N 447 Minutes of 25th WG 7 Meeting - Houston May 09 - MH

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

Minutes of 25th

Meeting of WG 7, 6th

May 2009, Houston

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

SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS Minutes of Meeting of 6

th May 2009

iso\meetings\mtg-25\min-25-Rev-0 Rev 0, 19th

May 2009

DISTRIBUTION (INCLUDES):

ATTENDEES J. Brekke Transocean USA (Visitor) J.F. Bowes LeTourneau Technologies Inc. USA M.J. Dowdy Rowan Companies Inc USA (Chair SNAME OC-7) P.A. Frieze PAFA Consulting Engineers UK M.J.R. Hoyle (Convenor) Noble Denton Europe UK H. Keys Noble Drilling USA (Visitor) D. Kiayei Noble Drilling USA (Visitor) D.R. Lewis Lewis Engineering Group USA (Visitor) M.R. Marcom Rowan Drilling & Aviation Netherlands R. Martin ENSCO International USA (Visitor) O. Mo DNV Norway (P1-2 Convenor) B. Mobbs LeTourneau Technologies Inc USA (Visitor) C.J. Mommaas MSC Netherlands A. Morandi Global Maritime USA (Visitor) J.J. Osborne RPS Energy UK (Alt. P4 Convenor) J. Petten Noble Drilling Canada (Visitor) M. Quah Keppel FELS Singapore (Visitor) B. Robaard Noble Drilling Netherlands (Visitor) R. Roper ENSCO International USA (Visitor) J. Rousseau ABS USA (Visitor) V.V. Shetti Jindal Drilling & Industries. USA N.P. Smith Transocean USA A. Spackman IADC (liaison to TC67) USA (Visitor) H. Stadsgaard Maersk Contractors Denmark (Visitor) J.J. Stiff ABS Consulting USA (P10 Convenor) D.J. Stock Digital Structures Inc USA (P5 Convenor) P-L Tan ABS USA (P3 Convenor designate) J Templeton SAGE USA USA (Visitor) K Ullrich Bennett & Associates USA (Visitor) P. Wong ExxonMobil Development Company USA (P4 Convenor)

APOLOGIES J.A. Afonso Petrobras Brazil R.J. Allan Transocean USA G.C. Bagnell Rowan Companies Inc Canada W.T. Bennett Bennett & Associates L.L.C. USA M. Cahay Technip France (Visitor) P. Chakrabarti Zentech Inc USA C.C. Chan Keppel FELS Singapore (Visitor) R. Clague Friede & Goldman USA (Visitor) J.-M. D’Ettore Bouygues Offshore France A.T. Dixon HSE UK P. Driessens Noble Drilling Netherlands (Visitor) M. DuBose Rowan Drilling UK UK (Visitor) G. Ersdal Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (Corresponding) S. Farley ENSCO International USA (Visitor) J. Fawcett Braemar Falconer Singapore (Visitor) R.J. Hunt Shell U.K. Limited UK A. Ghoneim DNV USA (Visitor) W. Jones HSE UK(Visitor) G. Kudsk Maersk Contractors Denmark (P11 Convenor) J. Lebourhis JLA USA (Visitor) J.F. Moore II JF Moore International USA (Visitor) L. Munch-Søegaard Seadrill Management AS Norway C Perol Technip France (Visitor) M. Perry Keppel Offshore & Marine Technology Singapore (Visitor) J. Pittman Nekton Marine, Inc. USA O.A, Purwana Keppel FELS Singapore (Visitor) R. Ruinen Vryhof Anchors BV Netherlands J.P. Riber Maersk Olie Og Gas Denmark B.P.M. Sharples Offshore: Risk & Technology USA P.-A.. Thomas Technip USA R.L. Thomas - USA P. Tromans Peter Tromans Engineering Netherlands (Visitor) C. Wendenburg Rigmasters USA (Visitor) J.-F. Wu ABS Singapore (Visitor) M. Yang BMTI USA (Visitor) H.Y. Yip KFELS Singapore (Visitor)

OTHERS M. Greenley (SC 7 Secretariat) BSI UK R.O. Snell (Chair SC 7) BP UK

greenlem

ISO/TC 67/SC 7 - N 447


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston


SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS

Agenda for Meeting of 6

th May 2009

OTC Reliant Center, Houston


May 2009

1. Roll Call / Apologies.

2. Minutes of last meeting (30th October 2008).

3. Action Items and Matters arising (for items not covered elsewhere on the Agenda).

4. Report on SC 7 activities. To include:

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

4.2. Plans for 19905-3 - Site Assessment of Mobile floaters

(need agreed position prior to June SC7 meeting.

5. Panel Reports:

5.1. Panel Convenors meeting.

5.2. Editing-Review Panel.

5.3. Panel 0 - Pre-amble.

5.4. Panel 1/2 - MetOcean & Actions.

5.5. Panel 3 - Structures & Responses.

5.6. Panel 4 - Foundations.

5.7. Panel 5 - Seismic.

5.8. Panel 10 - Acceptance Criteria.

5.9. Panel 11 - Long Term Applications.

6. Further Panels.

7. Status, Actions & Schedule for completion of:

7.1. Draft G of 19905-1 (to become DIS) and

7.2. TR 19905-2.

8. Future WG 7 meeting schedule:

(SC7 4th

-5th

June 2009)

Fall 2009 - London - City University Conference Week, 14th

-18th

September

(SC7 planned for April/May 2010 in UK/London?)

