Professional Documents
Culture Documents
\
|
+ =
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(Withdrawn)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