ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups) SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK …€¦ · ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)...

ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 - Jack-Ups (Hoyle.018) Minutes of 16th Meeting of WG 7, 18th November 2004, Schiedam

ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups) SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS

Minutes of Meeting of 18th November, 2004 DISTRIBUTION:

ATTENDEES G.C. Bagnell Rowan Companies Inc Canada J.F. Bowes LeTourneau Inc. USA R.D. Bowie ABS / R.D. Bowie & Associates USA (P3 Convenor) J. Brekke GlobalSantaFe USA (Visitor) M.J. Dowdy LeTourneau Inc. USA (Chair SNAME OC-7) M. DuBose Rowan Drilling (U.K.) Limited UK (Visitor) P.A. Frieze PAFA Consulting Engineers UK M.J.R. Hoyle (Convenor) Noble Denton Europe UK R.J. Hunt Shell Expro UK G. Kudsk Maersk Contractors Denmark (P11 Convenor) D.R. Lewis Lewis Engineering Group USA (Visitor) O. Mo DNV Norway (P1-2 Convenor) C.J. Mommaas MSC Netherlands K Richardson ABS USA (Visitor) K. Rietema Shell (AJS) Netherlands (Visitor) R. Ruinen Vryhof Anchors BV Netherlands V.V. Shetti Rowan Companies Inc. USA D. Smith OGP UK (Visitor) J.J. Stiff ABS Consulting USA (P10 Convenor) D.J. Stock Digital Structures Inc USA (P5 Convenor) P-L Tan ABS USA (Visitor) E.M. Wesselingh Rowan Drilling (U.K.) Limited UK (Visitor) P Wong ExxonMobil Development Company USA (P4 Convenor) APOLOGIES R.J. Allan Transocean USA W.T. Bennett Bennett & Associates L.L.C. USA P. Chakrabarti Zentech Inc USA J.-M. D’Ettore Bouygues Offshore France A.T. Dixon HSE UK G. Ersdal Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (Corresponding) K.S. Foo Keppel Offshore Technology Singapore (Visitor) W. Jones HSE UK (Visitor) C. Keaton GlobalSantaFe USA (Visitor) M.R. Marcom Rowan Drilling & Aviation Netherlands D. McNease Rowan Companies Inc. USA (Visitor) A. Morandi Global Maritime USA (Visitor) L. Munch-Søegaard Smedvig Offshore Norway J.J. Osborne Seacore Ltd UK (Alt. P4 Convenor) D. Pelley Transocean USA (Visitor) J. Pittman Nekton Marine, Inc. USA J. Prasad Noble Drilling USA (Visitor) M. Quah Keppel Offshore Technology Singapore (Visitor) R. Roper ENSCO USA (Visitor) B.P.M. Sharples Offshore: Risk & Technology USA N.P. Smith GlobalSantaFe USA A. Spackman IADC (liaison to TC67) USA (Visitor) R.L. Thomas - USA A.S. Westlake Transocean USA P. Wildberger ENSCO USA (Visitor) J-F Wu ABS USA (Visitor) OTHERS M. Greenley (SC 7 Secretariat) BSI UK R.O. Snell (Chair SC 7) BP UK

iso\meetings\mtg-16\min-16r0 Rev 0, 12th January 2005

greenlem

ISO/TC 67/SC 7 N 368


ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)

SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS

Agenda for Meeting of 18th November, 2004

MSC, Schiedam, The Netherlands

1. Roll Call / Apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting (6th May 2004). 3. Action Items and Matters arising (for items not covered elsewhere on the Agenda). 4. Report on SC 7 activities. To include:

4.1. Report on SC7 meeting in Rio. 4.2. Status of and schedule for other 1990x series standards.

5. Panel Reports: 5.1. Panel Convenors meeting. 5.2. Panel 0 - Pre-amble. 5.3. Panel 1/2 - MetOcean & Actions. 5.4. Panel 3 - Structures & Responses. 5.5. Panel 4 - Foundations. 5.6. Panel 5 - Seismic. 5.7. Panel 10 - Calibration & Acceptance Criteria. 5.8. Panel 11 - Long Term Considerations.

