Anchoring & Mooring For Floating Offshore Wind

Anchoring & Mooring for Floating Offshore Wind
8th November 2017 Future Offshore Foundations, Brussels

Dr. Chris Golightly GO-ELS Ltd.
Geotechnical & Engineering Geology Consultant
SPAR - HYWIND TLP - PELASTAR SEMI SUB WINDFLOAT
Source: Univ. Mass. 1974
Source: Statoil Source: Glosten Associates Source: WINDFLOAT
Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Future Offshore Foundations, Brussels, 8th November 2017
Summary - Anchoring & Mooring Systems For Floating OW
PART 1 FLOATING WIND LCOE
Global Temperature Predictions [World Bank 2012]
Global Offshore Wind Kinetic Energy [PNAS 2017, NREL 2012]
Floating Wind – Potential Offshore Resource [Open Ocean, Statoil]
Offshore Wind Turbine Fixed “Foundation” [NGI]
European OW Fixed Bottom Structure Costs [Carbon Trust, NREL]
North Sea/Atlantic Offshore Wind Resource [Carbon Trust, UK Eval. Group]
Why is Floating Wind Necessary? [Atkins 2017]
Examples of Floating Wind Structures [Various]
Active European Floating Wind Projects [Inducomm, 2017]
Offshore Wind LCOE Reduction Potential [U DoE EERE, LBNL 2016]
Fixed Vs Floating: Reducing OW LCOE [LBNL]
Fixed Vs Floating: OW LCOE Predictions [Lazard, 2016, LBNL 2016]
Fixed North Sea Vs NREL Floating California [NREL]
Floating Vertical Axis – Sandia Labs [FVAWTs] [SANDIA LABS]

Summary - Anchoring & Mooring Systems For Floating OW
PART 2 – ANCHORING AND MOORING

Offshore Anchor Types
The Four Conventional Anchoring Solutions
Case Studies 1. Gravity Anchors - Oregon WEC OPT

2. Suction Caissons - HYWIND Buchan Deep
3. Drag Anchors - Principle Power
Innovations 1: Nylon Rope and Gravity Anchor Bags [TTI]

2: Submerged Taut Moored Substructure [SBM]
3: Dynamic Tether: Elastomer/Spring [TFI]
4: First Subsea “Ballgrab” Platform Mooring Connectors
5: McLaughlin & Harvey Drilled Anchors
6: Seabed Anchored Foundation Template [SAFT]
Conclusions
References & Links
Contact Details
Global Temperature Predictions [World Bank 2012]
Source: World Bank/Potsdam Institute November 2012

Global Offshore Wind Kinetic Energy
Source: Possner & Caldera [PNAS] 2017

Source: NREL 2012
A: Climatology of Kinetic Energy

Shallow 0-30 m Transition 30-60 m
Extraction (KEE) B: Annual Mean Kinetic
Energy (KE) Dissipation into Boundary Layer.
Deep > 60 m CF = Capacity Factor

Floating Wind – Potential Offshore Resource
Majority of OW developments have been in the Southern North Sea, a relatively flat shallow water
continental shelf, mainly dense sand, stiff glacial clayey soils & soft sediment filled paleo-valleys.
Not globally representative. Most coastal areas are steep, rocky, with thin (< 5 to 10 m) soil cover.
Piling is costly for fixed or floating structures. Soils insufficient for drag or suction caisson anchoring.
S. North Sea Cont.

