OTC 17310
New API RP2A Tubular Joint Strength Design Provisions
D. Pecknold, U. of Illinois; P. Marshall, MHP Systems Engrg; and J. Bucknell, MSL Services Corp.
Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 2–5 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The development of the new API RP2A (22nd Edition)
parametric static strength prediction equations for planar
circular hollow section (CHS) tubular joints is described.
Prediction equations are presented for brace axial, brace in-
plane bending, and brace out-of-plane bending loads. The
prediction equations are based on screened test databases,
augmented and extended by an extensive new series of
validated nonlinear finite element (FE) simulations for non-
overlapping K joints, Double Tee (DT/X) joints and T joints.
The increased reliability (reduced scatter) provided by the new
static strength formulation was used to justify a reduction of
the load factor of safety to 1.6 from the previous value of 1.7.
Introduction
API RP2A design guidance for tubular joints, primarily on
simple CHS joints, has historically been based on
experimental databases. In particular, the most recent previous
editions of API RP2A, as well as other offshore codes of
practice, have been founded on an experimental database that
existed in the early 1980s (1). Many additions to the
experimental database have occurred since that time, often
because of testing a reference simple joint in the course of
examining a complex configuration. In particular, additional
experimental information is now available on the effect of
additional chord loads on joint capacity, providing the
opportunity to incorporate this new information in API RP2A.
Unfortunately, the simple joint screened test database
does not contain data covering the full range of joint types,
joint geometries, and brace and chord loading conditions of
interest. For example, except for T joints, test data on brace
bending is relatively sparse. Tests with additional (i.e. in
addition to equilibrium-induced) chord loads are likewise not
sufficient in number and scope to adequately address the effect
of chord loads on joint capacity.
To provide additional information where needed, and to
fill in gaps in the experimental database, numerical finite
element (FE) models have been utilized. FE models, properly
validated against test results, are now recognized as a reliable,
relatively low cost source of static strength data which can be
used to supplement and extend the experimental database.
Modeling procedures and software are well-established for
tubular joints that fail by plastic collapse (2)-(5); however, it
must be noted that joint tension failures cannot yet be reliably
predicted by numerical methods due to the unavailability of an
appropriate and accepted failure criterion for ductile tearing.
Therefore, for joint tension capacity, test data must still be
exclusively relied upon despite possible shortcomings, e.g.
size effect. The new parametric prediction equations more
accurately represent the effect of joint geometry, particularly
chord diameter-to-thickness ratio, and additional chord loads,
as demonstrated by comprehensive comparisons with the
screened test database and the validated FE database.
Joint Classification
Joint classification as K, X or Y is unchanged from the 21st
edition, and is used in order to apply the basic capacity
equations for simple joints to more geometrically complex
joints. API has long recognized that joint classification should
be based on axial load pattern as well as joint configuration. In
principle, classification is an issue for both simple and complex
joint configurations and is relevant to both fatigue and strength
assessments. Classification may change from load case to load
case and is often different for each member end at a given joint.
Mixed classifications generally occur (21).
In the logic of the recommended classification scheme,
members whose axial load component perpendicular to the
chord is essentially balanced by axial loads in other members on
the same side of the joint are treated as K joints. Members
whose perpendicular load components are reacted across the
chord are treated as X joints. Members whose perpendicular
loads are neither K nor X but are reacted by beam shear in the
chord are treated as Y joints.
There are instances where the axial load of a given brace is
within ± 10% of being purely one of the standard joint types
(i.e. all K, X, or Y). In that case it is permissible to classify the
brace end as totally of that joint type and no interpolation is
required.
Additional provisions specific to axially loaded,
multiplanar K, X, and Y joints can be found in the CIDECT
Design Guide (19). Additional information on multiplanar Y
and K joints is available in (4),(22),(23),(27). AWS D1.1 Annex
L describes an ocalizing parameter which can also be used for
joint classification.
2 OTC 17310

