Post on 06-May-2018
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENERDNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016Mike White
OIL & GAS
Site-Specific Assessment of Jack-UpsPart 2: Background to Code Developments - SNAME & ISO
1
Noble Denton marine services
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
Overview
Some history.
Development of SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A.
The IADC Jack-Up Committee.
Development of ISO 19905-1.
Some Conclusions.
2
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The Early Days
Early designs, e.g., LeTourneau Scorpion (1955) …. limited calcs.
As early as 1957, considerable knowledge of the issues existed, but ...
the tools to address the important effects, dynamics, P-Delta & spudcan fixity remained limited.
The demands of rapid turn-round and the lack of tools made rigorous assessment difficult and results were inconsistent.
3
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The Early Days
The first Class Rules for mobile offshore units were published by ABS in 1968.
Marine Warranty Surveyors developed guidelines and made checks at one level or another.
The first IMO MODU Code was published in 1980.
By which time owners often obtained a 3rd party review of new designs, which were also Classed.
Few failures, mostly unrelated to site-assessment.
The simplified trade-off: Dynamics = Fixity + Conservative Structural Design
was usually OK !
Foundations & blowout greatest part of in-situ risk.
4
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The “Shell Study”
In late 1980’s Shell developed guidance for jack-ups, which was shared with industry. A step forward, but felt by some to be too conservative. Inconsistency between assessors was observed. In 1987 Shell commissioned a study:
‘Jack-Up Operations – Comparative Study of Assessment Procedures’with 51 companies completing a general questionnaire,
16 full day interviews and 14 of the interviewees doing 1 or 2 test-case analyses of fictitious jack-ups.
The study, presented late 1988, showed a large spread of results. Some of this was due to differing methods of reporting, and some due to differing
assumptions and methodologies. Some differences were resolvable, others not. A number of areas were identified
for further study. It was decided to launch a JIP, supported by industry and guided by a Work
Group, comprising 4 representatives from: Oil Companies, Designers, Drilling Contractors & Class.
5
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The Development of SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5AThe Site-Assessment JIP
The aim: to develop a site-assessment procedure through consensus.
The Work Group met for at least 2 days about 4 times/year from 1989 to 1994.
A philosophical Guideline (published 1989) set out the overall approach; this was at a level that should need no revision. It formed the basis of the normative clauses in ISO 19905-1. The key principle was that the level of analysis should match the need. However, in all cases the foundation must be checked.
Guideline supported by more technical Recommended Practice, a Commentary and a “Go-By” example calculation that has been invaluable to many.
Developed by specialist sub-committees for: hydrodynamics, foundations, structural modelling, dynamics, and assessment criteria. Most undertook funded studies to improve knowledge in their area.
Acceptance criteria based on exemplary cases. When the Practice was published, it used a conservative environmental load factor of 1.25 (for use with 50-year individual metocean extremes), as the more logical load factor of 1.15 was likely to be seen as “overly adventurous”.
1.15 was eventually adopted in Rev. 2 in 2002.
6
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The Site-Assessment JIP (continued)
The Guideline, RP, Commentary & Go-By published as SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A. Represented a 5-year effort and US$3million (1993 values) plus the many self-
funded man-hours & expenses of the participants. Rev. 1 (1997) included the results of further work on foundation fixity. Rev. 2 (2002) reduced environmental load factor; more on fixity. Rev. 3 (2008) alternative wave spreading allowed, updated fixity & clarified LF. Final update/corrigenda to Rev. 3 (2015).
7
Phase 0Guideline, RP, Commentary & Go-By
14 drafts! 491 pages!
1989 19
94
1997
Rev
1
2002
Rev
2
Guideline13 pages
2008
Rev
3
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The IADC Jack-up Committee (IJUC)Developments Post SNAME T&RB 5-5A Rev. 0
After publication of T&RB 5-5A the drilling contractors (IADC) formed a Jack-Up Committee (IJUC) to advance the site-assessment process. This funded much of the work undertaken in the following areas:– Hindcast analysis of jack-ups in hurricane Ivan – indicated the SNAME 1994 was
overly conservative.– Wave spreading / short crestedness – greater benefit than that given in SNAME.– Load factor assessment – the original 1.25 load factor (with 50-yr independent
extremes) conservative.– Pushover analyses – when the foundation is adequate jack-ups have a good RSR.– Leg chord test – the results are still unpublished, but indicated that the methods
developed for SNAME for hybrid chords with a single axis of symmetry are OK or conservative.
