Offshore workspace WP2 Task 7b Alternative installation methods

Dutch Offshore Wind Energy Converter project

Dowec-072/00-P Dowec 072 rev. 01

Written by:

Name: A. Vos Ballast Nedam

Signature:

Date: 14-05-2002

version 0 1

Date 14-05-2002 15-12-2003

No of pages 26 26+1

First issue (PRELIMINARY) For publication

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Contents
1 2 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................3 STARTING POINTS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................4 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 PROPOSED LOCATION.................................................................................................................4 NUMBER OF WIND TURBINES AND PLANNING ................................................................................4 DATA OF COMPONENTS ..............................................................................................................5

INSTALLATION ..............................................................................................................................5 3.1 OPTIONS FOR INSTALLATION .......................................................................................................5 3.2 INSTALLATION METHOD FOUNDATION MONO PILE .......................................................................6 3.2.1 Foundation Mono Pile by tilting Pontoon ..........................................................................6 3.2.2 Foundation Mono Pile by Svanen .....................................................................................9 3.3 INSTALLATION METHOD - OWEC ................................................................................................9 3.3.1 Preassembled OWECs ....................................................................................................9 3.3.2 Assembly on location by other ships ..............................................................................13 3.3.3 Assembly on location by Self elevating Platforms .........................................................13 3.4 OFFSHORE ASSEMBLY LOCATION ..............................................................................................13 3.4.1 Installation process .........................................................................................................13 3.4.2 General requirements .....................................................................................................14 3.4.3 Concepts.........................................................................................................................18 3.4.4 Concept I.........................................................................................................................18 3.4.5 Concept II........................................................................................................................21 3.4.6 Cost.................................................................................................................................25

Page 2 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Introduction

In WP1 task 12 installation of structure, a work method is described for building a wind farm at the location of site III. Site III is located about 20 km offshore. For installing OWECs relatively near shore it proved to be possible to completely built up the superstructure onshore and transport it by the Svanen to the site of the wind farm. Building a wind farm conform this installation method at he location of site VII, implicates that the sailing time of the Svanen will be that much that it will be difficult to install the desired amount of OWECs in the given time span. This document describes the use of an offshore workspace for assembly, and accommodation of working crew and eventually O&M crew. It also looks at the possibilities of sheltering the installation vessel Svanen during periods of unworkable sea conditions.

Page 3 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

2 Starting points and conditions

2.1 Proposed location

The location of the wind park is 60 km offshore. For this report the DOWEC Site VII site is used. It is located in the North Sea west of Hoek van Holland (see map). Although the actual sailing distance of the site is 55 km for the purpose of the study it is assumed that the sailing distance is 60 km.

Figure 2.1-1: Location site VII approx. 60 km offshore of Hoek van Holland

2.2

Number of wind turbines and planning

This report is based on a total number of 80 turbines with a capacity of 6 MW each. The total number of turbines has to be installed in one year. The workability is based on DOWEC document DOWECF1W1-WB-01-047/00-C (Wind and Wave conditions).

Page 4 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

2.3

Data of components

Sizes and weights 6 MW hub height rotor diameter mast length water depth scour depth monopile diameter monopile top monopile length monopile wall thickness monopile toe depth transition piece top transition piece bottom transition piece length transition piece diameter transition piece wall thickness nacelle weight rotor weight blades weight mast weight Total weight OWEC transition piece weight monopile weight m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m mm ton ton ton ton ton ton ton 95 130 85 35 0 6 10 75 60 -65 10 0 10 6,42 60 203 91 111 316 721 94 659

3 Installation
3.1 Options for installation

The installation of 80 OWECs of 6 MW at a distance of 60 km results in a combination of problems. The main problem areas are how to install the big number of turbines in the required period of time. In the baseline case the Svanen was used to do the piling and the installation of the wind turbine of 2.75 MW. In this package the capacity of the Svanen in not sufficient to be able to install the whole park within the required time of on year (read one season). To solve the problem we need to; 1. Double the equipment as used in WP1 (baseline). 2. Break down the activities in smaller packages in order to spread the number of activities over more workflows. Ad 1. Double the equipment as used in WP1. The Sailing time for the 60 km location will be 60 km / 1.6 m/miles / 4 knots = 9.5 hours. This is from the Maasvlakte Harbour. This results in a total cycle time of the Svanen of 55.5 hours. (Att. Fair weather planning)

Page 5 of 25

14-05-02

DOWEC Cycle time planning excl. down time

Task Name Duration 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Thu 07 Jun 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Fri 08 Jun 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Placing activities Svanen place anchors Svanen Activities by Svanen at on-shore yard Pick up foundation pile from shore Reposition Svanen Pick up Transition piece from shore Pick up J-tubes from shore Pick up windturbine from shore Sail to construction location Activities Svanen off-shore Placing windturbine Position Svanen and fix anchors Final positioning Saven Place windturbine Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors Placing foundation pile Relocate Svanen to next position (500 m) Pick-up foundation pile and place in template Final positioning and drive pile Install temporary works Prepare and pick up transition piece Place top structure and adjust Grouting preparation Grouting annulus Placing J-tube Pick-up J-tube assembly Place J-tube assembly Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors Sail back to harbour
Project: Dowec Svanen Fair Weather Date: 14-05-02 Task Split

55,5 hrs 5 hrs 17 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 0,5 hrs 3 hrs 9,5 hrs 38,5 hrs 12 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 12 hrs 2 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 14,5 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 9,5 hrs
Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary Page 1 External Tasks External Milestone Deadline

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Looking at the additional data from the DOWEC team it was clear that an availability of uninterrupted periods of 56 hours was 60 % during the spring and summer period. This results in a total project cycle time of 55,5 hours/ 0,6 * 80 turbines = 7400 hours. Taking an inefficiency factor of 20% the total number of hours needed is 8880 hours The available hours in the same period are 184 days = 4416 hours. By doubling the equipment the available production hours are 8832, which is just sufficient to finish the project in time. In this case the available work space on shore also has to be extended to at least 5 (1.67 times baseline area) temporary erection positions so that the onshore activities will match the production of the off shore activities. Ad 2. Break down the activities in smaller packages in order to spread the number of activities over more workflows Looking at the components of the total OWEC the following parts can be identified; Foundation pile Transition piece Mast Nacelle Rotor Blades A logical split can be laid at the top of the transition piece whereby the foundation installation procedure is separated from the mast and turbine. This results in two separate workflows with each having its own equipment. The separate workflows can be divided as various options; 1. Foundation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Turbine mono pile tripod steel tripod concrete triple pile steel segmented mono pile

1. pre assembled 2. assembly on location

For this report we choose to look further into the solution whereby the foundation consists of a mono pile. We will also look at the methods for installing the OWEC pre-assembled as well as assembly on location.

3.2

Installation method foundation mono pile

3.2.1 Foundation Mono Pile by tilting Pontoon

For this method the foundation activities are going to be handled by a separate foundation/ tilting pontoon while the Svanen is doing the placing of the pre-assembled turbine. The piles can be transported to the floating tilting pontoon by means of a tugboat while floating in the water or they can be transported on a floating barge. At the piling location the piles are loaded into the tilting frame on the piling pontoon. The pontoon is fixed to anchors by means of which it can manoeuvre itself into the proper position for piling and it can tilt the piles in a vertical position. It is assumed that the pile has a length of 75 meters while the water depth is 30 meters. This results in the pivoting point to be appr. 7,5 meters above water level. If this pivoting point can be altered in height the pile can be lowered into the seabed in a vertical position. The bottom of the pile will sink into the bottom and its location will therefore be fixed. While the pile is resting on the bottom a crane on the tilting pontoon can place the piling hammer on the pile and driving can start. (Fig 3.2.1.1) Page 6 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Page 7 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Depending on the sensitivity of the tilting pontoon for waves and wind the maximum wave height and wind speed for this operation can be determined. For the moment we assume a workability of 60 % (being equal to the base case). The whole proces will take 108 hours per cycle for 4 piles. This results in a total time of 20 * 108 hours / 0,6 = 3600 hours. Taking an inefficiency factor of 20 % the total time is 4320 hours which is within the set limits. (planning dpfw 60km piling by pontoon)

Page 8 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

3.2.2 Foundation Mono Pile by Svanen

The mono pile cannot be split into smaller components, this in contradiction to the OWECs. From this it is sensible to review whether the Svanen can pile the mono pile and the OWEC can be assembled by smaller equipment. For this purpose the Svanen will load several piles in the harbour and sail to the required location. At the construction location the pile will be brought under the main hook of the Svanen and the hammer can be placed on the pile. Subsequently the pile can be tilted while a secondary hoist assists the hammer. The hoisting height of the Svanen is 74 meters above deck level. The monopile is 75 meters long without the Hammer. The hammer length is 15 meters which means that the total length of pile and hammer is 90 meters. This means that part of the monopile has to be in the water during the tilting operation. The cycle times for this operation will be in the order of the planning used for piling with the pontoon.

3.3

Installation method - OWEC

3.3.1 Preassembled OWECs

There are several ways of installing the preassembled OWEC; By Svanen one by one Pontoon for shipment More OWECs per trip The activities of the Svanen will be limited to the placing of the pre-assembled OWEC. From the schedule it can be determined that the cycle time for this operation only is 80 turbines * 34 hours / 0,6 = 4533 hours. By adding again the inefficiency factor of 20 % the total cycle time comes to 5440 hours. This again is too long compared to the available 4416 hours per season. The conclusion is that this workmethod is not fit for its purpose. Main reason is that the extended sailing time takes up too much working time. If a pontoon is being used to do the transport of the OWEC the Svanen can stay offshore to install the OWECs. The erection of the OWEC has to be done on shore however the complete OWEC then has to be moved from its erection position to the transport barge. For this an industrial sliding system has to be used which is capable of loading an OWEC on a pontoon every day. (Fig. 3.3.1.1)

Page 9 of 25

DOWEC Planning excl. down time

ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Placing foundation pile D Positioning Piling Pontoon and tilting pile Final positioning and drive pile Install temporary works Prepare and pick up transition piece Place transition piece and adjust Grouting preparation Grouting annulus Placing J-tube Pick-up J-tube assembly Place J-tube assembly Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors Sail back to harbour 14 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 14,5 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 9,5 hrs Placing foundation pile C Positioning Piling Pontoon and tilting pile Final positioning and drive pile Install temporary works Prepare and pick up transition piece Place transition piece and adjust Grouting preparation Grouting annulus Placing J-tube Pick-up J-tube assembly Place J-tube assembly Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors 14 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 5 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs Placing foundation pile B Positioning Piling Pontoon and tilting pile Final positioning and drive pile Install temporary works Prepare and pick up transition piece Place transition piece and adjust Grouting preparation Grouting annulus Placing J-tube Pick-up J-tube assembly Place J-tube assembly Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors 14 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 5 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs Task Name Duration 18 Wed 06 Jun 0 6 12 18 Thu 07 Jun 0 6 12 18 Fri 08 Jun 0 6 12 18 Sat 09 Jun 0 6 12 18 Sun 10 Jun 0 6 12 18 Mon 11 Jun 0 Piling by Tilting Pontoon place anchors pilling pontoon Activities by Piling Pontoon at on-shore yard Load mono piles 4x Pick up Transition piece from shore 4x Pick up J-tubes from shore 4x Sail to construction location Activities Piling Pontoon off-shore Placing foundation pile A Positioning Piling Pontoon and tilting pile Final positioning and drive pile Install temporary works Prepare and pick up transition piece Place transition piece and adjust Grouting preparation Grouting annulus Placing J-tube Pick-up J-tube assembly Place J-tube assembly Cleaning and coating touch-up Inspection by Consultant/Engineer Loosen anchors 108 hrs 5 hrs 22,5 hrs 5 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 9,5 hrs 85,5 hrs 14 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 1 hr 1 hr 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 5 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs

Project: DPFW 60 km monopile by pon Date: 14-05-02

Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 1

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Page 10 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

The maximum beam of the pontoon is limited to the distance between the legs of the Svanen, which is 22 m. For the reference OWEC this results in the pontoon being 22x67x4 meters. An alternative in order to omit the sliding of the OWEC from the shore position to the transport barge is to erect the OWEC on the barge. Instead of the sliding installation a heavier crane is now needed in order to be able to assemble the different components. If this is done it is sensible to consider using a gantry like crane so that the OWECs can be assembled in an industrial like assembly line. Where the transport pontoon is used as a building platform. The third option to install the preassembled OWECs is to transport several OWECs in per trip. This overcome the problem of transferring the load of the OWEC at open sea from the transport barge to the installation ship. However this means that the installation ship has to be purpose built for this solution. (Fig 3.3.1.1)

Page 11 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Page 12 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

3.3.2 Assembly on location by other ships

From the previous piling solutions it became clear that one vessel is not able to do all the work. Compared to the base case this was caused by the extended sailing times to the wind park location. To overcome this problem the concept of the work method has to be altered to a system whereby the sailing time is reduced. With ships like the Mayflower or A2Sea several turbines can be transported at the same time thus effectively reducing the sailing time per turbine. After arriving at the building location the turbines can be erected with a rate of a turbine per 1,5 days (this being the 3 mW turbines). Suppose the erection time for a 6 mW turbine is 2 days then 80 turbines will take 80 * 2 days is 160 days which is just sufficient to fit into the schedule. With no spare time for contingencies. These ships however are not able to do the piling works for the reference mono pile because it is too heavy. For the A2Sea ship the reference depth of the Site VII (19-27 meters acc. Page 10 Terms of Reference) is too deep because the legs can extent only to water depths of 15 meters or less!. The Mayflower can operate in water depths up to 35 meters. From the above it can be concluded that this work method is only correct if a second ship is used. It is fair to conclude that one ship can place a maximum of around 4416 hours / (48 hours * 1.2) = 76 turbines.

3.3.3 Assembly on location by Self elevating Platforms

Installation of the OWECs by SEPs has the advantage that the OWEC is broken up into smaller elements so the hoisting operation is less complicated. If several SEPs can be used the workflow is divided over several work fronts. Installation of 80 OWECs per season is then a matter of using enough SEPs. The main problem with using the SEP is the lifting of the Nacelle of 203 tons at a elevation of 95 meters. Even if the deck of the SEP can come at 10 meters then still the crane has to reach 95-10+ spreader beam and sling length (10 meter) = 95 meter. For this a Liebherr LH 1800 or LH 11250 can be used. Problem with these cranes is that the total weight of the crane with counterweights consumes almost the total deck capacity of the SEP. Therefore this is not a good solution.

3.4 Offshore assembly location 3.4.1 Installation process

The installation process is more or less the same as the process described in WP1 task 12 installation of structure. The only difference is that the activities, which would be carried out on an onshore installation location, will be carried out on an offshore assembly location.

Page 13 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Element
Monopile, transitionpiece

Component
Foundation

System

Factory
Inland navigation

Europort
Transshipment seagoing barge

Seagoing barge

Installation with Svanen / SEP

Installation island Storage on barge

Transshipment crane to Svanen / SEP

Wind farm

OWEC

Rotor, nacelle, generator, turbine tower Superstructure Factory

Transshipment to Svanen Road, water, rail

Wind farm Europort

Transshipment seagoing barge

Transshipment crane

Installation location

Figure 3.4-1: Installation procedure offshore assembly location

3.4.2 General requirements

An offshore assembly location will consist of the following items: - Breakwater; - Quay; - Work area; - Storage area; - Infrastructure; - Installation equipment; - Housing facilities; - Helicopter platform; - Mooring facilities; - Traffic control. In the following paragraphs the above-mentioned items will be described in more detail.

Installation with crane

Installation island Storage on barge / quay

Page 14 of 25

Installation with Svanen

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

The italic marked items are not taken into account. 1 Breakwater General design information For the design of a breakwater the following information is required: - Water depth; - Wave heights; - Frequency of occurrence of waves; - Wind data; - Soil data. Because this is a rough design for an indication of the cost of an offshore assembly location, Functionality Breakwaters are built along the offshore assembly location for different purposes namely: - Provide protection against waves; - Provide quieter water for ships to navigate and moor; - Guidance of currents in order to reduce the amount of scour protection. Types of breakwaters Generally speaking two different types of structures are used for breakwaters: - Rubble mound; - Monolithic. Many variations are possible based on the above-mentioned structures. Some of these variations are listed below. Composite Rubble mound front Permanent structure consisting of some form of monolithic vertical breakwater with a rubble mount form placed before and against it. Advantages: - Low reflection of waves; - Moderate material use; - Impervious to water and sediment; - Can provide quay facilities on lee side; - Can be built working from structure itself. Disadvantages: - Expensive form of new construction since it requires multiple construction techniques to be built.

Coastal Engineering, volume III Breakwater Design; edited by W.W. Massie, P.E.; January 1986; Technical University of Delft; The Netherlands. Page 15 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Figure 3.4-2: Composite - rubble mound front Composite vertical monolithic top A permanent structure consisting of a rubble mound base, surmounted by a monolithic vertical structure. Advantages: - Moderate use of material; - Adapts well to an uneven seafloor; - Provides a convenient promenade. Figure 3.4-3: Composite - vertical monolithic top Disadvantages: - Suffers from impact forces of largest waves; Reflects the largest waves that can damage the lower rubble mount portion; - Rubble mound must be carefully constructed in order to provide a good foundation for the monolithic top; - Destroyed when design conditions are exceeded. Monolithic porous front A permanent monolithic structure having a porous front wall which acts to absorb the oncoming wave energy. Advantages: - Uses relatively little material compared to rubble mound; - Less wave impact and reflection than conventional monolithic structures; - Needs little space; - Provides quay on lee side. Disadvantages: - Difficult to construct; - Need high quality concrete and workmanship; - Even seafloor needed; - Intolerant of settlement; - Foundation problems on fine sand; - Severe damage when design conditions exceeded. Monolithic sloping front A monolithic structure with the upper portion of the vertical face sloping back at an angle of about 45 degrees. Advantages: - Economical of material; - Rather quickly constructed; - Less wave impact and reflection if compared with conventional monolithic structures; - Needs little space; - Quay facilities can be provided on lee side. Disadvantages: - Needs even seafloor; - Intolerant of settlement; - Can have foundation problems on fine sand; - Severe damage if design condition exceeded. Monolithic sunken caisson A temporary structure floated into place and sunk and ballasted to form an initial breakwater. Often used to cut off currents so that it can then be buried in a permanent breakwater. Advantages: - Very quickly placed on the site; Page 16 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Can provide quay facilities on the lee side; Occupies little space; Uses little material; Provides promenade; Provides work road for later construction phases.

Disadvantages: - Size limited by towing limitations; - Easily damaged (often by moderate storm); - Foundation difficulties on fine sand bed; - Requires smooth seafloor. Rubble mound Pell mell artificial armour units A permanent breakwater consisting of layers of stone and gravel protected on the exposed surface by a layer of randomly placed artificial armour units. A massive structure may be incorporated in the crest to save material. Advantages: - Durable; - Flexible (accommodates settlement); - Easily adapted to irregular bathymetry; - Needs no large natural units; - Functions well even when severely damaged. Disadvantages: - Need factory for production of armour units; - Large quantities of material needed; - Needs under layer if built on sand; - Unsuited to soft ground. Rubble mound placed units Permanent structure similar to pell-mell unit placement, except that units are now individually placed in a precise pattern. A monolithic crest construction is usually used. Advantages: - Flexible (adapts to settlement); - Uses least material of rubble mount types; - Adapts well to irregular bathymetry; Disadvantages: - Armour units must be fabricated; - Needs much skill in construction; - Impossible to place armour under water; - Unsuited to very soft ground; - Needs under layer if it is built on sand. Rubble mound stone Permanent structure consisting of successive layers of stone. The exposed surface is covered with heavy armour stones. Advantages: - Very durable (resists severe attack well); - Functions even when severely damaged; - Adapts to ground settlement; - Uses natural common available materials; - Easily adapted to irregular bathymetry; - Construction possible with limited skilled labour; - Uses common construction equipment; - Materials are usually inexpensive; Disadvantages: - Uses the most material of all types; - Must be adapted for construction on sand; Page 17 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Unsuited to very soft ground.

Conclusions: - Rubble mount structures are the most durable, and as such are best suited to extremely heavy wave attack; - Monolithic structures use less space and material; this is especially true in deeper water. For the design of the breakwater only these two types will be taken into account.

3.4.3 Concepts
For the design of the island two different concepts are presented. For both concepts breakwaters need to be constructed before the actual island can be built. Concept I is a permanent island and is made in a rather traditional way. Concept II is a temporary work island and built up out of prefabricated elements. This speeds up the building time and makes it easier to demolish or even replace the island at an other location.
Work area Breakwater Quay

II

Figure 3.4-4: Schematic presentation concepts

3.4.4 Concept I
Concept I is a traditional made island. Work order: - Construction of breakwater; - Construction of quay; - Reclamation for work area; - Subsidence work area; - Infrastructure; - Installing building equipment. Breakwater It may be considered to use two different types of breakwater constructions. Directly adjacent to the work area a semi overtopping breakwater is required. Semi overtopping means that during the installation period from February till October it should be non overtopping. In wintertime when installation activities do not take place, a severe storm may overtop the breakwater. However the load acting may not damage the breakwater during this storm. The strength of the breakwater is designed to be able to withstand winter storms. The height however can be designed for wave heights occurring during installation periods. The other breakwater, providing quieter water conditions for mooring and transshipment activities, may be overtopping. Both breakwaters are of the type of rubble mount breakwaters. Rubble mount breakwater Almost every rubble mound breakwater is constructed in layers. Each layer of the breakwater must be designed in a way that the adjacent layer of finer material cannot escape by being washed through its voids. This also applies to the natural bottom material layer underneath the breakwater. If the bottom material consists of fine sand then a filter layer must be constructed. The outer layer must be designed to withstand the expected wave attacks. The choice of the construction material is largely determined

Page 18 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

by the availability in the quantities needed. A rather indescribable core material can be used to support the outer layer. Usually the cheapest available material is thrown in. Depending on the function on the leeside of the rubble mound breakwater an overtopping or a nonovertopping breakwater can be used. The less critical or important the activities on the lee side the more overtopping the breakwater may be.

Figure 3.4-5: Rubble mount breakwater Table 3-1: Cost estimate of rubble mount breakwater per meter length Fraction Primary armor 16 t Secondary armor 1-6 t Quarry run 300-1000 kg Filter gravel Type of placement Over crest Over crest Barge placed Over crest Barge placed Barge placed Volume 3 1 [m /m ] 380 100 575 30 1,240 385 Unit price [] 58 58 46.5 70 54 31 Total price [] 22,040 5,800 26,737 2,100 66,960 11,935 135,572

Monolithic breakwater As described in paragraph 0 there are a few different types of monolithic breakwaters. For a cost estimation it is decided to built up the monolithic breakwater out of caissons. These are built in a dry dock and floated to the site where they are ballasted and sunk in place. The cost, stated below, do not include the transport cost and the cost for the use of a dry dock facility.
1 10 m 0 m

Dimensions caisson: Length Width Height Cell width Wall thickness Amount concrete Mass Cost per caisson Cost per meter 60 20 30 10 0.5 6,300 15,750 4.25 70,800 [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] 3 [m ] [tons] [mln ] []

30 m

m 60

Figure 3.4-6: Global dimensions caisson Quay Because the work area consists of pumped up sand the quay construction should provide an embankment. Therefore the quay construction should be of a solid form. Because transhipment and mooring activities take place, the boundary at the waterside should be vertical. The following types of constructions can be used as a quay: - Cofferdam (a); - Caisson (b).

20 m

Page 19 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

a
Figure 3.4-7: Quay constructions

Ad. a: Production Two combi-walls (sheet piles + tubular piles) are placed in the wet. After connecting them with anchors the space between is filled with sand. Installation platform For the foundation of the installation platform there still needs to be constructed a pile foundation. Ad. b: Production The concrete caisson is built in a prefab yard somewhere onshore. It is towed to the site, ballasted and sunk in place. Installation platform The caisson is designed to provide a platform on which the installation procedures can take place. Advantages: Cofferdam Low cost; No even seafloor needed; Small equipment needed to produce. Large amount of offshore pile placement; Limited construction height; Extra foundation required for installation platform; Hard to dismantle. Caisson No extra foundation required for installation platform; Immediately functional after placing; Easy to dismantle and reuse. Even seafloor needed; Large equipment needed to produce; Prefab yard needed; High production cost.

Disadvantages:

Conclusion: A breakwater built up out of caissons is, for this water depth, cheaper than a rubble mount breakwater because it uses to much material. Therefore the breakwater will consist of caissons. It is not likely to built the quay with a cofferdam for the following reasons: The length of the tubular piles and sheet piles of the combi-wall need to be approx. 45 m. For the tubular piles this is no problem but the length of the sheet piles is limited to 30 m. This means that scour protection is needed at the toe of the cofferdam as shown in Figure 3.4-7a; To prevent extreme deformations of the combi-wall there need to be at least two levels of anchors for a height of 30 m. The lower level is situated below water level. Installing these anchors is extremely difficult. Therefore the quay will also be constructed out of caissons. Cost concept 1 Total work area: Backfill sand Quay: Caisson Breakwater: Total cost Approx. Dimension 240 x 120 220x100x30 3 1/m Amount 28,800 660,000 0.66 360 6 25.5 1,000 70.8 100 [m ] 3 [m ] [mln ] 1 [m ] # [mln ] 1 [m ] [mln ] [mln ]
2

Page 20 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

3.4.5 Concept II
Work order: - Construction of breakwater; - Placing jackets; - Placing deck boxes; - Installing building equipment.

Figure 3.4-8: Island consisting of prefabricated elements There are two different procedures for installing the deck bock: a. Floating; b. Lifting. In the following paragraphs a concrete deck caisson will be dimensioned for the floating installation procedure and an steel deck box will be dimensioned for the lifting procedure. Design calculations concrete deck caisson In order to get a global idea of the dimensions of the deck some design calculations are made for a deck caisson that is floated in place. The following aspects are taken into account: - Floatability; - Strength. Ad. 1 Floatability In order to float the deck caisson on top of the jacket a substantial free board is required as show in Figure 3.4-9.
Deck heigth (H) Free board (F) Quay heigth (Q) HAT LAT Clearance (C)

Figure 3.4-9:Required free board and clearance for floating installation The difference between HAT and LAT is 2m according to the terms of reference. Assuming that: - Installation of the deck caisson is carried out during a sea level of 50% of HAT (MSL +0.50m); - Minimum clearance 1.00 m; - Minimum quay height to HAT 2.00 m.

Page 21 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

2-3 hours

Figure 3.4-10: Installation windows floating installation Freeboard = Clearance + quay height Freeboard = 3.00 m. In order to create a freeboard of approx. 3 meters the following dimensions for the deck caisson are determined. Dimensions concrete deck caisson: Length 40 [m] Width 30 [m] Height 6 [m] Wall thickness 0.4-0.5 [m] 0.4 m 3 Amount concrete 1,400 [m ] 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.4 m Mass 3,500 [tons] Freeboard 3 [m] 10 m 10 m Cost 0.95 [mln ]

6m

40

30 m
Ad. 2 Strength It is assumed that some type of crawler crane or other crane carries out the installation on top of the deck caisson. The mass of the crane including its load is about 600 tons. Own weight: Crane load:

3,500 10 4 = 875 [kN/m1 ] ; 40 6000 [kN] ;

5m

30 m

5m

Max. bending moment: Moment of resistance:

1 8

875 30 2 + 1 4 6000 30 = 145,000 [kNm] ;

Stress: Deflection:

1 30 6 3 12 27 5.2 3 = 223 [m 4 ] ; 223 = 74 [m 3 ] 0 .5 6 M 145,000 10 3 = [N/mm 2 ] = 2.0 [N/mm 2 ] . W 74 3 3 3 Fl 6,000 10 30 = = 0.05 [m] 1 600 l 48EI 48 30,000 10 4 223 1 12

The deflection by own weight and the positive stress are compensated by post tensioning. The remaining deflection of 0.05m by the crane is acceptable for the span of 30m. Page 22 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Design calculation steel deck The main span of the steel deck will be built up out of trussed girders as shown in Figure 3.4-14. On top of the main girders, tangential to the main span, deck girders will spread the load of the crawler tracks. The load of each crawler track is spread over two main girders.
10 m Steel trussed girders

1.5 m 8.8 m

3m

Figure 3.4-11: Top view crawler crane

6000 [kN] ; Crane load: During lifting operations this load is not equal spread over the two crawler tracks. It is assumed to be 75% and 25% per track. The maximum load per track is 4500 kN.
225 kN 0.75 m 300 kN/m' 225 kN 0.75 m

2,250 kN 10 m

450 kN/m'

2,250 kN 10 m

1.5 m 225 kN 255 kNm

10 m 2,250 kN 28,125 kNm

225 kN

2,250 kN

Figure 3.4-12: Critical load case deck girder Deck girders Max. bending moment: Allowable stress: Moment of resistance needed: Profile choice: Mass deck: Main girders

Figure 3.4-13: Critical load case main girder

255 [kNm] ;

150 [N/mm 2 ] ; W= M 255 10 6 [mm 3 ] = = 1.7 10 6 [mm 3 /m] ; 150

4 HE180 B per meter; 2 2.05 kN/m ; 245 tons in total.

HE 450 B

3.75 m

3.75 m
HE 450 B

5m

30 m

5m

Figure 3.4-14: Steel trussed girders Own weight girder: Assume: Top and bottom girder profile HE450B. Diagonals 75% of mass of top and bottom girder.

80 [ m ] 171 [ kg/m1 ] + 135 [ m ] 125 [ kg/m1 ] = 30.5 [ Ton/girder] = 7.6 [kN/m 1 ] ; 2 1 Max. bending moment: 8 ( 7.6 + 3 2.05) 30 + 0.5 28,125 = 14,100 [kNm] ;
Plain stress truss:

M = A [mm 2 ] ; 2z
Page 23 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

14,100 10 6 = 28,500 [mm 2 ] (3750 - 450) 150

HE 450 B

h H
HE 450 B

F z z F
2 M=1 8 450 2.5 = 350 [kNm]; M 350 10 6 W= = = 2,333 10 3 [mm 3 ] 150

Bending top girder: Profile choice: Mass:

2x HE 300B (For top girder and bottom girder) 235 kg/m

80 [ m ] 235 [ kg/m1 ] + 135 [ m ] 175 [ kg/m1 ] = 42.5 [ Ton/girder] = 10.6 [kN/m 1 ]

Total mass steel deck Deck girders Main girders Extra 10% Total: Cost 245 605 75 885 1.75 [ton] [ton] [ton] [ton] [mln ]

Design calculation steel jacket The dimensions of the jacket are indicative and based on experience with these type of offshore constructions.
0m

10 m

10 m

Dimensions jacket: 1500.30 1000.20 400.10 Amount steel Mass Cost 160 120 180 32 250 0.35 [m] [m] [m] 3 [m ] [tons] [mln ]

22 - 27 m

20 m

Support reactions: Stress: Cost concept 2 Amount Breakwater: Caisson 1,000 70.8

1 6

1 885 + 1 2 600 + 6 250 = 490 [tons] ;

490 10 4 55 [N/mm 2 ] ; 2 2 1 4 (1500 1460 )

[m ] [mln ] Page 24 of 25

DOWEC-F1W1-xxx-yy-nnn/vv-C

Quay: Floating Deck caisson Support jacket Quay: Lifting Steel deck Support jacket Finger piers Support jacket (3) Steel deck (3) Total cost (min)

160x30 4 5 5.55 160x30 4 5 8.75 3 1.0 1.0 2.0 78.4 / 81.6 78.4

[m ] # # [mln ] 1 [m ] # # [mln ] # [mln ] # [mln ] [mln ] [mln ]

3.4.6 Cost
Comparing the two concepts the following can be concluded: - Concept 2 seems to be less expensive than concept 1 - The material cost for an offshore assembly area are estimated to be approx. 80 mln Euro;

Page 25 of 25