Brace Load Interaction condition. The FE database contains a much higher proportion
Tha basic capacity equations for simple joints provide of cases with additional chord loads than do either test
allowables for single brace loadings (axial, in-plane bending database.
or out-of plane bending). For combined brace loadings, a
brace load interaction equation is used. The 22nd Edition of Joint Geometry Parameters. Joint geometry is characterized
API RP2A adopts a new brace load interaction ratio, by appropriate dimensionless ratios as illustrated in Figure 2
2 which shows a planar K joint with symmetric branches. The
P ⎛ M ⎞ M
IR = +⎜ ⎟ + ≤ 1.0 (1) dimensionless geometry ratios for this joint type are (1) the
Pa ⎝ M a ⎠ipb M a opb brace-to-chord diameter ratio β ≡d/D, (2) the chord thinness
ratio γ ≡D/2T, (3) the gap factor ζ ≡g/D, (4) the brace-to-chord
recommended by CIDECT (19). This new interaction equation wall thickness ratio τ ≡t/T, (5) the brace angle θ, and (6) the
provides a better fit to the available test and FE data than does chord length ratio α ≡2L/D.
the arc sine expression in the 21st Edition. Equation (1) is very
close to the expression proposed by Yura (20),(29), and also Test Databases. Two major test databases for CHS tubular
tends to vindicate the interpolation method used in the 1978- joints were utilized.
82 editions of RP2A. The MSL Joint Industry Project (JIP) carried out in the
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the arc sine interaction period 1994-1996 examined all data that existed at that time
expression (21st Edition) and Equation (1) with two series of and has significantly influenced the guidance for simple and
FE simulations for DT joints (β= 0.6, γ=20, τ =1.0 and β= 0.6, overlapping joints.The MSL screened test database (6)
γ=20, τ =1.0) loaded in combined brace compression and in- contains validated data on a total of 1066 simple joint
plane bending, with additional chord preloads, ranging from specimens with chord diameter D greater than 100mm.
-0.8 ≤ P/Py ≤ 0.8. The brace compression and brace in-plane Screening, based on several acceptance criteria, reduced the
bending capacities for the combined loadings are normalized number to 653 cases. The significance of establishing a
by the FE results for the respective brace loads acting suitably screened database cannot be over-emphasized. The
independently, in order to make the comparison shown. differences in various code provisions on joint strength are
Results for 3 series of DT joints [(β=0.35, γ=25, τ=0.8), partly due to differences in databases.
(β=0.67, γ=25,τ=0.8), and (β=1.0, γ=25,τ=0.8)], with no The Kumamoto University test database (7), which is
additional chord loads, tested at the University of Texas are publicly available over the internet, overlaps substantially with
also shown, normalized in the same way (8),(29). the MSL database, but is not screened. In the development of
the API RP2A (22nd Edition) design guidance, the MSL
Static Strength Databases screened database was primarily used, and supplemented in a
The static strength databases which form the basis for the new few cases with data from the Kumamoto University test
basic capacity equations are (1) the MSL screened test database.
database (6); (2) the Kumamoto University (unscreened) test
database (7); and (3) the API/EWI validated FE database, Finite Element Database. A comprehensive API/EWI study
developed at the University of Illinois (5),(12)-(17). conducted at the University of Illinois (5),(12)-(17) has
provided a large validated finite element database, containing
No of over 1500 cases. This additional information was used to
Joint Type Brace Load No of FE Test augment and extend the screened test database, particularly
Cases Cases for the assessment of the effect of additional chord loads on
joint capacity.
Axial Tens -- 34
DT Axial Comp 339 65 Validation of the FE procedure by detailed comparisons
IPB 40 17 with available test data was carried out, as well as a number of
OPB 80 6 sensitivity studies, described later.
Table 2 displays the combinations of brace and chord load
Axial 440 161 cases for each joint type contained in the FE database.
K IPB 242 6 Validation of FE Modeling. Extensive validation studies
OPB 306 7 were carried out in the initial phase of the API/EWI project to
compare FE simulations with the available test load vs
Axial Tens -- 26
T Axial Comp 46 89 deflection data. Details of these comparisons for DT joints are
IPB 18 29 reported in (5), including comparisons with all known test
OPB 18 27 results for compression DTs with axial chord preload (8)-(11),
with satisfactory results. Actual chord lengths and test
boundary conditions were represented as accurately as
Table 1. Number of Cases Contained in Static
possible and the reported steel stress-strain curves were also
Strength Databases by Joint Type and Brace
used in all FE simulations of tests.
Loading Condition
Additional comparisons with test data are shown in
Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the FE
Table 1 shows the number of available FE cases and test
simulation of a DT joint (β =0.67, γ =25, τ =0.8) tested in
cases by joint type (DT/X, K, T/Y) and brace loading
OTC 17310
brace compression with combined axial compression plus in-
plane bending chord preloads (P/Py = -0.3, Mipb/MP = -0.25
(8). Figure 4 shows the FE simulation of a 45o K joint
(β =0.72, γ =24, τ =0.9, α =6.6, ζ = 0.1) tested (11) under
balanced axial load with no chord preloads.
Chord Preloads
Joint Type Brace Load
Axial IPB OPB
Axial Comp n n n
DT IPB n chord, whose distribution depends on the support conditions at
OPB n n n the ends of the chord. Because of this fact, both test and FE
Balanced Axial n n
K IPB n n
OPB n n
Axial Comp n n
T IPB n unchanged from the 21st Edition. The (normalized) basic load
OPB n and moment brace capacities (Equations 2 and 3) are each
Table 2. Brace and Chord Load Combinations
Contained in FE Database by Joint Type
FE Models for Static Strength Database. For each joint
type, a series of FE models, covering a wide range of
geometries (13),(14),(17) were generated using PATRAN, and
analyses were performed using ABAQUS. Analyses covered
the three brace loading conditions and a range of chord
preloads and chord preload combinations, often filling in
significant gaps in available test data. In the FE parameter
studies, chord preload was applied first and held constant
while brace loads were gradually increased. The effect on
computed joint response of different loading paths has been
discussed (5). The steel stress-strain curve has a post-yield
linear strain hardening slope up to 8 percent plastic strain and
a flat top thereafter. The ratio of ultimate stress to yield stress
is 1.6.
The analyses incorporated geometric as well as material
nonlinear effects. Joint strength was determined as the peak
brace load when an early peak response occurred. In cases
