N 377 - DNV GL

Transcription

N 377 - DNV GL

Document: ISO/TC 67/SC7
N 377
Our ref: 7232:ISO/TC 67/SC7
Date: 17 August 2005
Secretariat of ISO/TC 67/SC7
Offshore Structures for Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industries
To:
ISO/TC 67/SC7 P- and O- Member Bodies
For forwarding to their National Delegates
and to
ISO/TC 67 Secretariat
ISO Central Secretariat
Minutes of 17th Meeting of WG 7
held on 4th May 2005,
in Houston
Mike HOYLE
BSI Standards, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL
Telephone: + +44 208 996 7232 Fax: + +44 208 996 7799
Email: [email protected]
ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 - Jack-Ups (Hoyle.019)
Minutes of 17th Meeting of WG 7, 4th May 2005, Houston
ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 (Jack-Ups)
SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS
Minutes of Meeting of 4th May, 2005
DI9STRIBUTION:
ATTENDEES
R.D.
Bowie
J.
Brekke
S.D.
Devoy
A.T.
Dixon
M.J.
Dowdy
P.A.
Frieze
M.J.R.
Hoyle (Convenor)
R.J.
Hunt
C.
Keaton
G.
Kudsk
D.R.
Lewis
M.R.
Marcom
O.
Mo
A.
Morandi
J.
Pittman
M.
Quah
K
Richardson
R.
Roper
D.
Smith
N.P.
Smith
A.
Spackman
J.J.
Stiff
D.J.
Stock
P.
Wildberger
P
Wong
J-F
Wu
APOLOGIES
R.J.
Allan
G.C.
Bagnell
W.T.
Bennett
J.F.
Bowes
P.
Chakrabarti
C.C.
Chan
J.-M.
D’Ettore
M.
DuBose
G.
Ersdal
K.S.
Foo
W.
Jones
D.
McNease
C.J.
Mommaas
L.
Munch-Søegaard
J.J.
Osborne
D.
Pelley
J.
Prasad
R.
Ruinen
B.P.M. Sharples
V.V.
Shetti
P-L
Tan
R.L.
Thomas
E.M.
Wesselingh
A.S.
Westlake
OTHERS
M.
Greenley (SC 7 Secretariat)
R.O.
Snell (Chair SC 7)
iso\meetings\mtg-17\min-17r0
ABS / R.D. Bowie & Associates
GlobalSantaFe
Matthews Daniel
HSE
LeTourneau Inc.
PAFA Consulting Engineers
Noble Denton Europe
Shell Expro
GlobalSantaFe
Maersk Contractors
Lewis Engineering Group
Rowan Drilling & Aviation
DNV
Global Maritime
Nekton Marine, Inc.
Keppel Offshore Technology
ABS
ENSCO
OGP
GlobalSantaFe
IADC (liaison to TC67)
ABS Consulting
Digital Structures Inc
ENSCO
ExxonMobil Development Company
ABS
USA (P3 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
USA (Visitor)
UK
USA (Chair SNAME OC-7)
UK
UK
UK
USA (Visitor)
Denmark (P11 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
Netherlands
Norway (P1-2 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
USA
Singapore (Visitor)
USA (Visitor)
USA (Visitor)
UK (Visitor)
USA
USA (Visitor)
USA (P10 Convenor)
USA (P5 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
USA (P4 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
Transocean
Rowan Companies Inc
Bennett & Associates L.L.C.
LeTourneau Inc.
Zentech Inc
Bouygues Offshore
Rowan Drilling (U.K.) Limited
Petroleum Safety Authority
HSE
Rowan Companies Inc.
MSC
Smedvig Offshore
Seacore Ltd
Transocean
Noble Drilling
Vryhof Anchors BV
Offshore: Risk & Technology
Rowan Companies Inc.
ABS
Rowan Drilling (U.K.) Limited
Transocean
USA
Canada
USA
USA
USA
Singapore (Visitor)
France
UK (Visitor)
Norway (Corresponding)
Singapore (Visitor)
UK (Visitor)
USA (Visitor)
Netherlands
Norway
UK (Alt. P4 Convenor)
USA (Visitor)
USA (Visitor)
Netherlands
USA
USA
USA (Visitor)
USA
UK (Visitor)
USA
BSI
BP
UK
UK
Rev 0, 27th May 2005
Page 1
Agenda for Meeting of 4th May, 2005
OTC Venue, Houston
1.
2.
3.
4.
Roll Call / Apologies.
Minutes of last meeting (18th November 2004).
Action Items and Matters arising (for items not covered elsewhere on the Agenda).
Report on SC 7 activities. To include:
4.1. Status of and schedule for other 1990x series standards.
4.2. Outstanding issues re ISO 19902 including discussion of SC7 N363.
5. Panel Reports:
5.1. Review Panel
5.2. Panel Convenors meeting.
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 - Calibration & Acceptance Criteria.
5.9. Panel 11 - Long Term Considerations.
6. Further Panels.
7. Actions & Schedule for next Draft of 19905-1.
8. Future WG 7 meeting schedule:
September 2005, City University Conference - week commencing 12th Sept)
May 2006 in OTC week
9. Any Other Business.
10. Confirm action items.
Page 2
Agenda for Meeting of 4th May, 2005
OTC Venue, Houston
ITEM MINUTE
1.
ACTION
APOLOGIES/ROLL CALL.
The meeting commenced at 14:05 hrs under the Convenership of Mike Hoyle
who welcomed those present and thanked them for attending the meeting.
Formal apologies had been received from Graham Bagnell, CC Chan, Danny
McNease, Han Mommaas, Lars Munch-Søegaard, Roderik Ruinen, Malcolm
Sharples and Roger Thomas.
Apologies were assumed for Rod Allan, Bill Bennett, Julian Bowes, Partha
