RM - Beatrice

Image: BOWL Image: BOWL
Foundation Design for the Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm
R. McLean – SUPERGEN Wind Hub General Assembly, 08th November 2018

Contents
Introduction to Beatrice
Foundation Design Challenges
• Site characterisation
• Pile design
• Jacket design
• Fabrication approach
• Installation considerations
• Other challenges
Conclusions
Foundation Design for the Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm - R. McLean – SUPERGEN Wind Hub General
Assembly, 08th November 2018
Introduction
Overview
588MW offshore wind farm in the Moray

Firth
Clean electricity for 450,000 homes
Overall project £2.6bn Image: BOWL
Site:
Circa 13km offshore
132km2
Water depths 35-55m LAT
Scotland’s largest offshore wind farm!

Image: BOWL
Overview
Offshore structures
84no. 7MW wind turbine generators (WTGs)
2no. offshore transformer modules (OTMs)
Image: BOWL
Foundations = jackets on driven piles

86 jackets; 85,000 tonnes
344 piles; >14km total length; 44,000 tonnes
Deepest offshore wind fixed structures in

the world
Image: Siemens UK
WTG
~110
154
Jacket
Image: Hufton + Crow
Gherkin, 180
~55
Image: Wikimedia
Heron Tower, Piles
~45
230
EPCI 91 inter-array
SIEM
cables
Jackets: Bladt,
Smulders,
BiFab
Fabrication:
SHL
Piles: EEW,
SIF
EPCI 84 WTG
foundations Installation: SHL
T&I 2 OTM and

foundations Design: Atkins
EPC 2 OTM and

Design: Atkins
BOWL foundations
STDL
SSE Offshore Wind Alliance EPCI export cables
Framework of key suppliers designed to

address the key challenges of Round 3 SWP EPCI 84 WTG
offshore wind and drive efficiencies in SSE's
offshore wind programme. GI, soil
Atkins parameters for
Collaborative work through Concept and design
FEED between Developer, WTG and OSP
Supplier, Installation contractor, Fabricator
and Designer.
Feb 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2009 - Lease Consent Cables Piling First Full
CfD Piling Jackets Start Com- Turbines gene- Gene-
STW agree- Appli- Qualified Financial
Grant ment cation CfD Consent SG2 FID Close Start Start plete Start ration ration
CONCEPT FEED DETAILED DESIGN INSTALLATION OPERATION
Foundation Design
Challenges
Site Characterisation
Vast site
Image: Google
Available data - onshore
Image: BGS
Available data - offshore
Image: BGS
Phased investigation
Geophys, 5 BH Desk study
Prelim GM Review GM Interim GI Update GM Completion GI 6466000
Beatrice Farm Layout with Clusters & Water Depth
Final GM
6465000
(BE-G14, -54.9)
6464000 (BE-J13, -54.2)
(BE-H13, -53.4)
(BE-G13, -53.4) (BE-K12, -53.1)
6463000
(BE-F13, -54.2) (BE-J12, -52.2)
(BE-H12, -51.8) (BE-L11, -52.4) Cluster1
6462000 (BE-G12, -50.5) (BE-K11, -52.0)
(BE-M10, -49.9)
Cluster2
(BE-F12, -48.6) (BE-J11, -50.8)
(BE-E12, -52.9) (BE-H11, -50.2) (BE-L10, -49.6) Cluster3
6461000 (BE-K10, -51.5)
(BE-G11, -51.1)
(BE-M9, -49.0)
Cluster4
(BE-F11, -48.8) (BE-J10, -49.5)
6460000 (BE-E11, -46.6) (BE-H10, -49.6) (BE-L9, -49.4) Cluster5