Shelf & Baltic
Source: Statoil Global Offshore Wind 2014

Offshore Wind Turbine Fixed “Foundation” Definition
 Civil Engineering - “Foundation” = Everything Below Ground/Seabed
- Sub-Structure = Supporting Structure
 Offshore Wind - “Foundation” = Everything Below Tower Transition Level
Source: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

European Offshore Fixed
Bottom Structure Costs
Source: US NREL Database
• Heavier & longer over-designed “monopiles” [in reality very

thin walled steel shells]
• Extensive & costly equipment and surface vessel spreads
• High levels of expensive downtime/weather standby
Source: Carbon Trust 2015

• Insistence on “known technology” reduced innovation, risk
aversion, conservatism.
• Monopile costs per kW flat-lining 1991 – 2008 • Early days: Lack of developer experience; general skills
• Post-2008 increases: installation & high shortage in a new industry.
commodities costs (mainly steel)

A UK ETI study found that
North Sea/Atlantic Offshore Wind Resource with appropriate foundation
technology for suitable sites,
coupled with ongoing
technology and supply chain
innovation in other areas
could deliver LCoE of less
than Euro 100/MWh from
the mid 2020’s [USD 120]
Source: Carbon Trust “Floating Offshore Wind:
Market and Technology Review”, June 2015
Source: www.openocean.fr 2017
“We find ourselves in a comparable position to that of the

nascent UK oil and gas companies in the 1970s”
Source: UK Offshore Valuation Group (2010)

Why is Floating Wind Necessary? (Atkins, 2017)
Increased Wind Exploitation Stronger, more consistent winds & higher capacity turbines
Quayside Assembly Eliminates heavy lifts, reduces risk, less weather dependency
Larger Resource Base Not restricted to shallower water depths (typically >50m)
Reduced Seabed Installation Risk Compared to driven or suction piled bottom fixed structures
Conduct Major Repairs/Upgrades Ability to tow floating structures to shore if necessary
Deployment Further Offshore Reduced planning risk and visual impact
Anchored Moorings Pre-installed anchors & mooring lines > no driven/drilled piling
HSE WTG installation at quay, less activity offshore > no jack-ups
Source: Roddier & Weinstein, 2010

Examples of Floating Wind Structures
Approx. 30 floating wind concepts under development: see map of
Floating Wind Energy Projects of The World, Inducomm, 2017
Offshore turbines mounted on seabed foundations are limited to shallow
waters < 50 m. Floating structures can be deployed at WDs > ~50 m.
Innovation lies with the Design & Installation of Support Structures
Source: Myhr et al, 2014.

Active European Floating Wind Projects
Project Operators System Website Turbine MW WD/L Mooring Date
Deep Spar Buoys
HYWIND Statoil Hywind Spar statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovati Siemens 5x6 100/25 Catenary 3 2017
on
WINDCRETE Fenosa/U. Concrete Spar windcrete.com n/a n/a wd>90 Catenary? n/a
Catalunya Buoy
COBRA Kincardine OWL Cobra Semi Spar pilot-renewables.com/ Senvion 8x6.15 62/15 Catenary 3 2020
SPINFLOAT Eolfi (Veolia Gusto MSC eolfi.com/en/eolfi-research- Spinfloat 6MW 90/20 Catenary 6 n/a
Env.) development/spinfloat
Semi-Submersibles
FLOATGEN IDEOL- IDEOL Damping ideol-offshore.com/en Vestas 2MW 30/20 Cat./Taut 6 2017
Bouygues-ECN 4x6.15 50/15 Catenary 6 2020
WINDFLOAT Principle Power Semi-Sub principlepowerinc.com/products/wi GE Haliade 4x6 [Fr] 70/20 Catenary 6 2020 [2]
ndfloat 6 [Jap] 70/30
SEA REED DCNS-Vinci- Sea Reed eolfi.com/en/eolfi-research- GE Haliade 4x6 70/20 Taut 3 2018
Eolfi development/spinfloat
Tension Leg Platform
GICON- Gicon-Glosten Pelastar TLP gicon-sof.de/en/sof1 Siemens 6Mw 18/21 Teth/Taut 4 2021
PELASTAR Assocs GICON-SOF pelastar.com
TLPWIND Iberdrola/UKCat Semi-Floating Spar ore.catapult.org.uk/our-knowledge- n/a 5MW 81/25 Tethered 2020-
apult areas/foundations- 2025
substructures/foundations-
substructures-projects/tlpwinduk/
Taut Moored “Barges”
SBM SBM-EDF-IFP- SBM-Taut Moored sbmoffshore.com/what-we-do/our- Siemen n/a n/a Tethered n/a
Siemens products/renewables/ s
Source: Floating Wind Energy Projects of The World, Inducomm, 2017

