Report of WG7 Review Panel Meeting of 9th November …€¦ · Web viewDave had sent his write-up regarding AISC's reversion from Lambda to KL/r, etc. to John. John will now circulate

ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Site Specific Assessment of MOU’s

Editing / Review Panel

Report on Meeting of 10 th - 13 th February 2009

10 th -12 th February at Transocean, 4 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas

13 th February at ABS, 16855 Northchase Drive, Greenspoint, Houston, Texas

Meeting Report by Mike Hoyle

Background and Attendance

The meeting was scheduled during the previous meeting of 9th-12th December, 2008.

The attendees comprised:

Rev 0 - 4th March 2009 Page 1 of 26

Mike Hoyle (Convenor, UK)Dave Lewis (USA) John Stiff (USA)

Pharr Smith (USA) - Part WednesdayDoug Stock (USA) Patrick Wong (USA) - Part Friday


ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Editing/Review Panel. Report on meeting of 10 th -13 th Feb 2009

Objectives / Agenda

Per the forward plan from the previous meeting & calling notice of 19th January 2009:1. Minutes of last meeting.

2. Information Exchange.

3. Status/close-out of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed.

4. Ongoing items from previous meetings:

Address further Panel 4 inputs.

Review John's updated text re Mat units.

One-stage or one-step ?? Does Annex B need updates for this?

5. Issues from Phase 1 benchmarking.

6. Continuation of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing (of Informative).

7. Confirmation of actions.

8. Forward plan for the next meetings.



Meeting Report

Note: The minutes are in Agenda order. The running order differed.

1. Minutes of last meeting

1.1.There were no comments on the minutes of the last meeting.

2. Information exchange, etc:

2.1.WG1 have issued some documents for review. Dave Lewis (his alternate) suggested that we obtain input from Peter Marshall. Action: Mike to circulate "remit"Post Meeting Note: See SC7 Resolution & extracts from WG1 MoM in Attachment 3.

2.2.Mike advised that the wave report is ongoing (needs limited inputs from Susan Smith) and the OTC paper had just been submitted.

2.3.WRT 19905-3, to be developed by John Stiff's Panel 53, John advised that he believes that this may be better accomplished by modifying other documents. In any event he needs to spend some time on this. Mike reminded him that we need to have a plan in place in advance of the SC7 meeting at the start of June. Action: John

2.4.The action to advise WG1 re the potential for clauses on analytical tools etc in a higher level document was carried forward. Action: Mike/Dave

2.5.Dave had sent his write-up regarding AISC's reversion from Lambda to KL/r, etc. to John. John will now circulate P10. Action: John

2.6.Mike advised that there is now considerable pressure to achieve delivery of DIS by end of June (i) to meet the stretched ISO protocols (if we miss this extended target, then the project will need to be re-started as a NWI, and (ii) because OGP have limited the editing budget, such that it should just cover the meetings so-far planned for this year (this meeting, end of March and June) plus preparation figures. To achieve this schedule, it is imperative that P4 and P10 essentially complete their text before May. John advised that he plans to meet with PAFA in UK in early April to progress outstanding P10 matters, thanks to funding from ABS. Action: John

It was arranged to meet with Patrick on the Friday. At this meeting, Patrick advised that little progress had been made since the P4 videoconference in December. He provided a status list, which indicated that a number of the outstanding items had been resolved, or allocated. However, he needs to draw together the updated text. He agreed to arrange a further video-conference before the next ERP meeting. Action: Patrick

Patrick was encouraged to consider Annex D. If there is any content that is not needed to undertake the methods/alternative methods given in the Normative and Informative A, the consideration should be given to moving it to the TR. Action: Patrick

Patrick was advised that most of the ERP (Dave, Doug, John & Mike) had met with Jack Templeton on the Thursday evening and had a lengthy debate on the correct vertical load to use in the yield interaction surface. The ERP members were convinced that that the vertical capacity and applied loads should both be considered on a Gross basis, with infill/backflow included in the applied load. After reflection overnight, Jack



had called Doug and advised that he was now of the same opinion. All were agreed that the Moment and Horizontal capacity should be determined based on Net applied preload i.e. the structural engineer's usual number. Jack will be preparing a note for P4 to advise/explain his revised stance.

2.7.Mike reported that the WG7 and OC7 meetings in May will be held at the OTC venue. This is thanks Mike Dowdy and Rowan, and also Dave who had asked Mike to assist. The schedule will be issued when details of the EM venue at Greenway have been supplied (where the remainder of the meetings will be held thanks to Partick and EM).. Action: Patrick

3. Status of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed:

3.1.Project funding (previous 3.1) Doug advised that his proposal for testing of the seismic text is in still hand and really, really, really will be submitted to Rupert soon. Action: Doug

3.2.Issues re ISO CS (previous 3.2) Mike advised that he was expecting a response from Stephen Kennedy of ISO CS. This was received later in the week and indicated that the proposed presentation of the symbols by Clause should be acceptable. He also provided some other feedback and generally positive comments.