May 2010 - Houston, OTC week - 3rd

to 6th

May 2010

(SC7 is likely to be Spring 2011)

9. Any Other Business.

10. Confirm Action Items.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston


SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS

Minutes of Meeting of 6

th May 2009

OTC Reliant Center, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

1. APOLOGIES/ROLL CALL.

The meeting commenced at 1305 hrs under the Convenership of Mike Hoyle

who welcomed those present and thanked them for attending the meeting.

Formal apologies had been received from José Alexandre Alfonso, Graham

Bagnell, Marc Cahay, CC Chan, Robert Clague, Alan Dixon, Peter Driessens,

Mike Dubose, Stephen Farley, John Fawcett, Abdel Ghoneim, Paul

Handidjaja, Rupert Hunt, Wayne Jones, Gregers Kudsk, John LeBourhis,

James Moore II, Christian Perol, Michael Perry, Okky Purwana, Jens Peter

Riber, Roderick Ruinen, P-A Thomas, Roger Thomas, Peter Tromans, Carl

Wendenburg, Jer-Fang Wu, Mark Yang and He Yan Yip.

Apologies were assumed for Rod Allan, Bill Bennett, Partha Chakrabarti,

Jean-Mari D'Ettore, Lars Munch-Søegaard, Jim Pittman and Malcolm

Sharples.

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 (COPENHAGEN, 30TH

OCTOBER

2008).

The minutes of the last meeting were accepted.

3. ACTION ITEMS AND MATTERS ARISING (FOR ITEMS NOT

COVERED ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA).

Action Items

3.1 Item 3.1 of previous meeting. The WG Convenor had following up on matters of

ISO protocol and had established that we can compile our lists of symbols in the

manner we desired.

3.2 Item 3.2 & 7.2 of previous meeting. See 7.2.

3.3 Item 4.1.2 of previous meeting. WG1 had been advised of WG7

representation. Mike & Dave owe comments before WG1's June 3rd

meeting. WG Convenor

Dave Lewis


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

3.4 Item 4.1.4 of previous meeting. Doug has discussions with Mike Efthymiou

re WG3-P4 matters.

3.5 Item 3.5 of previous meeting. The inputs to P3 from P4 re foundation

torsional stiffness (use API elastic half-space approach) had not been

conveyed. Jack Templeton agreed to provide this. Jack Templeton

3.6 Item 5.6 of previous meeting. ERP had been attended by Jack & Patrick.

Convenor had responded to Hong Hsu. ERP had (hopefully) converted cu to

su throughout.

3.7 Item 5.7 of previous meeting. Doug had circulated Karthi's inputs to P5 and

P4 via P4 Convenor.

3.8 Item 5.7 of previous meeting. P4 still have to review Jack's work on radiation

damping. Patrick Wong / P4

3.9 Item 5.9 of previous meeting. P4 still have to provide recommendations on

ranges of sand stiffness for fatigue to P11. See also 5.9 wrt degradation. Patrick Wong / P4

3.10 Item 7.1 of previous meeting. Updated texts were submitted in time for the

December ERP meeting.

3.11 Item 7.1 of previous meeting. The comments matrix (on draft F) still has

some gaps. PC's to complete where possible. Panel Convenors

Matters Arising

3.12 There were no Matters Arising.

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

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

4.1.1 The SC7 schedule, as updated at the last SC7 meeting held in Beijing in

September 2008, is shown in Attachment 4. The present status was

summarised as follows:

4.1.2 ISO 19900:2002 ‘General requirements for offshore structures’ was issued in

December 2002. WG1 has been re-constituted, convened by Tom Brown of

Canada, with CSA as secretariat. WG1 met before the SC7 meeting in

Beijing and will meet again on the day before the June SC7 meeting in Milan.

4.1.3 ISO 19901-1 ‘Metocean design and operating conditions’ was published in

November 2005. The panel is concentrating on updating GoMex and inputs

to Arctic standard. New Regional Annexes for Caspian & Sakhalin are nearly

complete. The panel also plans work on South China Sea and possibly

Persian Gulf. No news on the updates to the Regional Annex for the East

Coast of Canada.

Two user questions have been raised - one a typo & one ambiguous text. The

responses to these questions are posted at: http://www.galbraith.plus.com/SC7/sc7query.htm


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

The MetOcean community is presently working on extreme crest elevations.

The update schedule is presently unknown.

4.1.4 ISO 19901-2:2004 ‘Seismic design procedures and criteria’ was published in

December 2004. Edits were made by ISO before publication of the first

edition changed the sense and it is known that the Norwegian comments were

sent to the wrong SC and will need to be addressed.

The Norwegian comments include objections to the use of 2,500 year rather

than 10,000 year return period. SC7 has agreed that it does not require Panel

5 to address this item, however Richard Snell was to liaise with Hugh Bannon

to draft a note (position paper?) on the topic in liaison with the WG3/P5

convenor (Doug Stock) and with inputs from key players including Canada

and Norway. Doug advised that some progress has been made. One thought

is to revise the recommendations in 19900 wrt 10,000 year reliability.

