bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Foundation Modeling and Assessment in the New ISO Standard 19905-1
Authors: Wong Patrick C. , Templeton Jack , Purwana Okky Ahmad , Hugo Hofstede , Cassidy Mark Jason , Hossain Muhammad Shazzad , Martin Chris 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
This paper presents the new foundation assessment provisions in ISO 19905-1. The paper discusses the improvements to spudcan penetration analysis achievedby the refinement of bearing capacity formulations and by adoption of afundamentally new approach to backflow prediction which accounts for thechanges in soil flow regime and the evolving pattern of soil deformation in thevicinity of the spudcan. It also addresses the upgrades made to the SNAME 5-5Aapproach to foundation capacity and foundation stiffness reduction in sand andclay as well as the means used to better account for the effects of deepspudcan penetrations in clay. The change to, and basis for, the use of grossfoundation capacity in some of the calculations are also discussed. Finally, the paper presents the new foundation acceptance checks framework consequent tothe change from available capacity/reaction concept in SNAME 5-5A to grosscapacity/reaction approach in ISO 19905-1.
At the time of this paper submission, it was expected that ISO 19905-1 would beisssued prior to the presentation of the paper at the 2012 Offshore TechnologyConference. Upon the issue of this standard the new foundation assessmentprovisions described in this paper will be required for jack-up site-specificassessments worldwide.

Introduction and Background
The jack-up geotechnical assessment approach in ISO 19905-1 is the result ofthe concerted effort of Panel 4 under the auspices of ISO TC67/SC7/WG7. Thedevelopment of the latest assessment approach by Panel 4, made up ofexperienced geotechnical practitioners in the industry and well-respectedresearchers in academia, spanned almost two decades. Using SNAME TR5-5ARevision 2 as the starting point, the geotechnical assessment approach wasrevised and upgraded based on findings from industry studies and academicresearch projects in understanding spudcan foundation behavior over theyears.
The prior and existing recommended practices for assessment of jack-upfoundations and their performance under storm loading conditions stemmed fromindustry studies in the 1980s and early 1990s. Those recommendations weresubstantially conservative by intention, and they were limited by the researchof the time. As a result they were reliable but, in many cases, overlyrestrictive for jack-up location approvals. Not only are the new foundationassessment requirements of ISO 19905-1 better grounded in current research, they are less restrictive and more realistic while remaining reliablyconservative. This paper provides an overview of five main geotechnical areasin the geotechnical assessment approach, namely:Site investigation requirementsSpudcan penetration and foundation bearing capacitySpudcan foundation response under combined load during stormSpecial spudcan foundation considerations (fatigue, earthquake)Spudcan foundation acceptance criteria
Reliability and Integrity Assurance of Subsea Technology using ASCE
Authors: Strutt John Edward , Emmet Luke , Cleland George 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
Aggressive schedules, high standards for integrated system performance andtight budgets increase the pressure on field development projects or technologydevelopment projects to deliver solutions with acceptable reliability andintegrity. In addition, the industry and government are challenged to respondadequately to the inherent risks to system integrity introduced by supply-chaincomplexity; operators, regulators and system integrators, suppliers both largeand small all need to interact seamlessly.
For subsea systems, the achievement of a high level of reliability andintegrity are key requirements and are of particular significance for equipmentwhere failure during operation has the potential to cause large adverse safetyor environmental consequences e.g. drilling operations (subsea BOP system) andproduction (HIPPS). Industry practices such as API RP 17N which recommends thesetting of goals and requirements, preparation of plans and the provision ofrisk and reliability assurances on reliability and integrity critical equipmentare gaining increasing support from Operators, Contractors, andRegulators.
A key question is how hardware, people and processes can be developed tosupport current industry programs and standards to support the widely felt needfor greater reliability and integrity assurance in the subsea industry. Anessential element of this is managing the complex information base supportingthis. The Assurance and Safety Case Environment (ASCE) system is a softwaresystem designed explicitly for this purpose. It is in widespread use in otherdomains such as defense, air traffic control, and nuclear. In this paper wedescribe the ASCE tool and its potential application in subsea projects, operations and drilling to support Operators, Drilling Contractors, and OEMsuppliers in provision of assurances and compliance with Government, Industryor Regulatory requirements.

