OTC 23047

Background to the ISO 19905-Series and An Overview of the New ISO 199051 for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
M.J.R. Hoyle, GL Noble Denton, J.J. Stiff, ABSG Consulting Inc., R.J. Hunt, Shell U.K. Limited

Copyright 2012, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April3 May 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This keynote paper describes the place, significance and development of the ISO 19905-series standards (Mobile Offshore
Units) within the 19900-series of offshore structures standards. It provides an overview of both the new standard for the sitespecific assessment of jack-ups, ISO 19905-1 [ref. 1], and the supporting technical report, ISO/TR 19905-2 [ref. 2]. The
Technical Report contains background information and a detailed example "go-by" calculation, a feature previously found to
be extremely useful. The paper is one of seven in a series outlining the key technical aspects of the development of
ISO 19905-1 and their significance in relation to the SNAME T&RB 5-5A source document [ref. 3]. The planned
ISO 19905-3, site-specific assessment of floating units, will be described, but not discussed in any detail.
In 1996, ISO Work Group 7, part of Sub-Committee 7, was formed and mandated by the parent ISO Technical Committee,
ISO/TC67, to develop the jack-up site assessment standard using SNAME T&RB 5-5A as the basis. While the development
of 5-5A, first published in 1994, was rigorous, conscientious, and based on state of the art knowledge, the published document
contained much that was new, controversial and perceived by some to be too conservative. Consequently the IADC and others
sponsored many projects to advance the process and accuracy of site assessment. Some of this work was incorporated into
revisions of 5-5A, but after 19905-1 started to be developed, much was taken directly into that document, bypassing 5-5A.
This paper provides an overview of the projects undertaken and the process used to develop ISOs 19905-1 and 19905-2. Other
papers in the session give the detailed background to the changes from 5-5A.
The approach chosen in ISO 19905-1, although sometimes different from that in SNAME and other relevant
ISO 19900-series standards, has been developed to embrace new technology whilst providing a site assessment methodology
for jack-ups that is robust, calibrated against the best-practice application of 5-5A, and allowing for improved
technology/computing capability.
The Jack-Up site-assessment ISO will be increasingly used throughout the world and it is vital that potential users are
confident that the standard has a sound provenance.
Introduction
This paper is the first of a series of complementary papers describing technical aspects of the development of ISO 19905-1 in
relation to the SNAME T&RB 5-5A source document. The other papers are:
23342: Dowdy et al., Environmental Actions in the New ISO for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up
Units,
23040: Tan et al., Structural Modelling and Response Analysis in the New ISO Standard for the Site-Specific
Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
23521: Wong et al., Foundation Modelling and Assessment in the New ISO Standard for the Site-Specific
Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
23071: Frieze et al., Structural Acceptance Criteria in the New ISO Standard for the Site- Specific Assessment of
Mobile Jack-Up Units
23337: Kudsk et al., Long-Term Applications in the New ISO Standard for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile
Jack-Up Units
22949: Stiff et al., Benchmarking of the New ISO Standard for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up
Units