– Deep spudcan penetration soil (fixity) study – shallow foundation capacity and degradation model conservative for deep penetrations.
– Instrumentation and effects of foundation degradation on dynamics – foundation degradation less that expected - instrumentation & hurricane back-analysis studies still not finalized.
– Gulf of Mexico Sudden Hurricane Study – to determine metocean data for the “still just manned” case (used in the GoMex regional Annex to ISO 19905-1).
8
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The Development of the ISOWhere do the ISO TC67/SC7 ISO 19900-series standards sit?
19900-series is part of a much larger suite of standards for P&NGI
9
Surface Equip. Materials
Mechanical Equip.
Piping & Valves
Pipelines
Subsea Equipment
Drilling Equipment
19900-series SC7 Standards
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
The ISO TC67/SC7 ISO 19900 Series Standards
ISO 19900 General requirements for offshore structures ISO 19901-1 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 1: Metocean design and operating
considerations ISO 19901-2 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 2: Seismic design procedures and criteria ISO 19901-3 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 3: Topsides structure ISO 19901-4 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation design
considerations ISO 19901-5 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 5: Weight control during engineering and
construction ISO 19901-6 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 6: Marine operations ISO 19901-7 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating
offshore structures & mobile offshore units ISO 19901-8 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 8: Marine soils investigation (under preparation) ISO 19901-9 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 9: SIM Fixed Steel (under preparation) ISO 19902 Fixed steel offshore structures ISO 19903 Fixed concrete offshore structures ISO 19904-1 Floating offshore structures - Part 1: Mono-hulls, semi-submersibles and spars ISO 19904-2 Floating offshore structures - Part 2: Tension leg platforms (under consideration) ISO 19905-1 Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 1: Jack-ups ISO 19905-2 Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 2: Jack-ups commentary and detailed
sample calculation ISO 19905-3 Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 3: Floating units (under preparation) ISO 19906 Arctic offshore structures
10
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
Development of the ISOISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2
WG7 on site-specific assessment of MOU’s first met in 1996.
SC7’s remit was to use SNAME as the “base document” for ISO 19905-1.
The initial idea was to translate SNAME into “ISO-speak”.
Needed to harmonize with other 19900-series standards (and they with us), e.g.– Needed 50-year met data in 19901-1.– ISO 19902 fixed steel offshore structures standard includes advances in tubular
member checking, but this needed to be modified to the capacity-based approach that is used for jack-ups.
However it was recognized that the ISO should embrace the technical developments that were in progress. This proved challenging, especiallyfor the foundations panel.
11
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Technical Panels were formed:
P0 Preamble Mike Hoyle (DNV GL / GL ND / ND)
P1/2Metocean / loading (actions) Olav Mo (DNV)Graham Bagnell (Rowan)Dave Lewis (LEG)
P3 Structures (modelling, response, resistance) Bob Bowie (ABS)Pao-Lin Tan (ABS)
P4 Foundations Patrick Wong (ExxonMobil)
P5 Seismic (earthquake) Doug Stock (Digital Structures)
P10 Acceptance checks / p. factors / calibration Mal Sharples (ABS)John Stiff (ABS Consulting)
P11 Long-term applications (fatigue/inspection) Gregers Kudsk (Maersk Drilling)
12
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Benchmarking for usability, completeness and comparison with latest SNAME (Rev. 3 + final update/corrigenda) - see Stiff & Lewis, OTC 22949
Benchmarking of the new leg member structural checks. Phase 1: A-Z benchmarking of a draft. Phase 2: Full benchmarking of the Dec 2009 post-DIS / draft-FDIS
version.– ISO generally a little less conservative than SNAME Rev. 3 (including the effect
of the deep penetration foundation changes that did not make it into Rev. 3).– Some significant differences in foundation checks – partly due to differing
interpretations of SNAME. The DIS text was revised and the checks repeated, resulting in differences that were judged to be acceptable.
– The bench-markers also provided some 270 comments.
ISO 19905-2, provides back-up from SNAME commentary, and includes a detailed sample “Go-By” calculation by one of the benchmark cases.
13
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading – see Dowdy et al. OTC 23342
Effects of wave spreading (and randomness).
Application of intrinsic & apparent wave periods.
14
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading
Effects of spreading (and randomness) - see also Hoyle et al. OTC 20297
Directional spreading produces short-crested waves.
Wave energy propagates in directions around the principal direction.
Peak particle velocities reduce as the waves are more spread.
The loads are, therefore, reduced.
15
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading
Effects of spreading (and randomness)
ISO 19901-1: latitude dependent directional spreading factor (at a point).
Applied as Kinematics Reduction Factor (KRF).
SNAME uses a fixed wave-height reduction factor (Hdet = 0.86 Hmax).
Both are applied with regularwave theories.
Spatial effects are ignored in both.
16
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90Latitude, (degrees)
ISO
Dire
ctio
nal S
prea
ding
Fac
tor,
Tropical Cyclones <40°
Low Latitude Monsoons <15°
=0.88
=0.867
Extratropical Storms 36°<| <72° =1.0193-0.00208|
=51° =0.913
=61° =0.892
Nor
th
S
ea
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading
Effects of spreading (and randomness)
Leg spacing Jack-Up > Jacket:
17
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading
Effects of spreading (and randomness)
A parametric study undertaken for a range of:
– Leg spacing (jack-up class), SY
– Feasible water depths, d
– ISO spreading factor,
– Wave heights, H
– Wave length, L0 (or L)
Formulation for KRF:
Limitations:
18
22
maxmax22
2 303.1640.0658.080.045.1043.0426.0824.0
dH
dH
Ld
Ld
LS
LS yy
κ 43.008.0
LS y 76.014.0
Ld
58.007.0 max
dH
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 - Loading
Application of Intrinsic & Apparent wave periods
Use of the correct forcing period affects dynamic response.
Forcing period affected by current (Doppler effect).
Underlying wave kinematics function of no-current wave period (current does not change in physical wave length).
In SDOF/regular waves this can be easily addressed – but more challenging in random sea-states / irregular waves.
ISO-19901-1 includes some guidance that is wrong for random sea-states.
Guidance is included in 19905-1 to address this.
19
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations – See Wong et al. OTC 23521
Embracing ongoing research proved challenging, particularly for the foundations panel. The foundation-related changes in 19905-1 include:
Site investigation requirements.
Bearing capacity formulations (accounting for backfill).
Initial spudcan foundation stiffness.
Yield surface models and stiffness reduction.
Spudcan foundation acceptance criteria.
20
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations
Geotechnical site investigation requirements ISO 19905-1 provides non-prescriptive but specific guidance on:
– Bathymetry survey.– Sea floor survey.– Geotechnical site investigation.– Integration of geophysical and geotechnical
data. Annex D provides specific guidance on:
– Number of boreholes and PCPT test holes.– Position of boreholes and PCPT test holes.– Open location vs. platform location.– Geologic setting: simple, complex, very complex.
Notable clarification in guidance: site-specific geotechnical info is to be “obtained from or on behalf of the operator”.
21
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations
Bearing capacity formulations (accounting for backfill) Effects of soil buoyancy on spudcan below notional flat-plate bearing surface and
backfill included as explicit terms. At preload (VLo):QVo = VLo + WBF,o - BS
ISO includes the Hossain et al, 2006 method for determining backflow; SNAME uses a wall collapse method that is often wrong.
22
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations
Initial spudcan foundation stiffness SNAME Rev, 3 includes some
of the results of studies funded by IJUC that address the initial foundation stiffness. Cut off at G/Su = 400
removed in ISO.
23
10
100
1000
1 10 100
Overconsolidation Ratio
G / s u
Case Histories
Recommendation for storm loading
Small Strain value for Fatigue
Rev. 2 Practice for storm loading
Case History, Adriatic III, including Tropical Storm JosephineRecommendation, extended to include T. S. Josephine CaseSmall Strain data, Gulf of Mexico clay
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations
Yield surface and stiffness reduction
ISO includes improved recommendations on yield surface and stiffness reduction, especially for deeper penetrations.
These changes also address, and benefit from, the change to using Gross capacity.
where:a = shaping parameter (from 0 at no penetration to 1 at deep penetration)
FV, FH, FM = applied loadsQV, QH, QM = maximum capacities
with QH and QM now taking much greater values (vs. prior SNAME Bulletin 5-5A) for deep penetrations in clay.
24
0QF1
QFa4
QF1
QFa116
QF
QF
V
V
V
V2
V
V2
V
V2
M
M2
H
H
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – FoundationsYield surface models
25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Mom
ent C
apac
ity, R
elativ
eto
Max
imum
Vertical Force Capacity, Relative to Maximum
Force and Moment Capacity Interaction
Parabola (Bulletin 5.5)
Ellipse (Max El. EnergyTheory)
Finite Element Results
Fit to Finite Element Resultsusing Martin & Houlsby (2001)Equation 2
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
V
QV
(QV-WBF,o+BS)/R,VH
+WBF,o-BS
WBF,o-BS
H
1
2
(FH,FV,)ORG = 0,5 QV / R,VH
(FH,FV)
QVH,f
4 3
QH/R,Hfc QH
(FH,FV)
QVH,f
5
U = | (FH,FV) - (FH,FV)ORG | / | QVH,f - (FH,FV)ORG |
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Foundations
Spudcan foundation acceptance criteria fully revised
26
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Modelling & Response – Tan et al. OTC 23040
Revised drag-inertia method – based on Perry et al, OMAE2011-50335.
– DAF from the Shell drag-inertia method enhanced when TN/TP > 0.6
– Not permitted when TN/TP ≥ 1.0
New restrictions on use of the SDOF method.
– DAF must always be ≥ 1.2
One-stage stochastic storm analysis.
– Process provided to scale inputs so that results are compatible with standard two-stage analysis.
Additional requirement for earthquake assessment in seismic areas.
Analysis precautions when operating close to resonance.
27
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Modelling & Response
Precautions for operating close to resonance:
SNAME only suggests inertial load in phase with wave/current load.
However, not always true as shown in a SDOF system.
28
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Modelling & Response
Precautions for operating close to resonance (continued):
To ensure critical load cases are addressed, ISO suggests:
– Regardless of the Tn/Tp ratio, run inertial load in phase with wave/current for all assessment load cases.
– When the Tn/Tp ratio > 0.9, consider additional assessment load cases covering the possibility that the inertial loading is 90 or 180 degrees out of phase with the wave loading.
29
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Member Checking – See Frieze et al OTC 23071
Harmonisation with other standards was part of the remit.
ISO 19902 fixed steel platform standard includes advances in tubular member checking, but needed to be modified to the capacity-based approach used for jack-ups (chords typically use a mix of yield strengths).
Improved SNAME treatment of:– Cross-sectional slenderness limits – were unfriendly, inconsistent, limited.– Effect of Stiffening to, e.g., side plates.– Excluding hydrostatic pressure from member checks.– Axial compression column curves (for HSS - often 700 N/mm2 / 100 ksi).– Lateral torsional buckling – new, more applicable (and less onerous)
formulation developed and adopted for ISO.– Circular/curved components of prismatic sections – present guidance ignores
benefit of central stiffening but no easy fix.
30
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Member Checking
Effect of Stiffening, e.g., side plates.
In SNAME, no guidance on how to deal with reinforcing plates in checking cross-sectional slenderness – what thickness to use for local buckling?
31
a)
b)
c)
d)
341check efft t t
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Member Checking
SNAME excluded hydrostatic pressure from member checks. The ISO 19902 strength formulations are complicated by the inclusion of hydrostatic pressure.
32
Study carried out to determine thresholds at which hydrostatic pressure can be safely ignored.
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 50 100 150
20 axial only20 bending only40 axial only40 bending only60 axial only60 bending only
Water depth (m)
D/t for Fy = 450 N/mm²
fa/Fy
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Member Checking
33
Guidance given in the form of limiting D/t versus hydrostatic head.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 50 100 150 200
Data for 10% reduction in strength including safetyfactorsPower series approximation D/t = 211 d^(-0.335)
D/t ratio
Water depth d (m)
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 and ISO 19905-1 & -2 (continued)
Developments in ISO 19905-1 – Member Checking
Axial Compression Column CurvesIssues:
AISC reference document (used for chords / non-tubulars) reduced safety margin in resistance factor in 2005.
Wish to take advantage of more favourable Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) P1 column curve for HSS (yield > 450 N/mm2 / 65 ksi).
Based on Industry practice and selection of SSRC curves P1 & P2, the revised resistance factor was adopted for both.
34
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
Conclusions
Jack-up technology has developed considerably over the years, although many of the key features were known as far back as 1957.
Inconsistencies in the 1980’s resulted in the “Shell Study”, which led to the JIP that developed SNAME T&RB 5-5A, published in 1994.
Since then much research has taken place; SNAME has moved forward and ISO 19905-1 has been developed from it by the Industry’s technical experts.
The draft of ISO 19905-1 was subjected to considerable technical and editorial review and was successfully benchmarked.
There was a strong commitment to ensure the ISO is practical, technically rigorous and in conformance with ISO requirements.
Jack-up technology will continue to develop and 19905-1 will be updated accordingly.
35
DNV GL © 2013
Ungraded
02 November 2016
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
www.dnvgl.com
Thank you for your attention.
Any questions?
36
Noble Denton Marine Assurance and Advisory