Proceedings of the Nineteenth (2009) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Osaka, Japan, June 21-26, 2009

Copyright © 2009 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-53-1 (Set); ISSN 1098-618

Comparison of ISO and API Seismic Design Requirements for Offshore Structures
Bor-Feng Peng, Ph.D., P.E.
Department of Structural Engineering, J. Ray McDermott Engineering, LLC.
Houston, Texas, USA

G Abdel Ghoneim, Ph.D., P.E.

Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of API and ISO
seismic design requirements for offshore structures. The selected
critical API and ISO seismic requirements, which have significant
impact on the structural design of the offshore platform, includes the
simplified design response acceleration spectrum, the detailed
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, the uniform seismic hazard
response spectrum, the tubular member strength and stability
requirements, and the tubular joint strength requirements. An existing
platform had been selected to illustrate the stress ratio comparison of
the platform per WSD and LRFD design approaches.
simplified design response spectrum specified by ISO and API. The
comparison of ALE requirements had been presented by Peng (2008) or
Chang (2005). In this paper, the design response spectra, the more
detailed seismic hazard analysis procedures, and the code check
formulae are addressed by comparing the requirements per ISO and
API. The results also provide the input to the ongoing updates of API
RP 2A-LRFD in conjunction with the ISO 19901-2 and 19902. The
conservative load factors for hydrostatic pressures specified in the
LRFD methodology may be required to be carefully reviewed or
redefined for application in relatively deepwater platform design.
SIMPLIFIED RESPONSE ACCELERATION SPECTRUM

KEY WORDS: Seismic; Spectrum; PSHA; Offshore; Structure;
ISO; API.
INTRODUCTION
The seismic design requirements specified in API RP 2A-WSD (2000)
and API RP 2A-LRFD (1993) have not been updated for some years. In
particular, the API RP 2A-LRFD was first issued in 1993 and had not
been widely applied in the offshore platform design industry. Although
the newly updated API RP 2A-WDS (21st Edition) with supplement 3
was issued in 2007, the seismic design requirements are generally the
same as those specified in the 20th edition of 1993. However, the
seismic design and analysis technology and resources have been
improved significantly during the past decade with more advanced
computer hardware and software. Another fact is that more offshore
platforms are recently designed at seismic-active locations due to long-
term worldwide energy demand.
The seismic requirements for offshore structure design in ISO 19901-2
and 19902 are updated after 2004. The design concept applies the
LRFD approach which fundamentally considers the seismic risk
uncertainties and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with more
specific and detailed guidelines for engineers to follow. The strength
and stability requirements in the code check formulae for the design of
structural members and joints are revised based on the most updated
research and information data base. Recently, a comprehensive
comparison of the seismic guidelines in ISO and API (Chang, etc.,
2005) had been carried out. It was shown that the dynamic base shears
and moments of three existing platforms would be similar by using the
The most widely used seismic input parameter for the seismic design
and analysis of offshore structures is the design response acceleration
spectrum. For offshore platforms classified per ISO as seismic risk
Category 2 or 3, the simplified seismic hazard analysis procedure may
be followed. By the simplified seismic hazard analysis procedure in
ISO, the design response spectrum (or so called simplified design
response spectrum) can be estimated and defined based on the soil type,
the location of the platform, and the type of foundation system (shallow
or deep foundation) in lieu of detailed probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA). If the platform’s seismic risk category is 3 or higher,
the detailed seismic analysis procedure and probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis shall be performed to derive the so-called uniform hazard
spectrum. The ISO and API simplified response design spectra with 5%
of critical damping are compared as follows and shown in Figs. 1~2.
The ISO 1000-yr Response Acceleration Spectrum defines the spectral
acceleration SA as,
S A = (3T + 0.4)Ca Sa ,0.2 for T ≤ 0.2 sec (1)
S A = Cv Sa ,1.0 T ≤ Ca Sa , 0.2 for 0.2 < T ≤ 4.0 sec
S A = 4Cv Sa ,1.0 T 2 for T > 4.0 sec
where T is the oscillator period; Sa,0.2 is spectral response acceleration
with oscillator period of 0.2 seconds; Sa,1.0 is spectral response
acceleration with oscillator period of 1.0 seconds; the coefficients Ca
and Cv are dependent of the site classification or soil type, the type of
the foundation, and the spectral response accelerations Sa,0.2 and Sa,1.0.
For deep pile foundation, Ca and Cv are dependent of soil type only.
Note that Sa,0.2 and Sa,1.0 are provided in ISO Annex B for various
seismic regions around the world. From Fig. 1, it is shown that the ISO

91