The schedule for update has yet to be decided.

4.1.5 19901-3 ‘Topsides structures’. The DIS was issued in July 2007. Draft

responses to the comments received are completed and many implemented.

There is an issue of resources; recent information indicates that the ISO

publication will slip from June 2010 by a number of months.

4.1.6 ISO 19901-4:2003 ‘Geotechnical and foundation design considerations’ was

published in August 2003. The NWI on Marine Soil Investigation work has

already started. There are 31 participants from 13 countries, divided into 7

task groups. The panel is not sure whether it wants to become a WG. There

are ongoing disagreements between the Panel and SC7 as to the arrangement

of the material. SC7's mandate from Beijing is:

• ISO 19901-4 addressing shallow foundations

• ISO 19901-8 addressing marine soil/site investigations and

geotechnical interpretation AND geophysical.

The meeting was advised that WG3/P4 now proposes that geophysical will be

yet another document.

Schedule for update to be decided (Was CD late2008, DIS mid 2009, FDIS

mid 2010, ISO early 2011.).

4.1.7 ISO 19901-5:2003 ‘Weight engineering during design and construction’ was

published in July 2003. WG6 was to meet mid-October in Norway. The

standard will be updated based on the comments received with the approvals

of the NWI and there will be general re-writing to include clearer definitions

of Allowance and Contingency.

The schedule for the update has yet to be decided.

4.1.8 19901-6 ‘Marine operations’. There have been two pre-FDIS drafts and a

series of consultations with industry specialists to finalise the updated partial

factor approach to lifting. The changes since DIS were approved by SC7.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

The submission for FDIS is expected early in October.

The editing group had identified significant issues during their 2-week review

period before FDIS issue. It is understood that they are working the issues

with ISO CS, but there will be some further delay.

4.1.9 ISO 19901-7 ‘Station keeping’ was published in December 2005. W5/P5 has

completed a draft 1st amendment to the published ISO 19901-7 to incorporate

and harmonize relevant informative text from API RP 2SK 3rd Ed. including

drag, pile and plate anchor design; vortex induced motions, and to update

guidance on synthetic rope mooring to be consistent with recent amendment

to API RP 2SM. There may be delays as unexpected technical comments on

the original text have been received. The fast-track issue of the ISO,

following simultaneous WG5 and SC7 review of the final draft, was due in

April/May 2009 but may now be delayed until the year end.

4.1.10 ISO 19901-8 ‘Marine soil/site investigations’ - it was reported that the Panel

had meet in October 2008 (at least). The API group is to meet later in the

week.

4.1.11 ISO 19902 ‘Fixed steel offshore structures’ was published in December 2007.

It is understood that a number of errors were introduced during publication.

The web-page where reported errors /comments and responses are published

is at: http://www.galbraith.plus.com/SC7/sc7query.htm

There is a possibility of splitting out Clause 6 definitions to 19900 and:

• Clause 8 Temporary phases to 19901-6

• Clauses 19-22, Annexes B-G (Materials) to19901-x [ also text from

19901-3 ]

• Clauses 23-25, SIM Stuctural Integrity Management to 19901-y [

also text from 19901-3, 19903 and 19904 ]

4.1.12 ISO 19903:2006 ‘Fixed concrete offshore structures’ was issued in December

2006. Users include ENI. Some issues raised by Canada. Due for systematic

review next year.

4.1.13 ISO 19904-1:2006 ‘Floating offshore structures - Monohulls, Semi-

submersibles and Spars’ was issued in November 2006. Some technical

comments raised on the DIS will have to be resolved in a future update.

The API Task group for RP2 FPS has developed the 2nd

edition using

ISO 19904-1 as the core document with an API “wrapper”. It addresses items

covered in RP 2 FPS but not currently in ISO 19904-1, i.e. Hurricane design

and survival issues for GOM and also issues relevant to disconnectable

FPSOs. The text is almost ready to submit to API to format for balloting in

late 2008 and will provide part of the basis for the next update of

ISO 19904-1.

4.1.14 19904-2 – ‘Floating offshore structures - TLP’. On hold until a business case

can be made.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

4.1.15 19905-1, -2 – ‘Site-specific assessment of mobile jack-up units’. See Item 7.

4.1.16 19905-3 – ‘Site-specific assessment of mobile floating units’. See 4.2.

4.1.17 19906 ‘Arctic structures’. The DIS was issued in Jan 2009. The title of the

standard is to be revised. To be discussed at June SC7 meeting.

4.2 SC7 matters of note:

4.2.1 The next SC7 meeting will be in Milan on 4th

- 5th

June 2009. The following

meeting will be in Europe, probably in April 2010.

4.2.2 SC7 requested that WG7 revert to their next meeting in June 2009 with the

proposed approach and schedule for 19905-3. John Stiff, assigned to convene

P53 to address this subject, advised that he had reviewed 19901-7 and

19904-1 and had informal discussions with a number of interested parties.

