PO.

182

AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE ON FOUNDATION DESIGN FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND SECTOR

L. Kirwan, Dr. P. Doherty & Dr. K. Gavin
lisa.kirwan@ucdconnect.ie, paul.doherty@ucd.ie

University College Dublin

Abstract

The offshore wind industry has traditionally relied on foundation and support structures that were developed for the oil and gas
sector. These foundations are typically designed using empirical procedures that do not consider the unique aspects of wind turbine
foundations. As wind farms move into deeper water and more complex ground conditions, efficient foundation design will become
increasingly more important. This is evident by the number of emerging foundation concepts currently being introduced to the
market, such as twisted jacket structures, suction buckets and suction tripods. However, regardless of the foundation type chosen
there is still a necessity for efficient and accurate designs that provide cost savings to industry. This paper attempts to capture the
industry-wide opinion regarding the current foundation market by conducting a survey of current wind farm foundation practice. The
opinions of consultants, contractors, developers and researchers are presented through the results of a sector wide survey
conducted in late 2010, which was distributed to several hundred targeted recipients. Over 50 responses were obtained from
countries across the globe, containing information about gravity bases, monopiles and jacket support structures. One of the most
interesting trends to emerge from this survey was the level of conservatism assigned by industry to the currently available foundation
design procedures, with the majority of designers feeling that common analysis tools lead to either appropriate or over-designed and
conservative foundations. There was minimal support that existing procedures were unconservative. Possible reasons for the
industry views are discussed, with particular attention given to areas of significant uncertainty in current design practice.

At a first glance of figure 4b, it is clear that the majority of respondents considered all methods of design conservative, with the bearing
capacity method being considered the most conservative of the three. Numerical modelling / FEM and other types of software packages
were considered to be relatively accurate compared to the bearing capacity method. Very few respondents considered any of the methods
to be unconservative.
Figure 5a: Design methods for axially loaded piles
Figure 5b: Opinions of design methods for
axially loaded piles

Objectives
1. To establish the state of current practice What design methods are being used?
2. To establish designers opinions regarding existing design procedures
3. To use the results of the survey to ensure that current research is aligned to industry needs

Offshore Foundations
Picture 1: Suction Caisson

Picture 2: Offshore Pile

Picture 3: Twisted Jacket Structure

Figure 5a shows very clearly that the API method is by far the most commonly used method. The next most popular method is
numerical modelling / FEM. It is interesting to note that the newer methods such as IC-05 and UWA-05 are not being used much
despite the fact that they have been proven to be more accurate to the API method for offshore axially loaded wind turbine foundation
design. (Igoe, 2009)
The vast majority of methods for designing axially loaded piles were considered mostly accurate and conservative (Figure 7). The most
surprising trend to emerge from this graph was that the IC-05 method was considered unconservative by nearly 20% of respondents
who used it. This may reflect industries lack of confidence in the newer CPT based methods.
Figure 6a: Design methods for laterally loaded piles

Figure 6b: Opinions of methods for laterally loaded piles

As new foundation technologies emerge, are current design methods sufficient?

Methods
Figure 1: Survey Layout Flowchart

The survey was distributed to a database of

approximately 500 contacts. This database comprised
researchers, developers, consultants and contractors.
The recipients were chosen based on their direct
involvement in the offshore wind sector, primarily in a
direct geotechnical role, and were selected from a
combination of internet searches and discussions with
people in industry.
In total there have been 70 respondents to the survey.
The survey showed a diverse geographical spread, with
responses attained from every continent. However, a
more significant proportion of the results were attained
from European countries, such as Denmark, where there
is a higher reliance on offshore wind.

Figure 6a shows that once again the API code (Traditional API/DNV p-y curves) is the most commonly used method. Also, similar to
the axially loaded piles, numerical modelling / FEM is the second most popular method.
Again, like the previous types of foundations, respondents found the majority of design methods available for laterally loaded piles to
be accurate (Figure 6b). A few respondents found the traditional API/DNV p-y curves to be unconservative but overall the consensus
is that the methods are satisfactory.

Figure 7: Greatest difficulty for the future

Figure 2: Types of respondents to the survey

Results
Figure 3: Preferred foundation types for different water depths

Figure 4a: Design methods for

gravity based foundations

From figure 3 it can be seen that for water depths <10m,

gravity foundations are the preferred type of foundation.
For water depths between 10 and 20m, monopile
foundations are the most popular. At 20 30m industry
appears split between tripod and monopile foundations.
For 30 40m water depth jacket foundations are by far
the most preferred and for >40m, floating foundations are
considered the most suitable. It is interesting to note that
suction caisson foundations were chosen relatively
consistently across all water depths.

Figure 4b: Opinions about design methods for gravity

based foundations

Perhaps the most interesting question posed by the survey was what designers felt was the greatest difficulty for the future. Figure 7
shows the opinions of respondents on the matter. As can be seen, unknowns regarding new concepts was by far the most popular
difficulty chosen. Also high up in the rankings are increased water depths and other difficulties. The fact that unknowns regarding
new concepts was felt to be the greatest difficulty perhaps reflects industries concern over new design methods which do not have the
same wealth of experience backing them up as the more traditional methods such as the API method. It may also suggest that there
are concerns over unknowns with new technologies and types of foundation.

Conclusions
1. The API method is still the most widely used design method for both axially and laterally loaded pile foundations despite evidence
that this method is unreliable in certain conditions.
2. For gravity based foundations, numerical modelling is the most popular method of design.
3. Many designers feel that the current design methods are mostly conservative. This leads to overdesigned and overly large
foundations which can significantly increase the cost of a wind farm project.
4. Unknowns regarding new concepts was the greatest perceived difficulty for the future according to the respondents. This may
reflect uncertainties regarding newer design methods or unknowns regarding new technologies or foundations.

References
Igoe, D (2009) Offshore foundations: A comparison of full displacement and partial displacement piles in sand, School of Landscaping, Architecture
and Engineering. University College Dublin

Acknowledgements
The fist author would like to acknowledge the support of Science Foundation Ireland and would also like to thank the following industry partners for
their on-going support: Mainstream Renewable Power, Bullivant Taranto and Lloyds Acoustics. The second author would like to thank the Irish
Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) for financial support received. This research was also conducted as part of the
marine institute networking activities, funding for which was gratefully received.
As can be seen from figure 4a, advanced numerical modelling / FEM is the most popular method. The traditional bearing capacity
method is also quite commonly used.

EWEA OFFSHORE 2011, 29 November 1 December 2011 , Amsterdam, The Netherlands