API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)

Last updated: December 17, 2012

Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
8C 4th Edition 1 8C-01-08 The scope of API 8C states: “Kelly spinners if capable of being used as hoisting Clause 9.1 states, all requirements of Clause 4 through Clause 8
Feb. 2003 equipment”, however no mention is made in the rest of the clauses of 8C about the apply to primary load carrying components (if the kelly spinner is
kelly spinner with respect to dimensions or load calculations. What API reference do capable of being used as hoisting equipment, it is a covered
we have to take when we design the equipment? component) except and/or as modified in Clause 9. Since Clause 9
has no specific requirements (or exceptions) for kelly spinners, the
requirements of Clause 4 through Clause 8 apply to the primary load
carrying components (with regard to the hoisting load) of the kelly
spinner.
8C 4th Edition 4.3.5 8C-09-09 Background: Section 4.3.5 b) states ultimate strength (plastic) analysis may be Reply 1: Part geometry is the geometric shape of the designed part.
Feb. 2003 performed for areas of highly localized stress concentrations caused by part
geometry, and other areas of high stress gradients where the average stress in the Reply 2: Yes, an undercut would qualify if it was considered an area
section is less than or equal to the maximum allowable stress as defined in 4.3.4. of highly localized stress concentration.

Question 1: What is meant by part geometry?

Question 2: Does “part geometry” include a mandatory under-cut designed to

decrease the stress concentration?

Page 1 of 6
 API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question
8C 5th Edition 4.3.8.2, 8C-04-12 Background: Latest Edition of API Spec 8C in Sections 4.3.8.2 and 4.3.8.3 give two
April 2012 4.3.8.3 & ways of designing rotary shouldered connections: - Connections subjected to drill
Figure 12 stem loads shall be designed acc. to API 7-1 and API 7-2 (Section 4.3.8.2) -
Connections subjected to hoisting loads other than drill stem loads (riser or casing
running) shall be designed as all other parts covered by API 8C, that is with typical
high safety factors 2.25 for higher ratings (Section 4.3.8.3)
Apart from the above, Figure 12 in section 9.9.4.1 shows that lower main shaft pin
connection of the Rotary swivel is a part covered by API 7-1/2. The bottom connection
of a Rotary Swivel shaft is a typical rotary shoulder connection. It may have two
modes of operation: - Drill stem can be connected to it via Kelly valves and the
connection is then exposed to typical drill stem loads while drilling. - Casing/riser
string can also be connected via special tool / Kelly Valves to the same bottom shaft
connection and casing/riser running operations can be performed. The questions
below are about the design of this bottom shaft connection.
Question 1, general: Does the above mean that the same Rotary Swivel bottom shaft
connection needs to have two different ratings: - one for drilling operations like
drilling/back-reaming - acc. to API 7-1, API 7-2 - and one (much lower) for similar
operations like hoisting and running casing or riser strings – acc. to API 8C ?
Question 2: If the casing or riser string , as mentioned in 4.3.8.3, is connected to the
Rotary swivel shaft via Kelly valves, does the lower shaft pin connection needs to be
rated according to API 8C (typical safety factor 2,25) and not API spec 7-1/2 as shown
in figure 12?
Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is yes, why shall the lower main shaft pin
connection have a different rating than the Kelly valves although both connections
are in the same load path?
8C 4th Edition 5.1 8C-03-09 Question 1: Can the requirements of Clause 4 (Design) and Clause 5 (Design
Feb. 2003 Verification Test) be used independently or together to determine a load rating for a
particular design within significant limitation of simple geometry?
Question 2: Is the determination of “simple geometry” in 5.1 made by the
manufacturer?
8C 4th Edition 5.1 8C-04-09 Background: The last paragraph of Section 5.1 mentions that equipment which, by
Feb. 2003 virtue of its simple geometric form, permits accurate stress analysis through
calculation only shall be exempted from design verification testing.
Question: Does the last paragraph of Section 5.1 eliminate the need to comply with
both 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, or does it only eliminate the need to comply with 5.3.2 while 5.3.1
is still required?
Page 2 of 6
Last updated: December 17, 2012
Reply
Reply 1: It could mean different ratings, if the designer is not able to
achieve the desired tool overall rating for both situations. API 7-1 and
7-2 does not so much specify a rating method for RSC as provides
product dimensions and requirements. There may be an implied
rating given by using the methods described in RP 7G. If so, the API
8C rating for hoisting casing and riser would generally be lower than
the RP 7G one. The ideal situation would be for both ratings to
exceed the overall load rating for the tool. If this cannot be achieved,
then a separate rating would need to be given for the RSC in those
situations. This could be viewed in a similar light as the swivel
bearing load rating in 9.9.1 in defining an item-specific load rating.
Reply 2: Yes, the RSC should be rated according to the method given
in 4.3.8.3, if it is to be in compliance with the standard.
Reply 3: The (8C) standard applies the DSF to all the components
within its scope, it would be prudent for the user to consider that for
any other equipment that becomes the sole link in the load path in
casing, tubing, and riser running. (This may be in contrast to the
tripping of drillstring, where requiring a higher safety factor of the RSC
connecting the hoisting equipment to the uppermost connection in the
string itself might be considered ineffective in improving the overall
reliability.)
However, Kelly valves are outside the scope of API 8C. The
user/owner should consider whether the ratings (same and/or
dissimilar) are acceptable for their individual application.
Reply 1: Equipment is only exempt from design verification testing as
stated in Clause 5.1.
Reply 2: Simple geometry is determined by the designer. A
declaration of simple geometry does not alone exempt equipment
from a design verification test.
The last paragraph of 5.1 eliminates the need for both 5.3.1
(functional testing) and 5.3.2 (design verification testing).
 API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)
Last updated: December 17, 2012
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
8C 4th Edition 5.4 8C-01-12 In regards to the load in Section 5.4 that is used to define the rating of the sheave, The static sheave load rating is normally the total load support by the
Feb. 2003 does it refer to the tension in the umbilical passing over the sheave or to the net value shaft taking into account affecting conditions, i.e. 180 degree wireline
of the load caused by the umbilical? For example, if I have a 1000-lbf UTA hanging wrap, wireline angle from sheave plane, 2.25 design safety factor,
from an umbilical that passes over a sheave and it makes a 180-degree turn over a shock loading, etc.
sheave, should the rating be 1000-lbf or 2000-lbf, since the resultant load is twice the
1000-lbf?