where there was not a clear peak, such as in high β, high γ DT
joints under chord tension preload, the Yura displacement
limit 2δ/D =120Fy/Eβ or rotation limit θ =80Fy/E was used.
Studies were carried out to establish FE modeling
guidelines as related to mesh density, shell element vs 3D
solid modeling and the need for explicit modeling of the weld.
Figure 3 includes a comparison of FE simulation results for
shell and 3D models of the 45o K joint. It was found that use
of 3D models combined with explicit weld modeling was
necessary only for joints with high brace-to-chord diameter
ratios (0.95 < β < 1.0).
“Long chord lengths” that eliminate the effect of chord end
boundary conditions were used (5). The brace-to-chord
thickness ratio was held constant (τ =1.0), based on the results
of sensitivity studies. Figure 5 shows an example of the minor
effect of brace-to-chord thickness ratio (τ = 0.4, 0.6, 1.0) on
3
the response of two 45o K joints with no chord preload, under
brace in-plane bending “closing” moments, which govern.
Figure 7 shows the computed response of a 45o K joint (β
=0.3, γ = 10, ζ=0.05), with two different levels of chord
preload (P/Py=0 and P/Py=-0.6), subjected to “opening”,
“closing” and “aligned” in-plane bending moments (closing
moments tend to increase the angle between chord and brace,
aligned brace moments tend to produce rotation in the same
direction). It should be noted that brace balanced axial
tension/compression loads in K joints induce additional axial
loads and often in-plane bending moments as well in the
results may be expected to vary somewhat depending on the
chord boundary conditions (24). In the FE parametric studies,
both ends of the chord have rigid diaphragms and are pinned.
Basic Capacity
The format of the basic capacity equations remains essentially
expressed as the product of a strength factor Qu and a chord
load factor Qf, defined separately for each joint type and brace
loading condition. The strength factors Qu depend only on
joint geometry, and are expressed in terms of β and γ, (or β, γ
and ζ in the case of K joints) because it has been found
through FE simulations that, over its normal range, τ has only
a minor effect. The brace angle θ appears only through the sin
θ term in Equations (2) and (3), again because the sin θ term
has been found, by FE simulations (Figure 6) and comparisons
to test data, to adequately reflect the influence of the brace
angle on basic capacity. The chord load factor Qf for each
joint type depends only on chord axial and bending loads.
Pa sin θ / Fy T 2 = Qu Q f / FS (2)
M a sin θ / Fy T 2 d = Qu Q f / FS (3)
where Pa =allowable brace axial load, Ma =allowable brace (in-
plane or out-of plane) bending moment, Fy =chord yield stress
at the joint, T =chord wall thickness, d =brace outside
diameter, θ =angle between brace and chord centerlines. The
factor of safety FS =1.6, a reduction from the value of 1.7 in
the 21st Edition, made possible by the increased reliability of
the new basic capacity formulations (18). Where a 1/3
increase in allowable is permitted, FS may be taken as 1.2.
As a consequence of the fact that joint classification
pertains only to the determination of brace axial load capacity,
the brace moment capacities are independent of joint type.
Methodology for Determining Basic Capacity Equations.
The screened test and numerical finite element data, where
appropriate, were used to create suitable expressions for joint
strength, using regression analysis and statistical calculations
that are characterized by a 95% survivability level at a 50%
confidence level.
For each joint type and brace loading condition,
appropriate FE data series with no additional chord loads were
4 OTC 17310
first used to establish the form of the new strength factors Qu,
since this allowed examination of the effect of one
dimensionless geometry variable (β, γ or ζ) at a time. The
available test data was then used to further modify the Qu
expressions to produce the best overall characteristic strength
predictions, considering both test and FE data.
To determine the chord load factors Qf for each joint type
and brace loading condition, the FE data was first normalized
by the strength factor Qu appropriate for the geometry of each
joint. The data was then plotted against one chord preload
variable (axial and/or bending) at a time. As with the strength
factors, the test data (also normalized by the appropriate Qu)
was used to modify the Qf expressions as needed to produce
the best overall results, considering both test and FE data.
Because the test databases contain a relatively small
proportion of cases with additional chord loads, the FE
database provided most of the information used to establish
the new Qf expressions. Also note that brace tension loadings
and K joint geometries with overlaps are not included in the
FE database.
Strength Factor Qu. The FE data shows a clear dependence
of the strength factor Qu on γ (as well as β) which is more
obvious at large γ where there are less experimental data. The
test databases for DT/X joints under axial compression and K
joints under balanced axial loading tend to show a somewhat
weaker dependence on γ and this is reflected in the
recommended strength factors. This dependence of Qu on γ
has not previously been recognized in API RP2A (with one
exception, i.e. the gap factor Qg for axially loaded K joints
with γ ≤20).
Gap Factor Qg. The gap factor Qg for K joints under
balanced axial load is incoporated as a factor in Qu.
For K joints with positive gaps (g/D ² 0.05) Qg is now
expressed in terms of g/D rather than g/T, eliminating the
implicit γ dependence formerly included in Qg for γ ≤20. The
FE data show that with Qu now given as (16+1.2γ)β1.2Qg, no
significant additional effect of γ on Qg remains. The gap
should preferably be not less than 2 in (50 mm).
The gap factor Qg for overlap K joints (g/D ≤ -0.05) is
based on an assessment of test data (6), (26) and FE studies
(30)-(33). The overlap should preferably not be less than 0.25
βD.
Linear interpolation may be used for -0.05 < g/D < 0.05,
when this is otherwise permissible or unavoidable.
Brace Tension Loading. The Qu formulations for tension
loaded T/Y and DT/X joints were derived on the basis of loads
at which cracking was observed in test data. However, tension
loaded joints can sustain further loading beyond first crack.
As an estimate of this reserve strength may be important in
predominantly statically loaded joints, characteristic ultimate
tensile strength expressions were also developed and are given
in (18).
Comparison of Strength Factors for Different Joint
Types and Brace Loading Conditions. Figures 8 and 9 show
a comparison of strength factors Qu according to the 21st and
22nd Editions for the different joint types and brace loading
conditions.The brace in-plane bending strength for K joints is
