IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The feasibility of reconstructing
Comparative Study of Tubular Joint Design hydroclimate over West Africa using tree-
ring chronologies in the Mediterranean
Formulas According to API RP 2A WSD 21st region
Boniface O Fosu, Edward R Cook, Michela
Biasutti et al.
Edition and 22nd Edition
- Multimodel detection and attribution of
changes in warm and cold spell durations
To cite this article: R A Primastuti et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1198 012018 Chunhui Lu, Ying Sun and Xuebin Zhang

- Reassessment of Minimum Facilities

Wellhead Platform due to Installation of
Extension Compressors against
Earthquake Loads
View the article online for updates and enhancements. M H Bukhari, R W Prastianto and F
Syalsabila

This content was downloaded from IP address 94.176.59.137 on 04/07/2023 at 13:53

ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

Comparative Study of Tubular Joint Design Formulas

According to API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition and 22nd Edition

R A Primastuti1, R W Prastianto1*, D Alfian2, I Susanto2, P Fadlianto2, F

Syalsabila1
1
Department of Ocean Engineering, Faculty of Marine Technology, Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Civils, Structure, Marine/Offshore Engineering Department, PT. Tripatra Engineers
and Constructors, Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia

*
rudiwp@oe.its.ac.id

Abstract. The strength of the jacket substructure on a fixed offshore platform is dictated by the
strength of the tubular connecting the jacket leg and the braces. The accuracy of the static
strength calculation of the tubular joint is very important to ensure the integrity of the structure
during its operation. Therefore, as a Recommended Practice, API RP 2A WSD always regularly
was updated based on the results of the latest research to obtain more accurate results in the
analysis of the tubular joint. This paper discusses the difference between simple tubular joint
design calculation based on API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition and API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition.
This study will show simple joint design calculation for joint types of K, T, and X. The results
will be compared to the modelling results for validation. Furthermore, this paper will study
variables affecting the difference in the calculation of the result between these two versions and
which factors the API considers in changing the formula. This analysis results certainly show
the difference in the formula between these two editions of the API, and the comparison with the
finite element analysis demonstrates good results.

1. Introduction
In the process of drilling for oil and natural gas, a drilling rig structure is daily needed called an Offshore
Platform to support the exploration and exploitation of mining materials. Offshore platforms are usually
divided into 2 types of platforms in their use, namely fixed offshore platforms, and floating offshore
platforms. Fixed offshore platform is an oil drilling platform, where the leg structure is in the form of a
jacket substructure in which there are piles embedded in the seabed.
The jacket is a space frame structure made of tubular steel [1]. Jackets usually have 3, 4, 6, or 8 legs.
Piles made of tubular steel are installed through the jacket legs or through pile sleeves connected to the
jacket legs at the bottom. Piles that are installed in the jacket leg are usually continued up to the top of
the leg. This part of the jacket leg serves to support the load at the top and transfers the load from top to
bottom. Of course, this part is very crucial for the integrity of the fixed offshore platform structure. In
the jacket structure, there are tubular joints that connect the jacket legs and braces. This connection is a
critical point so that it is necessary to calculate the static strength such as by numerical analysis [2] to
ensure the integrity of the structure when it is operated. Several researchers have conducted numerical
modelling with various element assumptions and software used [3].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

Figure 1. The connection between the chord and the brace [4].
In the jacket design, tubular connection (joint) is a member connection between chord and brace as
shown in the Figure 1. The static strength calculation of the tubular joint is regulated in codes called
API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD. This recommended practice has been built on global industry-
based practices and is intended for those involved in the design and construction of new fixed offshore
platforms and the relocation of existing platforms used for drilling, development, production and storage
and it is intended to provide guidance [5].
In using the API, the content is regularly updated to get the most accurate results. Variables that
affect the tubular joint static strength are evaluated and changed to get optimal results. Therefore, this
paper will study variables affecting the difference in the strength calculation between the API RP 2A
WSD 21st Edition and API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition and which factors the API considers in changing
the formula. The results will be compared to the finite element method based modelling since the finite
element (FE) analysis is the common analysis method used due to its effectiveness with lower cost [6].

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Tubular joint data

The following is sample data used in the experimental calculation of static strength tubular joint design,
which is used in this study. These data are generated from finite element method software output and
provided includes general properties data, force data, and stress data for each joint type (K, T/Y, X)
which is presented in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.