8C 4th Edition 5.5 8C-06-09 Question 1: Regarding API 8C, Section 5.2, is the requirement for testing various Reply 1: Design verification testing is based on a family of units with
Feb. 2003 sizes based upon rod size or tonnage? an identical design concept. If the design concept changes because
of the rod size and/or tonnage, each has to be treated as separate.

Reply 2: If the design concept is identical for all rod sizes, testing
Question 2: If a manufacturer has a 25-ton rod elevator that can be used with varying three units based on rod size would be appropriate.
sizes do they need to test three units based upon varying rod size, or just once for the
tonnage?
8C 4th Edition 5.5 8C-01-07 Referring to the last paragraph of Clause 5.5, if you have an elevator with a “size The alternative design verification procedure in 5.5 requires each
Feb. 2003 range” of 3 in. – 5 in., do you pick the size with the worse TR ratio to qualify all sizes model/size/size range/rating be tested separately. This verification
for that particular frame, or do you have to test “sizes” 3 in., 3 ½ in., 4 in., 4 ½ in, and test does not verify the accuracy of any analyses used in that, or any
5 in. (each size for that frame) separately? other, design. It merely qualifies the design of the specific
model/size/size range/rating based on the ability of the tested
prototype to achieve a given test load.
8C 4th Edition 6.3 8C-03-10 In reference to API 8C, Sections 6.3 and A.3, according to SR2 the specified minimum Section 6.3 requires a supplementary low-temperature test (SR 2) for
Feb. 2003 yield strength 20ft-lbs but that appears to contradict Section 6.3 for high strength design temperatures below –20°C (–4°F) and sets the minimum
material. For equipment (greater than 45 ksi) I assume we have to pass both levels to energy levels that are required for that material qualification test. The
qualify for the –40°C rating, i.e. 31ft-lbs @ –40°C. Is that the correct interpretation? SR 2 requirements in A.3 (if specified) are in addition to the
requirements in 6.3 and the following two impact test requirements
must be met for materials with yield strengths of 45 ksi and higher:

a) one set of three (3) specimens tested at a temperature not

exceeding –20°C (–4°F), that exhibit an average energy of at least 31
ft-lb with no specimen below 24 ft-lb;

b) one set of three (3) specimens tested at a temperature not

exceeding the temperature specified with SR 2, that exhibit an
average energy of at least 20 ft-lb with no specimen below 15 ft-lb.

It is not required that one set of specimens meet both requirements

simultaneously.

8C 5th Edition 6.3 8C-03-12 Do the base requirements for impact testing, as specified in Section 6.3, apply if the SR2  Yes. SR2 is a Supplemental Requirement, not a replacement , an in-
April 2012 low temp is invoked? lieu of , or substitute requirement. Therefore the requirements of SR2
are added to the requirements in the main body of the standard.

Page 3 of 6
 API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)
Last updated: December 17, 2012
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
8C 4th Edition 8.6 8C-01-10 Section 8.4.7 states the requirement for surface NDE of all load path components; Only surface NDE in accordance with 8.4.7 is required unless
Feb. 2003 Section 8.4.8 states the requirement for volumetric NDE of load path castings; Section Supplementary Requirement SR 5 is applicable (see A.6). Section
8.4.9 states the requirement for NDE (surface and volumetric testing) of load path 8.4.8 applies to castings only.
welds. Do load path components that are forged or machined from stock (not
castings), and are not welded, require volumetric NDE, or do they require only surface
NDE as per 8.4.7?

8C 4th Edition 8.6 8C-03-09 If it is determined the simple geometry tool can be designed by Clause 4 without Proof load testing, as noted in Clause 8.6, applies to the noted
Feb. 2003 Clause 5, is proof testing required by Clause 8.6 under the procedure of 8.6.2 equipment i.e. elevators, elevator links, spiders (if capable of being
requiring a 1.5X load rating pull test? used as elevators), and safety clamps (if capable of being used as
hoisting equipment), or if supplementary requirement SR-1 is
specified in the order.
8C 4th Edition 8.6.2 8C-02-08 Background: We are attempting to design two hydraulic cylinders in accordance with
Feb. 2003 API 8C to work as a compensator system for coil tubing. The two tension leg
cylinders are installed into top and bottom weldments via pinned connections to form
a tension frame leg. The tension frame is attached between a fixed point in the tower
and the riser. Basically, we have two hydraulic cylinders being used as a lifting
device.

Question 1: In regards to pressure testing the system, 8.6.2 states to use 1.5 times
the load rating for elevators, elevator links, spiders (if capable of being used as
elevators) and safety clamps (if capable of being used as hoisting equipment). Does
8.6.2 also cover hydraulic cylinders being used as lifting device?
Question 2: What other requirements are there for designing hydraulic lifting
cylinders to API 8C, e.g. material, loading, etc.?
Reply 1: Clause 9.13 applies to drill string motion compensator
systems for coil tubing and states they shall comply with Clause 9.
Additionally, as stated in Clause 9.1, if the cylinders are classified as
primary load-carrying components, the requirements of Clause 4
through Clause 8 apply (which includes 8.6.2).
Reply 2: Material requirements are provided in Clause 6; however,
API cannot provide product-specific rated loads or test pressures for
every design and variations of design. It is the responsibility of the
manufacturer to use sound engineering judgment in addressing
issues not covered in API 8C.

Page 4 of 6
 API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)
Last updated: December 17, 2012
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
8C 4th Edition 9.1 8C-03-08 Background: Clause 9.1 states that all equipment in the primary load path has to be Reply 1: Yes. Any design change affecting the load rating requires a
Feb. 2003 design and proof load tested. On the other hand, 9.8.3 states: design verification test in accordance with 5.7.

Design verification testing of slip-type elevators and slip-type spiders shall be carried Reply 2: Yes.
out with the slips/inserts in place.