Offshore Wind LCOE Reduction Potential
Predicted Reduction: 25 to 30% by 2030
Source: US DoE EERE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory June 2016

Fixed Vs Floating: Reducing Offshore Wind LCOE
Support Structure, Installation, Mooring & Anchoring ~ 20%
Expected Impact of Wind Technology, Market, and Other Changes

on Reducing LCOE of Floating Offshore Wind Projects by 2030
Wind Technology, Market or Other Change % Rating as Mean Rating

“Large [3 Large:0
Impact” None]
Foundation and Support Structure Design Advances 80 2.8
Installation Process Efficiencies 78 2.7
Foundation and Support Structure Manufacturing 68 2.6

Standardisation, Efficiencies and Volume
Economies of Scale Through Increased Project Size 65 2.6
Installation and Transportation Equipment Advances 63 2.5
Increased Turbine Capacity & Rotor Diameter 59 2.4
Reduced Financing Costs & Project Contingencies 58 2.5
Increased Competition Between Component Suppliers, 46 2.3

Turbines, Balance of Plant, Installations, O & M.
Rotor Design Advances 46 2.2
Source: Wiser et al [LBNL] 2016


Fixed Vs Floating: Offshore Wind LCOE Predictions
Subsidy Independence Using 8 – 15 MW Floating HAWTs?
Expert Estimates of Median-Scenario

LCOE for Three Wind Applications
$160 (2017) >> $110 (2030)

Euros 135 to 90 by 2030
“The competition is with solar, onshore wind and

fixed wind. Floating wind will not be given
equal time” – SBM: FOWT 2017 Marseilles
Unsubsidized LCOE in the US by Source

Source: Lazard, UGGC, IEA on 31/12/2016
Offshore Wind Needs to go to Euros 50 MWh

To become Subsidy Independent
Achieved Using 8 – 15 MW Floating HAWTs?

Fixed North Sea Vs NREL Floating California
“Investor Confidence Gap” Fixed Vs Floating ?

Floating Vertical Axis [FVAWTs] Sandia Labs (Ref. 16)
“Offshore Floating Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Project Identifies Promising Platform
Design”, US Dept.of Energy EERE, 17th October 2017 (Ref. 13).
 Floating VAWT platform design may enable US developers to access the country’s vast
deep-water OW resource.
 Study by Sandia National Laboratories & Stress Engineering Services identified a VAWT
platform design that may decrease the LCOE of offshore wind.
 Floating VAWT TLP meets operational conditions. Six designs capture floating stability
mechanisms: deep-draft ballasting, buoyancy, waterplane & tension mooring.
 A TLP with a multi-cylindrical column hull most promising from cost perspective.
 TLP mooring scheme offers performance benefits resulting from reduced platform motions
and smaller mooring anchor footprint.
 VAWT TLP challenges trends in commercial floating HAWT platforms, which favour
semisubmersibles and spars.
• Shorter mooring cables & lower installation costs.
• Towed offshore with rotor installed.
• LCOE values of 15−20 cents per kWhr.
“VAWT TLPs benefit from small roll and pitch motions,
such as increased energy capture and reduced inertial
loading on tower & blades.”
“Combined with favourable LCOE, this concept may
merit further investigation for floating wind platforms.”
Offshore Anchor Types
1. Gravity (Clump)
2. Drag Embedment
3. Suction Caissons/Piles
4. Driven Piles
5. Others (Drop, Torpedo, VLA, SEPLA)