3.3.Review, and aim to resolve, inputs from the initial Clause 12 benchmarking (previous 3.3) Annex A of the Noble Denton report contains comments on the Clause 12 text. Some actions have been handled by Panel, ERP or Mike. The remaining topics are in progress or have been tasked (largely to PAFA). John had previously advised that he will go through the document and rationalise the << bits and pieces >> arising from this. Carried forward. Action: John

3.4.Actions from November 2007: The action to switch the usage of F and Q to F=action & Q=capacity remains with P4 who had tasked Guy Houlsby/Mark Cassidy. Since the rejected submission in September, and the subsequent P4 videoconference in December, nothing further has been received. Action: Patrick

3.5.Actions from April 2008 meeting:

April 2008 Item 4: Confirm changes from last meeting [& more … ].

The required P4 input regarding small strain stiffness for fatigue for A.11.3.1 is presently a place-holder and input is still required. Patrick advised that the solution is known, but needs to be documented. Action: Patrick/P4

The action on P4 and P3 to address the torsional stiffness of the foundation and equivalent leg models has not been completed. In February 2009, Patrick advised that it remains outstanding. Action: Pao-Lin/P3 & Patrick/P4

April 2008 Item 5 Address any initial issues arising from Stage 1 benchmarking.

John advised that his action to make the ABS jack-up primer more widely available is in hand, but that it will take time before it can be progressed. Carried forward.

Action: John

3.6.Actions from June 2008 meeting:

DAF definitions.



Mike has yet to update the DAF figure. Carried forward. Action: Mike

3.7.Actions from December 2008 meeting: Mike had checked the revised wording in A.6.4.2.3 with Ahilan. Andrea had proposed improved wording. The ERP reviewed these and developed a composite alternative, and spent time improving the clarity of the text. . The water depth limit for the crest-enhanced for first order Hs waves for use in stochastic waves was considered. It appeared to be vary arbitrary, and the ERP thought it likely that it would be reasonably applicable for shallow water depths that may be needed for smaller jack-ups. P1-2 will need to address this issue. Carried forward

Action: OlavFurther time was spent considering the use/implementation of the intrinsic wave period. John had developed some further thoughts on this matter and circulated to the ERP and Olav. As a result revised text was agreed for review by P1-2. Action: Olav

4. Ongoing actions from previous meetings. 4.1. Address further Panel 4 inputs. Not received: carried forward.

4.2. Review John's updated text re Mat units. It was agreed that Mike will update the tentative Annex with John's latest text, but the ERP will not address this further until such time as the main text is completed. John advised that there may be renewed interest as a result of the MMS meeting scheduled for March to discuss Malcolm Sharples' Jack-Up Check List.

4.3. One-stage or one-step ?? Does Annex B need updates for this? Annex B had been updated previously and this was confirmed as adequate. It was agreed to replace one-step by "one-stage deterministic", and this was generally tackled.

5. Issues from Phase 1 benchmarking.

John had provided his comments on the report and discussed them with Mike during the week. There should also be comments from Shell/Rupert, IADC/Dave and HSE/Wayne.

6. Continuation of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing.

A.8.8.2 was subject to a major re-write.

John volunteered to draft text for A.10.5.3.1 regarding action factors for stochastic analyses. Action: John

Some changes were made to A.10.5.3.2 to improve clarity..

The editing continued in the Informative from A.7 which was edited, together with A.8, A.10 and most of A.11 (to the middle of A.11.3.1.5).

During the course of the sessions the following issues arose:

a) Items to check Globally:

"shall" in Informative;

Usage of "may";

Elimination of "must" and "will";

"inertia action" should be " inertial action";

Reference to TR, "ISO TR 19905-2" or "ISO 19905-2" ?



Option 2 "one-stage analysis" to be "(full integrated/comprehensive) one-stage stochastic analysis";Option 1 "two-stage analysis" to be "(simplified) two-stage deterministic analysis"

Use of explicit v/s implicit;

Hyphenation of "in-plane" and "out-of-plane" to be as shown here;

DAFS to become DAFSDOF and DAFR to become DAFRANDOM (partly for clarity and partly to allow the use of DAFs (plural);

FE or F.E. ?

b) Matters requiring technical resolution:

The use of apparent wave period was discussed, especially wrt high current locations. No resolution was achieved.

