Preliminary report Final reportprojects.dnvgl.com/iso-tc67-sc7-wg7/wg7-drafts/Report...FORM 13 (ISO) Page 1 of 1 Version 2001-07 REPORT OF VOTING ON ISO/DIS 19905-1 Closing date of

FORM 13 (ISO) Page 1 of 1 Version 2001-07

REPORT OF VOTING ON ISO/DIS 19905-1

Closing date of voting

2010-02-12 ISO/TC 67 /SC 7

Secretariat

BSI

A report shall be returned to ISO/CS no later than 3 months after the closing date of voting on the DIS, whether or not comments have been reviewed and/or a new text has been prepared.

Preliminary report (submitted in those cases where comments are still to be considered and/or a decision has not yet been taken, or where it is decided that the nature of comments indicates a need for further consultation and/or reversion to a previous project development stage). To be followed by a 'Final report'. Any preliminary report is for ISO/CS for information, and is not circulated to member bodies)

Final report (submitted either immediately, when all comments have been reviewed and a decision can be taken, or following a 'Preliminary report'. The final report is circulated by ISO/CS to member bodies, and is distributed with any associated DIS or FDIS text)

1 Result of the voting

The above-mentioned document was circulated to member bodies with a request that the ISO Central Secretariat be informed whether or not member bodies were in favour of registration of the DIS as a Final Draft International Standard or for publication in the case of unanimous approval.

The vote closed on the date indicated above. The replies listed in annex A have been received.

2

3

Comments received

Observations of the secretariat See annex B (if appropriate)

4 Decision of the Chairman

Preliminary report (no annexes required)

The comments are under review and/or a decision on further procedure has not yet been taken

The project is to revert to the Preparatory Stage (a new working draft will be developed)

The project is to revert to the Committee Stage (a new committee draft will be developed)

Final report

Having received 100% approval from the member bodies voting, the DIS is approved for direct publication without change other than editorial (no FDIS vote) (Option not applicable to projects progressing under the Vienna Agreement)

A revised text is to be submitted to ISO/CS for the approval procedure (FDIS vote)

A revised text is to be submitted to ISO/CS for a further enquiry (DIS) vote

Remarks (e.g. observations on how comments were reviewed, date by which a decision is to be taken, date when a text is expected)

Enclosures

Annex A Formal response to comments attached

Annex B

Signature of the Secretary

M K Greenley

Date 08/02/2011

Signature of the Chairman

P Smedley

Date 08/02/2011

Ballot Information

Reference ISO/DIS 19905-1 Committee ISO/TC 67/SC 7

Edition number 1

English titlePetroleum and natural gas industries -- Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units --Part 1: Jack-ups

French title Industries du pétrole et du gaz naturel -- Évaluation spécifique au site d'unités mobiles en mer-- Partie 1: Plates-formes auto-élévatrices

Start date 2009-09-10 End date 2010-02-10

Opened by ISO/CS on 2009-09-10 00:07:08 Closed by ISO/CS on

Status Pending

Voting stage Enquiry Version number 1

Note

Vienna agreement ISO lead

Result of voting

P-Members voting: 15 in favour out of 15 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

(P-Members having abstained are not counted in this vote.)

Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 19 = 0 % (requirement <= 25%)

Approved

Votes by members

Country Member Status Approval Disapproval Abstention

Argentina IRAM P-Member X

Austria ASI X

Brazil ABNT P-Member X

Canada SCC P-Member X *

China SAC P-Member X

Denmark DS P-Member X

Finland SFS P-Member

France AFNOR P-Member X *

Germany DIN O-Member X *

Indonesia BSN P-Member X

Italy UNI P-Member X

Japan JISC P-Member X

Kazakhstan KAZMEMST P-Member X

Korea, Republic of KATS P-Member X

Netherlands NEN P-Member X *

Norway SN P-Member X *

Pakistan PSQCA X

Poland PKN O-Member X

Portugal IPQ X

Qatar QS P-Member X

Romania ASRO P-Member X

Russian Federation GOST R P-Member X

Singapore SPRING SG P-Member X *

Spain AENOR O-Member X

Sweden SIS X

United Kingdom BSI Secretariat X

USA ANSI P-Member

P-Member TOTALSTotal of P-Members voting: 15

15 0 3

TOTALS 19 0 6

(*) A comment file was submitted with this vote

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_SCC.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_AFNOR.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_DIN.doc

Comments from Voters

Canada SCC P-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_SCC.doc

France AFNOR P-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_AFNOR.doc

Germany DIN O-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_DIN.doc

Netherlands NEN P-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_NEN.doc

Norway SN P-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_SN.doc

Singapore SPRING SG P-Member ISO_DIS_19905-1_SPRING SG.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_SCC.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_AFNOR.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_DIN.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_NEN.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_SN.doc

CommentFiles/ISO_DIS_19905-1_SPRING SG.doc

Template for comments and secretariat observations Date: 2010-07-30 Document: ISO/DIS 19905-1

1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **) Page 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory. ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10

1

Source Total te & te/ed ed, ge, ed/ge

From International Ballot:

NEN 311 255 56 Plus separate mark-up and the Attachments below!

FR/AFNOR 1 1 0

DE/DIN 3 3 0

CA/SCC 15 7 8

NO/SN 40 19 21

SG/SPRING 17 15 2

US 48 16 32

Total Int Ballot

435 316 119

From bench-marking (BM):

BM BASS 2 0 2 Benchmarking - Bennett & Associates

BM GLND 120 53 67 Benchmarking - GL Noble Denton Inc: (+8 in 2nd round) (+8 in 3rd round)

BM GMUS 37 12 25 Benchmarking - Global Maritime USA / RPSE Inc: (+4 in 2nd round)

BM MSC 110 35 75 Benchmarking - GustoMSC Inc: (+4 in 2nd round)

Total BM 269 100 169

GRAND TOTAL

704 416 288

Template for comments and secretariat observations Date: 2010-02-09 Document: ISO/DIS 19905-1 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1

Clause No./ Subclause No./

Annex (e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/Table/

Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted


2

US 16.5.2 << comment withdrawn>>

ge The provision of the first sentence in the last paragraph should only apply during hurricane season

In the first sentence of the last paragraph, add ",during the hurricane season," after the words " significantly reduced"

US 16.8.2 << comment withdrawn>>

ed In the last paragraph, there are several items listed under "Examples of strengthening" that have nothing to do with strengthing.

Start a new paragraph beginning with the 4th item.

GENERAL

DE 0

General

ge Please complete and/or delete all explanatory notes (<<…>>) in the whole document.

Noted

US 0

All Sections

ge IADC is engaging in a benchmarking study planned to be completed in 2010 evaluating the impact of the draft ISO text on the exisiting jack-up fleet. Most of existing fleet has been designed to class rules and impact should be assessed for a range of designs and locations prior to implementing.

As the benchmarking study will be complete after the DIS commenting period has ended, it is recommended that the ISO work group consider any recommendations and comments for 19905-1 when the benchmarking study is concluded.

Noted

US 0

All Sections

ge This document is not yet in useable form as a standard. There are several notes on critical open subjects that need to be resolved. The references need to be finalized.

Resubmit after completion of benchmark study. Noted

NEN 0

general

ge These electronic comments are a WORD document comprising 5 sections, as follows:

section 1 is the actual ISO comments table;

section 2 is Attachment 1 and contains the text of selected (sub)clauses from Clause (A.)5 to (A.)13 with proposed amendments;

section 3 is Attachment 2 and contains the Abbreviated terms and symbols of Clause 4, and the Clauses A.1 to A.4 (with again mainly symbols) from Annex A, with proposed amendments;

section 4 is Attachment 3 and contains Annex B with

Noted


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



3

proposed amendments.;

section 5 is Attachment 4 with suggestions for (partial) amendments to Figure 5.2-1.

Section 1 is in landscape orientation; the 4 attachments in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 are in portrait orientation.

The full set of comments consists of these electronic comments supplemented with a number of hard copy pages, marked-up with editorial and other proposed changes. These hard copy pages will be made available to the convenor of SC 7 / WG 7 for the information of WG 7.

Amendments in all electronic parts are made using “track changes” on the DIS text. Due to the introduction of a new laptop, a new operating system and a new WORD version during the review period, the colour coding in track changes went all over the place and could not be controlled. Different colours suggest contributions from different reviewers (which is not the case), while colours even changed between different openings of the document during its preparation. Therefore colours should be disregarded; the only relevant distinctions are “strike through” for deletions and “underlining” for new text.

NEN 0

general

throughout ed Spelling: UK English spelling is not consistently used throughout the document.

Incorrect spelling observed should be corrected where these occur.

change of s to z in:

- summarises, summarised, summarising

- mobilise

- localise

- categorise, categorisation

Remove the comma after the following

Accepted


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



4

abbreviations, where these occur:

- i.e. (instead of i.e.,)

- e.g. (instead of e.g.,)

By contrast, use a comma before these abbreviations:

- …., i.e. ….

- … , e.g. …

NEN 0

general

throughout ed Within the document consistent spelling should be applied. Additionally, a degree of consistency between all standards in the ISO 1900 series is pursued, although not fully achieved. Therefore there is a preference for conforming to the spelling generally used in earlier standards.

For the items in the next column the spelling in ISO 19905-1 varied, or departed from the spelling in other ISO 19900 standards.

Use consistent spelling for the following words or phrases:

- “manned evacuated” is variously spelled with and without hyphen; a consistent form should be chosen (in ISO 19902 it is spelled without hyphen);

- “degree-of-freedom”, with and without hyphens; should be spelled consistently with hyphens;

- “exceedance” with an “a” was chosen as the preferred spelling in ISO 19900 standards, in preference to the spelling with an “e”.

- “non-linear”, “non-linearity/ties” are mostly spelled as one word in this document, but should consistently be spelled with a hyphen, in accordance with the Oxford Dictionary.

- “time domain” with and without hyphen; should be spelled consistently as 2 words without a hyphen, as per other ISO 19900 standards;

- “subset” is one word, not with a hyphen;

Accepted


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



5

- “data” are plural and should be used with plural verbal forms;

- “long-crested” and “short-crested” should be consistently written with a hyphen;

- “long-term” and “short-term” followed by a noun should similarly be written with a hyphen;

- ‘’site-specific’’ should consistently be spelled with a hyphen;

- “cross-section(s)/cross-sectional should consistently be spelled with a hyphen;

- replace “2-D” wherever it occurs by “two-dimension(al)” and “3-D” by “three-dimension(al)”;

- “punch-through” is written with and without hyphen; the form with is probably the preferred one;

- “sea states” are two words, not one;

- “loadset” should consistently be spelled as one word, not as two and not with a hyphen.

NEN 0

general

throughout te There are many cross-references to ISO TR 19905-2, including reference to specific (sub)clause numbers (question: is the numbering in 19905-2 the same as in 19905-1??). As document ISO TR 19905-2 does not yet exist it is difficult to determine the relevance and correctness of such cross-references. Generally speaking, reference to ISO TR 19905-2 is best avoided wherever possible.

Even after critical consideration of the necessity of cross-referencing ISO TR 19905-2, it appears unlikely that these will all disappear. Therefore ISO TR 19905-2 needs to be added to the Bibliography with an appropriate reference number. It appears best to adopt a general, sequential reference number, not related to (sub)clause numbering, similar to those used for non-normative standards in the introduction to Clause 3 (see there).

Accepted.

NEN 0 throughout ed Where no guidance is offered in the annex(es), the Change, wherever this occurs, “No guidance Agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



6

general standard phrase is “No guidance is offered”. offered” to “No guidance is offered”

NEN 0

general

throughout ed Return period indications are written without hyphen and ‘year’ in full.

Examples: 50 year, 100 year. Accepted

NEN 0

general

throughout ed In accordance with ISO Directives, units following a number should always be used with their formal abbreviation. The abbreviation of minute is ‘min’.

When names of units are used in the text without a number they are written out in full.

Examples: 10 m, 5 s, 2 m/s, 10 min, etc.

Examples: metres, seconds, minutes, etc.

Accepted

NEN 0

general

throughout te/ed Symbols for variables are in Times New Roman font and italics, subscripts are in Arial and upright. If the subscript itself is a variable, then it is also in italics.

P-∆ occurs many times. Consider (perhaps by consulting with the ISO editors) if this should be seen as a combination of symbols or as a ‘notion’, a term. In the latter case it may need to be defined as such.

The ISO rules for symbols are generally observed, but not everywhere. Where in error they should be corrected.

Agreed.

NEN 0

general

throughout te/ed The ISO style for definitions of symbols in equations is:- “where” without a capital 1st letter and without a colon;- “symbol X” followed by “is (the) …” instead of “=”; - a semi-colon after each definition, and a full stop after the last.

Apply the ISO style wherever definitions following equations are given.

Agreed.

NEN 0

general

throughout te/ed For some (sub)clauses editorial corrections and/or suggestions for text changes cannot be properly entered in this Table. These items are given in WORD format in one of the attachments to this Table using track changes (see comment at the top of the table). (Sub)clauses concerned are marked with “see attachment 1 (or 2, or 3, or 4)” in column 6 of this table.

See Attachment 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Please note that in copying from the DIS in pfd format to this Word document, symbol fonts are not always maintained in the attachments; no consistent attempt was made to correct such changes of font.

Incorporated most but not all comments.

NEN 0

general

throughout ed After having progressed to Clause 7 and A.7, entering relatively minor editorial details electronically in the table or its attachments proved too time-consuming to permit

See markings on separate hard copy pages. Noted.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



7

continuing in this manner.

Therefore, from Clause 8 and A.8 onwards, (minor) editorial details have been marked-up on separate hard copy pages of the DIS that accompany these electronic comments and form an integral part with them; they are additional to and do not replace electronic comments. Some time later still, marking-up hard copy pages developed into a practical and convenient procedure, also for more general suggested changes.

Foreword

NEN Foreword Nearly all of the text is standard text supplied by ISO CS. In the final FDIS submission it should only be checked that the listing of ISO 19900 series standards corresponds with the latest version. See at that time the latest published ISO 19900 standard(s) for (an) example(s).

Noted

Introduction

NEN Introduction para 1, line 3 te/ed Insert “petrochemical” in line with the full title of TC 67. This seems a bit odd for jack-ups, but it is in accordance with the introduction for the recently published ISO 19901-6.

Change to

“……used by the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries worldwide.”

Agreed

NEN Introduction para 2, last sentence

ed For ISO 19901-6 the verbal form in this sentence was rejected by ISO CS, despite the fact that it appeared in all earlier ISO 19900 standards. The sentence was reconstructed as shown in column 6.

Change to

“It is necessary, therefore, to consider the implications involved in modifications in relation to the overall reliability of offshore structural systems.”

Agreed

NEN Introduction para 5, 1st sentence

te/ed Is the site-specific assessment not also dependent on the task to be performed?

Suggest amending to: ”Site-specific assessment is normally carried out when an existing jack-up unit is to be installed at a specific site to perform a specific task”.

Agreed

NEN Introduction para 5, last ed Enhanced clarity in distinguishing standards in the ISO Suggest amending to: Agreed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



8

sentence 19900 series from other practices/standards. ”In some instances the original design of all or part of the structure could be in accordance with other standards in the ISO 19900 series, and in some cases different practices or standards could have been applied.”

NEN Introduction para 7, 1st sentence

ed Rearrange the sentence into a more direct form for better reading.

Suggest amending to: ” Annex A provides background to and guidance on the use of this document and should be read in conjunction with the main body of this document.”

Agreed

NEN Introduction para 8, 2nd sentence.

te/ed Improved clarity. Change to: ”Supplementary information is presented in informative Annexes C to G.”

Agreed

Clause 1 Agreed

NEN 01 para 3, line 1 te/ed Error. Change “ISO 19901-5” to “ISO 19905-1”. Agreed

NEN 01 para 4, 2nd sentence

ed Punctuation. Insert comma after “However”. Agreed

NEN 01 NOTE 2 te/ed The verb ‘may’ is only allowed to express permission. Change ‘may’ to ‘could’.

CA 01 3 te "When assessing a jack-up operating in such areas, the assessor should supplement the provisions of this standard with the procedures relating to ice actions and ice management contained in ISO 19906."

This above statement is taken directly from the ISO 19906 DIS.

ISO 19906 is the only standard in the ISO 19900 suite that provides ice action factors and associated annual probabilities for design events. The above statement refers to "procedures" relating to ice actions. It is recommended that "procedures" be changed to "provisions" to ensure that ice actions are specified appropriately for jack-ups, as they are for all other types of structures.

Change

"When assessing a jack-up operating in such areas, the assessor should supplement the provisions of this standard with the procedures relating to ice actions and ice management contained in ISO 19906."

to "When assessing a jack-up operating in such areas, the assessor should supplement the provisions of this standard with the provisions relating to ice actions and ice management contained in ISO 19906."

Procedures to avoid ice actions seem more relevant than provisions to calculate them.

Revised to: "When assessing a jack-up operating in such areas, the assessor should supplement the provisions of this standard with the provisions relating to ice actions and procedures for ice management contained in ISO 19906."

.

Deleted: other

Deleted: Background

Deleted: is provided in informative Annex A, which

Deleted: -

Deleted: ¶


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



9

CA 01 3 te The standard states: “This document does not address design, transportation to and from site or installation and removal from site. However it is recommended that the assumptions used in the assessment be checked against the as-installed configuration.” Add notes to provide additional clarity.

Note 4. RCS rules and the IMO MODU code also provide guidance for design of jack-ups. For transportation to and from site or installation and removal from site, refer to ISO 19901-6.

-

19901-6 authors are of the opinion that it is not intended to apply to j-u. End of addition not included.

US 01 5th para. ed Change 19901-5 to 19905-1 Yes.

Clause 2

NEN 02 ISO 19901-3 te This standard is not normative; it is only referenced in A.12.7 with a recommendation NOT to use 19901-3!

Remove ISO 19901-3 from Clause 2. Instead, give it a reference number and include it in the Bibliography. It is probably best (and acceptable to ISO) to give this and similar references to other standards a sequential number [1], [2], [3], etc., entering them at the beginning of the Bibliography, before starting to use the special subclause reference numbering.

Agreed.

NEN 02 ISO 19901-4 te I question if this standard is normative. Other than in Clause 3, it is only referenced in 9.1 in an informative manner (“supporting information can be found in”), while 19905-1 is said to take precedence in case of conflict.

Remove ISO 19901-4 from Clause 2. Instead, give it a reference number and include it in the Bibliography as for ISO 19901-3.

Agreed.

NEN 02 ISO 19906 te The only reference to ISO 19906 is in Clause 1 with a RECOMMENDATION to supplement ISO 19905-1 with ISO 19906 in regions subject to sea ice and icebergs.

If ISO 19906 is truly intended to be normative, a change of “should” to “shall” in Clause 1 is appropriate. If, however, it is intended that ISO 19906 is only informative, then ISO 19906 should be removed from Clause 2, given a reference number in Clause 1 and be included in the Bibliography as for the preceding two entries.

19906 made an informative reference.

Clause 3

NEN 03 introductory te/ed Standards listed in the introductory sentence to Clause 3 Remove ISO 19901-4 (if it is removed from the Agreed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



10

sentence seem to be normative by implication (according to the somewhat painful debate with the CS editor for ISO 19901-6). Other ISO 19900 standards from which definitions are taken can be named in an added NOTE. See column 6.

Normative standards), and add ISO 19902, which is normative. Change to “For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 19900, ISO 19901-1, ISO 19901-2 and ISO 19902 and the following apply. NOTE Other terms and definitions relevant for the use of this part of 19905 are also found in ISO 19901-4 and ISO 19906.”

NEN 03 ge I am pleased that the number of definitions has been substantially reduced compared to CD-F (from 109 to 84). However, in my opinion a further reduction is possible; see entries for Clause 3 below.

Noted

NO 03 ge 3. ”Shall”, ”may” and ”should” should be precisely defined as: can verbal form used for statements of possibility and capability, whether material, physical or casual may verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of this ISO standard shall verbal form used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to this ISO standard and from which no deviation is permitted, unless accepted by all involved parties should verbal form used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred, but not necessarily required

Noted

Deleted: ISO 19901-4,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



11

NEN 03.01 ed improved formulation. Change “crest of wave” to “wave crest”. Agreed

NO 03.01 te 3.1 should use only 10-4 as the stipulated level. No. 10-3 to 10-4 is quoted as "abnormal" in 19901-1.

NEN 03.04 ed no capital at the beginning of a term or a definition. Change “Assessment” to “assessment”. Agreed

DE 03.07 ed Please check the cross reference "…see A.9.3.2.2.4" and all other in this document.

…see A.9.3.2.1.4 Agreed; to change.

NEN 03.07 ed Inappropriate verbal form.

‘directly above’ is unclear; what is presumably meant is ‘in a direct vertical line above the footprint’; ‘on top of’ would then appear the correct formulation.

Change to: ”submerged weight of all of the soil which can be present on top of the spudcan”

Agreed

NEN 03.07 NOTE ed Editorial amendments. line 1: change “might” to “can”.

lines 1 and 3: is the subscript ‘o’ or ‘0’? and it should be upright instead of in italics.

line 3: put a comma between “effects” and “see”.

Agreed

NEN 03.10 NOTE ed The NOTE is not correctly copied from ISO 19902. Change “may” to “can”. Agreed

NEN 03.12 te/ed “Component” is only short for “structural component” in 3.76 and can easily be missed.

Delete 3.12. No

NEN 03.13 NOTES ed

te

Numbering of NOTES.

For C3, both environmental consequences and economic consequences should be low; see ISO 19902.

Number the NOTES with 1 and 2.

Change “and/or” to “and”

Agreed, but with modifications. “and/or” changed to “or”

NEN 03.14 ed Add source of definition. Add “[ISO 19902:2007]”. Agreed

NEN 03.15 ed The abbreviation DAF should be below the defined term. Interchange term (on 1st line) and abbreviation (on 2nd line).

Agreed

NEN 03.16 te/ed The DAFSDOF is calculated for a one degree-of-freedom linear system model, approximating the real system, subjected to periodic excitation. That is the distinguishing feature with the DAFRANDOM, not whether the mean value

Change to

“ratio of the amplitude of a dynamic action effect to the amplitude of the corresponding static action effect for periodic excitation of a linear one degree-

Agreed

Deleted: might

Deleted: directly above


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



12

is included or not. of-freedom model approximation of jack-up behaviour”

NEN 03.16 and 03.17

te/ed The terms DAFSDOF and DAFRANDOM are not used in the document. They only appear here in 3.16 / 3.17 and in the abbreviated terms in 4.1. Just “DAF” is the only abbreviation that occurs frequently. The corresponding symbols are expressed by KDAF, SDOF/RANDOM.

Consider deleting these terms from Clause 3, ensuring that they are appropriately described / defined in the text of relevant clauses (notably 10 and A.10).

No, prefer the current version

US 03.19 ge Refer to Sec. 5.5 Add (see 5.5) after "NOTE" Agreed

NEN 03.20 ed Suggested editorial improvement. Change to “…wind, wave and current conditions to which the structure can be subjected during its deployment”

Agreed

US 03.26 te Add damping change "inertial" to "inertial and damping" We say "part" and will retain the definition as copied from 19902:2007.

NEN 03.30 te/ed The phrase “i.e. with no current present” is not quite correct and at least ambiguous. I suggest to remove it and to add a NOTE for clarity; see proposal in next column.

Change to: “wave frequency of a periodic wave in a reference frame that is stationary with respect to the wave NOTE If there is no current, the reference frame is also stationary with respect to the sea floor. If there is a current, the reference frame moves with the same speed and in the same direction as the current.”

Agreed

NEN 03.33 ed There appears to be a preference for “that” over “which”. Change “which” to “that”. Agreed

NEN 03.35 ed Definitions are not closed off with a full stop or otherwise. Remove colon after “jack-up”. Agreed

NEN 03.38 NOTE ed Punctuation. Insert comma between “19 years” and “but”. Agreed

NEN 03.43 te The definition is essentially copied from ISO 19901-1, with “zero-crossing” replaced by “zero-upcrossing”.

I do not understand the reason for this change. In a gaussian sea there is no difference between upcrossings and downcrossings. Furthermore, the 1st NOTE refers to a

Change the definition from “zero-upcrossing” to “zero-crossing”.

Accordingly:

- delete the 2nd NOTE

We do not agree. Whilst the number of up-x and down-x are the same the number of crossings is twice that.

Deleted: , each excluding their mean value

Deleted: to

Deleted: , i.e. with no current present


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



13

wave spectrum that by implication also refers to a gaussian process. Therefore I strongly recommend to revert to “zero crossing” alone.

- change “zero-upcrossing” to “zero-crossing” wherever this term appears in the text.

SPRING SG 1

03.43 ed/te There is an error in the formulation for Tz. Agreed. Denominator subscripts should be "2".

NEN 03.43 NOTE te Error in the equation under the square roots. Change the denominator of the fraction from m0 to m2, for argument f as well as argument .

Agreed. Denominator subscripts should be "2".

BM MSC

03.43 formula ed Formula should read: m_0/m_2 under both square root signs

m_0/m_2 Agreed - see NEN

BM GMUS

3. Terms and Definitions

3.43 te Incorrect subscript, it should be m2 in the denominator.

RESOLVED IN APRIL VERSION Tz = T2 = (m0 ( f ) / m2 ( f ))1/2 =

2π (m0 (ω ) / m2 (ω ))1/2 .

Agreed - see NEN

NEN 03.44 te/ed No definition is given! This is also completely unnecessary as “member” is only short for structural member” in 3.77; 3.44 can easily be missed. See also 3.12 before, and 3.77 further on.

Delete 3.44. We elect to keep current definition

CA 03.44 ed The words structural member are out of place - Replace structural member with “see structural member”, following the format of 3.12

Agreed.

DE 03.44 ed Please delete the definition 3.44 (3.77 is the same). No; revise as per CA.

BM GMUS


3.44 ed No definition is given for member

RESOLVED IN APRIL VERSION

Repeat definition given in 3.77 Noted

NEN 03.46 NOTE te/ed The definition of “nominal stress” from 3.34 in ISO 19902 is given in 3.47. Therefore I suggest a different formulation of the NOTE.

Change formulation of the NOTE to

“NOTE Modelled after 3.47.”

Agreed

Incorporated


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



14

NEN 03.48 ed Definitions should not start with an article; and suggest deleting repeat of the word “operations” / “operating”.

Change to: ” manual that defines ….”

Agreed

NEN 03.51 te/ed Do not repeat the term in the 2nd line. Abbreviations can be linked to the defined term, but VLo is not an abbreviation but a symbol, and symbols are not linked to a defined term in Clause 3.

Delete the 2nd line of the term. Believe needed. Moved to note 2.

NEN 03.51 te/ed Improvement in clarity of the definition. Change to: ”maximum vertical reaction under a spudcan supporting the in-water weight of the jack-up during the entire preloading operation”

Agreed

NEN 03.51 NOTE 1 and

NOTE 2

te/ed Punctuation and suggested improvement of the formulation for NOTE 1.

Clarification for NOTE 2 that the preload reaction is the reaction per spudcan.

Change to:

“NOTE 1 The in-water weight is the full weight of the hull, variable load and preload ballast, plus the legs and spudcans and any contained water, less the buoyancy in water of the legs and spudcans (calculated from their external dimensions). Soil buoyancy …….”

“NOTE 2 This is the maximum reaction on a spudcan that would be obtained during preloading if the jack-up were installed on a solid rock foundation.”

Agreed

Agreed

BM MSC

03.51 Note Te preload reaction, note 2: "This is the maximum reaction that would be obtained during preloading if the jack-up were installed on a solid rock foundation." Is a rock foundation at (waterdepth + penetration) level intended here? In other words should the water buoyancy of the penetrated leg be taken into account?

VLo included in the definition and Note 2 revised and retained (P4 had proposed it’s deletion).

NO 03.54 ed 3.5.4 The definition should be improved. << assume this is RPD? >>

Agreed.

NEN 03.55 ed Editorial correction as per Directives. Remove brackets around SCF and put SCF on a separate 2nd line.

Agreed

Deleted: the operating

Deleted: of the

Deleted: reactions

Deleted: ,

Deleted: each

Deleted: , required to

Deleted: :

Deleted: ;

Deleted: ;

Deleted: water


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



15

NEN 03.58 te/ed Correction. Only the term “representative value” is defined in ISO 19900; the word “representative” is used in its normal usage sense and is not a defined term.

Delete the first line with “representative”. Agreed

NEN 03.60 NOTE ed Symbols should be in italics font TNR, with subscripts upright in Arial.

Change fonts of Hs and Tz and Tp accordingly. Agreed

CA 03.64 NOTE ed The bar is missing from the square root symbol Add bar to square root symbol Agreed.

NEN 03.75 NOTE 1 te The difference between ‘member’ and ‘structural component’ is obscure. If there is an intended difference this should be clearly explained. However, I have not been able to find this in the document and I suspect that such an intended difference does not exist.

The right term to use is “structural component” (or “component” only for short), which is a defined term in accordance with other ISO 19900 standards. The word “member” can be used with its normal dictionary meaning. In a structural sense it may be considered as an alternative, a synonym to component, if using the same word tends to become repetitive or a circular description. Another possible alternative is ‘(structural) part’. Delete “member” and “structural member”, and rephrase NOTE 1. NB: the text of the document should be reviewed for removal of ‘member’ and/or rewording as appropriate.

What is in document is consistent and needed for the document structure as presented to reduce confusion.

NEN 03.76 te/ed ‘component’ is just the shortened form of the full term “structural component”; including this with the defined term seems superfluous (although it does not harm).

Consider deleting “component” and keeping “structural component” only.

