin
FyT 2 d
M a Qu Q f
FS sin

The 0.8d multiplier in the 21st edition for Ma has been eliminated and absorbed by
the Qu coefficient.
The new Qu and Q f 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 (21st
edition). The strength load factor Qu depends only on joint geometry ( and ). is
excluded because it has only a minor effect.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 8

 Interaction Curve for Tubular Joints Under Combined
Axial and Uni-directional Moment Loading

InteractionCurveforP+M API WSD

1
Pa = Qu Qf Fyc T2 /(FS sin)
0.9
Ma = Qu Qf Fyc T2 d/(FS sin)
0.8
0.7
Joint Strength Check
0.6
IR = |P/Pa| + |M/Ma|ipb2 + |M/Ma|opb
P/Pmax

0.5
0.4
API LRFD
0.3
APILRFD(P+MipborMopb)
0.2 Puj =Qu Qf Fy T2 /(sin)
ISO(P+Mipb)
0.1
ISO(P+Mopb) Muj =Qu Qf Fy T2 (0.8d) / (sin)
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Joint Strength Check
M/Mmax
IR=1-cos[(/2)(PD/jPuj)] + [(MD/jMuj)ipb2 + (MD/jMuj)opb2]0.5

ISO 19902
Puj =Qu Qf Fy T2 /(sin)
Muj =Qu Qf Fy T2 d/(sin)

Joint Strength Check

Uj=|PB/PD| + |MB/MD|ipb2 + |MB/MD|opb
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 9
 Coexistence of API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition and API
RP 2A-LRFD 2nd Edition.

API RP 2GEN

API RP 2MET

API RP GEO
API RP 2A-WSD
21st Edition API RP 2A-WSD API RP 2A-LRFD
22nd Edition 2nd Edition
API RP 2A-LRFD
API RP 2EQ
1st Edition
(Withdrawn)
API RP 2SIM

API RP 2TOP (LRFD) ?

API RP 2MOP

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 10

 Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with
ISO 19900 Series.
API RP 2GEN ISO 19900

API RP 2MET ISO 19901-1

API RP GEO ISO 19901-4

API RP 2A-WSD API RP 2A-LRFD ISO 19902

22nd Edition 2nd Edition

API RP 2EQ ISO 19901-2

API RP 2SIM ?

API RP 2TOP LRFD ISO 19901-3

API RP 2MOP ? ISO 19901-6

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 11

 Adopting ISO 19902 for RP2A-LRFD 2nd Edition

API RP 2A LRFD has been withdrawn and a modified version of ISO

19902 will be adopted for RP 2A-LRFD 2nd 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 12

 Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition

Jacket dead load = 2000 kips

Deck dead load = 3000 kips
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 13
 Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition

0.54
0.60

0.85
0.90 Pile Members Unity Check
___ ISO 19902
1.11 ___ API 21st Edition
1.13

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 14

 Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition

0.66
0.73

Row 2 Members Unity Check

___ ISO 19902
___ API 21st Edition
0.35
0.34

0.93
0.55 0.76
0.59

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 15

 Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition

0.96
1.02
0.29
0.36 0.89
0.97

Joint Unity Check

___ ISO 19902
___ API 21st Edition
0.22
0.24 0.83
1.40

0.21 0.89
0.24 1.21

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 16

 Code Check Comparison between ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
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 API UC ISO UC ISO
Head (ft) Equation
276 0.92 0.76 13.2-31
350 1.41 0.96 13.2-31

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.
2 Minimum
PB M B M Ub Capacity
Uj B
Pd M d ipb M d opb
zj check in API
Different conical transition designs requirement between ISO and API.
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 17
 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 (Pf). This Pf can also be expressed as (reliability index).

LN R
S where R is the resistance and S is the load.
VR2 VS2

Objective: Derive load and resistance factors that provide a level of safety
close to current practice (WSD 12th 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

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 18

 Review of Calibration Methodology by F. Moses to
Develop API RP 2A-LRFD in the 1980s

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.

Source: OTC 5699

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 19
 Acceptable probabilities of Failure from F. Moses Work (1988)

Range of API 2A-LRFD

Pf of 3x10-5
Proposed for L1 structures
(Permanently Manned)

Range of API 2A-WSD

(12th edition, used in
original calibration)

Pf ( ) Is Guassian probability distribution function

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 20

 Target Probabilities of Failure in ISO 19902 and API Regional
Differences.

Partial action factors f , E 1.35 and f , D 1.25 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.
Environment Partial Action Mean RSR
Factor (f,E )
Gulf of Mexico 1.58* 2.16*
Australia 1.59 2.18
North Sea 1.40 1.82

Fatigue damage design factors are harmonized in ISO and API

Failure Critical Inspectable Not Inspectable
No 2 5
Yes 5 10
2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 21
 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?

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 22

 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 22nd 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 23

 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 VD = 8%

Live Load (L): L = 1.0*nominal and VL = 14%

Extreme Environmental Load(W): W = 0.7*nominal and VW = 37%
Yield strength (R): R = 1.1*nominal and VR = 13%
Where R=Ay with R>1.67(D+L) and R>1.25(D+L+W)
Assuming nominal values DN=1, LN=3, WN=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 VW = 41%?

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 24

 Load and Resistance Factors API LRFD & ISO 19902

Load factors in ISO 19902 are identical to those in API LRFD 1st 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.

2012 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 25