The consistent use of KRF when determining DAF's.

Stretching of 2nd order waves.

A.8.6.3 - When is it necessary to check spudcans?

There were a number of re-writes in other areas to improve language and clarity.

The guidance on marine growth on A.7.3.2.5, previously considered to be unconservative for many areas, was reviewed again and further updated.

In December 2008, an action was set for P1-2 to review the default current profile. Action: Olav

7. Confirmation of actions,

The actions noted above were confirmed.

8. Forward plan and date & subject matter of next meeting

The goals of the March meeting will be:

Close-out actions from this meeting.

Address inputs from P4 meetings (December & March) to A.9.

Pursue the ISO-speak editing of Informative (A.9, rest of A.11 and A.12).

with the aim of ensuring that the document is as ready for Phase 2 benchmarking as possible, so that Phase 2 can be initiated and the text finalised for DIS in June.

It was anticipated that text editing of the DIS (but not Annexes C, D & Bibliography) can be completed prior to the May 2009 meetings. Thus, provided WG7 and its constituents, including the IADC JUC, are sufficiently comfortable with the results from the benchmarking that has been completed at that time, the final panel inputs can be addressed and the text submitted to ISO CS at the end of June 2009.



To achieve this goal, the schedule of future meetings, starting at 08:30 each day, was agreed as:

March 24th - 27th (already set for Transocean / ABS)

June 16th - 19th (Venue(s) to be confirmed

The March meeting is likely to be round a Thursday (morning) IADC meeting.

The draft Agenda for the March meeting is:

1. Minutes of last meeting.

2. Information Exchange

3. Status/close-out of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed.

4. Ongoing items from previous meeting(s): Address further P4 inputs.

Issues from Phase 1 benchmarking

5. Continuation of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing of A.11 from the middle of A.11.3.1.5, then A.9, A.12 & A.13. Check that A.6 has been edited from A.6.4.6 onwards.

6. Confirmation of actions.

7. Forward plan for the next meetings.

9. Epilogue

The panel considered that good progress had been made. Thanks were due to Pharr & Mayra of Transocean and John & Allison of ABS for hosting the meeting.

MJRH 4th March 2009


ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Editing / Review Panel. Report on meeting of 10 th -13 th Feb 2009

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A of ND report with ERP responses - After June 2008 ERP meeting

Highlighted - where action is still required Updates made to April 2008 text in June 2008 in redNo changes in Sept/Oct, December 2008 or Feb 2009

A : NOTES AND COMMENTS ON ISO-19905 CLAUSE 12 SECTIONS

Section Notes and comments ERP Action/response

General The equation numbering will be resolved.

Where applicable, we intend to retain references to the source AISC equations, using the latest edition (unless the equation appears only in an older edition).

A.12 Structural Strength

A.12.1 Applicability

A.12.1.1 General

Line 5, grammar, “are include” should be “are including” or “include”

In 3rd para reference is made to the components combined in a typical section. It refers to Table A.12.2-1 as showing examples. The examples shown are typical of chord sections but the diagrams of plastic and elastic stress distribution are clearly more appropriate to building sections where bending is predominantly in one direction. We foresee difficulty in analysing these sections when the neutral axis is likely to be different for each load case considered, - particularly for those elements which are considered as slender.

Deleted "include".

We accept that the approach is difficult. However it needs to be exercised - and Class 3 and 4 results compared to SNAME before we come to a decision.

A.12.1.2 Truss type legs

A.12.1.3 Other leg types

A.12.1.4 Fixation system and/or elevating system

A.12.1.5 Spudcan strength including connection to the leg

A.12.1.6 Overview of the assessment procedure

A.12.2 Classification of member cross-sections

A.12.2.1 Member type



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.2.2 Material yield strength

Fyeff defined here is not used anywhere else in Clause 12 Yes, but we intend that it will be used later with full section properties in place of present use of Fymin with Aeff, Seff, etc..

A.12.2.3 Classification definitions

A.12.2.3.1 Tubular member classification

A.12.2.3.2 Prismatic member classification

Equation numbers are missing.

When defining “Internal Components” a distinction is drawn between “flange internal” and “web internal” components. For the purposes of a jack-up chord this is a confusing distinction since bending may occur about any axis through the section.

It is not clear what procedure should be adopted if not all the elements in a section are of the same slenderness class. (but see also A.12.3.1)

The equation supplied to check for need to consider torsional buckling is missing an equation reference number:

Several typical chords do not pass this test and therefore require checking for Lateral Torsional Buckling (LTB) - see notes for Section A.12.6.2.6.