Introduction
The global demand for hydrocarbons continues to increase year on year and withmost of the easily accessible land based reservoirs depleting, the search forhydrocarbons over the past 15 years, has shifted offshore, fuelling the growthof a global subsea industry. Many current and future hydrocarbon resources areto be found offshore and increasingly in deep water in environmentally andpolitically sensitive areas. In such areas any failure which results in loss ofcontainment or loss of well control is highly significant.
Insights into Using the 22nd Edition of API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design
Authors: Digre Kris A. , Zwerneman Farrel 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
This paper provides insights and interpretations regarding the use of API RP2A-WSD 22nd Edition. In 2010, OTC paper #20837 discussed modifications beingmade to and reasons behind the changes to API 2A-WSD in conjunction with othernew API standards, 2MET, 2EQ, 2SIM and 2GEO and the elimination of APIBulletins 2INT-MET, 2INT-DG and 2INT-EX. In this paper, emphasis is placed onuse of the 22nd Edition in combination with the other new standards.

General
API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition was balloted in 2011 and approved by 96% of thevotes cast. There were over 339 individual comments (the vast majorityeditorial) with some 21 still in final resolution by API TG13 at the time thispaper was written. This has resulted in the API RP 2A-WSD 22nd Edition finaltable of contents to include the following (with reference to the 21st EditionSection in parentheses):Section 1: ScopeSection 2: Normative ReferencesSection 3: Terms, Definitions and AcronymsSection 4: Planning (21st Edition Section 1)Section 5: Design Criteria and Procedures (21st Edition Section 2)Section 6: Structural Steel Design (21st Edition Section 3)Section 7: Strength of Tubular Joints (21st Edition Section 4)Section 8: Fatigue (21st Edition Section 5)Section 9: Foundation Design (21st Edition Section 6)Section 10: Other Structural Components and Systems (21st Edition Section7)Section 11: Material (21st Edition Section 8)Section 12: Drawings and Specifications (21st Edition Section 9)Section 13: Welding (21st Edition Section 10)Section 14: Fabrication (21st Edition Section 11)Section 15: Installation (21st Edition Section 12)Section 16: Inspection (21st Edition Section 13)Section 17: Accidental Loading (21st Edition Section 18)Section 18: Reuse (21st Edition Section 15)Section 19: Minimum and Special Structures (21st Edition Section 16)Annex A (Informative): API 2A-WSD 21st Edition vs. 22nd EditionCross-referenceAnnex B (Informative): CommentaryBibliography
Changes from OTC paper #20837 and specific topics of importance in using thenew API Standards are discussed below.
15K plus, The Limits of Established Pressure Vessel Design Methods
Authors: McKie Nigel , Skeels Brian , Williams Michael R. , Marotta Egidio , Peters Dan 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
The majority of oilfield pressure containing Wellhead and Tree equipment hasbeen designed with guidance from API 6A and 17D. However, their design methodsare not the most appropriate for High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT)applications. This paper discusses the limitations of established PressureVessel design methods and presents more suitable methods for HPHT.
Unfortunately, these methods are not readily intuitive or straightforward. Sothis paper also addresses the challenges currently being faced by designers ofHPHT oilfield equipment. Recent design evaluations of HPHT equipment haverevealed significantly different (and sometimes unexpected) results from thevarious design and analysis methods that are available. Several industrystandard design and analysis methods are discussed and compared, using simpleHPHT equipment geometries to illustrate the authors' findings. Although work isstill in process, this paper shares some significant findings that should berecognized and understood by HPHT equipment designers in order to ensure thattheir design methods are appropriate for the application. In conclusion, on thebasis of these findings the authors determined that many of the established andcommonly used oilfield methods of Pressure Vessel design are not the mostappropriate for HPHT applications. They are not accurate for thick-walledcomponents and their use is open to interpretation. Thus, it is recommendedthat designers carefully review and understand their design methods to ensurethat they are accurately predicting the stresses, deflections and fatigue lifeof the equipment under development.