His review note is shown in Attachment 3. In summary, there are a few gaps

and 19904-1 specifically excludes mobiles. He envisages that the

deficiencies can be fixed, and he plans to attend the next WG5 editing panel

to discuss the matter (as Bob Wolfram will be there).

In discussion Patrick considered that the foundation information should be

listed, together with applicable Level definitions and associated safety

requirements. Patrick wanted to ensure that the correct anchor safety factors

were included. Paul Frieze stated that if a new document were to be

developed, it should be a unified document, not one that simply points to two

other documents. This would entail importing all the relevant sections from

19901-7 and 19904-1. The alternative of “correcting” 19901-7 and 19904-1

would also be acceptable.

There was consensus that the WG7 recommendation to SC7 should be to

update 19901-7 and 19904-1 as necessary to cover SSA. WG Convenor

5. PANEL REPORTS:

5.1 Panel Convenors Liaison Meeting

The Panel Convenors had met on Sunday morning with all the Panel

Convenors except Gregers present and joined by David Lewis, Pharr Smith &

Rupert Hunt. Thanks to John Stiff for hosting at his residence and preparing

the brunch and to ABS for funding him to do so.

Meeting Arrangements: Thanks to ExxonMobil / Patrick and Rowan / Mike

Dowdy, the arrangements for this week were looking good.

The fall meetings will be held at City University, and it had been agreed that

most panels will have business to conduct.

Benchmarking/Checking: John summarised the status for the benefit of

WG7 as follows:


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

The benchmarking committee comprises himself, Pao-Lin Tan, Jim Brekke,

Yi Li, Dave Lewis, Ward Turner and Rupert Hunt. Phase 1, addressing an

A-Z run-through, and some added work-scope comparisons against SNAME

had been completed by Noble Denton. The deliverable included specific

feed-backs, which had been provided to the Panel Convenors, and a draft

SoW for Phase 2. The ISO results were slightly less conservative than

SNAME.

The committee had met recently to develop/finalise the Phase 2 SoW. The

plan remains that 4 consultants will each consider a different pair of the 4

selected rigs to ISO. At least one consultant, with recent SNAME experience,

will consider each rig to SNAME Rev 3. The draft RFQ will be issued mid-

May, and the final in early July when the DIS is issued. There will then be a

3-week response period, and it is the intent that the contracts will be awarded

in August. The preparation of the Go-By will be covered by a separate

parallel contract. The analyses will be subject to "alignment points".

One consultant will be asked to start early so that any new gaps in the DIS

can be addressed to the benefit of all consultants.

Patrick reported that P4 recommends that the benchmarking should be based

on interpreted data (not raw SI data), as 19905-1 provides no guidance on the

interpretation of SI data. Patrick also requested that a copy of the SNAME

T&R5-5A be officially transmitted from SNAME OC7 to the Benchmarking

Committee so that all the consultants doing the benchmarking will start off

with the same SNAME document.

Panel status & Draft G Draft 'G' is still considered to be largely complete.

The main issues are:

P1-2: A few items from previous meeting & ERP.

P3: Fix figures, a few comments. Queries had been received from

KFELS including on hysteretic damping.

P4: Remaining inputs - some outstanding for too long, and unsighted

inputs from December videoconference meeting.

P5: Needs to decide the criterion for requiring a proper seismic analysis

(resolved at the subsequent Panel meeting).

P10: A number of member-checking issues are outstanding, but PAFA

inputs expected on many of these.

It was considered that the document is largely complete. The remaining

updates are largely to close-out a limited number of issues.

Key issues for the Panel meetings:

Acceptance of recent ERP updates.

Address any outstanding TECHNICAL comments and inputs to

eliminate all the << >> from the document.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

Address remaining items in comments matrix.

Add suitable health warning at start of documents, in clause 6 and annex

B. The WG7 meeting reviewed a draft which Dave Lewis had prepared

with input from Mike Dowdy:

“This international standard has been prepared for site-

specific analysis of the jack-up platform using best

available practices from current technology. The methods

presented will be subjected to a comprehensive benchmarking

process to confirm that the recommended procedures can be

understood by competent engineers and the results are

reasonably consistent with observed behavior of the jack-

up. Until this process is complete, the standard should

not be utilized as an exclusive resource for jack-up site

assessment.”

It was agreed that "draft" should be added to the first sentence, "will be"

should read "are being" in second sentence and that the last sentence

should be replaced by "This standard should be used with caution."

It was agreed that the ERP will re-visit the wording and destination

locations at their June meeting. Panel Convenor.

Post meeting Note: John is of the opinion that "consistent with

observed behavior of the jack-up" is inappropriate and that "are reasonably consistent with current industry practices,

which have been benchmarked against accepted jack-up

operations, but incorporating new understanding of physical

phenomena." (or similar) would be better.

Schedule to completion: Was discussed - see 7.

5.2 Editing-Review Panel (ERP)

The ERP comprises: WG Convenor, Dave Lewis, John Stiff, Doug Stock &

Andrea Mangiavacchi. John Stiff is supported by ABS and the remainder by

OGP. Since October, the ERP has met three times at Transocean in

Greenway Plaza for the initial days of the meetings, and at ABS at

Greenspoint for the final day. Many thanks are due to Transocean/Pharr

Smith and ABS/John Stiff and their respective support staff. The meetings

were in December, February and March. Good progress had been made,

some of this addressing outstanding critical-path items from the panels

e.g. updates of 9 & A.9 to address rewrite of yield interaction section and the

swap of F & Q throughout the document.

