Overview of Design Codes for

Offshore Fixed Structures

Presentation at 離岸風機研討會
Albert Ku, Dec/5th/2017, Taipei, Taiwan
Outline
 Part 1 – API RP2A
– Background of API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms
– Historical work in the development of API RP 2A-LRFD 1st
edition (1993)
– Development of API RP 2A-LRFD 2nd edition
• Progress/status of API RP 2A-LRFD 2nd edition
• API Task Group 19 latest work/AKADEME project
• Technical Alignment of API/ISO
 Part 2 – API ductility requirement and seismic design
provisions
History of API RP 2A
OTC 20831 (2010)
Status of RP 2 Series and ISO Alignment
Younan (2014)

LRFD
task-group
Useful Background Papers
1. A Series of Late 1980’s Papers on API 2A-LRFD 1st Edition
2. API Offshore Structure Standards: Changing Times, OTC 2008, D. Wisch, A.
Mangiavacchi
3. RP 2GEO: The New API Recommended Practice for Geotechnical Engineering,
OTC 2010, P. Jeanjean
4. API Offshore Standards – Underlying Risk Values and Correlation with ISO,
OTC 2012, D. Wisch, H. Banon, D. Knoll, S. Verret
5. Development of API RP-2A LRFD 2nd Edition, Offshore Structural Reliability
Conference 2014, A. Ku, F. Zwerneman
6. Background to New API Fatigue Provisions, OTC 2010, P. Marshall, J. Bucknell
7. New API RP2A Tubular Joint Strength Design Provisions, OTC 2010, D.
Pecknold
8. API RP 2EQ – Seismic Design Procedure & Criteria for Offshore Structures,
OTC 2010, A. Younan, F. Puskar
9. ISO 19902 Tubular Members Including Damaged and Grouted Members, OMAE
2011, P. Frieze
10. LRFD Calibration of Load Factors for Extreme Storm Loading in Malaysian
Waters, Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology, 2014, N. Nicols, R. Khan
Background between API RP-2A LRFD and
ISO 19902
 API RP 2A-LRFD 1st edition (1993)
 Used worldwide but not in the US
 ISO 19902:2007 largely based on API RP 2A-LRFD
1st edition
 No maintenance of API RP 2A-LRFD between
1993 and 2012
 API RP 2A-LRFD 1st edition retracted in 2012
due to lack of maintenance
 Current effort focuses on adopting ISO 19902
back to US practice (API 2A-LRFD 2nd edition)
Mapping of RP 2 Series and ISO

RP 2A 2nd RP 2A-LRFD
ISO 19902
LRFD ISO 19902

ISO 19901-9

OTC 20831 (2010), except

red-texted boxes
Co-existing WSD 22nd and LRFD 2nd Edition

Co-existing of WSD and LRFD

In the foreseeable future

OTC 20831 (2010)

Correspondence between  and Pf

Pf  ( )  Is Gaussian probability distribution function

API RP 2A-LRFD 1st Edition Calibration
Methodology
 Every designed structural member (beam, column,
brace, etc.) has a probability of failure (pf). This pf
can also be expressed as reliability index ()
 By carefully selecting load and resistance factors it
is possible to achieve OTC 5699 (1988)
 Averaged  to be similar as implied in WSD

 Minimized spread of 

 By applying simple procedure,  can be calculated

for various failure modes
 Observe from figure to the right, the “averaged” 
for each of the 2 curves are similar, but spread of
LRFD curve is smaller
Comparison of  of Different Failure Modes
and between WSD/LRFD

Notes:
1) Averages taken over important range of W/G
of 2 to 40 except for piles, where W/G is 0.6
to 2. G = L + D and L = 3D

2)  by advanced FOSM, Ref: Moses, 81-22

3) Design Formulas
WSD: Rn > SF (L + D)
4/3 Rn > SF (L + D + W)
where SF and Rn from API RP2A, 12 th edition

LRFD: Rn > 1.3D + 1.5L

Rn > 1.1D + 1.1L + 1. 35W
OTC 5699 (1988) where Rn is formula in (81-22)
Load Factors in API LRFD & ISO 19902 vs.
WSD

WSD LRFD

Operating 0.6R = D + L + W 0.95R = 1.3D + 1.5L + 1.22W

Condition R = 1.67D + 1.67L + 1.67W R = 1.37D + 1.58L + 1.28W
(normalized) (normalized)
Storm 0.8R = D + L + W 0.95R = 1.1D + 1.1L + 1.35W
Condition R = 1.25D + 1.25L + 1.25W R = 1.16D + 1.16L + 1.42W
(normalized) (normalized)
Note:
-R denotes resistance or structural capacity.
-D denotes dead loads, L denotes live loads, and W denotes environmental loads due
to wind, wave and currents.
-Assumes nominal resistance factor of 0.95 for LRFD.
1980’s Case Studies
Curve on top means
more conservative
WSD
LRFD

Member UC Comparison - Platform A Member UC Comparison - Platform B

OTC 5882

Member UC Comparison - Platform C Joint UC Comparison - Platform C

Adoption of ISO 19902 for API RP 2A-LRFD 2nd
Edition with Following Modifications
 Specific target reliability numbers in the Informative annex removed
 Design criteria tied to API RP 2MET and robustness level ultimate
strength analysis criteria for Gulf of Mexico (GoM)
 Tubular Joint Checks
 Joint check equations aligned with WSD 22 nd edition
 Replaced ISO minimum joint requirement with API 50% capacity
requirement
 Foundation section tied in with API RP 2GEO and resistance factors
provided for both pile and shallow foundations
 Tied in with API RP 2SIM and API RP 2MOP
 Other modifications related to API/ISO technical alignments
AKADEME Project
 Key Contractors: API Keystone Atkins Digre Energo McDermott (OFD
Engineering) Experia
 Funded by API to prepare the 2nd edition of RP 2A-LRFD and to
assess the consistency of member and joint unity checks (UCs)
based on API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition and ISO 19902 using case study
platforms
 Undertaken by a group of contractors with API Task Group 19
supervision
 Voluntary works performed by McDermott and DNV (BSEE project)
also included
Case Study Platforms
No. Description Water Location Exposure Analysis Company
Depth Category
1 4-Leg 274 ft Confidential - McDermott/OFD
(volunteer work)

2 8-Leg 360 ft Confidential - DNV

(BSEE project)

3 Caisson 45 ft GoM L-3 Energo

4 Tripod 360 ft Western L-2 Atkins

GoM

5 4-Leg 300 ft Central GoM L-1 McDermott/OFD

6 8-Leg 275 ft Western L-2 Keystone

GoM
Case Study Platform 3
Platform 3 Member and Joint UC
Comparisons
Case Study Platform 4
Platform 4 Member and Joint UC
Comparisons
Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Member UCs -
Platform 4

(a) With Hydrostatic pressure (b) Without Hydrostatic Pressure

Case Study Platform 6
Platform 6 Member and Joint UC
Comparisons
Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Member UCs
- Platform 6

(a) With Hydrostatic pressure (b) Without Hydrostatic Pressure

Discussions of Case Study Results
 Current case study results show higher consistency between WSD and
LRFD member UCs than 1980’s case studies

 Overall, member and joint UCs from ISO 19902 and API RP 2A-WSD are
consistent. Minimum joint strength requirements are not included in
this comparison

 Member and joint UCs from ISO 19902 are slightly higher than those
from API RP 2A-WSD for platforms dominated by environmental loading
(vs. gravity loading)

 Member UC comparisons between ISO and API show more scatter with
hydrostatic pressure than excluding hydrostatic pressure
New ISO 19902 Proposed Changes
 Paul Frieze (PAFA Engineering) investigated Fred Moses’
earlier work and proposed:
 Gravity load factor reduced from 1.1 to 1.0 when combined with
environmental loads
 Partial resistance factor for compression reduced from 1.18 to
1.10
AKADEME Study Platform 4
 L-2 structure

 3 leg , 3 pile platform

 Western GoM

 Pile penetration = 220 ft (B & C), 265 ft (A)

 Pile diameter = 48 inches

 2 conductors (1 inside pile A)

 Normally consolidated to slightly overconsolidated

marine clays

 Metocean Parameters

 Wave Height = 63 ft

 Wave Period = 12.4 seconds

 Surface Current Speed = 1.8 knots

 Bottom of Current Profile = 200 ft

 Wind Speed (1 hr@10m) = 70 knots

Tide and Surge = 2.5 ft

API AKADEME Proposed ISO Load and ResistanceFactors 27
 Platform 4 – All Jacket Members
UC Comparison (Storm, 0 Degree)

R = ISO/API R = ISO/API
μ R = 1.015 μ R = 1.002
σR = 0.149 σ R = 0.153
COV R = 15% COV R = 15%
N = 239 N = 239

Revised Gravity
Original Partial Factors Load Factor Only

R = ISO/API R = ISO/API
μ R = 0.998 μ R = 0.987
σ R = 0.144 σ R = 0.149
COV R = 14% COV R = 15%
N = 239 N = 239

Please note:
μ R = Mean Value
σ R = Standard
Revised Compression Revised Load &
Deviation
COV R = Coefficient of Resistance Factor Only Resistance Factors
Variation
N = Sample Size

API AKADEME Proposed ISO Load and Resistance Factors 28

ISO/API Technical Alignments

 Hydrostatic Checks

 Conical Transition

 Pile Sleeve Grout Equation

 Energo Engineering, “AKADEME Project – API RP 2A vs. ISO 19902 Member and Joint UC Comparisons”, API
AKADEME Project Report, 2016.
Axial Compression with Hydrostatic Pressure

API WSD (4) = ISO (1)

API WSD (3) = ISO (2)

API WSD (2) = ISO (3)

API WSD (5) = ISO (4)

API vs. ISO Hydrostatic Code Calibration:
Axial Compression and Hydrostatic Pressure
Axial Tension with Hydrostatic Pressure
API vs ISO Hydrostatic Code Calibration:
Elastic Local Buckling under Hydrostatic Pressure
API vs ISO Hydrostatic Code Calibration:
Inelastic Local Buckling under Hydrostatic Pressure
ISO 19902 Combined Axial and Capped-end Stress
Expressions
Marine vs. Rational Buoyancy
Marine Buoyancy Rational Buoyancy

Fbuo Fbuo
y y

more accurate, direct

inclusion of local hydrostatic
conservative estimate of stresses
local hydrostatic stresses
( = 0.5, fixed end
restraints)
Conclusions – Hydrostatic Pressure
 API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition and ISO 19902:2007 1st edition
have identical code check equations when members are in
axial compression with hydrostatic pressure.
 For members in axial tension with hydrostatic pressure,
the code check equations are different. API RP 2A-WSD
21st edition code check equations provide a reasonably
conservative fit to existing test data.
 It is recommended to adopt API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition
equations for hydrostatic code checks.
Study on 2) Conical Transition
AKADEME Case Study Platform 3
• L-3 structure
Helideck EL (+) 71.1 ft • Free standing caisson
• Pile penetration = 110 ft
• Pile diameter = 72 inches
• Water depth = 45 ft
Main Deck EL (+) 50.8 ft • Clays overlying dense sands

EL (+) 22.3 ft

Water Surface EL (+) 10 ft

EL (+) 0 ft

WT=2 in

WT=2 in
Mudline EL (-) 35 ft
Comparison of Conical Transition Code Check
Results

Note: Governing UC ratios are highlighted in red.

• API RP 2A-WSD computes UCs based on

tensile strength instead of yield
strength for the total stress check.
• ISO 19902:2007 1st edition produces
the most conservative result.
• API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition and
NORSOK standard produce comparable
results.
Maersk FEM Results Compared to Codes
- Axial Compression

Maersk report: “Plastic Hinge Model for Tubulars and Conical

Transitions. Results of detailed FEM analyses condensed into a
beam Model” Rambøll Ref. 862601/340_0001(1)
Conclusions – Conical Transition
 The UC value for the conical transition member of Platform
3 based on ISO 19902:2007 1 st edition is much higher than
the UC value based on API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition (nearly
twice as high), which indicates that ISO 19902:2007 1st
edition code check equations are more conservative.

 API RP 2A-WSD computes UCs based on tensile strength

instead of yield strength for the total stress check. Thus, it
is recommended to consider adopting the NORSOK conical
transition code check equations for the future revisions of
API RP 2A-LRFD and ISO 19902.

 API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition and API RP 2A-LRFD 1st edition

have identical code check equations for conical transitions.
Study on 3) Grouted Connection
Demand/
Capacity API RP 2A-WSD ISO 19902:2007

Axial Force
Transfer
only Axial Force &
Stress
Torsion

 with shear keys

Operating Condition

 fg is the lesser of fg,sliding and fg,shear

Allowable Transfer Stress

 without shear keys

 kred is reduction factor for effects of

 with shear keys movement during grout setting;
Extreme Load

Assume no movement kred = 1

Condition

 without shear keys  without shear keys

ℎ
=0
(including 1/3 allowable stress increase)
API RP 2A-WSD vs. 2A-LRFD 1st (w/ Shear Keys)
2A-WSD 2A-LRFD 1st
Operating condition x 1.8
Extreme loading condition
API RP 2A-WSD vs. 2A-LRFD 1st (w/o Shear Keys)
2A-WSD 2A-LRFD 1st
Operating condition 0 x 1.8 0

Extreme loading condition 0

Case Study 1 – Platform X
• Omnidirectional metocean conditions were
applied.
 operating condition
 extreme loading condition

0 degree

Ds = 93 in Assume:
ts = 2.5 in h = 0.5 in
Dp = 84 in s = 20 in
tp = 2.5 in fcu = 5000 psi
L = 44 ft
Case Study 2 – AKADEME Platform 5
• Jacket legs and through piles were assumed to be
grouted in this study.
• Omnidirectional metocean conditions were
applied.
 operating condition
 extreme loading condition

Platform North

0 degree

Ds = 58.5 Assume:
in h = 0.5 in
ts = 1.25 in s = 20 in
Dp = 54 in fcu = 5000 psi
tp = 1.75 in L = 100 ft
Grouted Connection Unity Checks
API RP 2A-LRFD 1st vs. API RP 2A-WSD 21st

Base Equation:
API WSD API LRFD 1st
1.3 + 1.5 + 1.215 ≤ (0.9 × 1.8)
Operatin
g + + ≤
. + . + . ≤
Condition
(normalized)
+ + ≤ 1.33 1.1 + 1.1 + 1.35 ≤ (0.9 × 1.8)
Extreme
Condition . + . + . ≤ . + . + . ≤
(normalized) (normalized)
Grouted Connection Unity Checks
API RP 2A-LRFD 1st vs. ISO 19902:2007 1st
Conclusions – Grouted Connection
 The grouted connection code check equations in API RP 2A-LRFD
1st edition yield consistent results with those from API RP 2A-
WSD 21st edition and ISO 19902:2007 1 st edition.

 The API RP 2A-LRFD 1st edition has similar formation of

interface transfer strength but 1.8 times higher than the
allowable transfer stress in API RP 2A-WSD 21st edition.

 It is recommended to adopt the API RP 2A-LRFD 1st edition

grouted connection code check equations for API RP 2A-LRFD
2nd edition.
Conclusions for ISO/API Jacket Code
 Work performed to date supports the approach of Modified
Adoption of ISO 19902 for API RP 2A-LRFD 2nd Edition.
 Overall, member and joint UCs from ISO 19902 and API
RP 2A-WSD are consistent.
 Key technical issues studied:
– Hydrostatic pressure
– Conical transition
– Pile sleeve grout equation
 ISO 19902 is currently being updated. API/ISO committees
will work closely to harmonize the next editions of API RP
2A-LRFD and ISO 19902.
Presentation Part 2
API RP2A Ductility Requirement and Seismic Design Process
Ductile Framing

(source: API RP2A)

Non-Ductile Framing

(source: API RP2A)

API Ductile Design Features - Jackets
 Legs and enclosed piles remain elastic for 2 x strength
level
 Vertical diagonal bracing configured so tension and
compression braces get equal shear
 No K bracing allowed
 Braces remain elastic for 2 x strength level in lieu of
above 2 requirements
 Horizontals between legs at all framing levels with
capacity for load redistribution
 Vertical diagonals: kL/r<80 D/t<1900/Fy
 Non-tubulars in vertical frames are AISC
compact sections or meet 2 x strength level
Vertical Bracing Schemes
K Diamond X Diagonal
Comparative Ductility of Vertical Schemes
Effect of Strong Horizontal Planes
API/ISO Earthquake Code
Recommendations

 API 2EQ is a modified adoption of ISO 19901-2:2004

 Two level approach.
 Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE) – strength design.

 Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE) – ductility check.

 Seismic maps for USA offshore in API 2EQ.

 Seismic maps for offshore locations worldwide in
ISO 19901-2:2004.
Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE)
 Platform performs in an elastic
manner.
 Response spectrum analysis (or
time-history).
 Code-based or site specific
spectra as input.
 300 to 500 year Return Period
typical.
 70% allowable stress increase Site-specific response spectra
for API code check. based on PSHA and site
response analysis may be used
instead of the code-based
 Do members/joints fail?
spectra.
Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE)

Global X Component

 Platform typically performs in 1

0.8
0.6

Acceleration (g)
an inelastic manner.
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Time-history analysis (or

-1

 0 5 10

Time (sec)
15 20 25

pushover) to check the Global Y Component

“ductility” of the platform. 1

0.8

Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2

Site specific ground motion

0

 -0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

records as input. 0 5 10

Time (sec)
15 20 25

 3000 year Return Period (or Global Z Component

more) typical.
0.60

Acceleration (g)
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20

Does the platform collapse?

-0.40

 -0.60
0 5 10

Time (sec)
15 20 25
Overall API/ISO Process

 Determine Seismic Risk Category (SRC) - higher

risk (e.g., manned platforms) = safer design
 Determine need for simplified or detailed
procedure
 Establish Return Period for ALE
 Establish Return Period for ELE based on the
ductility expected of the platform design
 Design the platform for ELE (strength design)
and check its ductility/performance for ALE
API/ISO Process
for Ground Motion

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Site Seismic Zones

Seismic Zone Acceleration (g) - 1 sec

0 <0.03
1 0.03-0.10
2 0.11-0.25
3 0.26-0.45
4 >0.45
Example Seismic
Map

ISO Map for Central

America

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Seismic Risk Category
 Based on exposure level and seismic zone at the platform site
 Note that L2 was removed in API 2EQ (can’t “evacuate” personnel for
earthquakes)

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Seismic Design Requirements

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Target Probability of Failure
•Use of Return Periods as a basis for design worldwide can lead to
inconsistencies
•A 1,000 year RP earthquake in California is different than a 1,000 year RP
earthquake in SE Asia
•API/ISO uses an alternative approach of a consistent target annual
probability of failure, Pf

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Standard API/ISO Spectrum
(1,000-yr Return Period)

This shows a “generic”

earthquake response
spectrum taken from
API 2EQ (Nov. 2014).
Notice how the
“acceleration” that a
platform will
experience depends on
the platform’s dynamic
characteristics
(periods).

(source: API 2EQ, November 2014)

Scale Factor for ALE Spectrum
(Simplified Seismic Action Procedure)

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Correction Factor for ALE Spectrum
(Detailed Seismic Action Procedure)

(source: ISO 19901-2:2004)

Seismic Reserve Capacity Factor (Cr) for
ELE Spectrum
•Cr is a function of the expected ductility of the platform design
•The intent is to determine a RP that can be used to design the
platform elastically, such that it will meet the ALE performance
criteria
•The Cr factor of 2.0 or higher should be demonstrated by
detailed analysis
The recommendations for ductile design in 5.3.6.4.3 are followed and a non-linear static pushover analysis
C r = Variable up to 2.80
according to API RP 2EQ is performed to verify the global performance of the structure under ALE
as demonstrated by analysis. conditions.
C r = Variable up to 2.00 The recommendations for ductile design in 5.3.6.4.3 are followed, but a non-linear static pushover
as demonstrated by analysis. analysis to verify ALE performance is not performed.
The structure has a minimum of three legs and a bracing pattern consisting of leg-to-leg diagonals with
horizontals, or X-braces without horizontals. The slenderness ratio (KL/r) of diagonal bracing in vertical
C r = 1.40 frames is limited to no more than 80 and FyD/Et ≤ 0.069. For X-bracing in vertical frames the same
restrictions apply, where the length L to be used depends on the loading pattern of the X-bracing.
A non-linear analysis to verify the ductility level performance is not performed.
C r = 1.10 If none of the above characterizations apply.

Minimum ELE Return Periods

Consequence Category Minimum ELE Return Period
Low Consequence 50
Medium Consequence 100
High Consequence 200
Summary
 Latest API RP2A-LRFD, and ISO 19902 developments were
discussed
 Some of the succinct features in API/ISO seismic design
provisions were also discussed
 Technologies in API RP-2A and/or ISO 19902 for
designing/building a fixed platform are quite mature
 Design code expertise can be leveraged through industry
professionals who participated in API/ISO committees
End of Presentation
Q&A