based on the governing case of equal magnitude closing
moments, and, because no generally accepted classification
scheme for brace moment loadings is available, it also dictates
the allowable in-plane bending capacity of all joint types, which
leads to somewhat conservative estimates for DT/X and T/Y
joints.
The brace out-of plane bending strength for K joints is
based on the governing case of equal magnitude aligned
moments (aligned out-of-plane moments tend to bend both
braces out-of-plane to the same side of the chord), and again
dictates the allowable out-of-plane bending capacity of all joint
types.
The strength factor Qu for axially loaded T joints is given
for a condition in which the effect of the equilibrium-induced
global chord bending moment is eliminated. The effect of this
chord bending moment must be accounted for in the chord
load factor Qf as described below.
Chord Load Factor Qf. Qf is a factor to account for the
presence of nominal loads in the chord.
⎡ ⎛ FS Pc ⎞ ⎛ FS M ipb ⎞ ⎤
Q f = ⎢1 + C1 ⎜ ⎟ − C2 ⎜ ⎟ − C 3 A 2 ⎥ (4)
⎢⎣ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎦
⎝ Py ⎠ ⎝ MP ⎠
Where a 1/3 increase in allowable is permitted, FS may again
be taken as 1.2. The parameter A is defined as follows:
1/ 2
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎛ FS M c ⎞ 2 ⎤
2
FS Pc
A = ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎥
⎟ ⎝ M P ⎟⎠ ⎥
(5)
⎢⎜ Py
⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦
where Pc and Mc are the nominal axial load and bending
2 2
resultant (ie. M c2 = M ipb + M opb ) in the chord, Py is the
yield axial capacity of the chord, Mp is the plastic moment
capacity of the chord, and C1, C2 and C3 are coefficients
depending on joint type and brace loading condition (18).
The average of the chord loads and bending moments on
either side of the brace intersection should be used in
Equations (4) and (5). Chord axial load is positive in tension,
chord in-plane bending moment is positive when it produces
compression on the joint footprint. The chord thickness at the
joint should be used in the above calculations.
Chord Preloads. In most cases, brace loads induce
equilibrium chord loads. For example, in a K joint with no
joint eccentricity under balanced brace axial load, equilibrium
axial loads are induced in the chord (tension on one side of the
brace intersection and compression on the other side). In a T
joint under brace in-plane bending, equilibrium in-plane
bending moments are induced in the chord (positive on one
side of the brace intersection and negative on the other). In
both of these cases the relative magnitudes of the positive and
negative equilibrium chord loads and bending moments
depend on the relative stiffnesses and remote-end boundary
conditions of the chord on either side of the brace intersection.
A qualitatively different situation occurs in, for example, a T
joint under brace axial compression. In that case, an
equilibrium chord in-plane bending moment is induced on
both sides of the brace intersection. The magnitude of the
OTC 17310
equilibrium bending moment depends not only on the relative
stiffnesses and remote-end boundary conditions of the chord
on either side of the brace intersection, but also strongly
depends on chord absolute length. This poses a significant
problem in testing T joints with high β values: because of the
large axial capacity of these joints, substantial equilibrium in-
plane bending moments are generated that may affect joint
strength (2) or even cause premature (i.e. before joint failure)
chord plastification. Smaller chord lengths reduce the
equilibrium bending moments, but below some minumum
length, the chord end conditions begin to influence the joint
strength.
In the FE analyses of T joints under brace axial
compression, compensating negative in-plane bending
moments, proportional to the brace load, were applied at the
chord ends, so that the global bending moment at the
intersection of the brace and chord centerlines remained zero
throughout the loading history (2). The strength factor Qu
determined from these FE analyses therefore represents the T
joint capacity corresponding to a very short chord, without the
effect of the equilibrium chord bending moments.
Equilibrium chord loads are implicitly accounted for in
the strength factors Qu determined from tests. They are also
present and accounted for in the strength factors Qu
determined from the FE database, with the single exception of
axially loaded T joints, in which the effects of equilibrium
chord bending moments have been explicitly removed.
In order to determine the additional chord loads to be
accounted for in the chord load factor Qf, the average of the
total (equilibrium plus additional) chord loads on either side of
the brace intersection should be used.
In cases (including the API/EWI FE analyses, and the vast
majority of tests) where the chord cross-sections, lengths and
remote-end boundary conditions are the same on both sides of
the brace intersection, averaging the total chord loads on either
side of the brace intersection yields the correct additional
chord load since the equilibrium chord loads cancel from the
average (except for axially loaded T joints). More generally, in
cases where the chord does not react the equilibrium loads
equally on either side of the brace intersection, the averaging
procedure produces a small equivalent additional chord load
that is taken into account in Qf. In the axially loaded T joint,
the equilibrium chord bending moment is the same on both
sides of the brace intersection, and so it is properly accounted
for in the average chord bending moment.
Implicit in this simple averaging procedure is the
assumption that the capacity of the joint is not significantly
affected by small variations in the sequence of brace vs chord
loading.
Changes in Chord Load Factor from 21st Edition.
Compared to the 21st edition of API RP2A, a substantial
change to the chord load factor Qf is given in Equations (4)
and (5).
(1)The new chord load factor Qf includes linear terms in
the nominal chord axial load and in-plane bending moments,
in addition to the quadratic terms retained in the parameter A
given in Equation (5). This is similar in form to the chord
stress function proposed in (28) and adopted in the CIDECT
design guide (19).
5
(2) Equation (4) applies over the full range of chord loads.
Previous versions of API RP2A contained the additional
provision that Qf = 1.0 when all extreme fiber stresses in the
chord are tensile. This provision had the unintended
consequence that Qf exhibited a step discontinuity when both
axial and bending loads existed in the chord. The new
formulation may produce a Qf <1.0 even when the chord is
subjected to an axial tension load, particularly in high β
(β >0.9) DT joints under brace axial compression.
(3) Inspection of the Qf expression in Equations (4) and (5)
