Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy
Available
Available Procedia
online
online 00 (2017) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia137 (2017) 000–000
00 (2017) 299–306
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

14th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, EERA DeepWind'2017, 18-20 January 2017,
14th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Trondheim,
Conference,Norway
EERA DeepWind'2017, 18-20 January 2017,
Trondheim, Norway
Fabrication and installation constraints for floating wind
Fabrication
The 15th and installation
International constraints
Symposium for floating
on District Heating wind
and Cooling
and implications
Assessing on current
the feasibility of usinginfrastructure and design
the heat demand-outdoor
and implications on current infrastructure and design
temperature
Denis Mathaafunction
a
forBrons-Illig
*, Christopher a long-term
a
district
a, Alexander heataa,demand
Mitzlaff forecast
Ron Schefflerab
ab
Denis Matha *, Christopher Brons-Illig , Alexander Mitzlaff , Ron Scheffler
a
aRamboll, Stadtdeich
a 7, 20097 Hamburg, b Germany
I. Andrića,b,cHamburg
*, A. Pina
b , P. Ferrão
Ramboll,
University a
Stadtdeich
of Applied , 7,J.20097
Sciences, Fournier Tor 5,.,
Hamburg,
Berliner B. Hamburg,
Lacarrière
Germany
20099
c
, O. Le Correc
Germany
b
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Berliner Tor 5, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
c
Abstract Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Abstract
Industrialization of floating wind technology is key for future cost reductions to become competitive. Within the scope of the
Industrialization
LIFES50+ H2020of research
floating project,
wind technology is key for future
the floating-specific cost reductions
constraints with respectto become competitive.
to fabrication, Within
assembly andthe scope of the
installation for
Abstract
LIFES50+ H2020substructure
different floating research project,
conceptstheare
floating-specific
investigated forconstraints
large future with respect
10MW to fabrication,
floating assembly
wind turbines and installation
and 500MW wind farms.for
different floating
The presented substructure
study focusses concepts
on three are investigated
selected LIFES50+ for large future
sites in the 10MW
Scottishfloating
North Sea,windFrench
turbines and 500MW and
Mediterranean windGulf
farms.
of
District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
The
Maine.presented
Generalstudy focusses
constraints are on three selected
identified, LIFES50+
which are sitesfor
not specific in athe Scottish
certain North Sea,
proprietary French
concept, butMediterranean
depending on theandmaterial,
Gulf of
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
Maine.
conceptGeneral constraintsassembly
type, fabrication, are identified, which areprocedures
and installation not specificandforsite
a certain proprietary concept, but depending on the material,
location.
sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
concept type, fabrication, assembly and installation procedures and site location.
prolonging the investment return period.
©The2017 Thescope
main Authors. Published
of this paper isby
to Elsevier
assess theLtd.
feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
©
© 2017
2017 TheAuthors.
The Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
Peer-review
forecast. The
Peer-review under responsibility
district
under of
of Alvalade,
responsibility SINTEF
locatedEnergi
of SINTEF AS. (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
in Lisbon
Energi AS.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
Keywords: floating; offshore; wind; turbines; fabrication; installation; infrastructure; design
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
Keywords: floating; offshore; wind; turbines; fabrication; installation; infrastructure; design
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
1.(the
Introduction
error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
1.scenarios,
Introduction
the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
The Industrialization of the floating
value of slope coefficient increased wind technology
on average withinistheconsidered
range of 3.8%a key up for
to 8%future cost reductions
per decade, to become
that corresponds to the
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of to
Industrialization
competitive. While of the floating
developing wind
innovative technology
solutions is
and considered
at the same a key
time for future
following cost
proven reductions
offshore become
engineering
weather and
competitive.
principles
renovationand While
scenarios developing
standards
considered). innovative
for safe,On reliable and
the other solutions and at
cost-efficient
hand, function the same
solutions,
intercept ittime following
is common
increased for proven
industry
7.8-12.7% offshore
per understanding
decade engineering
thaton
(depending one-
the
principles and standards
coupled scenarios). for safe,
The values reliablecould
suggested and be
cost-efficient
used to modify solutions, it is common
the function parameters industry
for the understanding that one-
scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

