See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233699946

Foundation Design: A Comparison of Oil and Gas Platforms with Offshore Wind
Turbines

Article  in  Marine Technology Society Journal · January 2010

DOI: 10.4031/MTSJ.44.1.5

CITATIONS READS
17 7,399

2 authors:

James Schneider Marc Senders

Consulting Engineer Woodside Energy
52 PUBLICATIONS   1,294 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Schneider on 07 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas platforms with
offshore wind turbines

James A. Schneider
The University of Wisconsin-Madison
1415 Engineering Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA
jamess@cae.wisc.edu

Marc Senders
Centre for Offshore Foundations Systems
The University of Western Australia
Crawley, WA 6009 Australia
m.senders@bigpond.com

Abstract:
The offshore oil and gas industry (O&G) has over 70 years of experience developing innovative
structures and foundation concepts for engineering in the marine environment. The evolution of
these structures has strongly been influenced by water depth as well as soil conditions in the area
of initial developments. As the offshore wind industry expands from the glacial soil deposits of
the North and Baltic Seas, experience from the O&G industry can be used to aid with a smooth
transition to new areas. This paper presents an introduction to issues that influence how design
and construction experience from the O&G industry can be used to aid foundation design for
offshore wind energy converters. A history of the evolution of foundation and substructure
concepts in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea is presented, followed by a discussion of soil
behavior and the influence of regional geology on these developments. Mechanisms that
influence the resistance of shallow and deep foundations for fixed and floating offshore
structures is outlined so that areas of empiricism within offshore design codes can be identified
and properly modified for application to offshore wind turbine foundations. It is concluded that
there are distinct differences between offshore O&G and offshore wind turbine foundations, and
application of continued research into foundation behavior is necessary for rational, reliable, and
cost effective design.

1 Introduction used to drill 11 wells in the Creole field,

The offshore oil and gas (O&G)
industry is rooted 1.5km off the Louisiana
coast in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Figure
1 illustrates the 2700m2 platform in 4m of
water supported on timber pilings that was
eventually producing nearly four million
barrels of oil (Wasson 1948, Leffler et al.
2003) or an equivalent 6800 GWh of
electricity. Since that time, approximately
4000 platforms have been constructed in the

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Figure 1a. Location map for the Creole Field
(Wasson 1948)
GOM, and more than 2500 additional
platforms are located around the world.
Fixed platforms have been constructed in
water depths up to 530m, and floating
platforms to 2400m (Wilhoit & Supan
2009). The experience gained in the offshore
O&G industry has resulted in development
of innovative structures and foundation
concepts to handle complex loading
conditions and soil behavior that is
associated with engineering in the marine
environment.
Like the offshore O&G industry, the
offshore wind industry started development
relatively close to shore in relatively shallow
water. The first offshore commercial wind
farm is located 2.5 km off the cost of
Denmark, near Vindeby, in 3 to 5m water
depths of the Baltic Sea. Vindeby began
operation in 1991, nearly 55 years after the
Creole field, and is producing approximately
11.2 GWh of electricity per year. Unlike the
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Figure 1b. Photograph (looking south) of Creole
platform in the Gulf of Mexico (Wasson 1948)
piled foundations used for the platform in
the Creole field, the 11 Vindeby turbines are
supported on shallow gravity base
foundations. The use of gravity base shallow
foundations is an extension of offshore oil
and gas experience in the North Sea. Like
the O&G industry, successful early projects
tend to act as prototypes resulting in future
use of similar foundation solutions for
similar projects in similar geologies. The 10
turbines at Tunø Knob, also in shallow
waters of the Danish Baltic Sea, used similar
gravity base foundations to those used at
Vindeby. While the offshore wind industry
has an 18 year track-record of design and
construction of various substructure and
foundation types, there is still much that can
be learned from the experiences of the
offshore O&G industry, particularly for
deeper waters. Although, due to differences
in soil and loading conditions, among other
factors, experience from the O&G industry
must be assessed within a rational
engineering framework for application to
these new situations. Empiricism within
offshore O&G design method formulations
must be identified, and modified for the
differing conditions of offshore wind turbine
development.
This paper first presents an overview
of substructure types and loading conditions,
focusing on evolution of practice in the
GOM and North Sea. Development of
substructures and foundation types in the
GOM and North Sea has been quite
different, which resulted from the regional
geology and associated soil behavior.
Aspects of soil behavior that control
offshore foundation design are highlighted,
and the methods for calculating the
resistance of (i) shallow foundations; (ii)
skirted foundations / suction caisson; (iii)
monopiles; (iv) piled jackets / tripods; and
(v) anchors, are discussed. This paper
presents an introduction to issues that
influence how design and construction
experience from the oil and gas industry can
be used to aid in offshore wind turbine
design, and the reader is referred to
additional publications on offshore
foundation design for a more thorough
discussion of methods (e.g., George &
Wood 1976, Poulos 1988, Randolph et al.
2005, Gerwick 2007, Randolph &
Gourvenec 2010).
2 Loading conditions and substructure
types
Loads transferred from a structure to the
soil and soil engineering properties govern
the size and type of foundation that is
required to support a structure. A
comparison of foundation loading for fixed
and floating offshore O&G structures, as
well as offshore wind turbines is illustrated
in Figure 2a. The design loading condition
for an offshore O&G platform typically
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
occurs due to horizontal loading from a
selected (i.e., 1 year, 10 year, 100 year,
10000 year, etc) design storm. For a rigid
structure, such as a template jacket in Figure
2a-i, moment induced by horizontal loads is
resisted by compression in the leeward leg
and tension in the windward leg of the
platform. The horizontal loads must also be
resisted by lateral loading of foundation
elements. Floating offshore platforms with
vertical mooring lines have foundations that
are permanently in tension due to the
buoyancy of the structure, and horizontal
storm loads lead to increased tension that
must be resisted by the foundation.
The magnitude of vertical and
horizontal forces for fixed offshore
structures varies significantly with platform
size, and is also influenced to a large degree
by water depth. Vertical force due to
platform weight increases from about
100MN in relatively shallow waters to about
500 MN for water depths of about 60m (e.g.,
Poulos 1988). When water depth exceeds
120m, platform weight may exceed
2000MN. Horizontal storm loads on large
offshore O&G jacket structures in water
depths of about 100m have been recorded at
up to 235 MN (Marshall & Bea 1976),
although a majority of platforms are smaller
and in shallower water such that horizontal
design loads are typically on the order of 50
to 100MN. On the contrary, horizontal wave
loads on offshore wind turbines are a
fraction of those loads, and on the order of 1
to 3MN (e.g., Senders 2005, Houlsby et al
2005a, Manwell et al. 2007). This large
difference results from the much smaller
size of offshore wind structures as compared
to offshore O&G jacket structures. Wind
loads for a 3MW wind turbine with a hub
height of 75 to 100m under normal
operational conditions are on the order on
Figure 2a.
a. Comparison of loading conditions for fixed, floating, and monopile offshore structures

Figure 2b.
b. Influence of number of cycles on allowable load to prevent fatigue failure for a
variety of structures (after Spera 1994)

Schneider, J.A., and Senders,, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
32
0.1MN, although gust loads of up to 1MN
could occur (e.g., Senders 2005, Houlsby et
al 2005a). For the case of the offshore wind
turbine in Figure 2a under wave and typical
wind loading conditions, foundation loads
due to wind and wave forces are similar for
water depths of 10 to 15m (for a hub height
of 75 to 100m), and wave loads tend to
dominate for water depths greater than 20 to
25m. In the US and Canadian Great Lakes,
the relatively small wave environment and
greater flexural strength of freshwater ice (as
compared to saltwater ice) may result in ice
loads that control design. As water depth
increases, loads on the foundation of a fixed
O&G or offshore wind structure will
increase due to the increased moment arm of
the structure height above the seabed. This
design difficulty can be overcome by the use
of floating offshore structures where greater
water depth does not directly lead to
increased storm loading, and, therefore,
essentially no limits on structure location
due to water depth.
It is noted that wind, waves, current,
and ice loads in Figure 2a are cyclic in
nature. Cyclic resistance is typically
considered to be a function of the static
resistance and reduces with the number of
cycles (e.g., Basquin 1910, Spera 1994).
Figure 2b compares the number of cycles
from an offshore design storm to those for
various cases, including wind turbines.
Large storm events, with 100 to 1000
relatively high amplitude cycles is typically
the focus for foundation design of offshore
O&G structures, whereas the small
amplitude cycles, with over 1 billion cycles,
typically govern the wind turbines design.
When wave loading conditions are relatively
weak, the potential for wind induced fatigue
has controlled design at some European
offshore wind turbine locations (Saigal et al.
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
2007). Fatigue of structural elements is a
very important consideration for both
offshore platforms and offshore wind
turbines, while the soil and foundation
response to a large number of relatively low
amplitude cycles is still being researched
(e.g., LeBlanc et al. 2010, Senders 2008).
Soil dynamics for foundation vibrations
(e.g., Richart 1960) and earthquake loading
(e.g., Seed & Idriss 1970), have a long
history of application, although the strict
vibration tolerances of offshore wind
turbines as compared to offshore O&G
platforms requires careful consideration.
The primary role of dynamics for the design
of offshore O&G platforms relates to the
predominant period of storm loading
conditions in relation to that of a platform.
Storm loading conditions typically have
natural periods between 5 and 30 seconds,
and therefore structures need to be designed
such that they are either stiff with a natural
period less than 5 seconds or compliant with
a natural period greater than 30 seconds (e.g.
Ellers 1982). For the case of offshore wind
turbines, the natural period of the system
must differ from that of the environmental
loading as well as both the natural period of
the rotor (1P) and periods related to higher
order harmonics (e.g., Kühn 1997, Liingaard
2006). For foundations on softer sediments,
dynamic response will deviate from the
fixed condition that can be calculated using
the Rayleigh method (e.g., Liingaard 2006),
and the influence of soil stiffness
nonlinearity on natural period of the
structure becomes an important
consideration (e.g., Houlsby et al. 2005a,
2005b).
When looking at the evolution of
substructure and foundation design in light
of water depth and soil conditions, the first
25 years of offshore development occurred
in relatively shallow waters and was
dominated by the use of template jacket
structures (Figures 2a-i, 3a). These
structures could be constructed on land,
floated to location, and installed in relatively
short periods of time to minimize the
potential for weather affecting construction
schedule and costs. By 1970, jacket
structures had been constructed in water
depths of up to 120m, and developments in
substructure technology were being explored
to extend these water depths to greater than
200m (McClelland 1974).
While it is possible to build increasingly
larger jacket structures to accommodate
greater water depths, increased substructure
weight leads to higher material costs as well
as increased vertical loads that require larger
and more expensive foundation. To reduce
these additional costs a variety of
substructure types have been developed to
support offshore exploration and production
facilities. Structures that are rigidly attached
to the seabed (fixed structures) are shown in
Figure 3a and include (after Poulos 1988;
Wilhoit & Supan 2009):
• Steel Jacket (or Template) Structures
(typically less than 450m water depth)
• Concrete Gravity Base Structures (GBS)
(typically less than 350m water depth)
• Guyed Towers (typically greater than
300m water depth); and
• Compliant Towers (typically 300 to
600m water depth).
Developments in the GOM focused on Fixed
Structures until the early 1990s.
To minimize additional material costs
related to the increasing size of fixed
structures in deep water, the use of floating
structures began for the O&G industry in the
early 1970s. Like fixed structures, there are
a variety of floating structures that have
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
evolved with time (Figure 3b, after Wilhoit
& Supan 2009):
• Tension Leg Platforms (typically 150 to
1450m water depths)
• Semi-submersibles (typically 100 to
2400m water depth)
• Spar (typically 600 to 2400m water
depth); and
• FPSO (Floating Production Storage and
Offloading, up to 2500m water depth).
FPSOs are ship shaped structures which
dominate the number of floating structures
for the O&G industry, but are not included
in Figure 3b since they have little
application to the offshore wind turbine
industry. Except for Spars, floating
structures can be used in a large range of
water depths. Spars for the O&G industry
typically have a buoyancy can length on the
order of 150 to 225m to resists horizontal
loading through added ballast, therefore,
preventing their use in shallower waters.
Since the offshore wind industry
started development some 55 years after the
first offshore O&G platform, it is logical
that previously developed substructure and
foundation technology from the O&G
industry was used for initial wind farm
development. Figure 4 illustrates foundation
concepts for the offshore wind industry as a
function of water depth. To date, most
offshore wind turbines have been
constructed in shallow waters of less than
30m depth. Monopile foundations support
over 70% of the installed capacity, followed
by Gravity Base Structures (GBS). The
Beatrice pair of 5MW offshore wind
turbines, installed in 2007 in 45m of water,
were the first jacket structures constructed
for offshore wind turbines. The 5MW
Hywind Spar, installed in 2009 in 220m
water depth, was the first floating offshore
wind turbine with commercial scale
Figure 3a. Typical fixed offshore O&G Figure 3b. Typical floating offshore O&G
structures with typical ranges of water depth structures with typical ranges of water depth

Figure 4. Substructure types for offshore wind turbine foundations (after Musial et al. 2006)

Schneider, J.A., and Senders,, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
32
capacity. TLPs and semi submersibles are
still in the research phase for floating
offshore wind turbines. Compliant and
guyed towers have not received much
interest from the offshore wind turbine
industry since the large lateral movements
that can be accommodated by offshore oil
platforms in deep waters have been
considered to be detrimental to wind turbine
performance. Wind turbine manufacturers
are currently developing systems which can
accommodate larger rotations, and it is
noted that the Hywind Spar substructure
installed offshore of Norway in 2009 has
been designed to rotate 2-4 degrees under
normal operating conditions and up to 11
degrees for extreme storm loading
conditions (Rølland 2009).
Figure 5 shows the increase in
maximum water depth of offshore O&G
construction with time (line), as well as the
year and water depth (points) for key O&G
developments in the GOM, O&G
developments in the North Sea, and offshore
wind developments in the North and Baltic
Seas. Figure 6 expands on those points,
giving a brief description of each event.
Since offshore O&G development in the
GOM started about 20 years prior to
offshore O&G development in the North
Sea, and since the GOM has much deeper
maximum water depths, key points in GOM
development tend to track record water
depths. A notable foundation option in the
GOM, known as a ‘caisson’ or tapered
monopile, has been used to support
individual wells since the early 1960’s.
These are broadly similar to monopiles used
for offshore wind turbines today except that
diameters are on the order of 0.7m (30”) to
1.2m (48”) as compared to 3m (120”) to 5m
(198”) diameter monopiles common for
offshore wind turbines. While few
foundation failures have been reported for
O&G structures in the GOM, it is interesting
to note that presented failure case histories
typically include ‘caisson’ tapered monopole
foundations (e.g., McClelland & Cox 1976,
PMB 1996).

Figure 5. Maximum water depth for offshore Oil & Gas (O&G) and offshore wind turbine
construction with key dates identified (see Figure 6 for description of key dates)

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
 Figure 6. Timelines for evolution of substructure and foundation technology for (a) Oil & Gas
development in the Gulf of Mexico; (b) Oil & Gas development in the North Sea; (c) Offshore
wind development in the North and Baltic Seas

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
 Differences in substructure and
foundation developments in the GOM and
North Sea were significantly affected by
predominant soil conditions, as discussed in
more detail in the next section. Despite
having shallower waters, developments in
the North Sea included the first floating
production platform and the first tension leg
platform. GOM foundations are dominated
by driven piles, with essentially all TLPs to
date anchored by driven piles, and
approximately 55% of Spars to date
anchored by driven piles (the remaining
45% tend to use suction caissons). A range
of foundation and substructure types were
developed for the North Sea, including the
previously mentioned Gravity Base
Structure (GBS), skirted shallow
foundations and suction caissons, as well as
concrete substructures and floating
platforms. The development of concrete
substructures was brought about by the
ability to construct and float out these tall
structures in the deep fjords of Norway.
Evolution of offshore wind turbine
substructures was broadly similar to that of
the offshore O&G industry in the North Sea.
Initial construction focused on relatively
shallow water depths, and development of
different types of foundations that led to cost
effective construction. While monopile
foundations dominate the construction
practice for offshore wind turbines, there are
actually a range of monopile solutions.
These include (i) driven monopiles; (ii)
bored monopiles; as well as (iii) driven-
drilled monopiles. The various construction
techniques were utilized to account for
subsurface conditions, with driven
monopiles working best in relatively thick
soil deposits; bored monopiles applicable to
near surface rock or very hard soil deposits,
and the driven-drilled option required for
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
construction in rock underlying a significant
thickness of softer soils. As with offshore
O&G development in the North Sea,
development in offshore wind turbine
practice was largely influenced by regional
geology and soil conditions.
3 Soil behavior and regional geology
3.1 Soil Behavior
The ease of visual identification and
simple laboratory characterization tests has
led to classification of soils being typically
based on grain size (i.e., gravel, sand, silt,
clay), although engineering behavior is more
strongly controlled by how fast water can
flow through soil pores in relation to how
fast the soil is loaded. If water cannot flow
fast enough to escape from the pores, excess
pore water pressure (∆u) will change during
loading. This phenomenon can broadly be
identified as “water flow characteristics,”
and quantified using the hydraulic
conductivity (k), or more appropriately the
vertical (or horizontal) coefficient of
consolidation, cv = k v (1 + e )σ ' v 0 (γ w λ ) ,
where the subscript v indicates the vertical
component, e is the void ratio, σ'v0 is the
vertical effective stress, γw is the unit weight
of water, and λ is the slope of the normal
compression line, (Terzaghi & Peck 1948).
Since water is essentially incompressible (in
relation to a soil matrix), increases in total
bulk stresses will initially result in increased
excess pore pressures such that effective
stresses don’t change, therefore resisting
volume change. Water flows from areas of
high excess pore pressure, leading to an
equalization of pore pressures, local
increases in effective stress, and settlement
of the soil. Water flow characteristics are
strongly related to the effective grain size
(d10, the grain diameter corresponding to
10% finer by weight) and the uniformity of
10
the particle sizes, therefore resulting in
engineering behavior also being strongly
controlled by grain size and adequate use of
existing grain size based classification
systems.
In addition to water flow characteristics,
engineering behavior of soil can be
quantified using three primary properties
(e.g., Atkinson 2007):
• Shear strength (φ' and ψ, or su);
• Shear stiffness (G); and
• Compressibility (λ and κ, or mv, or 1/K).
Effective stress (σ' = σ – u, were σ is the
stress and u is the pore water pressure)
controls shear strength, shear stiffness, and
compressibility. Soil ‘state’ will also affect
strength, stiffness, and compressibility
through void ratio, ratio of horizontal to
vertical effective stress, and dilation angle.
The dilation angle controls changes in
volume during drained loading as well as the
tendency for positive or negative shear
induced pore pressures during undrained
loading.
Table 1 summarizes relative values
of soil strength, stiffness, compressibility,
and water flow characteristics for typical
soil and rock types. Clays and sands are
separated by ‘state’, or normally
consolidated and over consolidated clays as
compared to ‘loose’ and ‘dense’ sands. A
normally consolidated (NC) clay is a
‘recently’ (within a geologic time scale)
deposited soil that tends to contract or
generate positive pore pressure when
sheared. An over consolidated (OC) clay has
been previously compressed and unloaded,
such as the current condition of glacially
affected deposits, and has much higher
strength and stiffness than a normally
consolidated clay. An OC clay will tend to
dilate or generate negative pore pressures
(and increase the effective stress) when
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
sheared. Separating the state of sands as
‘loose’ or ‘dense’ is in quotes since it is
actually density and effective stress that
control volume change of sands (e.g., Bolton
1986). Simply speaking ‘dense’ sands will
tend to dilate while ‘loose’ sands will tend to
contract when sheared, and dilation will lead
to higher peak friction angles (and higher
strength) for ‘dense’ materials.
Shear strength in uncemented soils
may be characterized for drained conditions,
where water can escape pores faster than the
loading rate and no excess pore pressure
(∆u) is generated, using the friction (φ') and
dilation (tanψ=−dεv/dγs) angles within the
Coulomb failure criterion (τf=σ'tanφ', where
τf is the shear stress at failure). During
drained loading shear strain (γs) will cause
volumetric strain (εv), and these changes in
volume will affect foundation resistance. For
soils with slow water flow characteristics,
such as clays, or for rapid loading, such as
storm waves, analysis can be considered as
undrained, and excess water pressure (∆u)
will increase with increases in mean stress
(assuming that water is incompressible in
relation to soil). Shearing of the soil may
cause increases or decreases in excess water
pressure depending upon soil state. Under
undrained conditions there is no volume
change (ψ=0) and strength can be
characterized using the undrained shear
strength, su, within the Tresca failure
criterion (τf=su). After undrained loading,
excess pore pressures will tend to reduce
with time, and after drained loading (to a
significant fraction of the failure stress)
volume change may result in a soil with a
looser structure. For saturated subsea soils it
must be recognized that effective stress and
void ratio change with time after foundation
construction and loading, and therefore
11
Table 1. Relative engineering characteristics of typical soils and rock

Material Type Water Flow Strength Stiffness Compressibility

Characteristics
Normally consolidated CLAY Very low Low Low High
Over consolidated CLAY Low to very low Med. to high Med. to high Low to med.
‘Loose’ SAND High Med. to high Med. Low
‘Dense’ SAND High High High Low
Calcareous SAND High High Med. to high Med.
SILTS and mixtures Low to med. Low to high Low to high Low to high
ROCK Very low to high Very high Very high Very low

Figure 7a. Cyclic degradation of two Figure 7b. Nonlinear stiffness of suction caisson
calcareous sands foundation (after Houlsby et al. 2005b)
(data from Sharma & Fahey 2003)

strength, stiffness, and compressibility will
also change.
An extreme case of changes in
effective stress occurs during cyclic loading.
Under sustained cyclic loading, the effective
stress will tend to decrease and therefore the
soil strength will decrease, as illustrated for
isotropic loading of two different calcareous
sands in Figure 7a. Like fatigue of steel, the
soils data broadly follow ‘the exponential
law of endurance tests’ (Basquin 1910),
where strength decreases, up to an
‘endurance limit’, with the number of cycles
raised to a power. The rate of degradation in
Figure 7a is not unique for both of the
calcareous sands shown, and this rate is
likely to be soil type and state dependent.
When extrapolating to a number of cycles
representative of a 20 year wind turbine
design life, fatigue strength for these
calcareous sands appears to be less than 1/10
of the static strength. This extrapolation is
highly uncertain, particularly when
considering the potential for an ‘endurance

12

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
limit,’ and a more rational theory is required
to assess soil behavior. Cyclic degradation
can be quantified using four different types
of mechanical behavior that depend on
anisotropy of confining stress and
magnitude of cyclic shear stresses relative to
the failure stress; (i) elastic; (ii) shakedown;
(iii) alternating plasticity; or (iv) incremental
collapse (e.g., Collins & Boulbibane 2000).
Elastic behavior mentioned above would
imply the presence of an ‘endurance limit’
for soils, although, no endurance limit has
been observed in lab tests for stress ratios
(Q/Qult) as low as 0.05 and a number of
cycles up to 3x105 (Clukey et al. 1995).
Research into fatigue resistance of soils and
foundation appears warranted, although, this
has not been a significant design issue in the
O&G industry.
It should be noted that soils behave
as a nonlinear elastic material from very
small shear strain levels. Therefore, even
under small cyclic shear loads the
accumulation of plastic displacements may
lead to a progressive failure of a foundation.
Figure 7b illustrates the nonlinear shear
modulus measured during rotational loading
of a suction caisson foundation (Houlsby et
al. 2005b). Modulus reduction is soil type
dependent and will affect not only the static
and cyclic response, but also the dynamic
response of wind turbine foundation
systems. When calibrating springs and
dashpots for simplified dynamic analysis,
compatibility between shear strain level
shear modulus must be checked. It is also
noted that material damping will increase
with shear strain (e.g., Seed & Idriss 1970).
3.2 Regional Geology
The evolution of substructure and
foundation types for the GOM and North
Sea was influenced not solely by water
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
depth, but also by soil type. Figures 8a and
8b illustrate typical cross sections through
the GOM and North Sea, respectively. The
GOM and North Sea have distinctly
different geological origins, where the GOM
is predominantly young, recently deposited
fine grained sediments, and the soils of the
North Sea have been compressed and
reformed as a result of the advance and then
retreat of glaciers up to about 10,000 years
before present. The cross sections show
large laterally continuous layers of
predominantly clayey soils, both having
relatively slow water flow characteristics
that result in ‘undrained loading’ during
foundation construction or rapid loading
from storm events. Differences arise in that
the GOM clays are ‘normally consolidated’
(NC) and the North Sea clays are ‘over
consolidated’ (OC). As laid out in Table 1,
the state of the clay soils will lead to vastly
different engineering behavior, with NC
clays being soft and highly compressible,
and the OC clays having a higher strength
and relatively low compressibility.
Additionally, the variability of the North Sea
glacial geology is much more significant
than that of the GOM. While the GOM
contains a few sand ‘fingers,’ North Sea
geology includes a number of near surface
channels of sands and soft clays, as well as
sand ‘fingers’ buried below precompressed
stiff to very stiff clays.
The main differences in evolution of
foundation types and substructure geometry
resulted from the thick, continuous soft
deposits of the GOM as compared to the
much stronger clays and larger amounts of
near surface sands evident in the North Sea.
For example, the strength of clays in the
GOM tend to increase with depth at a rate of
1 to 2 kPa/m, while stiff overconsoldiated
clays of the North Sea often have a strength
13
 Figure 8. Cross sections through northern Gulf of Mexico and central North Sea

of 200kPa or greater starting close to the
seabed. To reach soils with a strength large
enough to support the large loads from
offshore O&G platforms, driven piles were
required in the GOM, while Gravity Base
shallow foundations could be utilized in the
North Sea.
The first GBS in the North Sea was
constructed in 1973 for the Ekofisk tank,
and founded on dense sand to 26m underlain
by hard clay (su ≈ 300kPa) (e.g., Randolph
et al. 2005). Based on those experiences
Condeep GBSs were built for Beryl A and
Brent B in 1975, with Brent B being
constructed predominantly on hard clay
(e.g., Claussen 1976). Success with shallow
foundations on stiff deposits led to research
and analysis such that shallow foundations
with deep skirts could be used for
construction on soft deposits. Experience
includes (Randolph et al. 2005):
• Gullfaks C – 1989: Soft NC clays and
silty clays (su ≈ 30 kPa)
• Snorre A – 1991: TLP anchored to very
soft NC clays
• Troll A – 1995: Soft NC clays with
strength increasing at about 3kPa/m
from zero strength at the mudline
These successes with Gravity Based shallow
foundations carried on to the early
developments for the offshore wind industry
in the North and Baltic seas, although
expenses related to surface preparation and
effects of scour have led to monopiles
dominating the foundations for installed
capacity to date.

14

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.

3.3 Calcareous Soils
When transferring knowledge and
experience from the O&G industry to the
offshore wind industry, it must be noted that
design methods often rely on empiricism
rather than solid fundamentals of
mechanical behavior. The use of
predominantly empirical methods
complicates the engineering process in that
it is often difficult to extrapolate the results
from small scale element tests to full scale
design in new situations. A good example of
the costs that may be associated with over
reliance on empiricism comes from
experiences in carbonate deposits of the
North West Shelf of Australia, particularly
the North Rankin A platform.
The potential difficulties of design and
construction of driven pile foundations in
calcareous sediments was well known, as
discussed by McClelland (1974), and bored
piles were commonly used to support
offshore structures in these deposits. Despite
a thorough investigation of soil conditions
and evaluation of engineering parameters,
installation of foundation piles had starkly
different behavior than anticipated.
Installation resistance when driving with a
MHU 1700 hammer was originally
calculated to be 40 to 100 blows/m after
initial pile self weight penetration (Khorshid
et al. 1988). Typical piles free fell on the
order of 15m or more during driving as the
result of single hammer blows, and in one
case a pile free fell nearly 70m due to a
single blow (Khorshid et al. 1988).
While human intervention prevented
this foundation failure from causing a
platform failure, foundation retrofit costs
were on the order of AU$340 million. In this
case, an adequate systematic framework
with which to extend current practice was
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
not employed, highlighting the over reliance
on empiricism that is common in offshore
foundation design. Application of a
recommended practice is often not sufficient
for successful design in new situations, and
the following section aims to outline
features of a systematic framework based on
offshore O&G experience and also
applicable to offshore wind turbine design.
4 Foundation Design
Ultimately, successful foundation
design will produce a structure constructed
at acceptable costs that resists ultimate
collapse as well as excessive deformations
that would restrict use or result in excessive
maintenance costs over the design lifetime
of a structure. Financial risks arise for
investigation & design, materials &
construction, as well as long term
maintenance. Engineering and design can be
considered the reduction of financial risk
through application of scientific
measurements and principals.
Risks of failure are mitigated in
engineering by the use of individual load
and resistance factors (or lumped safety
factors), which ensure that the estimated
capacity is greater than the estimated
demand. Risk is associated with uncertainty,
and probabilistically based load and
resistance factors increase the safety margin
as uncertainty increases for a constant
consequence of failure (e.g., Harr 1987). It
should be noted at this point that there are
large differences in consequence of failure
for offshore O&G facilities and offshore
wind turbines. Namely, these greater risks
result from the order of magnitude greater
expense of each individual O&G structure,
as well as the potential loss of life associated
with failure of offshore O&G platforms that
is not a factor for offshore wind turbines.
15
This paper will focus on uncertainty (and (v), the foundation diameter (d) and the
bias) in design, although it is recognized that horizontal coefficient of consolidation (ch)
understanding of failure consequences is of (e.g., Finnie & Randolph 1994, Randolph
equal importance for managing risk. 2004, Erbrich 2005):
To minimize costs and produce a v⋅d
‘successful design,’ an engineer would V=
ch
likely aim to reduce the safety margin by
For V less than 0.05 foundation loading is
reducing uncertainty. Due to the empirical
often considered as drained, and for V
nature of many offshore design standards,
greater than 15 foundation loading is
techniques to reduce uncertainty may be
considered essentially undrained (e.g.,
counter intuitive. Successful design is often
Schneider et al. 2008a, Lehane et al. 2009).
a result of conservative bias rather than low
Due to large shallow foundation diameters
uncertainty (e.g., Bea et al. 1999), and
for offshore O&G structures, undrained
therefore a better understanding of design
loading is often the dominant design case,
method formulation is required to minimize
even in sandy soils. The following
bias and allow for better assessment of
discussion of shallow foundation behavior
uncertainty in design (e.g. Schneider 2009).
focuses on the undrained case (ψ=0, τf=su).
The following sections aim to provide
When subjected to a horizontal load,
insight into mechanisms controlling
such as a storm or wind load for an offshore
foundation resistance such that the potential
O&G platform or wind turbine, the leeward
for bias in offshore foundation design is
side of a (hypothetical) weightless
minimized. This will allow for successful
foundation will be in compression and the
extrapolation from foundations for offshore
windward side of the foundation will be in
O&G structures to the case of offshore wind
tension. Shallow foundations provide little
turbines.
resistance to tension (uplift), and the weight
of the foundation must be increased to
4.1 Shallow Foundations
overcome the uplift forces. The strength of
Shallow foundations are those resting
the soil (su) must therefore resist the weight
on the surface of the soil or slightly
of the foundation as well as the additional
embedded such that the embedment depth is
loads induced by the storm loading. Sliding
less than the equivalent diameter of the
resistance, in this case, is usually estimated
foundation. Equivalent diameters of offshore
as the undrained strength for a rough
O&G shallow foundations are typically on
interface.
the order of 50 to 150m, while embedment
Figure 9a illustrates a range of
depths vary from less than 1m to
failure mechanisms for undrained loading of
approximately 35m (e.g., Randolph et al.
shallow foundations (after Bransby &
2005). As previously mentioned, soil
Randolph 1998, Gourvenec & Randolph
behavior is controlled by the rate of water
2003, Randolph et al. 2005, Gourvenec
flow out of the pores in relation to the rate of
2007). Foundation resistance is related to the
loading of the foundation. The rate of
controlling failure mechanism, and the
loading relative to rate of water flow can be
failure mechanism is affected by the relative
assessed using a normalized velocity (V)
magnitudes of vertical (V), horizontal (H)
that is a function of the foundation velocity
and moment (M) loading. Vertical and

16

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Figure 9. Failure mechanisms for foundations attached to fixed offshore structures

17

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
horizontal loads are normalized by the area
multiplied by the undrained strength, and
moment is normalized by the area multiplied
by the diameter and undrained strength. For
the limiting cases of pure vertical loading,
pure horizontal loading, and maximum
moment (at V/Vult ≈ 0.5), failure surfaces
(for a circular foundation in Figure 9a-vi)
simplifies to:
• V/Asu ≈ 6; H/Asu = 0; M/ADsu = 0
• V/Asu = 0; H/Asu = 1; M/ADsu = 0
• V/Asu ≈ 0.5Vult ≈ 3; H/Asu ≈ 0; M/ADsu
≈ 0.65
These correspond to the analytical solution
of a vertically loaded circular footing (or
Prandtl failure mechanism with shape
correction factor), sliding on a ‘rough’
interface (τf = αsu, α=1) for the horizontal
case, and analytical solution for a scoop
mechanism at maximum moment
(Gourvenec & Randolph 2003). Interaction
between V, H, and M loads will change the
shape of the failure surface, and therefore
the resistance of the foundation system.
The above discussion is applicable
for undrained loading conditions (i.e., V >
15). Shallow foundations for offshore wind
turbines are up to an order of magnitude
smaller in diameter than those for offshore
O&G structures, 15 to 25m as compared to
50 to 150m. Undrained analyses may not be
applicable for design in rapidly drainage
soils, such as sands. Drained analysis of the
ultimate capacity of shallow foundations is
less developed than that for undrained soils,
yet will still depend on the interaction
between V, H, and M loads. Typical
normalized parameters for drained loading
of sands include (i) v=V/V0; (ii) h=H/V0;
and (iii) m=M/DV0; where V0 is the initial
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
vertical load (e.g., Gottardi et al. 1999). As
the rotation of a wind turbine foundation is
often limited to 1o by manufacturers,
deformation analysis may be a more
stringent requirement than bearing capacity
during drained loading. Deformations are
also controlled by the location of loading
within the three dimensional yield surface,
and it is noted that shear modulus will
reduce with increasing shear strain (i.e.,
Figure 7b) or mobilized stress ratio.
4.2 Skirted Foundations / Suction
Caisson
All early O&G GBSs in the North Sea
had some sort of ‘skirts’ below the base of
the foundation (e.g., Randolph et al. 2005).
These skirts provided additional resistance
to horizontal loading (sliding) as well as
uplift capacity. Figure 9b illustrates three
possible failure mechanisms for skirted
foundations. The addition of skirts moves
the shallow foundation failure mechanism to
deeper soil layers, and possible stronger
soils (9b-i). Additional resistance comes
from extension of the failure surface through
the soils above the foundation (e.g.,
Skempton 1951, Gourvenec et al. 2006).
For deep skirts (Figure 9b-ii), a flow
round mechanism may generate at the base
of the skirted foundation, and resistance is
mobilized at the base (Qb=qb·Ab) as well as
along the sides (shaft) of the skirted
foundation (Qs=τfπDL, where τf is the unit
shaft friction along the side of the skirted
foundation). If there is a gap between the top
plate of the skirted foundation and the
internal soil such that plug movement can
occur, and the plug resistance (internal shaft
friction, Qs,in) is less than the end bearing
18
resistance (Qb), the failure mechanism
shown in Figure 9b-iii may occur. In this
case, end bearing resistance (qb) only occurs
on the annulus of the skirted foundation and
internal and external shaft friction contribute
to the ultimate vertical resistance.
Within the O&G industry,
environmental loading of skirted
foundations are typically analyzed as
shallow foundations discussed in the
previous section (e.g., Bransby & Randolph
1998, Gourvenec & Randolph 2003,
Randolph et al. 2005, Gourvenec 2007).
Failure occurs due to combined V, H, and M
loading. This will be a similar case for
offshore wind turbines on single, large
diameter skirted foundations, such as that at
Fredrikshaven discussed by Ibsen (2008).
For deeper water fixed offshore wind turbine
foundations supported by tripods or jacket
structures, moment induced by horizontal
loading is resisted by push-pull (e.g., Figure
2a-i), and the failure mechanisms in Figure
9b-ii or 9b-iii typically control behavior.
Horizontal load must also be less than the
lateral resistance of the caissons. This will
be similar to the suction caissons for the
Draupner E and Sleipner SLT offshore O&G
jacket structures discussed by Bye et al.
(1995).
In this section we have combined
discussion of skirted shallow foundations
with suction caissons. Suction caissons are a
special case of shallow foundations or deep
foundations (depending upon geometry), but
are distinguished by the installation method.
Suction is used to install the foundation, but
pumps are typically removed after
installation and no additional long term
resistance results from applied ‘suction.’
Resistance during installation must also be
evaluated, and often differs from that which
controls resistance to storm loading. Failure
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
mechanism 9b-iii is typically used for
evaluation of installation resistance, as
discussed by Senders et al. (2007), Senders
& Randolph (2009), among others. Shaft
friction and end bearing of suction caissons
and skirted foundations with a deep failure
mechanism are typically analyzed using
similar methods as those used to evaluate τf
and qb for low displacement (open ended)
piles (e.g., Randolph 2003, Senders &
Randolph 2009).
4.3 Piled Jackets / Tripods
Piled jackets and tripods tend to resist
the moment resulting from horizontal storm
loading through a push-pull system, as
illustrated in Figure 2a-i. Horizontal load
must also be overcome by lateral resistance
of the piles. Pile jacket structures are
common in the O&G industry and are
typically founded on driven piles for ground
conditions consisting of soils (i.e., sand, silt,
clay, etc.). Bored piles for rock or calcareous
deposits will not be addressed in this paper.
Failure mechanisms for driven piles are
illustrated in Figure 9c, and are similar to
those for the ‘deep’ failure mechanisms of
skirted foundations / suction caissons
(Figure 9b-ii, 9b-iii). Like suction caissons,
the installation resistance of a driven pile
will typically be controlled by the coring
failure mechanism illustrated in 9c-ii (e.g.,
Stevens 1988) while resistance to static
loading is controlled by the plugged failure
mechanisms illustrated in 9c-i (e.g.,
Randolph et al. 1991). Due to the slender
geometry, driven piles in clay soils gain a
majority of their resistance from shaft
friction (τf). When piles are founded in
dense sands, 50 percent of the ultimate
resistance may come from end bearing (Qb),
depending upon soil layering. Cone
penetration test tip resistance can provide
19
 Bias towards (a) pile tip depth and (b) soil relative density for API (2000/2007) main text
method for axial shaft friction of piles in siliceous sand (after Schneider et al. 2008)

(c) Database calibration of API (2000/2007) (d) Potential bias in API (2000/2007) main
main text method for axial shaft friction of text method for axial shaft friction of piles in
piles in clay clay (after Karlsrud et al. 2005)

Figure 10. Bias in offshore methods for calculating shaft friction on pile foundations

the most reliable estimate of end bearing for friction involves larger degrees of
both open and closed ended piles (e.g., Xu et empiricism. When evaluating pile end
al. 2008), although evaluation of shaft bearing resistance, differences in the size of

20

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
a small diameter cone penetrometer and a
large diameter pile must be accounted for.
Cone penetration tip resistance should be
averaged up to 4 equivalent pile diameters
below the tip of the pile, and approximately
8 equivalent pile diameters above the pile tip
(e.g., Schmertmann 1978, Xu et al. 2008).
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) Recommended Practice for Fixed
Offshore Structures (RP 2A) has relied on
bearing capacity theory for tip resistance and
a lateral earth pressure coefficient based
approach for evaluation of pile shaft
capacity (e.g., API 1969, 2000). When
designing in areas outside of the GOM that
contain significant amounts of sandy soils,
such as the North Sea, API RP2A has been
deemed to potentially be overly conservative
for some states of sandy soils and
unconservative for others (e.g., Toolan et al.
1990). When comparing the design method
to a database of case histories, as shown in
Figure 10a and 10b, this bias is clear. The
API (2000) method overpredicts short term
capacity of long piles in ‘loose’ sands and
underpredicts capacity of short piles in
‘dense’ sands. Since the bias is a function of
both soil density and pile geometry,
alternative method formulations were
developed. The API (2007) update now
includes four CPT based methods for
evaluation of the shaft friction of piles in
sands. These methods evaluate changes in
radial effective stress due to installation of a
pile with a correlation to cone tip resistance
that is modified by pile geometry. In certain
cases the different methods deviate
significantly from each other, and a
discussion of this bias is provided by Lehane
et al. (2005) and Schneider (2007, 2009). It
is noted that modifications to minimize
unconservative bias in the API (2000)
design method for shaft friction of driven
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
piles (or suction caisson) in siliceous sands
published in API (2007) have not yet been
adopted in the offshore wind turbine
industry in the DNV (2007) standard.
Historically, shaft friction of piles in
clays has been estimated from undrained
shear strength and a modification factor, τf =
α·su. For evaluation of offshore piles in the
insensitive high plasticity NC deposits
(su/σ'v0 = 0.2 to 0.3) of the GOM, α values
are often taken as close to unity (e.g.,
Randolph & Murphy 1985, API 2000,
Figure 10c). Values of α tend to decrease
with increases in soil state, quantified using
su/σ'v0, and are often taken as approximately
0.4 for heavily overconsolidated clays of the
North Sea. The successful use of α values
does not occur because the failure at the
soil-pile interface is an undrained failure in
the clay, but rather that the undrained
strength correlates to the increase in radial
effective stress that results from installation
of a displacement pile (e.g., Lehane &
Jardine 1994, Randolph 2003). The shaft
friction values from Figure 10c are for the
fully equalized strength that occurs a
significant time after foundation installation.
Over time, additional tests have been
performed on foundations in a variety of soil
conditions that were outside of the database
analyzed by Randolph & Murphy (1985).
Additional data have highlighted much
larger ‘uncertainties’ than have been
presumed for evaluation of the shaft friction
of piles in clay. These additional data points
are illustrated in Figure 10d, and the bias
between new data and previous trends have
been described as a function of pile length
(Kolk & Van der Velde 1996), plasticity
index (Karlsrud et al. 2005), and/or
sensitivity (Jardine et al. 2005). These
differences require additional study and
caution should be used when extrapolating
21
to design situations in soft sensitive clays of
low plasticity.
In addition to vertical loads, piled
foundations for jacket structures and tripods
must also resist lateral loads. Resistance to
lateral loads are discussed in more detail for
the next section on monopiles.
4.4 Monopiles
Multi-well structures for the offshore
O&G industry are typically large enough
that designing a foundation with a single
pile, or a monopile, would not provide
sufficient support. However, monopiles are
the dominant foundation type for offshore
wind turbines constructed to date.
Evaluation of resistance for installation of
monopiles follows the failure mechanism of
axially loaded piles in Figure 9c-ii. When
subject to large horizontal wind and wave
loads, monopile foundations for offshore
wind turbines will need to resist large lateral
loads. There is significant experience for
evaluation of lateral loads for offshore
foundations (e.g., Matlock 1970, Reese et al.
1974, Murff & Hamilton 1993, Long &
Vanneste 1994, Dunnavant & O’Neil 1989),
although, this experience and these design
methods may not be directly applicable to
lateral loading of monopile foundations.
Typical offshore piles in the GOM have a
ratio of length (L) to diameter (D),
slenderness ratio (L/D), on the order of 45 to
105 for piles installed prior to 1980 and 20
to 70 for piles installed after 1980. Increase
in pile driving hammer sizes has led to the
use of larger diameter higher capacity piles
(e.g., McClelland 1974). The stronger
glacial deposits of the North Sea typically
used shorter piles, with L/D on the order of
20 to 60, although slender piles (L/D ≈ 130)
have also been used in some cases. In
contrast, monopile foundations typically
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
have a diameter on the order of 3 to 5m, and
L/D between 4 and 20 with an average of 8.
Piles for offshore O&G structures will
therefore typically fail with a flexible mode,
illustrated in Figure 9d-ii, while monopile
for offshore wind turbines will typically fail
in a rigid mode illustrated in Figure 9b-i
(e.g., Poulos 1989).
Analytical solutions for ultimate
capacity and deformation of rigid and
flexible laterally loaded piles typically
perform well (e.g., Poulos 1989, Mayne et
al. 1995), although evaluation of cyclic
degradation is highly empirical. The
empirical degradation factors have been
developed for flexible rather than rigid pile
behavior, and are likely not directly
applicable to the case of offshore wind
turbine foundation design.
Recent work has indicated that the
excess progressive rotation as compared to
the static case (∆θ/θs) for an offshore wind
turbine founded on a rigid monopile in sand
is related to the maximum and minimum
moment of the load cycle (Mmax, Mmin), the
static moment capacity of the pile (MR), the
relative density of the soil (Rd), and the
number of cycles (N) (LeBlanc et al. 2010):
∆θ M  M 
= Tb  max , R d  ⋅ Tc  max  ⋅ N 0.31
θs  MR   M min 
where Tb and Tc are functions of the
bracketed properties. It should be noted that
these model tests require some larger scale
field validation and the power function on N
may vary with sand type, as illustrated for
laboratory element tests in Figure 7a.
Whether laboratory model tests are
recommended for each site or cyclic
laboratory element tests can be used to
modify the updated empirical expressions
requires further validation.
22
4.5 Anchors al. 2005, Senders & Kay 2002, Randolph &
A wide range of floating structures for Gourvenec 2010):
offshore wind turbines is currently being • Gravity anchors (box, grillage and berm)
researched. Substructures adopted from the • Anchor piles
O&G industry include: • Suction caissons
• TLP (e.g., Blue H) • Dynamically penetrating (torpedo)
• Mini TLP / Sea Star (e.g., MIT / NREL) anchors
• Spar (Hywind, Sway) • Vertically loaded drag anchor (VLA)
• Semi-sub (e.g., Gusto, Principal Power) • Plate anchors (e.g., suction embedded,
Floating structures may be anchored using SEPLA)
near vertical mooring lines or catenary • Drag anchors (fixed fluke)
mooring lines, depending upon the Failure mechanisms are broadly similar to
substructure, and a wide range of anchoring those discussed for fixed offshore structures
solutions currently exist (e.g., Randolph et and illustrated in Figure 11, although

Figure 11. Drained and undrained failure mechanisms for vertically and horizontally loaded
anchors

23

Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
foundations are predominantly loaded in
tension for vertically moored structure and
loaded laterally (depending upon padeye
location, Randolph et al. 1998) for catenary
moored structures. Capacity of anchor piles,
suction caissons, and dynamically
penetrating (torpedo) anchors are controlled
by the same mechanisms as those for axially
and laterally loaded piles and caissons
(Figure 9c, 9d), although there is no end
bearing component during uplift
(Qb=0=Qann). Plate and drag anchor
resistance in clay soils is predominantly
related to soil undrained shear strength
through a capacity factor. A reverse bearing
capacity mechanisms initially forms and
resistance is controlled by a flow round
failure (Figures 11a, 11b). Failure
mechanisms for plate and drag anchors
during drained penetration (sandy soils, typ.)
are more complex, and resistance is
controlled by friction and dilation angles
(e.g., Figure 11c; Vermeer & Surjiadi 1985,
White et al. 2001, White et al. 2008: Figure
11d; Neubecker & Randolph 1996).
While it is common to assume that
design of drag anchors only requires soil
type and anchor size through the ‘anchor
efficiency’, this misconception will result in
design with high levels of uncertainty.
Therefore the O&G industry adopts a policy
where every drag anchor needs to be proof-
loaded to a certain percentage of its ultimate
capacity before it is approved. This is a
costly exercise and design using analysis
based on the failure mechanisms illustrated
in Figure 11 provides a more rational
framework that will lead to more reliable
extrapolation of offshore O&G experience
to offshore wind turbine foundation design.
5 Summary, Conclusions & needed to update empiricism in design
Recommendations
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
This paper has provided an overview of
considerations for substructure selection and
foundation design for offshore structures.
Specifically, evolution of concepts in the
O&G industry have been reviewed for GOM
and North Sea developments highlighting
parallels and differences to the offshore
wind turbine industry. It is concluded that
offshore O&G substructure and foundation
concepts evolved differently in the GOM
and North Sea due the differences in:
(i) water depth; as well as
(ii) soil conditions.
Additionally, design of offshore wind
turbine foundations is similar to offshore
O&G foundations except that for offshore
wind turbines:
(i) stricter specifications apply related to
dynamic behavior;
(ii) tighter tolerances apply on rotation;
(iii) monopiles typically deform in a rigid
manner rather than a flexible manner,
such that empirical relationships for
cyclic loading typical of piles for
offshore O&G structures are not
directly applicable to the offshore wind
industry; and
(iv) failure typically does not lead to
human casualties and costs associated
with failure are relative low.
Recommended practice / design
standards exist for both offshore O&G
foundations and foundations for offshore
wind turbines, and while these standards are
useful for reproducing designs in similar
situation, they are not as useful for designing
in new conditions. These standards often
rely on empiricisms and may not reflect
appropriate failure mechanisms, such as
those discussed in this paper. Continued
research into offshore foundation behavior is
method formulations that better reflect
24
failure mechanisms of offshore wind turbine
structures. This new research should include
small scale physical models, field scale
physical models, centrifuge tests, analytical
studies, as well as numerical simulations.
6 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof. Peter
Marshall and Dr. Andrew D. Deeks for
helpful review comments on the manuscript.
The first author would also like to
acknowledge financial support from the
UW-Madison Graduate School.
7 References
API 1969. Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms, API RP2A,
1st Edition. Dallas, TX: American
Petroleum Institute.
API 2000. Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working
Stress Design, API RP2A, 21st Edition.
Washington D.C.: American Petroleum
Institute.
API 2007. Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working
Stress Design, RP2A, Revisions to
Edition: 21, Supplement 2. Washington
D.C.: American Petroleum Institute.
Atkinson, J. 2007. The Mechanics of Soils
and Foundations, 2nd Edition, London:
Taylor & Francis. 442 pp.
Basquin, O.H. 1910. The exponential law of
endurance tests. Proceedings ASTM,
11: 625-630.
Bea, R.G., Z. Jin, C. Valle and R. Ramos
1999. Evaluation of reliability of
platform pile foundations. J. Geotech.
Geoenv. Eng., ASCE. 125(8): 696-704.
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and
dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique.
36(1): 65-78.
Bransby, M.F. and M.F. Randolph 1998.
Combined loading of skirted
foundations. Géotechnique. 48(5): 637-
655.
Bye, A., C. Erbrich, B. Rognlien and T.I.
Tjelta 1995. Geotechnical design of
bucket foundations. In: Proc. Annual
Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC7793. Houston: OTC.
Claussen, C.J.F. 1976. The Condeep story.
In: Offshore Soil Mechanics, ed. P.
George and D.M. Wood, 256-270.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Engineering Department.
Clukey, E.C., Morrison, M.J., Garnier, J.,
and Corté, J.F. (1995). The response of
suction caissons in normally
consolidated clays to cyclic TLP
loading conditions, In: Proc. 27th
Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, pp. 909-918. OTC7796.
Houston: OTC.
Collins. I.F. and M. Boulbibane 2000.
Geomechanical analysis of unbounded
pavements based on shakedown theory.
J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng., ASCE.
126(1): 50-59.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) 2007. Design of
offshore wind turbine structures,
Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101: 142
pp.
Dunnavant, T.W. and M.W. O’Neil 1989.
Experimental p-y model for submerged,
stiff clay, J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE.
115(1): 95-114.
Ellers, F.S. 1982. Advanced offshore oil
platforms, Scient. Am. 246(4): 31-41.
Eribrich, C.T. 2005. Australian frontiers –
spudcans on the edge. In: Proc. Int.
Sym. Frontiers in Offshore
25
 Geotechnics. pp. 49-74. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Finnie, I.M.S. and M.F. Randolph 1994.
Punch-through and liquefaction induced
failure of shallow foundations on
calcareous sediments. In: Proc. Int.
Conf. on Behavior of Offshore
Structures, BOSS'94, pp. 217 – 230.
Boston: Pergamon.
Fisk, H.N. and B. McClelland 1959.
Geology of the continental shelf off
Louisiana: Its influence on offshore
foundation design. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America. 70:
1369-1394.
George, P. and D.M. Wood, ed. 1976.
Offshore Soil Mechanics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Engineering
Department. 468 pp.
Gerwick, B.C. 2007. Construction of Marine
and Offshore Structures. Boca Raton:
CRC Press. 840 pp.
Gottardi, G., G.T. Houlsby and R.
Butterfield 1999. The plastic response
of circular footings on sand under
general planar loading. Géotechnique.
49(4): 453-470.
Gourvenec, S. 2007. Failure envelopes for
offshore shallow foundations under
general loading. Géotechnique. 57(9):
715-728.
Gourvenec, S. and M.F. Randolph 2003.
Failure of shallow foundations under
combined loading. In: Proc. 13th Eur.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng.
pp 583-588. Prague: CGtS.
Gourvenec, S.,M.F. Randolph and O.
Kingsnorth 2006. Undrained bearing
capacity of square and rectangular
footings. Int. J. Geomech., ASCE. 6(3):
147-157.
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Harr, M.E. 1987. Reliability based design in
civil engineering. New York: Dover
Publications. 291 pp.
Houlsby, G.T., Ibsen, L.B. and Byrne B.W.
2005a. Suction caissons for wind
turbines, In: Proc. Int. Sym. Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics. pp. 75-93.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Houlsby, G.T., R.B. Kelly, J. Huxtable and
B.W. Byrne 2005b. Field trials of
suction caissons in clay for offshore
wind turbine foundations,
Géotechnique. 55(4): 287-296.
Ibsen, L.B. 2008. Implementation of a new
foundations concept for Offshore Wind
farms. In: Proc. 15th Nordic Geotech.
Meeting.
Jardine, R. J., F.C. Chow, R.F. Overy and
J.R. Standing 2005. ICP design
methods for driven piles in sands and
clays. London: Thomas Telford. 97 pp.
Karlsrud, K., C.J.F. Clausen, and P.W. Aas
2005. Bearing capacity of driven piles
in clay, the NGI approach, In: Proc. Int.
Sym. Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics. pp. 775-782. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Khorshid, M.S., B.C. Haggerty and R. Male
1988. Development of geotechnical
aspects of the investigation programme.
In: Engineering for Calcareous
Sediments: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on
Calcareous Sediments, Vol. 2. pp. 377-
386. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kolk, H.J. and E. Van der Velde 1996. A
reliable method to determine friction
capacity of piles driven into clays, In:
Proc. 28th Offshore Technol. Conf.,
OTC 7993, pp. 337-246. Houston:
OTC.
Kühn, M. 1997. Soft or Stiff: A
Fundamental Question For Designers of
Offshore Wind Energy Converters. In:
26
 European Wind Energy Conference '97.
4 pp. EWEC.
LeBlanc, C., G.T. Houlsby and B.W. Byrne
2010. Response of stiff piles in sand to
long term cyclic lateral loading.
Géotechnique. online.
Leffler, W.L., R. Pattarozzi and G. Sterling
2003. Deepwater Petroleum
Exploration & Production: A Performance of pile foundations for
Nontechnical Guide. Houston:
Pennwell Publishing. 166 pp.
Lehane, B.M. and R.J. Jardine 1994.
Displacement-pile behavior in a soft
marine clay. Can. Geotech. J. 31(2):
181-191.
Lehane, B.M., J.A. Schneider and X. Xu
2005. A review of design methods for
offshore driven piles in siliceous sand.
UWA Report GEO 05358. Perth: The
University of Western Australia. 105
pp.
Lehane, B.M., C.D. O'Loughlin, C. Gaudin
and M.F. Randolph 2009. Rate effects
on penetrometer resistance in kaolin.
Géotechnique. 59(1): 41-52.
Liingaard, M. 2006. Dynamic behaviour of
suction caissons, PhD Thesis, Aalborg
University, Denmark.
Long, J. and G. Vanneste 1994. Effects of
cyclic lateral load on piles in sand. J.
Geotech. Eng., ASCE. 120(1): 225-244.
Marshall, P.W., and R.G. Bea 1976. Failure
modes of offshore platforms, In:
Behaviour of Offshore Structures,
BOSS ’76, pp. 579-635. The
Norwegian Institute of Technology.
Matlock, H. 1970. Correlations for design of
laterally loaded piles in soft clay, OTC
1204. In: Proc. 2nd Offshore
Technology Conference, pp. 579-594.
Houston: OTC.
Mayne, P.W., F.H. Kulhawy and C.H.
Trautmann 1995. Laboratory modeling
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
of laterally-loaded drilled shafts in clay.
J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE. 121(12): 827-
835.
McClelland, B. 1974. Design of deep
penetration piles for ocean structures. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE. 100(GT7):
709-747.
McClelland, B., and W.R. Cox 1976.
fixed offshore structures, In: Behaviour
of Offshore Structures, BOSS ’76, pp.
1-17. The Norwegian Institute of
Technology.
Murff, J.D. and J.M. Hamilton 1993. P-
ultimate for undrained analysis of
laterally loaded piles. J. Geotech. Eng.
Div., ASCE. 119(1): 91-107.
Manwell, J.F., Elkinton, C.N., Rogers, A.L.,
and McGowan, J.G. 2007. Review of
design conditions applicable to offshore
wind energy systems in the United
States. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. 11: 210-234.
Musial, W., S. Butterfield, and B. Ram,
2006. Energy from offshore wind, In:
Proc. 2006 Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC18355. 11 pp.
Houston: OTC.
Neubecker, S.R. and M.F. Randolph 1996.
The static equilibrium of drag anchors
in sand. Can. Geotech. J. 33(4): 574-
583.
PMB Engineering, Inc. 1996. Hurricane
Andrew Effects on Offshore Platforms:
Phase II Joint Industry Project – Final
Report, Report 229AB.
Poulos, H.G. 1988. Marine Geotechnics.
London: Unwyn Hyman Ltd. 473 pp.
Poulos, H.G. 1989. Pile behaviour – theory
and application. Géotechnique. 39(3):
365-415.
27
Randolph, M. F. 2003. Science and
empiricism in pile foundation design.
Géotechnique, 53(10): 847-875.
Randolph, M.F. 2004. Characterisation of
soft sediments for offshore applications.
In: Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Site
Characterization, ISC’2, pp. 209-232.
Rotterdam: Millpress.
Randolph, M.F. and B.S. Murphy 1985.
Shaft capacity of driven piles in clay.
In: Proc. 17th Offshore Technol. Conf.,
OTC 4883, pp. 371-377, Houston:
OTC.
Randolph, M.F., E.C. Leong and G.T.
Houlsby 1991. One-dimensional
analysis of soil plugs in pipe piles.
Géotechnique. 41(4): 587-598.
Randolph, M.F., M.P. O’Neill, D.P. Stewart
and C. Erbrich 1998. Performance of
suction anchors in fine-grained
calcareous soils, In: Proc. Annual
Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC8831. 9 pp. Houston: OTC.
Randolph, M.F., M. Cassidy, S. Gourvenec
and C. Erbrich 2005. Challenges of
offshore geotechnical engineering. In:
Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
and Geotech. Eng.. pp. 123-176.
Rotterdam: Millpress.
Randolph, M.F. and S. Gourvenec 2010.
Offshore Geotechnical Engineering.
London: Taylor & Francis. 560 pp.
Redding, J. 1976. Glacial genesis of North
Sea soils. In: Offshore Soil Mechanics,
ed. P. George and D.M. Wood, 80-100.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Engineering Department.
Reese, L.C., W.R. Cox, and F.D. Koop.
1974. Analysis of laterally loaded piles
in sand. Proceedings, 6th Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC
2080: pp. 473-485, Houston: OTC.
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
Richart, F.E. 1960. Foundation vibrations. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE,
86(SM4): 34 pp.
Rølland, T. 2009. Wind power projects in
StatoilHydro. Presentation to LOG
Meeting, Molde, 15 January 2009.
Saigal, R.K., D. Dolan, A. Der Kiureghian,
T. Camp and C.E. Smith 2007.
Comparison of design guidelines for
offshore wind energy systems. In: Proc.
2007 Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC 18984-PP, 7 pp. Houston: OTC.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1978. Guidelines for
cone test, performance, and design (No.
FHWATS-78209): U.S. Federal
Highway Administration.
Schneider, J.A. 2007. Analysis of piezocone
data for displacement pile design, PhD
Thesis, Crawley: The University of
Western Australia.
Schneider, J.A. 2009. Uncertainty and bias
in evaluation of LRFD ultimate limit
state for axial loading of driven piles,
Journal of the Deep Foundations
Institute, 3(2): 38-49.
Schneider, J.A., M.F. Randolph, P.W.
Mayne and N. Ramsey 2008a. Analysis
of factors influencing soil classification
using normalized piezocone tip
resistance and pore pressure
parameters, J. Geotech.
Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE.
134(11): 1569-1586.
Schneider, J.A., X. Xu and B.M. Lehane
2008b. Database assessment of CPT
based design methods for axial capacity
of driven piles in siliceous sands. J.
Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng.,
ASCE. 134(9): 1227-1244.
Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss 1970. Soil moduli
and damping factors for dynamic
response analysis. Rpt. No.
UCB/EERC-70/10, U.C. Berkeley.
28
 Senders, M. 2005. Tripods with suction
caissons as foundations for offshore
wind turbines on sand. In: Proc. Int.
Sym. Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics. pp. 397-403. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Senders, M. 2008. Suction caissons in sand
for offshore wind turbine foundations,
PhD Thesis, Crawley: The University
of Western Australia.
Senders, M. and S. Kay 2002. Geotechnical
suction pile anchor design in deep water
soft clays. In: Proc.7th Annual
Conference on Deepwater Risers,
Moorings and Anchorings. 50 pp.
London: IBC.
Senders, M., M.F. Randolph and C. Gaudin
2007. Theory for the installation of
suction caissons in sand overlaid by
clay. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on
Site Investigation and Geotechnics, pp.
367-382. London: SUT.
Senders, M. and M.F. Randolph 2009. CPT-
based method for the installation of
suction caissons in sand. J. Geotech.
Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE. 135(1):
14-25.
Sharma, S.S., and M. Fahey 2003.
Evaluation of cyclic shear strength of
two cemented calcareous soils. J. of
Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng.,
ASCE. 129(7): 608-618.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity
of clays. In: Proc. Building and
Research Congress. pp. 180-189.
London.
Spera, D.A. 1994. Chapter 12: Fatigue
design of wind turbines, Wind Turbine
Technology, ed. D.A. Spera, 547-588.
New York: ASME Press.
Stevens, R.F. 1988. The effect of soil plug
on drivability in clay, In: Proc. 3rd Int.
Schneider, J.A., and Senders, M. 2010. Foundation design – a comparison of oil and gas
platforms with offshore wind turbines, Journal of the Marine Technology Society, 44(1), 32-51.
View publication stats
Conf. on App. of Stress Wave Theory
to Piles, pp. 861-868.
Terzaghi, K., and R.B. Peck 1948. Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
Wiley: New York
Toolan, F.E., M.L. Lings and U.A. Mirza
1990. An appraisal of API RP2A
recommendations for determining skin
friction of piles in sand. In: Proc., 22nd
Offshore Technol. Conf., OTC 6422,
pp. 33-42. Houston: OTC.
Vermeer, P.A. and W. Surjiadi 1985. The
uplift resistance of shallow embedded
anchors. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Eng. pp. 1635-1638.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Wasson, T. 1948. Creole field, Gulf of
Mexico, Coast of Louisiana. In: SP 14:
Structure of Typical American Oil
Fields, Vol. III, 281-298. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG).
White, D.J., A.W. Take and M.D. Bolton
2001. Centrifuge modeling of upheaval
buckling in sand. Int. J. Phys.
Modelling Geomech. 2(1): 19-28.
White, D.J., C.Y. Cheuk and M.D. Bolton
2008. The uplift resistance of pipes and
plate anchors buried in sand.
Géotechnique. 58(10): 771-779.
Wilhoit, L. and C. Supan 2009. 2009
Deepwater solutions & records for
concept selection (poster). Houston:
Mustang Engineering.
Xu, X., J.A. Schneider and B.M. Lehane
2008. Cone penetration test (CPT)
methods for end-bearing assessment of
open- and closed-ended driven piles in
siliceous sand, Canadian Geotech. J.,
45(8): 1130-1141.
29