shows that there is now no dependence on γ. Previously, API
RP2A included such a dependence; this was based on forcing
the Qf factors of X joints of a specific γ and K joints of
another specific γ to align. Appraisals of the FE and test data
indicate that any γ dependence in K joints is small. The FE
data also show only a slight dependence of the chord load
factor on γ, for all joint types and brace loading conditions.
The presence in Qf of the γ-dependence in previous versions of
API RP2A leads to gross underestimates of the capacity of
high β joints with high axial chord loads.
Comparison of Chord Load Factors for Different Joint
Types and Brace Loading Conditions. Figure 11 shows
comparisons of chord load factors Qf according to the 21st and
22nd Editions for the different joint types and brace loading
conditions. These comparisons show the effect of chord axial
load (FS Pc/Py) on Qf. Corresponding plots of Qf as a function
of chord in-plane bending load (FS Mip/MP) would be
symmetric in (FS Mip/MP), except for K joints under balanced
brace axial loading (for which the coefficient C2 is non-zero).
For that case a positive Mip (producing compression on the K
joint footprint) yields a value Qf <1.0, while a negative Mip of
the same magnitude has a less deleterious effect (larger Qf),
and may actually produce a slight capacity enhancement (Qf
>1.0). Although this behavior may be expected generally for
joints that are not symmetric about the chord axis, the
recommended formulation of Qf for T joints does not
incorporate the beneficial effect of a negative Mip for brace
axial compression (or a positive Mip for brace axial tension)
because there is not sufficient data available to reliably
quantify it.
Note that a single Qf expression applies for brace in-plane
and out-of-plane bending. The plots of Qf for DT joints under
brace axial compression (Figure 10) show the marked
transition in the effect of axial chord load on capacity that
occurs between (0.9 ≤ β ≤1.0). Chord axial compression
significantly reduces brace axial compression capacity in low
to moderate β DT joints, but has no appreciable effect for
joints with β •1.0. Chord axial tension, on the other hand, has
little effect on low to moderate β DT joints, but reduces brace
axial compression capacity for high β (β •1.0). Figure 10
shows results of tests performed at the University of Texas
(8), (10) on a series of DT joints with different β values (0.35,
0.67, 1.0), subjected to brace and chord axial compression
loads. The test results are normalized for each geometry by the
strength measured in nominally identical specimens with no
chord load. These normalized results provide an experimental
evaluation of the chord load factor for these joints, and they
are compared with the recommended chord load factor Qf in
Figure 10.
6 OTC 17310
Comparisons with Test and FE Data
Brace load capacities calculated from Equations (2-5) (with
the factor of safety FS=1), and from the previous API RP2A
(21st edition) provisions, are compared in Figures 11-15 with
the screened test data and with the FE database for K, Y and X
joints. The result of each individual comparison was expressed
in the form of a ratio of (Test or FE Strength)/(Predicted
Strength). Ratios greater than one, indicating that the joint
capacity is greater than the predicted value, are obviously
desirable. Statistics of the comparisons are given in (18), and
confirm that the scatter, as measured by the coefficient of
variation, is substantially reduced compared to the 21st
Edition.
Figures 12-14, for the brace axial load cases, and Figures 15
and 16, for the brace bending cases, show the results of the
comparisons plotted against β. These figures show that the
performance of the recommended and previous API
formulations are consistent across joint type and brace load
conditions for both test and FE databases. Additional
comparisons (not shown) with a subset of the FE database
containing only the cases with no chord load are also consistent
with the test database comparisons for both the recommended
and previous API practice.
Short Joint Cans
Most joint tests, and capacity formulas based upon them,
enjoyed the benefit of a long uniform chord section. If the
designer uses a very short joint can, some of this benefit will
be lost. For balanced K-joints, the ovalizing tendencies of the
two braces tend to cancel each other out, and closed ring
collapse analyses have shown that a can extension of 0.25D
beyond the brace footprint suffices to restore the full capacity.
For X-joints, the full crushing effect is present, and a can
extension of 1.0D beyond the brace footprint (or 2.5D overall
can length) is necessary for full long-chord capacity. For Y-
joints, the ovalizing is of intermediate severity, and closed ring
collapse analysis indicates that intermediate joint can
extensions (0.5D to 0.6D beyond the brace footprint) would
suffice. The old 0.25D is not always enough.
Earlier editions of RP2A permitted an approximate closed
ring analysis to be employed, including plastic analysis with
appropriate safety factors, using an effective chord length up
to 1.25D either side of the line of action of the branch loads at
the chord face, but not more than actual distance to the end of
the can. Special consideration is required for more complex
joints; for multiple branches in the same plane, dominantly
loaded in the same sense, the relevant crushing load is Σι Pι
Sinθι. Any reinforcement within this dimension (e.g.,
diaphragms, rings, gussets or the stiffening effect of out-of-
plane members) may be considered in the analysis, although
its effectiveness decreases with distance from the branch
footprint.
Grouted Joints
Grouted joint criteria are now given for the first time in RP2A
(34), (35) although they have very old roots. Billington et al
(1979) in OTC 3463 referred to grouted joint capacity in terms
of punching shear. Grouted joint data from Lalani et al
(1985) in the UEG 3-volume set, Design of Tubular Joints for
Offshore Structures, have been compared to the ISO-API
criteria, which are conservative for axial load.
In the new Table 4.5-1, Qu = 2.5βγKa may be re-written
as Psinθ = πdTKa (0.4Fy) -- i.e. the classic original punching
shear formula from the 1950s. Ka may be found in 9th and
earlier editions of RP2A, but needs to be brought back for the
22nd. Ka = (1+1/sinθ)/2 is still used in AWS D1.1.
For bending, Qu=1.5βγ may be re-written in the
following punching shear formats:
elastic bending: M = (π/4) d2 T (0.95Fy)
fully plastic bending: M = d2 T (0.75Fy)
daVinci bending: M = (π/2) d2 T (0.48Fy)
In the early 1500s, Leonardo daVinci's theory of bending
for stone beams (which are much weaker in tension than in
compression) had unlimited capacity at the compressive heel,
with the rest of the section in uniform tension. It seems
particularly apt for grouted tubular joints, since the other
expressions exceed the theoretical limit of 0.57Fy for punching
shear. This might also explain why test data show less
conservatism for bending than for tension.
Summary
The new Qu and Qf formulations for simple joint basic capacity
more accurately reflect the influence of joint geometry (in
particular, chord diameter-to-thickness ratio) and chord loads on
joint capacity and are a significant improvement over that of the
previous (21st Edition) API practice, particularly for brace
bending loads. The new capacity formulations are more reliable
(i.e. they show less scatter than previous formulations when
compared to test and validated FE results), and justify a
reduction in the factor of safety (FS) from 1.7 (21st Edition) to
1.6.
References
(1) Yura, J.A., Zettlemoyer, N. and Edwards, I.F., 1981, “Ultimate
Capacity of Circular Tubular Joints”, J. Structural Division,
ASCE, 1965-1984.
(2) van der Valk, C.A., 1988, “Factors Controlling the Static
Strength of Tubular T Joints”, BOSS ’88 Conference,
Trondheim, June.
(3) van der Valk, C.A.,1991,”New Aspects Related to the Ultimate
Strength of Tubular K and X Joints”, Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, v.III-B, 417-422.
(4) van der Vegte, G.J., et al. 1991, “The Static Strength and
Stiffness of Multiplanar Tubular Steel X-Joints”, ISOPE J Vol 1,
March.
(5) Ha, C.C. and Pecknold, D.A., 1998, “FE Modelling of DT
Tubular Joints with Chord Stress”, OMAE 98-560, Proceedings
of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Artic Engineering, Lisbon.
OTC 17310
(6) MSL Engineering Limited, 1996, Assessment Criteria,
Reliability and Reserve Strength of Tubular Joints, Doc. Ref.
C14200R018, Ascot, England.
(7) Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., van der Vegte, G., and
Wilmshurst, S., 1996, “Database of Test and Numerical
Analysis Results for Unstiffened Tubular Joints,” IIW Doc. XV-
E-96-220, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
(8) Boone T. J., Yura, J. A., and Hoadley, P. W., 1982, Chord Stress
Effects on the Ultimate Strength of Tubular Connections,
PMFSEL 82-1, University of Texas at Austin.
(9) Togo, T., 1967, ``Experimental Study on Mechanical Behavior
of Tubular Joints," Doctoral Dissertation (in Japanese), Osaka
University, Osaka, Japan.
(10) Weinstein, R. and Yura, J. A., 1985, “The Effect of Chord
Stresses on the Static Strength of DT Tubular Connections,"
PMFSEL 85-1, University of Texas at Austin.
(11) Bjornoy, O. B. and Collberg, L., 1991, Static Strength of
Tubular Jonts-PhaseII. Analyses and Tests of Gap and Overlap
K-Joints, Veritec Report No. 91-3393, A.S. Veritec.
(12) Pecknold, D.A and Ha, C.C., 1998, “Chord Stress Effects on
Ultimate Strength of DT Tubular Joints”, OMAE 98-565,
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon.
(13) Pecknold, D.A., Ha, C.C. and Mohr, W.C., 1998, Strength of
Simple Joints—Effect of Chord Stress and Diameter-to-
Thickness Ratio on the Static Strength of DT Tubular Joints
Loaded in Brace Compression, Report to the American
Petroleum Institute, EWI Project No. 42705-CAP, Edison
Welding Institute.
(14) Pecknold, D.A., Ha, C.C. and Mohr, W.C., 1999, Strength of
Simple Joints—Static Strength of DT Tubular Joints Loaded in
Brace Compression or In-Plane Bending, Report to the
American Petroleum Institute, EWI Project No. 42705-CAP,
Edison Welding Institute.
(15) Pecknold, D.A., Ha, C.C. and Mohr, W.C., 2000, “Ultimate
Strength of DT Tubular Joints with Chord Preloads”,
OMAE2000/OSU OFT-4203, Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, New Orleans.
(16) Pecknold, D.A., Park, J.B. and Koppenhoefer, K.C., 2001,
“Ultimate Strength of Gap K Tubular Joints with Chord
Preloads”, OMAE01/OFT-1214, Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro.
(17) Pecknold, D.A., Park, J.B. and Koppenhoefer, K.C., 2003, Static
Strength of Gap K Tubular Joints with Chord Preloads under
Brace Axial and Moment Loads, Report to the American
Petroleum Institute, EWI Project No. 42705-CAP, Edison
Welding Institute, 2003.
(18) Karsan, D.I., Marshall, P.W., Pecknold, D.A., Bucknell, J. and
Zettlemoyer, N., 2005, “The New API RP2A, 22nd Edition
Tubular Joint Design Practice,” OTC 17236, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston.
7
(19) Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D. and
Yeomans, N., 1991, Design Guide for Circular Hollow Section
(CHS) Joints under Predominantly Static Loading, CIDECT,
Verlag TUV, Rheinland, Germany.
(20) Yura, J.A., and Hoadley, P.W., 1985, “Ultimate Strength of
Tubular Joints Subjected to Combined Loads,” OTC 4854,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
(21) Dier, A.F. and Turner, T.E., 1998, “FE Studies on Joint
Classification and K Joints with Unequal Brace Angles”, OMAE
98-581, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon.
(22) Paul, J.C., et al., 1993, “Ultimate Resistance of Tubular Double
T-Joints under Axial Brace Loading,” J Construct Steel
Research, Vol 24.
(23) Paul, J.C. et al., 1993, “Ultimate Behaviour of Multiplanar
Double K-Joints of Circular Hollow Section Members,” ISOPE
J Vol 3, March.
(24) Bolt, H.M., Seyed-Kebari, H, and Ward, J.K., 1992, “The
Influence of Chord Length and Boundary Conditions on K Joint
Capacity,” 2nd International Conference on Offshore and Polar
Engineering, San Francisco.
(25) Dier, A.F. and Lalani, M., 1995, “Strength and Stiffness of
Tubular Joints for Assessment/Design Purposes”, OTC 7799,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
(26) Dier, A.F. and Lalani, M., 1998, “New Code Formulations for
Tubular Joint Static Strength,” 8th International Symposium on
Tubular Structures, Singapore.
(27) Lee, M.M.K. and Dexter, E.M., 1999, A New Capacity Equation
for Axially Loaded Multi-planar Tubular Joints in Offshore
Structures, HSE, OTO Report 1999 095.
(28) Kurobane, Y., Makino, Y. and Ochi, K., 1984, “Ultimate
Resistance of Unstiffened Tubular Joints,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 2, 385-400.
(29) Swennson, K.D. and Yura, J.A., 1986, Ultimate Strength of
Double-Tee Joints: Interaction Effects, Phase 3 Final Report,
Ferguson Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.
(30) Dexter, E.M. and Lee, M.M.K., 1994. “Effect of Overlap on
Strength of K Joints in CHS Tubular Members,” 6th
International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne.
(31) Healy B E., 1994. “A Numerical Investigation into the Capacity
of Overlapped Circular K-Joints,” 6th International Symposium
on Tubular Structures, Melbourne.
(32) Gazzola, F., Lee, M.M.K. and Dexter, E.M., 1999. “Strength
Prediction of Axially Loaded Overlap Tubular K Joints,”
Proceedings of the Ninth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Brest, France.
(33) Gazzola, F., Lee, M.M.K. and Dexter, E.M., 1999. “Strength
Sensitivities of Overlap Tubular K-Joints Under Axial Loading,”
Proceedings of the Ninth International Offshore and Polar
Conference, Brest, France, June.
8 OTC 17310