Considering the usual types of chords, as shown in Table A.12.2-1~3, concepts of base plate, side plate, rack plate, split tubular components and stiffeners, etc., may be better than web and flange when used for classification.

In Table A.12.2-1~3, Fy has not been non-dimensionalised and has no units defined (MPa was assumed in the review though)

In Table A.12.2-1~3, stress distribution pattern drawn as I -shaped beam which is difficult to associate with real chords. Moreover, the true stress reacted across the chord section may not be about the major and minor bending axes assumed in Tables and thus very difficult to be used for the classification.

Classification for class 4 - slender section needs to be counted in this section.

Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.

Noted

See normative 12.2.3 !

Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08..

We agree that a more appropriate check is required.

Noted

Done by PAFA.

Noted

C4 added to tables.

A.12.2.3.3 Reinforced components

The illustration under this section (Figure A.12.2-1: “Definitions for reinforced plate”) shows a reinforcement typical for LeTourneau style chords. This is similar to the example of case 1 and allowed the reinforced plate to be classified as an element which placed the whole section into the “Plastic - Class 1” category.

The present requirement is for one check using an effective plate thickness. Checks of typical chords have shown that quite different results occur if the individual elements are considered. Base plate and reinforcing plate may be susceptible to local plate buckling when separated as discussed in the report.

The engineer given this task used the same procedure to take the two chord plates and two web plates found in the case 3 chord (see Error: Referencesource not found) an classified the resulting reinforced plate as “Plastic - Class 1” even though consideration of the individual web plates would have classified the section as “Non-compact - Class 3”. As this may not be the intention of the Clause 12 authors some additional clarification may be required in this part of the document.

This was the intent

This was the intent.

Text revised to prevent the Hua/Stonor interpretation.



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.3 Section properties

A.12.3.1 General

This clause stipulates “the properties appropriate for the stiffness assessment of prismatic members shall be based on elastic considerations” by which it is understood that the full elastic section properties (without any allowance for local buckling) should be used for all prismatic sections in order to undertake an elastic analysis of the overall structure (leg) to determine the distribution of forces and moments through the structure (see also para 2 of A.12.3.4.1). Is this interpretation correct?

It has been assumed that if any one element in a prismatic section is classified as “non-compact” or “slender” then the whole section must be assigned accordingly under the most slender assessment. Is this correct?

Words added

Yes. See normative 12.2.3 !Words added too.

A.12.3.2 Plastic and compact sections

A.12.3.2.1 Axial properties

A.12.3.2.2 Flexural properties

A.12.3.3 Semi-compact sections

Some clarification of If and Sf would be helpful. Does the term “fully effective section” mean that all the section can be taken to be fully effective or does it mean that only those effective parts of the section which are fully effective should be included? If the later then how are the effective parts to be determined?

The terms “gross section properties” , “gross web area” etc are used in various places (A.12.3.4.1, A.12.6.2.4 etc) - do these have the same meaning as “fully effective section” for the Class 1, 2 and 3 sections - i.e. all except slender?

Wording revised.

Some changes made; (lots) more to do.

A.12.3.4 Slender sections

As noted in A.12.2.3.3 all sections checked were shown to have avoided “slender” categorisation by use of the specified method for dealing with reinforced plates. However if the various plates were considered by themselves then one section (case 3 - see Error: Reference source not found) which has internal plates which would be classified as “slender” would require the section to be assessed under these provisions.

The method used to avoid this classification has been closed.

A.12.3.4.1 General

In Table A.12.3-1, Fy has not been non-dimensionalised and the true stress reacted across the chord section, required for the calculation, may not be about the major and minor bending axes assumed. The iterative calculation and the multi-conditioned formulations will increase the difficulty when these recommendations are used in practice.

Done by PAFA.

Noted.

A.12.3.4.2 Effective areas for compressive loading conditions

See also comments on Table A.12.3-1 given in paragraph A.12.3.4.3 below.

A.12.3.4.3 Effective moduli for flexural loading conditions

This section refers to Table A.12.2.3-1(a), (b) and (c). Assessment of these section will require a knowledge of the loading condition (axial and both axes of bending) before the effective widths can be assigned.

Noted.

A.12.3.5 Cross section properties for assessment

A.12.3.5.1 Tension

A.12.3.5.2 Compression



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.3.5.3 Flexure

A.12.4 Member moment amplification and effective lengths

A.12.5 Strength of Tubular Members

A.12.5.1 Applicability

Equation numbering is not consistent (e.g. one equation is prefixed “A” and the other is not).

For tubulars that do not meet the requirements of equation (A.12.5-1) no advice is offered on where to obtain formulations for strength which result in comparable “levels of reliability”.