* Denis Matha.
Peer-review Tel.: responsibility
under +49 151 58015213;
of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
E-mailMatha.
* Denis
Cooling. address:
Tel.: +49 151 58015213;
denis.matha@ramboll.com
E-mail address: denis.matha@ramboll.com
1876-6102
Keywords:©Heat
2017demand;
The Authors. Published
Forecast; Climatebychange
Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of
Published
SINTEFby Elsevier
Energi AS.Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.354
300 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

dimensional design optimizations should be avoided: All relevant technical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) need
to be considered such as the floater’s dynamic characteristics, and key cost drivers including fabrication, assembly,
standardization, installation, operation and maintenance.
Within the scope of the LIFES50+ research project, the floating-specific constraints with respect to fabrication,
assembly and installation for floating substructure concepts are investigated. These constraints are particularly
relevant in LIFES50+, where designs for large future 10MW floating wind turbines and large 500+MW wind farms
are developed which feature larger dimensions, weights and more demanding project timelines than the currently
installed single unit prototypes and upcoming small pre-commercial arrays.
The study is based on generalized analyses of publicly available information about existing Floating Offshore
Wind Turbines (FOWTs) which are already installed or close to completion, including Principle Power’s WindFloat,
Statoil’s Hywind and Hywind Scotland, Fukushima FORWARD, Ideol’s FLOATGEN and GICON’s SOFWA. Also
experiences from fixed-bottom projects, as well as from installation vessel projects are used. From this investigation,
general constraints are identified and presented, which are independent from a certain proprietary concept, but rather
depending on the utilized material (steel, concrete), concept type (semi, barge, tension leg platform (TLP), spar),
chosen fabrication, assembly and installation procedures and site location. It shall be explicitly noted, that no results
from concept specific studies within the LIFES50+ consortium are used for this publication, but the important items
identified are generally valid for any floating concept, including the concepts investigated in LIFES50+.
The investigation is made for the three selected LIFES50+ sites in the Scottish North Sea, French Mediterranean
and Gulf of Maine, defined in the LIFES50+ Design Basis [1].
While the paper is based on reviews of existing methods for fabrication and installation, the application on the
LIFES50+ case offers new insight into issues related to upcoming large commercial floating wind farm projects.
Furthermore within the study a dedicated tool was developed in order to assess the installation phase and identify
important constraints for selected specific sites.

2. Fabrication

2.1. Steel floater

Of the 33 different substructures that are presented in the Floating Offshore Wind: Market and Technology
Review by Carbon Trust, only six use concrete as their primary material, making steel the most widely applied
material. The important advantages and challenges of the material choice are presented below.

Table 1. Advantages and Challenges for Steel floaters

Advantages
 Established in the offshore wind industry:
o Know-how existing
o Proven solutions and standards exist to
avoid issues related to corrosion due to
saltwater and salty air, wind turbine load,
etc.
 Assembly can be execute relatively fast if
components are pre-fabricated (consists of welding
operations and positioning of the parts only)
 Lighter substructures are possible (compared with
concrete)
Challenges
 Large dimension components/parts:
o Need to be built at rare large scale steel
mills, typically not at construction site,
which is a challenge for mass production
o Heavy/large parts need to be transported
to construction site, suitable access
(road, railways, waterways) required
o Suitable storage area at port required
 Expensive material, price fluctuating, planning
difficult
 Specialized equipment (e.g. large scale welding
machines and cranes with sufficient lift capacity)
required, shipyard preferable
 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306 301
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

2.2. Concrete floater

The use of concrete typically allows the choice between precast concrete parts or in-situ concrete. The projects
Floatgen and the substation for the Fukushima FORWARD floating wind farm use concrete as primary material.
Both projects selected in-situ concrete fabrication rather than precast concrete. Due to that, the relevance of in-situ
concrete for the substructure construction was rated higher and will therefore be the basis of this summary:

Table 2. Advantages and Challenges of Concrete floaters

Advantages
 Concrete supply adaptable to local conditions and
project requirements:
o Ready-mix concrete
o Mobile batching plant
o Installation of a stationary batching plant
at the construction site
 Local content is ensured (local workforce, local
supply chain)
 No specialized equipment, like large scale welding
machines, required (construction at lower costs)
 Low costs of concrete as a raw material
 Adjustments simple to apply due to variability of
casting process at construction site
 Ready-mix concrete only: less storage area
required (no raw material has to be stored for
batching at port)
Challenges
 Limited use in offshore wind industry, resulting in
less experience with production steps, O&M,
decommissioning procedures
 Large dimensions of concrete floaters require large
construction area for mass production
 High weight of concrete floaters (restrictions for
construction site selection due to the bearing
capacity and space)
 Concrete cannot bear tension loads, therefore
additional procedures (e.g. pre-tensioning,
avoiding of upending actions) necessary
 Wide range of weather restrictions for construction
process (e.g.no construction during frost or heavy
rain)
 Mixing process at the construction site possibly
more inaccurate (additional quality assurance
necessary)

2.3. Common aspects of fabrication

Some constraints result from general procedures independent from the choice of the material. These encompass
mainly the transport within the port/shipyard and the float-out.
For the transport within the port or shipyard, the size of the port and the tasks, which can be executed
simultaneously, are important. This includes restrictions concerning the constant supply from outside of the port, as
required for the ready-mix concrete supply using trucks.
Any floating substructure production will require the use of cranes to execute the fabrication and assembly; with
the crane requirements depending on the floater design, e.g. the number of pre-fabricated parts and their masses. The
existing crane capacities vary from port to port. Therefore, cranes are a constraint for the fabrication. In particular, if
cranes with the required specifications are not already located in the port and the bearing capacity of the intended
quay is not sufficient, this could render an otherwise favourable port not-applicable. Additionally, finding a suitable
and available crane in terms of height and lifting capacity is increasingly difficult for large 10MW+ class wind
turbines. For the DTU 10MW Wind Turbine (WT) used in LIFES50+ with a hub height of 119m and a top mass
over 650t, only one commercial crane type is currently available for the required height. While this may change in
the future with the increasing demand of such cranes, currently it represents a critical item for the project planning.
The location of the construction site also influences the transport of the substructure within the port. If
construction site and harbour basin are not directly linked together and no dry-dock is used, such a transport is
required. Self-Propelled Modular Transporters (SPMT) are suitable for the transport of the substructure but require
dedicated and costly preparation.
The float out of the substructure is another possible constraint. If a dry-dock is used for the fabrication, the
procedure is simplified considerably. The float out simply consists of flooding the dock. If the substructure is
fabricated on a barge such as a semi-submersible barge, the float out is also a straightforward process. After floating
the substructure to an area with sufficient draft, the barge sinks to the ground until the substructure lifts off the
302 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

barge. These two options will not constrain the fabrication if executed properly. If the fabrication is on the other
hand done on the quayside, the float out becomes more difficult. It consists of the transfer of the substructure onto a
launching barge, which is more difficult and associated with additional risks. The effort which is connected with the
fabrication of the substructure on the quayside or anywhere else, where the transport of the substructure is obligatory
for the float out, highlights the criticality of the proper planning of this procedure, or alternatively a suitable dry-
dock or a construction barge need to be used. Especially for the mass production, an onshore fabrication requiring
large cranes should be avoided, unless the port facilities have that capability or their infrastructure can be upgraded
with limited cost (here space and soil/bearing capacity considerations are key).