(34) Marshall, P.W., 2004, “Review of Tubular Joint Criteria”, Center (OTJRC), managed by the Edison Welding Institute
Proceedings, ECCS-AISC Conference on Design of (EWI), which made possible much of the research and
Connections, Amstredam. development work that led to the new API tubular joint design
provisions. Many individuals made significant contributions
(35) Dier, A.F., and Lalani, M., 1997, “Guidelines on Strengthening
and Repair of Offshore Structures,” BOSS ’97, Vol. 3,
during the course of this work, including George Rodenbusch
Structures, Delft University, Holland. and Andy Radford (API); Roger Thomas (Phillips Petroleum),
Demir Karsan (Paragon Engineering) and Nick Zettlemoyer
Acknowledgments (ExxonMobil) on the OTJRC oversight committee; Bill Mohr
The authors would like to thank API SC2 for their generous and Kyle Koppenhoefer (EWI); Adrian Dier (MSL); and Chris
long-term support of the Offshore Tubular Joint Research Ha, J.B. Park, and Y-K. Chang (University of Illinois).

New API
1.2 Old API
FE (1.0)
1 FE (0.6)
UTA (0.35)
0.8
UTA (0.67)
(P/Pa)

0.6 UTA (1.0)

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
2L
(M/Ma) IPB
Figure 2. K Joint Geometry
Figure 1. Old (21st Ed) & New (22nd Ed) Brace Load
Interaction Equations vs Test & FE Data

15
2000
Normalized Brace Compression P/FyT2

Brace Compression, kN

1500
10

1000 OTJRC Shell FE

5 FE OTJRC Solid FE
500 Veritec Shell FE
TEST (Boone
1982) Test (Veritec 1991)

0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalized Brace Displacement (δu+δl)/D Brace Relative Displacement δ, mm

Figure 3. Test vs FE for a DT Joint Loaded in Brace Figure 4. Test vs FE for a 45o K Joint under Balanced Brace
Compression: Chord Preloads P/Py=-0.3, Mip/MP=-0.25. Axial Loads. No Additional Chord Loads. Joint Geometry
Joint Geometry (β=0.67,γ=25,τ=0.8) (β=0.72, γ=24, ζ=0.1, τ=0.9, α=6.6).
OTC 17310 9

10 15

8 12
Musinθ/FyT d
2

Musinθ/FyT d
2
6 9
t/T=0.6 t/T=0.4
4 6
t/T=0.6
2 t/T=1.0 3 t/T=1.0
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Brace Rotation φ Brace Rotation φ

(a) β=0.6, γ =10, ζ= 0.15 (b) β=0.9, γ= 10, ζ= 0.05

Figure 5. Effect of Brace-to-Chord Thickness Ratio on BIPB Response of 45o K Joints. No Additional Chord Loads.

10 10
60 deg
8 8 60 deg
Musin /FyT d

45 deg Musin /FyT d

2

6 6 45 deg

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Brace Rotation φ Brace Rotation φ

(a) β=0.3, γ=10, ζ= 0.05 (b) β= 0.3, γ= 20, ζ= 0.05

Figure 6. Effect of Brace Angle θ on BIPB Response of K Joints. No Additional Chord Loads.