Disagreed

NEN 03.76 NOTE, line 3 ed Verbal form. Change “may” to “can’; it is a possibility. Agreed

NEN 03.77 te/ed Superfluous and mot meaningful; see also 3.44 and 3.75. Delete 3.77. Disagreed

NEN 03.79 ed Spelling. “Time-averaged” should be written with a hyphen. Agreed

NEN 03.79 NOTE te/ed Error in number. Change “definition 3.33” to “definition 3.37”, and close off the NOTE with a full stop.

Agreed

NEN 03.80 NOTE te/ed The definition is verbatim from ISO 19901-4:2003. Replace NOTE by “[ISO19901-4:2003]”.” Agreed

NEN 03.81 te/ed Is it “foundations utilization” (plural) or “foundation Decide if the term should be Agreed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



16

utilization” (singular)? I doubt that the concept of utilization can be extended to cover more than one foundation at a time.

Formulation.

”foundations utilization: or “foundation utilization”.

Remove brackets from “(maximum value of the) ratio of …..”

NEN 03.81 NOTE 5 te/ed Wrong reference number. Change “definition 3.57” to “definition 3.56”. Agreed

CA 03.81 NOTE 4 ed Utilization is defined by an I here, but a U later (symbol in Clause 4.6 and Clause 13.2.

Adopt a consistent symbol for utilization, unless there is a reason for two different symbols.

Agreed. Change I to U

NEN 03.84 te “working stress” does not appear in the document. Clause 13 (see 13.2) even explicitly states that the assessment shall follow a partial safety factor format. If introduced after all, a definition should be provided.

Delete 3.84. Agreed

BM GMUS


3.84 ed No definition given


Delete. Noted

Clause 4 and A.4

NEN 04 and A.4 4 and A.4 in their entirety

Various comments, including

deletions of abbreviations or symbols not used;

additions of abbreviations or symbols used but not listed;

spelling, wording;

numbering of A.4.7 to A.4.12 (new A.4.13);

precision and consistency of definitions of symbols;

relationships (equations) between variables do not belong to listings as in Clause 4 and A.4 and should be deleted.

See Attachment 2. Yes ; do not agree with 4th bullet.

Removed equations from symbols.

Clause 5


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



17

NEN 05.1.2 line 3 ed Missing word. Change to “…general requirements specified in ISO 19900 …”

Agreed

BM MSC

05.1.3 Ge Extreme events = storm, as per A.6.4.1 first sentence ..”extreme storm events...” No; needs to include earthquakes.

NEN 05.2 para1, line 6 ed Punctuation. Add a closing comma to the subordinate clause “ISO TR 19905-2,”.

Agreed

NEN 05.2 Figure 5.2-1 te/ed A figure like this is in principle extremely useful; it can serve as a road map for the user/assessor. However, to serve this role well it should be carefully reviewed and upgraded with regard to contents, phrasing, correct and full referencing, and editorially. This should be done by the editing team of the WG originating the document. I have given this some attention and present my observations here to assist the amendment process; this is done in the form of comments (below) and a copy of the figure with suggestions through track changes (see Attachment 4).

Comments:

the assessment represented by the figure does not include earthquake and fatigue assessments; fine, but make this clear, e.g. in a note in or with the figure and/or in the title;

after obtaining data, the assessment situation(s) (5.4), limit states (5.3) and exposure level (5.5) should be determined; add these as one or more separate step(s) between the 1st and 2nd block;

add a note in or with the figure to the effect that a cross-referenced number always includes a cross-reference to the corresponding number in Annex A;

See also Attachment 4. Figure extensively updated


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



18

the present 2nd block: “will ‘other aspects’ limit suitability?” is rather mysterious: other than what? Perhaps adjacent facilities are meant, perhaps more conditions such as this; name these and/or refer to the appropriate place where these aspects are dealt with. Reference to ‘hydrodynamic coefficients’ and ‘foundations’ seem out of place here.

6th block down in the main tree: refer to the determination of all actions (hydrodynamic coefficients and wind actions are only two of a whole pack);

7th block down: determination of responses can only be performed if it is preceded by the application of (factored) actions: an important step in 8.8;

editorially: use of capitals (1st letter of an entry only);

use of cross-references: delete ‘Clause’; ensure correctness; be specific and complete; put references in brackets;

phrasing: amend so as to be precise and clear;

the one but last block on the right: this presupposes that earlier assessments were done using cruder models, but this is nowhere stated; this could be overcome by making the 4 blocks on responses and assessment in the central tree more specific; phrase the one but last block on the right such that use of more realistic (and more detailed) models for structure, foundations and assessments could resolve failure of acceptance; include a reference to 10.9 there.

NB: these comments and Attachment 4 should not be seen as exhaustive; finalizing the figure is a task to be taken up by the WG!


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



19

BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge The overall flow chart fig 5.2-1 is not completely in accordance with the text in clause 5.2 (see comments below)

See NEN re Fig 5.2-1

BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge There is no reference to earthquake (screening) assessment as per clause 10.7


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge There is no reference to various parts of the document, such as:

- selection of exposure level clause 5.5

- operating conditions being critical

- long term application (11)

- temperature as limit state (13.10)

- wave headings, variability of natural period, range of penetration


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge Establish “hydrodynamic coefficients and wind loads” is inconsistent and not complete, we suggest “actions”, clause 7


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge After having selected to incorporate fixity, one must adapt his analysis model, not continue with response


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Te Clause 13.9.2 refers to “displacement check step 3”. The flow chart suggests “hull deflections” as a last check when step 2 check is satisfied. This is at best inconsistent. The step 3 displacement check requires an (if significant) iteration into the response model and re-checking of structural and foundation checks


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ed Text refers to “Unit acceptable”, not “suitable” See NEN re Fig 5.2-1


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



20

BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Te When unit satisfies clause 5.2 step a) but subsequently NOT step b) for foundation, we assume an structural assessment analysis is needed starting with actions and model, not with “determine response”


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge We can’t see why “will other aspects limit suitability” is to be done as a second step. We suggest it to be a final step. We also find it rather cryptic


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge Top box: jack-up data is further described in clause 6.2, not 6.1


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge 2nd box: reference to clause 7.3, but no “other aspects” mentioned in that section


BM MSC

05.2 Fig 5.2-1 Ge 2nd box: reference to clause 9, other foundation aspects are listed in clause 9.4


BM GLND

05.2

Fig 5.2-1 Ed Determine Responses box Reference to 10.3-10.5 instead of 10.5, and to fig 10.3.1

Addressed by previous updates.

BM GMUS

05.2 Assessment Approach

Figure 5.2-1 te It is unclear what hydrodynamic aspects limit jack-up suitability

Remove reference to hydrodynamics or explain in 7.3

Resolved in updated figure

NEN 05.3 line 1 ed Simplification by removing duplication. Change to: ”ISO 19900 divides the limit states into four categories as described below; normally only the ULS…..”

Agreed

NEN 05.3 a) para 1, lines 5 and 6

ed Editorial adjustments. Change to:

“…. are summarized in normative Annex B. For the ULS, the integrity of the structure should be

Agreed

Deleted: . As described below,

Deleted: Normative

Deleted: Under the action of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



21

unimpaired, but damage to non safety-critical (secondary) structure of the jack-up can be tolerated.”

US 05.3 a) ed with the jack-up the most critical operating configuration with the jack-up in the most critical operating configuration

Agreed

US 05.3 a) te When the ULS metocean conditions are within the defined SLS limits for the jack-up

When the ULS metocean conditions are within the defined ULS limits for the jack-up

Our wording is correct; the point is that the rig will not be placed into ULS configuration if the SLS threshold is not exceeded. This thought is covered in the Note at the end of 5.3 a). Alan Dixon says: I disagree with the US comment; if the text is read carefully then I think it's meaning is clear. However, it does need careful reading, and I feel it's readability could be improved through wordsmithing. Updates included to align with draft update to 19900.

BM MSC

05.3 a) paragraph Ge We have difficulty with the status of ‘earthquake’ in the assessment: Is it required to do at least a screening (following 10.7) or only when deemed necessary (section 5.3 a, or section 10.3 unusual circumstances). Also not in the flow chart in figure 5.2-1.

Now Excluded from scope of flowchart.

NEN 05.3 a) para 2, line 3

ed Missing word. Change to: ”…. shall be assessed with the jack-up in the most critical operating configuration ….”

Agreed

BM MSC

05.3 a) 2nd paragraph

Ed 3rd line, add "in": this ULS situation shall be assessed with the jack-up _in_ the most critical operating configuration

this ULS situation shall be assessed with the jack-up in the most critical operating

Agreed. See NEN above

Deleted: may


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



22

NEN 05.3 a) to d) te/ed There is an inconsistency in referring to limit states in singular or plural form: a) ls unspecific, b) and c) use singular; d) uses plural. Generally speaking, referring to limit states should preferably be in plural form as, within each type, there are more than one limit state.

Consider updating the text. Agreed

CA 05.3 Section a) 2nd paragraph 1st sentence

ed Wording

“… shall be assessed with the jack-up the most critical …”

Insert “in”

“… shall be assessed with the jack-up in the most critical …”

Agreed.

NO 05.3 d) ge 5.3 d) ALS loads related to ship collisions have to be stipulated based on a risk analysis.

If there are unusual risks (ship collision and others), then the text requires that these ALS cases are investigated.

NEN 05.4.1 para 1, lines 5 to 7

ed Removing a comma and use of a defined term. Change to:

“…. any required configuration change shall be evaluated and appropriate assumptions incorporated into the assessment calculations. Any required restrictions on the operations shall be included in the operations manual.”

Operations manual is an existing document. We can only modify procedure. Keep existing

NEN 05.4.2 ed At first sight “may” could indeed be seen as permission. However, in combination with the 3rd sentence it appears more likely that pinned spudcans are seen as being the normal case. Then the verbal form is better changed.

Change “may be” to “are normally”. Agreed

NO 05.4.2 te 5.4.2 A pinned assumption for the spud cans is not necessarily a conservative assumption, neither for the geotechnical stability nor for the structural analysis. The moments will be higher near the spud can with fixity than with a pinned solution. Shear and axial forces will be the same. A more correct statement is given in 8.6.3. The text in 5.4.2 can be

Agree to update by adding a Note with text from, and reference to, the 1st para of 8.6.3.

If there is foundation moment the axial forces will be less severe and the shear forces re-distribute.

Deleted: ,

Deleted: operating procedures


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



23

deleted.

BM MSC

05.4.2 Ge Not all jack-up legs do have spudcans The Definition of spudcan addresses this comment.

BM MSC

05.4.6 Ge Leg length reserve 13.7: “shall at least be 1.5m” versus clause 5.4.6: “recommended requirements” seems to be contradicting

Delete "recommended"

BM MSC

05.4.7 Ge A Site-specific assessment is, by definition (see 3.4), the evaluation of the jack-up and which should include consideration of potential effects of adjacent structures to the jack-up. Consequences to adjacent structures are thus not an implicit part of a SSA but may be relevant to consider (further). It may be considered the assessor’s responsibility to as a minimum highlight any potential problems/issues.

Delete "considered and"

NEN 05.4.8 line 2 ed Adding of a comma. Put a comma between “made” and “e.g.”: ”….inconsistent with the assumptions made, e.g. penetration, ……”

Agreed.

NEN 05.5.2 a) last sentence

te/ed Use of more specific phrase. Change to: “…. for the assessment of earthquake events….” .

Agreed.

NEN 05.5.3 1st bullet ed Removing a comma. Remove comma after “or near to”. OK, but remove both commas.

NEN 05.5.3 NOTE after bullets

te/ed Adjustment of text for greater clarity. Change to:

“This classification includes risk of loss of human life for people other than personnel being part of the jack-up's normal complement and personnel on any adjacent structure that could be affected by failure of the jack-up; all such personnel fall under the S1 category (see 5.5.2). The primary driver for the classification in consequence categories is

Agreed.

Deleted: consideration


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



24

damage to the environment or to society (…).”

NEN 05.5.3 a) para 2 te A jack-up adjacent to a C1 facility should also be classed as C1.

Change sentence to:

“Unless the above conditions apply a jack-up shall normally be categorized as C2 or C3. However, if an adjacent facility that could be affected by failure of the jack-up is categorized as C1, then the jack-up shall also be categorized as C1.”

Disagree. With reference to Note 1, in some parts of the world platforms are designated C1 when they do not have C1 level risk. Also they may no longer be operating with C1 level risk.

NEN 05.5.3 NOTE 1 ed line 3: spelling of “categorisation”.

last line: verbal form.

“categorisation” should be “categorization” with a z.

The cost ….. “raises” the consequences …”.

Agreed.

Agreed.

NEN 05.5.3 NOTE 2 te/ed Precision in formulation. Change to “….include the potential for significant unintended release of ….”

Agreed.

US 05.5.4 te << It is expected that we will say: >> and << Note from WG7 to the reader...

These issues should be resolved by the FDIS stage.

Noted.

CA 05.5.4 3 te Reference is made to 50 year independent extremes in various sections of the standard.

Recommend note be included in the Introduction of the standard as to the extensive benchmarking process and best practice in the international community in this regard.

Note added at the end of 4th para of the introduction.

NEN 05.5.4 para 3, line 2 ed Be specific in cross-references. Change “below” to “in Table 5.5-1”. Agreed.

NEN 05.5.4 text under Table 5.5-1

te/ed Two issues.

1. There is a discrepancy here. Certain specifications are also given for L2 and L3. However, in the whole document no further distinction is made between L1, L2 and L3 requirements, while the NOTE in 13.1.1 explicitly states that (for now) only the manned non-evacuated (L1) category is addressed.

2. Assuming the current text remains here some changes are proposed; see column 6.

1. This discrepancy should be resolved by making a clear statement, preferably early in the document. If L2 and L3 categories are intended to be covered, they should also be dealt with in an appropriate manner in the other clauses.

2. amend text to read: “The following provisions apply to categories L1,

NOTE removed from 13.1.1. No longer needed in updated 5.5.4.

and other minor revisions

Agree to 2.

ERP have some concern that


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



25

L2 and L3. L1 : A manned or C1 jack-up shall be assessed for either the 50 year independent extremes with a partial action factor of 1,15, or for the 100 year joint probability metocean data with partial action factor of 1,25 (see 8.8.1). L2 : A lower consequence manned evacuated jack-up shall be assessed for the 50 year independent extremes or the 100 year joint probability metocean data that could be reached at the site prior to evacuation being effected (e.g. 48 hour sudden hurricane in Gulf of Mexico). The assessment shall use the partial factors applicable to L1. The L3 condition shall also be considered for the unmanned post-evacuation case. L3 : The unmanned, low-consequence (survivability) criteria shall be agreed between the stakeholders, which would normally include the jack-up owner, operator and regulator. NOTE << It is expected that we will say: >>Metocean data for L2 and L3 and factors for L3 applicable for the Gulf of Mexico can be found in Regional Annex zz. [JHV: resolve issue and remove NOTE] For earthquakes a jack-up shall be assessed as L1 using a 1000 year earthquake event.”

these numbers occur in several places.

Have changed numbers to symbols when being used to determine inputs to one-shot analysis (under Table in B).

Stakeholder deleted and parties limited to jack-up owner and operator.

BM GMUS

05.5.4 L3 Definition ed Replace reference to stakeholders Use: ‘between operator of the lease and operator of the jack-up’ as in the Gulf of Mexico Annex

Agreed

Deleted: =

Deleted: =

Deleted: manned-evacuated

Deleted: , unmanned,

Deleted: , to

Deleted: ,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



26

NO 05.5.4 and 8.8 te 5.5.4 and 8.8 A load factor of 1.35 should be used as for jack-ups in L1, in combination with 100 year environmental conditions. Alternatively the return periods and the factors should be taken out and moved to national or regional annexes. 50 year values shall not be used in Norway neither for L1 nor L2.

The "cook-book" has International acceptance. If Norway wishes to apply more conservative requirements they shall provide a National Annex.

NEN 05.6 para 1 te/ed line 2: added word for clarity.

line 4: use a hyphen in well trained.

line 5: consistency of formulation (even within the para).

last line: added word.

Change to “many of these tools,…“.

Change to “well-trained”.

Change to “software suites”.

Change to “… and appropriate code checks.”

Agreed

NEN 05.6 para 2 te/ed line 2: add a comma after “software suites” as the start of the subordinate clause that follows.

line 3: in addition to methodology, validation should also cover the algorithms.

Change to “…available software suites, or where proprietary …… adopted, ….”

Change to “… to validate the adequacy of methodology and algorithms.”.

Agreed.

Agreed.

NEN Clause 6 and A.6

A clause and its corresponding clause in Annex A are intimately linked. Therefore from Clause 6 onwards they have been reviewed and will be commented on together.

NEN 06.1 te Using the term “site” for the general area, and “location” for the specific spot within the “site” is unacceptable. The whole standard is about “site-specific assessment”; “site-specific” is incompatible with a “general area”. It is well known that environmental conditions, and even more specifically geotechnical conditions, can vary substantially within a “general area”. The whole intent is that a jack-up is assessed for operations at a specific “site”, not for a “general area”.

Ensure to use the term “site” as the most specific indication for the position at which an assessment is made. And make sure that this is consistently maintained throughout the whole document.

The site is within an area; in the area generalized conditions could apply. The term “location” is an everyday word in general language and should also be used as such.

Changed location to site and larger area to “field”.

NO 06.1 ge 6.1 Necessary data also include information of mode of use (L1, L2 or L3), and operational mode

Changed 6.3 to "Site and operational data". Added text

Deleted:

Deleted: systems


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



27

drilling, production or flotel, and included number and sizes of risers in a production situation.

to address these requirements.

NEN 06.1 line 1 ed “This clause” can be ambiguous, as it can be interpreted as referring to the entire Clause or only to the subclause in which it appears. To avoid ambiguity references should therefore be very specific.

Change “This clause describes ….” to “Clause 6 describes ….”.

Agreed.

NEN 06.2 title and 1st bullet

te/ed While ‘rig’ is a common and accepted colloquial term, using it is discouraged in favour of a more specific term.

Change title “Rig data” to “Jack-up data”.

1st sentence: change “includes” to “include” (data is plural).

1st bullet: change “rig type” to “jack-up type”.

Agreed. Plus global; change of rig to jack-up & rigs to jack-ups

Agreed.

Agreed.

BM MSC

06.2 Ge Suggest: The latest revision of drawings, specifications and (relevant parts of) the Operations Manual

Accepted (omit relevant parts)

NEN 06.3 te/ed line 1: change “location” to “site”; see comment for 6.1.

line 4: same.

Change to “… the coordinates of the site, …”. and “At platform sites, …..”

Agreed.

CA 06.4 te Research in the last number of years has indicated that not considering multi-directional waves results in non-conservative designs.

Reference for considering multi-directional waves should be included in the standard.

It is of prime importance to obtain appropriate metocean data for the site with due recognition of the quality of the data. Site-specific data shall be obtained from, or on behalf of the operator, for: -water depth (LAT or CD): - tide and storm surge; - wave data including data on multi-directional waves

- significant wave height and spectral peak period;

We agree that this can be the case. However we believe we have addressed the underlying issue, which is the result of cancellation effects. This is specifically addressed in A.7.3.3.3.3. Furthermore directional data will not always be available.

NO 06.4 te 6.4 100 year values shall be used for Norway. New text in accordance with NORSOK: "If 100 joint probability data does not exist, a combination of

The "cook-book" has International acceptance. If Norway wishes to apply more conservative requirements

Deleted: location

Deleted: locations


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



28

100 year waves, 100 year wind and 10 year current can be applied."

they shall provide a National Annex.

The NORSOK j-p combination appears very conservative when compared with data derived for jack-ups.

US 06.4 ge The assessment criteria for environmental loading is given as either the 50 year extreme or the 100 year period joint probability. The 50 year extreme probability may be unrealistic in terms of occurrence versus the 100 year joint probability. The 50 year extreme may produce higher actions than the 100 year joint probability.

Recommend that the the 100 year joint probability be used and the 50 year extreme be evaluated for use if the probability of occurrence is likely.

The intent of the different load factors is to compensate for this, at least to some extent.

US 06.4 ge It is stated that "For example in the TRS area consideration may be given……….a 50 year return period "sudden hurricane or "sudden storm event."

Recommend than he 50 year sudden hurricane or storm event be used if it exceeds the loading of the 100 year joint probability event.

This appears to be an unlikely scenario and would apply only in a TRS area where the jack-up remains manned.

Change to: For example in a TRS area consideration may be given……….a 50 year return period "sudden hurricane" or "sudden storm event."

NEN 06.4 para 1 and bullet list

line under the 1st list.

whole subclause

te

te/ed

te/ed

As an observation rather than a comment: this subclause correctly refers to “site”; if “site” were an area, water depth could not be properly defined!

There is a reference to Table A.7.3-2, but this does not exist. What is meant?

I recommend amending the sequence of paragraphs and several formulations to improve clarity and understanding.

Correct reference as required.

See Attachment 1 for suggestions.

Noted.

Delete "and Table 7.3.2".

Generally agreed.

P1-2 updates to ERP edit:

1. Extra indent for items


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



29

significant wave, max wave and abnormal wave as sub-items to wave data

Wind speed and profiles

US 06.4

te Temperature is briefly mentioned in 6.4 and here. Further discussion is needed.

Add that the material specifications are to meet this minimum temperature as per the original design. Temperature change (defined in 3.3) effect should probably be added in 6.4.

See also 13.10. Delete topics we do not address (temperature & moisture) from the examples in 3.3.

BM MSC

06.4 Ge Wind speed and profile Wind speed and profile Agreed

BM MSC

06.4 Table Ed Referred table A7.3-2 not found See response to NEN.

BM MSC

06.4 Ge Suggest to add definition of omni-directional data to section 3

Common language, definition not required.

BM MSC

06.4 Ge Text out of place Reposition “Directionality of wind, waves and current may be considered if accurate data are available” to follow the sentence starting with “Omnidirectional data...”

Current text ok.

CA 06.5 te Risk due to scour and mudslides are referenced. Table A.6.5.1 lists foundation risks.

A hard seafloor introduces certain hazards. A hard seafloor limits the jack-up motions in which the legs may be jacked down.

A hard seafloor introduces certain hazards. A hard seafloor limits the jack-up motions in which the legs may safely be jacked down.

Such considerations are operational and outside the scope of this Standard.

NO 06.5 ge 6.5 The statement of a minor assessment if the site has been used before is only valid if the previous

The load-penetration data is independent of ISO. The site


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



30

platform has been evaluated according to this ISO-standard.

assessment will need to be to ISO. If the ISO assessment results in additional penetration, then the data available would be insufficient, and there would be uncertainty, thus per the next para, data should be acquired.

NO 06.5 ge 6.5 Soil investigations after installation can be very hazardous in the North Sea at the winter season, and should not be a part of a good practice.

"Suitable precautions" are recommended. In the NSea in winter the precaution would be not to do it.

US 06.5 te/ed Currents/wave induced scour need to be mentioned as the reason for scour to occur not just having a seabed with a firm non-cohesive soils and low penetration

These scour conditions are most likely to occur at sites that are relatively shallow and/or where currents are high that have a firm seabed composed of non-cohesive soils and especially where the penetration is less than half the thickness of the spud can.

Agree first addition; the second is better phrased: "especially when the spudcan is not penetrated to maximum area. See also 9.4.7."

Amended text

US 06.5 First paragraph, first sentence

te/ed Why is vane shear test (VST) not included along with PCPT? Also, if the material is hard enough to be cored then neither PCPT nor VST could be performed. Borings and corings should not be used interchangeably.

At sites where there is uncertainty, borings and/or piezocone penetrometer tests (PCPT) and vane shear tests (VST) data are recommended at the planned site.

Amended text

NEN 06.5 para 1 te/ed Sentence 1 and 2: punctuation and “site” versus “location”.

Change to:

“Site-specific geotechnical information applicable to the anticipated range of penetrations shall be obtained from or on behalf of the operator. The type and amount of geotechnical data required depends on the particular circumstances, such as the type of jack-up and previous experience at the site or nearby sites.”

Agreed.

NEN 06.5 para 3 te/ed The “location” refers here to the location of the footprints, Change to Agreed.

Deleted: ,

Deleted: the location, locations within

Deleted: ,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



31

not to the jack-up site. The formulation should be improved to make this (and the whole message) clearer.

“For sites where previous operations have been performed by jack-ups of the same basic design, it can be sufficient to identify the location of existing footprints, to assess the hazards associated therewith and to refer to previous site data and preloading or penetration records; however, the accuracy of such information should be verified.”

NEN 06.5 para 4, line 2

para 4, line 3

te/ed

te/ed

Wrong verbal form.

Wrong verbal form.

Change to “…. the site can be tied-in to …”.

Change to “…. jack-up, it could be possible to …”.

Agreed.

Agreed.

BM MSC

06.6 Ge Suggest to add phrase from 5.5.2 a) here “A jack-up shall always be considered S1 for the consideration of earthquake events”

Agreed with edits.

Clause 7 and A.7

NEN 07.1 para 3 ed Phrasing. Change to “In ”this clause, and the corresponding A.7, actions are …..

Agreed.

NEN 07.2 line 1 ed The verbal form “is/are to be xxx” is discouraged or even not accepted by ISO. Replace it by the equivalent “shall”.

Change to “… actions that shall be considered ….” Agreed.

NEN 07.2 a) –

1) and 2)

ed Are parts “subject to” or “subjected to”? Change as required. Change to "from" and delete 2nd "action".

BM MSC

07.2 Ge Add e) Earthquake actions? e) Earthquake actions Agreed as follows:

d) Earthquake actions

e) Other actions

NEN 07.3.1 line 2 te In the 3rd sentence “directionality of collinear” is a contradiction of terms!

Delete the word “collinear. Agreed, “collinear” should be deleted.

NEN 07.3.2 line 2 te “wind” at the end of line 2 does not belong to this subclause on “hydrodynamic modelling”. Add “wind” to 7.3.4 (see below).

Delete “wind”. Delete “wind”, keep title as is.

Deleted: may

Deleted: and

Deleted: with, existing footprints

Deleted: it is recommended that

Deleted: may

Deleted: may

Deleted: the present

Deleted: annex

Deleted: to


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



32

BM MSC

07.3.2 Ge ‘Wind’ is mentioned w.r.t hydrodynamic model Delete: “wind” See NEN re 07.3.2

BM GMUS

07.3.2 Second Para te It is stated that applicable model tests can be used to select leg drag coefficients. What is ‘applicable’? For example, can the 116C test results be used?

Clarify use of test results as opposed to use of equations in Annex A

ERP has suggested some wording limiting model testing to prismatics only, not complete leg.

US 07.3.3 ge For wave and current no VIV assessment is mentioned. Recommend that VIV global and local appurtances VIV assessment be included in areas of high sustained currents. There has bee reported vibration of fixed platforms due to loop or eddy current in water depths of 100 to 150 meters due to abnormal platform global response to high sustained currents that extend over 70% of the water column.

VIV is not considered a site assessment issue. It should have been covered in the design.

New paragraph at the end of 7.3.3: Vortex induced vibrations (VIV) due current is normally considered to be covered by class, but may need to be checked where current velocity is beyond design premise.

And at the end of 7.3.4: Vortex induced vibrations (VIV) due wind is normally considered to be covered by class, but may need to be checked where wind velocity is beyond design premise

NEN 07.3.3 para 1, line 4

NOTE

te/ed

ed

Wave kinematics is clearly plural, but wave period is best singular, as wave frequency that follows.

Cross-referencing as per ISO style.

Use of symbol Ti in the NOTE is the only occurrence in the whole document.

Change “intrinsic wave periods” to “intrinsic wave period”.

Change to “… ISO 19901-1, 8.3 and A.8.3.”

Delete the symbol (and remove it from existing A.4.6, see there).

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Deleted: Clause


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



33

BM MSC

07.3.3 Ge Suggest reference to A.6.4.2 and add a sentence on wave kinematics reduction

No, ref to wave kinematics reduction already in 6.4.

NEN 07.3.4 addition te/ed Further to comment on 7.3.2. Add the following sentence at the start of this subclause: ”All structures and appurtenances subjected to wind action shall be considered.”

Not needed given change made to 7.3.2.

Add after last sentence (before VIV):

For calculations of wind actions on leg structures reference is made to A.7.3.4.

BM MSC

07.3.4 Ge Add sentence from 7.3.2 “Wind actions on legs shall be included, which can...”

Add new sentence at the start of 7.4:

All structures and appurtenances subjected to wind action shall be considered.

NEN 07.4 line 3 ed Phrasing. Addition of “that”: “… shows that it is marginal ….”. Agreed.

BM MSC

07.5 Ed Forces = actions Indirect actions No change suggested.

BM GMUS

07.5 te Large displacement effects also arise from leg additional settlement in soft soils and should be accounted in Step 3 foundation analysis.

Additional leg settlement may also cause large deflection effects. These should be evaluated when performing Step 3 foundation checks.

Agree that addition is needed, so large displacement effects has been added to 9.3.6 (step 3) and some modification to 7.5 to include foundation settlement.

BM MSC

07.6 Ed Forces = actions Indirect actions No change suggested.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



34

Clause 8 and A.8

NEN 08.1 line 1 te/ed Consistency and clarity. Change to “… model of an independent leg jack-up structure.”

Agreed.

NEN 08.2.1 last bullet te/ed Formulation. Change to

“Adequate detail to enable realistic assessment …”.

Agreed.

BM MSC

08.2.1 Ed Add: Hull “Suitable representation of leg, hull, leg/hull...” Not agreed – single leg model does not require hull

NEN 08.2.2 para 2, line 1 te/ed Clarity. Change to “… estimates of internal forces and displacements can ….”.

Agreed.

NEN 08.2.3 d) 2nd sent. te ISO use of verbal forms. Change “is to be used” to “shall be used”. Agreed.