Chakrabarti, Jean-Mari D’Ettore, Julian Osborne and Bob Shetti.
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 (18TH NOVEMBER 2004).
The minutes of the last meeting were accepted without comment.
3.
ACTION ITEMS AND MATTERS ARISING (FOR ITEMS NOT
COVERED ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA).
Action Items
3.1
Item 3.1 of previous two meetings. Rupert Hunt’s action to provide text
regarding well conductor systems, with references, was again carried forward.
This text will be added to the Informative as P0 has excluded these items
from the Scope.
Rupert Hunt
3.2
Item 3.3. The WG convenor had completed his action to copy Rupert Hunt
and David Lewis with information relating to the discussion of jack-up risk
with Arne Kvitrud/PSA Norway.
3.3
Item 3.7 and 5.5. The Convenor had completed his action to scan the
SINTEF report and correspondence to relating to the report and the origin of
f1 and f2 for Panel 4 reference. The report had been sent to P4 members and
the correspondence to Patrick Wong and Robert Overy.
Page 3
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
3.4
Item 4.1.3. SC7's request that WG7 include a reference to RPD in 19905 had
been passed back from P3 to P0 and text had been drafted by P0.
3.5
Item 4.2.10. WG7's response regarding SC7/N363 - See Item 4.2.
No other feedback had been received for submission by WG7.
3.6
Item 5.1 -Review Panel.
3.6.1
As requested, OGP had been invited to attend review panel, but did not.
3.6.2
The Review Panel met in January and April resulting in a total of 3.5 days of
extremely productive effort. The Convenor thanked Pharr Smith and GSF for
hosting the meetings and all those who had also participated - Bob Bowie,
David Lewis, Doug Stock, John Stiff and Mike Dowdy with a guest
appearance from Julian Bowes.
3.6.3
Draft E-less-less-less-minus, circulated prior to the meeting is the product of
this effort.
3.7
Item 5.1. Indicative budgets had been received from John Stiff & Doug
Stock. The Convenor noted that these were to be updated later in the
meeting.
3.8
Items 5.1 & 8. A number of definitions had been received for inclusion in
Draft E. More are expected.
3.9
Item 5.2. P3's action to include pushover along the lines of 19902
12.4.6/A12.4.6 was carried forward. The WG Convenor was asked to send Bob Bowie
the Word draft of these clauses of 19902 to Bob Bowie.
WG Convenor.
Post meeting note: WG Convenors action completed after the meeting.
3.10
Item 5.5. The convenor had completed his action to update the NDE/OU
Appendix E. This was submitted to P4 last week for their comments.
3.11
Item 5.5. The convenor had completed his action to provide Gerrit van der
Zwaag with copies of other relevant standards for reference when compiling
definitions for Clause 9.
3.12
Item 5.7. The post meeting action on the Panel Convenor's to send John Stiff
a list of the load and resistance factors in their clauses, with symbols, text
reference and values where available was carried forward. John will circulate
his present list to the Panel Convenors for their Input.
John Stiff
Panel Convenors
3.13
Item 8. The action on Panel Convenor's to provide input to TR by end of
April was carried forward. See 7.3.
Panel Convenors
Matters Arising
3.14
Item 4.1.5 Education Seminar. The Convenor advised the meeting that:
•
The IADC Jack-Up Committee have formed a sub-group, chaired by
Jim Brekke, to assist in this endeavour.
Page 4
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
•
The seminar will take place at the back end of the first day of the City
University Conference, winding up with a discussion moderated
(mediated?) by some well known faces.
•
Given the relatively limited time slot available, the agreed approach is
to demonstrate that, despite its shortcomings, SNAME provided a
solid basis that has since been developed in a robust way and to
explain the key differences between jacket and jack-up practice.
•
The initial ideas have been discussed with Richard Snell and Rupert
Hunt. The approach appears to be accepted, however Richard
believes that the time allocated is too short. One recommendation was
that we chart the impact of the changes e.g. by reference to the effect
on WD capability.
•
Depending upon attendance the seminar may need to be repeated in
Houston next May, or followed up with a more detailed technical
seminar.
•
The IADC sub-group would be meeting for further discussion after
the WG7 meeting.
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 SC7meeting held in Rio in October