6. Identification of ‘problem areas’ wrt 19902 (fixed steel) and 19901-n. 6.1. Discussion of SC7 N363 - Outstanding issues re ISO 19902 (re Point 2)

7. Further Panels. 8. Actions & Schedule for next Draft of 19905-1. 9. Future WG 7 meeting schedule:

May 2005 in OTC week September 2005, City University Conference - week commencing 12th Sept)

10. Any Other Business. 11. Confirm action items.



ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)

SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS

Agenda for Meeting of 18th November, 2004

MSC, Schiedam, The Netherlands

ITEM MINUTE ACTION

1. APOLOGIES/ROLL CALL. The meeting commenced at 1230 hrs under the Convenership of Mike Hoyle who welcomed those present and thanked them for attending the meeting.

Formal apologies had been received from TO Cheung, Alan Dixon, KS Foo, Yi Li, Francoise Le Roy, Ramesh Maini, Mike Marcom, Danny McNease, Jim Moore, Alberto Morandi, Lars Munch-Søegaard, Julian Osborne, Jim Pittman, Pharr Smith, Roger Thomas, Andy Westlake and Paul Wildberger. Paul Frieze advised that he was representing Wayne Jones.

Apologies were assumed for Rod Allan, Bill Bennett, Partha Chakrabarti, Jean-Mari D’Ettore and Malcolm Sharples.

The meeting was advised that Svein Andersen of ConocoPhillips in Norway had recently advised that he accepted early retirement in March this year. He indicated that he would be seeking a replacement, but nothing more has been heard.

The full roll call is shown in Attachment 1, and business cards for most of those present are shown in Attachment 2.

2. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING (6TH MAY 2004). The Convenor apologised for the fact that the headers on the circulated minutes in some places located the meeting in London rather that Houston. Otherwise, the minutes of the last meeting were accepted without revision.

3. ACTION ITEMS AND MATTERS ARISING (FOR ITEMS NOT COVERED ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA).

3.1 Item 3.1. Rupert Hunt’s action to provide text to regarding well conductor systems, with references was again carried forward. These references will be added to the Informative as P0 has excluded these items from the Scope. Rupert Hunt

3.2 Item 3.11 / 7.1. The WG Convenor had completed his action to elicit any comments resulting from BSI’s study of Draft C prior to their refusal to edit it. Unfortunately the response was not helpful. Comments included:



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

“Unusual structure; Does not comply with ISO/IEC Part 2 drafting directives; Unwilling to use the WG7 derogations without formal documentation from Geneva.” The later despite being provided with all there is available, which remains informal as the derogations are for WG7 only.

3.3 Item 4.1.3. Rupert Hunt and David Lewis requested copies of information relating to the discussion of jack-up risk with Arne Kvitrud/PSA Norway. WG Convenor

3.4 Item 7.1. The Convenor had enquired as to the protocols for additional annexe(s) for additional/alternative methods e.g. dynamics & soils. He had been advised that we can have additional Normative or Informative Annexes as required.

3.5 Item 7.1. Dave Lewis’s action to update Clause 11 had been completed.

3.6 Item 7.5. The Convenor’s action to advise on PI’s applicable to the sites in the NDE/OU study had been completed.

3.7 Item 7.5. Robert Overy had completed the Convenor’s action to research origin of the f1 and f2 fixity factors in SNAME. The Convenor will arrange for the associated correspondence to be scanned for Panel 4 reference. WG Convenor.

3.8 Item 7.7. The action on John Stiff, Olav Mo and Bob Bowie to liaise regarding text on load factors in Clauses 7 and 8 had been completed.

3.9 Item 8. The Convenor’s action to contact WG9 wrt removing references to jack-up stability from ISO 19901-7 had been completed.

4. REPORT ON SC 7 ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST WG7 MEETING.

4.1 SC7 October meeting in Rio de Janeiro

4.1.1 The formal minutes of the SC7 meeting had not been issued. This report is therefore based on the Convenors own notes, and those made by Paul Frieze on behalf of the BSI 525/12 mirror committee.

4.1.2 The meeting was advised that Kazakhstan had joined SC7 increasing the membership to a total of 17.

4.1.3 SC7 had requested that WG7 include a reference to RPD in 19905. This falls within the remit of Panel 3. Bob Bowie

4.1.4 The Convenor had questioned the approach to definitions used in 19902 (modifying definitions from 19900). It transpired that the guidance he had been given previously had been overly restrictive. Whilst discouraged, there is nothing to stop each document having its own differing definition of a term and/or modifying definitions from higher levels.