The ERP has now reviewed all clauses except A.12, B, C, D and E.

The next meeting will be 15th

-18th

June. After that the OGP funding will be

exhausted, save for an allowance retained for the preparation of the figures.

The WG Convenor thanked the ERP members for their efforts and was of the

opinion that the ERP has made further valuable progress.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

5.3 Panel 0 - Preamble.

The WG Convenor reported that a panel of 2-3 had met on Tuesday afternoon

(himself, Mike Marcom and Ward Turner). They had:

• Reviewed all text revised since the last meeting.

• Dealt with an/the ERP << >>.

• Added cross-reference to 19906 in the Scope.

• Added note to scope that IACS means RCS per our definition.

There is no plan for further meetings.

5.4 Panel 1/2 - MetOcean & Actions.

Olav Mo reported that the panel had a 3-hour meeting on Tuesday morning

with 4 to 5 attendees, and apologies from Julian Bowes, Han Mommaas and

Graham Bagnell. The actions from the previous meeting had been completed.

The meeting had reviewed and generally resolved the list of in-text comments

from the minutes of the last ERP meeting. Four issued had been resolved:

• Explanatory text wrt kinematics reduction factor.

• Removed alternative approach to use reduced wave height (Hdet as per

SNAME).

• Reviewed current profile and decided that the present guidance will be

retained as there is usually site specific data and there is also reference

to 19901-1.

• Reworded text regarding intrinsic wave period.

Olav reported that he has reviewed the comments from the Noble Denton

Phase 1 benchmarking report and made some editorial changes in response.

The actions from the meeting are for Olav respond regarding the check list

and to finalise the updated text for input to the next collation.

5.5 Panel 3 - Structures & Responses.

Pao-Lin Tan reported that panel 3 had meet on Monday with 8 attendees. The

panel covers Structural Modelling (Clause 8) and Response Analysis (Clause

10). The panel had focussed on closing out the comments in << >>. There

were three main issues:

• Hull sag. The panel were not sure that the ERP's re-write is correct.

They requested that Pao-Lin contact designers to ascertain their

approach. Pao-Lin Tan

• Hysteretic damping. Jack Templeton had attended for this topic, he

has a proposal with IADC for further study to provide published

documentation for P3. The panel decided to accept the current

wording in A.10 and add a warning that this may be subject to

changes following the benchmarking.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

• The comments from KFELS were reviewed; some need to be

addressed by P4 (e.g. hysteretic damping) and they have comments on

the MPME methods in Annex C.

The next meeting will focus on Annex C.

5.6 Panel 4 - Foundations.

The panel had a full-day meeting (finishing at 7 pm) on Monday with a

maximum of 19 attendees, of which around 50% were practicing geotechnical

experts, and 3 were visitors.

A video-conference had been held in December, but unfortunately the

outcomes had not been shared with the ERP. These need to be inserted in the

updates for next draft. Patrick Wong

The main topics were:

• Benchmarking. The appropriate soil inputs were discussed at length.

It was eventually agreed that the Phase 2 benchmarking should be

based on a fixed set of interpreted parameters (a list of which will be

provided to the benchmarking committee), as it is the equations in

19905-1 that are to be checked, not the interpretation of site Patrick Wong,

assessment data as this is not addressed by 19905-1. P4 were keen

that a range of foundation conditions be considered.

• The ERP had effected the switching of F and Q; F is now action and Q

capacity, as well as consolidating the yield interaction surface

equations. P4 had reviewed this and found that it was generally OK.

A few tweaks were needed and there is a need to delete most of the

sub-"noughts".

• Robert Overy/Richard Dean's preambles to yield interaction, as

updated by the videoconference had been introduced by Mike during

the course of the meeting with assistance from Rupert (noting that

there were also some organisational changes, some of which were

rejected by Mike due to the overly extensive ramifications).

• Jack Templeton's updates, based on his FE work, wrt moment and

horizontal capacity as a function of net vertical capacity were

discussed at length. It was generally agreed that net should be the

basis for horizontal capacity, but there was no agreement as to the

basis for moment. There is an apparent discrepancy between the

various experimental and analytical data, but this may be due to the

selection of differing normalisation constants. Jack and Mark Cassidy

are to resolve these issues i.e. should gross or net vertical capacity be

used when determining moment and horizontal capacity, and the

associated factors that should then be used, especially for deep

penetration cases. It had been noted that horizontal capacity should be

made dependent on the projected spudcan area. Patrick

Jack T / Mark C


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

• There is an issue wrt the effect of adhesion/suction in clay on the

shape of the lower part of the yield surface (Fv < 0.5Fvo) as the present

representation loses capacity when Fv is just less than 0.5Fvo, and the

intended benefit is only seen at much lower values of Fv. Dave

Edwards is to review the correspondence that lead to this outcome.

• There were some missing references and figures, most of which were

located/inserted.