2004, is shown in Attachment 3. The present status was summarised as
follows:
4.1.2
ISO 19900:2002 ‘General requirements for offshore structures’ was issued in
December 2002.
4.1.3
DIS 19901-1 ‘Metocean design and operating conditions’ was issued in
September 2003. The FDIS was to have been issued in March, however the
submission to ISO was delayed with the bulk of the text submitted in
February and the remainder, the GoMex Annex, at the start of April. The
latter was delayed by a number of issues that have now been resolved. These
included the need to account for hurricane Ivan, a concern that the initial draft
gave too much away, and a potential disconnect between the API liaison
committee and the US members of WG3 P1. Publication of the ISO is being
fast-tracked.
The core metocean panel (P1 to WG3) has some concerns as to how the
document will be maintained and whether/where/how Arctic area content is
to be added for WG8. This will be discussed at SC7 next week.
4.1.4
ISO 19901-2:2004 ‘Seismic design procedures and criteria’ was published in
December. This was after issues raised by Japan and Canada had been
resolved. It is understood that Norway also submitted some comments to
Page 5
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
ISO, but they were not recorded. It is not known whether these will be
addressed in the near-term.
4.1.5
19901-3 – ‘Topsides structures’. This was to have been submitted to ISO in
February for DIS publication in April, but was delayed by the extra effort
involved in completing 19901-1. The panel responsible has met twice this
year. It is now anticipated that the text will be completed during May,
meaning that the earliest date for ISO publication is December 2006. There
have been some issues regarding helidecks because the various reference
publications are being updated.
4.1.6
19901-4:2003 ‘Geotechnical and foundation design considerations’ was
published in August 2003.
4.1.7
19901-5:2003 ‘Weight engineering during design and construction’ was
published in July 2003.
4.1.8
19901-6 ‘Marine Operations’. A CD was issued in December 2004 and the
comment period has just closed. It appears that publication of the DIS in
December 2005 remains a possibility.
4.1.9
19901-7 ‘Station Keeping’. DIS voting closed in August 2004. The FDIS
submission to ISO is expected in May after addressing issues of consistency
with API RP2SK, and comments regarding geotechnical issues. The FDIS
publication may be achieved in September.
4.1.10
19902 – ‘Fixed steel offshore structures’. The DIS was issued in September
2004 with some incomplete sections and a list of issues that needed to be
resolved (see SC7/N363). The ballot period was extended twice, by a month
at the request of the UK and by a further week at the request of Canada.
More than 1000 comments from 7 nations reached the WG3 Editing Panel in
mid April. These should now have been compiled; it is understood that many
of the comments relate to clause 13, members. The Convenor was not yet
aware of the overall implications. Meetings were scheduled over last couple
of weeks with API liaison committee and withWG3 in Houston and in
London. It is understood that there are issues with clauses 18-23 (Materials,
Corrosion, Welding, Inspection, Fabrication & QC/QA) where there has been
inadequate transatlantic harmonisation. There is a proposal to put these
clauses into another 19901-x general provisions document - however this
would mean that 19902 will be published with out a place to reference these
topics. The Convenor advised that the various meetings are expected to have
produced some recommendations for SC7 to debate at its meeting on 9th-10th
May. Regional information has been submitted by Canada. The North West
European regional information is in preparation - it is understood that the
partial action factor is still being debated. Regional information must be
submitted by other areas soon if it is to be included.
Post-Meeting Note: The issues regarding clauses 18-23 will be resolved by
including the two approaches in separate Informative Annexes.
Page 6
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
4.1.11
19903 – ‘Fixed concrete offshore structures’. The DIS was issued in October
2004 for comment by March 2005. It is understood that comments have been
received from Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and USA.
4.1.12
19904-1 – ‘Floating offshore structures - MSS’. The DIS was published on
25th November 2005. The ballot was due to close on 25th April but this has