BM MSC

08.5.4 Ge Fixation system is also referred to as chock system elsewhere in the document. One definition would be better

Changed throughout to “fixation system”

BM MSC

08.5.4 Ge Not all jack-ups use fixation systems Add: if appropriate Agreed. Added “If the jack-up is equipped with a...”

BM MSC

08.7 Ge Not all legs are truss legs Delete: Chords and braces Text modified to address the comment, but not by deleting “chords and braces”.

BM GLND

08.7 (& A.08.7)

Ed Breakdown of masses to be included in analysis may be better suited in A.8.7 rather than 8.7

Relocate list of masses to be included currently listed after para 1 in 8.7 to A.8.7

Noted, but decided to leave as is until more experience with document

US 08.8 ge This section deals with actions on the jack up. No consideration is given in the event that there is a possibility of the lateral loads being transferred to the jack up from platform through the conductor being worked over

Recommend that lateral action be included as part of the assessment process if it could occur through lateral connectivity from a fixed structure.

The magnitude of any action transferred from a platform via a conductor will be of no consequence to the jack-up.

Deleted: a

Deleted: Sufficient

Deleted: allow for


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



35

during an extreme environmental event. Offset conductors from fixed platforms may be supported by horizontal bracing above MLW that could produce an unexpected lateral load transfer.

The effect of relative motion on the conductor may be something its owner should be thinking about.

NO 08.8.1 ge 8.8.1 There must be two load combinations. One combination as included, giving an additional safety on the environmental actions and one giving additional giving extra safety on the variable and permanent loads, as done in DNV-OS-C104.

The "cook-book" has International acceptance. If Norway wishes to apply additional requirements they should provide a National Annex. In fact the additional case is (almost never) of any consequence.

NEN 08.8.1.1 defs. after Eq. (8.8-1)

te/ed Suggested amendments for consistency and clarity, and following ISO rules.

Change to: “G are fixed actions, positioned such as to

adequately represent their vertical and horizontal distribution, see 8.8.2.

Gv are actions due to maximum or minimum variable load, as appropriate, positioned at the most onerous centre of gravity location applicable to the configurations under consideration, see 8.8.2.

Ee are metocean actions due to the extreme storm event, see 8.8.4.

Ee = 0 for earthquake assessment De is an equivalent set of inertial actions

representing dynamic extreme storm effects, see 8.8.5.

De = 0 for stochastic storm assessment according to 10.5.3.

De is an equivalent set of inertial actions induced by the ELE or ALE ground-motion for earthquake assessment, see 8.8.8.

Where the partial action factors are given in 8.8.1.2 to 8.8.1.4. ”

Accept in general, however we have defined "fixed load", and will retain it in the definition of G:

are actions due to the fixed load, positioned to represent …

Deleted: =

Deleted: due to the fixed load

Deleted: =

Deleted: =

Deleted: , or

Deleted: = zero

Deleted: =

Deleted: indirect

Deleted: , or

Deleted: = zero

Deleted: , or

Deleted: =

Deleted: and

Deleted: -

Deleted: below


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



36

BM MSC

08.8.1.1 Ed Multiple actions E = metocean actions See NEN.

NEN 08.8.1.2 te The action factors appear low compared to structural assessments in general. However, their values are impossible to judge without relevant supporting background. The values are acceptable if they have been rationally determined to provide the required level of safety.

Noted.

NEN 08.8.1.2 to 8.8.1.4

def. of f, G te/ed Consistency of terminology with 8.8.1.1. Change definition to

“1,0 and is applied to the fixed actions”

We have defined "fixed load", and will retain it in 8.8.1.1 and here.

NEN 08.8.1.2 def. of f, E te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “….independent extreme storm metocean actions”

Agreed.

BM MSC

08.8.1.2 Ed Wave and current actions are not independent but the metocean data is

Yf,E = 1,15 when applied to the actions due to the 50 year return period independent metocean data

Agreed, with modifications

NO 08.8.1.3 te 8.8.1.3 An action factor of 1.0 on stochastic analysis should be deleted. No safety factors (1.0) on the response give a completely wrong impression on the accuracy or uncertainties in these analyses.

In this approach the required factors are included by enhancing the metocean inputs - see A.10.5.3.2. We will add some text the top of this clause, or a Note beneath, to explain this.

"As discussed in xx, In a stochastic analysis the metocean wind wave and current parameters are Increased such that an action factor of 1.0 can be applied whilst achieving comparable global factored actions. "

Deleted: due to fixed load


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



37

NEN 08.8.1.3 def. of f, E te/ed Phrasing???. Change to “….actions derived from the factored??? metocean parameters, see 10.5.3 and A.10.5.3.”

Change to:

from the factored wind, wave and current metocean parameters, …

NEN 08.8.1.4 value and def. of f, E

te/ed A value of 0,9 for ELE is illogical; it should be 1,0 just as for the ALE condition.

The description of its application is also illogical.

Change to

“ 1,0 and is applied to the inertial forces due to dynamic response by ELE actions (Ee = 0)”

and

“1,0 and is applied to the inertial forces due to dynamic response by ALE actions (Ee = 0)”

No change to the factors. 19902 effectively uses the same values.

Change revised wordings

… and is applied to the inertial actions induced by the ELE/ALE ground motion (Ee = 0)

NEN 08.8.2 title te/ed Maintaining consistency of terminology regarding actions and loads.

Change title to

“Functional actions comprising fixed actions and actions due variable load”

We have defined "fixed load", and will retain it

NEN 08.8.2 line 1 and last para

te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “ Fixed actions (i.e. hull, legs, …..”

and “The fixed actions and actions due to variable load shall ….”

We have defined "fixed load", and will retain it

NEN 08.8.3 line 1 te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “Hull sagging resulting from distributed actions and hull flexibility …..”

Agreed.

BM MSC

08.8.3/

A.08.8.3 /

para Te The general text discusses potential hull sagging, being largely dependent on rig design, site etc. It is may-be possible by rational consideration to quantify some hull sagging amount which may-be less than 25%. The section however takes that value as a requirement. This is not in accordance with the text in the Normative (8.8.3).

Perhaps it may be applicable to use a phrase (similar to) SNAME C5.5.3:

Text modified to eliminate apparent requirement for 25% hull sagging but SNAME does not capture situation in mild environments where high operational elevated wt may occur in “extreme storm”

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 0,9 when

Deleted: ELE

Deleted: actions

Deleted: 1,0 when

Deleted: ALE

Deleted: actions

Deleted: to fixed load and

Deleted: The actions due to fixed load

Deleted: fixed load and

Deleted: loading


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



38

“A simplified approach for a conservative quantitative assessment is to assume that 25 [to 50] percent of the theoretical hull sagging moment at the lower guide is seen in practice.”

US 08.8.6 te Should define the P-Delta effect here. Define P-Delta effect as the additional moments caused by the axial force/weight timaes the lateral displacement due too applied environmental loading.

The definition suggested is too simple. 7.5 provides a better definition. A.8.8.6 contains a discussion of the methods available.

We will add P-D & p-d to the bullets in A.8.8.6.

BM MSC

08.8.6 Ed Environmental -> metocean “...the hull sidesway under metocean actions” Disagreed. Changed to “… assessment actions”

BM MSC

08.8.7 Conductor hydrodynamic load is in many cases of low importance compared to hydrodynamic load on the legs, or in other cases not applicable.

Suggest: “... shall be considered in the analysis, if applicable”

Agreed, with “if applicable” – disagreed with “considered”. Top tension shall be included even though lateral forces due to hydrodynamic actions may be insignificant

NEN 08.8.8 te/ed The two paragraphs seem a duplication addressing the same aspects using different wording. The formulation in the 2nd paragraph is preferred.

Delete para 1 and keep only para 2. Combine paras deleting "Earthquake actions shall include global accelerations due to the fundamental modes of vibration"

Clause 9 and A.9

NEN 09.1 2nd sentence te/ed As commented with Clause 2, ISO 19901-4 should probably not be listed as a normative reference; it should be given a reference number and included in the Bibliography.

The phrase “this document” is confusing as it can also

Change the 2nd sentence to

“Additional supporting information can be found in ISO 19901-4 [xx], however the provisions of this part of ISO 19905 should always take precedence

Agreed, with adjustment

Deleted: document


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



39

refer to ISO 19904-1. in case of conflict.

NEN 09.1 NOTE te/ed While ‘rig’ is a common and accepted colloquial term, using it is discouraged in favour of a more specific term.

Change to “mat-supported”jack-ups. Agreed.

BM MSC

09.1 Ge As throughout the document, it is generally assumed that a spudcan is present. Almost all, specifically drilling, rigs do, but not all rigs in general have spudcans. Suggest a “Note” such as in SNAME 6.2.1

“Note: The analyses and considerations in this clause are targeted towards typically spudcan foundations, but may be considered applicable in general to other types of independent leg foundations when used with care.”

No action required (covered by definition)

BM MSC

09.2 Unclear what is meant by: “- likely scale of spudcan movements” and also not how it is possibly referred to in other sections?

Text amendment proposed.

BM MSC

09.2 Te “stability does not cover all relevant issues, supposingly. Suggest to remove “stability” from 1st sentence

“Adequate geotechnical....and foundation stability of the jack-up at the location.”

P4: Text should remain – proposal rejected.

BM MSC

09.2 “Soil investigation shall be carried out ...”, should? Requirements in section 6.5 do not state the requirement for a soil investigation, yet the requirement to “obtain applicable geotechnical information”. Section 6.5 probably takes precedence.

Soil investigation should be carried P4 does not agree.

BM MSC

09.2 Leg penetration prediction generally leads to a range due to uncertainties in soil properties and/or effects. Not in all circumstances the maximum leg penetration governs, examples:

- Smaller fixity with partial penetration in sand

- Potential PT risk with small penetration when penetrating a soft layer is predicted not necessarily to occur

“- the (possible range of) leg penetration” Text amendment proposed.

US 09.2 First paragraph

te/ed A definition or reference to section of the document should be provided to define what an "adequate" geotechnical or geophysical information shall be gathered to assess the spud can penetration and foundation

Adequate geotechnical and geophysical information as outlined in section 6.5 and A6.5 of this document shall be gathered to assess the spud can penetration and foundation stability of

Agreed.

Deleted: rigs


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



40

stability of the jack up at the location. the jack up at the location in question.

NEN 09.2 para 1 te In accordance with the earlier comment on 6.1, “location” should be changed to “site”.

Change “location” to “site” in line 2 and line 3, and “locations” to “sites” in line 4.

Agreed.

NEN 09.2 para 2 and para 3

te The wording “objectives of the assessment” is misleading. The requirement here refers to information gathering.

Change the 1st sentence of line 1 to

“There are two objectives of gathering geotechnical and geophysical information.”

Change para 3 to

“The second objective is to provide adequate information for foundation models of …..”.

Agreed Agreed(ish).

NEN 09.3.1 para 1, line 1 te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “environmental actions”. Agreed.

BM MSC

09.3.1 1st para Non-linearity of the foundation can directly affect the response (fixity reduces with loads) and indirectly through increased dynamic response (natural period and DAF)

“The nonlinearity of the foundation can have a major effect on the (dynamic) response of the unit”

Use the proposed change without “(dynamic)”.

NEN 09.3.1 para 4, line 1 te/ed Precision of formulation. Change to “…. modelled as pinned or with a degree of foundation fixity.”

Agreed.

NEN 09.3.1 para 5, bullets 3 & 4

te/ed Delete the word “model” for consistency of phrasing with other bullet points.

Change to

nonlinear vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffnesses where …….;

nonlinear continuum foundation coupled to ………

Agreed + Rewritten with the parenthetical statements at the start of each bullet and eliminating "models" in the text that follows.

CA 09.3.2 2 Ed The words “and penetration in clay is an undrained process” are repeated

Delete the repeated words Agreed.

US 09.3.2 2nd para., 2nd sentence

ed and penetration in clay is an undrained process is stated twice.

- As CA 09.3.2

SPRING SG 7

09.3.2 Para 2 line 2 ed/te “… penetration in clay is an undrained process” is repeated redundantly.

As CA 09.3.2

Deleted: this assessment

Deleted: loading

Deleted: model

Deleted: model


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



41

BM MSC

9.3.2 2nd para Ge “and penetration in clay is an undrained process” is printed twic

Remove one As CA 09.3.2

NEN 09.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.3.5

te/ed Some minor editorial modifications. See markings on separate hard copy pages. Agreed.

BM MSC

09.3.2/9.3.3/ 9.3.5/9.3.6

The weight of soil backflow and infill shall be considered. 9.3.3 refers to “all”, thus 9.3.2 during penetration should then refer to “immediate or occurring during penetration” or alike to differentiate between the two phases. 9.3.5 states to include soil backflow , where 9.3.6 differentiates between leeward and windward legs.

Clarified in the course of other updates.

CA 09.3.4 2 Ed The word “shall” is used when referring to use of provisions in A.9.3.4.2.3. i.e. the Normative part of the standard is in effect making a clause in the Informative part mandatory. Is this intended?

Reconsider use of the word “shall” to something that is not mandatory.

Agreed. Change to should.

NO 09.3.5 ed 9.3.5 Annex A is said to be recommendations and information. The sentence “The envelopes shall be developed using the applicable sub clause of A.9.3.5.” makes sub clauses of the annex normative. For the logic of the document no part of the annex shall be normative. The normative text of annex A should be moved to the normative part of the standard.


CA 09.3.5 2 ed Similar to comment above on use of “shall” in reference to Informative part of standard


BM MSC

09.3.5. ...compliance with yield interaction model. Surface as per 9.3.1

Suggest: “compliance with yield interaction surface”

Proposed amendment agreed

NEN 09.3.6 te/ed Both technical and editorial changes are proposed related to precision and consistency of formulation, and improved phrasing.

See markings on separate hard copy pages. Agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



42

In the one but last paragraph a link should be made between the notion of “utilization”, which is mentioned here for the first time, and Clause 13 where the concept is dealt with. For relevant background to other proposed changes, see the comments on A.9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3.1 and 9.3.5.

BM MSC

09.3.6 Figure A.9.3-13 not compatable with text (as stated in DIS), we noted:

- Step 1 check only for pinned analysis implicitly

- It is allowed to step from 2b to 3a

OP’s revised flow chart to replace existing

BM GMUS

09.3.6 Second Para te Neglecting backfill of soil weight on windward leg is not correct

Recommend a best estimate of WBF,A This is thought to be a misinterpretation of the document. WBF,A is the Backfill AFTER preloading is complete. This will generally only be infill (not backflow), and will normally be small and uncertain. The effects of backflow while preloading can be used on the windward leg. Words have been added to clarify.

BM MSC

09.3.6/

A09.3.6.3/

A09.3.5

Te Sliding check of windward legs.

A level 1-step 1b sliding check suggests no use of VH capacity but the (traditional) Fvtan + side. A level 2-step 2a sliding more clearly states to use VH surface and the above formula, which will thus result in the more governing check. We have found that it can mean that a level 1 sliding is OK while for the same loads a level 2 sliding is NOK as there are no limitations in the step 1b sliding such as there are for applicability of pre-load check.

Text amended.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



43

Is it implicitly so that the simple formula above Fvtan + side is linked to safety of 1.25 whereas the VH capacity curve is linked with 1.15?

BM MSC

09.3.6 5th para Ed “for step 2c.....” reference to A9.3.2.3 must be A9.3.3.2 Text amended.

BM MSC

09.3.6 6th para Te When a level 2a or 2b....operations”. This text in general speaks of load-displacement. This suggests also a sliding failure could be evaluated as a step 3 check, perhaps in a similar fashion as step 3a. It could be a possibility to allow for a step3a sliding evaluation , provided no leeward bearing failure at the same time at another leg?

Need to check consequence of sliding on structural integrity – suggest expansion of step 3A to consider sliding

Text amended.

BM MSC

09.3.6 7th para Ge Clause 9.3.6. requires “that evaluation of effects is required if displacement is significant”. Perhaps it would be better to state:

“The effects of additional settlement (displacement) on structure and foundation reactions shall be evaluated. If found significant the structure’s response shall be re-evaluated accounting for these settlements (e.g. by iteration) or a step 3b analysis is to be performed”

Text amended.

BM MSC

09.3.6 Ge Clause A 9.3.6.6: The note on potential punch-through risk to be assessed while doing a step 3a, may be relevant to include in section 9.3.6 where step 3a is discussed together with “shall not lead to contact with adjacent structures and…”.

If Stage 3 displacements could lead to punch-through then the unit should not be operating at that location.

NEN 09.4 te/ed Some minor editorial modifications. See markings on separate hard copy pages. Agreed.

BM MSC

09.4 Ge Perhaps specifically mentioning the risk/potential for punch-through could be considered here too.

Punch through is covered in 9.2 and the load penetration calculations. Do not feel it is correct in 9.4 (Other).

BM GMUS

09.4.1 Chevron ed Text missing Include text or delete Clause moved and text added


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



44

CA 09.4.2 1 te Eccentricity due to hard sloping strata is discussed in sections 9.4.2 and A.9.4.1. Increase in eccentricity due to scour is mentioned. In hard strata, there is potential for spudcan slippage. Discussion on this should be included.

Problems associated with positioning of spudcans on a hard sloping stratum at or below the sea floor shall be carefully considered. In this respect, a hard stratum is a soil layer where only partial spudcan penetration is expected and can be either a surface or a buried feature. Where a spudcan partially penetrates into a hard sloping stratum, there is potential to generate eccentricity in the spudcan reaction, which should be taken into account. There is increased potential for slippage in sloping or undulating hard sea bottom which can generate additional eccentricity in the spudcan reaction.

Agreed with edits.

US 09.4.3 te Suggest offering a minimum safe distance of say 1 spud can diameter where such issues may not be of a concern.

Limited SFI effect with separation of 2D centre to centre.

1 spudcan centre to centre separation inadequate.

Text amended

US 09.4.5 First paragraph

ge/ed More information needs to be provided about the type of soils or length of time on the site where potential leg extraction difficulties might become problematic.

A: Annex provides (most of) this.


ge It should be mentioned that sites with granular soil at the surface and that are prone to earthquakes should be evaluated for liquefaction.

Panel 4 : no change – comment rejected


ge It might also be good to mention that the structure itself might need to be reassessed with degraded or offset PY curves if these footprints were not assessed in the design of the structure.

A: Not within the scope of this standard.

Clause 10 and A.10


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



45

NEN 10.1 para 1 te/ed Make a direct link with the assessment load case in 8.8 from the very start of Clause 10.

The (un)acceptability of responses is assessed by means of utilizations. By making a link with Clause 13, again immediately at the beginning of Clause 10, the notion of utilization is properly introduced for further use in the rest of Clause 10 and its annex A.10.

Change to

“The response of a jack-up is determined by applying actions in accordance with the assessment load case Fd (see 8.8) to the structural model to determine internal forces in components and reactions at the foundations. Responses shall be compared with resistances to determine the utilization of the jack-up structure and its foundation; acceptance criteria using utilizations are given in Clause 13.”

Agreed, but "using utilizations" is not needed (and perhaps not correct).

BM MSC

10.1 Sentence 1 of 1st para

ed Displacements is also part of the response “The response of a .... to determine displacements, internal forces and reactions at the foundations”

Agreed

BM MSC

10.3 2nd para ge Limit states probably only ULS Add”...Different methods of analysis can be used for the various ULS limit states to be considered”

Disagreed. Fatigue is not ULS, other analyses may be ALS or SLS

NEN 10.3 last para te/ed Table 10.3-2 should be referred to in the text. For clarity and avoiding potential confusion, use the same terminology for referring to methods or procedures.

Change the last paragraph to

“Table 10.3-1 summarizes the analysis requirements for different assessment situations. The analyses shall consider the parameters discussed in 10.4. Table 10.3-2 summarizes the two approaches to incorporating foundation response (10.4.4) and dynamics (10.5) in the analysis: a simplified approach by means of a two-stage deterministic storm analysis (see 10.5.2) and a comprehensive nonlinear approach by means of a one-stage stochastic storm analysis (see 10.5.3).”

Agreed.

US 10.3 Last paragraph

te Add reference to Table 10.3-2 "There are two approaches to incorporating dynamic and foundation response in the analysis (Table 10.3-2):"

Agreed (see NEN)

NEN 10.3 Table 10.3-1 te Terminology: in ISO 19900 series standards structural Change heading of last column to: Agreed.

Deleted: There are

Deleted: dynamic and

Deleted: two-stage

Deleted: single stage

Deleted: , see clause 10.4.4.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



46

ed

resistance is referred to as “strength”, foundation resistance as “capacity”; also consistency with the 3rd bullet point of 10.3.

Use “and” instead of “&”.

“Ultimate “strength analysis

Replace “&” with “and”.

BM MSC

10.3 Table 10.3-1 ed Fatigue -> reference to clause 10.6? Agreed.

BM MSC

10.3 Table 10.3-2 ed Probably better associated with 10.5 Change to table 10.5-1 Agreed.

Note: Table moved.

NEN 10.3 Table 10.3-2 te/ed The entries in the cells are not logical and consistent with the row/column headings. Also consistency of terminology.

See attachment 1 for proposed changes. Agreed.

NEN 10.4.1 te/ed “This subclause” is ambiguous: it can mean the whole 10.4 or 10.4.1 only.

Change to “Subclause 10.4 presents ….”. Agreed.

NEN 10.4.2.4 line 2

last line

te/ed

te/ed

1) Many factors can cause variability in the natural period(s), in the first palace of course mass and stiffness variations. Intended here are more specifically non-linear effects due to stiffness variations at different response levels. The existing text is too general and should reflect this better.

2) Wrong verbal form.

1) Change to

“There are several factors that can cause variability in natural periods including uncertainty in the parameters associated with the static and time-varying response due to nonlinearities in the structural and foundation behaviour.”

2) Change “may affect” to “can affect”’.

Agreed with edits.

Agreed.

BM MSC

10.4.2.4 Te “Structural nonlinearities can result from stiffness changes (gaps, yielding)..” The P-d effect is a basic nonlinearity that should be mentioned?

Disagreed. Explicitly covered in 10.5 and this section discusses “variability” of natural period

NEN 10.4.4 te/ed 1) para 1: amend wording.

1) Change to “… the assessment of the foundation …….”.

Agreed.

Deleted: capacity

Deleted: This subclause

Deleted: . The natural periods of the jack-up are a function of

Deleted: evaluation


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



47

2) Option 1”, 2nd sentence: wording and spelling. 2) Change to

”The first stage is to calculate the dynamic amplification factor and the inertial loadset, often using linearized analyses.”

Agreed.

BM MSC

10.4.4 /

A.10.4.4.1.1

ed Option 2: “.... spudcan stiffness” = foundation stiffness “...account the elasto-plastic behaviour of the foundation stiffness.”

Agreed, with modification “… behaviour of the foundation.”

NEN 10.4.5 te/ed 1) para 3, line 2: “storm conditions” is an unspecific reference.

2) para 3, line 2: use specific terminology, also used elsewhere.

3) para 4, 1st sentence: clarity.

1) delete “the”: “….wave spreading in storm conditions …..”

2) change ”critical combinations” to “most onerous combinations”.

3) change to “ .. Sea states with a peak period close to the natural period of the jack-up can give larger dynamic amplification resulting in larger responses in lower sea states than the extreme storm event.”

Agreed

Agreed.

Agreed.

NEN 10.5.1 entire subclause

te/ed Wording should and can be much improved with a view to precision and clarity. Using terminology that is consistent with the terminology used in the guidance given in A.10.5, and in associated (sub)clauses can help significantly in achieving this!

See Attachment 1 for proposed amendments. Agreed.

NO 10.5.2 te 10.5.2 The SDOF-method should not be used for larger waves, when it under predict the response.

The dynamic response predicted by the SDOF method can be unconservative when the exciting period is distant from the natural period, but this tends to be when the DAF is only about 1.1, so the underprediction is not significant. Note that the dependence is on the

Deleted: ,

Deleted: linearised

Deleted: the

Deleted: Seastates

Deleted: smaller

Deleted: seastates


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



48

exciting period, not the wave height. There is normally a reduction in DAF for increasing wave height (for the same period) due to relative velocity effects.


te/ed As for 10.5.1. See Attachment 1 for proposed amendments. Agreed with some edits.

NO 10.5.3 10.5.3 By using a 100-year storm and the most probable maximum during the storm, the long term 100-year response is underestimated. Also waves from the 99-year, 98-year and so on contribute to the 100-year response. The correct wording should be to calculate the 100-year long term response. Proposal to text from NORSOK N-003: “The variation of waves over a long-term period of several years can be described by a number of stationary sea states each represented by a wave spectrum and a mean direction m , together with the frequency of occurrence of the main spectral parameters (Hs, Tp) and the mean direction, m. A joint probability density function may be obtained by fitting probabilistic models to a scatter diagram determined by field observations or hind casting. Since this approach would normally imply extrapolation to extreme seastates beyond the range of observations, recognized models shall be used. The long-term variation may refer to all year wave

The explanation/defence (by Ahilan) is as follows: Irregular wave analysis of jack-ups is conducted for the design extreme (50-year return) significant waveheight, Hs. Because of the fact that the most probable maximum wave crest and wave trough do not follow each other, although analytical techniques say the 3 hour max wave is 1.86Hs, worldwide measurements suggest that the most probable max wave in a 3 hour storm is only 1.68Hs. However, in just the same way that you derive the extreme Hs, if one did the statistical analysis for individual waves, the extreme (50-year return) individual wave height, Hmax can be derived.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



49

conditions or seasonal wave conditions. The long-term variation of waves can be described in a simplified manner by a number of wave height groups characterized by a wave height, a wave period and the number of waves in the group. This method is not recommended if dynamic effects are significant.”

In the North Sea environment, coincidentally Hmax=1.86Hs. The reason why it is bigger than 1.68Hs is that when calculating the extreme individual wave, smaller seastates than the extreme return period, say 40-year return, have a finite chance of producing max waves bigger than 1.68Hs. When all such smaller seastates’ ability to contribute higher max waves are included in the calculations, as is done when the probability distribution of individual waveheights are constructed, the 1.68 factor gets pushed up to 1.86Hs. Alternatively, if we consider an “artificial” environment where the only seastate that ever occurs is the 50-year return wave, then the maximum individual waveheight can only be 1.68Hs because there are no lower environments which can contribute a finite probability content to push up the extreme towards 1.86Hs. So, in summary when the ratio between lower return


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



50

periods and the extreme is large, the factor is 1.86Hs. When that ratio is 0, the factor is 1.68Hs.

NO 10.5.3 te 10.5.3 It is not sufficient to the maximum extreme response of only one (3 hour) simulation.

Multiple simulations are required when undertaking a fully integrated stochastic analysis (A..10.4.4.1.3c)

The length of the simulations from which the MPME is determined at the 3-hr probability level is discussed Table A.7.3-3 and in A.10


te/ed The integrated dynamic stochastic analysis produces (a) statistical value(s) of the response(s); it does not directly deliver (an) MPME utilization(s); these should be calculated from the responses.

Further as for 10.5.1.

See Attachment 1 for proposed amendments. Agreed with edits (omissions).

The utilizations would be calculated at each time step.

NEN 10.5.4 para 2, line 3

para 3

te/ed

te/ed

Give more specific cross-reference.

Wording: and spelling.

Change at the end to “…. checks; see A.10.5.4.”

Change to

“In all cases, the direction of the moment shall be such as to maximize the utilization checks in way of the hull; this can be achieved simply by considering the base of the legs to be offset in the upwind direction.”

Agreed.

Agreed.

NEN 10.5.5 list te/ed Do not start listed items of this type with a capital and close them of with a semi-colon instead of a full stop.

2nd bullet: add article.

para 2: a range of sea state directions should be considered to determine the most onerous direction(s); do

Change capitals to lower case, and full stops to semi-colons (except the last entry).

Change to “strength of the holding system. …..”

Delete “critical”: “…. for a range of sea state

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Deleted: See Annex A.

Deleted: maximise

Deleted: maximum

Deleted: up-wind

Deleted: critical


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



51

not use “critical”. directions to determine …..

NO 10.6 ge 10.6 Is it possible to be more precise than “relatively short duration”?

Change 2nd sentence to:

For jack-up operations of shorter duration than the RCS special survey period of 5 years fatigue analysis is not required provided that an RCS structural integrity regime, or equivalent, is in place.

NEN 10.6 title te/ed Keep consistency of titles with the title of 10.5 Change title to “Fatigue analysis” Agreed.

NO 10.7 te 10.7 An annual probability of 10E-4 should be used for earthquakes.

No; See e.g. 19901-2. If Norway requires 10-4, it should be in a National annex

NEN 10.7 title te/ed Keep consistency of titles with the title of 10.5 Change title to “Earthquake analysis” Agreed.

NEN 10.7 various te/ed

te/ed

te/ed

1) para 1: Phrasing.

2) bullet 1: conform to terminology in ISO 19901-2.

3) bullet 2: wording.

1) Change to “An earthquake assessment shall be performed for sites where the ISO 19901-2 seismic zone is 2 or above. No earthquake assessment needs to be performed for seismic zone 0. For seismic zone 1 an earthquake assessment should be considered when any of the following conditions apply:” 2) Change to

“sites with the potential for cyclic mobility (e.g. liquefaction) (ISO 19901-2 site class F);”

3) Change to “sites with the potential for unacceptable additional leg penetrations if the preload reactions are exceeded (settlement limits can be reduced when operating adjacent to other structures);”

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Deleted: An

Deleted: not

Deleted: An

Deleted: in seismic zone 1 and

Deleted: Sites

Deleted: ,

Deleted: soil type f

Deleted: Sites

Deleted: smaller


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



52

te

ed

te/ed

4) bullet 3: the intent and requirement addressed in this bullet are not clear; does it refer to the maximum available or allowable individual leg preload reaction? If so this point would seem to be covered by the 2nd bullet. If not, what does it refer to?

5) para 3, line 4: plural instead of singular verbal form.