Formula A.12.5-2 has not been non-dimensionalised.

Equation (12.5-2) [sic] should presumably be (A.12.5-2)

For tubular members that require checking for hydrostatic loading because they do not meet the requirements of equation (A.12.5-2) must be checked using ISO 19902. Note however that in ISO 19902 the utilisation are computed on the basis of stresses rather than member strengths.

For prismatic members there is no limiting hydrostatic head for which hydrostatic loading can be ignored. Thus by implication all prismatic members will require a check for hydrostatic pressure.

Note that due to the quadratic form of this equation when values of d exceed about 170 the limiting D/t value, for which hydrostatic loading may be ignored, starts to increase.


To be added if suitable references can be identified.

Done by PAFA

Fixed.

Words added.

P10 to consider.We believe the default is not to check as no requirement is given or method specified.

Need to address (PAFA?)Also noted slight differences between tabulated numbers and those from the equation.

A.12.5.2 Tension, compression and bending strength of tubular members

Some formula numbering in this section is missing and re-numbering is needed. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08..

A.12.5.2.1 Axial tensile strength check

A.12.5.2.2 Axial compressive strength check

In ISO 19902, from which these formulae were adapted, the third condition of D/t > 382.2 (or (Fy D) / (2 Cx E t) > 1.911) of the axial compression strength check is not presented.

The limits allow more slender D/t ratios than are permitted by A.12.5.2.5

Eqn c) deleted.

Fixed by above change.

A.12.5.2.3 Column buckling strength

A.12.5.2.4 Local buckling strength

A.12.5.2.5 Bending strength check

The bending strength is given as a function of (FyD/Et) over three ranges. There a step changes at the range limits, i.e. at (FyD/Et) = 0.0517 the two values returned by the two expressions are 1 and 0.9827 (2% difference) and at (FyD/Et) = 0.1034 the two values are 0.8353 and 0.8614 (3% difference). These step changes are relatively small but presumably could be reduced.

The bending strength is not defined for (D/t) > 120.

Due to typo - 2.85 instead of 2.58

D/t > 120 is excluded throughout.

A.12.5.3 Tubular members combined strength checks

A.12.5.3.1 Axial tension and bending strength check



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.5.3.2 Axial compression and bending strength check

A.12.5.3.3 Beam shear strength check

A.12.5.3.4 Torsional shear strength check

A.12.6 Strength of prismatic members

Formula numbering in this section either missing or not consistent with that used previously - this needs to be re-written.


A.12.6.1 General

A.12.6.2 Prismatic members subject to tension, compression, bending or shear

A.12.6.2.1 General

A.12.6.2.2 Axial tensile strength check

Equation numbers missing. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.

A.12.6.2.3 Axial compressive strength check

Equation numbers missing.

The actual yield stress threshold needs to be specified for c (450MPa as being used for this review as suggested in comments in Section A.12.6.2.4).


We know - no change - but add cleaned up plot 5-4 from ND report.

A.12.6.2.4 Column buckling strength

Equation numbers are prefixed by “E” for no clear reason.

A precise definition is needed for the “gross area of section”.


To be fixed.

A.12.6.2.5 Bending strength

A.12.6.2.5.1 General

A.12.6.2.5.2 Class 1 plastic and class 2 compact sections

Equation numbers are missing. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.

A.12.6.2.5.3 Class 3 semi-compact sections

The first equation number is prefixed by “A-F” for no clear reason but thereafter equation numbers are missing.

Mp has not been defined anywhere (assumed = Mb in Section A.12.6.2.5.2)

Noted.

Fixed.

A.12.6.2.5.4 Class 4 slender sections

Equation number missing. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.6.2.6 Lateral torsional buckling strength check

Equation numbers missing.

The reference supplied for Lr is AISC Section F2.2c.

The current edition of “Steel Construction Manual - AISC- 13th Edition” (see Ref Error: Reference source not found contains a section F2.2 in the Specifications and this has an equation (eqn F2-6) which specifies Lr and which is presumably the relevant expression.

Note that the equation provided for Fcr of lateral torsional buckling of doubly symmetric members in sub-paragraph (i) is not referenced by an equation number. It does however include a reference to “[Table A-F1.1(b)]” which is ambiguous as the table supplied in Chapter F of Ref Error: Reference source notfound is designated as “TABLE user Note F1.1 - Selection Table for the Application of Chapter F Sections”. We note that there is a Table A-F1.1 in “Appendix F - Beams and other Flexural Members” of Ref Error: Referencesource not found but which we understand is now superseded.

The expression for Lr for I-shaped beam section in Ref Error: Reference sourcenot found was considered not suitable for chords. The general investigation based on the two chords shows that this LTB check was confusing to use and probably redundant for typical chord types.