been extended by one month.
4.1.13
19905 – ‘Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units’. See Item 7.
4.1.14
19906 ‘Arctic Structures’. The work on this project is understood to be
making good progress. It was not known whether the first WD, expected late
in 2004, had been completed.
4.1.15
Following the May SC7 meeting, the next SC7 meeting is tentatively
scheduled for December 6th - 7th in Paris.
Post Meeting Notes:
1. The next SC7 meeting has been confirmed for January 10th-11th in Paris.
2. The updated schedule following the May SC7 meeting is shown in
Attachment 4.
4.2
Outstanding issues re ISO 19902 including discussion of SC7 N363.
The note prepared by P11 to address SC7/N363 Comment 1001 on clause
6.1.4 had been updated by the Panel Convenor to include specific reference to
prior SC7 discussions of the matter. The Review Panel made some minor
edits at it's January meeting and the Convenor had then circulated the note to
WG members and had submitted it to BSI for inclusion in the UK's comments
and also direct to the WG3 Editing Panel leader. The note had also been
submitted by WG members to the NL and to Canada. There is however no
evidence that the NL had submitted the comments to ISO, and the Canadian
comments did not appear in the collation prepared by ISO as seen the
Convenor.
It was now understood that Comment 1001 in N363 originated with the NL
and DK members of the WG3 EP. He advised that he had arranged to discuss
the issues with the WG3 EP on Sunday prior to the SC7 meeting the
following week. John Stiff, Rupert Hunt and Paul Frieze volunteered to join
the discussion. WG7 expressed its dissatisfaction with the handling of the
issue to date, noting that WG7 deserves a reasoned response to its comments. Convenor
5.
PANEL REPORTS:
5.1
Review Panel
See Item 3.6.
Page 7
ITEM MINUTE
5.2
ACTION
Panel Convenors Liaison Meeting
The WG Convenor reported that the Panel Convenors had met on Sunday,
with all present and augmented by Alan Dixon, David Lewis and Pharr
Smith.
The Convenor reported that arrangements for meetings were discussed and it
was again agreed that the present format is the best we can do. The
September 2005 CU conference week will again be time-pressed, the more so
because of the Education Seminar. It has been noted that the geotechnical
community have ISFOG in Perth following week so the P4 meetings should
be at the start of the CU week (which anyway clashes with ICSMGE in Osaka
on 12th-16th September 2005).
Draft E - It was agreed that, subject to WG confirmation, the Normative
would be suitable for issue as a CD after incorporating the updates from this
series of meetings. The PC's agreed to limit changes to those that are a
technical necessity.
The Panel Convenors remain concerned at the general lack of Industry
interest. Better Oil Company representation is needed at Panel and WG level,
especially from those with interests in GoMex, and perhaps those that consult
to them.
The Information Seminar was discussed. It was agreed that the IADC would
obtain contacts for appropriate GoMex oil companies and that OGP should IADC
be asked to include these in their circulations. It was noted that the initial
notification and sign-up postings could also be used to encourage
participation in the Conference and the Panel & WG meetings during the rest
of the CU week. It was suggested that the CD 'E' Normative could also be
distributed for information noting that this is for consultation & not use.
OGP
The WG convenor had suggested that Panels should each take responsibility
for sets of definitions. This idea was rejected and it was agreed that panels
will continue to submit definitions for P0 and wider review. The WG
convenor was asked to discuss the need for a means of identifying defined
terms, this being particularly important where different documents use
different definitions.
Convenor
PC's agreed to review their future schedule and funding requirements. It was
thought that several panels will require funded work to verify their text
(‘component checks’) and additionally a set of benchmark studies will need to
be undertaken by several parties to check the outcome from and repeatability
of the standard. The PC meeting was of the opinion that this benchmarking
should take place before a full CD is issued.
It was noted that, as nearly all of those with an understanding and interest in
jack-ups are already involved in the process, it is better to proceed in this