6) NOTE: Improved wording.

4) Clarify the text.

5) Change to

“structural failures …… do not occur ……”

6) Change to:

“A low mass tends to lead to a shorter natural period, and hence greater dynamic amplification. A higher mass results in a longer period, but can be associated with greater lateral forces depending on the reduction in the transverse accelerations in combination with the increased mass.”

We believe the text is clear, and the requirement is different from that in the previous bullet.

Agreed.

Agreed.

US 10.9, 10.9.1 te The statement "Due to the absence of partial resistance factors an ultimate strength evaluation shall be interpreted and used with care" should be qualified.

Delete sentence. Add a statement that ultimate strength analysis is to be used as an assessment tool for earthquake resistance and refer to Clause 10.7. Changet the title of 10.9 to "Alternative analysis methods for earthquake assessment".

No: Existing caution is more generally applicable. No: This clause is not solely for earthquake.

BM GMUS

10.9.1 Last Para te Unclear An ultimate strength evaluation is used to determine the rig reserve in strength against an extreme event compatible with the exposure level. For a manned rig in the North Sea, for example, such event should have a return period of at least 10,000 years. For unmanned / de-manned situations the return period shall be agreed between operator of the lease and operator of the jack-up.

Modified text in 10.9.1 to clarify intent of “ultimate strength analysis“

NEN 10.9.2 line 2 ed Wording. Change to “…. in accordance with this document.” Agreed.

NEN Clause 11 and A.11

te/ed Various proposed changes are marked up on the separate hard copy pages that accompany this comments

See separate marked up hard copy pages. Generally agreed - except for the change to "shall".

Deleted: does

Deleted: perhaps

Deleted: due to

Deleted: according to


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



53

table.

NO 11 te 11 For jack-ups on location for longer periods than the 5 years dry dock periods, a reference should be made to ISO 19902.

The scope says that 19902 applies only when the j-u is not in Class. or equivalent.

Clause 12 and A.12

NEN 12.1.1 te/ed Various suggestions for “sharpening” the text. The structural checks are given in (interaction) equation form rather than in utilizations. Therefore an appropriate link should be made between the checking equations in Clause 12 and utilizations in Clause 13.

See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Agreed.

NEN 12.1.2 line 1 te/ed Make phrasing more specific. Change to

“The requirements set out in Clause 12 relate to chords and braces of truss type legs.”

Agreed.

NEN 12.1.3 line 1 te/ed Make phrasing more specific. Change to

“Some of the checks included in Clause 12 are also applicable to either tubular or box-type legs, but for these configurations Clause 12 …….”

Agreed.

NEN 12.1.4 te/ed Make phrasing more specific. Change to

“Strength of the fixation and/or the elevating system is normally supplied by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s data should represent the unfactored ultimate strength of the system(s), normally …..”

Agreed.

NEN 12.1.5 te/ed Make phrasing more specific. Change to

“The strength of the spudcan is normally supplied by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s data are expected to represent the unfactored ultimate strength of the spudcan and spudcan to leg connection, normally …..”

Agreed.

Deleted: this clause



Deleted: system


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



54

NEN 12.1.6 te/ed Make phrasing in bullets more specific and link it to the phrasing in the subclause headings.

Bullet 3: the amendment aims at greater clarity and staying closer to the title of 12.4.

Bullet 4: tubulars are also “prismatic” members; distinguish these by referring to the latter category as “non-circular prismatic members”, here and wherever else this occurs. Also, this bullet refers to such members in truss type legs only – make this clear by saying it.

Change to “The basic approach consists of the determination of: classification of member cross-sections (12.2); section properties of non-circular prismatic

members(12.3); moment amplification due to the effects of

axial force on bending moment (if not included within the structural analysis) (12.4);

strength of tubular members (12.5), and non-circular prismatic members (12.6) in truss type legs; and

strength of joints (12.7).”

Agreed. Agreed. No - but our words need to be improved to "Euler amplification of member forces (if …" Agreed.

NEN 12.2.1 te/ed Make phrasing more specific and consistent with wording in other (sub)clauses of (A.)12.

Change to

“The methodology used to classify member cross-sections is different for circular cross-sections of tubular members and for all other cross sections of prismatic members. Longitudinally reinforced tubulars and tubulars with pin-holes, cut-outs, etc. shall be considered to be non-circular prismatic members.”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.2 line 1 te Refer to structural resistance as “strength”; capacity is used for foundation resistance in the ISO 19900 series.

Change to

“The material yield strength used in the member classification and the calculation of member strengths shall ……”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 para 1 and para 2

te/ed Make phrasing more specific and consistent with wording in other (sub)clauses of (A.)12.

Change to “The strength of a steel cross-section is affected by its potential to suffer local buckling when subjected to compression due to a bending moment or an axial force, or a combination thereof. By classifying cross-sections, the need to explicitly calculate local buckling stresses is

Agreed, but we need to change stresses to strength as we are strength based not stress based. and change stresses to

Deleted:

Deleted: node-to-node Euler amplification of member forces

Deleted: lattice leg members (

Deleted: )

Deleted: tubulars

Deleted: which are called prismatics

Deleted: the capacities

Deleted: either


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



55

avoided. For non-circular prismatic members, the components and cross-sections are classified as plastic, compact, non-compact (or semi-compact) and slender, in order of decreasing strength. When a cross-section is composed of components of different classes, it shall be classified according to the class of its component(s) with the lowest strength in compression. Slender components within a cross-section can be ignored, provided that only the remaining cross-section is used for all aspects of the assessment. The following classification shall be applied:”

strength Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 Class 1 te/ed The classification applies to the member, not to the whole structure.

Change line 3 to

“…. to allow redistribution of moments to occur within the member.”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 NOTE te/ed The NOTE applies to Class 1 only. Indent the NOTE to make sure it belongs to the Class 1 description.

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 Class 2 te/ed For clarity add a comma before “but”. Change line 2 to

“….of a cross-section to be developed, but …”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 Class 3 te/ed For clarity add a comma before “but”. Change line 3 to

“….at the extreme compression fibre, but…”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 Class 4 te/ed Add an article. Change line 1 to

“Cross-sections that buckle locally before the yield stress …..”

Agreed.

NEN 12.2.3 last para te/ed Phrasing. The terms “tubular” and “prismatic member” are associated with “members”; cross-sections are called “(non)-circular”.

Change to

“There is no need for tubular members to be classified to the same extent as non-circular prismatic members, other than to identify those

Agreed, but add "cross-sections" after "member" (twice).

Deleted: capacity

Deleted: lowest capacity compression

Deleted: may

Deleted: structure

Deleted: sections

Deleted: sections


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



56

tubulars for which plastic hinge rotation capability is possible (i.e. class 1). This is because the equations presented in A.12.5 account for local buckling, whether plastic or elastic.”

NEN 12.3 title te/ed The whole of 12.3 relates to non-circular prismatic members; tubulars are separately addressed in 12.5. Make this clear.

Change title to

“12.3 Section properties of non-circular prismatic members”

Agreed.

NEN 12.3.1 te/ed Replace “this subclause” by a specific cross-reference, and combine the 1st and the 2nd paragraph.

Change to “The requirements in 12.3 apply to rolled and welded non-circular prismatic members comprising one or more components, such as can be found in a chord section of a jack-up leg. Their cross-sectional properties shall be determined as described in 12.3. . Cross-sectional properties of tubular members are included within the determination of their strength and addressed in 12.5.”

Agreed.

NEN 12.3.5 whole subclause

te/ed Clearer and more correct phrasing. Change to “12.3.5 Cross-section properties for the assessment The nomenclature and selection of variables for use in the assessment of members are summarized in A.12.3.5.”

Agreed.

NEN 12.4 para 1 te/ed Clarity of formulation. There appears to be a clear preference (also with ISO editors) for “that” replacing “which”,

Change to

“The moment resulting from the eccentricity between the elastic and plastic centroids of class 1, 2 and 3 sections shall be included in the assessment moment; this can occur in sections that include components of differing yield

Agreed.

Deleted: , strength of tubular members,

Deleted: this subclause

Deleted: Cross-sectional properties for prismatic members shall be determined as described in this subclause

Deleted: equations required by this subclause

Deleted: assessed

Deleted: which


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



57

strengths. Similarly, for class 4 sections, there is an eccentricity between the full elastic centroid that is used in the response analysis and the centroid of the reduced section that is used in the member strength check. This moment correction shall be included for members in both tension and compression.”

NEN 12.4 para 2, line 4 te/ed Verbal form (“may”is defendable, but “can” is preferred and will not lead to debate).

Change “may” to “can”. Agreed.

NEN 12.5 para 1 and para 2

te/ed See next column. Change to “The strength of tubular members shall be checked for combined axial forces and bending, and for shear and torsional shear. The requirements given in 12.5 ignore the effects of hydrostatic pressure. The validity of this assumption shall be checked for all sealed tubular sections (see Table A.12.5-1).”

Agreed.

NEN 12.6 title and text te/ed Consistency with earlier changes, recognizing that “prismatic” excludes tubular members (addressed in 12.5).

Change to

“12.6 Strength of non-circular prismatic members The strength of non-circular prismatic members shall be checked for combined axial forces and bending, and for shear and torsional shear.”

Agreed.

Clause 13

NEN 13.1.1 various te/ed 1. para 1: Cross-referencing and coverage.

2. para 2, line 1: the user is concerned with the acceptance criteria.

1. Change to “Clause 13 defines the criteria for checking the acceptability of a jack-up for operation at a specific location in regard of the various limit states.”

2. Change to “The partial action and resistance factors set out in the acceptance criteria…..”.

Agreed with edit.

Agreed.

Deleted: which

Deleted: this subclause

Deleted: This clause

Deleted: these


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



58

3. NOTE: 1st sentence: cross-referencing, and 6.4 deals with metocean data (not with criteria). NB: the 2nd sentence needs to be formalised and details given, or should be deleted.

4. next paragraph: simplification.

5. 1st bullet point: comma before ‘respectively’.

6. 5th bullet point: use ‘foundation capacity’, which refers to both vertical and horizontal capacity, whereas ‘bearing capacity’ would be associated with vertical capacity only. Also spelling of exceedence (with an ‘a’).

7. Add a new paragraph at the end indicating coverage of Clause 13 and introducing the notion “utilization”. Earlier in the document, utilization has only been referred to rather casually and has not been properly introduced. Where relevant, changes were proposed to link provisions in Clauses 9, 10 and 12 with utilization and acceptance criteria in Clause 13

8. NB: In the update from 2009-12-10 a sentence is added to paragraph 2 on treatment of the time domain stochastic procedure. This is completely unnecessary; it relates to the normal application of the method described in 10.5.3 and would be equally valid for all other methodologies in the document. Making a special mention of this one approach can only lead to confusion.

3. Change to “Clause 13 presently addresses the manned non-evacuated condition (L1) only and is based on the metocean data given in 6.4.”

4. Change to “The criteria for checking the acceptability of a jack-up include consideration of the following issues:”

5. Change to “….(13.3, 13.4, and 13.5, respectively);”

6. Change to “foundation integrity including preload, foundation capacity, sliding displacement, settlement resulting from exceedance of the capacity envelope (13.9); and”

7. Add the following paragraph

“The assessment checks for structural strength, overturning stability and foundation integrity, for each limit state and assessment situation, are based on a utilization parameter as described in 13.2.”

8. NB: do not include this additional sentence.

Agreed. But superseded due to re-write

Agreed

Agreed.

Agreed, although but we think bearing covers more than vertical.

Agreed.

We think that the additional sentence is helpful - as this is the only method where UC's are MPME's of the time-history of utilizations from the time-domain calculation. We have moved it to 13.2.

NEN 13.1.2 te/ed The text refers to structural strength issues only. This makes the subclause unbalanced; a paragraph/sentence

See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Agreed.


Deleted: criteria

Deleted: are discussed in this clause, and

Deleted: bearing

Deleted: exceedence


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



59

on foundation integrity should be added.

Paragraph 3 is a further detailing of paragraph 2; therefore merge paragraph 3 with 2.

Further changes to wording.

NO 13.1.3 ge 13.1.3 A reference should be made to the ISO 2631/1 and ISO 5349 on vibrations.

No. This is not a site-specific assessment issue.

NO 13.1.5 ed A new 13.1.5 on ALS should be added. The site-specific risk should be evaluated. The collision risk and the risk of mudslide will be location specific.

The reference to 5.3 in 13.1.3 is sufficient. As stated above, if there are unusual risks (ship collision and others), then the text requires that these ALS cases are investigated.

NEN 13.2 te/ed This subclause is not well worded. Some corrections are necessary, and several improvements should be made. A proposed rewrite is given in the attachment.

NB: “shall generally follow” is a woolly and inappropriate formulation; “shall” is a requirement that “shall” be adhered to. “Generally” (sometimes and sometimes not) does not agree with “shall”.

See Attachment 1 for a proposed rewrite. Agreed.

NO 13.2.2 ge 13.2.2 should be deleted or moved to the annex A. Working stress design is not in accordance with ISO 19900. An opening for using other method can be put it, provided it gives the same safety level.

We see no mention of WSD in Clause 13 (or elsewhere).

BM MSC

13.2 ed Utilisation (formula 13.2-1) should be 1,0 not 1.0 Agreed

BM MSC

13.2 ed formulas (13.2-3,4) subscript of action and resistance factor italic in formula and normal in definition

Addressed by the re-write re NEN suggestions.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



60

NEN 13.3 to 13.8 te/ed Various proposed changes, from corrections to improvements in clarity and phrasing.

See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Agreed with minor deviations. In 13.6 we have not deleted "that would affect the global response" as it allows us to ignore "Forristall's "pimples"

BM GMUS

13.4 First Para ed typo It should be R,S Uncertain what the problem is. Document appears to be correct

BM GMUS

13.5 ed typo It should be R,H Uncertain what the problem is. Document appears to be correct

BM MSC

13.6 te Hull elevation should be 1.5 m above the wave crest elevation. The design wave can be either 50 or 100 year. With which one should the wave clearance be checked?

Normative text modified to specify that assessment wave ht should be used and added a ref to 6.4

NO 13.6 te 13.6 The air gap of 1.5m is too small. The platform shall be able to withstand actions with an annual probability of 10-4.

That is why we "allow" the use of the "abnormal" crest - for regions that believe it is necessary.

NO 13.7 te 13.7 1.5m is too small. We have experienced 2m subsidence because of scour, and a better margin should be available.

A further bullet added to address this.

NO 13.8 te 13.8 The factor of 1.05 should not be less than the value of 1.1 stipulated in DNV-OS-C104 section 8 D101.

Please read the NOTE. This check is non-critical, and for information only.

SPRING SG 2

13.8 note ge There is a note stating that the overturning moment check has no purpose. If this is the case why include it?

The "traditionalists' like to see the number as it gives a feeling for the load levels.

NEN 13.9 te/ed This subclause does not provide the proper relation between foundation checks in Clause (A.)9 and

See Attachment 1. Agreed.

Eqn. (13.9-4) updated to


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



61

utilizations in Clause 13. It lacks the necessary provisions and detail and is not well written. I have attempted a rewrite, but as foundations are a very complex and specialized subject my proposals should be carefully checked!

post-DIS version of VH

13.9.2 edited.

NO 13.10 te 13.10 A 100 year return period should be used as found in the classification rules as the DNV-rules.

The "cook-book" has International acceptance. If Norway wishes to apply more conservative requirements they shall provide a National Annex.

The NORSOK j-p combination appears very conservative when compared with data derived for jack-ups.

US 13.10

te Temperature is briefly mentioned in 6.4 and here. Further discussion is needed.

Add that the material specifications are to meet this minimum temperature as per the original design.

Temperature change (defined in 3.3) effect should probably be added in 6.4.

The check against the Ops Manual limit should ensure compliance. NOTE added. See response under 6.4 above.

Annex A and A.1 to A.3

NEN Annex A te/ed title: the title should be consistent with other standards in the 19900 series;

replace the NOTE by a series of NOTES on the information provided in the annex, and the meaning of verbal forms;

See Attachment 2.

(NB: the text of the replacement NOTES are based on those in ISO 19904-1 with incorporation of the latest comments from the ISO editor during the preparation of ISO 19901-6.)

Agreed.

Agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



62

inA.1: simplify the text and introduce a proper Reference for the Bibliography to the document mentioned.

Agreed.

NO A.0

Annex A

ge Annex A have several statements related to return periods and action factors which we do not comment on, because our comments are covered by our comments above.

Refer to our responses above !

BM GLND

A.04.9 List of symbols for A9

ed as and bs are both defined as “bearing capacity squeezing factor” - presumably can’t have two identical descriptions for different parameters

Rename bs to “layer thickness squeezing factor” Modified definition

BM GLND


ed Definition of CHdeep seems to have been corrupted Replace with definition given in A.9.3-16 Definition deleted

BM GLND


ed Definition of D - add cross-reference to Figure 9.3-3 Add cross-reference Added cross reference.

BM GLND


ed Equation for dc is only given in list of symbols and not in Appendix A.9

Include equation given for dc in A.9.3.2.2 Equation removed.

BM GLND


ed Definition of FM as an “applied moment force” is incorrect - should be “applied moment”

Re-define FM as “applied moment” Already redefined.

BM GLND


ed Definition of fr Redefine more specifically as “Spudcan rotational stiffness reduction factor”

Changed to “foundation rotational …”

BM GLND


ed Definition of G Redefine more specifically as “soil shear modulus” Redefined per recommendation.

BM A.04.9 List of ed Definition of Hcav - use of “limiting” is not particularly clear Remove “limiting” Added figure and wording


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



63

GLND

symbols for A9

or helpful recvised

BM GLND


Ed I note that the definition of ‘a’ used in Annex E1 is not the same as that definite in Appendix 9 - do they need to be differentiated, or should there also be a list of symbols for each Annex? Presently some symbols used in Annex E are not defined in the list of symbols.

Noted - no action

BM GLND


Ed - Add definition for ns “load spread factor for projected area method”

Definition added

BM GLND


Ed Definition of pa Provide value of 101,3 kPa in definition Included in A.9.3.4.4

BM GLND


Ed Definition of QMp erroneously refers to QMsv Replace QMsv with QMpv Resolved

BM GLND


Ed Definition of QMps refers to “fully seated spud conditions” Replace with “full contact of the entire underside of the spudcan with the sea floor”

Definitions updated

BM GLND


Ed Definition of qo as “surface bearing resistance” needs rephrasing

Redefine qo as “vertical bearing capacity of spudcan for full contact of the underside of the spudcan with the sea floor” - in any case it should be Qo as in Annex E3 and not qo

Agreed

BM GLND

A.04.9 List of symbols for A9 / A.9.3.2.6.4

Ed Definition of qmax and qo are potentially ambiguous Replace with “maximum vertical bearing capacity at d=dcrit, refer to Annex E3” - replace with Qpeak as in Annex E3

Agreed

BM GLND


Ed Definition of rf is potentially ambiguous/unhelpful Suggest replacing definition with “normalised ratio of factored foundation action to the unfactored foundation bearing capacity envelope”

Comment rejected

BM A.04.9 List of Ed Definition of sc - just give a value of 1.18 (=6.05/(2+)) as Replace with sc=1.18 Deleted the equation


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



64

GLND

symbols for A9

the values of Nq given in the document inherently include shape factor (see A.9.3.2.4) - i.e. there is the potential for confusion

:=6.05/(2+)

BM GLND


Ed Definition of VLo erroneously refers to 3.69 Replace 3.69 with presumably 3.51 Has been corrected

BM GLND


Ed Definition of Vsw - I do not understand the need to refer to ‘a solid rock foundation’ - what is the significance of this?

Replace part in brackets with: (the footing reaction to the self-weight of the jack-up unit, plus the reaction due to the submerged weight of any backfill on the spudcan, less the reaction due to the submerged weight of the soil displaced by the spudcan)

Revised wording to infinitely rigid foundation OK.

BM GLND


Ge/Ed Generally replace “effective submerged weight” with simply “submerged weight”

Deleted “effective”, ( x 4)

BM GLND


Ed Definition of alpha - alpha can be any value between 0 and 1.0, therefore providing these two values is potentially misleading

Replace values with a reference to A.9.3.3.3 for further details

Closed – out in response to previous comment.

BM GLND


Ed Definition for Replace with “rate of increase in undrained shear strength with depth”

Agreed as proposed.

BM GLND


Ed Definition for - presentation of units (degrees) is inconsistent with that for delta

Either put degrees in brackets or after a hyphen depending on ISO protocol (should units even be in list of symbols?)

Completed

Annex A.6

BM MSC

A.06.4.1 Ge Text seems to indicate a preference for 50-year independent over 100-yr joint prob. The text in main report section 6.4 indicates “either 50-yr or 100-yr joint” indicating equality

No change suggested.

BM GLN

A.06.4.2 General Ed No reference to qualifying / sense-checking supplied metocean data

Include one-liner to check data-sets provided satisfy waveheight & period relationships

Agreed: Comment added in A.6.4.2.1 to address this


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



65

D point

NEN A.06.4.2.1 1st sentence ed Improved formulation. Change to ”The extreme wave environment should be determined in accordance with the following subclauses A.6.4.2.2 to A.6.4.2.10.”

Agreed.

NEN A.06.4.2.2 para 1 te/ed 1) line 2: clarity.

2) line 3: clarity and precision of formulation. 3) lines 3 + 4: the phrase “for the additional probability of other return period storms” is an oddity. Both Hmax and Hs are notions in a short-term (one sea state) description; see definitions 3.64 and 3.62. They should not be used in the context of a long-term (several sea states) description with Hmax from one and Hs from a different sea state.

Please note that allowing for long-term effects has an impact on the whole assessment procedure. The assessment is either made for one set condition, creating the most severe action effects, or for a range of conditions if occurrence of the most severe action effects cannot be predicted a priori. One set condition (short-term) and a range of conditions (long-term) should not be mixed.

Depending on circumstances short-term can either be done deterministically, using a periodic wave with Hmax, or probabilistically using random waves with Hs and the associated Hmax.

4) reference is made to ISO TR 19905-2, which is unfortunate as the document is not yet available. In view of comment 3) above the reference can possibly be deleted. If not, it should be given a reference number and be included in the Bibliography (probably best using a sequential number as for other standards; see comment

1) Change to “…for the assessment return period, …”

2) Change to “…accounting for the duration of a storm (3 hours minimum) and for ….” 3) I recommend strongly deleting the part of the sentence after “(3 hours minimum)” altogether. If allowance for long-term influences should be made the paragraph should be rephrased appropriately.

4) If ISO TR 19905-2 is needed as a reference, give it the following form: “see ISO TR 19905-2[xx], 6.4.2.2”

Agreed.

Agreed.

Keep as is. Hmax is the individual extreme wave height for the return period, not the short term maximum of the extreme sea state.

ISO TR 19905-2 6.4.2.2 first para reads:

“The wave heights utilized by the STANDARD for wave load calculations are related to the return period significant wave height for a three-hour storm, Hsrp. The STANDARD however recognizes that this data may not always be available to the assessor and therefore provides relationships between Hsrp and Hmax, the individual extreme wave height for the assessment return period with an annual probability of exceedance of 1/return period. If the

Deleted: computed according to

Deleted: sub-clauses

Deleted: effects

Deleted: storms


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



66

with Clause 2) assessment return period is taken as 50 years Hmax(50) is the wave height with a 2% annual probability of exceedance.”

Ref to ISO TR 19905-2 kept and referred as required for ISO standards.

NO A.06.4.2.2 A.6.4.2.2 By using a 100-year storm and 1.86 the long term 100-year response is underestimated. Also waves from the 99-year, 98-year and so on contribute to the 100-year response. A value of 1.9 as in NORSOK N-003 should be used. The order of magnitude of 1.90 to 1.92 is substantiated in several calculations of Norwegian data by different persons/companies.

See response to identical comment on Normative.

NEN A.06.4.2.2 last para te/ed Suggest some rephrasing to improve clarity.

Delete reference to ISO TR 19905-2, 6.4.2.2?

Give more specific cross-references for the current A.7 and A.7.3.

Change to:

“The wave action can be computed deterministically (through an individual maximum wave approach) or probabilistically (through a time domain simulation) or. The two methods are discussed in A.6.4.2.3 and in A.6.4.2.5 to A.6.2.4.8, respectively.. ???The two methods should be used in conjunction with the associated kinematics modelling recommended and the hydrodynamic coefficients given in A.7.3.”

Agreed.

NEN A.06.4.2.3 te/ed Editing of definitions of symbols in equations; see general comment at the beginning.

The equation = should be given an equation number, and subsequent numbers should be adjusted.

Apply the ISO style here and everywhere else where definitions following equations are given.

Adjust equation numbers.

Done

Completed

Deleted: stochastically

Deleted: approach

Deleted: deterministically (through an individual maximum wave approach)

Deleted: approaches

Deleted: and A.6.4.2.3

Deleted: , (see also ISO TR 19905-2 6.4.2.2)

Deleted: and

Deleted: only

Deleted: in A.7


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



67

Corrections to conform to ISO style are needed, and several editorial improvements are desirable.

See Attachment 1 for suggested amendments. Mostly agreed

Re NEN Attachment 1 comment on parameter limits in Eq A.6.4-5 to A.6.4.5:

First sentence “The limiting values ,..”, keep as is. Second sentence modified to “In all cases need not be taken higher than .” Third sentence “Where the parameters…” to be deleted.

BM GMUS

A.06.4.2.4 First Para ed Incorrect reference made to A.7.4.3.3.1 It should be A.7.3.3.3.1 Agreed and changed

NEN A.06.4.2.4 paras 1 to 3 te The minimum hull elevation is governed by the “abnormal wave crest”, which is a defined term! Furthermore, ‘’abnormal’’ and ‘’extreme’’ are completely different notions. Abnormal is associated with probabilities of 10-3 to 10-4 per annum and extreme with probabilities of the order of 10-2 per annum!! These comments require appropriate changes in the 1st and the 3rd paragraphs.

The 2nd paragraph is incompatible with the underlying concept and in conflict with the requirements of paras 1 and 3. The 2nd para should be deleted.

para 1, line 1: change to “The abnormal wave crest elevation……”.

para 3: amend as follows: “For some regions the abnormal wave crest should be calculated based on storm statistics and according to principles described in ISO 19901-1, A.8.8. Examples for the regional application of these principles can be found in Reference [A.6.4-2], or for general application in Reference [A.6.4-3].“

Delete the 2nd paragraph altogether.

Basic changes to wording agreed.

A.6.4.2.4 is to describe the SNAME recipe for calculation of wave crest to determine hull elevation, together with the alternative of using abnormal wave weights based on storm statistics.

Delete “extreme” in 3rd para and keep the rest.

NEN A.06.4.2.4 para 4 ed Formulation and consistency of terminology. Change to

‘’If a wave height reduction factor is used in a deterministic wave analysis to account for wave

Agreed, but retain the deleted "regular" in ( )

Deleted: /extreme

Deleted: as

Deleted: may

Deleted: represent


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



68

spreading and the conservatism of deterministic wave kinematics, see A.6.4.2.3, it should not be applied in the calculation of the wave crest elevation.’’

NEN A.06.4.2.6 line 1

Eqn (A.6.4-6)

te/ed

ed

Consistent terminology; use stochastic only as in the title. Also, the writing with a slash suggests a choice from two alternatives, while the two terms are synonymous. If both terms would be retained they should be written as ‘’stochastic (random)’’, but there is no need for this.

The Eqn. number should be adjusted and after it the variables should be defined.

Change “stochastic/random” to ‘’random’’.

Change Eqn. number to (A.6.4-9) and add “where ….” in the ISO style.

Use the ( ) version

OK

NEN A.06.4.2.7 title te/ed Consistency of terminology; see comment with 3.43 Change ‘’zero-upcrossing’’ to ‘’zero-crossing’’. See response to 3.43

BM GMUS

A.06.4.2.7 First Para ed Unclear reference to ‘2 Parameter Spectrum’ Refer to Pierson-Moskowitz if that is the intention. Agreed

BM GLND

A.06.4.2.7 Para 1 Te Reference to gamma of 1.0 Make clear that this if for DAF calculation only, and that a default gamma of 3.3 is used for wave period relationship calculations (as per after gamma vs Tp/Tz table.

Agreed with modification

NEN A.06.4.2.7 various te/ed Various minor corrections/adjustments, as follows:

1) para 1, line 3

2) para 2, .line 2/3

3) Eqn. (A.6.4-7)

4) para 3, line 1

5) para 3, last sentence: addition for clarity

1) change to ‘’this subclause’’ and ‘’for analyses with several wave periods’’….

2) change ‘’zero-upcrossing’’ to ‘’zero-crossing’’.

3) change number to (A.6.4-10).

4) put a comma after ‘’However, ’’; change ‘’zero-upcrossing’’ to ‘’zero-crossing’’;

5) “This is because in shallow water the wave height increases and wave length decreases for a given Tz.”

Agreed & Disagree. We edited second change for clarity See response to 3.43

Don’t think necessary

See response to 3.43

Agreed

Deleted: /regular

Deleted: of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



69

BM GLND

A.06.4.2.7 Para 4 Te Advice for Gamma’s when using JONSWAP presented - no other guidance given for other spectrums

Include guidance We do not need other spectrums (ISO19901-1 does not reference other spectrums. Added text to reference DNV if user wants.

NO A.06.4.2.8 ge A.6.4.2.8 as it is written, errors can be done using both the direction function (A.6.4.2.8) and the kinematics reduction factor (A.6.4.2.3). Only one of the paths should be described - the correction will now be done twice for the same effect.

The last paragraph specifically advises against such double dipping.

NEN A.06.4.2.8 various te/ed Various minor corrections/adjustments, as follows:

1) para 1, line 1

2) para 1, line 2

3) Eqn. (A.6.4-8)

4) definitions of variables

5) NOTE, line 1

6) last para

1) change to ‘’For calculations of stochastic wave action, .’’