Noted.

Yes.

The present equation reference is that used by SNAME to an old edition of AISC LRFD.

P10 to consider - Should we go to Ref 4?

A.12.6.2.7 Bending strength check

Equation numbers are missing. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.

A.12.6.3 Prismatic members combined strength checks

Formula numbering in this section needs to be re- written. Yes - fixed MJRH Jan08.

A.12.6.3.1 General

A.12.6.3.2 Interaction equation approach

Equation numbering is missing in some cases and there are some equation numbers prefixed by “H” for no clear reason.

Pu/aPp > 0.2 is considered to be aPu/Pp compared to SNAME 5-5A.

Mry, Muay, and Muey are considered wrong positioned.

c = partial resistance factor …is considered to be a = c partial resistance factor


Yes.

Yes; Mua should be Mue and Mue should be Mr

Yes.

A.12.6.3.3 The interaction surface approach

Equation numbers are missing.

Not reviewed in this report


Noted.

A.12.6.3.4 Beam shear

Equation numbers are incomplete and the prefix “A” is not understood.

Fy, or Fymin ?


P10 to consider. MJRH thinks Fymin - (could perhaps go higher if detailed analysis used)

A.12.6.3.5 Torsional shear

Fy, or Fymin ? P10 to consider. MJRH thinks Fymin - (could perhaps go higher if detailed analysis used).



ATTACHMENT 1

A.12.7 Assessment of member joints

(no detail provided and no comments offered) Please read the Normative.


ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Editing / Review Panel. Report on meeting of 10 th -13 th Feb 2009 ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Summary of 19905-1 << in-text >> Action Items - After December ERP meeting

Updates since April 2008 ( in June, September/October, December 2008 & February 2009) in red; Items registered as compete in December now deleted

Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?1 General edit to standardise wording

New topics identified in the intereim - see ERP minutes

ERP June 2008 In part - to review again later

2 Finalise references ERP June 2008 c/f to later

3.105 Definition of "undrained shear strength" ERP FEB 2009 DoneNote to be clarified

Many Standardise on F=action, Q=capacity All Panels & ERP

In hand?? P4

4.x Symbol lists to be compiled ERP?

Fig 5.2.1 Need to check Refs An ERP member in ???? 2009

5.3 a) ERP Feb 2009: to be re-visited

8.8.1.3 ERP Feb 2009: JJS to draft some additional text re 2-step factors, etc

8.8 / A.8.8 Ensure that Informative clauses align with Normative clauses

PLT / P3 (ERP?) ????

9.3.3 Add brief précis of the Informative (when re-written by Dean & Overy) with some Shalls

PW / P4 AWAITED

9.3.6 Resolve BF1, BF2 and ensure compatible with Preload UC formula in A.9.3.6.2

9.4.7 Add text re spudcan-pipeline, etc. interaction

PW / P4

10.3 Add new table re earthquake methods DS / P5

10.5.5 Text updated by ERP - P3 to check PLT / P3 ????

10.7 / A.10.7

P5 to provide criteria that eliminates the need to do the "initial screening level check in most cases

DS / P5 Mostly done, number needs to be checked.

13.1 Ensure this note is up-to-date when we go to press

ERP



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?12 (from

comment in 8.3.5)

Include statement re. Chord properties applicable to the different inputs to acceptance checks

JJS / P10 ????

A.6.4.2.1 Update x-refs ERP?

A.6.4.2.3 consider adding a statement that 0.43, 0.76 and 0.07 can be used when these bounds are exceeded for determining the lower bound of kappa

MJRH / ERP

ERP thinks that 0.86 should be replaced by Kappa * a correction factor to account for the underprediction of the OTM>

A.6.4.2.4 Check new wording MJRH/RVA DONE ERP Feb 09 + input from

Andrea/ERP

A.6.4.2.6 ERP Dec 2008: What is required when WD < 25m?

OM / P1-2

A.6.4.2.7 Check text expanded by ERP Dec 2008 OM / P1-2

A.6.4.3 ERP Dec 2008: How to handle non-co-linear data?

OM / P1-2

A.6.4.3 ERP Dec 2008: Recommend revised default profileChange Fig if profile changed

OM / P1-2

A.7.3.2.1 ERP Feb 2009: Is the above in accordance with common practice? If not, please permit common practice

OM / P1-2

ERP Feb 2009: This needs a simple diagram. The present text is open to many interpretations.

OM / P1-2

A.7.3.2.5 Update marine growth guidance OM / P1-2 DONE ERP Feb 09

A.7.3.3.1 ERP Feb 2009: Request that P 1/2 to review this prior to OTC May 2009. Homework required!!!! Big issue: How does one use Ta in stochastic (see 19901-1 A.8.3 re standing waves, etc.