(BE-D11, -50.1) (BE-G10, -49.4) (BE-K9, -48.6)
Spare
(BE-F10, -48.2) (BE-J9, -47.8)
6459000 (BE-E10, -46.6) (BE-H9, -47.8) (BE-L8, -47.8)
(BE-K8, -47.6)
OTM Location
(BE-D10, -45.3) (BE-G9, -49.9)
(BE-F9, -49.0) (BE-J8, -45.5)
6458000
(BE-E9, -46.0) (BE-H8, -44.2) (BE-L7, -44.5)
NORTHING
(BE-D9, -44.4) (BE-G8, -45.2) (BE-K7, -44.3)
6457000 (BE-C9, -45.5) (BE-F8, -45.7) (BE-J7, -42.7) NOTES:
(BE-E8, -46.0) (BE-H7, -42.5)
(BE-D8, -43.8) (BE-G7, -41.2) (BE-K6, -44.6) 1. All Water depths are relative to (mLAT)
6456000
(BE-C8, -43.3) (BE-F7, -42.5) (BE-J6, -41.5) 2. Names and locations taken from
(BE-E7, -43.7) (BE-H6, -40.0) LF000005-MAP-091
6455000 (BE-D7, -44.0) (BE-G6, -40.2)
(BE-C7, -42.3) (BE-F6, -41.6) (BE-J5, -41.4) Locations in each Cluster:
(BE-B7, -46.4) (BE-E6, -40.7) (BE-H5, -41.9)
6454000 (BE-D6, -42.2) (BE-G5, -39.7) Cluster 1 = 27 WTGs + 1 OTM
(BE-C6, -41.4) (BE-F5, -39.7) Cluster 2 = 21 WTGs + 1 OTM
(BE-B6, -44.0) (BE-E5, -40.4) (BE-H4, -41.1) Cluster 3 = 20 WTGs
6453000
(BE-D5, -41.9) (BE-G4, -38.6) Cluster 4 = 10 WTGs
(BE-C5, -40.4) (BE-F4, -40.4) Cluster 5 = 6 WTGs
6452000 (BE-B5, -39.7) (BE-E4, -40.7)
(BE-A5, -47.7) (BE-D4, -39.4)
(BE-G3, -40.5) Total = 84 WTGs + 2 OTMs
(BE-C4, -38.1) (BE-F3, -38.7)
6451000 Spares = 2 locations not used
(BE-E3, -38.6)
(BE-D3, -38.2)
6450000 (BE-F2, -40.2)

(BE-E2, -38.2) Date: 19/04/2016
6449000
(BE-E1, -38.9)
6448000
499000 500000 501000 502000 503000 504000 505000 506000 507000 508000 509000 510000 511000 512000 513000 514000
EASTING
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CONCEPT FEED DETAILED DESIGN
CPT
Sampling
Lab tests
Images: BOWL/ Fugro/ Atkins Routine Advanced
Pile Design Process
Loading
Relatively small vertical load

Wind
Large horizontal loads from wind, waves
and currents WTG
High overturning moment at mudline

Resisted by piles in ‘push / pull’
Jacket
Piles work in compression & tension
Cyclic Wave &
current
Small self
weight
Large
moment
Push-pull
Piles
(compression-
tension in piles)
Pile axial capacity
Need efficiency & reliability Which method?
Optimised Pile Tensile Capacity (MN)

pile length 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0
Reliable
Reduced
level of
noise
safety 5 ICP-05
UWA-05
10
NGI-05
Pile penetraion (m bml)

Optimised
Reliable 15 DNV / API
axial
safety
Efficient & response Load
reliable pile 20
design
25
Reduced 30
Optimised
fatigue
CAPEX 6m difference between
damage
35
ICP-05 and DNV / API
Reduced Reduced 40
install. risk install. time
Jacket Design Process
- Clustering approach
- Structural analyses
Design Process
Coupled Uncoupled
AFC Design
Analysis Analysis
Bookending Variances in- Inclusive of all

Site Cluster contributors
Design Process: Coupled Analysis
Pre-processing:
› ~1,000 wave loading simulations
SWP Analysis:
› Up to 20,000 combined wave + turbine simulations
Post-processing (Retrieval):
› ~300 critical ULS simulations
› 232 FLS simulations
› Code checking
Design Process: Uncoupled Analysis
ULS: FLS:
Enveloping Factors
Enveloping Factors
Baseline: Baseline:
As per CA As per CA
Deep Water: Deep Water:

5% WTG contingency 5% WTG contingency
Water depth uncertainty ± Water depth uncertainty
Shallow Water: Shallow Water:

Short stickup Short stickup
Stiff soil Stiff soil
5% WTG contingency 5% WTG contingency
Water depth uncertainty ± Water depth uncertainty
Design Process: AFC Design
TP & Joint
FEM
Attachments
T&I & VIV
[sympathetic
Damage
loading]
Uncoupled
Joint Axial
Analysis
Stress
Factors
Primary
Weld Root Factor for all
Assessment Steel FLS cases
AFC
Fabrication
Beatrice Foundation Fabricators
Image: Google
Design for Serial Fabrication
Common TP & Upper Jacket
Image: Smulders
Image: Smulders
Cluster Specific Lower Jacket
Installation
~1km
Major geological fault Stratum III
Pile Installation risks

Seabed
Stratum I
Stratum
II
Stratum IV
Boulders Stratum IV
Stratum
IV
Bedrock horizons Horizons within Horizons within

Stratum IV Stratum IV
Strong and laterally traceable seismic

reflectors
Identified in intact Lower Cretaceous
Variable in lateral extent
Some have corresponding evidence in the
borehole data
Some relate to sandstone beds
Mitigation
Remediation = drive-drill-drive
Derive method to assess
Reduction of capacity from drilling
Shaft friction increase from ageing that can be relied upon
Capacity gain from concrete plug
Analyse impact of drilling at varying depths

with and without concrete plug
Installation contractor has clear pre-defined
scenarios to know instantly whether:
Pile must be abandoned,
Pile can be saved with a concrete plug
Pile does not require a concrete plug
Jacket Installation
• Transportation fatigue
• Upending vs vertical towing
• Installation vessel limits
• Early age cycling
• Safe access
• Walk to work systems
• Evacuation procedures
Image: SHL Image: Ian Greenwood
Conclusions
Conclusions
› Multi-disciplinary approach required to manage risk and optimise

standardisation
› Good design should consider:
› Variable site conditions
› Fabrication approach
› Installation approach
› Project programme
› Through life user safety
› Innovation, collaboration and adaptability are key to future success of
industry.
Successes to date
› Design AFC and certification to

programme
› Pile installation completed
December 2017
› Jacket installation completed July
2018
› First power generation July 2018
Image: BOWL
› Fully operational in 2019
Thank you
All images © Atkins unless otherwise stated.

RM - Beatrice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

RM - Beatrice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Image: BOWL Image: BOWL

Foundation Design for the Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm

R. McLean – SUPERGEN Wind Hub General Assembly, 08th November 2018

588MW offshore wind farm in the Moray

Scotland’s largest offshore wind farm!

Foundations = jackets on driven piles

Deepest offshore wind fixed structures in

Heron Tower, Piles

T&I 2 OTM and

EPC 2 OTM and

SSE Offshore Wind Alliance EPCI export cables

Framework of key suppliers designed to

CONCEPT FEED DETAILED DESIGN INSTALLATION OPERATION

6460000 (BE-E11, -46.6) (BE-H10, -49.6) (BE-L9, -49.4) Cluster5

6450000 (BE-F2, -40.2)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Relatively small vertical load

High overturning moment at mudline

Need efficiency & reliability Which method?

Optimised Pile Tensile Capacity (MN)

Pile penetraion (m bml)

Bookending Variances in- Inclusive of all

Deep Water: Deep Water:

Shallow Water: Shallow Water:

Cluster Specific Lower Jacket

Major geological fault Stratum III

Pile Installation risks

Bedrock horizons Horizons within Horizons within

Strong and laterally traceable seismic

Analyse impact of drilling at varying depths

Image: SHL Image: Ian Greenwood

› Multi-disciplinary approach required to manage risk and optimise

› Design AFC and certification to

› Fully operational in 2019

All images © Atkins unless otherwise stated.

You might also like