BASE DESIGN AND FOUNADTION

INSTALLATION DESIGN
FEASIBILITY STUDY

ETSU W/62/00568/REP

DTI /Pub URN 01/1518

Contractor
Harland and Wolff Licences Ltd.

The work described in this report was carried out

under contract as part of the DTI Sustainable Energy
Programmes. The views and judgements expressed in
this report are those of the contractor and do not
necessarily reflect those of the DTI.

First Published 2001

 Crown Copyright 2001
Further Renewable Energy information from the Sustainable Energy Programme, and copies of
publications can be obtained from:
Renewable Energy Helpline
Tel: +44 1235 432450
Email: NRE-enquiries@aeat.co.uk
CONTENTS

1.0 STUDY OF CURRENT CONCEPTS AND INSTALLATION METHODS 1

1.1 Foundation Types 1
1.2 Foundation Costs 2
1.3 Physical Constraints 3
1.4 Constructional Constraints 4

2.0 BASE INSTALLATION 5

2.1 Base Installation Overview 5
2.2 Stability Analysis 5
2.3 Floating Pontoons 5

3.0 FOUNDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 6

4.0 CONCLUSION 8

5.0 REFERENCES 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The initial objective of the project was to complete a feasibility study to determine the
viability of using a multi-piled foundation for supporting wind turbines offshore. The
feasibility study assessed the multi-piled foundation in two different environmental
scenarios. The data used for each scenario was attained from two sites currently under
consideration for development.

A study of current foundations was undertaken in order to establish the criteria the multi-
piled foundation must fulfil to be competitive in the market. Using preliminary weight
estimations a cost for the structure was calculated and compared with structures already in
the market in order to ascertain competitiveness. The manufacturing and structural
constraints of the concept were also compared with other concepts already in the market.
It is considered that the multi-piled foundation is currently more construction friendly
than gravity foundations and in the future should be more construction friendly than large
diameter/wall thickness monopiles.

The feasibility study concentrated mainly on the initial geometry of the multi-piled
foundation i.e. the number of legs and the pitch diameter of the piles. The loading on each
pile was calculated and evaluated. The tensile loads on the piles were deemed to be the
critical loads. Methods for reducing these loads were then assessed. The use of a heavy
material to ballast the structure was evaluated, this was thought not to be an economically
feasible method for reducing the tensile loads. The use of ground anchors was also
evaluated, the report concluded that they may be viable, but further design work should be
undertaken.

The report concluded that the multi-piled foundation was a competitive option for
anchoring of wind farms offshore. Also it was highlighted that there are still a number of
areas of the design that require further more detailed work.
1.0 STUDY OF CURRENT FOUNDATION CONCEPTS AND INSTALLATION
METHODS

1.1 Foundation Types

1.1.1 Mono-pile Foundation

Physical Dimensions
• 3-4m Diameter.
• 40-60mm Wall Thickness.
• 30-40m Length (Depending on water depth and soil conditions).

Installation
• Driven 20-30m into seabed or,
• Grouted into position in pre-drilled holes.

Design
• Design and Manufacture generally simple.
• Unbraced nature has poor dynamic characteristics.
• Large diameter leads to fatigue problems.

1.1.2 Lattice Foundation

Physical Dimensions
• 15-25m Diameter (Depending on site and WTG).
• 15-20m Height.
• Pile – 1-1.5m Diameter, 20m Length.

Installation
• 3 Driven Piles.
• Leg consists of pile, pile sleeve and a number of braces.

Design
• Design & Manufacture expensive.
• Reduced loads due to low surface area.
• Corrosion allowance is reduced since diameter is reduced.

1.1.3 Gravity Foundation

Physical Dimensions
• 15-25m Diameter (Depending on site and WTG).
• 15-20m Height.
• Up to 2000 tonne weight.

-1-
Installation
• Seabed must be prepared.
• No welding or grouting required offshore.
• Requires specialist heavy lifting equipment.

Design
• Design relatively straightforward.
• Manufacture requires large facilities situated close to a major waterway.
• Considerable amount of attention must be given to designing for scouring.

1.2 Foundation Costs

1.2.1 Steel Foundation Costs

The results of a study on the costs at three different water depths for three different design
types of structures are presented below. It assumes all work (i.e. geotechnical/geophysical
survey, detailed design, procurement and fabrication of the steel structure including
surface protection, on/off loading, preparations of seabed, positioning, transport and
installation, post installation works and documentation).

Estimated costs in GB£ for different steel foundations.

Water Gravity Mono-pile Lattice
Depth
5 £190,000 £195,000 -
8 £210,000 £232,000 £225, 000
11 £235,000 £275,000 £245,000
Source – Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy Resources in the ROI and N. I.,
Dept. of Economic Development & Dept. of Public Enterprise.

H&W foundation design is thought to be comparable to the manufacturing costs of a

gravity structure, at lower water depths.
This table should be considered qualitative for comparison purposes only. Extrapolation
of the above shows that for water depths between 12 and 20 metres the cost of installing
the foundations can vary greatly, depending on sub-sea conditions, to between £290k and
£350k. In order to arrive at total project costs of installing the foundation, the following
items need to be added: boat landing and access platform, certification of the foundation,
miscellaneous insurance, grid connection and remote control systems among others.

The condition of the seabed will make a considerable difference on the total cost. Some
seabed locations will need more preparation before installation than others. Added depth
will also attract higher installation costs. At lower water depths currently the most cost
competitive foundations are monopiles and gravity structures. The seabed, current
conditions and site location will normally decide which is used. The H&W foundation
concept is thought to be comparable in terms of total installed cost with both concepts. At
higher water depths the costs tend to favour lattice type structures. It is thought that the

-2-
H&W design should be comparable in price at to the lattice structure at higher water
depths.

1.2.2 Concrete Foundation Costs

The following concrete foundation costs are based on a typical gravity type reinforced
concrete foundation having an octagonal shape with a base diameter of approximately 19
metres and installed onto a pre-prepared seabed. Similarly to the steel foundation, this cost
will include all work (i.e. geo-technical/geophysical survey, detailed design, procurement,
on/off loading, preparations of seabed, positioning, transport and installation, post
installation works etc.) The use of concrete bases can be very site specific and are
therefore likely to vary widely in cost depending on the soil survey, seabed condition,
scour protection requirements etc.

For water depths less than 10 metres the costs could be between £200k and £500k and for
water depths between 10 metres and 20 metres, the cost could rise to between £400k and
£700k. For water depths greater than 20 metres, the concrete foundations needed would be
extremely heavy; therefore high-manufacturing and installation costs would be associated,
make the use of steel more economical for greater depths.

1.3 Physical Constraints on Foundations

1.3.1 Mono-pile Foundation

Mono-piles work well in lower water depths, their installation is a relatively
straightforward operation that has been employed on numerous occasions. Scour does not
tend to be a problem for mono-pile foundations, due to the depth they penetrate into the
seabed. As the water depth increases, the area subject to current loading will also increase.
This increases the requirements of having to use stays to keep the mono-pile in the
vertical position. It would be fair to assume that in excessive water depths, the mono-pile
may not be a viable option.

1.3.2 Gravity Foundation

The foundations of previous wind farm installations, established in relatively shallow
waters (3-5m) used concrete gravity structures. Gravity structures are the most commonly
used type of structure for lower water depths. Gravity structures require a large amount of
seabed preparation work before installation. This work can prove expensive and costs
increase as water depth increases. As current increases the scouring around a sub-sea
structure will also increase. Gravity foundations are the most sensitive types of foundation
to scour. Corrosion is not a factor when considering a gravity foundation.

1.3.3 Lattice Foundation

By design the Lattice structure weighs less and is subject too less hydrodynamic loading
than any of the other types of foundation. It is not widely used in shallower water depths
due to its high manufacturing costs. As the water depth increases the economic viability of
using the lattice structure, as supposed to the other foundation types, improves. Scour
should be accounted for in the design of any structure, however it will have a minimum
effect on this type of foundation.

-3-
1.3.4 H&W Foundation Design
The foundation could be floated in water depths of 3m or above. However, there may be a
danger of craft colliding with the legs in shallower waters. The foundation design could be
employed in water up to 25m with little increase in the difficulty of the installation. Scour
will have a minimal effect on the foundation design as the load is supported on the piles
and not the seabed. The installation methodology is such that easily attainable equipment
can be used hence keeping costs down.

1.4 Foundation Construction Constraints

Structural integrity throughout the lifetime of the offshore WTG (Wind Turbine
Generator) foundation depends on the thoroughness of initial design investigations, on the
quality of the materials and manufacture, and on the in-service inspection and
maintenance.

Construction of steel foundations (Mono-pile, Lattice Foundation, H&W Foundation) can

be achieved using materials and employing methods in common use within the marine
industry. All construction phases can be accomplished under cover, as can the application
of protective coating be applied under temperature controlled conditions. The resultant
structure is comparatively light and can be lifted and transported using non-specialist
equipment. Tubular joints typical of the lattice foundation are more complicated to
manufacture due to the complexity of the structure and the welding processes required to
be employed.

The construction site required for the manufacture of the concrete structures ideally must
be adjacent to a quayside facility capable of loading the completed segments/structures
onto a barge for onward transportation to site. As the weight of a completed foundation
(subject to water depth) could be anything up to 2000 tonnes, the employment of a heavy
lift crane is a requirement - this can attract substantial costs. It is possible to make use of
buoyancy to reduce the weight having to be lifted by the crane, this was seen at
Middelgrunden. The site must then be accommodated with all the machinery and
materials required for this type of production. The machinery would also involve the
erection of a heavy lift crane suitable for lifting the heavy concrete blocks. After the
concrete is poured, it must be cured with fresh water. The curing process will be very
dependent on the weather conditions. In cold weather and during frost, the concrete
should have a certain minimum temperature at the time of placing and be protected for a
given period against heat loss and drying.

-4-
2.0 BASE INSTALLATION

2.1 Base installation Overview.

The primary component that will be installed during the configuration of the offshore
wind farm is the large anchored base. This heavy structure is secured in situ by a number
of anchor piles. During the deployment of the bases, skidding and lifting manoeuvres may
be taking place simultaneously. If the base is to be lifted, then the support of a structure
(inclusive of anchor piles) at an elevation of 30 metres had to be considered. This was
difficult to achieve when the barge was fully loaded with bases. Using the NAPA software
from DNV Technica, the stability of the vessel was analysed in a number of conditions.
The most critical condition was found to be during the installation of the towers and
nacelles.
During their deployment, the base is lowered and set to float on the water. To ground the
base on the seabed requires ballast water to be added. Again using NAPA, the base was
analysed during the various sequences of the ballasting operation.

2.2 Stability Analysis

When the base is afloat it is in a stable condition. However, as the base is ballasted, it will
pass through unstable regions. Due to a combination of free surface effects, and
predominantly the changes in waterplane area as the legs submerge, the metacentric
height (GM) of the base alters from positive to negative. The result of this would be the
capsizing of the base. This is a similar process to the ballasting of a semi-submersible
platform. The change in waterplane area as the pontoons submerge can cause instability (a
large drop in metacentric height while this stage is passed through is the usual outcome,
but an angle of loll or capsizing has occurred in extreme cases).
To ensure that sufficient GM is maintained throughout the ballasting operation, the
waterplane area would have to be maintained at a relatively constant value. This can be
achieved by either surrounding the main base shaft with a large pontoon in the shape of a
toroid, or using a number of smaller floats around the anchor piles.

2.3 Floating Pontoons.

After discussions with possible manufacturers, it was found that the size of the pontoon
that would be required to encircle the base shaft would be above the present
manufacturing capability. Smaller pontoons that could encircle the piles were pursued.
The pontoons would be installed on the first base to be deployed. After installation, the
floats would be unlatched and lifted onto the next base.

-5-
3.0 MULTI-PILED FOUNDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

The aim of the foundation study was to prove that the multi-piled foundation was a
feasible option for certain seabed conditions. No single type of foundation will be
economically viable for all seabed conditions. Gravity foundations tend to be used where
the seabed is rocky and where it is difficult to pile. Piled foundations tend to be used
where the seabed is unable to support the weight of a gravity structure or where seabed
movement is high due to strong currents.

The multi-piled foundation feasibility study used the data from two sites, one in UK and
one in Ireland, to prove the concept. The conditions at each site were different therefore
giving a good basis for comparative study. The study considered various geometry’s for
the foundation, varying both the number of piles and size of the base and identifies the
most practicable combinations to suit expected ground conditions.

The main advantages of the multi-piled foundation are: -

¾ Pile sizes to be used will be smaller/more readily available and cheaper to install than
equivalent monopile type foundations
¾ The structure can be manufactured using processes common to the marine industry.
¾ The geometry of the structure is flexible and can be adapted relatively simply for
different site conditions.
¾ A piled foundation will make the base more suitable where there is movement of the
seabed.
¾ The geometry of the foundation provides better scour resistance than a traditional
monopile.

The feasibility of the multi-piled foundation will be sensitive to the geo-technical

conditions of the bed and sub-bed strata. The capacity will be determined by the capacity
of the installed piles, which in turn will be determined by depth/diameter of the pile and
the geological strata present. Other environmental factors that were considered during the
feasibility study were: -

¾ Water depth
¾ Wind, wave, currents and ice
¾ Accidental loading

The initial investigations carried out in the study analysed the tensile and compressive
loads in the piles. A number of simple computer models with varying number and lengths
of legs were analysed for site specific conditions to determine likely pile loads. As
expected pile loads decrease with an increase in length of leg and number of piles.
Calculations were then carried out to determine the compressive and tensile capacities of
various lengths and diameters of pile. The conclusion drawn from this analysis was that
the multi-piled foundation would be practical for certain geometries.

-6-
The study also assessed the viability of using ballast or ground anchors in order to not
exceed the practical/economic pile depths/sizes. The report concluded that initial
indications would suggest that the volume of ballast required would be uneconomic. The
report concluded that the use of ground anchors should be given further consideration. A
ground anchor 10m beyond the base of each pile would produce a tensile safe working
load of between 1500-3000kN.

The report concluded that any further study should evaluate the use of ground anchors.

An initial finite element analysis was carried out to prove the feasibility of the structural
concept and to identify areas for a further more detailed FE analysis. A dynamic FE model
will ultimately be required to fully address the issues of fatigue loading, dynamic response
and stress concentrations. The results show that the force concentrations will occur at the
pile/leg and tower/leg interfaces. Further detailed design work should evaluate how to
best transfer the loads at the interface points and hence minimize the amount of stiffening
required.

The study concluded by identifying a number of areas that should be considered for
further more detailed design. These include: -

¾ Ground conditions at the Sites under consideration – detailed ground investigation

information will be required in order to more accurately evaluate pile and anchor
capacities.
¾ Oceanographic and Meteorological Data – More detailed site specific wind, wave and
current data will be required in order to more accurately determine the environmental
loads likely to be experienced during operation.
¾ Breaking waves – Scale model tests may be required to prove theoretical calculations
¾ Ground Anchor/Pile interaction – the interaction of the piles and ground anchors must
be considered in more detail to determine the load capacity of anchors and to ensure
that the action of the anchor does not effect the pile capacity.
¾ Fatigue Design – The fatigue design of critical elements/connections in the vicinity of
stress concentrations will need to be considered in detail.
¾ Dynamics – Due to the importance of (and uncertainty about) the dynamic sensitivity
of such structures, it will be essential to perform a natural frequency analysis.

- 7-
4.0 CONCLUSION

The main aim of the feasibility study was to assess the practicability of the multi-piled
foundation. Two different sites were selected and the feasibility of using the multi-piled
foundation on each was undertaken. An initial financial analysis has shown that the
concept should be economically viable in the market place. However more detailed design
work is required to calculate more accurately the final weight of the structure and the
manufacture/installation costs. Any further design work should be based on a specific site,
using data relative to that site for calculations. From the feasibility study the following
conclusions can be drawn: -
1. The multi-piled foundation concept appears to be feasible for supporting wind turbines
offshore.
2. The concept as presented is designed to utilize common lifting and piling equipment.
3. The structure size may be reduced with the utilization of ground anchors.

The straightforward manufacturing and installation of the multi-piled foundation concept

makes it an attractive option for wind farm developers. The comparative work in this
report has shown that on specific sites it should compete with current foundation
concepts.

- 8-
3.0 REFERENCES

1. Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy Resources in the ROI and NI – Dept of

Economic Development

2. Foundation FEED Study – Kirk McClure Morton

- 9-