OM / P1-2

A.7.3.3.3.1 ERP Feb 2009:Include the 19901-1 curves here - MJRH to obtain from David Galbraith - and re-word accordingly

MJRH/ERP

A.7.3.3.3.2 ERP Feb 2009: Do we need statements about stretching for higher order stochastic kinematic models

OM / P1-2



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?Table

A.7.3-4ERP Feb 2009 to P1-2: Please explain this thought (re dispersion) in words that those who have not read Sarpkaya can understand

OM / P1-2

ERP to P1-2 Feb 2009: Re check criteria: What should we use in place of first and last conditions for higher order waves?

OM / P1-2

A.7.3.3.4 ERP Feb 2009 to P1-2: Is it correct that this (face width) is independent of flow direction?

OM / P1-2

A.8.5 Are the figures now complete & correct? PLT / P3 ?Need to fix typo's etc

A.8.5-3b Figures need MORE fixing PLT / P3 DONE - but further updates needed

A.8.7 ERP Feb 2009 P5 inputs required DS / P5

A.8.8.3 ERP Feb 2009 : Following was subject to major re-write. P3 to check>

PLT/P3

A.9 / A.9.3.2.2.4

Differentiate between capacity after preload and capacity after infill. Bring all text on backflow and infill to A.9.3.2.2.4

PW / P4 In hand with ERP input.

A.9 & more Sort usage of F and Q PW / P4 In hand. ???

A.9.3.1.1 Update Figure ERP?

A.9.3.2.1 Respond to ERP request for introductory text

PW / P4

Figure A.9.3-3

Update PW/P4ERP?

A.9.3.2.2.4 Check ERP updates PW / P4

A.9.3.2.2.5 Are other symbols needed here? PW / P4

A.9.3.2.3 Stick to 19901-4 terminology?No - so Change all Cu to Su

ERP / MJRH

A.9.3.2.3 Decide which figure to use. PW / P4 Done - but where is it?

A.9.3.2.4A.9.3.2.7

Resolve title / sort out conflict with A.9.3.2.7

PW / P4

A.9.3.3.1 Consider ERP suggestion regarding an introduction.

PW / P4 ???

A.9.3.3.2.2 Swap of F and Q (action already on Houlsby & Cassidy)

PW / P4 "In hand", but first attempt done on wrong version.



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?A.9.3.3.2.2 Consider squaring the equation (to make

it more easily comparable to SAGE's) OR re-write the clause so that it uses SAGE's equation from A.9.3.3.2.3 (assuming this is accepted).

PW / P4

A.9.3.3.2.2 Use of Fv and Vlo in 2 equations PW / P4 ???

A.9.3.3.2.2 Move text that applies to more than just shallow embedment.

Provide provenance of sand capacities??

PW / P4

A.9.3.3.3 What should Vlo be replaced by? PW / P4 ???

A.9.3.3.3 New approach to f1, f2? PW / P4 ???

A.9.3.4.1 Are first loading values same as small stain? Use consistent wording.

PW / P4

Resolve queries re cyclic degradation & also what to do when OCR < 4.

PW / P4 ???

A.9.3.4.2.1 Agree and handle solution to providing further guidance. Not sure P4's suggestion is the most appropriate first step.

PW / P4PLT / P3

Expand Note 1 JT / PW / P4

A.9.3.4.5 Find or draft a suitable figure. PW / P4

A.9.3.6.2 Is the equation correct? Can it be generalised?

PW / P4 YES

A.9.3.6.2 The format for the example foundation check above needs to resolved for general application

PW / P4

A.9.3.6.2 RE-write justification for 0.1, 0.03, etc so it is logical.

PW / P4

A.9.3.6.2 Check wrt use of Vlo PW / P4

A.9.3.6.4 Find or draft a suitable figure. PW / P4

A.9.4.2 Check for later references PW / P4

A.9.4.7 Text required PW / P4

A.9.4.8 Review proposed ERP sdimplification PW / P4

A.10.4.3.3 Panel 3 would like to see some better documentation that this SDOF/hysteretic damping method is robust before full inclusion >.

PLT / P4

A.10.4.3.4 Text to be offered by Karthi



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?A.10.4.4 Add reference to figure A.10.4-2 and

update it.PLT / P3

A.10.4.4.1 Address comments from NL PLT / P3

A.10.4.4.2 Need text from P5 PLT / DS

A.10.5.2.2.1 Re-do figure MJRH

A.10.5.3.1 ERP Feb 2009: JJS intends to offer a re-wording or Note

JJS

A.10.7.1 P5 input required DS / P5

A.10.8 (There) should there be guidance? PLT / P4

A.11.3.1.3 Need guidance on range of foundation stiffness from P4.