Production-load testing may be carried out without the slips/inserts installed, using a
tapered mandrel designed to simulate the actual loading conditions.

Primary load carrying components of elevators shall meet the impact testing
requirements of 8.4.4. Elevator slips shall be made from materials possessing a
minimum impact toughness (average of 3 tests) of 20 J (15 ft-lb) with no individual
value less than 14 J (10 ft-lb) at a maximum test temperature of -20ºC (-4ºF).

Question 1: If we change the design of the slips is it necessary to carry out a

separate design verification test?

Question 2: Are these slips required to be marked in accordance with Clause 10?

8C 4th Edition 9.1 8C-02-09 Background: Section 9.12 specifies wireline anchors be assigned a “load
Feb. 2003 rating…determined as outlined in 4.6 except that the design safety factor shall be
determined as given in Table 10”. The load rating (equivalent to design load) is the
“sum of static and dynamic loads” as defined in 3.1.2 and 3.1.9. In determination of
the appropriate deadline anchor load rating it is commonly accepted that dynamic
factors are not significant approaching maximum hook load.
The wireline anchor load rating is by the requirements in Section 9.12
of API 8C. The definitions of design load and load rating in API 8C
cover a number of equipment besides wireline anchors. The designer
should choose the appropriate static load and any dynamic load. If
there is no dynamic load, none should be chosen.

It has been common practice to specify deadline anchors for hoisting systems based
on the static hook load ratings for the system by using a simple method to determine
deadline load. This method is to specify a deadline anchor rated at the maximum
rated static hook load (as defined in API 4F, Section 3.22) divided by the number of
lines strung (or the nearest anchor rating increment available above that value for
practical reasons.

Question: Is this method acceptable for specifying a deadline anchor?

Page 5 of 6
 API Spec 8C - Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)
Last updated: December 17, 2012
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
8C 4th Edition 9.9.1 8C-04-10 Background: We are currently producing a custom-designed 250 (short ton) top drive Reply 1: No. The safe working load is the design load minus the
Feb. 2003 with an integrated swivel to meet API 8C specifications. The top drive has been dynamic load. The load rating is the maximum operating load, both
thoroughly calculated to handle 250 tons hoist according to API 8C. The integrated static and dynamic, to be applied to the equipment.
swivel's thrust bearing is rated at 198 tons when applying the equation in 9.9.1 (WS =
WR/800). When we look at existing swivels, they appear to be named after their Reply 2: Yes.
working load (i.e., a hypothetical model XX200 has a working load of 200 tons and a
bearing rating of 133 tons).

Question 1: Is the API working load the hoist rating?

Question 2: Is the API bearing rating based on the equation WS = WR/800?

8C 4th Edition 9.9.6 8C-02-10 Question 1: Section 9.9.6 of 8C states we shall use safety chain to secure the Reply 1: API 8C does not currently address the use of wire rope in
Feb. 2003 gooseneck the rotary hose. Is the use of wire rope permitted instead of chains? place of chains. The API 8C task group has introduced a new work
item to evaluate using wire rope in place of chain for retaining rotary
hose.
Question 2: If yes, must the diameter of the lug hole be the same as stated in 9.9.6, or
it can it be a different size, but with the same breaking strength? Reply 2: See Reply 1.

8C 5th Edition 10.2 8C-02-12 Question: Do the rating marking requirements of API 8C, Section 10.2 apply to Reply: No, the rating marking requirements of API 8C, Section 10.2
April 2012 sheaves? do not apply to sheaves.
8C 4th Edition 11.2 8C-01-09 Clause 11.2 in the spec ends with the following: Clause 5.8 includes all design verification records and supporting
Feb. 2003 data, which could contain special process records.
“Special process records include actual heat-treatment time/temperature charts and
weld repair records as specified in clause 5.”

I find no references to special processes in Clause 5 other than an indirect reference

in 5.8 where it directs you back to 11.2. Clauses related to weld repair are 7.8 and
8.4.9.3 and associated references. According to 7.8.3, records only need to be
maintained for major weld repairs on PSL 2 components. Is this a correct
interpretation?

Page 6 of 6