2) change to ‘’.. may be taken into account …’’

3) change number to (A.6.4-11).

4) is the angle between the direction of elementary wave trains and the dominant direction of the short-crested waves

S(f, ) is the directional short-crested power density spectrum

F()is the directionality function.

5) change to ‘’… in ISO 19901-1, A.8.7, then the directional spreading function …’’

6) change to ‘’… stochastic waves should not ….’’

Agreed - except for 3)

NEN A.06.4.2.9 line 1 te/ed Wrong verbal form. Change ‘’may respond’’ to ‘’can respond’’. Agreed.

NEN A.06.4.2.9 last sentence te Wave height/period combinations suggest deterministic Rephrase the last sentence; a suggestion could Agreed.

Deleted: /random

Deleted: calculations

Deleted: accounted for

Deleted: =

Deleted: .

Deleted: =

Deleted: .

Deleted: =

Deleted: in the present clause


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



70

methods, while stochastic methods using sea states are an alternative (or even preferred) option.

In case of dynamics, different return periods than the ‘’assessment’’ return period can give more severe dynamic response.

be:

‘’… by considering sea states with different combinations of significant wave height and spectral period, or deterministic waves with different combinations of individual wave height and period. Such combinations may be limited to probabilities of exceedance that are equal to or lower than the intended probability level of the assessment.’’

NEN A.06.4.2.10 te/ed Editorial adjustment and consistency. Change to”

‘’For fatigue calculations, see 11.3.1,the long-term wave climate is required. For fatigue analysis, the long-term data present the probability of occurrence for each sea state, characterized by wave energy spectra and the associated physical parameters. This can be presented in the form of a significant wave height versus zero-crossing period scatter diagram or as a table of representative sea states.’’

Agreed, except for change from upcrossing to crossing

NEN A.06.4.3 para 1 ed Editorial corrections. Line 1: Change “currents components” to “current components” and line 3: change “down-wind” to “downwind”.

Agreed

NEN A.06.4.3 Eqns + defs. te/ed Eqn. numbers should be corrected (additionally, a and b numbering is not allowed) and use ISO style from Directives.

Adjust Eqn. numbers to sequential numbers and use ISO style according to the Directives for the definition of the variables.

Re numbers, see above Agreed

NEN A.06.4.3 para after Eqns.

te/ed Editorial correction and consistent terminology. line 1: delete the word “Clause”.

line 2: change “wave forces” to “wave actions”.

Agreed

NEN A.06.4.3 last para ed Improved formulation. Change to

“For a fatigue analysis, current can normally be neglected.”

Agreed

Deleted: /

Deleted: combinations

Deleted: at the assessment return period probability level.

Deleted: (

Deleted: )

Deleted: (

Deleted: )

Deleted: upcrossing

Deleted: Normally for

Deleted: may


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



71

NEN A.06.4.4 various ed Use of capitals and repeats of abbreviations. para 2: change to “chart datum (CD) is ….”

para 3: change to “the extreme SWL, expressed as ….” and change “Mean” to “mean”.

para 4: change to “the minimum SWL expressed as ….” and change capitals of written-out MWLS to lower case.

Agreed

NEN A.06.4.4 last para te Regarding air gap, bring “a reasonably foreseeable extreme return period” and “This should be no shorter than 50 years” for SWL in accordance with comments on A.6.4.2.4 for wave crest elevation.

Make A.6.4.4 and A.6.4.2.4 compatible. Consider current text to be consistent with A.6.4.2.4.

NEN A.06.4.6.1 te/ed Corrections to conform to ISO style are needed, and several editorial improvements are desirable.

See Attachment 1 for suggested amendments. Mostly accepted.

BM MSC

A.06.4.6.1 Ge Reference level of 10 m above mean sea level. Suggest to add “(MSL)” if that is indeed appropriate and meant.

Include (MSL)

BM MSC

A.06.4.6.1 Ed “Formations” -> Formulations? “Formulations for calculation of wind actions..” Agreed

NEN A.06.4.6.2 te/ed The Eqn. number needs to be adjusted to previous changes. Further, variables z and zref should be lower case (not capitals).

The definitions should be put in ISO style and made complete. The value N=10 is an unusual value; normally N=7 is used for onshore conditions and N=8,5 for offshore conditions.

Change “(A.6.4-10)” to “(A.6.4-14)”. Change “Z” in the equation to “z” (twice)

See Attachment 1 for suggested amendments.

No to both.

BM GLND

A.06.4.6.2 Vz definition Te Vz defined w.r.t ‘mean’ water level - surely this should be storm water level (LAT+t+s) assessed ?

Amend MWL to SWL Agreed with edits

Deleted: Chart

Deleted: Datum

Deleted: still water level (

Deleted: )

Deleted: still water level (

Deleted: )


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



72

NEN A.06.5 title ed Remove capitals. Change to “.. and geotechnical data. Agreed

NEN A.06.5 para 1 with NOTE

te/ed “Location” shall be changed to “site”; the word “area” is used in its general meaning in everyday language and OK. Otherwise some suggested editorial amendments.

See Attachment 1. Mostly accepted.

NEN A.06.5 Table A.6.5-1

te/ed Do not use all CAPITALS in the top row.

Nearly all of the cross-reference numbers are wrong.

Column 1: only use a capital letter for the first word.

For clarity and avoiding uncertainty or ambiguity, use consistent terminology (to the greatest extent possible) in column 2 of the table and the headings of the cross-referenced subclauses.

Use sentence case in each column heading.

Ensure amendments to the correct subclauses.

Use sentence case for all entries.

For example, change “Geophysical survey” to “Shallow seismic survey” and ”Soil sampling and other geotechnical testing and analysis” to “Geotechnical investigation and analysis”; etc. for the whole table.

Agreed.

BM GMUS

A.06.5.1.1 Table A.6.5-1

ed Reference is made to several non-existent clauses Review last column for accuracy Agreed

NEN A.06.5.1.2 various te/ed Change “location” to “site” (where required) as elsewhere. Editorial improvements.

Change to

“An appropriate bathymetric survey should be supplied for an area approximately 1 km square centred on the proposed site. Line spacing of the survey should typically be not greater than 100 m x 250 m over the survey area. Interlining is to be performed within an area of 200 mx 200 m centred on the proposed site. Interlining should have spacing less than 25 m x 50 m. Such surveys are normally carried out using acoustic reflection systems.”

Agreed.

NEN A.06.5.1.3 para 1, lines 2 and 3

te/ed Punctuation and change of “location” to “site”. Change to

“….and sea floor features, and should cover the immediate area (normally a 1 km square) around the intended site.”

Agreed.

Deleted: G

Deleted: D

Deleted: kilometre

Deleted: location within the

Deleted: metres

Deleted: metres

Deleted: metres

Deleted: metres

Deleted: location within the

Deleted: metres

Deleted: metres

Deleted: of

Deleted: location


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



73

US A.06.5.1.4 ed Add the word "immediate" vicinity when describing the correlation of soil boring data

Rejected

NEN A.06.5.1.4 para 1 ed Use ISO style. Remove colon after 1st line, and replace full stop after 1st bullet point by a semi-colon.

Remove indentation of list.

Agreed.

NEN A.06.5.1.4 para 3 te/ed Change “location” to “site” (where required) as elsewhere. Editorial improvements.

Change to

“A shallow seismic survey should be performed over an approximately 1 km square area centred on the proposed site. Line spacing of the survey should typically be not greater than 100 m x 250 m over the survey area. The survey report should include at least two vertical cross-sections passing through the proposed site showing all the relevant reflectors and allied geological information. The equipment used should be capable of identifying reflectors of 0,5 m and thicker to a depth equal to the greater of 30 m or the anticipated spudcan penetration plus 1,5 times the spudcan diameter.”

Agreed.

NEN A.06.5.1.5.1 ed Use ISO style. Remove indentation of list. Done

US A.06.5.1.5.2 ge It might be useful to note that while T-bar or ball cone can provide additional information and insight into soil stratigraphy, it is not readily or widely available. Furthermore, T-bar tests require special seafloor equipment (i.e. continuous push type devices) which may require departure form the drilling site to sheltered waters in order to rig up this equipment on the geotechnical drilling vessel. Consequently, the operator should understand the requirements and limitation of specifying T-bar tests.

Comments rejected.

US A.06.5.1.5.2 First paragraph

te/ge It should be noted, especially when only a single boring is performed, that sampling should be continuous in nature to the termination depth (TD) and not alternated with

Comments rejected.

Deleted: kilometre

Deleted: location

Deleted: metres

Deleted: metres

Deleted: location

Deleted: metres


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



74

PCPT or VST. However, if more than one boring is being performed at the site, then ideally it will be paired with in situ testing.

NEN A.06.5.1.5.2 para 2 te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change “geophysical investigation” to “shallow seismic investigation”.

Comment rejected.


ge Suggest adding the word "submerged "in front of unit weight.

Agreed.


ge Suggest to move OCR into the second paragraph as part of a more comprehensive analysis unless one is implying that this parameter is derived solely form CPT data. If OCR is anticipated to be needed in the analysis, the owner/operator should be aware that several months may be required to obtain these test results prior to the rig arriving on site. Therefore, adequate time should be provided for in scheduling this work so that the laboratory testing and analysis can be completed prior to the rig arriving on site.

Comment rejected (as OCR required for stiffness). OCR changed to ROC.

NEN A.06.5.1.5.3 para 1, line 4

para 2, line 2

te/ed

te/ed

Refer to subclauses by just using the number.

Suggested improvement and “are to” means for ISO “shall”.

Delete “section” from “section 9.3 and 9.4”.

Change to

“Additional soil testing to provide shear moduli for dynamic (cyclic) behaviour should be undertaken if more comprehensive analyses are needed or where the soil strength can deteriorate under cyclic loading.”

Agreed.

Agreed with edit.

NEN A.06.5.2 line 2 te Changing “location” to “site”. Change to “… at the proposed site.” Agreed.

Annex A.7

NEN A.07.1 title te/ed Title should be consistent with that of 7.1. Change title to “Applicability”. Agreed.

NEN A.07.1 various te/ed Improved clarity and associated cross-referencing. - para 1, line 1: change to “Clause A.7 presents …”

- para 2, end of 1st stce: change to “….. presented

All agreed.

Deleted: and cyclic/dynamic

Deleted: to be applied

Deleted: location



MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



75

for quasi-static and dynamic analyses in A.7.3.”

- para 2, 3rd stce: change to “….”stochastic analysis in time domain simulations are ….”.

- end of para 3: change to “…are presented in A.7.3.4.”

- end of para 4: change to “…. is presented inA.7.4.”

NO A.07.3.1.1 te A.7.3.1.1 Add for the Norway: "If 100 joint probability data does not exist, a combination of 100 year waves, 100 year wind and 10 year current can be applied."

If 100 joint probability data does not exist, a combination of 100 year waves, 100 year wind and 10 year current can be applied.

See previous response

NEN A.07.3.1.1 para 1, line 1

b): 1st stce

te/ed 1) improved clarity.

2) word sequence.

1) Change to “The wave and current actions ….”.

2) Change to “The most onerous combinations of the following 100 year joint probability metocean data:”.

No; we use wave/current throughout for clarity.

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.1.2 para 1, line 1 ed A.7.3.1.2 is not a clause but a subclause. Change “This clause… ” to “This subclause …. ”. Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.1.2 Table A.7.3-1

te/ed 1) Row with headings.

2) Row 4, column 2.

3) Row 5, subrow 3: the cross-ref. A.7.3.3.3.2 for stretching refers only to stochastic waves.

4) Column 1, row 6.

1) Change headings as follows: “Topic”; “Deterministic analysis”; “Stochastic DAF method”; “Fully integrated stochastic analysis”.

2) “two-dimensional” should be hyphenated.

3) put a vertical bar in the table to limit the cross-ref. to the two columns on the right, and add an appropriate cross-ref. for deterministic analysis.

4) Change to “Scale the environment”.

5) Change to “… members, and appurtenances”.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No, but we should reference A.6.4.3.

Agreed.

Agreed but delete comma

Deleted: A.7.8

Deleted: /

Deleted: combinations

Deleted: TOPIC

Deleted: Integrated

Deleted: Stochastic


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



76

5) Column 2, row 7.

6) Column 4 (stochastic DAF): even though in stage 1 the DAF is determined by a random analysis, the 2nd stage of applying the actions including an inertial loadset is deterministic; this requires corrections of the current entries in the last 4 rows and adding appropriate cross-references. Action factors are not applied in the 1st stage analysis, but they are in the 2nd stage (even though the factors may be 1,0 as specified in 8.8.1.3).

7) Row 16 (last row).

6) Row 13: A.10.5.3 is too wide; narrow down to A.10.5.3.1.

row 14: n/a is incorrect; remove A.10.5.2.2.3 from col. 3 (where it does not belong) and move A.10.5.2.2.3 to col. 4;

row 15: n/a is incorrect; replace by8.8.1.3; no action factors are applied in stage 1 (see para below table), but they are in stage 2;

row 16 (last row): n/a is incorrect; replace by8.8.1.3.

7) Column 2: change “unfactored “to “factored” (twice);

Column 5: change 8.8.1.1 to 8.8.3.

No. We need more than just A.10.5.3.1.

No. Once we have the DAF, this is applied in the Deterministic column.

No. Once we have the DAF, this is applied in the Deterministic column. No. Once we have the DAF, this is applied in the Deterministic column. Re-written.

No; the same combinations are used.

NEN A.07.3.1.2 last para underneath the table

te/ed The paragraph is not factually wrong, but unclear and confusing to a reader (especially the 2nd sentence). See the next column for a proposed rephrasing. [see also comments 6 and 7 to Table A.7.3-1 in the preceding entry].

Change to

“When a fully integrated stochastic analysis is undertaken (10.3) partial factors are applied to the metocean parameters instead of the metocean actions, as described in A.10.5.3. When using stochastic dynamic analyses for the purpose of determining a DAF, no partial action factors are applied; however, in the subsequent deterministic analysis including the inertial loadset based on the stochastic DAF the action factors described in 8.8.1.3 are applied.”

Agreed with edits.

NEN A.07.3.2.1 whole subclause

te/ed - The notion “drag property” should be defined. - ”are to” is equivalent to “shall”, a requirement, which is not allowed in na informative annex; replace by “should”. - connect the last paragraph with the other paragraphs on spudcans. - Various suggested editorial improvements.

See Attachment 1. Implemented

Deleted: full

Deleted: and 8.8.1.3

Deleted: Partial action factors are not applied when

Deleted: to determine

Deleted: for application in a deterministic analysis.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



77

BM GLND

A.07.3.2.3 Eq A.7.3-2 note

Ed A typo in De = slD /( i

2I It should be slD /i

2I or slD /)( i

2I

Done

NEN A.07.3.2.3 para 3 te The words “for Cdei” are confusing and superfluous. Remove them by changing to:

“The equivalent value of the drag coefficient, Cde, times the equivalent diameter, De, of the bay can be chosen as:”

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.2.3 various te/ed 1) line above Eq. (A.7.3-3): wrong verbal form.

2) in Eqn (A.7.3-4) is associated with member i.

3) line underneath Figure A.7.3-1:wrong verbal from and phrasing.

4 definitions at the bottom of p. 86 complete expressions.

5) NOTE at the end: symbol error – CM with capital M..

1) Change to “… can be simplified ….”.

2) Change to i.

3) Change to

….., representing the bay can be determined from:

4 Change to “Ae = (Ai/li)/s” and “Ai = Di2/4”.

5) Change “(Cmi – 1)” to “(Cmi – 1)”.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No; the words are helpful.

Agreed.

NO A.07.3.2.4 te A.7.3.2.4 The numbers on tubulars should be standardized and be identical to the numbers in ISO 19902! The CD-factor of rough members should be increased to 1.05.

No; this is part of our bench-marked cook-book.

NEN A.07.3.2.4 various te/ed 1) para 1, line and line 5: subclause.

2) para 1, line 4: consistency of terminology.

3) para 2, line 1: correction of table number (number jumps to 7.3-3, 7.3-2 does not exist) and phrasing.

1) Change “clause” to “subclause”.

2) Change “wave and current forces” to “wave and current actions”.

3) Change to “… hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars with a diameter smaller than 1,5 m are given in Table A.7.3-2 based on …”.

4) Change number from “A.7.3-3” to “A.7.3-2”.

All agreed, except 5); the depiction of W is precisely what we intended as we do not then need to identify the pitch-point width.

Deleted: for CDei

Deleted: may

Deleted: may

Deleted: chosen as

Deleted: (<1,5 m diameter)

Deleted: A.7.3-3


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



78

4) Table number: correction.

5) Figure A.7.3-3: the diameter is associated with member i. Furthermore, the boundaries of the width W are not correctly shown.

6) Eqn (A.7.3-7): error in notation: remove integral sign and correct sinus function.

7) Definition of CDo at the bottom of page 88.

8) Figure A.7.3-4: the diameter is associated with member i.

9) Eq. (A.7.3-10): last entry for = 180 is in error.

10) line underneath Eq. (A.7.3-10): “is to” is an unacceptable verbal form.

11) Eq. (A.7.3-11): the diameter is associated with member i.

12) line underneath Eq. (A.7.3-11): phrasing.

5) Change “D” to “Di”. Correct boundaries of width W.

6) remove integral sign and “sin” should be upright in Arial font

7) Correct Table number to become “A.7.3-2”.

8) Change “D” to “Di”, both on the left and on the right.

9) Correct number for last entry (should be 2,00 as per update nov. 2009).

10) Replace “is to” by “should”.

11) Change “D” to “Di”, 3 times.

12) Change to “The angle o is the angle where half the rackplate …..”.

BM GLND

A.07.3.2.4 Para 3 Ed Reference to MWL inconsistent with MSL in same paragraph

Amend to MSL Done

BM MSC

A.07.3.2.4 para Te It is stated that ”If the jack-up has operated in deeper water and the fouled legs are not cleaned the surface should be taken as rough for wave action above MWL + 2m.”

Should MWL be MSL? If not, what does it mean?

Is this change w.r.t. practice in SNAME (and others) intended?

MWL corrected to MSL. Formulation the same as in SNAME.

NO A.07.3.2.5 te A.7.3.2.5 NORSOK N-003 chapter 6.6.1 Noted.

Deleted: ,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



79

(http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/1149/N-003e2.pdf) has significant higher values for marine growth. If 12.5mm shall be valid it has to be combined with an effective antifouling system or systematic cleaning.

We already encourage the use of local data and systematic cleaning.

NEN A.07.3.2.5 para 2, line 4

para 3, line 3

te/ed

te/ed

Clarity.

Wrong verbal form.

Change to “…. this default thickness can be …”.

Change “may” to “can”.

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.2.6 NOTE

last line

te/ed

te/ed

Phrasing.

Adding an article.

Change “the lag drag” to “the leg drag load”.

Change to “… coefficients of a structural member”.

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.3.1 para 2 te In line 3 “may” is the wrong verbal form. But I recommend to delete the entire 3rd sentence starting with “For SDOF and stochastic calculations ….”. The difference between intrinsic and apparent periods/frequencies resulting from the Doppler shift should always be observed. The difference depends on wave period, water depth and current velocity. Figure A.2 in ISO 19901-1 e.g. shows a difference of up to 10% for the values quoted in this sentence and a water depth up to 100 m. Such period differences can be quite important in DAF calculations.

Change “may” to “can”, but more appropriately delete the entire 3rd sentence.

Have changed may to can and retained the helpful text.

BM GMUS

A.07.3.3.1 Second Para te The relationship between intrinsic and apparent wave periods is defined for an individual wave. It is unclear how it should be applied to stochastic waves. Shall it apply to Tp or to each individual wave component randomly generated from the sea spectra?

Clarify application to stochastic waves. Clause has been moved to A.7.3.3.5. There is now additional clarification in the document, but the issue is covered fully in ISO 19901-1 8.3 and A.8.3

NEN A.07.3.3.1 para 3, lines1/2

ed

Cross-referencing as per ISO.

Change to “…. given in ISO 19901-1, A.8.3.”

Give reference number and include it in the

Agreed. Deleted: Clause

http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/1149/N-003e2.pdf�

http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/1149/N-003e2.pdf�


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



80

NOTE ed Line 1: add a reference number to API RP 2A. Add a conclusion at the end.

Bibliography. Add the sentence: “The ISO 19901-1 terminology should be adhered to.”

NEN A.07.3.3.2 various te/ed para after Eq. (A.7.3-13): “is to” is not allowed in informative annex.

same para: use more specific cross-reference.

definitions with Eq. (A.7.3-14): same.

symbol in criterion for in Eq. (A.7.3-15): u is defined earlier as the wave particle velocity and should not be used with another meaning in uTn/Di.

para above Eq. (A.7.3-16): use more specific cross-reference.

def. of A in Eq. (A.7.3-16): here a generalization of the cross-referencing is recommended.

def. of udotn in Eq. (A.7.3-16): u is the wave particle velocity.

change “is to be chosen” to “should be chosen”.

change “A.7.3” to “A.7.3.2”.

change “A.7.3” to “A.7.3.2” with CD and D.

change u to e.g u*.

change “A.7.3” to “A.7.3.2”.

change “A.7.3.2.3” to “A.7.3.2”.

change to “wave particle acceleration …”.

Agreed.

BM GLND

A.07.3.3.3 Fig A.7.3-1 Te The variables shown on each axis of the chart are not defined in the document. For example on the Y axis does H refer to the significant or maximum wave height?.

Include these variables in the charts nomenclature Defined wave height, typo corrections..

BM GMUS

A.07.3.3.3.2 Fifth Para ed Reference is made to C.5 (inexistent) It should be C.4 Agreed

BM GMUS

A.07.3.3.3.2 Table A.7.3-4

ed Reference is made to C.5 (inexistent) It should be C.4 Agreed

NEN A.07.3.3.3.1 various te/ed The figure number is incorrect; within A.7.3 it is the 5th figure.

Cross-referencing as per ISO.

Change “Figure A.7.3-1” to “Figure A.7.3-5” in line 2 and in the figure title.

Change “ISO 19901-1 Clause A.8.4” to “ISO 19901-1, A.8.4” in line 2 and in the 2nd line from

Agreed.

Deleted: fluid

Deleted: Clause


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



81

the bottom.

NO A.07.3.3.3.2 Table A.7.3-3

Table A.7.3-3 Based on measurements at Gullfaks C (S Haver : A discussion of the wave conditions in the Northern North Sea, Technical note, Shell, Troll project, 18.12.1992.) it was found an average skewness of 0.15 with a standard deviation of 0.07. Further a kurtosis on 3.09 with a standard deviation of 0.24. The limits in the table are to narrow.

Keep as is.

The applied numerical model is a linear Gaussian model with skewness = 0 and kurtosis = 3. Limits are given to define samples applying to theoretical model. It may be assumed that skewness and kurtosis effects as presented in S.Haver’s paper may be due to non-linearities in real seas, and it is not seen that such non-linearities can be represented by just extending the limits for a numeric, linear Gaussian model.

NEN A.07.3.3.3.2 te Higher order random wave theories do not belong to the established knowledge base and are certainly not in practical use. Also, non-linear wave interactions such as sum and difference frequencies are not restricted to three-dimensional (directional) representations of the wave field; these are also relevant for two-dimensional (long-crested) wave fields.

Delete reference to higher order random wave theories and sum frequencies, and amend the last sentence of paragraph 1.

Similarly, delete para 4 “For higher order wave kinematics models ….”.

No. Whilst such methods are presently not in common usage, they are in use, and some guidance to avoid mis-application is considered prudent.

No additional wording suggested.

NEN A.07.3.3.3.2 various te/ed para 1, lines 2 and 3: simplification of phrasing.

penultimate para, line 3: underpredict is one word.

last para: wrong Table number.

Table A.7.3-4 title: this is the 3rd table in A.7.3, not the 4th.

Change to “….,see A.6.4.2.5 to A.6.4.2.8.”

Change “under predict” to “underpredict”.

Change “Table A.7.3.4” to “Table A.7.3-3”.

Change table number to “Table A.7.3-3”.

Change text to:

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Deleted: (

Deleted: , A.6.4.2.6, A.6.4.2.7, and

Deleted: )


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



82

Table A.7.3-4, para 2: in accordance with the comment one row up reference to higher order waves in connection with random waves should be deleted. Additionally, a sentence should be added.

Table A.7.3-4: write time step without hyphen.

Table A.7.3-4: replace capitals by lower case in:

“Unless indicated otherwise in the site-specific information, the validity of wave surface simulation should be checked against the criteria given below. The criteria should be taken to assure that Hs , mean waves and maximum crests are within practical limits. The criteria for accepting a random wave simulation are:”

remove hyphen from ”time-step” (twice).

change to “maximum crest elevation” and “most probable maximum extreme (MPME) response(s)”.

We need to retain the thought about higher order waves.

Agreed

Agreed

NEN A.07.3.3.3.3 various te/ed para 1, line 1: consistency of terminology.

para 1, line 2: spacing, heading and wave length are 3 independent and important factors.

Method 1, line 2: replace capitals by lower case.

Method 1, lines 2/3: cross-referencing.

Method 1, b): “based in” is confusing.

Method 2: plural of abbreviations are spelled with a plural s without an apostrophe.

change “magnitude of the loads” to “magnitude of the actions”.

change “spacing (heading) and wave length” to “spacing, heading and wave length”.

change to “base shear transfer function (BSTF)”.

change to “as described below (see 7.6.4 of Reference [A.7.3-4]):”

change to “… from ISO 19901-1, A.8.7 or from ..”

change “DAF’s” to “DAFs” (3 times).

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.3.4 various te/ed para 2: consistency of terminology.

para 3: preposition with interference.

definition of Vf

definitions of Cde and De: generalize cross-referencing.

change “drag forces” to “drag actions”.

change to “…. interference from the structure with the flow field….”

change to “…. (undisturbed) current velocity”

change “A.7.3.2.3” to “A.7.3.2”.

Agreed.

Deleted:

Deleted: For higher order waves

Deleted: Maximum

Deleted: Most

Deleted: Probable

Deleted: Maximum

Deleted: Extreme

Deleted: Base

Deleted: Shear

Deleted: Transfer

Deleted: Function

Deleted: Sec.

Deleted: based

Deleted: on


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



83

NEN A.07.3.4.1 line 1 te/ed Consistency of terminology and verbal form. Change to:

“The wind action on each component (divided into blocks of not more than 15 m vertical extent), Fwi, can be computed using the formula:”

Agreed.

NEN A.07.3.4.1 definitions of Eqs. (A.7.3-19 and –20)

te/ed be specific in the definitions. Pi: “… the centre of block i”

Awi: “…. projected area of block I perpendicular to the wind direction”

Vzi: “…. velocity at the centre of block I, see …”

Cs: “…., as given in A.7.3.4.2.”

Agreed

NEN A.07.3.4.1 NOTE ed Clarity. Change to “…. viewed from the wind direction under consideration.”

Agreed

BM GLND

A.07.3.4.1 Te No guidance given on wind on legs below the hull - assume to be determined based on peak wave-phase loading condition (reduced exposed leg length) rather than still-water leg length

Include guidance Agreed with modifications. Can calculate to either the SWL or instantaneous WL.

BM GLND

A.07.3.4.2 Table A.7.3-5

Te Shape coefficients for leg sections recommend using tubular CDi of 0.5. GLND surprised by this change from SNAME’s use of CDe based on ‘smooth’ coefficient of 0.65.

Review decision for change - possible impact is 10% reduction of wind loads on legs when using ISO compared to SNAME.

Made edits to revert to the SNAME approach

NEN A.07.4.4.2 line 1 te/ed Phrasing and correction of table number. Change to:

“Using building block elements the shape coefficients in Table A.7.3-4 should be used.”

Agreed

NEN A.07.4.4.2 Table te/ed Correction of Table number plus editorial items. change “Table A.7.3-5” to “Table A.7.3-4”.

row 1, col. 1: change “Structure” to “structure”.

row 4, col. 1: change “sub-structure” to “substructure”.

All Agreed, except for tubulars

Deleted: force for

Deleted: may

Deleted: the

Deleted: the

Deleted: considered

Deleted: each

Deleted: below

Deleted: a

Deleted: of

Deleted: 5


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



84

row 5, col. 2: change “tubular” to “tubulars”.

row 8, col. 1: change “boxed- in” to “boxed-in”.

NEN A.07.3.4.3 line 1 te/ed Verbal form: in this case “may” (permission) appears more appropriate than “can” (possibility).

Change to “….. may be determined”. Agreed

NEN A.07.4 various te/ed line 2: Phrasing.

1st b): adding of article.

para between 1st and 2nd list: adding of article and phrasing.”

2nd b): clarity.

two lists with a), b) and c) in one subclause are not allowed.

last para, line 1: adding of article.

last para, line 2: adding of closing comma to subordinate clause.

change to “….. needs to be assessed”.

change to “… limits of the centre of gravity ....”

change to “… limitation of the centre of gravity position ....” and “… the addition of water to the …

change to “… performing the operation of adding water offshore.”

change the list numbering as per the ISO Directives.

change to “… limitation of the centre of gravity ....”

change to “… sliding, see 5.4.4 and 13.9.1, then the ….”.

All agreed except "to the"

NEN A.07.7 title ed Same title as in 7.7. Change “Earthquake” to “Earthquakes” (plural). Agreed

Annex A.8

NEN A.08.1 1st sentence te/ed The 1st sentence is a duplication from 8.1. Delete the 1st sentence. Agreed

US A.08.2 Figure A.8.2-1

ed Increase size of plot Increase size of plot Agreed Better copy used and .dwg now available.

BM GLND

A.08.2.3 Ed No reference to mass modelling in any of the modelling options from fully detailed FE model to equivalent stick model

Suggest add reference to 8.7 (mass modelling) and A.8.7.