OTC 23047

It is important that potential users of the standards for the site-specific assessment of mobile units recognize them as being
well founded on sound technology and practicable in use. This paper is targeted at supporting this proposition.
In the paper, the place of ISO 19905 within the 19900-series standards is described. The reasons for site-specific
assessment are identified, the development and maintenance of the SNAME T&RB 5-5A basis document is documented and a
selection of recent research activities are summarized. Finally the development of the 19905-series of Offshore Structure
Standards is discussed, with particular focus on the jack-up standards ISO 19905-1 and ISO/TR 19905-2.
The 19900-series of Offshore Structures Standards
Work on the ISO Offshore Structures Standards commenced in the late 1980s when ISO/TC67/SC7 was formed [ref. 4].
TC67 is the Technical Committee responsible for Oil Industry standards and SC7 is the Sub-Committee responsible for
Offshore Structures. SC7s scope was Offshore Structures used in the Production and Storage of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Procedures for the Assessment of the Site-Specific Application of Mobile Offshore Drilling and Accommodation Units.
The 19900-series of Standards for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries presently comprises:
ISO 19900 General requirements for offshore structures
ISO 19901-1 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 1: Metocean design and operating considerations
ISO 19901-2 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 2: Seismic design procedures and criteria
ISO 19901-3 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 3: Topsides structure
ISO 19901-4 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation design considerations
ISO 19901-5 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 5: Weight control during engineering and construction
ISO 19901-6 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 6: Marine operations
ISO 19901-7 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore
structures and mobile offshore units
ISO 19901-8 Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 8: Marine soils investigation (under preparation)
ISO 19902 Fixed steel offshore structures
ISO 19903 Fixed concrete offshore structures
ISO 19904-1 Floating offshore structures - Part 1: Mono-hulls, semi-submersibles and spars
ISO 19904-2 Floating offshore structures - Part 2: Tension leg platforms (under consideration)
ISO 19905-1
Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 1: Jack-ups
ISO/TR 19905-2 Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 2: Jack-ups commentary and detailed sample
calculation
ISO 19905-3
Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 3: Floating units (under preparation)
ISO 19906 Arctic offshore structures
19900 provides the framework for the design and assessment of all structural types. The eight parts of 19901 provide specific
requirements that apply across a number of structural types, although there are exceptions. For example, the provisions of
19901-4 do not apply to jack-ups as 19905-1 provides technology that is more advanced and directly applicable to jack-up site
assessment. The remainder of the 19900 series provide requirements for generic structural types; the parts of 19905 for mobile
units address the second part of the SC7s scope. The approach taken by SC7 and the standards development process are
respectively described in further detail by Snell and Wisch [ref. 5] and Galbraith et al. [ref. 6].
To put the offshore structures standards in context, Figure 1 shows a core collection of the several hundreds of
International Standards available to the oil and gas industry, of which more than one hundred documents are under the purview
of TC67.
Site Assessment, the SNAME T&RB 5-5A Basis Document and Recent Research Activities
Before considering the development of the jack-up ISO, it is useful to review the reasons for undertaking jack-up site-specific
assessments, the development of the SNAME T&RB 5-5A basis document and ongoing research activities. These topics are
covered in some detail in Hoyle et al. [ref. 7], so only the key aspects are addressed here.
Site Assessment. Jack-ups are regularly moved from location to location, with each location providing a unique set of
conditions. Jack-ups are designed and Classed for specific sets of conditions, but it is rare that the environmental conditions,
rig orientation, air gap requirements, required variable load, and foundation parameters will all be within the design
assumptions, and even if they are, the design approach may not meet local regulatory and/or user requirements. It is for these
reasons that jack-up site-specific assessment is required.
Jack-ups are critically dependent on the foundation supporting them. The foundation must have sufficient strength so that
the spudcans at the base of the legs do not penetrate too far into the seabed when preload is applied. (N.B. Preload is applied
by taking on water ballast, or pre-driving the legs, during installation, then dumping the water ballast prior to jacking up to
final elevation.) The foundation can also provide moment fixity to the bottom of the legs. This not only beneficially reduces
the leg bending moment in the region of the leg-to-hull connection but also increases the sway stiffness of the jack-up.
Increased sway stiffness reduces large-displacement loading and also reduces the natural period of the jack-up and thus
(usually) the inertial loading due to dynamics.

OTC 23047

Site Assessment Checks are made for a representative storm and, if the geometry check is passed, for the computed responses
to it. The following checks are made:
Geometry: A check on leg length to ensure that the hull can be raised to the required elevation above the sea, taking
account of the depth to which the legs will penetrate into the seabed. The elevation is determined by the more onerous of the
need to clear wave crests and the interfacing demands of an offshore platform. The leg penetrations vary as a function of the
foundation soil type & composition, and the applied bearing pressure.
Punchthrough Check: The leg penetration analysis should also identify the possibility of rapid leg penetration during
positioning or pre-loading operations. If the rate of leg penetration exceeds the elevating speed of the jack-up, and if any hullin-water buoyancy-generated support is insufficient, the associated loss of hull trim/heel angle can result in damage to the
jack-up and any adjacent assets.
Overturning stability: A check is also made to ensure that the windward legs retain sufficient positive vertical reaction
under the overturning effects of the assessment storm conditions.
Structural and Foundation Strength Checks: Checks are made to ensure that, with the predicted final leg penetration and
the vertical lateral & rotational support at bottom of legs, the unit has sufficient: pre-load/pre-drive capacity, leg uplift/sliding
resistance, leg bearing failure resistance, leg strength, elevating system strength & fixation system strength. Ideally all jackups would have the ability to apply pre-load or pre-drive forces to the seabed to a level such that the generated foundation
capacity will not be exceeded in the representative storm; although when preloaded the foundation has been subjected to, and
sustained, vertical load of a known magnitude, this capacity cannot be realized when the foundation is also subjected to
horizontal and moment loading. Many jack-ups do not have this ability, so it is often necessary that the bearing capacity check
includes an assessment of the additional leg penetration that would occur when the foundation capacity is exceeded. The key
to jack-up survival is that this storm-induced additional leg penetration is minimal.
It can therefore be seen that the foundation plays a crucial role when determining the suitability of a jack-up for a site, but
it is one of the areas where our knowledge is less than complete.

SC7 Standards

Figure 1 - ISO Standards for the oil & gas industry supported through OGP
( http://info.ogp.org.uk/standards/downloads/StandardsIssued.pdf )

The origins of SNAME T&RB 5-5A. In the early days of jack-up operations, a simplified form of site assessment was
undertaken. Although much was known about the factors at work, as demonstrated in 1957 by Rechtin et al. [ref. 8], the
assessor was faced with a complex problem and limited computational tools with which to address it. As a result, early-day
site assessments relied on engineering judgments to make trade-offs, for example ignoring dynamics and large displacement
effects and trading these off by ignoring the benefits of foundation fixity and the other conservatisms that were inherent in the
early designs. By the 1970s computers became more accessible and in-house tools were developed to improve the process,
but trade-offs were still the norm. Nevertheless, failures as a result of unforeseen storm overload, were far fewer than those
due to other causes e.g. blowout, punch-through when preloading, towage, etc., see Jack, Hoyle & Smith [ref. 9].
Towards the end of the 1980s the tools available improved and the traditional trade-offs were starting to be questioned,
particularly when some designs were introduced that took benefit from foundation fixity without also including the adverse
effects of dynamics. In the late 1980s Shell started to assess jack-ups using their own internal guidelines. These were a

OTC 23047

technical advance, but proved to be onerous when compared to industry practice. This opened the assessment process to
critical scrutiny, and a study was commissioned by Shell in 1987 involving 51 organizations of which 14 undertook one or two
test-case analyses which showed significant variations in the results. In many cases closer inspection revealed that the
variations were due to differing assumptions, and some of these needed to be resolved.
To address the issues, a Joint Industry Project (JIP) was initiated in 1989, guided by a Working Group that comprised equal
representation from each facet of the industry, Oil Companies, Designers, Drilling Contractors and Classification Societies.
The objective was to develop a site assessment procedure. Further test case analyses revealed that the main differences were
philosophical rather than technical, albeit that there were many questions that needed to be answered. It was determined that
the site assessment procedure would comprise a philosophical Guideline that would later be supplemented by a more technical
Recommended Practice (Practice), itself supported by a Commentary, similar to the API documents of the time. The
Guideline was published by SNAME in 1991 and, save for one early set of editorial corrections, remains today as it was first
published. The Guideline advocated that the level of the analysis should match the need, however in all cases the foundation
must be checked.
To develop the Practice, a number of specialist sub-committees were formed (hydrodynamics, foundations, structural
modelling, dynamics, and assessment criteria). In most cases the sub-committees identified the need for funded studies to
advance their technical knowledge; in many cases these were subject to external peer review. In all cases progress was made,
although in some cases the standard approach was known to include conservatism (for further detail see [ref. 7.]).
SNAME T&RB 5-5A was first published in 1994. This publication included the Guideline, Recommended Practice,
Commentary and a Go-By example calculation to guide the assessor through the approach; this has proved invaluable to
many users of the document. The document was a consensus product of a 5-year effort involving the full spectrum of the
industry. The Practice and Commentary had been through 14 drafts that were reviewed by all members of the Working Group.
The direct cost was about US$3 million at 1993 values. In addition the participants spent a large number of unpaid hours
locked away in meetings, in reviewing documents, and contributing from their home bases.
The maintenance of SNAME T&RB 5-5A. The SNAME OC-7 panel was formed to maintain and update the document as
required. Some initial errata were identified and included in the first revision in 1997, together with updates to the fixity
methodology developed by NGI using carry-over funding from the JIP and additional funds raised from the OC-7 panel.
In the next period there was no formal process for advancing and approving updates until the Revisions Sub-Committee to
OC-7 was formed in 2000. This adopted a formal process that required that all proposals submitted for review include a full
technical justification and ready-to-insert text. Once agreed unanimously by the Revisions Sub-Committee, proposals go to
OC-7 for approval by consensus, and then to the SNAME Offshore Committee for endorsement. One such change, included
in Revision 2 in 2002, was the reduction of the load factor from 1.25 to 1.15, which was a logical outcome of the original
calibration study, but which made some uncomfortable as it was lower than the factors that were used in other parts of the
offshore industry.
Developments in Technology. The IADC Jack-Up Committee (IJUC) was formed after SNAME T&RB 5-5A was published
to guide and fund studies that would advance jack-up site assessment. The committee has funded numerous studies, many of
which have been published such that their results are available for adoption in SNAME T&RB 5-5A and/or ISO 19905-1. The
IJUC funded much of the work in the sub-set of studies that is described below.
Hindcast Analysis: This study considered two LeTourneau designed jack-ups that survived hurricane Georges, albeit with
some movement of the rigs. The study used hindcast metocean data and it was determined that it was necessary to consider
upper bound soil strength, lower bound environmental extremes and a load factor of 0.9 to show survivability. It is noted that
the results might differ if the analysis were to be re-visited using all the developments in technology that have been determined
in the interim.
Wave Spreading: A pilot study was undertaken to develop the methodology. This immediately indicated a conservatism
in the original SNAME approach to wave loading in TRS areas and provided the basis for a subsequent more detailed study
which resulted in a formulation for the kinematics reduction factor as a function of the jack-up geometry, wave parameters and
the latitude depended spreading factor proposed in ISO 19901-1. A more detailed summary of the work is given in the
companion paper, OTC 23342 on Environmental Actions.
Load Factor Assessment: In addition to the original justification for the reduced load factor discussed above, a further
study [ref. 10] was undertaken to support the change. It was further clarified that the original 1.25 load factor is applicable
when 100-year return period joint-probability data is used, at least in regions such as the North Sea. When 50-year return
period independent extremes are used the reduced load factor of 1.15 is applicable. In the North Sea, the joint-probability
approach will produce a similar or less conservative result.
Instrumentation: A number of jack-ups have been instrumented since 1988. A re-evaluation and collation of data sets by
Noble Denton and Oxford University [ref. 11] indicated that the small-strain initial stiffnesses for both clay and sand were
underestimated by the approach given in T&RB 5-5A Revision 2. The recommendations from this study are included in
ISO 19905-1 and were included in Revision 3 of T&RB 5-5A.

OTC 23047

Little data existed for deeper penetration locations such as are found in the Gulf of Mexico. To address this eight rigs have
been instrumented, two by each of four drilling contractors, with the goal of obtaining data for such cases. It is understood that
valuable hurricane season data has been obtained and publication of the results is awaited with interest.
The effects of Foundation Degradation on Dynamics: Load cycles involving soil yielding are associated with increased
damping and reduced stiffness during the yielding load cycle, with the stiffness reverting to close to the small-train stiffness
thereafter. Even during the yielding load cycle there is a reasonable trade-off between reduced stiffness and increased
damping. However the original version of T&RB 5-5A suggested that the dynamic response should be determined using the
secant stiffness and regular levels of damping. In Revision 2 of T&RB 5-5A this was updated so that the inertial loading is
determined using linearised stiffness at 80% of the initial small-strain value and regular damping. The resulting inertial
loadset is then applied with the environmental loads in a quasi-static analysis in which foundation degradation is modeled.
Deep Penetration Soil Studies: The effects of deep penetrations on the foundation stiffness and capacity were not
addressed in T&RB 5-5A. It was anticipated that some benefit should accrue from the soil that is above the spudcan.
Templeton [refs. 12 - 15] has shown that both stiffness and capacity can be increased as a function of penetration. These
effects are included in ISO 19905-1 and are due to be included in the final update to T&RB 5-5A.
Sudden Hurricane Study: In the Gulf of Mexico it is standard practice to de-man jack-ups in advance of hurricane events.
It is therefore feasible to assess the manned jack-up to 50-year sudden hurricane criteria, and then the unmanned survival case
to a criteria agreed by the stakeholders. The IJUC commissioned a study from Oceanweather to determine the 50-year sudden
hurricane characteristics as a function of water depth for a range of warning periods (48 hours, 72 hours, etc). The results of
the study were given by Stiff et al [ref. 16], are included in the US Gulf of Mexico regional annex to ISO 19905-1 and are due
to be included in the US Gulf of Mexico Annex to T&RB 5-5A.
The 19905-series of Offshore Structures Standards for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Offshore
Units
Background. In 1996 SC7 requested the formation of WG7 to address the site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units.
Since its inception WG7 has been convened by the lead author of this paper. At the outset, it was anticipated that 19905 would
comprise two parts, one for jack-ups and one for semi-submersibles (now broadened to include all mobile floaters). The remit
from SC7 was to address jack-up units first, using SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A as the basis. The process has been lengthy
and WG7 held its 30th meeting during the week of the City University Jack-Up Conference in September 2011.
The Development of ISO 19905-1 and ISO/TR 19905-2 for Jack-ups
Overview: As discussed by Hoyle et al, [ref. 17], the initial thought was that T&RB 5-5A could be simply be revised into
ISO-speak and issued. However there were a number of factors preventing this supposedly simple transformation. These
included:
A number of technical advances were in progress (as discussed above) and the industry considered it important that
these reach their respective conclusions and, where appropriate, be included in the document.
The Guideline / Recommended Practice / Commentary structure found in T&RB 5-5A did not map well into the ISO
format of a Normative, Informative Annexes, possibly even Normative Annexes, and a Technical Report (19905-2).
The Normative represents the must do, or in ISO-speak shall requirements. As with the T&RBs Guideline
Document, the normative is intended to be relatively short and unequivocal. The Informative(s) contain guidance, and
a proposed calculation methodology, but the wording has to be carefully caged in terms of the ISO non-mandatory
should for those items that are highly recommended, but not quite absolute requirements. The Informative(s) can
generally be thought of as requirements if alternative calculations methods are not being used.
There was a need to harmonize with the requirements of other standards e.g. for the strength checking of tubulars.
Parts of the T&RB 5-5A text on the strength checking of non-tubulars, whilst adequate for most jack-ups, did not
address the more general case.
Further details on the last two bullets can be found in the companion paper OTC 23071 on Structural Acceptance Criteria by
Frieze et al.
As it transpired, the restructuring effort involved in including technical advances and fitting the T&RB 5-5A text into the
ISO format was considerable. Similarly, the effort required to harmonize and extend the structural strength checks was
substantial.
Document Structure: After considerable deliberation it was decided that the jack-up ISO should be in two parts:
19905-1 Normative and Informative based on the SNAME T&RB 5-5A Guideline document, Practice, and parts of the
Commentary. The intention of the structure is that the Normative will be read once and then referenced rarely
whilst the Informative will be referenced frequently by the assessor whilst undertaking site assessment
calculations.
19905-2 Technical report to contain background information to help the analyst understand the derivation of some of
the Normative and Informative. This is based on sections of the T&RB 5-5A Commentary that were not

OTC 23047

suitable for inclusion in the body of the ISO. It also includes a new ISO Go-By document similar to that
produced for T&RB 5-5A.
Technical Panels were formed, broadly following the sub-committee structure that had been used successfully when
developing T&RB 5-5A. Where possible the numbering was aligned with that used by other Work Groups to SC7. The
panels and their conveners were as follows:
Panel Topic
Convener(s)
0
Preamble
Mike Hoyle (GL Noble Denton)
1/2
Metocean/Loading (actions)
Per Bergrem (DNV)
later Olav Mo (DNV)
3
Structures (modelling, and response)
Bob Bowie (ABS)
later Pao-Lin Tan (ABS)
4
Foundations
Partha Chakrabati (Zentech)
later Patrick Wong (ExxonMobil)
5
Seismic
Doug Stock (Digital Structures)
10
Acceptance Criteria/Partial Factors/Calibration Malcolm Sharples (ABS)
later John Stiff (ABS Consulting)
11
Long term applications Fatigue/Inspection)
Gregers Kudsk (Maersk)
Document Editing: An ad-hoc Editing Review Panel (ERP) was formed early in 2005 for the purposes of reviewing the
text for the first formal Committee Draft of the Normative to ensure that there was a reasonable consistency of style and
content in the text provided by the Panels. To progress to a Draft International Standard (DIS) a more formal group was
formed comprising Andrea Mangiavacchi, Mike Hoyle, Dave Lewis, John Stiff and Doug Stock, with the last four continuing
the work for the Final Draft International Standard (FDIS). The editing of the DIS and FDIS was supported by funding from
OGP, with ABS supporting John Stiff. There were typically at least four four-day meetings each year from early 2006 to the
end of 2010. The ERP ended up doing rather more than just ensuring that the text was clear and consistent with ISO-speak
requirements. Several major re-structuring exercises were undertaken and quite a number of technical issues were resolved.
Benchmarking: Given the changes from the T&RB 5-5A recipe incorporated in 19905-1, it was deemed essential that a
systematic series of benchmarking tests were undertaken to ensure usability and to compare the results against those from the
latest version of SNAME T&RB 5-5A. A phased approach was adopted with a component level study of the new member
strength checks, and Phase 1 run-through of the near-complete document by one consultant and finally a Phase 2 study of a
number of cases by several consultants using a late draft of the DIS. Part of the scope in each study was to provide comments
on the document, with the goal of ensuring clarity and accuracy. A significant number of useful comments resulted as shown
in Table 1.
Overall the benchmarking studies concluded that 19905-1 is generally a little less conservative than T&RB 5-5A, however
there were initially some more significant differences in the updated foundation checks. It turned out that these were partly
due to differing interpretations of T&RB 5-5A. As a result of this finding the foundation checking text in 19905-1 was revised
and the benchmarking checks repeated, resulting in differences that were considered to be acceptable. Further details of the
foundation checks can be found in the companion paper OTC 23521 on Foundation Modelling and Assessment by Wong et al.
One of the benchmarking consultants, GL Noble Denton, was tasked documenting one of their benchmarking analyses in
the form of a detailed sample go-by calculation for inclusion as an Annex in ISO/TR 19905-2. The draft of the go-by was
based on the benchmarking update to the DIS. It is being updated to capture most of the updates included in the FDIS.
Further details of the benchmarking exercise can be found in the companion paper OTC 22949 on Benchmarking by Stiff
et al.
Other Technical Issues: A number of technical issues were identified by members of the ERP whilst the FDIS was being
finalized. These all resulted in updates to the text of 19905-1. The issues included:
The application if Intrinsic and Apparent wave periods. Some guidance on this topic is given in the 2005 version of
ISO 19901-1, however it is potentially misleading and not easy to apply. The benchmarking studies indicated that this
issue can be more significant than was at first expected. Guidance has therefore been included in 19905-1. For further
details refer to the companion paper OTC 23342 on Environmental Actions by Dowdy et al.
The guidance in T&RB 5-5A on wave-load reinforcement and cancellation effects is potentially misleading or worse.
Text and figures have been included in 19905-1 to provide some clarity in this matter.
The application of inertial loadsets towards and beyond resonance i.e. when the natural period tends to or exceeds the
wave period was not addressed. We are not aware of any existing guidance on this topic, which is potentially relevant
to jack-ups operating in benign areas and for fatigue analysis. Additional load cases have been included in 19905-1 that
should be considered when the ratio of the natural period to the peak period exceeds 0.9. Further details can be found
in the companion paper OTC 23040 on Structural Modelling and Response Analysis by Tan et al.
Document Drafts: There have been a significant number of drafts of 19905-1. The more important ones that were issued
for SC7 or International comment are summarized in Table 1. In almost all cases the comments received have been highly
beneficial to WG7s efforts. We are particularly appreciative of the comments contributed by Jan Vugts through the
Netherlands, and to those who supported his efforts. The ISO process requires that formal comments are provided in a
comment table and that each comment is addressed by the WG.

OTC 23047

Table 1 - The Drafts of 19905-1

Date
June
2005

Designation
CD E

Description
Partial draft of Normative

January
2007

CD F

Near complete draft of Normative

and partial draft of Informative
Annexes. Guidance given to
reviewers

September
2009

DIS

Draft International Standard

December
2009

DIS plus

DIS with some known issues

resolved, issued for benchmarking

July
2011

FDIS

Final Draft International Standard

Notes
Comments received from:
Source
Total
Argentina
1
Brazil
5
Canada
1
The Netherlands
121
Norway
19
USA
88
Total
235
The 121 comments from The Netherlands were
supplemented by a hand written mark-up of about half
the document (all from Jan Vugts).
Approval was received from Brazil and Korea.
Comments were received from:
Source
Total
Canada
12
France
16
The Netherlands
182 + extensive mark-up,
Norway
30
1 UK organization
20
2 USA organizations
42 and 20*
Total
302
*One set of USA comments were identical to the UK's.
Positive vote and some 435 comments made up as
follows:
Source
Total Technical
Other
Netherlands
311
255
56
France
1
1
0
Denmark
3
3
0
Canada
15
7
8
Norway
40
19
21
Singapore
17
15
2
USA
48
16
32
Total
435
316
119
269 comments made up as follows:
Source
Total Technical
Other
Bennett & Associates
2
0
2
GL Noble Denton
120
53
67
Global Maritime US
37
12
25
GustoMSC
110
35
75
Total
269
100
169
100% positive vote (19 P-members, 2 O-members)
67 comments made up as follows:
Source
Total
UK
62 (mostly from WG7 !)
Canada
5
Total
67

Some of the comments on the FDIS, and some further items that have come to light since it was published, require
technical changes to the document. Under ISO rules, these cannot be incorporated directly into a version that is published as
an ISO. It was therefore agreed that we will proceed to a second FDIS which, at the time of writing, has been received back
from ISOs Central Secretariat (ISO CS) so that we can review the editorial changes they have made (there are a great number
over and above those that ISO CS made to the original FDIS), and also check that the technical and editorial changes arising
from the first FDIS ballot are correctly implemented. It is anticipated that the second FDIS will have been issued for a

OTC 23047

2-month ballot period that closes before this paper is presented. It should then take a further month or two for the ISO to be
published.
ISO/TR 19905-2: Because this is a Technical Report (TR) and not a Standard, the TR had only to be reviewed by SC7;
there is no requirement for an International ballot. A draft of the TR was issued for SC7s review in June 2011 with a closing
date in September 2011. Very few comments were received and all that was needed was to update some figures, finalize an
Annex that is a reproduction of a supplied text and insert the updated go-by sample calculation. It is anticipated that this
will be done in sufficient time so that the TR can be published at about the same time as ISO 19905-1. A future update to the
TR is likely to include an additional Annex containing a overview report of the benchmarking project.
The Development of ISO 19905-3 for Floaters: With 19905-1 and 19905-2 nearing publication, WG7 was asked to develop
a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) for developing ISO 19905-3. With this eventuality in mind, John Stiff had already been
asked to convene a new Technical Panel 53 to undertake the task. At one stage it was considered that the requirements for the
site-specific assessment of floaters could be accommodated by revising ISO 19901-7 on Stationkeeping systems for floating
offshore structures and mobile offshore units and ISO 19904-1 on Floating offshore structures - Monohulls, semisubmersibles and spars. However, a review and initial discussion in February 2001 with the WG5 leadership, responsible for
19901-7 and 19904-1, concluded that the best approach was for a separate Standard to address the topic, referencing the other
existing standards as necessary.
Initial meetings were held in Houston in July 2011 and London in September 2011 to share the proposed way forward with
industry. A number of defining intents were agreed by those present, noting that these may be revised once Panel 53 has been
formally established:
Establish existing best/good practice and document it.
Do not introduce new requirements.
Should be independent of units age. Should not exclude a unit because of its age, or discriminate based on age, or
previous IMO Code revisions Grandfathered status, but the unit must be within Class.
Take reference to the Marine Operations Manual wherever reasonably practicable.
Refer to other established documents wherever possible do not create new words for the sake of it.
Leave out operational issues wherever possible and refer to other documents (e.g. risers to riser documents, DP to DP
documents).
A preliminary draft of the standard was prepared by John Stiff, following the general outline of 19905-1, and some
comments have been received. This was used as an attachment to the NWIP that was balloted and approved at the November
2011 meeting of SC7 in Houston. The approval commits the approving nations to each providing at least two experts to sit on
Panel 53. The tentative timeline for the document was proposed as two years, although SC7 increased this to three. It is
intended that Panel 53 maintains close links with the WG5.
Conclusions
This paper shows that Jack-up site-specific assessment has been the subject of ongoing formal development since the initiation
of the Joint Industry Project in 1989 that resulted in the publication of SNAME T&RB 5-5A in 1994 which was based on
extensive technical work and industry-wide consensus.
Following the publication of T&RB 5-5A, the SNAME OC-7 committee, and later the OC-7 Revisions Committee, have
overseen the updates to the document and included the results of a number of studies commissioned by parties, including the
IADC Jack-Up Committee.
ISO 19905-1 and ISO/TR 19905-2 have been developed from the sound starting point of T&RB 5-5A, carefully controlled
by WG7 and its Panels. Advantage of the results from additional research projects has been taken whilst ensuring that the
documents remain practicable, technically sound and clearly written, in conformance with ISO protocols. It is considered that
the standard immediately provides a complete methodology for jack-up site assessment that is based on sound provenance, and
one that can be updated in the future as new knowledge emerges and is accepted by industry. Publication of the first edition is
expected by mid 2012.
Work on ISO 19905-3 for the site-specific assessment of floater is commencing and it should be published within three
years.
Acknowledgements
Significant time, effort and funding has been used in the effort to develop SNAME T&R5-5A and more recently ISO 19905-1.
In respect of the latter, thanks are due to the past and present Work Group and Panel members and especially the Panel
Conveners and the members of the Editing Review Panel. We acknowledge the support of OGP, IADC and ABS for the
editing effort and the hosts of the editing meetings, mainly Global Santa Fe/Transocean and ABS.
The contribution of those who have committed time and effort to reviewing and commenting on our drafts is gratefully
acknowledged, as is the contribution of those that have funded these activities.