Introduction
As exploration for oil and gas has moved into deeper, hotter and higherpressure zones, the design and stress analysis for oilfield equipment becomesever more critical and challenging. The higher pressures, and therefore thickerwall sections, mean the thin-wall assumptions of the past are no longer valid. Historically, designers could overdesign the equipment to provide a robustproduct with liberal Design Margins. However, for the newer HPHT oilfieldequipment, there is literally no room for overdesigned equipment and with thefailure mode shifting towards fatigue and fast fracture, very accurate andrealistic stress analysis and design methods are essential to achieve safe, reliable and cost effective equipment designs.
Another aspect critical to HPHT design are the relative movement betweencomponents and stress relaxation phenomenon for seals and their sealinglocations. But this subject is beyond the scope of this paper, focusing insteadon pressure vessel design requirements.
Electric Heating of Pipelines and Large Export Flowlines &gt; 30" and more than 100 km
Authors: Heggdal Ole , Pedersen Atle , Lervik Jens Kristian , Bjerknes Ole-Johan 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
Direct electric heating (DEH) of long flowlines and large export pipelinesprovides many advantages compared to alternative methods. DEH has been appliedactively in the past 10 years to prevent hydrate formation and is now breakingnew ground that was not previously considered feasible. By using qualifiedtechnology and existing design models, longer and larger pipelines can beheated intermittently or continuously.
Electric heating of pipelines is attractive for long step outs greater than 100km, as DEH running costs are considerably reduced compared to the use ofchemicals. The technology is unique and commercially and technicallyattractive. It allows for the use of DEH for both infield flowlines and exportpipelines of 30" and above. An increased number of DEH systems have beenevaluated for oil and gas field project developments on continental shelvesaround the world, and the extension of this new technology will give higherflexibility in operation of the fields during planned or unplanned shut downs. Material aging and other failure mechanisms caused by high temperatures andwater pressure are also of great importance. Accuracy in design and analysis aswell as industry experience are important in solving project specific hydrateor wax issues in long DEH systems.
The system is easy to install and operate and has low CAPEX and OPEX costs. Anew cable design and installation method has improved the robustness of theoverall system and makes the system more compatible with large and heavy pipeson the seabed. New condition monitoring also secures optimal heat input andimproves service-life.
Complete heating systems for large export pipelines, with power supply fromshore, are available within the industry.

Abbreviations
DEH - direct electrical heating.
DEHC - direct electrical heating cable (cable piggybacked to thepipeline).
DEHS - direct electrical heating system.
CWC - concrete weight coating.
CTZ - current transfer zone.
Analysis of Salt Creep and Well Casing Damage in High Pressure and High Temperature Environments
Authors: Lao Khang , Bruno Michael S. , Serajian Vahid 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
Drilling and completing wells through deep thick salt formations is technicallychallenging and costly. Salt material flows over time whenever a stressdifference, or shear stress, is induced. The rate of deformation primarilydepends on the stress difference, and on the temperature. Both of these factorsincrease with increasing depth, often leading to severe loading and deformationof wells, and sometimes severe damage and loss of functionality. Geomechanicalanalysis can be applied to estimate such loading, to estimate damage risks, andto optimize well designs for these challenging conditions. We describe herein aprocess to evaluate salt creep and casing damage risk for high pressure andhigh temperature conditions typically encountered in deep salt formations. Because well costs often exceed 50 million dollars each, appropriate welldesign and risk analysis, supported by geomechanical modeling of salt andcasing behavior, is critical to project economics.
To simulate the visco-elasto-plastic behavior of salt, we apply thetime-dependent constitutive framework available in FLAC3D. The availableformulation is modified by Terralog to account for damage accumulation duringprimary loading, associated strength degradation, compaction-dilationtransition based on the Drucker-Prager yield criterion, and loading-unloadingresponse.
We provide an illustrative example for a deepwater Gulf of Mexico field, inwhich a multi-string casing-in-casing design was considered to resist long-termcreep. Laboratory creep data was used to calibrate the constitutive model, which was then applied to a near wellbore scale geomechanical model thatincluded the casing strings, cement, mud pressure, and 10ft of surroundingsalt. The simulation results indicate that the for the design configurationsconsidered, the minimum time for salt to contact the outer casing was on theorder of 2 years for the most severe scenarios (lowest annulus pressure), andmore than 20 years for the strongest configurations. Geomechanical analysis ofthis type provides a relatively low cost approach to quantify casing damagerisks and to optimize casing designs for completions in high stress and hightemperature environments.