Expanded A.8.2.2 to describe overall process better. Included “A.8.7 describes modelling the mass and

Deleted: can

Deleted: in lieu of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



85

A.8.8 describes the application of the actions.”

NEN A.08.2.3 b), last line te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “… ‘detailed leg’ and leg/hull connection model (d).”

Agreed

NEN A.08.3.1 line 1 te/ed Be more specific in cross-references. Change to “…. in accordance with A.8.3.2 to A.8.3.4 as applicable.”

Agreed.

SPRING SG 3

A.08.3-1 Fig A.8.3-1

table

ed The figure is copied direct from SNAME and still contains SNAME references. The figure should be redone.

Agreed

BM GLND

A.08.7 (& 8.7) Ed Breakdown of masses to be included in analysis may be better suited in A.8.7 rather than 8.7


Noted, but decided to leave as is until more experience with document

BM MSC

A.08.8.3/

08.8.3 /

para Te The general text discusses potential hull sagging, being largely dependent on rig design, site etc. It is may-be possible by rational consideration to quantify some hull sagging amount which may-be less than 25%. The section however takes that value as a requirement. This is not in accordance with the text in the Normative (8.8.3).

Perhaps it may be applicable to use a phrase (similar to) SNAME C5.5.3:

“A simplified approach for a conservative quantitative assessment is to assume that 25 [to 50] percent of the theoretical hull sagging moment at the lower guide is seen in practice.”

Text modified to eliminate apparent requirement for 25% hull sagging but SNAME does not capture situation in mild environments where high operational elevated wt may occur in “extreme storm”

NEN A.08.3.3 Figure A.8.3-1

te/ed This figure is a copy from elsewhere; variables and cross-references require clarification.

Also some changes to words.

Define symbols in so far as these are different or additional to those in the rest of A.8.3.

Clarify or correct cross-references 5.1a, 5.1c and section 5.6.4.

In 3), line 1, change “may have taken as” to

Agreed

Deleted: the

Deleted: following subclause(s)


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



86

“may be taken as”.

In 5), line 3, change verbal form “may ”to “can”.

NEN A.08.3.3 2 bullets te/ed Follow ISO Directives re lists. Change two bullets (heavy dots) to a list with a) and b). Within b) there is a sub list using 3 dashes.

Agreed

NEN A.08.3.3 2nd dot bullet,para 1

te/ed Formulation and clarity of the message. (see also further comments re A.8.3.3).

Change to

“From the application of unit load cases to a detailed leg model prepared in accordance with 8.3.2 and 8.3.5. The leg should be rigidly restrained, generally at the first point of lateral force transfer between the hull and the leg, although it can be more convenient to use a different reference point, e.g. chock level or neutral axis of the hull. The variables ∆, , M and P in the formulae below are obtained from the detailed leg model. The following load cases should be considered, applied about the major and minor axes of the leg:”

Agreed

NEN A.08.3.3 1st dash under 2nd bullet

te and ed

Axial unit load case is normal text.

Improve description of for greater clarity.

Improve description of L for greater clarity.

I suspect that ISO will require the equation to be numbered.

Remove quotes around ‘unit’.

Change to “is the axial deflection (shortening) of the leg at the point of force application”

Change to “is the cantilevered leg length (from hull to the seabed reaction point – see A.8.6.2)”

Add equation number (A.8.3-1).

Agreed

NEN A.08.3.3 2nd dash under 2nd bullet

te and ed

Amend 1st sentence to improve clarity by using consistent terminology.

Give symbol a subscript M to distinguish it from in the 3rd bullet.

Change to “Pure moment applied either as a moment or as a couple at the end of the cantilevered leg.”

Change symbol to M.

Agreed.

Deleted: and

Deleted: cantilever


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



87

Add an equation number.

Improve description of for greater clarity.

Amend description of M.


Change to “is the lateral deflection of the cantilevered leg at the point of moment application”

Change to “is the slope of the cantilever at the point of moment application”

NEN A.08.3.3 3rd dash under 2nd bullet

te and ed

Amend 1st sentence for consistent terminology.

Give symbol a subscript P to distinguish it from M in the 2nd bullet.

Add an equation number to the equation for P.

Add description of symbols after the equation.

Add an equation number to the equation for .

Change to “Pure shear, P, applied at the end of the cantilevered leg, which can …”

Change symbol to P.


Add: ”where P is the applied shear P is the slope of the cantilever at the point of shear application”


Agreed

NEN A.08.4.1 line 1 te/ed Be more specific in cross-references. Change to “…. are given in A.8.4.2 and A.8.4.3.” Agreed

NEN A.08.5.1 para 1, line 5 te/ed Use consistent terminology. Change to “…. the equivalent leg (stick model).”

NEN A.08.5.1 throughout te/ed Figure numbers should start at A.8.5-1, not at A.8.5-2. Lower xx in all Figure numbers A.8.5-xx by 1, in the captions as well as in references to figures.

Agreed.

NEN A.08.5.1 para 2, list te/ed Harmonize descriptions of a) to d). Chgange to a) With or without …. b) With opposed or ….. c) With pin and yoke …. d) With fixed or floating …..

Agreed.

NEN A.08.5.1 Figures A.8.5-4 to A.8.5-7

te The description of the dotted/dashed line types in the upper right hand corners and their application in the

Clarify their meaning and application. Agreed.

Deleted: the following subclauses

Deleted: stick-

Deleted: Opposed

Deleted: Pin

Deleted: Fixed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



88

(existing numbers)

figures are not really clear.

NEN A.08.5.4 line 3 te/ed Phrasing. Change to “… that the model reflects the local moment strength ….….”.

Agreed.

BM GLND

A.08.5.7 Para 1 Ed The reference to A.8.5.7 refers to its own paragraph. Either delete or change reference to A.8.2.3 Deleted reference

NEN A.08.6.3 para 2, line 5 te/ed Clarity. Change to “… the associated horizontal and vertical seabed reaction forces.”

Agreed.

BM GLND

A.08.7 (& A.8.7)

Ed Breakdown of masses to be included in analysis may be better suited in A.8.7 rather than 8.7


NEN A.08.8.2 Title te/ed Consistency with change to title of 8.8.2. Change title to

“Functional actions comprising fixed actions and actions due to variable load”

No - see response to 8.8.2.

NEN A.08.8.2 line 1 to 3 te/ed Consistency of terminology and phrasing (do not use ‘factored’ , which generates associations with partial factor methods).

Change to

“The actions on the hull from fixed actions and actions due to variable load should be applied to the model in such a manner as to represent their correct vertical and horizontal distribution. The hull functional actions are the hull masses multiplied by the vertical gravitational acceleration.”

No to first change (see response to 8.8.2)

Second change agreed.

NEN A.08.8.4.1 para 1 and 2 te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to “Wind actions are determined from 7.3.4. The wind actions on the legs above and below the hull should be modelled to represent their correct vertical and horizontal distribution. Actions can be applied as distributed or as nodal actions. Where nodal actions are used, a sufficient number should be applied to reflect the distributed nature of the actions, and it should be ensured that the correct

Agreed

Deleted: can simulate

Deleted: fixed load and

Deleted: due to

Deleted: load

Deleted: factored

Deleted: loading is

Deleted: loading


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



89

total shear and overturning moment are achieved on each leg. Similarly, the wind actions on the hull and associated structure can be applied as distributed or as nodal actions. The application should also ensure that the correct total shear and overturning moment on the hull are achieved.”

NEN A.08.8.4.2 te/ed Consistency of terminology. Change to

“A.8.8.4.2 Wave and current actions

Wave and current actions are determined from 7.3.3. The wave and current actions on the leg and spudcan structures above the sea floor should be modelled to represent their correct vertical and horizontal distribution. Where nodal actions are used, their application should ensure that the correct total shear and overturning moment are achieved on each leg, and reflect the distributed nature of the actions.”

No - see previous re wave/current

Ditto *2

Remainder agreed

NEN A.08.8.5 last para te/ed The intent of this paragraph is not clear, especially the 2nd sentence.

Suggest following reformulation for clarity:

“Forces or moments due to inertial actions should normally only be applied to structure above the lower guide. Internal leg forces and foundation forces are both important aspects of a site-specific assessment, and application of inertial actions to the legs below the lower guide would directly affect these in an unrealistic manner.”

Agreed

Annex A.9

BM GLND

A09 Ge There are various symbols and definitions of bearing capacity and footing loads - the use of Fv,in seems unnecessary and presumably can be replaced with VLo

Replace all instances of Fv,in with VLo ? Partially rejected (Fv,in changing during installation) VLo final preload

Deleted: loading

Deleted: /

Deleted: /

Deleted: /

Deleted: the

Deleted: loading


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



90

However, Fv,in suggested to be changed to VL

NEN A.09.3.1 general te/ed In the ISO 19900 series a distinction is made between the resistance of materials and the resistance of foundations. The resistance of materials is named ‘strength’ and the resistance of foundations is named ‘capacity’. Additionally, for foundations ‘bearing’ is more specifically associated with vertical capacity (see ISO 19904-1); horizontal foundation resistance is not referred to with ‘bearing’ but with the general terms ‘resistance’ or ‘capacity’. Hence “vertical bearing capacity” is OK, but “horizontal bearing capacity” is inappropriate terminology.

This is generally consistent with the terminology used in the existing text, e.g. where is spoken about “bearing and sliding checks” and “vertical and horizontal foundation capacity”. However, use of the right terms is not followed everywhere. Consistency in formulation is very important for users, especially for those that are not specialists on the subject!

Several other changes for improvement are suggested, which are too cumbersome to include in this table. Therefore modified text for A.9.3.1 is included in the attachment.

See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Mostly agreed.

We also corrected some errors in our original presentation.

NEN A.09.3.2 te/ed Many proposed/suggested modifications including:

the general comments noted for A.9.3.1 above;

clarity, precision and consistency of formulation;

use of correct verbal forms;

for clarity and avoiding potential confusion, symbols should be described using fully consistent wording wherever they occur (use same wording for embedded definitions with equations, where they occurring elsewhere in the text, as well as in the

See markings on separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



91

separate list of symbols in A.4.10 (existing A.4.9);

referencing literature in accordance with ISO Directives (only numbers, no names!);

equation numbering in accordance with ISO Directives;

………

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.1 Ge No mention as to whether upper and lower bound soil strength profiles should be considered in spudcan penetrations analyses, or only ‘best estimate’

Upper and lower bound profiles should be considered.

Agreed and text amended accordingly.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.1 Equation A.9.3-1.a

Te The equation does not include spudcan buoyancy contribution due to the volume of the spudcan within the soil below the max. plan area level

Agreed this is true – although this is implicitly covered in the existing text – update equations to include Bs. Updated July 2010 to correct another problem, but finally agreed by PW and ERP corrected for total spudcan volume (Vspud), Bs and Hcav.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.1 Equation A.9.3-1.b

Te The weight of backflow soil, defined in Equation A.9.3-2, includes all volume between lowest point of max. area and the base of the crater (and would hence include the spudcan volume above lowest point of max. area, whereas this volume is also included in Bs term) - clarification is needed as this could leave the potential for a significant “double-dip” if not treated carefully.

Panel 4 generally need to review figures, equations and descriptions involving backflow and spudcan buoyancy within Appendix 9. Even at the surface, there is spudcan buoyancy due to the volume of spudcan within the soil, furthermore the weight of backflowed soil must not include the volume of the spudcan above the lowest level of max. plan area.

As above

BM GMUS-RPS

A.09.3.2.1.1 Equation A.9.3-1.a

te ISO state and for vertical bearing capacity calculations with and without backflow. In case where spudcan is partially embedded, equation should include the Bs component.

Consider adding Bs component for equation A.9.3-1.a.

Agreed and completed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



92

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.3 Ed “The soil beneath the spudcan fails as the foundation is loaded during preloading until equilibrium is achieved at the end of the preloading operation”

Replace with “The spudcan will penetrate into the seabed during preloading until the spudcan’s bearing capacity achieves equilibrium with the applied preload”

Rejected comment.

US A.09.3.2.1.4 ed In discussing cavity wall collapse, suggest that the word "can" be changed to "may".

No; this would not be correct ISO-speak.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Ed “Backflow is the soil that flows from beneath the spudcan, around the sides, and onto the top and is more likely to occur in clays than in sands. Backflow can occur at shallow penetrations, but is more likely to occur at deeper penetrations. In very soft clays complete backflow is likely to occur. In firm to stiff clays and granular materials, where spudcan penetration is expected to be small, the possibility of backflow diminishes. In general, backflow due to additional penetration during elevated operations is not expected to occur. If it is predicted, the effects should be taken into account.” - backflow occurs straightaway in sand and depends on penetration depth in clays - can be rephrased to be more clear/efficient.

Replace with “Backflow is the soil that flows from beneath the spudcan, around the circumference and on to the top of the spudcan during penetration into the seabed. This occurs immediately in sands, should sufficient penetrations occur, and after a certain penetration depth in clays, which can be determined using the method described below. ”

Rejected comment.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Figure A.9.3-6

Ed Key below Figure A.9.3-6 refers to ‘e’ for the cavity however I cannot see where this is used in either figure.

Remove? Delete “cavity”.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 for example

Te Although reference is made to infill, no guidance is provided for quantifying infill. For example if there is a layer of sand at the seabed surface should it be assumed that this will subsequently completely infill the crater if the seabed is shown to be mobile? (this could result in a very significant additional vertical footing load)

Guidance needed from Panel 4 Noted – no action.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Eqn A.9.3-2 & Fig A.9.3-5

te The definitions of Hcav in Equation A.9.3-2 and Fig A.9.3-5 suggest that a portion of the spudcan volume would be included in calculating the weight of backfill.

See earlier comment regarding spudcan volume and backfill

Addressed previously.

BM A.09.3.2.1.4 Ed “the penetration resistance offered by a localised backflow mechanism becomes independent of depth of

Clarify that this penetration refers to D and not tip Agreed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



93

GLND

penetrations exceeding B” penetration depth. This statement of fact needs a reference.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4

Te “the penetration resistance offered by a localised backflow mechanism becomes independent of depth of penetrations exceeding B” - this appears to be inconsistent with both Skempton’s depth factor equation and Houlsby & Martin’s BC factors which are recommended in the ISO.

Panel 4 should agree the point at which the backflow mechanism becomes independent of penetration depth

Amended – change B to Hcav.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Ed Reference to Table A.9.3-1 should read Table A.9.3-2 Correct Table reference Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Figure A.9.3-6

Ed More details are required in order for the user to calculate Hcav - the plot in Figure A.9.3-6 is not helpful in itself, rather the equation should be written in the text along with some explanation of how to obtain Hcav

Propose using the text from the original OTC paper:

Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



94

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.1.4 Figure A.9.3-6

Symbol ‘X’ in the key that refers to undrained shear strength

Should be replaced with Su Done

NEN A.09.3.2.1.4 para 5 te/ed This paragraph is very unclear. An attempt at unravelling and best understanding of what it appears to say resulted in a possible suggestion for a rewrite; see column 6.

Change to:

“The gross ultimate vertical bearing capacity minus the applied weight on the spudcan during ballasting and preloading is the maximum vertical reaction on the leeward leg(s) that the foundation can support for resisting the overturning moment in extreme storm conditions. This difference is equal to the weight of the preload ballast per leg that

We have simplified the text.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



95

may be dumped after preloading.

Any subsequent backfill after preloading (WBF,A) provides an additional weight on the spudcan that needs to be accommodated and reduces the vertical reaction that the foundation can support to resist the overturning moment. Conversely, any subsequent backfill increases the available uplift capacity of the windward leg(s).

BM GMUS

A.09.3.2.1.4 Seventh Para

ed Reference is made to Table 9.3-1 (inexistent)

MODIFIED IN APRIL VERSION TO TABLE 9.3-2 BUT STILL INCORRECT

It should be Table A.9.3.2 Done, except that the reference to tables is A.X.Y-Z not A.X.Y.Z

BM GMUS

A.09.3.2.1.4 Eight Para ed Unclear reference to A.9.4.4 It should be A.9.4.5? Agreed

NO A.09.3.2.2 A.9.3.2.2 should be based on, and refer to ISO 19901-4 on geotechnique. Only additions should be stated.

No; Our technology is more advanced than that in 19901-4. Furthermore, SC7 has agreed that the updated 19901-4 will not address jack-up foundations.

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.2 Table A.9.3-2

Ed The caption should emphasise that these assume homogeneous strength.

Replace caption with “Bearing capacity factors for a rough circular plate on homogeneous clay”

Agreed with amendment

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.2 Ed Cross reference to A.9.3.2.8 before Table A.9.3-2 should be replaced with A.9.3.2.6

Replace cross-reference Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.2 Table A.9.3-2

Te Presumably these values (and those in Annex E1) can be interpolated; is the error involved in linearly interpolating Houlsby & Martin’s tabulated values in Annex E1 acceptable for other depth and values? (i.e. you would

Guidance required from Houlsby Panel 4 – it’s a non-linear interpolation, particularly for sand – MC – it was previously agreed that we


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



96

need to interpolate using four tabulated values in order to find the Ncscdc for a combination of D/B and values that are not explicitly given in the tables).

should not be too prescriptive and it is for the competent engineer to decide how to use the data. Therefore no action required table remains.

Added warning sentence regarding linear interpolation, MC.

General note : << DM to provide 2009 reference re _bearing capacity factors – strain rates and soil softening. P4 action<< Carry forward to Rev 1. >>

BM GLND

A09.3.2.2 Te It is not clear whether Houlsby & Martin’s values can be used for a clay layer that is not at the surface

Guidance needed from Houlsby - Can it be used? if so, would Sum refer to the undrained shear strength at the top of the layer or still at the sea floor surface?

Sum is at top of leyer under consideration. Note added.

BM GLND

A09.3.2.2 / Annex E1

Te Edwards et al. (Géotechnique 2005 No. 55, No. 10) showed that Houlsby & Martin’s bearing capacity factors values are notably lower (i.e. less accurate) than the upper and lower bound solutions derived by Martin and FE data.

The likely errors involved in using Houlsby & Martin’s values compared to the latest research should be quantified and noted in the text, else refer to values in Edwards and Martin’s papers

Resolved

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.2 Te No guidance is provided on how to average undrained shear strength with depth if a sand layer is encountered.

Suggest adding guidance from Panel 4 (Dave Menzies?)

Panel 4 – Agreed but no action necessary.

BM GMUS

A.09.3.2.2 Last Sentence

ed Reference is made to A.9.3.2.8 (inexistent)


It should be A.9.3.2.6 Noted


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



97

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.4 Eq. A.9.3-5 Te Depth factors are not included in this equation - can occasionally be relevant for very loose sand locations

Add depth factors Completed

BM GMUS-RPS

A.09.3.2.4 /

E2

Equation 9.3-5

Note E2

te Further clarifications are required for the selection of friction angle for bearing capacity calculations have been explained but with no clear direction. Further clarifications are required.

Further clarifications / clearer instructions required.

Done

CA A 09.3.2.5.4 1 Te It is suggested that a reduced friction angle is used to compensate for increased compressibility in carbonate sands (and that the TP should determine the values)

It is not appropriate in a standard to endorse an approach that is clearly wrong (and the wording even implies as much). The rest of the clause provides an alternate methodology.

Delete reference to using a reduced friction angle to compensate for stiffness.

The simplified empirical method, used for determining penetration (not stiffness) is in common use but has been discarded and replaced with an alternative approach.

BM GMUS

A.09.3.2.6.1 Second Para ed Reference is made to A.9.3.2.7 (inexistent)


It should be A.9.3.2.5 No further action required

US A.09.3.2.6.2 ed B>T/b but b is not defined either in the text of on the accompanying figure.

Confirmed that b should be bs

BM GLND

A.09.3.2.6.4 Te Equation given in SNAME for use with projected area method is floating at the bottom of the diagram

Add equation properly and add explanation and notes to diagram as in SNAME:

Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



98

NEN A.09.3.3 te/ed As for A.9.3.2; see also comment on A.9.3.3.1 below, which is relevant for the whole text.


NEN A.09.3.3.1 added para te In this subclause the forces FH, FV, FM are introduced for the first time. These are crucially important variables that need to be properly understood by a user. They link clauses in the standard, notably Clauses 8, 9 and 10. Yet they are only casually introduced without any discussion.

I make a strong plea for adding a paragraph just before the last paragraph of A.9.3.3.1, such as proposed in column 6.

Accordingly, these forces should be properly defined as shown in column 6: - approach the definition from the loading side instead as from the reaction side; - link them to the assessment load case Fd in 8.8; that is universally applicable, whether the load case refers to an

Add the following paragraph:

“The forces FH, FV and the moment FM acting on the spudcan are the forces transferred to the foundation by the jack-up in operational or extreme storm conditions due to the assessment load case Fd in 8.8. They include quasi-static contributions due to factored actions, and contributions from dynamic response, as appropriate, in accordance with the procedures of Clause 10.”

Definition of FH (similarly for FV and FM):

FH the vertical force applied to the spudcan due to the assessment load case Fd (see 8.8)

Agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



99

extreme storm event or to some operational condition; - do not separately refer to “applied actions” in their definition, because that is inherently ensured by the assessment load case.

Similarly, the variable Vst (and basically also WBF,A and BS) should be linked to Fd.

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.1 Ed “the maximum moment and horizontal capacities which, with the vertical capacity, are the principal coordinates of the yield interaction surface.”

Suggest replacing with “the maximum moment and horizontal capacities which, with the vertical capacity, are the principal dimensions of the yield interaction surface.”

Agreed with edits

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.1 Ed “The shape of the yield surface for shallow foundations is parabolic”

Change relevant instances of “parabolic” to “paraboloidal”, also “elliptic” to “ellipsoidal” as the yield surface is 3-dimensional

Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.1 Ed - Change cross-reference to A.9.3.2.2.5 to A.9.3.2.1.5

Done

BM GMUS

A.9.3.3.1 Tenth Para ed Reference is made to equation in A.9.3.2.2.5 (inexistent)


It should be A.9.3.2.1.5 No further action required

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.1 Ed “load-penetration equations given in A.9.3.2.3 through A.9.3.2.8” - incorrect sections

Replace with “load-penetration equations given in A.9.3.2.2 through A.9.3.2.6”

Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.1 Figure A.9.3-12

Ed Is it appropriate to refer to V, H and M? Replace with QV, QH and QM? Reject for the sake of clarity.

BM GMUS-RPS

A.09.3.3.2 Equations A.9.3-11 to A.9.3-16

te / ed Parameters ‘su,a’, ‘su,0’ and ‘su’ have not been clearly defined in this section. It is also unclear whether sensitivity should be taken into account in calculating the ‘su,a’.

Require clearer definition. Done.

Added words on “accounting for disturbance and soil sensitivity.

BM A.09.3.3.2 Section ed Definition of ‘b’ in the nomenclature section is inconsistent Require amendment in Section Annex A.4.9. No further action required


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



100

GMUS-RPS

A.9.3.3.2 / A.4.9

with as presented in this Section.


BM GMUS-RPS

A.09.3.3.2 and 6.3.4.2

te For the ultimate moment capacity calculation, the following is recommended:

I

Require further clarifications on the use of QVnet in the ultimate moment capacity calculation (as opposed to Qv).

Explanation added from Jack T:

There is a component of vertical capacity that is due to the effect of the weight of the soil. The net vertical capacity is equal to the gross, QV, less this soil weight term. Neither the horizontal capacity nor the moment capacity, however, are affected at all by the soil weight. It is for this reason that these are calculated based on QVnet.

Reviewed & updated, with Jack his latest submittal.

NEN A.09.3.3.2 NOTE 1 te/ed NOTE 1 is unclear (at least), if not partly incorrect and incomplete. It should address QM and QH (in clay and in sand) separately. See proposed rewrite in column 6.

Change to:

“NOTE 1 The moment capacities are calculated as fractions of the product of net vertical bearing capacity and the effective spudcan diameter. This is very useful, because in most jack-up applications the vertical bearing capacity established by the preload is known with greater accuracy than the soil strength.

The horizontal capacity in sand and clay is calculated as a fraction of the net vertical capacity. For the shallow embedment case in clay, a conservative value for this fraction can be established by considering minimal embedment of a flat-bottomed spudcan on very strong clay where

Agreed.

P4 made further small changes.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



101

the horizontal capacity per unit base area is given by the shear strength, and the vertical capacity per unit base area is approximately 6 times the shear strength, so that: QH = 0,16 Qvnet . This value can be used as an alternate, conservative, horizontal capacity expression for shallow embedment in clay.”

BM MSC

A.09.3.3.2 Formula A9.3-10

Ed Reference to A.9.3.2.5 probably A.9.3.2.1.5 under Qv description

Agreed

BM-BASS

A.09.3.3.2 Equation (A.9.3-10)

ge “QV = the gross vertical bearing capacity of the soil beneath the spudcan. In the absence of additional penetration = QVo the capacity achieved during preloading, as defined in A.9.3.2.5, “

Comment:

Should be: QV = the gross vertical bearing capacity

of the soil beneath the spudcan. In the absence of additional penetration = QVo the capacity achieved during preloading, as defined in A.9.3.2.1.5,

See BM MSC A.9.3.3.2, above.

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.2 Equation A.9.3-13

Te Qvnet formula (after second equals sign) - this Qv-Ap’o definition ignores cavity depth and spudcan buoyancy and is potentially confusing and could lead to misunderstandings. (note Figure A.9.3-7 defines p’o as the overburden pressure without consideration of spudcan buoyancy and cavity depth).

Remove Qvnet = Qv-Ap’o definition and corresponding “Note 2”.

Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



102

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.2 Equation A.9.3-16

Te The choice of whether to use an averaged Su or modified bearing capacity factor in the spudcan penetration calculations will lead to different ‘b’ values for horizontal capacity.

Su in the ‘b’ equation should be replaced with Suo - the undrained strength at the depth of the max. plan area.

Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.2 Equation A.9.3-16

Ed definition of Su,a has a spelling mistake: “sstrength” Replace “sstrength” with “strength” Done.

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.2 Te As definition - should this be the whole laterally projected area of the spudcan or just the lower portion in contact with the non-backflow soil?

Clarification required from Templeton Equ 16 appears to include the backflow already.

As should be the entire projected area of the portion of the spudcan in contact with the soil

BM GLND

A.09.3.3.2 Te “with backfill” formulae for Fv need clarification as to how to calculate backfill appropriately (see earlier comments)

This is thought to be a misinterpretation of the document. WBF,A is the Backfill AFTER preloading is complete. This will generally only be infill (not backflow), and will normally be small and uncertain. The effects of backflow while preloading can be used on the windward leg. Words have been added to clarify.

SPRING SG 8

A.09.3.3.2 Eq. A.9.3-17 ed/te The symbol QM and QH for sand should be swapped. Agreed.

ERP has implemented.

BM MSC

A.09.3.3.2 Formula A9.3-17

Ed Qh and Qm should be switched in formula (A.9.3-17) See SPRING SG8

ERP has implemented


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



103

BM GMUS

A.09.3.3.2 QH, QM Definition

te QH, QM are defined in terms of QVnet and not QV Clarify This is correct. No change

BM MSC

A.09.3.3.2 Formula A9.3-17

te For deep penetrations in sand, there is no allowance for higher HL0 in VH yield surface (HL0 = 0.12VL0 from VH slice of VHM surface) as per ISO text section A.9.3.3.2 (page 137). As the VH bearing check in ISO is a VH slice of VHM this restriction also applies to A.9.3.5. Yet, the SNAME definition allows this effect through the overburden Po’ Nq’ part as in SNAME the VH surface is defined by the Fvh capacity using the bearing capacity formula (Vesic) which implicitly includes effects of deep penetration in VH capacity. This potential is now restricted.

???? Assume that the final checking procedure mitigates this comment as commenter was one of the authors.

SPRING SG 9

A.09.3.3.2 Eq. A.9.3-20 ed/te The left-hand-side term should be FM instead of QM Agreed.

ERP has implemented

BM-BASS

A.09.3.3.3 Equation (A.9.3-23)

ge “ = 1,0 for soft clays = 0,5 for stiff clays

accounts for the degree of adhesion. The assessor should consider values within the range 0,5-1,0 depending on site-specific soil data, spudcan/soil interface roughness, etc. “

Comment:

What is the definition for the soft clay and stiff clay? How should we consider a value of in between the rage 0.5-1.0?

Amendments included

BM MSC

A.09.3.3.3 EQ A9.3-24b(now A.9.3-27)

te Formula (A9.3-24b) needs to be adapted to the changed formula (A9.3-10) to for the elliptical part (a=1). This factor f2 is specified to represent the ‘standard VM yield surface’ in case no suction can be relied upon in fixity calculations.

We assume it shall read in accordance with (A.9.3-20)

Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



104

NEN A.09.3.4 te/ed As for A.9.3.2. See markings on separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.1 Ed Description of elastic solutions can be more specific to emphasise that these are derived for rough-based circular footings with a flat base (as opposed to a typical spudcan)

Replace “elastic solutions for a rigid disk” with “elastic solutions for a rough, flat-based rigid disk”

Changes adopted .

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.1 Te With reference to soil shear modulus, G: “An upper or lower bound value should be selected” - when should you use which?

Add clarification from Panel 4 Clarified

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.1 Te There is no mention of the cross-coupling stiffness, K4 which links horizontal footing displacements and footing rotations to moment and horizontal loads respectively. Consideration of K4 is required for all conical footings, and for flat-based footings for v<0.5

Furthermore the choice of seabed reaction point in A.8.6.2 will have an influence on the K4 values.

This should at least be discussed if K4 is not to be specified.

The guidance provided in A.8.6.2 for the determination of the seabed reaction point should be reviewed (suggest by Houlsby and/or Martin) and included in discussion.

Panel 4 added text.