The Four Conventional Anchoring Solutions
Gravity Anchors Suction Caissons
Needs Hard Seabeds for Sliding, Settlement Needs ~ > 1*D NC Clays and/or Sands
Anchor Piles
Drag Embedment Anchors Steel Driven/Drilled & Grouted
Needs Adequate Soil Layering/Depth
Recommended: Intermoor Mooring Chart 2013

Case Study - Gravity Anchors – Oregon WEC OPT
Gael Force Sea Limpet
Source: Gael Force UK (Video: bit.ly/2hdldcE)
Designer: Gael Force Inverness Triple Line Taut Moored WEC

Client: US Ocean Power Technologies OPT PowerBuoy WEC
Initial 3 No. 460-tonne Patented Sea Limpet Oregon - Contract $1.48 million)
Flooded Compartment Ballast Tanks Cross Beam Stiffened
Fabricated on Quayside Floated Out and Towed
Design Issues: Settlement- Tilt Predictions, Bearing Capacity, Sliding Capacity, Cyclic Loading
from Taut Line. Load Case Def.

Case Study - Suction Caissons - HYWIND Buchan Deep
 NGI Suction Anchors: 5 No. 6 MW Siemens turbines. 110 Tonne Suction caissons in sandy
conditions. Designed & installed by Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
 Buchan Deep park is 4km2, 25 km east of Peterhead, 95- 120 m WD. Investment of Euros
210 M > Euros 7 per MW, 70% reduction on Statoil single prototype off Norway 2009.
 Technology well understood. Design and Installation procedures and analytical rules for
both sands and clays are now defined from Oil & Gas experience. High quality Geological
Desk Studies, Geophysical & Geotechnical investigations are essential.
 Handful of experienced competent specialist contractors. Care in contractor and designer
selection. Claims and disputes can arise relatively easily.

Case Study - Drag Embedment Anchors – Principle Power (Ref. 19)
Contractor : Vryhof Anchors
Location: 5 km off Agucadoura,
Portugal. Sandy site. No bedrock.
Products: 4 x 9.5mT STEVSHARK®
with 3.5mT ballast with special cutter
points, mooring chains, wire ropes,
connectors, chain clamps, plus
STEVTENSIONER®
Anchoring & Mooring: ~ 20% costs.
For complex deployments, deep water
& difficult geology, installation costs
can be ~50%
Vryhof Anchors STEVTENSIONER ,
used in Oil & Gas for >20 years, allows
cross-tensioning of opposing anchors.
Repeated heaving up and slacking of
the system in a yo-yo action builds up
mooring chain load to required tension.
Reduction in bollard pull demand allows Source: Vryhof Anchors
use of smaller vessels. Video: vryhof.com/filmpjes/tensioning/tensioner.html

Innovation 1: TTI Nylon Rope and Gravity Anchor Bags (Ref. 7)
IDEOL SEM-REV Windfloat & Bluewater Texel NL Tidal Floater
Innovate UK, Scottish Govt., Carbon Trust Project
MRCF: Testing, Qualification of Advanced Mooring System: Wave & Tidal Arrays
MESAT: Synthetic Fibre Rope Polymer Line Fairleads
 Develop & Qualify technology & mooring for wave & tidal unit station-keeping
 Mooring subsystem qualification programmes: Carbon Trust & TSB
 Gravity anchor bag to DNV-RP-A203 & Nylon Rope to Lloyd’s Register
 Methodologies & guidance for design of Nylon based mooring systems
 Demonstrate step changes in cost reduction, increasing mooring array density.
 Technology viability through open water testing.