• There were queries regarding the application of the resistance factor to

the V-H yield surface (whether to scale from (0,0), (SWL,0), yield

surface origin, etc.). In later discussion it was agreed that the ERP

will provide a pragmatic solution to this problem if P4 do not provide

a solution before 15th

June. Patrick / ERP

• Patrick needs to chase GEO/Lindita Kellezi for her promised inputs on

spudcan-infrastructure interactions. Patrick

• It was confirmed that the guidance on P-Y springs remains that all the

members in one face be considered.

5.7 Panel 5 - Earthquake

Doug Stock reported that P5 had met on Tuesday afternoon, with 8 attendees.

The panel had considered tasks from the ERP. One ERP comment had been

rejected in part, but the requested table had been placed in a different

location. Doug is to complete the table with input from Peter Marshall. Doug / Peter M

The text for the screening approach was re-visited wrt the arrangement of

"and's" and "or's" and revised, shorter, text agreed.

New text was prepared wrt added mass.

Inputs had been received from Karthi (UK HSE). Doug is to suggest to him

that he presents the material at the City University conference, so that this can

be referenced from 19905-1. It will also be suggested that he include text on

added mass. Doug

Comments had been received from Noble Denton in respect of the load and

resistance factors for the ALE event. Updates/corrections were made to

address this issue.

The updates will be forward for inclusion in the next revision. A short

meeting will be needed in September.

5.8 Panel 10 - Acceptance Criteria

John Stiff reported that panel 10 would be meeting the next day.

John had met with the WG Convenor and Paul Frieze (PAFA) in London in

early April to resolve some of the big-ticket items, and had reviewed Paul's

latest inputs and resolved gaps in the document.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

The text on joints was re-visited during the WG7 meeting. It was suggested

that "where cause for concern" be added.

5.9 Panel 11 - Long term applications (fatigue/inspection)

Henrik Stadsgaard, who had run the panel meeting in Gregers Kudsk's

absence, reported that the panel had met on Tuesday afternoon with 4 present,

three of whom were core members.

The panel had addressed a few comments from the ERP. Their minor re-

wordings were accepted. The panel had discussed the issue of peening and

had agreed that this should only be carried out after full NDT inspection and

with RCS approval.

The comments were all addressed and the only remaining gap is the P4 inputs

on soil stiffness bounds for sand. In response to a query, Patrick advised that

there should be no need to apply any reduction to the initial stiffnesses of

sand or clay for fatigue analysis.

6. FURTHER PANELS.

An OGP meeting on the failure of the mat unit "Usamacinta" had been

attended by several WG members the previous Friday. Some interest in a

standard for mat-units had been detected. The WG Convenor was asked to

contact relevant parties to follow up, copying them John Stiff's outline draft

Annex; Dave Lewis agreed to provide contact details. WG Convenor

Post meeting note: Contact details received.

Otherwise, it was re-confirmed that the priorities for further panels are as

follows:

• Panel 12 Mat units See above

Note: An informal list is being maintained of items that may need

special review for mat units.

• Panel 14 Lift boats Low

• Panel 15 Regional Annexes Hold -Medium

NOTE: It has previously been stated that should there be parties interested in

pursuing the subject matter for panels 12 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), Topsides (P9), Drilling risers/conductors

(P13) and Advanced/Alternative (re-)assessment (P16). Where (Pn) is

generally the parallel WG3 panel.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

7. ACTIONS & SCHEDULE FOR NEXT DRAFT OF 19905-1

7.1 Status

The remaining work of the panel update draft G to DIS status was agreed to

be as follows:

Panel /

Subject Clause(s) Status

0

Preamble 1 - 6

Text complete. Lists of symbols to be completed (if time

permits).

1-2

MetOcean &

Actions

7 Text complete.

Some references details and symbol list to be compiled

3

Structures

8:

Modelling Text complete. Some figures need to be revised.

10:

Response Text complete. Some figures need to be revised.

Annex C Technical content complete. Needs to be reviewed by Panel

before going to ERP.

4

Foundations 9

Normative text complete.

Informative: Several issues: H & M capacities, application

of resistance factor. May hold tele-/videoconference.

Annex D Technical content complete. Needs to be reviewed by Panel

before going to ERP.

5

Earthquake Various

Normative text almost complete

Informative: Nearly done - will be done for June

10

Acceptance

12:

Members

Expect to resolve most gaps Thursday. Some issues may

remain in DIS. Need to resolve handling of Dyer

curves/data figures.

13:

Acceptance Normative text almost complete

10

Acceptance Annex E

Background materials & Dyer curves, etc.

To be compiled before going to ERP.

11

Long Term 11 Text complete, except for P4 inputs.

ERP

Assessment

report

Annex F Update required and forward reference needed.

ERP ? Bibliography Will likely not been compiled until after DIS

- Figures

Current plan is plan is to agree mark-ups to existing figures

in September and then get figures drawn for insertion into

FDIS.

The panel convenors were asked to submit their updates by the end of May.

Absolute cut-off is 14th

June. Panel Convenors


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

It was noted that after their June meeting, the OGP funding for the ERP will

be exhausted (except for an amount to be set aside for the production of the

figures) and that further OGP funding is unlikely for some time.