2.4. Summary of key challenges for the fabrication

Many constraints or challenges resulting from these processes are depending on the actual floater design or
particular requirements due to weather conditions at the installation site or other project specific factors. A review of
the fabrication, however, leads to certain key challenges, which are to be faced, regardless of individual factors:
 The choice of a suitable construction site/port, and
 The selected port’s infrastructure.
The choice of a suitable construction site influences the fabrication process in many different stages. Most
important is the actual construction site of the substructure, where pre-fabricated parts are assembled. Also, the
existing equipment, facilities and storage possibilities at the port are important. Depending more on the individual
project, the possibility to expand the port’s infrastructure has to be taken into account as well. This is important
because the construction of large floating windfarms most likely requires individual modifications of the port.
As already discussed, at first glance a dry-dock technically simplifies the floater production, however it may not
represent the most economical solution. A dry dock simplifies the float out, and dry-docks are usually part of a
shipyard, where required equipment, such as specialized welding machines and scaffolding, and crane capacities
therefore often exist. If the port is used for O&M as well, the dry-dock will also provide the capacity to carry out
major repairs of floaters and wind turbines. The constraint, apart from cost, for the choice of a dry-dock is the
location and the serial production capacity (time required for one unit). Only few dry-docks are capable to support
the enormous dimensions and the minimum draft of floating substructures for 10MW+ units and provide the
expected serial production capacity. As an example, Fukushima Shimpuu, the Japanese 8MW floater, represents
closest the expected LIFES50+ 10MW floater dimensions. The utilized dry-dock of Nagasaki, the Koyagi-Dock
does not represent the dimensions of common dry-docks: With a width of 100m, the Koyagi-Dock is placed among
the 17 widest dry-docks worldwide. Among these dry-docks only two are located in the United States or Europe.
Additionally, only two other dry-docks with a width of 100m or more also have a maximum draft of 14,5m as the
Koyagi-Dock. These two other dry-docks are both located in South Korea. This example gives an impression of how
rare suitable dry-docks for the growing substructures are. Only in particular cases dry-docks therefore can be
selected as construction sites if the dimensions of the substructures cannot be reduced radically.
If the construction is, due to this limitation, supposed to take place on a barge or at the quayside, the constraints
are fewer. However, most of the ports cannot be used without upgrading the infrastructure. Scottish Development
International analysed the ports of the Scottish west coast, where Site C of LIFES50+ is located, and their suitability
of being used as an operation port for conventional offshore [2]. According to this report, many ports could be used;
however most of them would require to be upgraded. The required upgrades are draft, area size or access. A report
of BVGA [3], which analysed the likelihood of investments in port facilities for the east coast of the United
Kingdom, stated that probability of investments in staging facilities for the offshore industry may be low. Keeping
this information in mind, it must be considered that floating wind has even higher requirements for ports due to the
construction process and the sizes of the substructures.
For the choice of a port therefore the requirements and the existing options must be carefully compared during
the planning phase of the project, especially for mass production of floaters for large wind farms. Requirements
concerning fabrication processes (e.g. multiple fabrications at once) have to be considered for the planned
investment in the construction port. Furthermore, a port can not only be chosen based on its suitability as a
construction site, because the distance to the wind farm also has to be taken into account due to its high impact on
the installation time and ultimately overall costs.
 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306 303
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

The infrastructure of the port is not always a challenge but needs to be reconsidered for every project. Larger
ports or shipyards often have optimized access possibilities. If, on the other hand, a smaller port in closer proximity
to the site is chosen and upgraded to support floater production, economic access must be assured. Access by cargo
vessels is always possible, since the restrictions for a cargo vessel are less strict than for the floater transport. The
access by rail or road must be evaluated and legal constraints checked.

3. Installation

The installation procedure of a floating wind turbine is summarized below for the example of a low draft self-
stable floater (semi-submersible or barge; the currently most widely utilized concept). It gives an impression of the
required main processes within the installation and therefore helps to evaluate the constraining factors. For TLPs
and spars, the process is different only in a few items, such as the mooring hook-up for a TLP.
The starting interface point for the list below is a fully assembled sub-structure with the wind turbine installed on
top and the structure located already in the water in the port. Then the next steps can be summarized as:

I. Float Out
 Hook up of harbour tug boats; Float out from construction/launching site; Ballasting of substructure
(and removing of temporary buoyancy modules, if used); Dis- and reconnecting of towing lines to sea-
going tugs; Towing of the floater towards open sea
II. Transit
 Transit to wind farm; Positioning of floater at exact position (dynamic positioning); Deployment of
teams onto floater
III. Installation
 Work preparation for installation (including power supply); Anchor Supply Vessel takes over messenger
line; Messenger and mooring line pulled in; Mooring handed over to floater; Pre-tensioning of mooring,
locked by chain stoppers; Ballasting
IV. Cable Installation
 Positioning of Cable Lay Vessel; Crew transfer and work preparation; Cable inspection and pick up of
messenger line; Pull in of cable; Installation of temporary security modules (e.g. hang off clamp) for
connection; Tests to confirm the functionality
V. Termination
 Crew transfer and work preparation; Removing armouring, preparation of conductors; Cable connection,
test preparation and conduct; Permanent hang off; Clean up and disembarking
VI. Return
 Transit back to coast and port; Unload of equipment