4.1.5 SC7 had previously requested that WG7 consider an Educational Workshop to acquaint oil company engineers and others with the material to be presented in 19905. The aim would be to avoid the eventual content generating surprise with the increasing number of oil companies and others



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

now “outside the loop” as this may cause problems in obtaining acceptance of the standard. In response, Alan Spackman had advised SC7 that the IADC Jack-up Committee is prepared to support such an initiative jointly with OGP. SC7 discussed a number of possible venues and had recommended that we target the City University Conference in the week commencing 12th September 2005. It was agreed that the target audience should include Oil Companies, Regulators and SC7 members. Of those present at the SC7 meeting 8 expressed their interest in attending. In the WG7 discussion, the meeting was advised that IADC jack-up committee believed that a wider audience might be found in Houston during OTC week and recommended that consideration be given to repeating the seminar during OTC 2006. WG7 endorsed this view. Other possible venues include the annual Regulators Conference (next thought to be in March 2006). The previous WG7 meeting had requested that OGP investigate the potential level of interest in the Workshop. Don Smith advised the meeting that the Workshop is included in the OGP business plan and should present the progression of the industry following since the first issue of SNAME. OGP is in the process of setting up a revived/expanded jack-up Panel, provisionally to be chaired by Rupert Hunt (the present Panel includes Shell, BP, Statoil, Total and, perhaps, ExxonMobil). OGP will be sending a questionnaire, currently being finalised, to its membership establish their responses to a number of issues including;

• How do they contract a jack-up; is SNAME referenced?

• Do they get involved in determining their own safety levels, etc.

• Will they attend the proposed Workshop?

• Will they join the OGP jack-up Panel?

Don further advised that the OGP jack-up Panel will be the arbiter of any requests for funding. Rupert Hunt confirmed his desire that the Workshop should (re-)engage other oil companies in the process. He advised that he had received a letter from the WG convenor encouraging further oil company participation. His main aims are to ensure that the OGP jack-up panel is active; that it provides a forum to share learnings and understand operational issues and to discuss the checks that should be put in place and to introduce the ISO to a wider audience.

In conclusion, it was agreed that the format and details for the workshop need to be agreed and that Rupert may need to hold a meeting with the interested parties. Patrick Wong encouraged those involved to resolve this early in 2005, to allow adequate time for preparation. It was generally considered that the Workshop should take no more than half a day.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

4.1.6 SC7 had been critical of the lack of visible progress within WG7 due the ongoing delay in issuing a Committee Draft. The WG Convenor had been tasked coming up with some options to address the problem. He had offered SC7 a number of alternative ideas including continuing as we are or alternatively funding some key areas. He had been asked to furnish a total budget for editing 19905 and funding such key areas.

4.1.7 Arne Kvitrud of PSA Norway had advised SC7 that they will be looking further at life extension and will now address jack-ups having previously looked at semis in a joint program with the UK HSE. The jack-up program will start in 2005 (a slight delay on the initial intentions). They will eventually address fixed structures. NORSOK N-005 addressing life extension will be issued late in 2005 or 2006.

4.2 Status of and schedule for other 1990x series standards.

4.2.1 The SC7 schedule, as updated at the SC7 October meeting in Rio, is shown in Attachment 3. The present status was summarised as follows:

4.2.2 19900 - ‘General requirements for offshore structures’ has been issued as ISO 19900:2002.

4.2.3 19901-1 – ‘Metocean design and operating conditions’ is has expected to be issued as an FDIS very soon. The draft of the FDIS addresses most of WG7’s issues - albeit in a less than consistent manner. It appears that the North West European regional information does not include 50-year return period data, but this is thought to be due to an error in a table caption.

In ISO/DIS 19901-1 (version Marked-up 2004-10-31) Table C.8 presents “Indicative 50 year return period values of metocean parameters for sites in the North Sea, Eastern North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea.” The appendix also includes tables for “indicative” 1, 5, 10 and 100 year metocean parameters. The tables are said to provide “independently derived marginal parameters; no account has been taken of conditional probability. This information should not replace detailed, site-specific parameters that should be obtained for the design and assessment of a particular structure that is to be constructed for, or be operated at, a particular site.”

4.2.4 19901-2 – ‘Seismic design procedures and criteria’ was issued as an FDIS in July 2004. The FDIS has received two negative votes - from Japan and Canada because they each had issues with the seismic maps for their areas. It is understood that these issues are being resolved and that the negative votes will be withdrawn.

4.2.5 19901-3 – ‘Topsides structures’. The WG3 EP leader has recently started to work on this again, after a long period on hold while other documents were being progressed. The DIS may now be submitted to ISO for issue in April 2005.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

4.2.6 19901-4 – ‘Geotechnical and foundation design considerations’ was published as ISO 19901-4:2003.