manner so that adverse ‘external’ reaction is not generated by the issue of an
incomplete CD. Given this approach it should be possible to proceed from
CD to DIS rather more rapidly than is the norm.
Page 8
ITEM MINUTE
5.3
ACTION
Panel 0 - Preamble.
The WG Convenor reported that the panel had met on Wednesday morning.
The meeting was attended, at one time or another, by Alan Dixon, Bob
Bowie, David Lewis, Mike Marcom, Pharr Smith and John Stiff.
Clauses 1-6 (excluding 3) were reviewed again and some minor edits made.
The Convenor was asked to query WG3's use of “as well as society” in 19902
6.6.3 “anticipated losses to the owner, the operator and the industry and / or
other third parties as well as society in general”.
Convenor
Post Meeting Note: This phrase is said to address the situation whereby a
community/state/country would suffer significant losses as a consequence of
the interruption of production.
The meeting drafted and later re-drafted text to address RPD.
The panel spent the remainder of its time reviewing Clause 3, Definitions.
The panel were concerned that there seems to be no ISO protocol for drawing
attention to defined terms from the main text. He was asked to raise this with
SC7.
Convenor
5.4
Panel 1/2 - MetOcean & Actions.
Olav Mo reported that he had met with a small group of his panel members.
He had apologies from Graham Bagnell, Richard Roper and Lars MunchSøegaard. The actions from the previous meeting had been completed.
The panel had discussed the latest drafts (Mark-Up and FDIS) of 19901-1 Met-Ocean Requirements. They noted that the changes to the main text were
mainly editorial, however text has been added to address tsunamis. The
regional information has been revised and now includes “indicative” data at
1, 5, 10, 50 and 100-year return period (with formats differing between
regions) for use in “conceptual studies”. The standard recommends sitespecific data for design/assessment. Wave heights are given for GoMex in
curves against water depth.
The panel had identified some minor changes to the Review Panel’s edits.
They had also included a reminder of the need to add information relating to
extreme wave crest and the need to reference a calculation method for hull-inwave loading.
The panel noted that the Review Panel had switched the order of clauses 7.3
and 7.4. The Informative was switched accordingly and the panel advised
that it will be necessary to update any cross-references from the rest of the
document.
All Panels
The agreed actions were to update the panel’s normative and informative text
and to prepare initial input to the TR.
Rupert Hunt raised the issue of crest elevation and asked whether it would be
possible to learn from recent TRS area deck-in-wave experiences.
Page 9
ITEM MINUTE
5.5
ACTION
Panel 3 - Structures & Responses.
Bob Bowie reported that panel 3 had met on Tuesday with 9 full time
attendees and part-time attendance from Rupert Hunt, Mike Hoyle and
Richard Roper. The panel covers Structural Modelling (Clause 8) and
Response Analysis (Clause 10).
The panel had looked at the changes to their Normative from the Review
Panel and had agreed these with minor edits. Thus the panel’s normative
sections are essentially complete. Section 8.8.1 includes load factors for
50-year individual extremes and 100-year joint probability metocean data.
Changes would be suggested for the text in clause 6.4, noting that P1-2 had
also suggested edits.
The next P3 meeting will concentrate on the Informative.
The Clause 10 Informative as updated by Pao-Lin Tan had been reviewed.
The panel had proposed that much of the text be moved to the TR, however
the P0 meeting had suggested that alternative calculation methods should
appear in either Annex A or within another Annex of 19905-1. The WG
Convenor confirmed that the TR should be used for background material only
e.g. the derivation of formulae such as the hand-calculation method for
natural period. Topics such as methods to determine the MPME should be
retained within 19905-1.
The panel had recognised that a number of issues need to be resolved. These
include the use of joint probability data and the load factors for stochastic
analysis.
5.6
Panel 4 - Foundations.
Patrick Wong reported that his panel had a full-day meeting on the previous
day. There were 10-12 participants, but only 6 of the panel’s 15 geotechnical
experts were present.
Patrick reported that he had managed to spend time drawing together the text
inputs and edits of the previous several years so that the panel had an almost
fully completed current draft to work from.
The panel was not in full agreement with the Review Panel change of the
word ‘location’ to ‘site’. The WG Convenor had advised the panel that he
had also become concerned whilst implementing the edit. This topic needs
further thought and probably agreement on and the definition of two terms one covering the area in which the jack-up is positioned and the other
meaning the precise spot at which it is positioned. Otherwise the Review
Panel changes were thought to be acceptable. There had been some debate
regarding the text on scour and Rupert Hunt had agreed to provide updated
text for inclusion in the CD.
Rupert Hunt
In the afternoon the panel had reviewed the changes in the compiled
Informative. These included the revised bearing capacity equations. It was
Page 10
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
agreed that these require ‘component level’ checking. Several panel members
had volunteered to provide data and others to undertake some verification
checks.
There had been discussion of the location of background
information, and the panel had noted the need to retain primary calculation
methods within Informative A and to locate alternative methods within other
Annexes. Panel members had agreed that the existing SNAME bearing
capacity checks should be retained within the Annexes.
The review was concluded at clause 9.3.3 to allow Jack Templeton of SAGE
to update the panel on his work to investigate the relationship between shear
modulus, OCR & plasticity index (PI). The NDE/OU Appendix E had been
updated as a result of this work, to allow the rigidity index, Ir (= G/Cu) to
exceed the original limit of 400, and recommending 600 for normally
consolidated clays with medium plasticity, such as found in GoMex. The
panel had agreed edits to the NDE/OU text circulated prior to the meeting.
Patrick wished to circulate the update to his complete panel prior to final
acceptance. The Work Group requested that this be done as soon as possible,
and it was agreed that the updated NDE/OU Appendix E would be issued as
soon as possible and that the Panel would be given 2 weeks to register any Convenor
comments. Once P4 agreement has been confirmed the NDE/OU Appendix E Patrick Wong
can be submitted to SNAME via Bob Bowie.
Convenor
It was confirmed that the recommendations in Informative A are based on the
“one G” approach. The “three G” approach may be referenced in a further
Informative Annex.
Rupert Hunt advised that the WG might be interested in a recent and a
forthcoming publication. The former is a paper by ExxonMobil & Bennett &
Assoc. on Swiss-Cheesing, IADC/SPE 88001, presented in September 2004.
The latter, by Carl Erbrich of Advanced Geomechanics, addresses the cyclic
preload of carbonate materials and will be presented at ISFOG in Perth in
September 2005.
5.7
Panel 5 - Seismic
Doug Stock Advised that P5 had a short meeting earlier in the day. There
meeting was attended by 1 representative of a Class society, 1 from an Oil
company and 2 Consultants.
The present draft of 19905-1 has place-holders for seismic text. The meeting
reviewed text that has been prepared for insertion. This comprises the
complete normative and partial informative. The panel has a plan for making
progress. The normative text will be included in CD 'E'.
Doug Stock
Patrick Wong asked whether P4 input was still required to address G for
seismic analysis. Jack Templeton advised that he will provide the interface
between the two panels and provide some guidance based on present data.
Page 11
ITEM MINUTE
5.8
ACTION
Panel 10 - Acceptance Criteria
John Stiff reported that panel 10 had a full day meeting on Monday with
between 6 and 10 attendees. The panel is responsible for clauses 12 (member
checks) and 13 (other acceptance checks)
The meeting had addressed the Review Panel changes to the Normative,
making some minor edits and had re-instating and re-worded a Review Panel
deletion wrt required hull elevation (airgap).
The rest of the meeting was spent on the member checks in the informative to
clause 12. This is 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. The meeting had taken an overview of the
complete clause and inserted placeholders with comments, etc. The panel had
concluded that the text is now aligned with the normative and is fit for an
initial review for basic completeness. The aim is to undertake this as a
funded study to be completed prior to the September meetings. John has
discussed funding with Don Smith of OGP.
John advised that there had been some discussion regarding the location of
the resistance factors. It had been agreed that these will be included in the
informative and summarised in a table to appear in the informative to
clause 13.
John advised that the meeting had been very productive and thanked his panel
for their contributions.
5.9
Panel 11 - Long term applications (fatigue/inspection)
Gregers Kudsk advised that his panel had met on Monday afternoon with 10
present. The panel had reviewed the changes from the Review Panel, which
affected the panel’s Normative and Informative. It had been agreed that a
better definition of Inspection Plan is required. The panel had also expanded
the descriptions of the data required.
6.
FURTHER PANELS.
It was 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.
Not required
(covered by P3)
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.
Page 12
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
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.
Rupert Hunt suggested a Panel to address Operational Issues such as RPD,
analysis/limits for going on/off location, punch-through capability, loadpenetration monitoring and surveillance of changes during operation (scour,
additional penetration, levelling, etc.). After lengthy discussion it was agreed
that whilst the constituents of WG7 are best placed to develop such guidance,
and there would be some merit in doing so, this topic is not within the
existing remit for WG7 and there is no appetite to add it at this time. Don
Smith suggested that OGP/IADC could provide the forum for publishing such
guidance. The WG Convenor noted that alternatively such guidance could be
included in later editions of the ISO 19901-6, Marine Operations, and/or
19905-1.
7.
ACTIONS & SCHEDULE FOR NEXT DRAFT OF 19905-1
7.1
Status
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)
% Complete
Normative
Next
draft
% Complete
Informative
Next
draft
0
Preamble
1-6
Text: 99%;
Terminology: 50%
Now
Not required
-
1-2
MetOcean &
Actions
7
100%
15th
May
100%
15th May
3
Structures
8:
Modelling
95%
15th
May
90%
End
May
10:
Response
95%
15th
May
60%
End
May
4
Foundations
9
95%
15th
May
85%
End
May
5
Seismic
Various
50%
15th
May
45%
October
10
Acceptance
12:
Members
95%
15th
May
50%
October
13:
Acceptance
95%
15th
May
60%
(Table only)
End
May
11
100%
15th
May
100%.
15th May
11
Long Term
Page 13
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
Given the above, it was agreed that the Normative will be updated as soon as
all the inputs have been received and that this can be issued as a CD ‘E’
(Normative only) after mid-May circulation to the WG for final review.
The base document for the CD ‘E’ circulation will be updated to include the
informative texts due to be completed by the end of May. This will form the
start-point for the next round of panel activity.
The WG confirmed that some benchmarking will be required and anticipated
that this can be completed by the Fall 2006 meetings, allowing a DIS to be
submitted to ISO at that time.
Post Meeting Note: SC7 advised that they will be happy to receive the
'Normative Only' CD shortly. However, SC7 will need to review a CD of the
full document including the Informative before proceeding to DIS. It should
then be possible for SC7 to recommend submitting the DIS within 12 months.
See revised schedule in Attachment 4.
7.2
Definitions:
It was agreed that these will be provided as follows:
P1-2
included in the present text.
P4
see PW email 28/04/2005 15:47 with G vd Zwaag's inputs Convenor
P3, 5, 10, 11 tba.
RDB, DJS, JJS, GK
7.3
TR Inputs
It was agreed that these will be provided as follows:
P1-2
end of June.
P3
end of May.
P4
Annex B for end of May
P5, P11
n/a
P10
tba.
7.4
8.
Funding
The following funding requirements were identified:
P10
Initial review of Clause 12/A12
Rigorous checks
P4
Bearing capacity checks
Stiffness issues
P5
Verification
Benchmarking (3 consultants, 3 cases)
Editing
TOTAL
OM
RDB
PW
JJS
US$ (k)
10
25
gratis
25
25
150
200
435
FUTURE WG 7 MEETING SCHEDULE.
It was agreed that the next series of meetings will be held in London during
the City University Conference week commencing September 12th 2005, with
Page 14
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
geotechnical sessions at the start of the week.
include the OGP/IADC Information Seminar.
The CU conference will
It was agreed that the WG Convenor will develop a schedule based on the
following meeting requirements (obtained after the meeting):
Panel Convenors:
Panel 0
Panel 1-2
Panel 3
Panel 4
Panel 5
Panel 10
Panel 11
pm Sunday
¼ day
2 - 3 hrs
1 day
1 day
½ day
1 day
¼ day
WG7
SNAME GoMex Annex
SNAME Revision sub-committee
SNAME North Sea Annex
SNAME OC7
3 hrs (before OC7)
¼ day
¼ day
¼ day
¼ day
The following series of meetings will take place in Houston during OTC
week commencing 1st May 2006.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
9.1
Jack Templeton advised that there is to be a specialist jack-up session during
OTC 2006. He will advise the timing as soon as he knows it. Those wishing
to provide papers advise him as soon as possible, providing: Draft Title,
Author List and Outline (full abstract not required) before the end of July.
10.
CONFIRM ACTION ITEMS.
The action items from the meeting are summarised below:
10.1
Item 3.1. Rupert Hunt to provide text regarding well conductor systems, with
references. This will be added to the Informative as P0 has excluded these
items from the Scope.
Rupert Hunt
10.2
Item 3.9. P3 to include text on pushover along the lines of 19902
12.4.6/A12.4.6. The WG Convenor was asked to send the Word draft of Bob Bowie
these clauses of 19902 to Bob Bowie.
WG Convenor.
Post meeting note: WG Convenor’s action completed after the meeting.
10.3
Item 3.12. John Stiff to circulate A13 table to Panel Convenors for their John Stiff
inputs (load and resistance factors, with symbols, text reference and values). Panel Convenors
10.4
Item 4.2. Convenor to raise the issues surrounding SC7/N363 Comment
1001 at SC7 and request a reasoned response to WG7’s comments.
Convenor
Page 15
ITEM MINUTE
ACTION
10.5
Item 5.2. IADC to suggest GoMex contacts for inclusion in circulations for
the Information Seminar and to encourage participation in the Conference,
Panel and WG 7 activities.
IADC/OGP
10.6
Items 5.2 & 5.3. WG Convenor to discuss the need for a means of identifying
defined terms.
Convenor
10.7
Item 5.3. Convenor to query WG3's use of “as well as society” in 19902
5.5.3 “anticipated losses to the owner, the operator and the industry and / or
other third parties as well as society in general”.
Convenor
10.8
Item 5.4. Panels to update any references to 7.3 and 7.4 to account for the
switch to their order.
All Panels
10.9
Item 5.6. Rupert Hunt to provide text on scour to P4/WG Convenor.
10.10
Item 5.6. Updated NDE/OU Appendix E to be issued to P4 as soon as Convenor
possible. P4 to respond within 2 weeks. Once P4 agreement has been Patrick Wong
confirmed, Appendix E can be submitted to SNAME via Bob Bowie
Convenor
10.11
Item 5.7. P5 Normative text to be included in CD ‘E’.
10.12
Item 7.2. P3, 5, 10 & 11 to provide definitions or timescale for doing so. RDB, DJS, JJS, GK
Convenor to add P4 definitions to current text.
Convenor
10.13
Item 7.3 (and 3.13). TR/Additional Informative inputs to be provided by
P1/2, P3 and P4, P10 Panel Convenors
OM, RDB, PW, JJS
10.14
Item 9.1. Submit details of jack-up papers for OTC2006 to Jack Templeton.
11.
CONCLUSION.
11.1
Prior to concluding the meeting, the WG Convenor expressed his thanks to all
those who had attended the WG7 and preceding meetings and who had
contributed to the success of the week.
11.2
There being no further business, the meeting closed at approximately
16:45 hrs.
Rupert Hunt
Doug Stock
All
Page 16
ATTACHMENT 1
ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7
Attendance Record for 17th Meeting
4th May 2005, Houston
Page 17
ATTACHMENT 1 (cont)
ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7
th
4 May 2005, Houston (continuation sheet)
Page 18
ATTACHMENT 1 (cont)
ISO TC 67/SC 7/WG 7
th
4 May 2005, Houston (continuation sheet)
Page 19
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 20
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont.)
Page 21
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont.)
Page 22
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 23
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 24

N 377 - DNV GL

Transcription

Similar documents

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

Hertco Express 20-DoorStyles_062013-A.indd

Christmas Card order form15.pub - Little Sisters of the Poor Pittsburgh

GlASS FibER REiNFORcEd CONcREtE

European Network for Conflict Research (ENCoRe)

MA6900

Hovrn onconarons - Home Decorators Collection

StarMark - Star Building Systems

Inspiring Surface Design

Behavioural Panel Synthesis™ (BPS™)