In connection with the FOWT installation, several challenges are to be faced. Unlike the fabrication process, for
the installation process the question is not whether it can be realized or not, but how it can be realized in the most
efficient way. In order to make floating wind competitive, the costs need to be reduced. At this state, fix costs are
the more obvious way to do so, since they depend more on general operational decisions (e.g. number of vessels,
port selection) that can be easily influenced. Also, they are directly linked to the duration (and thus cost) of the
installation process as described below. Variable costs are more dependent on project characteristics, such as legal
situation in the operation country or fuel cost predictions.
In order to evaluate the interaction between the influencing factors, a conceptual in-house tool was developed at
Ramboll to identify the key factors concerning required costs and time. It is designed to link the operational
decisions with external factors, e.g. port selection with resulting weather predictions, and enables an examination of
the results for installation costs and time. As representative cost drivers, the vessel costs were used because in
contrast to most other factors (excluding only the probable investments in port infrastructure), the vessel costs differ
from project to project, since numbers and types vary from concept to concept. Vessels as a distinctive feature in
terms of the installation costs will be described below in further detail.
304 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Weather predictions were included using average historical weather data mainly. The tool was set up for the three
LIFES50+ sites, implementing a database of all potential ports and shipyards in the proximity of the sites. For the
analyses, the ports, the weather conditions (including persistence) and the used vessels were varied, as well as
important floater parameters such as tow-out speed or wave height restrictions. All of these main factors are linked
and directly affect each other. The effects of changes for installation costs and time within the three influencing
factors have been examined generically and important results from these parametric studies are described below.

3.1. Port

As for the fabrication of the FOWT, the port choice is important for the installation process. However, the
installation process itself does not necessarily require dry storage areas or production facilities. Therefore, a port,
which only is used as a basis port for the installation, is a viable option. If the port is capable to support both
fabrication and installation, it will be preferable, though. The only infrastructure which is required is a suitable depth
of the harbour basin for both vessels and FOWTs and enough space for the possible wet storage of multiple floaters.
This wet storage room is typically within the harbour basin, however if suitable dry storage areas are available on
the quay, this also is an alternative (given suitable launch capabilities). In contrast to the fabrication process, the
location of the port is the crucial factor for the installation. The location of the port sets the distance to the wind farm
site and the distance influences the transit time and dependency on weather windows.
For the decision, which port to choose, the future potential of the port should also be taken into account. This
means that several ports could be transformed into offshore installation ports or even fabrication ports with only
small investments [3]. Since the intended ports are likely to be closer to the farm site, the benefits resulting due to
the shorter distance have to be compared with the additional investments. The connection to the open sea and to the
wind farm in particular has also to be reviewed. Potential impairments due to shipping routes have to be evaluated.
The developed tool includes a breakdown of the whole installation process. Depending on the chosen port, the
transit time has a strong impact on the overall installation time of the FOWTs. For the LIFES50+ site C, West of
Barra, the results are shown exemplarily for one unit as follows:
 For the speed of the vessels moderate assumptions were made:
Towing Speed = 3NM/h, Regular Speed = 10NM/h.
 If Belfast, a suitable fabrication port with existing infrastructure, is chosen, 135 hours are estimated for the
installation of one FOWT. Of the 135 hours, more than 50%, i.e. 78h, result from the transit only.
 If the small port of Castle Bay is chosen, whose only advantage is the proximity to the wind farm (18NM
instead of 159NM for Belfast), the installation of one floater takes only 74 hours. Only 15h are needed for the
transit.

The resulting costs for the vessels, specialists and the equipment but also for the rent of the port must be considered.
Furthermore, weather forecasts for 78 hours in advance do not provide secure information. The weather might
change and especially in areas like West of Barra, where bad weather highly probable, this could lead to the
unfeasibility of the installation. In the worst case this might inflict damage onto the floater as it is not fully ballasted
during installation and therefore not as stable as during operation. In contrast to bottom-fixed offshore wind, no
jack-up vessels are used so that the equipment, the substructure and the WT cannot be secured during unforeseen
bad weather periods. This problem needs to be solved and favours the use of a close port. The unpredictability also
leads to additional charter costs, since the ships are more likely to wait for suitable weather. To summarize the
influence of the port choice, it can be stated that shorter distances between port and wind farm simplify the
installation process and reduce cost considerably. Larger distances, on the other hand, lead to additional and
unpredictable problems, which directly increase both costs and duration of the installation process.

3.2. Vessels

The vessels for the installation process are a key challenge to face. The charter costs and the costs for personnel
and equipment are the main cost drivers for the installation process. The resulting costs are highly dependent on
both weather and port location. The reasons for this will be described below.
 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306 305
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

For the offshore installation of FOWTs suitable vessels are important. As for fixed-base offshore, their function
is to bring the wind turbines to the wind farm site and to execute the installation processes. Fixed-bottom offshore
wind turbines are usually assembled at the site. Thus, highly specialized installation vessels (typically jack-up
installation vessels) with suitable crane capabilities are required. These vessels have a major impact on the overall
installation costs. According to a study of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the installation share
of the vessel cost is around 50% for fixed-bottom offshore [4]. This share will be lower for floating wind because no
such cost intensive vessels are required. The impact of the vessels, however, still has to be considered.
Because the installation procedure is different from the established fixed-bottom offshore wind, it first has to be
evaluated, which vessels are actually required. For the tow out even small, simple tug boats can execute it. However,
it is important to perform both transit and installation safely regardless of probable changes of weather. Exemplarily,
for Fukushima Shimpuu the tow-out was done by five to six tug boats. This is not representative for a large future
wind farm, since Fukushima FORWARD is a pilot project. On the other hand, it can be viewed as an indicator for
how many tug boats may be required for a safe transit for very large substructures. For the Floatgen project detailed
research was published to evaluate the required vessels for different tow out methods. The different calculations,
which adopt the economic existing tug boats of Saint-Nazaire, suggest that specific solutions always need to be
found for the specific projects and solutions and procedures cannot be generalized.
Essential specialized vessels for the actual installation and the hook up of the FOWT are anchor handling vessels
and cable lay vessels. The anchor handling vessel is capable to pick the heavy mooring lines up and to hand them
over to the floater. No regular tug boats could perform this task. The cable lay vessel is important for the safe
connection of the dynamic cable to ensure it is not damaged during the installation.
Less specialized vessels and also smaller numbers of vessels lead to less costs. However, the share of the
operational time in the total chartering time affects the costs even more. The operational time is highly dependent on
the weather window, which should always be maximized. Due to that, The Carbon Trust states in its floating
offshore review that more advanced tugs should be used in order to make operation under worse weather conditions
possible [5]. The weather limits, particular of tug boats, therefore have to be taken into account. It can be concluded,
that generally a small number of simple and economic vessels are favourable for the costs. But if more advanced
vessels allow operations under far worse weather conditions, they might change this recommendation. This is
especially true for regions with harsh weather conditions, such as LIFES50+ site C, West of Barra.
To install multiple floaters simultaneously more than one fleet is typically required, especially for large distances
between port and farm. The long transit times would otherwise delay the whole project. If the required number of
vessels for the tow out of one FOWT cannot be reduced, the vessel demand might not meet the local supply. This
could lead to further costs for the transfer from other ports and needs to be considered beforehand.
The charter costs for vessels should also be considered. The daily charter rates fluctuated over the past few years
excessively (due to the recent developments in the Oil & Gas market) and can hardly be prognosticated for
particular projects. The regional demand and supply also varies and has to be taken into account. Assumed that the
oil price will stabilize, it is estimated that the charter rates will increase over the next years.

3.3. Weather

Even though one of the major advantages of floating wind is the “reduced number of offshore operations, which
are constrained by weather windows and require expensive installation vessels”, as Carbon Trust states in its
Floating Wind Market Study [5], the installation is still performed offshore. Floating offshore has in contrast to
conventional offshore, higher requirements on port capacities. The distance to the farm site is therefore more likely
to be larger and increase the offshore installation time due to the long transit durations. Hence, depending on the
project and the port requirements, the offshore installation time and also the weather restrictions gain further
importance. But even for more complex installation processes, the weather windows for floating wind are less
restrictive than for fixed-bottom wind turbines. The reason for this is the large amount of operations that can be
performed onshore or in sheltered harbour basins. The wind turbine will be assembled and mounted onshore or
quayside in most cases. The offshore restrictions due to wind speed therefore have a lower influence. Waves,
however, “cause the most unfavourable effects on the overall structure” states the American Bureau of Shipping
[6]. They also influence the feasibility of offshore operations executed by specialized vessels. The particular wave
306 Denis Matha et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 299–306
8 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

limits have to be evaluated in order to schedule the installation. The maximum acceptable wave heights need to be
compared with experiences made with pilot farms and also first commercial-scale projects in order to verify them.
Since the installation process is so different from fixed-bottom offshore, the experiences made from the installation
of monopiles or jacket substructures usually cannot be transferred. This is especially important for the weather
conditions at the farm site. Once floaters are brought to the farm site they have to be installed. Changes in the
weather, which might damage the floater, force the floater to be towed back into a safe port since the operation
cannot be interrupted and continued when the weather conditions deteriorate, as for example possible with a jack-up
vessel.
The weather for the site is forecasted for the installation. During the planning phase the weather is anticipated by
tools, programs and weather records. This is done to calculate the expected duration of the installation process and
also the costs. The simulation of the weather can be done with different methods and programs. For the developed
tool, the occurrences of particular wave heights - since they were assumed to be the most restricting variable - were
used to calculate the expected possible operational time. For site C, for example, the data, provided by the British
company Fugro GEOS, which evaluated the information from all buoys around Britain, was used for further
calculation, providing wave heights and occurrences.
Another considered option for the calculation is the Markov model, which is by design conservative and enables
generation of infinite different synthetic weather timeseries. These two models were compared for the LIFES50+
sites. The results were similar for this particular application and did not provide different views on the problem.
For large distances between port and farm site another challenge is to be addressed. The weather might be
forecasted and simulated for the farm site, for large transit routes, however, also the weather conditions during the
tow out are important to be considered. This is especially necessary since the floater is typically not fully ballasted
and more unstable during this operation step. This problem is another reason why the installation port should be
selected as close to the wind farm as possible.
To summarize the challenges resulting due to weather conditions it is important to estimate the influence of the
weather conditions correctly. The weather window must be defined and the forecast improved. Aim is to lower the
unforeseen probability of weather conditions, which deny the installation. To get information about the expected
persistence is another step in this direction. If the operational time is lower than estimated, costs and time can
increase dramatically. It should be attempted to get more detailed information about the weather while also being
less dependent on weather conditions and changes by increasing the weather limits for the installation.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No 640741 (LIFES50+).

References

[1] Krieger A, Ramachandran GKV, Vita L, Gomez Alonso P, Berque P, Aguirre G. LIFES50+ Deliverable 7.2 -
Design Basis. LIFES50+, 640741 Collaborative project; 2015.
[2] Scottish Development International. Scottish Offshore Renewables Debelopment Sites. West Coast Cluster.
London: Scottish Development International; 2011.
[3] BVG Associates. Strategic review of UK east coast staging and construction facilities. Offshore Wind Industry
Council; 2016.
[4] Maples B, Saur G, Hand M, van de Pietermen R Obdam T. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Strategies
to Reduce the Cost of Offshore Wind Energy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2013.
[5] Rhodri J, Costa Ros M. Floating Offshore Wind: Market and Technology Review. The Carbon Trust; 2015.
[6] American Bureau of Shipping. Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Installations. Houston: ABS; 2013.