4.2.7 19901-5 – ‘Weight engineering during design and construction’ was published as ISO 19901-5:2003.

4.2.8 19901-6 – ‘Marine Operations’. A CD was issued for comment in February 2004. This was downgraded to a WD, but not before a number of national body comments had been received. It is now anticipated that a new CD will be issued in December 2004 with the DIS in December 2005.

4.2.9 19901-7 – ‘Station Keeping’. The DIS was issued in March 2004 and the comment period closed on 18th August. The FDIS has just been submitted to ISO and is expected to be published in August 2005, however the schedule may be impacted by the need to harmonise with the latest edition of API RP2SK which has just been published.

4.2.10 19902 – ‘Fixed steel offshore structures’. The DIS was issued in October 2004. The comment period ends in March 2005. The DIS has several incomplete clauses and there are a number of outstanding issues which are listed in SC7/N363. Issue No 2, Comment ID 1001, regarding clause 6.1.4 relates to the applicability of 19905-1 to unclassed jack-ups via the forward reference from 19902. 19902 clause 6.1.4 and the comment from N363 are reproduced in Attachment 4.

Gregers Kudsk advised that Panel 11 had discussed the topic in their meeting and considered that the problem is related to the definition of a production jack-up. The panel circulated text with their proposed response. Some of the other panels had also considered the issue, and there was some uncertainty as to whether the Comment relates to points (a) and (b) or the three bullets lower in the paragraph. The meeting was advised that “ISO_DIS_Dev_19902_Marked.pdf” from David Galbraith’s website shows that the comment relates to the three bullets.

The meeting agreed that the calculation of the jack-up loadings, dynamic response and member checking according to 19902, with other acceptance checks to 19905 would be inconsistent and would give an uncertain level of reliability. The Work Group agreed that the 19905 recipe is unique, and should be taken as a whole. Should a specific long-term production project determine that it requires greater reliability than provided by 19905-1, it has the option to specify an increased load factor to be used with the 19905-1 recipe.

It was agreed that the WG Convenor consider the draft response from Panel 11 and propose some additional wordings for further review by the Panel Convenors. These can also be discussed in January prior to submission. WG Convenor

The meeting was advised that any other comments on DIS 19902 or N363 can be submitted via WG7 and/or via national bodies. All



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

4.2.11 19903 – ‘Fixed concrete offshore structures’. The DIS, addressing 64 pages of comments on the CD, was issued in October 2004 for comment by March 2005.

4.2.12 19904-1 – ‘Floating offshore structures - MSS’. The DIS scheduled for March 2004 has now been submitted to ISO and publication is anticipated in December 2005.

4.2.13 19905 – ‘Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units’. WD ‘C’ was issued in April, as scheduled. A further WD ‘D’ was issued for this meeting, but is less complete than anticipated. The SC7 schedule now calls for a CD after the CU Conference in September 2005.

4.2.14 19906 ‘Arctic Structures’. The work on this project is in progress and the first WD is expected late in 2004.

4.2.15 Post Meeting Note: Regional Annexes: The guidance to authors of regional annexes has been the subject of a further update (for the latest version see SC7 N309 Rev 4, issued in October 2004).

5. PANEL REPORTS:

5.1 Panel Convenors Liaison Meeting The WG Convenor reported that the Panel Convenors had met on Monday, with all present and augmented by Dave Lewis and Pao-Lin Tan.

The meeting had discussed moving the document forward and had agreed that the focus of the week should be on the Normative with the aim of issuing a CD to demonstrate progress. The following timeline was proposed:

• Updated Normative text from Panels to WG Convenor before end December.

• “Review Panel” to spend time in Houston on 18th and 19th January (prior to IADC meeting on 20th) reviewing the Normative for content, balance and ISO-eze, with the aim of agreeing a draft that can be issued more widely.

• Assuming a positive conclusion, circulate to WG7 for comment by the end of February. Any negative comments at this stage to be with specific justified technical reasoning.

• If no negatives we can issue more widely as CD mid March. If there are show-stoppers revisit via a further “Review Panel” aligned with the March/April IADC meeting and then re-iterate. If there are still show-stoppers, resolve during the May WG7 meetings.

The meeting considered that the “Review Panel” may provide the start-point for the formation of a more formal Editing Panel. Don Smith considered the



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

“Review Panel” to be an odd approach but nevertheless requested that OGP be invited to attend. WG Convenor

The Panel Convenors were asked to consider whether there are items where funding would assist progress and, if so, to revert with a budget later in the week. Panel Convenors

It was agreed that the Panel Convenors will begin to form lists of definitions for their own clauses. There is a collation of definitions from various 1990x Panel Convenors series standards available from David Galbraith’s website. After the Convenor’s meeting it was established that whilst old, this is the latest available. It was noted that the 19905 definitions should include a definition of Operations Manual. Post meeting note: Operations Manual is already defined - but the definition may need to be improved to ensure that the manual is Class approved manual.

The panel had again considered ‘The Process’ and it was agreed that the present format of meetings is the best we can achieve. OTC week will again be busy. The Panel Convenors agreed to meet on the preceding Sunday. They were asked to establish whether any of their panels have the opportunity to meet on the Friday of OTC week and also to establish any OTC program slots that should be avoided. Post Meeting Note: The OTC schedule is available at http://www.otcnet.org/2005/tech_prog/index.html. The CU Conference week commencing 12th September 2005 was also discussed. The schedule will be even tighter than usual due to the need to incorporate the Education Workshop. It was noted that P4 and any geotechnical papers should be as early in the week as possible as the geotechnical community may be attending ISFOG in Perth, Australia the following week.

5.2 Panel 0 - Preamble. The Convenor reported that the panel had met on Monday morning. Of the core panel only the WG Convenor and Han Mommaas were present, the later attending his first meeting. The numbers were bolstered by the presence of Bob Bowie, Gregers Kudsk, Dave Lewis, Olav Mo and Alberto Morandi.

Clauses 1-6 were reviewed again and some minor edits made. During this review it was noted that the 19902 definition of Regulator requires improvement. This observation had since been sent to the WG3 Editing Panel leader.

The meeting had spent time discussion N363 (see Item 4.2.10).

The Convenor had obtained a Word version of Clause 12 from 19902. This was reviewed and it was noted that 12.4.6 /A12.4.6 addresses alternative assessment (push-over). It was agreed that the 19902 text is generally



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

appropriate and that Panel 3 should address it’s inclusion in 19905-1 8.6/A8.6. Bob Bowie

The panel had spent the remainder of its time reviewing the definitions in DIS 19902 and had selected a number of definitions that will be adopted and repeated (with reference) in 19905-1.

Commenting, Paul Frieze suggested that the definition of IACS in 19905-1 should be updated to follow the approach used in 19904-1, limiting the acceptable IACS members to those with specific experience. The matter was debated at length. It was agreed that the present definition is adequate and noted that Paul’s proposal would require difficult subjective judgments.

5.3 Panel 1/2 - MetOcean & Actions. Olav Mo reported that he had met with a select group from his panel, Mike Dowdy and Graham Bagnell, on Wednesday. They had discussed 19901-1 - Met-Ocean Requirements and noted that there is little change to the main text, however the regional information has been added.

The panel had compared the load recipe in 19901-1 with that in 19905-1 and SNAME. A comparison matrix will be included in the panel’s minutes of meeting.

The panel had received information from panel 10 that P1/2 needs to reference the load factor to be included prior to undertaking response calculations. They had also received seismic text from P5. The panel consider that their clauses are complete.

The panel reviewed the definitions in 19900, 19901-1 and 19902. The final list of P1/2 definitions to be completed by convenor after review of P1/2 text by Graham Bagnell,(i.e. to list terms needed to be defined, and where they are used.

5.4 Panel 3 - Structures & Responses. Bob Bowie reported that panel 3 had met on Tuesday with 7 attendees and apologies from Pharr Smith and Alan Dixon. The panel covers Structural Modelling (Clause 8) and Response Analysis (Clause 10).

Bob had restructured Clause 8 prior to the meeting. This had been circulated but was not discussed. The meeting had focussed on Clause 10, which they have tended to defer due to its complexity. This had been significantly progressed since the last meeting by Pao-Lin Tan who had inserted the text from SNAME that he considered relevant. The panel had reviewed the technical content and considered that it was generally as required, but is in need of some re-arrangement. Some of the more detailed information may be transferred to the Technical Report.

The panel had joined panel 4 for Jack Templeton’s presentation on foundation stiffness and hysteretic damping.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

The consensus was that the meeting had been productive, but there is still significant effort required.

5.5 Panel 4 - Foundations. Patrick Wong reported that his panel had met on Tuesday. Despite receiving 11 apologies 17 were present. The panel had welcomed a new member, Dr David White of Cambridge University. David gave a brief presentation towards the end of the panel meeting showing some recent work on back-flow. It is hoped that this can be used to update the present, potentially non-conservative, SNAME approach.