Introduction
Increasing exploration and production from deep regions around the worldrequire drilling through and completing wells in thick salt formations, leadingto very high well costs. Appropriate designs are required to withstand creepinduced loads during drilling and after completion. The introduction of awellbore in a salt formation changes the existing local stress field, inducinga stress difference between the borehole and surrounding salt, and resultingtime-dependent (creep) loading on well casings. Production of hot fluids fromsubsalt formations adds additional thermal strains to the wellbore andthermally induced creep acceleration.
Global Energy Outlook: Changing Patterns
Authors: Hassan Gamal A. , Hashmi Ahmed , Al Zanki Farouk , de Azevedo Jose Gabrielli , de Castro Sergio Martinez , Eyton David , Bichsel Matthias , Moshiri Ali , Mathieson Derek 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
It is now widely recognized that the world has sufficient oil and gas resourcesto satisfy future demand. However, there are also acknowledged uncertainties inthe provision of this supply to meet future energy needs as investors faceseveral risks, in an industry with long lead times and long pay-back periods. The ongoing impacts of financial turmoil and economic downturn, the changingstructure of world energy markets, and developments in policies andtechnologies all directly affect energy supply and demand.
In addition, the emergence of oil as an asset class has transformed the oilmarket, which is now far more exposed to the broader financial markets. As aresult, the oil market has experienced greater volatility and the price ofcrude has been impacted by a growing number of factors that are not directlyrelated to supply and demand fundamentals.
This panel will debate key issues affecting today's fast-changing global energyindustry. It will examine the challenges and opportunities facing the petroleumsector, and seek to identify potential 'game-changers' in technologies andpublic policy.
The panle will address:

Global trends
– What are the global trends that will drive the world's economies and energydemand over the next 20-30 years? – What structural shifts have taken place in energy demand (global as well asregional) and energy supply patterns over the past few years?

Role of Oil and Gas
– How do oil and gas investments interact with developments in the worldeconomy - lessons learned from the recent economic and financial crises and theimpact of the global business cycles? – What is the role of oil and gas in meeting future energy demand?

Role of Technology
– What are the most promising technology innovations on the horizon for the oiland gas industry? – What are the most disruptive technology innovations that could affect futuredemand for oil and gas? What is their time frame?