WG Convenor requested that Panel Convenors complete their remaining

inputs to the Draft F comments matrix. Panel Convenors

It was agreed that the DIS can be submitted at the end of June, following

inputs from this week's meetings and meeting actions and the June ERP

meeting.

7.2 TR Inputs.

The WG Convenor requested inputs to the TR by end of August, for collation

in advance of the September meetings. Panel Convenors

8. FUTURE WG 7 MEETING SCHEDULE.

The fall meetings will take place during the City University Conference the

week, 14th

-18th

September 2009. The conference itself is scheduled for 15th

& 16th

September. WG Convenor to develop schedule based on the following

for discussion at June ERP meeting:

Panel Convenors Sunday or Monday

Panel 0 not needed

Panel 1-2 2 hours

Panel 3 1 day

Panel 4 1 day (not Thurs)

Panel 5 2 hours

Panel 10 tba

Panel 11 not needed

WG7 (before OC7) 2½ - 3 hrs

SNAME OC7 2 hrs

SNAME Revs 2 hrs

SNAME GoMex 2 hrs joint

SNAME N Sea 2 hrs joint

[ Allow ½ day for InSafeJIP,

probably on Friday ]

The following meeting will take place in the week of OTC 2010,

commencing 3rd

May in Houston. Transocean kindly offered to host this

series of meetings at Greenway Plaza.

9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

9.1 Patrick Wong enquired as to the status of SNAME T&R5-5A, and requested

that a common version, officially transmitted by SNAME OC7, be used for

the benchmarking. He was advised that the final version of Rev 3 is expected

to be issued within the next few weeks.

10. CONFIRM ACTION ITEMS.

The action items from the meeting are summarised below:

10.1 Item 3.3. Prepare inputs to WG1 meeting. WG Convenor

Dave Lewis

10.2 Item 3.5. Provide foundation torsional stiffness formulation to P3. Jack Templeton

10.3 Item 3.8. Review Jack Templeton's work on radiation damping. Patrick Wong / P4


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ITEM MINUTE ACTION


May 2009

10.4 Item 3.9. Provide range of soil stiffnesses to P11. Patrick Wong / P4

10.5 Item 3.11 & 7.1. Provide final inputs for comments matrix. Panel Convenors

10.6 Item 4.2. Report WG7 views on 19905-3 to SC7. WG Convenor

10.7 Item 5.1. Finalise health warning for DIS and its locations. ERP

10.8 Item 5.5. P4 to provide a formulation for torsional foundation stiffness. Patrick Wong / P4

10.9 Item 5.5. Contact designers wrt hull-sag. Pao-Lin Tan

10.10 Item 5.6. Insert updates from December video-conference in P4 inputs to

next draft. Patrick Wong

10.11 Item 5.6. Provide soils parameter list to John/benchmarking committee

ASAP. Patrick Wong

10.12 Item 5.6. Resolve QM and QH as a function of QVo, etc. Patrick Wong

Jack T / Mark C

10.13 Item 5.6. Resolve application of resistance factor to V-H envelopes. Patrick / ERP

10.14 Item 5.6. Chase Geo / Lindita Kellezi wrt inputs on spudcan infrastructure

interaction. Patrick Wong

10.15 Item 5.7. Complete earthquake table with Peter Marshall. Doug Stock / Peter M

10.16 Item 6.0. Write to mat-unit owners re interest, copying JJS's outline draft

Annex.. WG Convenor

10.17 Item 7.1. Submit latest drafts to WG Convenor by end of May. Panel Convenors

10.18 Item 7.2. Submit TR inputs to WG Convenor by end of August. Panel Convenors

11. CONCLUSION.

11.1 Prior to concluding the meeting the WG Convenor expressed his thanks to

Patrick Wong, Ward Turner and ExxonMobil for hosting the panel and OC7

meetings and to Mike Dowdy and Rowan for hosting the WG7 meeting. He

also thanked those who had attended the WG7 and preceding meetings and

who had contributed to the success of the week.

Post meeting note: The WG Convenor has written letters of thanks.

11.2 There being no further business, the meeting closed at approximately

15:55 hrs.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 1

ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Attendance Record for 25th Meeting

6th May 2009, OTC Reliant Center, Houston


May 2009


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 1 (cont)

ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Attendance Record for 25th Meeting

6th May 2009, OTC Reliant Center, Houston (continuation sheet)


May 2009


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 2


May 2009

SO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 - Jack-Ups

Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 2 (cont)


May 2009


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 3


May 2009

Potential gaps for Moored Semi-Submersible MOUs

Two ISO documents (19901-7 & 19904-1) have been reviewed to ascertain if there needs to be a

separate ISO document for semi-submersible MOUs in the 19905 series (which only contains jack-

ups at present). The two documents were not reviewed in great detail, but there was a high level

comparison to the contents of 19905-1. There were four main findings (1 to 4 below) plus a few

other minor points (a to f below) that are more of interest than requiring attention. After the list are

some comments/notes on the specific ISO standards reviewed. These are not meant to imply

changes are suggested, but were for my own documentation assistance.