The panel had worked on the normative of Clause 9 and had identified the work required to bring the clause up to date. The Informative was also reviewed in two sessions divided by a presentation from Jack Templeton of SAGE who updated the panel on his work on deeply penetrated footings. In addition to the material on stiffness and damping, presented jointly to panel 3, he had also summarised his proposals for updating the SNAME text. This included revisions to the proposals by NDE/OU regarding Ir (= G/Cu) ratios for clays and a revised yield surface for deeper penetrations.

Patrick noted that Mike Hoyle had provided information on the Plasticity Indices (PI) at the clay sites in the NDE/OU study. This information had been used in a draft update to Appendix E from the NDE/OU report. It was noted that this contains a few typo’s, mostly related to the change from “three G’s” to “one G” for sand, which P4 confirmed it accepted as the basis for the initial linearised stiffness to be used in simplified dynamics and for subsequent degradation using the SNAME yield surface. The panel also accepted the elimination of the limit to Ir of 400, subject to suitable caveats in the wordings. The NDE/OU Appendix E needs to be further revised to capture the agreed changes. WG Convenor

Guy Houlsby had again questioned the applicability of the SNAME f1 and f2 fixity factors. It had been agreed that the WG Convenor will scan prior correspondence from the NDE files to provide some background to their origin. WG Convenor

Gerrit van der Zwaag had volunteered to develop the definitions for Clause 9 and the WG Convenor was requested to provide him with copies of other relevant standards for reference. WG Convenor

Patrick noted that the P4 text needs to be de-Americanised, and that the partial resistance factors need to be included. The panel will use the mapping matrix to check that the SNAME source has all reached ISO.

The panel advised that, if necessary, it is willing to meet on the Friday of OTC week.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

5.6 Panel 5 - Seismic Doug Stock reported that P5 had met on Monday afternoon. There were seven attendees. The panel had reviewed the DIS of 19901-2. Norway and Japan were unhappy with the seismic maps. Japan because of the contours and Norway because there is no 10-4 probability level data. Canada also had comments on the contours around Newfoundland. The review of the DIS had also revealed some typos.

Doug advised that the panel’s original ideas for a simplified procedure had been put aside and it is likely that a more standard procedure will be proposed. Doug Stock & John Stiff had prepared text for the Normative addressing stiffness, damping and loading rate. This was reviewed and sent to Olav Mo for inclusion by P1/2 in clause 7.

The panel had agreed how to move forward to the next meeting. They will then need some funding to support validation studies. The panel will develop the necessary definitions once they have completed their text.

5.7 Panel 10 - Calibration & Acceptance Criteria John Stiff reported that panel 10 had a full day meeting on Wednesday with around 10 attendees. The panel is responsible for clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 covers Structural acceptance formulations (member checks). Clause 13 will deal with the format of the acceptance checks and provide the load and resistance factors. The previous three meetings considered clause 13, which was generally in good shape.

The member checks in clause 12 are based on the work done at the meeting in London in 2002 which had produced the “Rose Court Scroll”, a (literal) cut and paste of the SNAME member checks. John had worked on the electronic version of this the previous week and the panel had edited this. The Normative is nearly complete, however the Informative has gone backwards.

The panel had also reviewed clause 13 and completed it. There are some areas of text that need to be moved or removed. In addition some re-wording is required. There will be no detailed Informative to Clause 13, but a single information table summarising all the partial factors from the complete standard. This will indicate the Normative location of each factor and state that the values should be taken from there. The Normative should also point to the Informative table. Post meeting note: John requests that all panel convenors send him a list of the load and resistance factors included in their clauses, the symbols used for those factors, text reference, and value (if available) so that they can be included in the Informative clause 13 table. Panel Convenors

The panel will be providing a few definitions.

In conclusion John advised that the meeting had been very productive and thanked his panel for their contributions.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

5.8 Panel 11 - Long term applications (fatigue/inspection) Gregers Kudsk advised that his panel had met on Wednesday afternoon with 10 present (of whom 5 were representatives of one organisation).

The panel had discussed N363 (see Item 4.2.10) and then reviewed the updated draft of clause 11 prepared by Dave Lewis after the last meeting. An updated version of clause 11 will be supplied to the WG Convenor very soon, and there will be further panel review by correspondence. The panel needs to make it clear that the fatigue requirements for long term applications are different than those for general site assessment.

The panel has two issues. Firstly, the FLS; they will propose a revision such that the FLS is only considered in a site assessment when the application is long term. The panel had also agreed to change its subject matter from “Long Term Considerations” to “Long Term Applications”.

