2017 Jackup Conference
Nov 7, 2017 News Archive
I was fortunate to attend this year’s 2017 International Conference: The Jack-Up Platform at City, University of London (or, as I refer to it The International Jackup Conference, noting that at 3DENT we write jackup, whereas may others use the hyphenated version). In this article, I give a quick overview and list some of the papers I most relate to before closing with a very brief overview of one of the two papers we presented at the conference.
As expected, given current industry conditions, attendance was down a bit from previous years (91 attendants, including personnel from the organizers – City, University of London and DNVGL Noble Denton). I am happy to say that the quality of the papers was good, as always. One very pleasant surprise was the renovated auditorium where the presentations took place and the lobby area where we had our coffee (‘er Tea) breaks – they were quite nice spaces.
A total of 21 papers were presented during the 2-day conference. As I see it, the breakdown of the papers can be thought of as being in 3 more-or-less equal parts (i.e., ~ 6-8 papers on each topic): GoL, Soils and Other. As is always the case, I have my favorites. One thing I found particularly effective, was a video demonstration by Jim Brekke to the fallacy of relying on “Level indicators” that use a bubble in a tube of fluid (see Picture below). While these indicators are valid for static conditions, they are affected by inertia. As such, the apparent pitch/roll angles the bubbles show often-times are nowhere close to reality since they capture the effects of horizontal accelerations, not just actual inclinations.
In no particular order, the table below presents 10 of the papers I relate to the most (other than the two papers we presented, of course).
One of the papers 3DENT presented at the conference looks into earthquake-induced effects on the cantilever beams of drilling jackups, and poses the following question: When doing an earthquake assessment of a drilling jackup, is it OK to follow on the approach used for an elevated SSA and focus on the performance of the legs and holding system, expecting that everything else is OK? Or, is there a possibility that for the right cantilever conditions, either the push-up or hold-down reactions; or the derrick accelerations would reach values beyond what they were designed for?
For copies of our papers or the presentations (with animations), please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org