OTC 23047

The contribution of those that have funded technical studies over the years is also acknowledged, principally the IADC
Jack-Up Committee, Shell, ExxonMobil, UK HSE, LeTourneau, KFELS, GustoMSC and Chevron. Finally, the authors wish
to thank their own organizations for supporting their efforts.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of their
respective organizations.
References
1 ISO 19905-1:2012 Petroleum and natural gas industries - Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 1: Jack-ups
International Organization for Standardization, 2012.
2 ISO/TR 19905-2:2012 Petroleum and natural gas industries - Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units - Part 2: Jack-ups
commentary and detailed sample calculation International Organization for Standardization, 2012.
3 SNAME, 2002, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Recommended practice for site specific assessment of mobile
jack-up units, SNAME Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A, Rev. 2, 2002.
4 Snell RO, ISO Offshore Structures Standard, OTC 8421, Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 5-6 May 1997.
5 Snell RO, ISO 19900 Series: Offshore Structures Standards, OTC 19605, Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 58 May 2008.
6 Galbraith DN, Wolfram WR, Leivestad S, ISO Floating and Fixed Standards ISO 19902, ISO 19903 and ISO 19904, OTC 19608,
Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 5-8 May 2008.
7 Hoyle M, Stiff J, Hunt R, Morandi A, Jack-Up Assessment - Past, Present and ISO, ISOPE 2006-PM-06, Proceedings of the
Sixteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, USA, 29 May - 1 June 2006.
8 Rechtin EC, Steele JE, Scales RE, Engineering Problems Related to the Design of Offshore Mobile Platforms SNAME Transactions,
pp 663-681, 1957.
9 Jack RL, Hoyle MJR, Smith NP, The Facts Behind Jack-Up Accident Statistics, Proc. Eighth International Conference, The Jack-up
Platform, City University, London, 2001.
10 Morandi AC, Jin Z, Smith NP, Surviving a 10,000-year event: Pushover analysis of jack-up rigs in the North Sea, Proc. 8th
International Conference The Jack-up Platform, City University, London, 2001.
11 Noble Denton Europe and Oxford University, The Calibration of SNAME Spudcan Footing Equations with Field Data, Report No
L19073/NDE/mjrh, Rev 5, London, November 2006, available from: http://www.nodent.co.uk/iadc/fixity/
12 Templeton JS, Lewis DR and Brekke JN, Spudcan Fixity in Clay, First Findings of a 2003 IADC Study, Proc. 9th International
Conference, The Jack-Up Platform, City University, London, 2003.
13 Templeton JS, Brekke JN and Lewis DR, Spudcan Fixity in Clay, Final Findings of a Study for IADC, Proc. 10th International
Conference, The Jack-Up Platform, City University, London, 2005.
14 Templeton JS, Jackup Foundation Performance in Clay, Proc. 38th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 18637, Houston, May
2006.
15 Templeton JS, Spudcan Fixity in Clay, Further Results from a Study for IADC, Proc 12th International Conference, The Jack-Up
Platform, City University, London, 2009.
16 Stiff JJ, Wildberger P, Cardone VJ, Cox AT, and Lewis DR, Metocean Criteria for Jack-Ups in the Gulf of Mexico, OTC 17879,
Proc. 38th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2006.
17 Hoyle MJR, Stiff JJ, Hunt RJ, Jack-Up Site Assessment - The Voyage to an ISO, OMAE2011-50056, Proc. ASME 2011 30th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 19-24, 2011.