The panel questioned whether the fatigue factors are presently in the Informative, and wondered whether they should be in the Normative.

The panel will work on Definitions for the next meeting.

Commenting Rupert Hunt said that HSE will probably be instituting a fatigue check for old jack-ups (see also 4.1.7).

6. IDENTIFICATION OF ‘PROBLEM AREAS’ WRT 19902 (Fixed Steel) AND 19901-n (The ‘General Annexes’).

See Item 4.2.10 regarding SC7/N363.

7. FURTHER PANELS. It was re-confirmed that the priorities for further panels are as follows:

• Panel 12 Mat units Low • Panel 13 Drilling risers/conductors Not required • Panel 14 Lift boats Low • Panel 15 Regional Annexes Hold -Medium • Panel 16 Advanced/Alternative (re-)assessment. To be agreed

NOTE: It has previously been stated that should there be parties interested in pursuing the subject matter for panels 12, 13 and 14, their priorities can be raised. However, it is not considered necessary to complete this work before the first edition of ISO 19905 can be issued.

It was confirmed that there remains no necessity for further panels to cover materials (P6), corrosion (P7), inspection and condition monitoring (P8) (largely covered by WG7’s P11) and Topsides (P9). Where (Pn) is the parallel WG3 panel.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

8. ACTIONS & SCHEDULE FOR NEXT DRAFT OF 19905 The status of the work of the various panels and the timing of the next draft of their text was agreed to be as follows:

Panel / Subject Clause(s) Normative Next

draft Informative Next draft

0 Preamble 1 - 6 Text: 99%;

Terminology: 30% End Nov Not required -

1-2 MetOcean &

Actions 7 100% complete End

Nov 100% complete End Nov

3 Structures

8: Modelling 90% complete End

Dec 80% complete End Jan

10: Response 80% complete End

Dec 60% End Jan

4 Foundations 9 95% complete End

Dec 80% complete Add Cl 13 info

End Feb

5 Seismic Various 20% ?May 20% ?May

10 Acceptance

12: Members 70% End

Dec 20% End May

13: Acceptance 90% End

Dec 50%

(Table only) End May

11 Long Term 11 100% complete End

Nov 95% complete. End Nov

It was agreed that Panel Convenors will endeavour to provide their definitions for the end of December; some may require longer (Panels 4, 5 and 11). Panel Convenors

The Panel Convenors will also provide their inputs to the TR by the end of April 2005. Panel Convenors

As per Item 5.1, the completed Normative should be ready for wider circulation as a CD no later that May 2005, and possibly sooner. Completion of the Informative was discussed, and it was considered that reaching CD level in September 2005 is feasible. John Stiff commented that P10 should be able to complete the reorganisation of existing text to provide a reasonable draft of clause 12 Informative by the end of May - but this is assumes that there are no major technical issues requiring resolution.

9. FUTURE WG 7 MEETING SCHEDULE. It was agreed that the next series of meetings will take place in Houston during OTC week commencing 2nd May 2005. The Convenor has already requested and received an application form for booking rooms at the OTC venue. The PC meeting will be on Sunday 1st May and P4 could meet on Friday 6th May, if necessary.



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

It was agreed that the WG Convenor will develop a schedule based on the following meeting requirements:

Panel Convenors: <½ day Panel 0 <½ day Panel 1-2 <½ day Panel 3 1 day Panel 4 1 day Panel 5 ½ day Panel 10 1 day Panel 11 <½ day WG7 ½ day (to be before OC7) SNAME GoMex Annex ¼ day SNAME Revision sub-committee ¼ day SNAME North Sea Annex ¼ day SNAME OC7 ½ day

The 2005 Fall meetings will be held in London during the City University Conference week commencing September 12th 2005, with geotechnical sessions at the start of the week and with a half day at some point for the OGP/IADC Education Workshop.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

10.1 There was no other business.

11. CONFIRM ACTION ITEMS. The action items from the meeting are summarised below:

11.1 Item 3.1. Rupert Hunt to provide text to regarding well conductor systems with references. Rupert Hunt

11.2 Item 3.3. Provide information relating to jack-up risk / PSA Norway to Rupert Hunt & Dave Lewis (also Olav Mo). WG Convenor

11.3 Item 3.7. WG Convenor to scan correspondence relating to the development of the f1 and f2 fixity factors in SNAME. WG Convenor.