Rotation Limit = 0.130 Rotation Limit = 0.130

10 10

8 8
Musin θ / FyT d
Musinθ / FyT d

2
2

6 6
Opening
4 Opening 4 Closing
P/Py=0 Closing P/Py= -0.6 Aligned
2 2
Aligned
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Brace Rotation φ Brace Rotation φ

Figure 7. Effect of Brace Bending Moment Direction on Response of 45o K joint. β= 0.6, γ= 10, ζ= 0.15
10 OTC 17310

60
New API (Comp)
New API (Comp)
50
Old API (Tens & Comp)
New API (Tens) γ=30
40
γ=15

Qu 30

20

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
T joints: axial loading

60 60
New API (g/D=0.5) New API (g/D=0.05)
50 New API (g/D=0.15) 50 New API (g/D=0.15)
Old API (g/D=0.05) γ=15 Old API (g/D=0.05) γ=30
40 Old API (g/D=0.15) 40 Old API (g/D=0.15)

Qu 30 Qu 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
K joints: balanced axial loading. γ=15 K joints: balanced axial loading. γ=30

60 60
New API (Comp) New API (Comp)
50 Old API (Comp) 50 Old API (Comp)
New API (Tens) γ=15 New API (Tens) γ=30
40 Old API (Tens) 40
Old API (Tens)

Qu 30 Qu 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
X joints: axial loading. γ=15
X joints: axial loading. γ=30

Figure 8. Comparison of Strength Factors Qu for Brace Axial Loads: New API (22nd Ed) vs Old API (21st Ed)
OTC 17310 11

30 30
New API New API
25 New API γ=30 25 New API
Old API Old API
20 20

Qu 15 γ=15 Qu 15
γ=30
10 10 γ=15

5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1
All joints: IPB All joints: OPB

Figure 9. Comparison of Strength Factors Qu for Brace Bending Loads: New API (22nd Ed) vs Old API (21st Ed)

1.2

API RP2A (0<β<0.9)

1.0
Weinstein β=1.0
Chord Load Factor Qf

Boone β =0.67 0.8

API RP2A (β=1.0)

0.6
Weinstein β =0.35

0.4

0.2

0.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pc/Py

Figure 10. Transition in Chord Load Factor for Axially Loaded DT Joints (β<0.9, and β= 1.0) vs UTA Tests (8), (10).
12 OTC 17310

1.2

1.0
γ=15
0.8

Qf 0.6

0.4 New API

γ=30
Old API
0.2
Old API
0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 FS Pc/Py 1.0
K joints: brace axial loading

1.2 1.2
β=1.0
1.0 1.0
0<β<0.9
0.8 0.8
γ=15
Qf γ=15 0.6
Qf 0.6
γ=30 New API
0.4
0.4 γ=30 New API
New API
Old API 0.2 Old API
0.2
Old API Old API
0.0
0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 FS Pc/Py 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 FS Pc/Py 1.0
T joints: brace axial loading X joints: brace axial loading

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
γ=15
0.8 0.8
γ=30
Qf 0.6 Qf 0.6
γ=15 New API
0.4 0.4 New API
Old API
0.2 Old API
Old API 0.2
Old API
γ=30
0.0 0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 FS Pc/Py 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 FS Pc/Py 1.0
All joints: brace IPB All joints: brace OPB

Figure 11. Comparison of Chord Load Factors Qf : New API (22nd Ed) vs Old API (21st Ed).
OTC 17310 13

Note the different vertical scales

3.0 7.0

2.5 6.0
FE / New API

FE / Old API
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.0
0.5 1.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
DT jts: axial comp: FE vs New API DT jts: axial comp: FE vs Old API

3.0
3.0
2.5 2.5
Test / New API

Test / Old API

2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0

DT jts: axial comp: Test vs New API DT jts: axial comp: Test vs Old API

Figure 12. Comparison of Test & FE Data vs New (22nd Ed) and Old (21st Ed) API for Axially Loaded DTs.

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
FE/New API

FE/Old API

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1
K joints: Balanced axial loading: FE vs New API K joints: Balanced axial loading: FE vs Old API

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
Test/New API

Test/Old API

2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
β
1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
K joints: Balanced axial loading: Test vs New API K joints: Balanced axial loading: Test vs Old API

Figure 13. Comparison of Test & FE Data vs New (22nd Ed) and Old (21st Ed) API for Axially Loaded Ks.
14 OTC 17310

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
FE / New API

FE / Old API
2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0

T joints:Axial loading:FE vs New API T joints:Axial loading:FE vs Old API

6.0 T, compression 6.0

T, compression
T, tension T, tension
5.0 5.0
Y, compression Y, compression
Test / New API

Test / Old API

4.0 Y, tension 4.0 Y, tension

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
T/Y joints:Axial loading:Test vs New API T/Y joints:Axial loading:Test vs Old API

Figure 14. Comparison of Test & FE Data vs New (22nd Ed) and Old (21st Ed) API for Axially Loaded Ts.

4.0 4.0
DT DT
3.5 3.5
3.0 K K
3.0
FE / New API

FE / Old API

2.5 T 2.5 T
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1
All joints: Brace IPB: FE vs New API All joints: Brace IPB: FE vs Old API

4.0 DT 4.0 DT
3.5 3.5
K K
Test / New API

3.0
Test / Old API

3.0
2.5 T 2.5 T
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
All joints: Brace IPB: Test vs New API All joints: Brace IPB: Test vs Old API

Figure 15. Comparison of Test & FE Data vs New (22nd Ed) and Old (21st Ed) API for Brace In-Plane Bending.
OTC 17310 15

3.0 3.0
DT DT
2.5 K 2.5 K
T T
FE / New API

FE / Old API
2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
All Joints: Brace OPB: FE vs New API All Joints: Brace OPB: FE vs Old API

3.0 3.0 K
K
DT DT
2.5 2.5
T
Test / New API

Test / Old API

2.0 Y 2.0 Y

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 β 1.0
All Joints: Brace OPB: Test vs New API All Joints: Brace OPB: Test vs Old API

Figure 16. Comparison of Test & FE Data vs New (22nd Ed) and Old (21st Ed) API for Brace Out-of-Plane Bending.