Based on this review, I don’t believe it is necessary to develop a separate 19905-3 for semi-

submersible MOUs, but I do think that some of the gaps should be plugged within 19901-7 and

19904-1. The most critical of these is the cross referencing as applied to MOUs. The long term

operations could be more difficult to address, but maybe is not that important.

Major Points

1. There are no exposure levels for MOUs. 19901-7 points forward to 19904, but (I inferred)

that the clause 6.1 on exposure levels in 19901-7 does not apply to MOUs, and certainly

19904-1 specifically says it does not apply to MOUs (see Scope). I am not sure how critical

a gap this is, but I feel it should be plugged at some stage for completeness purposes.

2. There is a general problem with forward references from 19901-7 to 19904-1. As an

example, 19901-7 points forward (in 7.4.1) to 19904-1 for the calculation of environmental

actions. But 19904-1 does not apply to MOUs (see Scope), so can you point forward to a

document that says it does not apply? Should be a simple wording change, but the loose ends

need tying up (e.g. “Notwithstanding the lack of applicability of this standard to MOUs, the

methods set out in the following clause should be used when calculating metocean actions on

MOUs.”)

3. Long term operations are not well addressed. 19904-1 specifically states in its scope that it

does not apply to MOUs, even when used for extended times. This could be a gap that needs

to be plugged as it could be taken to allow an “out” to many projects that have 5 to 10 year

duration using a partially converted MOU. While fatigue is normally well addressed by

Class, there could be a gap for longer term operations. This is particularly strange when there

is a clause 14 in 19904-1 that specifically deals with reuse. Maybe this could be modified to

account for long term operations as well as reuse?

4. The hull of a permanent facility is governed by 19904-1, but there is no equivalent in 19901-

7 to the jack-up statement in 19905-1 that it only applies to Classed jack-ups. I don’t think

this is a problem, but it does mean that the hull of floating MOUs is not covered by any

specified requirements, be they entirely Class related, except for the hardware associated with

the mooring system (19901-7 clause 10.8)


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 3 (cont)


May 2009

Minor Comments

a. There is no exclusion from the assessment of floater transportation to site.

b. No air gap requirements

c. No information on the data that needs to be collected for the analysis and no report outline

d. Weight control is only discussed in 19904-1 which does not apply to MOUs

e. There is not much detail on the metocean data required. 19905 contains considerably more

discussion for jack-ups.

f. No specific site soils survey for MOUs

Review of 19901-7 “Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore structures and mobile offshore

units”

19901-7 does not discuss class requirements and only looks at the moorings

Many mooring systems are not classed, so inspection is critical (even if it is of limited value), but see

12.2 and A.12.2 for detailed references on required inspection.

It is far from clear to me if clause 6.1 on exposure levels applies to MOUs. I think the answer is that

it doesn’t apply, and forward references to 19904-1 do not apply as that document specifically

excludes MOUs.

7.2.3 Specifically no requirements for soils survey for MOU.

7.2.8 No marine growth for MOUs

7.3.1 Direct wave (but not current) actions on mooring lines may be ignored

7.3.2 Explicitly uses Cross Flow Principle for current force – This use would be disputed by some!

7.4.1 Points to 19904-1 for calculation of environmental actions

Table 1 in 8.1.2.5 “Recommended analysis methods and conditions”. I think there is a (pedantic)

logic error in notes “a” and “b”. “a” says that that transient analysis is ONLY applicable in close

proximity. If you are not in close proximity, there is no need to look at note “b” (which is clearly not

the case).

10.8 Supporting structure for the mooring system (e.g. fairleads) need to be checked. Even if the

mooring system is not classed on a MOU, this should be covered by the hull classification.

11.1.2 (Mooring Hardware – Wire Ropes) states that “... and end sockets shall meet ...requirements

relevant RCS rules...”. I am not sure that this is a good reference based on the work by Diamond on

their sockets that failed. There are not many rules for sockets, and they are not necessarily followed,

I believe. A reference to the API castings and forgings may be better.


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 3 (cont)


May 2009

11.2 Anchor Winches references the IMO MODU Code and ISO 9089 (Marine Structures – Mobile

offshore units – Anchor winches

There does not appear to be any out-of-plane loading requirements for anchor piles (but I may have

missed it). This, I think, would be advisable.

Review of 19904-1 “Floating offshore structures – Monohulls, semi-submersibles and spars”

1 Scope Does not apply to MOUs, even when used at the same location for extended periods. Also

raises question about forward references from 19901-7 for calculation methods.

5.3.3 Design Practices Points to RCS Rules

5.4 Rules and Regulations Points to RCS rules

6.2 Exposure Levels These do not apply to MOUs so there are no exposure level

requirements

14 Conversion and Reuse There does not appear to be a criteria for what is a conversion or reuse,

e.g. as applied to a MOU.

14.2 Minimum design construction and maintenance standards (for reuse) Original vessel must have

been designed and maintained in class by RCS (or equivalent).


Minutes of 25th


May 2009, Houston

ATTACHMENT 3

iso\meetings\mtg-25\min-25-draft Draft, 11th

May 2009

N 447 Minutes of 25th WG 7 Meeting - Houston May 09 - MH

Documents

Transcript of N 447 Minutes of 25th WG 7 Meeting - Houston May 09 - MH