11.4 Item 4.1.3. Panel 3 to include text on RPD Bob Bowie

11.5 Item 4.2.10. WG Convenor to review, update draft P11 response re SC7 / N363 and circulate to Panel Convenors. WG Convenor

11.6 Item 4.2.10. Submit any further comments via WG Convenor and/or National Bodies. All

11.7 Item 5.1. WG Convenor to ensure OGP is invited to the “Review Panel” meeting(s). WG Convenor

11.8 Item 5.1. Panel Convenors to advise of funding requirements for their clauses. Panel Convenors



ITEM MINUTE ACTION

11.9 Item 5.1/8. Panel Convenors to prepare definitions for their clauses. Panel Convenors

11.10 Item 5.2. Panel 3 to include push-over text from 19902 12.4.6/A12.4.6 in 19905-1 8.6/A8.6. Bob Bowie

11.11 Item 5.5. WG Convenor to update NDE/OU Appendix E. WG Convenor

11.12 Item 5.5. WG Convenor to scan correspondence relating to development of the f1 and f2 fixity factors. WG Convenor

11.13 Item 5.5. WG Convenor to circulate other standards to assist in the development of definitions. WG Convenor

11.14 Item 5.7. Panel convenors to send John Stiff a list of the load and resistance factors included in their clauses, the symbols used for those factors, text reference, and value (if available) for inclusion in the Informative clause 13 table. Panel Convenors

11.15 Item 8. Panel Convenors to submit input to TR by end April 2005. Panel Convenors

12. CONCLUSION.

12.1 Prior to concluding the meeting, the WG Convenor expressed his thanks to all those who had attended the WG7 and preceeding meetings and who had contributed to the success of the week.

12.2 Particular thanks were expressed to Han Mommaas, his support staff and MSC for hosting the meetings so effectively, and for the dinner hosted the previous evening. The meeting confirmed these sentiments with a very warm round of applause.

12.3 There being no further business, the meeting closed at approximately 15:45 hrs.



ATTACHMENT 1 ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7

Attendance Record for 16th Meeting 18th November 2004, Schiedam



ATTACHMENT 1 (cont) ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7

Attendance Record for 16th Meeting 18th November 2004, Schiedam (continuation sheet)



ATTACHMENT 2



ATTACHMENT 2 (cont.)



ATTACHMENT 3



ATTACHMENT 4

EXTRACT FROM: ISO/DIS 19902 6.1.4 Jack-ups A jack-up comprises a floating hull and one or more legs, which can move up and down relative to the hull. A jack-up reaches its operational mode by lowering the leg(s) to the sea floor and then raising the hull to the required elevation. The majority of jack-ups have three or more legs, each of which can be moved independently and which are supported on the sea floor by spudcans. Single leg type jack-ups are commonly supported by mat-type foundations.

A jack-up is governed by the requirements of ISO 19905-1 when either:

a) it is classed by an International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) member, or

b) an independent competent body has verified that it is structurally fit-for-purpose for elevated conditions and it will be subjected to periodic inspection, both in accordance with the standards of an IACS member body.

Where a jack-up does not fall within the scope of ISO 19905-1 the requirements of this document shall apply except as noted below:

− The environmental actions shall be determined using the methodology and coefficients given in ISO 19905-1.

− Action effects including dynamic response, structural response and foundation behaviour shall be determined according to ISO 19905-1.

− The acceptance checks for foundations, preload, overturning, leg chord strength and holding system strength shall be determined using the methodology given in ISO 19905-1. The action factors and material or resistance factors shall be taken in accordance with ISO 19905-1, or any applicable Regional Information thereto.

A limitation on the use of ISO 19902 for jack-ups is the strength and ductility of High Strength jack-up steels (with yield strengths of 700 N/mm2 or more) for major structural components – compared with yield strengths of less than 500 N/mm2 for other conventional fixed steel offshore structures. The designer of such jack-up units shall take note of the limitations of this document for higher strength steels and shall collect additional data to justify the design for such cases.

EXTRACT FROM: ISO/TC67/SC7 - N 363

Clause 6 Comment ID: 1001 Clause/Location: 06.1.4 Paragraph 1 The WG3 technical panel believe that jack-ups should be assessed to the same level as jackets when used for production. This would mean the first two list items below the reference to ISO 19905-1 would be removed, leaving only the bottom item which covers specifics of jack-ups for which there is no equivalent in this document. Advice is sought from SC7 members in their consideration of the DIS


ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups) SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK …€¦ · ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)...

Documents

Transcript of ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups) SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK …€¦ · ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)...