Table 1. General properties.

General Properties K T/Y X
Unit
Chord Brace Chord Brace Chord Brace
Diameter m 1.095 0.457 1.016 0.508 0.508 0.508
Thickness m 0.040 0.013 0.032 0.025 0.025 0.013
2
Yield Stress kN/m 345,000 345,000 345,000 345,000 345,000 345,000
Chord-Brace Angle
Deg. 90 81.790 65.190

Gap m 0.162 0.000 0.000

2
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

Table 2. Force on Chord and Brace.

Joint Type Force Unit 1st Chord 2nd chord Brace

Axial kN -2,338.190 -1,518.879 131.105
K IPB Moment kN.m 46.035 64.680 12.869
OPB Moment kN.m -149.241 -178.295 -42.911
Axial kN 578.020 492.396 -79.543
T/Y IPB Moment kN.m 36.222 46.187 1.052
OPB Moment kN.m 12.282 -8.840 -8.481
Axial kN 220.199 212.320 -688.112
X IPB Moment kN.m -6.828 9.436 23.243
OPB Moment kN.m 7.974 0.487 -7.121

Table 3 Stress on Chord and Brace.

General Properties Unit K T/Y X

Chord Brace Chord Brace Chord Brace
Axial Stress kN/m2 -14,550 7,400 5,450 -5,330 5,620 -34,820
2
IPB Stress kN/m 6,720 580 9,740
2
OPB Stress kN/m 22,400 4,650 2,980
2
SSRS kN/m -19,670 7,210 6,620
2
Combine kN/m 5,120 1,760 1,000

2.2. Basic parameter of tubular joint

2.2.1. Geometric parameter. In the calculation of the basic parameters of the Tubular Joint Strength
Check, the results of several parameters such as brace and chord cross section area, brace and chord
inertia, brace and chord section modulus, chord modulus plastic section, radius of gyration, geometrical
parameter, geometrical factor, and gap factor will be obtained. Detail of those parameter are shown in
Figure 1. The results of this calculation will be used to calculate the other components which will be
explained in the next step. Considering geometric effect, there are three main parameters, they are
diameter rationa (𝛽), wall thickness rasio (𝜏), and chord rasio (𝛾) as shown in Equation 1-3.

𝑑 (1)
𝛽=
𝐷

𝑡 (2)
𝜏=
𝑇

2𝐷 (3)
𝛾=
𝑇

Where:
θ is the brace included angle
g is the gap between braces, in mm (in.)

3
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

t is the brace wall thickness at intersection, in mm (in.)

T is the chord wall thickness at intersection, in mm (in.)
d is the brace outside diameter, in mm (in.)
D is the chord outside diameter, in mm (in.)

With geometric parameter validity range as outlined below.

0.2 ≤ 𝛽 ≤ 1.0

10 ≤ 𝑦 ≤ 50

30˚ ≤ θ ≤ 90˚

Fy ≤ 500 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (72 𝑘𝑠𝑖 )

𝑔
−0.6 < (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐾 𝑗𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠)
𝐷

2.2.2. A parameter. The calculation of parameter A is affected by several components, such as axial
force, Out Plane Bending Moment (OPB), In Plane Bending Moment (IPB), Combined Moment, Yield
Axial Capacity, and Plastic Moment Capacity.
2 2 0.5
𝐹𝑆 𝑃𝑐 𝐹𝑆 𝑀𝑐
𝐴 = (( ) + ( ) ) (4)
𝑃𝑦 𝑀𝑝

𝑓𝐴̅ 2 + 𝑓𝐼𝑃𝐵
̅ 2 + 𝑓𝑂𝑃𝐵
̅ 2
𝐴=√ (5)
0.6 𝐹𝑦

2.3. Tubular joint data

2.3.1. Chord load factor. This variable accounts for the existence of a nominal string load and has been
completely rewritten to better represent the effect of tendon tension on different joint types and loads
[5]. Chord stress effects are difficult to simulate in physical tests so that the finite element model used
for 22nd edition formulation allowed for a better representation of the chordal stress effects [7]. The
equation 6 and 7 are the transformation of chord load factor equation from 21st Edition to 22nd Edition.
With λ equal to 0.030 for axial, in-plane, and out-of-plane bending stres at brace.