Role of Policy
– What are the examples where policy has been successful or unsuccessful? Whatcan we learn from these examples?
Deepwater Cementing Standards: Applicability and Regulatory Impact of Best Practices
Authors: Mueller Dan T. 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
Cementing subject matter experts serving the API Task Group on RP 65, APISubcommittee 10 on Well Cements and its international counterpart, ISOTC67/SC3/WG2, have worked collaboratively for over a decade to produce a seriesof best practices related to various elements of deepwater well construction. The relevant standards produced by the organizations include:API RP 65: Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells(2002)API RP 65-2 (First Edition): Isolating Potential Flow Zones during WellConstruction (2010)
API RP 65-2 (First Edition) was superseded in December, 2010 by:API Standard 65-2 (Second Edition): Isolating Potential Flow Zones duringWell Construction (2010)API RP 10B-3 (ISO 10426-3): Testing of Deepwater Cement Formulations(2003)API RP 10B-4 (ISO 10426-4): Atmospheric Preparation and Testing of FoamedCement Slurries (2004)
As a part of the industry and regulatory response tothe Deepwater Horizon disaster, a newfound focus is being placed on the design, testing and placement of cement slurries used in deepwater wells. This paperwill outline the areas of applicability, revision status and regulatory impactof the standards and recommended practices which are now guiding the wellcementing industry in the post-Macondo era.
Incorporation of Multi-Member Substructure Capabilities in FAST for Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbines
Authors: Song Huimin , Robertson Amy , Jonkman Jason , Sewell DeAnna 
Published: April 2012

Abstract
The Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures, and Turbulence (FAST) code, developed bythe National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), is an aero-hydro-servo-elastictool widely used for analyzing onshore and offshore wind turbines. This paperdiscusses recent modifications made to FAST to enable the examination ofoffshore wind turbines with fixed-bottom, multi-member support structures(which are commonly used in transitional-depth waters).
This paper addresses the methods used for incorporating the hydrostatic andhydrodynamic loading on multimember structures in FAST through its hydronamicloading module, HydroDyn. Modeling of the hydrodynamic loads was accomplishedthrough the incorporation of Morison and buoyancy loads on the supportstructures. Issues addressed include how to model loads at the joints ofintersecting members and on tapered and tilted members of the supportstructure.
Three example structures are modeled to test and verify the solutions generatedby the modifications to HydroDyn, including a monopile, tripod, and jacketstructure. Verification is achieved through comparison of the results to acomputational fluid dynamics (CFD)-derived solution using the commercialsoftware tool STAR-CCM+.

Introduction
Interest is growing in offshore wind turbines. Many offshore-wind-turbinesupport structures are being developed by modifying onshore wind turbinefoundations, or oil and gas (O&G) industry structures. The offshore windturbine support structures can be classified in three categories according tothe water depth, as shown in Figure 1. In shallow water, where the water depthis less than 30 meters, monopiles and gravity bases that extend to the seafloor are used. In transitional depth, where the water depth is between 30 and60 meters, new technologies are being created or adapted from the O&Gindustry, including jacket and multi-pile structures, which also extend to thesea floor. When the water depth is greater than 60 meters, a rigid structurefixed to the sea floor is no longer economical, and floating platforms may berequired. This paper is focused on analyzing the support structures intransitional water depths.
The Development and Maintenance of an "Evergreen" Spill Response Capability in the Gulf of Mexico
Authors: Hurzeler Kurt Lee , Scheuermann Roger 
Published: April 2012

During the Macondo incident in 2011, over the course of 135 days BPmobilized the largest number of boats, planes, ROVs, specialized vessels, equipment and personnel ever used in a Gulf of Mexico emergency response. Therequirements to capture as much discharge as possible while minimizing theeffect of oil and other chemicals in the environment, in deep water withouttraditional well control options had stretched the technologies andcapabilities of the global industry. The methods applied, the equipment andpersonnel required, the procedures to be followed and the contingencies to bekept on hand were developed, applied and refined over the course of the Macondoresponse. In late June 2010 an industry task force was formed to begin activelyreviewing response options. As the Macondo well came under control in August2010, discussions of future response requirements were taking place within theindustry.
Two very different responses to the Macondo experience arose in the aftermath. On one hand, four large multinational companies committed substantial financialand personnel resources to a clear response based on Macondo. The proposedresponse system was defined, delivery dates were given and $1 billion USD wascommitted to the effort. The announcement was intended to reassure both thepublic and regulatory bodies that there would be a fix for any similar futureDeepwater Horizon Disaster. This group of four companies funded the formationof an LLC called the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC).