Lecture 81 - Monopile and Tripod - Jacket Foundations For Offshore Wind Foundations 10th April - Chris Golightly GO ELS LTD

Monopile and Tripod/Jacket Foundations for
Offshore Wind Foundations

10th April 2014 Braemar Adjusting, London
Dr. Chris Golightly GO-ELS Ltd.
Geotechnical & Engineering Geology Consultant
Source: BELWIND Website
Sources from top left

clockwise: Arup, BIFAB,
COWI, RAVE Alpha Ventus
Source: Univ. Mass. 1974
Source: WINDFLOAT Website
Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. - Monopile and Tripod/Jacket Foundations for Offshore Wind Foundations 10th April 2014
Summary - Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations
 LCOE Ranges and Averages [IRENA, 2013]
 Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms – Wind Turbines
 Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]
 Codes and Standards; DNV, GL; IEC, US
 Foundation Concepts 2012 – 2020 [Roland Berger Study 2013]
 Maps UK Round 3, French & German North Sea/Baltic Sites
 Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations
 Monopiles – Design & Installation
 4 Leg Piled Jackets – OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket
 Tripods – Weserwind Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind
 Gravity Base Structures [GBS] – Arup/Hochtief, Vici Ventus, Vinci, Seatower, Etc.
 Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods
 Guyed Tower, “Twisted” Jacket, Suction Tripod, A-Framed Monopile
 TITAN 200 Jack-up Foundation
 Foundation Issues & Problems:
1. Early Refusals & Piling Noise
2. Vibro Installation & Scour
3. Grouted Connections
4. Monopile Resonance, Cyclic Friction Degradation & Long Term Tilt in Sands
5. Steel Corrosion
 Foundation Costs – Comparisons
 Offshore Wind Cost Trends – Need for Reduction
 Fabrication Costs (Early 2010)
 Offshore Wind; Measurement, Monitoring, Mitigation 1: BELWIND; 2: Bucket Jacket Foundation
 Offshore Floating Solutions – Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource
 Conclusions, References, Contact Details
LCOE Ranges and Averages [IRENA, 2013]
Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms – Wind Turbines
Oil & Gas Platforms Offshore Wind Turbines

 Relatively stiff structures, usually  Relatively flexible towers on variety of
founded on long driven piles and foundation types, monopiles 4 to 9 m
mudmats diameter, tripods/4 leg jackets, GBS.
 Axial loads dominate due to high  Structural dynamics always critical. 3P
structure weights Eigenvalue resonance
 Structural dynamics are not critical with  Bending moment and lateral response
weight >>> bending moments more important than axial load
 Wave loads tend to dominate design in  Wind and wave loads both very
high energy areas such as North Sea important
 Straightforward Force – Response  Complex uncorrelated/uncoupled
relationship loading
 Each design is one-off “Prototype” at a  Large Nos. of OWT in arrays (80 [German AV
single location Tripods] to 2000 [FOREWIND Statoil UK])
Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]
Choice of foundation solution influenced by:

• Water depth and seabed conditions,
especially depth to rockhead
• Environmental loading (wind, wave, tidal)
• Onshore fabrication, storage and
transportation requirements.
• Offshore vessel & equipment spread costs
& availability
• Installation & Construction methodology Source: UPWIND Project Final Report 2011
available.
• Developer CAPEX investment appetite and
OPEX (Repair & Maintenance) predictions
Smarter solutions available (suction caissons,
GBS, lighter jackets/trusses, hybrids, seabed
anchored templates)
“Foundations” (or sub-structure) 30 to 40%
of CAPEX & rising. Cost reductions essential
“Smarter” lighter hybrid foundations needed Source: NREL
& move away from riskier costly conventional

driven tubular steel piling.
Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US
Codes and Standards Hierarchy – Most Relevant Codes and Standards

Offshore German Windfarms  Det Norske Veritas DNV Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101,
Design for Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, Norway, 2004.
A. Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und  Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Guidelines, IV – Industrial
Hydrographie [BSH, Federal Regulator] Services, Part 2 – Guideline for the certification of offshore
wind turbines, Germanischer Lloyd Windenergie GmbH
B1. Germanischer Lloyd [GL] Hamburg, 2005.
B2. Det Norsk Veritas [DNV]  BSH Standard: 2007-06, Design of Offshore Wind Turbines
B3. IEC  API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
B4. DIN (German National Standards)
– LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, July
C1. API-RP2A (Oil & Gas Offshore 1993.
Structures) - WSD Working stress design, 21st edition, December2000.
C2. DIBt  EN 1997-1:2009-09: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Deisgn;
C3. Norsok (Norwegian Offshore) Parts 1, 2 and 3.
C4. DASt Richtlinie  RECOFF Recommendations for Design of Offshore wind
turbines (RECOFF), European Energy, Environment and
D. Other Specific Standards
Sustainable Development Programme
where above do not cover
technical design in sufficient  Norsok Standard N-003 Marine Actions, 2007.
detail
Foundation Concepts 2012 – 2020 [Roland Berger Study 2013]
Offshore Wind Foundation – Definition. The “Sub-Structure”
Maps: UK Round 3, French & German North Sea/Baltic Sites
Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations
Environmental Surveys
 Biogenic reefs & Benthic communities
 Marine archaeology, wrecks and seabed obstructions
 Grab and gravity core sampling of seabed surface sediments, for scour, plumes and cable burial
 Seabed mobility, sand waves and shoals
Geophysical and Geotechnical Surveys

 Swath bathymetry
 Side scan sonar imagery
 Seismic reflection profiling for geological shallow stratigraphy and shallow gas presence
 Magnetometer for pipelines, cables, metal objects, seabed “junk” & unexploded ordnance [UXO]
 Boreholes, vibrocores, cone penetration testing for geotechnical design parameters and soil layering
Guidance Notes
Society for Underwater Technology (SUT)/ Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics (OSIG) Committee
(2005). Guidance Notes on Site Investigation for Offshore Renewable Projects, Rev. 02, March 2005.
Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie [BSH], (2008). Ground Investigations for Offshore
Windfarms. BSH Standard No. 7004, p. 40.
Monopiles – Design &
Installation
• Not a “Pile” but Driven Tubular Steel
Thin Walled Caisson Shell.
• Typically 4.5 - 9 m diameter,
sometimes tapered
• Wall thicknesses 30 - 80 mm. D/t ratio
very high ~ 80 – 120.
• WD cut-off 20 to 35 m > pile lateral &
seabed soil stiffnesses & layering.
• Weights up to 900 tonnes, limited by
float out & crane capacities
• Driven or drive-drill-drive (UK) or even
drilled and grouted (France)
• Transition piece “glued” onto monopile
with brittle high strength cement ~
very strong granite > problems
• Simple, quick, suited to shallow water:
problems - driving refusals & weight.
• Structure frequency limits, fabrication,
handling and installation constraints.
4 Leg Piled Jackets – OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket
• Usually driven tubular steel piles

up to 2.5 m Dia. Variable diameter,
seabed penetrations and wall
thickness permitted on same
project
• Reasonably well understood design
and drivability methods with
offshore track record / experience
• Flexible & adaptable to:
- different/varying soil conditions
BIFAB Jacket Beatrice. Source: SSE Renewables
- water depth up to ~ 45 m
- scour conditions (no protection
vs protection/mitigation
• Acts in tension & compression
(“push-pull”)
• Flexibility in installation methods &
vessels (pre-piling templates Vs
through jacket sleeves).
• Allows for internal drilling out and
redriving if necessary (expensive &
to be avoided)
• Move to suction caissons for
tripods & jackets? (DONG, Statoil,
Dudgeon trials) Source: OWEC Tower
Tripods – Alpha Ventus, OGN-Aquind, BARD Tripile
Weserwind - ALPHA VENTUS
• German federal funding 2001 – 2007
• 6 OWEC jackets/6 OWT tripods
• EPCI Contract value EUR 32m
• Vattenfall, EoN & Federal EWE (DOTI)
• 1st seabed template pre-piling (IHC)
• Adopted by Borkum West 2, Globaltech
1
OGN-Aquind
• Newcastle UK based Oil & Gas fabricator
• TRITON 3 leg truss jacket for use in
WDs of 30 to 80 m
• Major UK Govt. funding in 2012 for
development/design of prototype jacket
• Steel savings allow fabrication of 150
jackets/year at Hadrian’s Yard Wallsend
BARD Tripile
• “One-off German project (so far)
• 400 Te+ 3.35 m Dia. Steel piles &
transition triangle. WD 25 to 40 m
• Clever but costly – 100 units/year.
• Installed WINDLIFT1 – 2600 te lift.
Gravity Base Structures [GBS] – Arup/Hochtief, Vici Ventus, Vinci, Seatower, Etc.
Simplicity: Certainty of delivery, increased

programme opportunities with fewer constraints
Minimal Seabed Preparation: Installed directly
onto seabed whenever possible avoiding need
to remove or disturb surface sediments
Self-Floating: No heavy lift or specialist towing
or installation vessels required. Reduced supply
chain & weather constraints. Improved cost
certainty, increased supplier base & lower costs
Flexibility: Can be relocated, repowered and
removed at end of operational life.
• RC non-piled ballasted GBS with skirt option
best solution in WD up to 60 m
• Large OWT up to 8 MW & standardised
design
• Collar designs can accommodate ~ 2 deg
vertical alignment tolerance
• Loading situation different to piled
foundations & substantial vertical loading
required to ensure stability
• But: Generally impractical for OWT in
relatively shallow (< 15 m) water
• Bad publicity: German Strabag BSH rejection
& over-designed Thornton Bank GBS.
Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods
• Suitable for all sand densities and
intermediate strength clay
• Installation relatively simple &
extensive oil & gas experience
from GoM, North Sea, W.Africa
• Installation/capacity prediction
analyses well developed. Scour
protection design essential
• Highest quality geotechnical data Source: DONG
and analyses necessary for Source: SLP Engineering

stability assessment. Cyclic
loading assessment critical
• “Monopods” installed successfully
for Horns Rev Met Masts in 2009
& adopted in 2012 for UK
Forewind/Firth of Forth Met Masts
(Universal Foundation Monopod).
• SPT in NL developing tripod SC
solution funded by Carbon Trust.
Source: DONG
• Dudgeon full field SC jackets
planned for 2016. Source: Oxford University Civil Engineering
Guyed Tower, “Twisted” Jacket, Suction Tripod, A-Framed Monopile
Source: WA Design Ltd.
Source: Bunce and Carey EWEA 2001
TITAN 200 Based on
O&G Technology
Jack-up Sub-Structure
• Jack-up platform designed from well

understood offshore O&G technology,
designed to ABS/SNAME standards
• Float out with turbine, self-installing
• Lifting jacks are recovered and reused
on other platforms after installation
• Current design 20 – 80 meters WD
• Total structure weight ~1800 tonnes
• Scalable for up to 10MW turbine
• Interchangeable spudcans designed for
various soil types . Exposed bedrock,
micro-pile anchored from inside the
legs. Minimal/zero seabed preparation
• Transition piece integrated into the
structure – no grouting; no heavy lifts
• Adjustable air gap beneath structure
reduces wave and current loads
• Structure resonance (natural) eigen-
frequency can be adjusted
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (1); Early Refusals & Piling Noise
Piling Refusals
Heavy long large diameter monopiles
and jacket piles increasingly being over-
driven and drilled out in glacial deposits
and bedrocks: Expensive and risky.
Pile Tip Buckling
(cf. Valhall Norwegian Aker/BP problems
in 2004, Oil & Gas platform – expensive
repair and claim). Over driving in very
dense and /or cemented glacial
materials in S. North Sea may lead to
buckling failures if the industry continues
to adopt conservatively long piles
Piling Noise
2011 rules in Germany – 160 Dba @ 750
m. restricted working periods &
expensive mitigation measures. In UK
“soft start up” piling and observations
required. Helical piles considered in
Scotland. Germany – “Air Bubble
Curtains [ABC] & Hydro Sound Dampers
[HSD] – London Array, Baltic Sea tests.
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (2/1); Vibro Installation & Scour
Vibro-Installation
Tripods levelled using seabed vibro-
installation to ~8 – 15 m using vibro
hammers to reduce conventional hammer
noise, allowing sequential levelling. Newish
technique used on several large projects.
Accepted commercially viable offshore
Germany for partial pile installations –
through pile sleeves or pre-installed groups
or monopiles. Source: SLP Engineering Source: Thyssen-Krupp.
Scour Prediction & Mitigation

Scour prediction according to DNV; S=1.3-
1.6 * D. depends upon WD, soil type and
grading and seabed current.
May be allowed to develop (longer piles) or
gravel and rock dump protection required (~
500 -700 k Euros per monopile)
Alternatives include frond mats (“plastic
seaweed”), rock mats, pile eddy breaking
fins or diversion berms and fences
Accurate and cheap acoustic direct scour
monitoring now possible (e.g. Alpha Ventus).
Available commercially. Source: CEFAS Travelling Sand Waves @ Monopiles
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (2/2); Vibro Installation & Scour
Source: Fugro-EMU Ltd. Spudcan Footprints & Scour Pits @ Monopiles

Source: NORTEK UK – Sonar Scour Monitoring
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3/1); Grouted Connections
www.academia.edu/6616972/Offshore Wind Monopile
Grouted Connections December 2011
Monopile [MP] - Transition piece [TP] joint transmits high
bending moments. Brittle rock-like grout [cement]
connections mistakenly used on European projects - speed &
cost savings.
All but 2 excluded reinforcing shear keys due to DNV design
code omission. Settlement, cracking, failure on 70% UK Source: Lotsberg 2012
monopiles. Systemic design fault. Extensive/costly repairs.
Heavy oil & gas platforms - API leg-pile connections used for
decades, always in compression. OWTs are light, with cyclic,
complex vertical + bending force coupling & tensile stresses.
Ability to transfer large moments still not fully understood &
design theories have limitations & shortfalls. Use of conical TP
sections [“controlled failure”] uncertain in the long term.
Industry best practice and code guidelines under review &
DNV guidelines revised 2011 (new Code 2014). Still anomalies
in behaviour. Research ongoing on size & fatigue effects.
Many developers reverting to bolted flanges (Scroby Sands,
Source: Billington 2014
North Hoyle and Blyth 12 years ago), with some considering
pile swaging or even slip joints as reliable long term solution.
Requires verticality, very careful driving.
Many projects have adopted/are adopting Trelleborg spring
bearings (BELWIND, Robin Rigg, Sheringham Shoal). Long
term uncertainties for non shear keyed connections?
Source: Harding et al 2012
LONG TERM MEASUREMENT & MONITORING ESSENTIAL
Source: Billington 2014
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (4); Monopile Resonance, Cyclic
Friction Degradation & Long Term Tilt in Sands
Monopile Resonance
Selection of dynamic properties essential for cost
effective/reliable design. Affects rotor and support
structure interaction & soil-foundation dynamic response.
Design solutions depend upon ratio between fundamental
structure eigenfrequency fo, rotor frequency fR and blade
passing frequency fb = Nb* fR choice between “soft-soft” [fo
< fR], “soft-stiff” [fR < fo < fb] and “stiff-stiff” [fB < fo].
Cyclic Friction Degradation
Substantial reductions in axial pile friction and lateral P-Y
response may occur due to the cyclic long term loading
experienced by monopiles supporting large heavy 3-bladed
5 MW + HAWT turbines Cyclic Displacement
Accumulation in
Long Term OWT Tower Tilt in Sands Sands. Source:
Settling of towers/monopiles embedded in sands but not Achmus, Abdel-
Rahman & Kuo (2007)
keyed into bedrock may be large, leading to excessive tilt
and shutdown & resetting for gearbox turbines.
Tilt of 0.5 deg is usual for OWT. Permanent tilt due to
Construction tolerance permanent tilt is subtracted, with
typical values 0.20 to 0.25 deg. Allowable operational
rotational stiffness is typically 25 to 30 GNm/radians.
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (5/1); Steel Corrosion
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (5/2); Steel Corrosion
Foundation Costs Comparisons
Source: UPWIND Project Final report
Offshore Wind Cost Trends –
Need for Reductions
• Cost increases since 2005 due to

commodity price rises (mainly
steel) and installation
• Monopile costs per kW flat-lining
1991 – 2008
• Deeper waters:
- heavier and longer over- Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010
designed monopiles
- more extensive and expensive
equipment and vessel spreads
- higher downtime and weather
standby costs
• Insistence on “known technology”
leading to lack of innovation,
conservatism, risk aversion on the
part of developers and lenders.
• Lack of experience in developer
organisations; general skills
shortage.
Source: van der Zwaan et al, 2011
Fabrication Costs (early 2010) – Why Not Concrete GBS?
Source: Ballast Nedam, 2010.
Offshore Wind; Measurement, Monitoring, Mitigation (1: BELWIND)
Poster Paper EWEA 2014 Barcelona – Vrij Universiteit Brussel – De Sitter et al
Offshore Wind; Measurement, Monitoring, Mitigation (2: Bucket Jacket Foundation)
Presentation Oceanology International 2014 – Norwegian Geotechnical Institute – Per Sparrevik
Main Conclusions (1)
1. Initially this new offshore industry has understandably used conservative
monopile and piled tripod (Germany) & 4-leg jacket (UK) solutions. CAPEX
and investment still limited compared to other energy industries.
2. European Offshore Wind Industry has developed several foundation
solutions, steel /concrete, monopiles, AV piled tripods, BARD tripiles, triple &
4-leg jackets, truss towers, twisted jacket, guyed & A-frame monopiles,
monopod suction caisson, triple/quad suction caissons.
3. Main Foundation Risks: Grouted connections, piling noise mitigation, over-
conservative long, stiff, heavy pile design, pile tip buckling, unplanned
drilling/re-driving, tilt and settlement.
4. As more difficult rocky, irregular sites are encountered in deeper water,
innovative and creative thinking necessary at an earlier stage (c.f. UK Atlantic
and Argyll Array cancellations due to “challenging seabed conditions”)
5. Grouted connections fiasco -70% UK MPs failed. To be avoided if possible.
Use bolted flanges or other direct connections. If unavoidable use shear keys
& robust grout seals. Are non shear keyed conical [1o-3o] sections and/or
elastomeric spring bearings valid for fatigue design life? M-M-M
Main Conclusions (2)
6. Industry as a whole needs more realistic offshore turbine tilt criteria, based
upon sound engineering analysis. Big impact on structure costs, influencing
business cases. Development of tilt-tolerant DD turbines can reduce costs.
7. New foundation solutions [e.g. Carbon Trust] slowly & patchily embraced (Met.
Masts) in UK/Germany. Concrete GBS, twisted jackets & suction caissons more
suited to some sites. Solutions extensive in offshore oil & gas.
8. For foundation costs to reduce [halved acc. US DoE], innovative solutions
needed, selected/tailored to specific site conditions. Conservative risk averse
attitudes in a relatively new industry should change as experience is gained.
9. Measurement, Monitoring and Mitigation for offshore wind structures is
essential for long term design life O & M cost minimisation.
10. The current plans to move to ~10 m dia., 1200 Tonne, 60 m + length
monopiles in ~40 m WD may be questionable & should be challenged.
11. Globally, early development of floating alternatives increasing, HYWIND
[Statoil], Principle Power [WINDFLOAT], Wave Hub [Glosten], Blue H, Offshore
Japan [Various], France [IDEOL, WINFLO, VERTIWIND].
Major Monopile Project Conclusions – Owner/Developer
 The demand for WTGs is HIGH – There are few incentives for innovation by
established Suppliers. Innovation may have to be initiated and driven by the Owners.
 Present WTG and foundation designs are not entirely suited for offshore use and not
suitable for offshore installation. A dedicated offshore designed WTG incl. foundation
must be developed by this industry.
 To save cost and time you have to spend money in the early project phase in order
to safeguard so as to to… do it right the first time…
 At present, lump sum installation contracts are just not achievable – no incentive for
good performance and counter-productive. Availability of suitable installation vessels
must be increased.
The Future: Offshore Floaters – Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource
Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010.
The Future: Offshore Floaters – Japanese plus European HiPR Wind
Source: Maine Int. Consulting, 2013.
References & Links
References
 Douglas-Westwood (2013), “World Offshore Wind Market Forecast 2013 -2022”, 5th Edition.
 Golightly, C.R. (2014), “Tilting of Monopiles; Long, Heavy and Stiff; Pushed Beyond Their Limits”, Ground
Engineering; 2014, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp 20-23.
 van der Zwaan, R., Rivera-Tinoco, R., Lensink, S. & van den Oosterkamp, P., (2010) “Evolving Economics of Offshore
Wind Power: Cost Reductions from Scaling and Learning “, Amsterdam 2010, p. 9.
 The Offshore Evaluation Group (2010), “The Offshore Valuation Report; A Valuation of the UK’s Offshore Renewable
Energy Resource”, Public Interest Research Centre, p. 108.
 Maine International Consulting (2013), “Floating Offshore Wind Foundations; Industry Consortia and Projects in the
United States, Europe and Japan; An Overview, May 2013, p. 45
 Roland Berger (2013), “Offshore Wind Toward 2020; On The Pathway to Cost Competitiveness”, April 2013, p. 25.
Recommended Links
 EWEA Offshore Statistics 2013 ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA_OffshoreStats_July2013.pdf
 EC Marine Knowledge 2020 Database ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/marine_knowledge_2020
 Global Wind Energy Council Country & Global Reports gwec.net/publications/country-reports
 IRENA Costs Database; irena.org/costs
 UK Govt. Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads
 USA Offshore Wind Database: offshorewind.net
 4C Offshore Wind Database: 4coffshore.com
 UPWIND EWEA Project Final Report: upwind.eu
 UK Floating Wind: thecrownestate.co.uk/media/428739/uk-floating-offshore-wind-power-report.pdf
Contact Details
Dr. C.R. Golightly, BSc, MSc, PhD, MICE, FGS.

Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Consultant
Rue Marc Brison 10G, 1300 Limal, Belgium
Tel. +32 10 41 95 25
Mobile: +44 755 4612888
Email: chris.golightly@hotmail.com
skype: chrisgolightly
Linked In: linkedin.com/pub/5/4b5/469
Twitter: @CRGolightly
Academia.edu: https://independent.academia.edu/ChristopherGolightly
“You Pay for a Site Investigation - Whether You

do One or Not” – Cole et al, 1991.
“Ignore The Geology at Your Peril” – Prof. John

Burland, Imperial College.

Lecture 81 - Monopile and Tripod - Jacket Foundations For Offshore Wind Foundations 10th April - Chris Golightly GO ELS LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 81 - Monopile and Tripod - Jacket Foundations For Offshore Wind Foundations 10th April - Chris Golightly GO ELS LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monopile and Tripod/Jacket Foundations for

Offshore Wind Foundations

Source: BELWIND Website

Sources from top left

Source: Univ. Mass. 1974

Source: WINDFLOAT Website

Oil & Gas Platforms Offshore Wind Turbines

Choice of foundation solution influenced by:

& move away from riskier costly conventional

Codes and Standards Hierarchy – Most Relevant Codes and Standards

Offshore Wind Foundation – Definition. The “Sub-Structure”

Geophysical and Geotechnical Surveys

• Usually driven tubular steel piles

Simplicity: Certainty of delivery, increased

and analyses necessary for Source: SLP Engineering

Source: WA Design Ltd.

Source: Bunce and Carey EWEA 2001

• Jack-up platform designed from well

Scour Prediction & Mitigation

Source: Fugro-EMU Ltd. Spudcan Footprints & Scour Pits @ Monopiles

Source: UPWIND Project Final report

• Cost increases since 2005 due to

Source: Ballast Nedam, 2010.

Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010.

Source: Maine Int. Consulting, 2013.

Dr. C.R. Golightly, BSc, MSc, PhD, MICE, FGS.

“You Pay for a Site Investigation - Whether You

“Ignore The Geology at Your Peril” – Prof. John

You might also like