SPRING SG 10

A.09.3.4.2 Table A.9.3-4

te Depth factors shown is apparently only for = 0.0 unlike that in SNAME which covers a range of poisson ratios

Added depth factors for poisson ratios of 0.2 0.4 and 0.5

BM MSC

A.09.3.4.2.1 Table A.9.3-4

Te Embedment factors Kd1,2 and 3 are specified in a table in ISO clause A.9.4.3.2.1. These compare to SNAME page 117 for v=0.0. SNAME is updated in rev 3 with additional tables for v = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.5. Specifically the last 2 are relevant for clay. We believe these tables should added to the ISO document.

See SPRING SG10

BM GLN

A.09.3.4.2.1 Table A.9.3-4

Te The data presented for the depth factors are not from Bell’s thesis (as referenced) and are for Poisson’s ratio =

Replace values in table with the tables for various Poisson Ratios provided in SNAME (2008)

Resolved


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



105

D 0.0 - these are not appropriate for soils

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.2.2 Te “cyclic degradation reduces the horizontal bearing capacity by 30%” - surely this should be in the section on bearing capacities, not foundation stiffnesses.

Move or copy the part referring to bearing capacities to A.9.3.3.2

Moved and modified text.

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.2.3 Eqn A.9.3-34

Ed The two terms in the denominator should be added, not subtracted.

Agreed. and implemented.

SPRING SG 11

A.09.3.4.3 Eq. A.9.3-36 ed/te Suggest to use symbol “OCR” for overconsolidation ratio This is not permitted under ISO rules

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 Ed It would seem to make more sense for A.9.3.4.3 to appear before A.9.3.4.2, as G is required for the expressions in A.9.3.4.1. K1, 2 and 3 should be determined before stiffness depth factors, etc. are applied

Move A.9.3.4.3 to before A.9.3.4.2 Panel 4 noted but declined.

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 Te The guidance provided for IrNC is unclear - when, for example, should the data in Fig A.9.3-12 actually be used?

Clarification required from Panel 4 (Andersen?) Reworded to better describe the selection process and better represent what figure is saying

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 Equation A.9.3-36

Ed The symbol for overconsolidation ratio in is still ‘O’ instead of ROC

Replace ‘O’ with ROC Addressed

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 Te “except in areas with carbonate clays or clayey silts…” Panel 4 should provide comments/guidance for such situations

<< To clarify in Rev 1 >>

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 Eq. 9.3-36 Te Is the Su value referred to different from Su in Figure A.9.3-12? (which is from a Direct Simple Shear test)

Clarification required and/or consistency between figure and text (Andersen?)

Text added to indicates that the determination of G via use of Rigidity Index is inherently approximate. The small distinction in values of shear strength from various test is not significant in


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



106

comparison to the uncertainty in this kind of approximation.

BM GLND

A.09.3.4.3 and A.09.3.4.4

Ed Is it intended for the paragraph “The recommendations given above… …upper-bound values of G” to be duplicated in both A.9.3.4.3 and A.9.3.4.4?

Suggest rationalising At this stage it is difficult to avoid this tautology

BM GMUS

A.09.3.5.2 δ Definition te The definition of δ depends on ‘flat plate’ vs. ‘rough conical surface’, but no guidance is used on what to consider as ‘rough conical surface’ in practice

Provide guidance Transition equation added.

BM GLND

A.09.3.5.3 Te Should the factored sliding line should continue above Fv/Qv=0.5 until it meets the factored V-H envelope? Otherwise the factored sliding line will not touch the factored V-H envelope and the two factored envelopes (sliding and V-H) will be disjointed.

Propose that the factored sliding line should continue until it touches factored V-H envelope

Change made

BM GLND

A.09.3.5.3 Ed - Suggest adding "and in A.9.3.3.3 for Fv < 0.5 Qv" to the end of the first sentence

Suggested change added

NEN A.09.3.5 general te/ed Do not refer to “vertical-horizontal bearing capacity envelopes” but use “vertical-horizontal foundation capacity envelopes”.

Otherwise as for A.9.3.2.


SPRING SG 12

A.09.3.6 te Definition of each level of foundation check is inconsistent with that used in the corresponding normative (9.3.6) and may lead to ambiguous interpretation.

Covered by NEN hard-copy mark-up.

BM MSC

A.09.3.6 te With ISO based on gross capacity and SNAME on net capacity, differences result where backflow is involved (deep clay penetration) as discussed in document by KeppelFELS and MSC. Other items are recognized in the “foundation check framework” by KeppelFELS and MSC issued to ERP and not further noted here, comprising:

o Step 1 basics

???? Approach updated & checked in updated benchmarking.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



107

o Sliding of windward legs with(out) side resistance o Appropriate way to deal with material coefficient VH

NEN A.09.3.6 whole subclause

te The foundation acceptance checks are performed by checking the applied loadings on the spudcan FH, FV and FM (from a response analysis due to factored actions on the jack-up) against the (factored) resistance(s) of the foundation. Do not mix these two types of variables by performing the foundation checks with foundation reactions!

Be careful and consistent with wording, in accordance with a partial factor (load resistance) type procedure.

See markings on separate hard copy pages.

Mostly agreed.

SPRING SG 13

A.09.3.6.1 Fig. A.9.3-14 ed/te Steps 2c, 3a, and 3b are not explicitly shown on the flow chart. In addition, it appears that if Step 2b fails the analysis could not proceed directly to Step 3 but has to go through a full non-linear foundation stiffness analysis first.

Covered by NEN hard-copy mark-up.

NEN A.09.3.6.1 Figure A.9.3-13

te/ed Figure A.9.3-13 would appear to be incomplete and require updating for complete consistency with the definitive text of Clause A.9. Notable points are that a sliding check on the windward leg for step 2a, and the entire step 2c are missing from the figure. Otherwise there are several suggestions for editorial amendments.


BM GLND

A.09.3.6.1 Figure A.9.3-14

te Flow chart does not mention the Nonlinear continuum foundation model described in A.9.3.4.2.5

Suggest adding reference to A.9.3.4.2.5 in rectangular box with A.9.3.4.2.4

Done already by GL ND

SPRING SG 14

A.09.3.6.2 Table A.9.3-5

te QHS is expressed as a function of FV. This may be erroneous and need revisiting.

Agreed - Table updated by Jack.

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.2 Table A.9.3-5

te Appears to be an error in equation for Clay with embedment less than 1.0 times spudcan diameter as the two expressions for clay appear not to be equal for D/B=1.0

Suggest checking with Templeton Has been fixed in current standard. No action required.

BM A.09.3.6.2 ed The description “is small” needs to be specifically linked Replace “is small” with “less than the Suggested change made


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



108

GLND

to Table A.9.3-5 (at least 2 occurrences) corresponding limiting horizontal reaction given by Table A.9.3-5”

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.2 te It is not clear the technical basis for the following statement: “Additional penetration can increase the soil resistance, but to increase the horizontal capacity to 0,1VLo the additional penetration is about 10% of the spudcan diameter and outside tolerable limits.” Surely this depends on , , etc.

Replace with “Although additional penetration can increase the soil resistance, it is possible for such additional penetrations to exceed those tolerable by the unit.”

Resolved.

NEN A.09.3.6.2 various te/ed 1) para 1 up to the 1st NOTE: this is all about the minimum required preload VLo. Therefore give VLo explicitly in Eq. (A.9.3-41), and use the = sign rather than the ≥ sign.

2) Convert the 1st NOTE to regular text, convert the equation in an explicit equality and give it an equation number.

3) Definition of Fv and Vst is a duplication from the same statement in A.9.3.3.2; ensure consistency by copying the formulation from there. Note the comment in A.9.3.3.1 above on definitions of forces, which is relevant for the whole A.9.3.6


NEN A.09.3.6.3 te/ed As for A.9.3.2. See markings on separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

BM GMUS

A.09.3.6.3 QH Definition te The sliding unity check can have very different results by using eq. (A.9.3-42) instead of the V-H envelope

Provide guidance Addressed in latest text

BM MSC

A09.3.6.3/

A09.3.5

09.3.6/

Te Sliding check of windward legs.

A level 1-step 1b sliding check suggests no use of VH capacity but the (traditional) Fvtan + side. A level 2-step 2a sliding more clearly states to use VH surface and the above formula, which will thus result in the more governing check. We have found that it can mean that a level 1 sliding is OK while for the same loads a level 2 sliding is NOK as there are no limitations in the step 1b

Addressed in latest text


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



109

sliding such as there are for applicability of pre-load check.

Is it implicitly so that the simple formula above Fvtan + side is linked to safety of 1.25 whereas the VH capacity curve is linked with 1.15?

SPRING SG 15

A.09.3.6.4 ed/te To be consistent with Eq. A.9.3-43, the definition of QVH should be amended to “point where the vector originating from (FV, FH)ORG …”

Text has been updated

SPRING SG 16

A.09.3.6.4 Fig. A.9.3-14 ed/te Construction of factored bearing capacity envelope should be consistent with the partial resistance factor concept adopted, i.e. unfactored envelope is scaled down with respect to (FV, FH)ORG, where the origin is set for example as 0.5VL0.

Text has been updated

BM GMUS

A.09.3.6.4 Second Para te The vector origin has been changed from the still water reaction point (in SNAME) to 0.5 QV / γR,VH

Clarify rationale for deviation to current practice from SNAME T&R 5-5A

Addressed in latest text

BM MSC

A.09.3.6.4 Formula A9.3-43

Te In formula (A.9.3-43) in the present form (Fv,org) is divided by the material factor twice. In the definition Qvh is on the factored yield surface and the vector taken to 0.5Vl0/vh

Already done by ERP and GL ND in latest version

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Eq. A.9.3-43 Ed The definition and position of the resistance factor is confusing - if it is a resistance factor surely it should be multiplied by the resistance?

According to the text the resistance factor is used to divide the capacities, however in the equation it is used to multiply the actions - although strictly correct according to the definition it is rather confusing!

Suggest using rewriting equation such that the capacities and origins are each individually divided by the resistance factor and not the environmental response point.


BM GLN

A.09.3.6.4 Eq. A.9.3-43 Ed The symbol QVH,f appears in the equation but is not defined until after Figure A.9.3-15

Move definition from below Figure A.9.3-15 to below Eq. A.9.3-43

Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



110

D

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Te The definition of QVH is not clear, this is apparently the point at which the vector intersects the unfactored envelope, so how can it be calculated by dividing the capacities from A.9.3.5 by the resistance factor?!

Section A.9.3.6.4 needs a re-write - it is presently extremely confusing !


BM MSC

A.09.3.6.4/

A.09.3.6.6

para Te A step 3a check uses the ‘virtual pre-load’ approach. An alternative approach to defining the utilization in step 2a might be to determine the required “virtual pre-load’ (as per step 3a) for each (Fh,Fv) combination and the UC = virtual/actual pre-load (or capacity). This approach is selected by DNV Class Note 30.4 section 8.2.3.6

<< For Rev 1 Draft the DNV alternative approach in Annexe E.

NEN A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-14 and various

te/ed 1) It is not at all clear how the factored yield surface is

obtained. The resistance factor used is R,VH; the 2 subscripts V and H suggest that it is a common factor applied to the YS, but how?. The factored envelope shown in Figure A.9.3-14 cannot simply be explained. The shape drawn in is not compatible with applying R,VH: - to QV only - to QV and QH simultaneously from the origin - to QV and QH simultaneously from the point shown on the vertical axis. So, how is it done?! This should be explained.

2) The same holds for the factored sliding capacity: how is it obtained? This is not explained anywhere.

3) para 2: In 9.3.6 I added a link between “utilization”, which is mentioned there for the first time in the whole standard, and Clause 13 (see comments on 9.3.6). For clarity a link should be repeated in A.9.3.6.4, where it reappears for the first time in Annex A. Apparently, U = (length of vector to loading point)/(length of vector to factored yield surface) and

1) Add an explanation of the procedure, and elaborate as necessary.

2) Add an explanation of the procedure, and elaborate as necessary.

3) See attachment 1 for proposed changes to paragraph 2.

Text & Figure have been updated


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



111

U should be 1,0. However, Equation (A.9.3-43) does not reflect U; it is a foundation capacity checking equation and appears more symbolically written than as a real equation.

4) Various other points.

4) See markings on separate hard copy pages. BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Te Example V-H envelope is only presented for sand Provide example ‘clay’ envelope Already done by GL ND

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Te - Include in the example V-H envelope some laterally projected area component for sliding line

Sliding envelopes modified to account for non-zero H intercepts

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Te I am not completely clear how the V-H envelope would look like for a spudcan that penetrates through very soft clay into underlying sand - what would it look like for V/Qv<0.5? There would be significant backflow weight, hence would the ellipse shift upward along the vertical load axis?

Panel 4 should review this situation to check that a sensible V-H envelope is produced by the present guidelines

<< No change now. To be re-visited for Rev 1

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Ed Spelling errors Change both instances of “multipiled” to “multiplied”

Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Ed Layout is unclear for definition of QVH,f Already done by GL ND

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.4 Figure A.9.3-15

Te - Add points indicating typical range of Vsw values or a figure to explain the “Note” below Figure A.9.3-15

No action needed

NEN A.09.3.6.5 various te/ed 1) para 1: steps 2b and 2c are said to include a check on compliance with the unfactored foundation yield surface”. This appears in conflict with statements in the normative 9.3.6, where step 2b states: “checked

1) Remove inconsistencies and clarify precise meaning.

Noted. Some re-wording to reduce the potential for confusion


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



112

against the factored foundation capacity of the leeward leg”; step 2c indeed states “checked implicitly through the use of an unfactored foundation capacity of the leeward leg”.

2) Otherwise as for A.9.3.2.

2) See markings on separate hard copy pages.

NEN A.09.3.6.6 te/ed As for A.9.3.2. See markings on separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

BM GMUS

A.09.3.6.6 First Para ed Reference is made to A.9.3.2.7 (inexistent)


Clarify No further action required

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.6 Te “The displacement associated with this "virtual" preload is then obtained from the load-penetration curve”

If upper and lower bound load-penetration curves are produced, should additional settlements be determined using LB curve, steepest of all 3 or only with the best-estimate curve

Propose using the steepest of all three curves and include this recommendation in the text.

Done

BM GLND

A.09.3.6.7 Ed Typographical error: “The settlements due to bearing capacity failure during to preloading”

Replace with “The settlements due to bearing capacity failure during preloading”

Done

BM GMUS

A.09.3.6.7 Last Para ed Reference is made to A.9.4.6 (incorrect) It should be A.9.4.7 Done

NEN A.09.4 te/ed 1) Subclause A.9.4.1, the companion tot 9.4.1, is missing and should be added.

2) Amend existing subclause numbers.

3) Otherwise as for A.9.3.2.

1) Add ”A.9.4.1 Skirted spudcans No guidance is offered.”

2) Increase subclause numbers by 1.

3) See markings on separate hard copy pages.

Text on skirted cans now included.

NO A.09.4 Figure A.9.4-1

ed Figure A.9.4-1 The lines in the figure are undefined.

Corrected

SPR A.09.4.1 Para 2 te Installation-induced stress is more of operational issues No. If the issue is not fixed


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



113

ING SG 17

and thus it is not relevant to be put in ISO 19905-1 document which addresses the installed phase of jackups.

during installation, it will affect the site assessment results and should be taken into account.

BM GLND

A.09.4.2 Te No explicit mention of ‘rack phase differences’ here Add reference to RPDs or suggest references Done

BM GLND

A.09.4.5 Te Add a further recommendation regarding mitigation of leg extraction difficulties.

“It is prudent, and a matter of good practice, to ensure that a unit’s jetting system is fully functional prior to installation at a location where penetration into cohesive soils is predicted”

Outside the scope of this document

No action needed

BM GLND

A.09.4.6 Ed “References:” appears at end of section Remove Done (by ERP)

Annex A.10

NEN A.10 whole clause te/ed Various proposed changes, especially (but not only) editorial changes, are marked up on separate hard copy pages that accompany this comments table.

Where appropriate, explanations to the markings and supplementary comments that are not easily noted on the hard copy pages are collected in this comments table.


NEN A.10.2 para 1, 1st sentence

te/ed Suggest re-ordering of responses from global to more local and very local responses.

Change to

“The ULS responses typically include overturning moments of the jack-up, reactions and displacements at the spudcans, horizontal deflections of the hull, the internal forces in the leg members, and forces in the holding system.”

Agreed.

NEN A.10.3 Figure A.10.3-1

te/ed Explanation of notes 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the hard copy page:

1) For clarity, add headings above the two different branches of the figure that tie them to the text of A.10.3, using consistent terminology with the whole of

Changes proposed:

1) Add headings shown.

Figure has been removed and replaced with Table A.10.3-1 that gives an overview and cross reference

Deleted: the internal forces in the leg members,

Deleted: horizontal deflections of the hull,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



114

Clause (A.)10.

2) This block does not reflect that dynamic responses in less severe sea states with Tp closer to Tn can result in more severe structural and foundation responses. It also does not reflect that various wave directions, including those for torsional response, should be considered.

3) Role and content of this block is not clear. It opens up a path with KDAF, RANDOM instead of KDAF,

SDOF; the link being provided with the arrows from the right branch. This should be made fully clear, specifically mentioning KDAF, RANDOM as an alternative to the path with KDAF, SDOF, and obviously resulting in a different inertial loadset. A zero-mass analysis provides quasi-static results, but what is there to be “compared” with?

4) The notes 1 and 2 with all/selected responses are no explained. t

2) It is difficult to include all this in the block’s text, but then at least one or more notes should be appropriate.

3) Some alteration in the present set-up of this part of the block diagram would appear necessary. Amend the accompanying text in the block to reflect more clearly what the intent is.

4) Add explanations for notes 1 and 2.

system for use in analysis. This should answer all these points, or make them invalid.

BM MSC

A.10.3 Figure A.10.3-1

ed Figure does not accurately reflect the text See above

BM MSC

A.10.3 Figure A.10.3-1

Te Should probably include “damping” as an input somewhere?

See above

BM GMUS

A.10.3 Figure A.10.3-1

ed Superscripts 1 and 2 are not defined Delete See above

BM GMUS

A.10.3 Figure A.10.3-1

ed References to incorrect clauses Review clause numbers in the figure See above

NO A.10.4 Table A.10.4-1

te Table A.10.4-1 Give damping ratios which is significantly higher than observed. There should be

The cookbook has international acceptance. If


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



115

a statement that the damping should be based on measured values from the actual platform, or from platforms with similar spud cans and jacking systems.

Norway wishes to apply more conservative requirements, they shall provide a national annex.

Measurements for j-u with skirted cans and rack-chocks are expected to give lower-bound numbers.

Measurements taken in GOM in extreme conditions have demonstrated these ratios are reasonable. Damping measured in smaller waves would be smaller.

NEN A.10.4.1 te/ed This is a general introductory clause that should be generalized to the general characteristics of structure and excitation, rather than directly home in on metocean excitation.


SPRING SG 4

A.10.4.2.2 te In the list of items to be considered for stiffness, item (8) is Euler Amplification. This section is under the section on “natural period and affecting factors” and as such Euler amplification should not be included in this list.

Disagree. The reduction in stiffness due to P- is important.

NEN A.10.4.2.4 Figure A.10.4-1

te 1) The 2 wave 1 directions for the 3-legged and the 4-legged ju are only the same for a equilateral triangle and a square, respectively.

2) The leg spacing for wave 2 with the triangle (parallel to a side) is not indicated.

3) Similarly, the leg spacing for wave 2 (the diagonal) direction for the square/rectangle is not indicated.

4) Some further editorial comments.

1) Generalize these plan views to a general triangle and a rectangle, each with two separate wave directions.

2) Show the leg spacing for this direction also in the diagram.

3) Show the leg spacing for this direction also in the diagram.

4) See the annotations on the separate hard copy page.

We think that the present diagram indicates the principles.

Figure updated to improve clarity. It has subsequently

been moved to A.10.5-1 and expanded/clarified

extensively.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



116

NEN A.10.4.4.1 entire text te/ed The existing text is in my opinion not very clear for users (other than insiders and experts on the subject), and neither reflects the intent of the described procedures very well. Therefore I have attempted a rewrite.

See Attachment 1 for proposed amendments. Mostly agreed, but some proposed changes omitted at technically incorrect.

NEN A.10.4.4.1 Figure A.10.4-2

te/ed 1) Re comment 1 indicated on the figure:

The dynamic analysis must account for (wave) excitation at all frequencies and thus necessitates a random dynamic analysis, not a deterministic dynamic analysis for some wave period. “Wave force transfer function” two blocks down implies this as well (suggesting a frequency domain analysis). The random approach is irrespective of the dynamic analysis being a linear or a nonlinear analysis. Mention this explicitly at the top where the choice is made.

2) Re comment 2 indicated on the figure:

- reverse sequence of excitation and running of the dynamic analysis (excitation naturally precedes the running);

- the purpose of the analysis is to determine an inertial loadset; again mention this explicitly;

- the referenced clause number is not correct and it is not obvious what it could be; perhaps a cross-reference is best deleted (there is no such reference for the alternative nonlinear dynamic analysis either).


This is not a new assumption, because from the very start of the procedure linearized springs have been used; this is better acknowledged by replacing “assume” by “assuming”. The symbols (equations) don’t add anything and are best deleted; if not they should be

1) Amend the text in the block to the following proposed text:

“Adopt linear or non-linear random dynamic analysis accounting for a degree of foundation fixity.”


”Determine transfer function of wave actions and run linear dynamic analysis with linearized foundation springs to determine an inertial loadset.”


“Assuming elastic spudcan response”

Agree, with modifications




MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



117

included and defined in A.4.11 (A4.10 existing).


Reverse the choice and selection of follow-up actions for the value of the yield interaction function, as this relates better to the (revised) text of A.104.4.1.1.

5) Mention the forces FH, FV, FM also explicitly in the figure; they are crucially important and provide symbolically the link between clauses 8, 9 and 10.

6) The changes to the text should further be accompanied by corresponding changes in the figure.

4) Change from checking on ≥ 0 to checking on < 0, and reverse Yes and No.

5) See annotations on the figure on separate hard copy page.


Agree

Agree

NEN A.10.4.4.1 Figure A.10.4-2

te/ed 1) This figure is very general, much less detailed and less specific than the corresponding figure for Option 1.

2) Be helpful by giving (sub)clause references for each block as appropriate.

3) These figures are included with subclause A.10.4.4 on foundations. Therefore make cross-references for foundation behaviour and (non-)acceptance of the foundation basically all to Clause (A.)9, as on Figure A.10.4-1, and be as specific as possible. Cross-references for structural acceptance are to Clauses 12 and 13, again as on Figure A.10.4-1.

4) Some other editorial suggestions for the current figure.

1) Consider amending the figure to become closer to the degree of detail of the figure for option 1.

2) Add (sub)clause references wherever relevant, and be as specific as possible.

3) Detail foundation behaviour and acceptance cross-references using Clause (A.)9.


It is now Figure A.10.5-3:

Disagree. Option 2 analysis inherently includes fewer steps than the two-step analysis and therefore requires a simpler flow chart.

Agree. References incorporated in figure.

The latest figure is possibly not ideal, but as the method presented in it is more frequently used, the figure can be updated. In large part the figure is included to enable the use of the method while giving guidance. Currently there are a very limited number of companies capable of this level of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



118

detailed analysis.

BM GLND

A.10.4.4.1.2 A.10.4.4.1.2 te Currently this part of the document specifies an initial linearised rotational stiffness of 80-100% of the calculated value. Additional guidance is requested to clarify when it would be appropriate to use 100% initial linearised stiffness.

Add additional guidance (although from which Panel, I’m unsure)

100% initial stiffness can be used if the vertical reaction is sufficient to keep the spudcan fully contact with the seabed for each spudcan. See A.9.3.4.1. However, concerning potential reduced contact areas under the windward spudcans, we suggest 80% instead of 80% to 100%.

Text modified to eliminate 100%

BM GMUS

A.10.4.4.2 Figure A.10.4-2

ed Block ‘calculate rotational stiffess’ is unclear


Clarify Done

BM MSC

A.10.4.5 para Te Generally, waves are primary source of action and dynamic excitation. What if wind is the primary source of action (high hurricane wind, low wave), what then with:

- The reference wind speed to use (other than 1-min mean)?

- The dynamic source of excitation?

Is there a reference to ISO 19901 or other?

Even in the high hurricane wind environment, the main wind energy is still associated with periods that are considerably longer than the natural periods of the jack-up oscillations. Thus, the effect of hurricane can still be considered as steady force. If the effect of hurricane can be considered as steady force, the one minute sustained wind should still be appropriate for calculating the static wind force. API RP 2A indicates that one minute sustained wind is appropriate


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



119

for the total static wind force for the superstructure, such as jack-up hull approximately 200' long and 130' wide, and the shorter period (than one minute) wind gusts are appropriate for local members because they coherent over shorter distance and therefore affect smaller components.

BM MSC

A.10.5.2.1 para ed Missing “)” (KDAF, SDOF ) Agreed

BM MSC

A.10.5.2.1 para Te Wave action = wave/current action Agreed

BM MSC

A.10.5 Te DAF is referred to in clause A.7.3.3.1 to be determined using the apparent wave period i.s.o. intrinsic period when calculation wave/current load

Add a paragraph/sentence to express the use of apparent wave period explicitly and refer to Clause A7.3.3.1

Agreed Text modified accordingly.

BM MSC

A.10.5 Formula A.10.5-1

ed Suggest to add ≥ 1 to the formula consistent with the text one paragraph further stating “over and above:”

≥ 1 (at the end of formula A.10.5-1) Agreed

BM MSC

A.10.5 Ge In SNAME T&R 5-5A there is a section 6.3.4.6 “Calculation procedures accounting for moment fixity – further details”. From our review we do not seem to find a similar section, although perhaps relevant to include in some way?

SNAME T&R 5-5A 6.3.4.6 was modified and incorporated into A.10.4.4.1.2.

Text modified to elaborate the changes

NEN A.10.5.2.2.1 Figure A.10.5-1

te These figures are not particularly clear as to what they show and what their message is. Especially the intent of (a) with the “theoretical SDOF” and the “real SDOF” is

Improve intent and execution of the figures [especially figures (a)]. A possible suggestion is to delete the “real SDOF”,

Replaced by new figure


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



120

rather mysterious when the KDAF, SDOF is calculated with Eqs. (A.105-1) and (A.10.5.2), which have nothing to do with time histories.

and annotate KDAF within the (remaining) figures.

BM GLND

A.10.5.2.2.1 Fig A.10.5-1 (b)

Te No equation is presented for the calculation of Fin. This should be included as it is fundamentally different to the equation used for the SDOF method.

Include the relevant equation for Fin such that the user does not use the equation presented for the SDOF method by accident.

This is now more specifically covered in A.10.5.2.2.3 which gives formulation for Fin in a more general form to be used in the subsequent load case equations.

NO A.10.5.2.2.2 te A.10.5.2.2.2 A damping of 0.07 is fare above measured damping on any jack-up. Reference is made to Sterndorff M J: Note on ringing effects for the Maersk Guardian, DHI, Hørsholm, 24.9.1993 and Brekke J N, J D Murff, R B Campbell and W C Lamb: Calibration of jackup structural analysis procedure using field measurements from a North Sea jack-up, OTC 6465, Houston,

The cookbook has international acceptance. If Norway wishes to apply more conservative requirements, they shall provide a national annex.

Measurements for j-u with skirted cans and rack-chocks are expected to give lower-bound numbers.

Measurements taken in GOM in extreme conditions have demonstrated these ratios are reasonable. Damping measured in smaller waves would be smaller.

BM GLND

A.10.5.2.2.2 Para ‘2)’ Te This statement is inaccurate and misleading to the reader.

The word ‘peak’ should be changed to ‘trough’ and the reference to natural period should be changed to wave period. Alternatively the paragraph should be reworded to specify under which exact conditions the SDOF method may be un-conservative. This problem is also not exclusive to the SDOF method and therefore the text should be moved to a higher level in the document.

Specific sub-clause has been re-worded to clarify


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



121

NEN A.10.5.2.2.3 para 1 te In contrast with the description of how Fin is determined with the aid of KDAF, SDOF in A.10.5.2.2, here is nowhere explained how the inertial loadset is calculated from the KDAF, RANDOM values for BS and OTM!

The determination of Fin should be spelled out! The pointer to A.8.8.5 is sufficient.

NEN A.10.5.3.1 para 1 and para 2

te/ed The one-stage stochastic storm analysis produces (a) statistical value(s) of the response(s); it does not directly deliver (an) MPME utilization(s); these should be calculated from the responses.

See markings on separate hard copy pages. In this approach the time-series of Utilisations will be calculated and the MPME's determined from that utilisation history in the same way as for other responses. There appears to be a misconception that the UC's will be determined from MPME's of other responses.

SPRING SG 5

A.10.5.3.4 te The Drag inertia method is not listed as a time domain method for computing MPME. This method has been widely used and there would be benefit in having it included.

Now re-instated with correction factor and restrictions onapplicability.

BM GMUS

A.10.5.3.4 Table A.10.5-2

ed Reference is made to Table A.10.5-1 (non-existent)


Clarify. No further action required

NEN A.10.5.5 Table A.10.5-3

te/ed 1) Wrong table number.

2) Row 2, column 2: add relevant (sub)clause numbers, also for consistency with 1st bullet of 13.1.1.

3) last row: maintain consistency of definitions of symbols with 8.8.1 and 4.2 and A.4.11.

1) Change to Table A.10.5-2.

2) Add to 12: “13.3 and 13.4”.

3) Change to “G = fixed actions, positioned such as to

adequately represent their vertical and horizontal distribution

GV = actions due to maximum or minimum variable load, as appropriate, positioned at the most onerous centre of gravity location applicable to the configurations under consideration

All agreed Deleted: 3

Deleted: due to the fixed load


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



122

Ee = metocean actions due to the extreme storm event

De = equivalent set of inertial actions representing dynamic extreme storm effects”

BM MSC

A.10.5.5 Table A.10.5-3

Ed Add reference to 13.3 & 13.4

Add ‘spudcan strength’

Note 3: “The effects of leg inclination to be included, which may be added after...”

Should Note 4 also apply to Overturning stability?

Agreed. Table modified.

NEN A.10.7.1 te and ed

1) The subclause does not really present “actions, combinations of actions and action effects” as item a) states.

2) The addition of Table A.10.7-1 with detailed cross-references to various items is not considered useful. The modelling of actions, structure, dynamics and foundation is not essentially different for earthquakes than for storm events.

Propose to amend text and delete the Table.

Change to

“A.10.7.1 General This clause complements ISO 19901-2 by presenting special aspects of an earthquake assessment procedure for jack-ups. The general procedures in Clauses 6 to 10 with the associated guidance in Annex A remain valid where appropriate; more specific reference to earthquake situations is i.a. provided in 6.6, 7.7, 8.6.3, 8.8, 9.4 and 10.3. The greatest structural threat to a jack-up subjected to an earthquake is likely to be associated with vertical excitations that result in uneven settlement of the spudcans, which can cause lateral instability of the jack-up. NOTE In earthquake environments, operational issues (e.g. setback, rig clamping, drilling equipment) need special consideration to ensure that major hazards to personnel are mitigated.”

Agreed.

BM A.10.7.1 Table Ed Reference Earthquake data -> A.7.3.2.3 iso A.7.3.2.4 Table deleted

Deleted: :

Deleted: a) the assessment actions, combinations of actions and action effects resulting from ground motions, and¶¶b) the approach to assessing a jack-up subjected to earthquake actions.¶¶

Deleted: from

Deleted: causes

Deleted: Table A.10.7-1 identifies the clauses within the normative and informative that provide guidance on earthquake modelling and analyses. A few general references to earthquake appear in other clauses.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



123

MSC

A.10.7-1

NEN A.11 and 11 te/ed Various proposed changes are marked up on the separate hard copy pages that accompany this comments table.

See separate marked up hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

BM MSC

A.11.2.1 Ge A list of modifications, if any, must also be compiled for a short-term operation, suggest to leave that part out

“For the assessment of the jack-up for long-term application, A list of relevant...”

“Such modifications, typically for a long term application, can include:”

Accepted with edits

BM MSC

A.11.3/

A.10.2

Table 11.3-2 Ge Fatigue assessment and its acceptance criteria stated are associated with a long-term application. However, there may also be FLS assessment required for a short-term application (say 3 years) for a unit operating/modified outside its normal operational limitations (class). Should there be requirements added?

The listed DFFs such as from DNV-OS-C104 section 6 A103 or ABS:

- For units intended to follow normal inspection requirements [...] a Design Fatigue Factor (DFF) of 1.0 may be applied for accessible members. (DNV-OS-C104)

- The fatigue assessment of a MODU [...] typically employs the ABS (A) or (CP) criteria, as applicable, with a Fatigue Design Factor of 1.0 for the structural details required by the MODU Rules to undergo a fatigue assessment. (ABS guide for FAOS)"

This case will be addressed by Class, and we therefore do not need to address it in the assessment.

Annex A.12

NEN A.12 te The provisions for the representative strength of (particularly) non-circular prismatic members are very untransparent and complex. This includes a serious danger of misapplication.

Noted.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



124

NEN A.12.1.1 te/ed As for 12.1.1, various suggestions for “sharpening” the text and making phrasing more specific; see also comment to 12.1.6.


BM GMUS

A.12.1.1 Third Para ed Incorrect reference is made to Table A.12.2-1


Clarify No further action required

NEN A.12.1.2 to A.12.1.6 and A.12.2.1

ed Consistency. Change to “No guidance is offered.” Agreed

NEN A.12.2.2 te/ed Sharpened text, making phrasing more specific and omitting duplications.


NO A.12.2.2 te A.12.2.2 The yield strength should be taken as the minimum guaranteed yield strength given in material certificates for the steel used in the structure, provided such certificates exist. There shall not be any possibility to use a higher value as a default. Exceeding 0.2% strain will cause permanent deformations, and effects of repeated yielding as shake down and the effects of permanent deformations have to be investigated. In addition a requirement in lieu with Eurocode 1 chapter 3.2.2.2 should be stated: the ratio of the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength to the specified yield strength to be at least 1.2. If this cannot be complied with on an existing unit the yield strength used in the analyses should not be higher than the ultimate tensile strength divided with 1.2.

The ratio of the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength to the specified yield strength to be at least 1.2. If this cannot be complied with on an existing unit the yield strength used in the analyses should not be higher than the ultimate tensile strength divided with 1.2.

Class rules require sufficient ductility that the proposed increase in the ratio of UTS to yield is not required.

Furthermore the ratio we use is also used in ISO 19902.

NEN A.12.2.3.1 various te/ed 1. 1st line: correct phrasing.

1. Change to

“A cross-section of a tubular member is a

Agreed Deleted: section


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



125

2. Definition of E. Change “=” to “is the” also for other variables.

3. NOTE: this is a duplication from 12.2.3.

class 1 section when:” 2. Change to

“E is the elastic modulus (E = 205 000 N/mm2)“

3. Delete the NOTE.

Agreed

NOTE deleted from Normative

NEN A.12.2.3.2 te/ed Various corrections and suggestions for improvement. See attachment 1 for proposed changes. Mostly agreed.

BM MSC

A.12.2.3.2 Ed Lb is defined twice, with different wording, in section A.12.2.3.2.

Issue resolved in response to NEN comment

BM MSC

A.12.2.3.2 Te Section A.12.2.3.2 distinguishes three different component types for prismatic members: flange internal components, web internal components and outstand components. Table A.12.2-3 is titles Cross-section classification – flange outstand components. Flange should be removed from this title.

Remove “flange” from the title Have removed all reference to “Flange” from the table and have substituted “outstand” in some cases.

NEN A.12.2.3.3 bullets 1) to 4)

te/ed “(see below)” in 1) and 3): what does this refer to, and where is it? Please be specific!

bullet 2): add for clarity.

Replace by more precise cross-references, clearly indicating the “what” as well as the “where”.

Change to “….using tcheck over width b1, see Equation (A.12.2-3)”

Agreed

NEN A.12.2.3.3 NOTE te/ed Write symbols in TNR and italic, and subscripts below the line.

Do not use the asterisk as multiplication sign; depending on circumstances use or nothing.

Agreed

NEN A.12.2.3.3 paras after the NOTE to Table A.12.2-2

te/ed Clarity of cross-referencing. Change “Table A.12.2-2 and 4” to

“Tables A.12.2-2 and A.12.2-4”, and

change “Tables A.12.2-2 to 4” to

Agreed

Deleted: =


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



126

“Tables A.12.2-2 to A.12.2-4” (2 times).

NEN A.12.2.3.3 Tables A.12.2-2 to A.12.2-4

ed 1. Title of Table A.12.2-2: consistency of titles for the 3 tables; that it concerns limitations for the ratios is given in the top line.

2. Top row of Table A.12.2-4: the types of loading are given in the columns of the table.

3. All tables: incorrect use of capitals.

4. Symbols are not defined, other than in the symbol list in A.4.13; I can live with this but I don’t know if ISO editors will accept it.

1. Delete “limiting” from the title.

2. Delete “when subject to compression and/or bending” from the top row in the table.

3. Use capitals only as 1st letter of a sentence or phrase, or for a stand-alone word as heading.

Agreed. Agreed

Agreed

Noted

BM MSC

A.12.2.3.3 Table A.12.2-3

Te Should the outside part of a rack and the outside part of the backplate of triangular chords be considered as outstand components?

They should be treated as outstand components, although one would not expect there to be an issue since they are so thick. In addition, all racks will normally be outstand components

BM MSC

A.12.2.3.3 Table A.12.2-2,3,4

Te In the figures in tables A12-2-2,3,4 exaggerated weld sizes are shown, but the dimension lines are always drawn to the same location. Should component dimensions be measured from weld root to weld root/free edge, or from (slightly) inside the weld?

Diagram of teardrop chord side plates should show the dimension line from the inside of the weld between the side plate and the back plate, not the toe of the weld. Other cases appear to be correct.

NEN A.12.3 te/ed Various suggestions for improved phrasing, consistency and some corrections.

Note that “prismatic” refers to a member, a section can be circular or non-circular, but not prismatic.

See separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



127

BM MSC

A.12.3.1 ge In order to take into account the reinforcing effects of rack teeth correctly this should be done by calculating the radius of gyration (r) with increased second moment of area (I) only, and not increased area (A). (The effect of the rack teeth is to increase the Euler buckling load of the chord between the braces, pi^2EI/(KL)^2. The area of the chord is not a factor here, it is only introduced in the formulas (through r) when the Euler buckling load is converted to a stress.

Suggest to change the second to last sentence in section A.12.3.1 to “However, the increased cross-section second moments of area may be used together with the minimum area when determining the radii of gyration used in the determination of the column buckling strength (A.12.6.2.4), and moment amplification (A.12.4).”

PE has been defined in terms of I alone and c is then defined in terms of PE.

BM GLND

A.12.3.4.3 Table 12.3-1 Te Effective width calculations for Slender Components, a) Compression flange internal components and c) Web internal components under bending and/or compression, are plausible.

“a) Compression flange internal components” is considered to be redundant.

Have deleted Flange and Web, but kept Case (a) along with a note under the table explaining that (a) is a special case of (c).

NEN A.12.4 te/ed The structural analysis including P- effects should be performed for factored actions; accordingly, the associated results Pu and Mu are also due to factored actions. This is not mentioned anywhere in A.12.4 (but it is in A.12.5 and A.12.6).

Modify the text such that “due to factored actions” is clearly stated.

For other textual changes see the separate hard copy pages.

Agreed.

BM GLND

A.12.4.3 Table A.12.4-1

Te ‘lateral loading’ of members not qualified - wave/current loading (which may be lower than self weight loads per member) or structural point loads e.g. guide loads

Qualify ‘lateral loading’ e.g. does wave/current loading qualify (which may be lower than self weight loads per member) or is this intended to be structural point loads e.g. guide loads

Has been modified to allow wave loads as “...no significant transverse loading, ignoring self-weight; buoyancy; and direct wave/current and wind actions”

NEN A.12.5 te/ed Several points, including: - use specific cross-references to sections and equations;- refer to “strength equations” rather than “formulations”; - symbol d is also used for another variable; a suggestion for replacement could be dw; - symbol is universally used for mass density; do not



MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



128

use it for specific weight; - specify “due to factored actions” consistently for all internal member forces; - use consistent wording in definitions and text for the same type of provision; - equation numbering with ‘a’ and ‘b’ is not permitted; use sequential numbers; - give all equations that are presented a number; - simplify text by omitting unnecessary repetition of definitions.

BM MSC

A.12.5 Formula A.12.5-2

ed In the check for hydrostatic pressure (A.12.5-2) the effective head of water, d, must be in [m], this is not stated in the description

Agreed

NEN A.12.5 and A.12.6

te/ed Avoid unnecessary repetition of definitions of variables, if the variable(s) have already been defined earlier within the same subclause on the subject (e.g. with the same two- or three-digit designation). If the alternative is used of repeating the definition(s), it is very important to avoid potential confusion and copy them verbatim wherever they occur.

Simplification is recommended by using

“where in addition to variables defined in A.xxx”, or

“where, in addition to the definitions in xx, yy and zz,”

We will ensure that repeated definitions are identical.

NO A.12.5 and A.12.6

ge A.12.5 and A.12.6 the partial safety factors should be standardized and be identical to the numbers in ISO 19902!

The values used in 19905-1 are based on an independent interpretation of the theoretical values derived from the data used in the calibration of API RP 2A LRFD to API RP 2A 15th edition and the data used in the development of the ISO 19902 tubular members strength formulations.

NEN A.12.5.2.2 te The partial resistance factor for axial compressive stress of tubulars is 1,15 instead of the common 1,18 in ISO 19902. Can this be justified?

Change to 1,18, or give the explanation if there are reasons for the lower factor, for example in an added NOTE.

Note has been added “The values used in 19905-1 are based on an independent


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



129

interpretation of the theoretical values derived from the data used in the calibration of API RP 2A LRFD to API RP 2A 15th edition and the data used in the development of the ISO 19902 tubular members strength formulations.”

BM GLND

A.12.5.2.2 A.12.5.2.2 ed The reference to A.12.5.2.3 should be to A.12.5.2.4 Correct the reference Done

BM MSC

A.12.6 Formula A12.6-9a,b

Ge No reference is given for the axial compressive column buckling strength formula (which is a change w.r.t. SNAME) for high strength (Fy>450 MPa) steel (A.12.6-9a,b)

Add a reference similar to those for formulas A12.6-8a,b

Added a reference to Annex F.1 and a note that the F.1 references need to be refined

NEN A.12.6 and A.12.6.1

te/ed Various suggestions for “sharpening” the text See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Mostly agreed.

NEN A.12.6.2 and A.12.6.2.1

te/ed Various suggestions for “sharpening” the text See Attachment 1 for proposed changes. Mostly agreed.

NEN A.12.6.2.2 to A.12.6.2.7

te/ed Several points, including: - use specific cross-references to sections and equations;- refer to “strength equations” rather than “formulations”; - specify “due to factored actions” consistently for all internal member forces; - use consistent wording in definitions and text for the same type of provision; - equation numbering with ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc. is not permitted; use sequential numbers; - give all equations that are presented a number; - simplify text by omitting unnecessary repetition of definitions.


NEN A.12.6.2.3 and te Both these subclauses give representative strengths for Add the axial compressive strength check. A.12.6.2.3 has a check.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



130

A.12.6.2.4 compression cases, but no axial compressive strength check is presented. Compare with A.12.5.2.2 to A.12.5.2.4.

The check against the strength determined A.12.6.2.4 is done in A.12.6.3.2 or A.12.6.3.3

BM MSC

A.12.6.2.4/

A12.3.1

Te Section A.12.6.2.4 allows for the use of 10% of the teeth area when determining buckling behavior of a chord element. By the same reasoning this effect can also be taken into account for the LTB check (A.12.2.3.2) and the member moment amplification factors (A.12.4.3), but this is not mentioned in these sections. Section A.12.3.1 does state that the effect can be accounted for in A.12.6.2.4 and A.12.4, but does not mention A.12.2.3.2.

Agreed for moment amplification. The effect has been incorporated by changing the formulation, removing use of radius of gyration.

This was not reasonable for LTB because the formulation came from a recognised source and is based on radius of gyration.

BM MSC

A12.6.3.2 Formula A.12.6-18

te In the local strength check for combined (moment + axial) loading the resistance factor for prismatic global axial compressive strength, γR,Pa = γR,Pc is used, shouldn’t this be the resistance factor for prismatic local axial compressive strength, γR,Pcl (Annex B, albeit that the value of 1,1 is identical)?

Agreed

BM MSC

A.12.6.3.2 Formula A.12.6-18,19

te Mby,Mbz: The moment strength must be reduced for shear > 60% of shear strength. The definition how (parabolically) is not completely clear, one can use two options:

Agree that there are two options, although the convex option is discontinuous and not entirely logical.

Added a reference to Eurocode 3 for more detailed description of method.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



131

00.20.40.60.81

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

option 1 option 2

BM MSC

A.12.6.3.2 Formula A.12.6-18,19

te The shear in z-directions reduces the moment around the y-axis, and vice-versa. Is this (only) valid for thin-walled sections, or is it also valid for cross-sections with thick/solid elements? Also: shear due to torsion load is not mentioned as having an effect on the bending strength

Yes, the reduction applies to both thick and thin walled sections.

There is not normally any significant torsion in jack-up chords, so issue has not been addressed.

BM GLND

A.12.6.3.2 A.12.6.3.2 ed In the descriptions of Mby and Mbx there are references to equations A.12.6-29 and A12.6-28 respectively. These references do not exist.

Correct these references to A.12.6-25 and A12.6-24 respectively.

Corrected to use clause numbers

BM MSC

A.12.6.3.5 Formula A.12.6-26

te γR,Pv is defined as a resistance factor for beam shear, but also applies to torsional shear

Changed the definition of γR,Pv to be for “...torsional and beam shear strengths”

NEN A.12.6.2.6 te/ed Various suggestions for improving and sharpening the text.


NEN A.12.6.2.7 te/ed Wording and editorial items. See separate hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

NEN A.12.6.3 and A.12.6.3.1

te/ed Consistency of formulation in A.12.6 (tile and text).

The notion of “utilization” is only defined in Clause 13. Maintain consistency with A.12.5 and other parts of A.12.6

Change to

“A.12.6.3 Non-circular prismatic member combined strength checks

Agreed

Deleted: Prismatic


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



132

and keep referring to “strength checks”. See also comment on and changes made to 12.1.1.

Make cross-references to where the two approaches are described.

A.12.6.3.1 General There are two different assessment approaches for the strength checks of non-circular prismatic members subjected to combined axial forces and bending moments: the interaction equation approach (see

A.12.6.3.2), which is applicable to all member classifications;

the plastic interaction surface approach (see A.12.6.3.3), which is applicable to members in class 1 and 2.”

NEN A.12.6.3.2 te/ed Various suggestions for improving, sharpening and correcting the text.

The symbol for Ppl for representative axial local tensile or compressive strength should be changed!


NEN A.12.6.3.3 te/ed Various suggestions for improving, sharpening and correcting the text.

Equations (A.12.6-21) to (A.12.6-23) should be corrected; the plastic strengths should be divided rather than multiplied by the resistance factor.


NEN A.12.6.3.4 te/ed As before, various suggestions for improving and sharpening the text.

Include the definition of the symbols for Table A.12.6-1 in the table to avoid the need to include them in the general listing of symbols.


NEN A.12.6.3.5 te/ed The symbols used need adaptation; they are now the same symbols as those for torsional shear of tubulars, but they are defined differently.

Further some textual changes.

See attachment 1 for proposed changes. Mostly agreed.

Deleted: to determine the utilizations of structural members, presented in the following clauses

Deleted: Interaction

Deleted: .

Deleted: The


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



133

NEN A.12.7 …… te/ed 1. para 2, line 2: the condition is “less than”, not grades of “less than”.

2. para 3, line 2: phrasing and sharpening the text.

3. para 3, last sentence: ISO 19902 is a normative reference and has as such not a number, but ISO 19901-3 is not and should be given a number and included in the Bibliography. Further editorial suggestions.

4. NOTE: Suggest removing the 2nd sentence; this is already stated in ISO 19902, A.24.9.2.2 for the assessment of existing structures. However, it should be justified on a case-by-case basis. Further editorial.

1. Delete “significantly”.

2. change to “…., the resistance of tubular joints can be assessed in accordance with ISO 19902 subclauses 24.9.2.2.2 and A.24.9.2.2 (Connections) and non-tubular joints by rational analysis.” 3. change to

“….determined in accordance with 8.8, rather than using ISO 19902 and ISO 19901-3 [xxx].”

4. change to

“NOTE The intent of the joint check is to ensure that the joint is strong enough to resist the internal forces due to factored actions. Guidance on non-tubular joint strength can be found in other clauses of ISO 19902 and ISO 19901-3 [xxx].”

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed, but 2nd sentence retained.

NEN Annex B te/ed Changes to complete the annex and make it fully consistent with other changes throughout the document.

See Attachment 3. Mostly agreed.

NO Annex B ge Annex B. Several of the partial factors are too low. See text above.

See previous comments.

NO Annex B

(WILL BE ANNEX H)

ge

4.1.1.1.1.1 Annex B<<will be H >> (Informative)

Updated proposal was submitted by Norway, edited by ERP and confirmed by Norway.

Deleted: subclause

Deleted: the factors in

Deleted: applied

Deleted: The joint strength need not necessarily meet or exceed the full member strength.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



134

Regional information B1. Introduction B1.1 General comments to the regional information This annex contains clauses for each region; the content has been developed by ISO/TC 67 experts from the region or country concerned to supplement the provisions of this part of ISO 19901. Each clause may be considered to constitute that information required for regional implementation for the particular region or country defined. This annex identifies additional regionally applicable regulatory requirements and informative guidelines that complement the provision of the normative part of ISO 19901-7. These arise from regional and national regulatory requirements and account for regional environmental conditions and local design, construction and operating practices. Additional comments relating to offshore Norway are provided in B.1.2. B.1.2 Specific comments to the regional information


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



135

This annex is of an informative nature although in the country concerned it could be regulatory or normative. Nevertheless, where the requirements of national law and regulations disagree with this part of ISO 19901, the most stringent shall prevail. The present structure of this annex has been established so that the legitimate regional and national differences in practice and requirements can be recorded, to assist users of this standard and to be used as a basis for harmonization. This annex provides cross-references to the applicable documents and thereby identifies the source of the supplementary provisions and identifies the currently available issues of these referenced documents. Users should be aware that these documents might be amended and reissued subsequent to issue of this part of ISO 19901. B2. Offshore Norway B2.1 Description of region This National Annex applies to areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. B2.2 Regulatory framework This National Annex is laid down pursuant to the Norwegian Act 29. November 1996 No. 72 relating to petroleum activities.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



136

B2.3 Technical requirements This National Annex contains additional requirements for site specific assessment of jack-ups, in Norwegian waters. The following provisions are in addition to, or an alternative to, those specified in the appropriate referenced subclauses. The requirements in NORSOK N-001, NORSOK N-003 and NORSOK N-004 shall also be complied with for facilities following the regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc. This is relevant for

a) return periods for environmental loading, b) action factors, c) material strength and d) resistance factors.

B.2.4 Technical commentary The national body responsible for preparing Offshore Norway’s regional annex were the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway. This organization is the contact point for any questions arising from the contents of this annex. B.2.5 Additional national requirements The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway: Regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc. in the petroleum activities. This regulation is referring to NORSOK N001 as the principal standard.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



137

The Norwegian Maritime Directorate: Regulations of 4 September 1987 no. 856 concerning construction of mobile offshore units is valid for Norwegian flag units, and for foreign flag units used in Norway, using the framework regulation § 3. For Norwegian flagged units the requirements of the relevant classification society apply in addition. For units (independent of flag state) used in Norway they also have to comply with the technical requirements of DNV-OS-C104.

US Annex B te Note from WG-7 To be finalized by FDIS stage. Noted.

NEN Annex C te/ed Various necessary or proposed changes. See marked-up hard copy pages. Mostly agreed.

BM GLND

C.2 C.2-12a Ed The h in equation C.2-12a should be squared and not multiplied by 2.

Square the h term and remove the multiplier. This section moved to TR 19905-2. Error corrected in TR (2 places)

SPRING SG 6

C.5.3 te There is concern that some analysts may use the figures from equations C.5.3-1 to C.5.3-3 to compute the Zmpm in equation c.5.3-14. The wording in the method should make it clear that the improvement by solving the equations and the use of C.5.3-10 to C.5.3.12 is compulsory if using this method.

NEN Annexes D to F

Not reviewed. Noted.

Annex D Panel 4 adopted the latest version. The comments below were on the previous version and were handled in the update to it.

CA Annex D.01 6,7 Ge These two paragraphs are not related to acquisition of geotechnical or geophysical data

Delete paragraphs Done


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



138

US Annex D Table D.1 ed Suggest replacing the first column which has A,B,C,D with two columns such that a program type 1s, 2s, 3s etc. for simple, 1c, 2c,3c etc. for complex and similar numbering vc for very complex sites.

Addressed already in the latest version

US Annex D Table D.1 ed Add the 3rd column title or " illustrated views" Addressed already in the latest version

US Annex D Table D.1 ed Suggest replacing the first column which has A,B,C,D with two columns such that a program type 1s, 2s, 3s etc. for simple, 1c, 2c,3c etc. for complex and similar numbering vc for very complex sites.


US Annex D Table D.1 ed Add the 3rd column title or " illustrated views" Addressed already in the latest version

US Annex D Table D.2 ed Add the WO designation such as 1C-WO for a complex Work Over location as well as a column describing the geologic setting as Simple, Complex or Very Complex


US Annex D Table D.2 ed Retain the 3rd column as in table D.1 and provide illustrations for at least item "M"


US Annex D Table D.2 ed Add another potential case for a VC-WO site where a 2nd visit of a JU rig to this site might occur.


US Annex D Table D.2 ed Add the WO designation such as 1C-WO for a complex Work Over location as well as a column describing the geologic setting as Simple, Complex or Very Complex


US Annex D Table D.2 ed Retain the 3rd column as in table D.1 and provide illustrations for at least item "M"


US Annex D Table D.2 ed Add another potential case for a VC-WO site where a 2nd visit of a JU rig to this site might occur.


Annex E

BM Annex E Tables E.2- te Does friction angle refer to the adopted friction angle ’? Tables updated to phi-prime..


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



139

MSC

1...5

BM GLND

Annex E1 Te Comments required stating that backflow has not been modelled by Houlsby & Martin due to the boundary conditions used in their analysis - hence the bearing capacity factors may not be suitable for penetrations approaching and beyond Hcav

Propose Houlsby adds comments to that effect GL ND to provide additional wording to complete the change.

BM GLND

Annex E1 Figure E.1-1 Ed Bearing capacity defined as Q in the Key to Figure E.1-1 but referred to as Fv in the tables.

Done

BM GLND

Annex E1 Figure E.1-1 Ed Key below Figure E.1-1 states “NOTE Note: based on”… Remove one of the ‘Note’s’ Done

BM GLND

Annex E2 Ed Use of symbol and arrow for FV,in is inconsistent with rest of document

Replace FV,in with Qvo VL is now used instead.

BM GMUS-RPS

A.9.3.2.4 /

E2

Equation 9.3-5

Note E2

te Further clarifications are required for the selection of friction angle for bearing capacity calculations have been explained but with no clear direction. Further clarifications are required.

Further clarifications / clearer instructions required.

Resolution reached.

<< P4 to re-visit for Rev 1. Convenor to contact Cassidy/White to come up with a recommendation per 2nd last para in clause E.2.>>

BM GLND

Annex E3 Te/Ed Generally this section seems out-of-place in the ISO, for example many such sections could also be introduced for various aspects of geotechnical analysis such as clay overlying clay, scour, etc. etc.

If it is intended to be kept then it needs significant revision which includes references to Lee et al. 2009 OTC paper and a detailed description of Teh’s proposed method of analysis

Propose removing this section and simply adding in Appendix A.9.3.2.6.4 references to the relevant technical papers

References updated


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



140

Annex F

US Annex F F.1 te << It is anticipated that the text of F.1 will be updated/refined (by Dave Lewis). >>

To be finalized by FDIS stage. Done (by Dave Lewis & checked by ERP)

BM GLND

F.3 Para 1 ed “Sections that are not been” Replace with “Sections that have note been” Reworded

BM GLND

F.3 - te P should be changed to Pu to be consistent with the rest of the document in this whole section

Implement the proposed change This currently handled through the mapping given at the end of A.12.6.3.3, and re-iterated in F.3.

BM GLND

F.3 - te Prismatic member checks. P/Py should be capped at 1.00 for the surface interaction equations to prevent the equations from going out their intended range

Add additional limits to the existing equations See comment below.

BM GLND

F.3 - te The surface interaction equations should include a P/Py term. Otherwise the utilisation is only related to bending and not axial loads.

Discussion is required to decide how the P/Py term should be incorporated into the equations.

used:

P/Py+ (1-P/Py)[moment check]

BM GLND

F.3 Fig F.3-3 ed “When Mx 0:” Replace with “When Mz 0:” Agreed

BM GLND

F.3 Fig F.3-4 te It would be useful to explain the meaning of K as it is described in Alan Dyer’s thesis

Add explanation for K Done

BM GMUS

F.3 Table F.3-4 ed BMC data has format problems Clarify Has been corrected

NEN Annex G te/ed Mainly editorial comments (such as use of capitals) and a few other items.

See marked-up hard copy pages. Agreed.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2



141

NEN Bibliography te/ed 1) add Reference [A.1-1].

2) typing error (wrong number).

3) duplicate association for [A.9.3-1] should be resolved.

4) typing error (wrong number).

5) NOTE plus 6 references denoted [A.9.3-x] are not used in the document.

6) numbering of refs. for clause 11.3 are in error.

7) wrong number.

1) see reference presently 14

2) incorporated in A.1.

3) [12.1-3] should be [12.1-4].

4) on page 125 [A.9.3-1] is said to be from Hossain, whereas on page 127 it is referred to Skempton (as in the Bibliography).

5) [A.9.3-20] should be [A.9.3-30].

6) Remove NOTE and these 6 references, or include them properly in text and Bibliography.

7) the sequential numbers of [A.11.3-3] to[A.11.3-9] should be changed to [A.11.3-1] to [A.11.3-7]; existing number [A.11.3-8] is correct.

8) [A.12.5-5] should be [A.12.6-1].

DONE

US Bibliography te Please add DNV OS-C104 "Sructural Design of Self-elevating Units (LRFD Method)".

This document updates the referenced DNV CN 31.5 but does not fully replace it so it is better reference both documents in Clauses 6, 7 and 8.

DNV CN 31.5 is correctly referenced as the original source of Figure A.7.3-1 and Tables A.8.3-1 and 8.3-2. DNV OS-C104 does not include this informnation and is therefore not a relevant reference.

<< P1-2 Oct-2010: Olav recommends both references be included. Panel agreed. Hold for Rev 1 - Panel to locate correct place to reference it. Editors unable to. >>

Documents

Preliminary report Final reportprojects.dnvgl.com/iso-tc67-sc7-wg7/wg7-drafts/Report...FORM 13 (ISO) Page 1 of 1 Version 2001-07 REPORT OF VOTING ON ISO/DIS 19905-1 Closing date of