GK / PW / P4

A.12 Address general issues from ERP JJS / P10

A.12 See also comments from Clause 12 Initial benchmarking report

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.2.3.1 Finalise check for split tubes JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.2.3.2 Do we need to add clause on checks for local loading?

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.2.3.2 LTB check appears far too conservative for a closed section. MJRH suggestion: Perhaps retain present check for open sections and less conservative check for closed?

Resolve the Fy to use

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.2.3.3 Is this robust for any combination of thickness ?? Why tcheck not teff

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.1 add a bit stating that the plastic section properties can be calculated properly, but some simplifications are OK

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.1 Changes re Class 3? JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.2.1 Rewrite in terms of strength JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.2.1Note 2

Given above re-write, can be deleted. JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.2.2 Rewrite in terms of strength JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.2.2Last para

Given above re-write, can be deleted. JJS / P10 (PAFA?)



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?A.12.3.3 Check query re definitions

Address << >> re Class 3 sections

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.3.5.3 Confirm we can delete the text re Sy Sz JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.4 Add definitions of L in both y and z

Address other queries

JJS / P10 (PAFA?)

A.12.5.1 Resolve appropriate D/t limit JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.5.1 Provide references for D/t > than limit JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.5.1 Address tubes with stiffened cut-outs JJS / P10 / PAFA

Table A.12.5-1

1) numbers in table do not quite match the equation - which is right?2) The formula gives D/t that increase when d > 170

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.5.2.4 Consider moving above column buckling so Pyc is already defined

Confirm ERP deletion of Eqn c)

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.1 Add comments re AISC LRFD & 13th

Consider wording re hydrostatic loading on prismatics

Consider adding version of ?SNAME? Fig 8.1

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.2.3 JJS May 2007: Either need an L/r limit for this part, or get a smooth transition between 12.6.2.3 and 12.6.2.4. To be resolved by ERP later. See also discussion in A.12.3.3

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.2.3 Agree on gamma DRL/ PAFA

A.12.6.2.4 ? use Ac from 12.3.5.1earlier JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.2.4 Check applicability to all steel grades DRL

A.12.6.2.4 Update to reflect decision of gammas JJS / P10

A.12.6.2.4 Checks on 13th Edn formulae & applicability to all grades of steel

DRL

A.12.6.2.4 Agree on text re SSRC curves, etc JJS / P10 / PAFA



Clause Topic / Action Responsible Done?A.12.6.2.4 Address use of L for tubulars &

prismaticsJJS / P10 /

PAFA

A.12.6.2.5.3 Agree formulations for p and r

Use Sf or Se?

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.2.6 Resolve what is needed re detailed LTB check

Resolve format

Resolve query re Lc

Many other queries !

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.3.2 Confirm changes to subscripts to M (twice)

Agree limits on lower strength steel yield values

JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.3.4 What about inclined plates? JJS / P10 / PAFA

A.12.6.3.5 Confirm change of Fy -> Fymin JJS / P10 / PAFA

B Confirm AISC resistance factors JJS / P10 / PAFA

C Needs some introductory text and link to Normative or Informative A

PLT / P3

D Needs major tidy-up and linking to Normative or Informative A

PW / P4

D.9.3.2.7.4 P4: Please review the accuracy of the language below; we are not sure we fully understand the method. Some edits have already been made by ERP Jan 2008

PW / P4



WG1 Remit

Resolution 231 (Delft, 2006)SC 7 thanks Canada for its offer, subject to funding, to Convene SC 7/WG 1 and reconstitute it to prepare an update of ISO 19900 that reflects progress on the publication of the ISO 19900 series of standards. The scope of work should include:

Review the need for the reference to ISO 2394 to be dated; Review of SC 7/WG 3 work in converting ISO 13819-1 to ISO 19900; Review of ISO 19900 series of standards for Definitions; Review of ISO 19900 series of standards for general requirements on Exposure Levels; Review general requirements of selected national codes, regulations, etc; Identify commonalities and material that can be moved to or implemented in ISO 19900; Consider the introduction of the ALARP concept in the interpretation of risk levels.

SC 7 requests that Canada prepare a New Work Item encompassing the above and submit it to SC 7 for consideration

Extracts from WG1 MoM








Documents

Report of WG7 Review Panel Meeting of 9th November …€¦ · Web viewDave had sent his write-up regarding AISC's reversion from Lambda to KL/r, etc. to John. John will now circulate