21st Edition:
𝑄𝑓 = (1 − λ γ 𝐴2 ) (6)

22nd Edition:
𝐹𝑆 𝑃𝑐 𝐹𝑆 𝑀𝐼𝑃𝐵
𝑄𝑓 = (1 + 𝐶1 ( ) − 𝐶2 ( ) − 𝐶3 𝐴2 )
𝑃𝑦 𝑀𝑝 (7)

4
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

2.3.2. Strength factor. Each type of tubular joint has a different Strength Factor (Qu) formula so that it
will produce different Strength Factor values. Strength Factor has 3 values includes Axial Tension, Axial
Compression, In-Plane Bending, and Out-Plane Bending.

2.3.3. Basic capacity. The general form of brace load and moment based capacities equations is
retained. Both in 21st Edition and 22nd Edition, there is no modification on brace load moment based
capacities (Pa) but the 0.8d multiplier in moment basic capacity equation in 21th Edition has been
removed and the Qu coefficient is included in factor 1.7 was replaced by FS to allow portability between
WSD design approach commonly used in APIs and the LRFD approach proposed in ISO 19902 Code
[5].

𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑇 2 (8)
𝑃𝑎 = 𝑄𝑢 𝑄𝑓
𝐹𝑆 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃

21st Edition:

𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑇 2
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑄𝑢 𝑄𝑓 0.8 𝑑 (9)
𝐹𝑆 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃

22nd Edition:

𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑇 2
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑄𝑢 𝑄𝑓 𝑑 (10)
𝐹𝑆 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃

Tubular joint strength check. The strength check of joint is calculated using the components of
allowable capacity for brace axial load (Pa) and allowable capacity for brace bending moment for IPB
and OPB (Ma IPB and Ma OPB). In addition, other components needed are axial load, IPB and OPB
Load on the Brace. IR ratio for axial loads and/or strut bending moments recommended in the 21st
edition and earlier has been replaced by a parabolic relationship leading to better correlation with finite
elememt results [5]. Where Pa is the allowable capacity for brace axial load. Ma is the allowable capacity
for brace bending moment. Fyc is the yield stress of the chord member at the joint (or 0.8 of the tensile
strength, if less), in MPa (ksi). FS is the safety factor, equal to 1.60.

21st Edition:

𝑃 2 𝑀 2 𝑀 2
𝐼𝑅 = | | + 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛√( ) + ( ) ≤ 1.0 (11)
𝑃𝑎 𝜋 𝑀𝑎 𝐼𝑃𝐵 𝑀𝑎 𝑂𝑃𝐵

22nd Edition:
𝑃 𝑀 2 𝑀
𝐼𝑅 = | |+( ) + | | ≤ 1.0 (12)
𝑃𝑎 𝑀𝑎 𝐼𝑃𝐵 𝑀𝑎 𝑂𝑃𝐵

3. Result and Discussion

The development of API RP 2A WSD static strength check design calculation will be discussed below.
In summary, the modification from API RP 2A WSD 21th Edition to API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition
involved a relaxation of the 2/3 limit on tensile strength, additional guidance on detailing practice,
removal of the punching shear approach [7], new Qu and Qf formulations, and a change in the form of

5
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

the brace load interaction equation but the joint load capacity and interaction equations based design
philosophy and the basic formulation has been maintained [5].

3.1. Basic parameter tubular joint strength check

Table 4 shows basic parameter that obtained from general properties both in chord and brace based on
finite method element analysis. Larger diameter and thickness will result larger cross-sectional area and
greater value for section modulus and inertia. Dimensionless geometric parameter for each joint types
is shown in Table 5. These parameters are important that shows the relation between diameter and
thickness between chord and brace. Furthermore, these affects the stress distribution occurred within the
joint [8,9].
Table 4. Basic parameter of each tubular joint

Basic K T/Y X
Parameter Unit
Chord Brace Chord Brace Chord Brace
Area m2 0.133 0.018 0.098 0.015 0.039 0.020
4
Inertia m 0.018 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.000
Section
m3 0.034 0.002 0.023 0.002 0.004 0.002
Modulus
Table 5. Geometric parameter of each tubular joint

Geometric Joint Type

Parameter K T X
β 0.417 0.500 1.000
γ 13.688 15.975 10.000
τ 0.318 0.299 0.500
g/D 0.148 0 0

3.2. A parameter
The value of A parameter for each joint type are represented in the Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 below.
Joint type with the greater value for nominal axial load and bending resultant (root for sum of IPB
moment square and OPB moment square) and also smaller axial capacity of the chord and plastic
moment capacity of the chord yield the greater value for A parameter.
These components are influenced by the results of the calculation of the basic parameters and stress
on the chords that have been described in the previous steps. From the results of calculations using these
components, the parameter A values obtained are 0.070 for the K joint, 0.026 for the T/Y joint, and
0.026 for the X joint.
Table 6. A parameter for joint K

Component Unit Value A Parameter

Pc kN -1,928.535
Mc kNm 172.871
Py kN 45,738.447
Mp kNm 15,367.105 0.070
M ipb kNm 55.357
M opb kNm -163.768
FS 1.6

6
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

Table 7. A parameter for joint T/Y

Component Unit Value A Parameter

Pc kN 535.209
Mc kNm 41.240
Py kN 33,921.844
Mp kNm 10,630.753 0.026
M ipb kNm 41.205
M opb kNm 1.721
FS 1.6

Table 8. A parameter for joint X

Component Unit Value A Parameter

Pc kN 216.259
Mc kNm 4.427
Py kN 13,285.870
Mp kNm 2,042.811 0.026
M ipb kNm 1.304
M opb kNm 4.231
FS 1.6

3.3. Chord load factor

Factors affecting on chord load factor is similar to factors affecting on A parameter. The greater A
parameter generate the greater value for Qf. As shown in Table 9, the chord load factor for K, T, and X
joints are almost the same with the biggest difference not exceed 3%. The biggest chord load factor is
the T joint as it is the simplest and only has one brace [8].

Table 9. Chord load factor

Joint Type
K T X
0.984 1.007 0.995

3.4. Strength factor

The value of strength factor is affected by gap factor (Qg), geometric factor (Qb), and geometric
parameter. Based on geometric parameter formula, strength factor for x joint has the greatest value
because of the same value for both chord diameter and brace diameter. Besides that, for axial strength
factor, force type working on joint have to be known because there is formula difference for tension and
compression force. The strenght factor for each tubular joints are shown in Table 10. In every loading
conditions, X joint has the biggest strength factor than other types [10].

7
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

Table 10. Strength factor

Joint Type
Loads
K T X
Axial 11.818 13.613 28.383
In-Plane Bending 5.110 7.044 12
Out-Plane Bending 3.246 3.769 9

3.5. Basic capacity

The greater value for chord load factor (Qf), strength factor (Qu), chord thickness and brace diameter
generate and also the smaller value for angle between chord and brace will generate the greater value
for basic capacity. The following is the result of the calculation of the basic capacity which includes the
allowable capacity for brace axial load and allowable capacity for brace bending moment for each type
of tubular joint.
From the results shown in the Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 below, when compared with the
results of the output, the results are almost the same as the output from finite element method software.
Therefore, the equation or formula used in the calculation is appropriate.

Table 11. Basic capacity for joint K

Parameter Basic Capacity Allowable Brace Stresses

Pa 4,011.419 kN 226,290 kN/m2
Ma IPB 792.647 kNm 413,730 kN/m2
Ma OPB 503.578 kNm 262,850 kN/m2

Table 12. Basic capacity for joint T/Y

Parameter Basic Capacity Allowable Brace Stresses

Pa 3,020.195 kN 107,160 kN/m2
Ma IPB 793.855 kNm 436,150 kN/m2
Ma OPB 424.799 kNm 233,390 kN/m2

Table 13. Basic capacity for joint X

Parameter Basic Capacity Allowable Brace Stresses

Pa 4,326.689 kN 218,940 kN/m2
Ma IPB 929.263 kNm 389,240 kN/m2
Ma OPB 696.948 kNm 291,930 kN/m2

8
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

3.6. Tubular joint strength check

Table 14 shows the results of the tubular joint strength check for joint type K and type T/Y based on
API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition and Table 15 for the 22nd edition. Difference results are obtained from
calculating allowable capacity for brace load and moments. The formula in The 22nd edition reduces
the allowable capacity in every joint type. These will affect the design of the tubular joint. The design
will become more minimal than the 21st edition, which will give a conservative design.
The decrease in allowable capacity results in a higher joint interaction ratio. The increase of IR is 4.5
and 700 times for K and T/Y joints, respectively. Behold the same strength factor and similar range
between geometric parametric, the results from the 22nd edition are more reasonable with the
differences between K and T/Y joint type is 40%. While in the 21st edition is almost 99%.

Table 14. Tubular Joint Strength Check for K and T/Y Joint based on API RP 2A
WSD 21st Edition

Component Unit K Joint T/Y Joint

P N 131,105 -79,543.1
Pa N 5,128,916.3 598,917,597.1
M IPB Nm 12,869.4 1,051.8
Ma IPB Nm 1,344,868.2 124,643,789.9
M OPB Nm -42,911.2 -8,481.2
Ma OPB Nm 750,408.6 68,326,429.3
IR 0.0262 0.0001

Table 15. Tubular Joint Strength Check for K, T/Y, and X Joint based on API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition

Component Unit K Joint T/Y Joint X Joint

P N 131.105 -79.543 -688.112
Pa N 4,011.419 3,020.196 4,326.689
M IPB Nm 12.869 1.052 23.243
Ma IPB Nm 792.647 793.855 929.263
M OPB Nm -42.911 -8.481 -7.121
Ma OPB Nm 503.578 424.799 696.948
IR 0.118 0.070 0.170

4. Conclusion
Based on the analysis of variables that affect the difference in the calculation and the result between
these two versions and which factors API considers in changing the formula, the following conclusions
can be generated:
1 The static strength checks of simple tubular joint which is obtained from joint interaction ratio
(IR) calculation based on API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition, generates the value 0.026 and
0.0001342 for joint type K and type T/Y respectively.
2 The static strength checks of simple tubular joint which is obtained from joint interaction ratio
(IR) calculation based on API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition, generates the value 0.118; 0.070; and
0.170 for joint type K, T/Y, and X respectively.

9
ISOCEEN-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1198 (2023) 012018 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1198/1/012018

3 Some formula in the previous edition (API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition) has been updated into the
new formula in the newest edition (API RP 2A WSD 22nd Edition) to acquire more accurate
results.
4 The value of interaction ratio (IR) for joint type K, T/Y, and X meets the requirement in tubular
joint strength check equation which are less than 1.0.
5 The results acquired from the 22nd Edition approach were the same with the result obtained
from finite element analysis.

References
[1] Chakrabarti S 2005 Handbook of Offshore Engineering (Illinois: Elsevier Ltd.)
[2] Syalsabila F, Prastianto R W, Hadiwidodo Y S, Adaalah A H and Syarifudin M R 2022
Structural Analysis of Floating Net Cage Bracket in Current and Wave IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 972
[3] Syarifudin M R 2021 Analisis Kekukatan Struktur Jaring Akibat Arus dan Gelombang pada
Keramba Jaring Apung Berbasis Metode Elemen Hingga (Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember)
[4] American Petroleum Institute 2007 Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms — Working Stress Design (Washington, D.C.)
[5] American Petroleum Institute 2014 Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Working Stress Design (Washington, D.C.)
[6] Noviyanti I and Prastianto R W 2023 Numerical Study on the Stress Distribution Analysis of
Two-Planar DKDT Tubular Joint Under Variation of Axial Loading Conditions BT - Recent
Advances in Mechanical Engineering ed I Tolj, M V Reddy and A Syaifudin (Singapore:
Springer Nature Singapore) pp 19–26
[7] Karsan D I, Marshall P W, Pecknold D A, Mohr W C and Bucknell J 2005 The New API RP
2A, 22nd Edition Tubular Joint Design Practice Offshore Technology Conference (Houston)
[8] Haghpanahi M and Pirali H 2006 Hot Spot Stress Determination for a Tubular T-Joint under
Combined Axial and Bending Loading Int. J. Eng. Sci. 17 21–8
[9] Prastianto R W, Hadiwidodo Y S and Fuadi I F 2018 Stress concentration factor of a two-planar
double KT tubular joint due to in-plane bending loading in steel offshore structures MATEC
Web of Conferences vol 177
[10] Santacruz A and Mikkelsen O 2021 Numerical stress analysis of tubular joints IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 1201 012032

10