Innovation 2: SBM Taut Moored
Submerged Modular Frame
Structure (Ref. 17)
 SBM-EDF-IFP-Siemens
 Light, relatively cheap, small nacelle
motions with catenary cable installation.
 Field proven components. No active
ballast.
 Mass ratio decreases with larger WTGs
 Small draft for WTG installation @quay,
with conventional Wet Tow
 Modularity and low complexity
components
 Supply chain based and flexible assembly
 No dry-dock & assembly using standard
yard techniques
 Suction caisson or driven/drilled pile
anchoring

Innovation 3: TFI Dynamic Tether: Elastomer Line /Spring (Ref. 18)
 Significantly reduces peak loads by up to 70%
 Eliminates snatch loads
 Scalable to 300 Tonnes load capacity
 Stabilises floating structure more effectively
 May be installed alongside existing mooring system
 Lower operational costs
 Smaller footprint
 Reduced seabed scour
tfimarine.com/default-item/products-portfolio/

Innovation 4: First Subsea “Ballgrab” Platform Mooring Connectors (Ref. 6)
TLP Top Connector
Supported by OW
Developers & GROW
Offshore Wind
Specialist Mooring
Equipment Manufacturer
Spar, Semi-Sub or TLP
Ball & Taper Gripping
Technology • Automatic connection
• Removes need for expensive
chain jacks & fairleads
• Low pretension installation
• Adjustable mooring line
length/tension
• Simplifies, speeds up and
standardises installation
• No ROV intervention required
• Eliminates the need for divers
• Cost Effective. High load
Capacity
• Mature technology from
Source: GICON TLP OTC 2016 Ballgrab Source: First Subsea offshore oil & gas applications

Innovation 5: McLaughlin and Harvey Subsea Drilled Anchors (Ref.3)
Mooring spread for ScotRenewables SR2000

floating Tidal Turbine at EMEC Orkney.
Almost completely bare rocky seabed
swept by strong tidal currents.
Anchor options: (1) Floating & Modular
gravity; (2) Drilled and Grouted
• Commercially viable, proven
technologies.
• Small diameter drilling with low
environment impact.
• In-Situ anchor testing/reduced fatigue.
• Serviceable, easily decommissioned, UK
patented.
• Collaborative project between MRCF, Invest NI
& Carbon Trust.
• Successful design & proof testing of MK2 Rig
• IschebeckTitan 196 / 129 tension anchors 400t
SWL / 800t ultimate.

Innovation 6: Seabed Anchored Foundation Template [SAFT] (Ref.8)
 Buoyant float-out hybrid structure concept

 Foundation base or mooring point template.
 GRP /reinforced concrete base configured to support
tripods, jackets or GBS or:
 Pre-installed templates for inclined or vertical
(TLP)taut or slack catenary mooring lines
 Steel /concrete edge skirts and suction caissons [SC]
, or helical screws for differing soil types/thicknesses
 Tension resistance via pressure grouted rock anchors
installed below upper support casing.
 Installed from an ROV operated marinised drilling
unit via vessel launched LARS.
 External GRP, concrete or steel mudmats and/or
integral plastic anti-scour frond mats/mattresses.
 Configuration has considerable lateral seabed
resistance and tension uplift capacity.
 Design preceded by high quality shallow geophysical
investigation of seabed surface and upper layering
 Confirmatory “pilot hole soil/rock coring by same
ROV drilling unit used to install the anchors.
www.bladeoffshore.com/our-company/blade-offshore-remote-drilling#gallery[as]/2/  Proof-loading of 5-10% to twice working load.

Conclusions [1] Offshore Wind Fixed Vx Floating LCOE
1. European OW has been North & Baltic Seas shallow water oriented, adopting monopiles,
piled tripods/tripiles & jackets. CAPEX rose between 2008 (2.5 M/MW) & 2015
(5.5M/MW), but has fallen since (~USD 4 M/MW) (USD$ 2011 prices).
2. Fixed Foundation Risks: Grouted connections, env. piling noise, long & heavy pile
design, pile tip buckling, drilling out/re-driving, excessive corrosion, tilting /settlements.
3. Fixed costs have reduced such that “subsidy free”, may be possible post 2020. Further
innovative step-changes essential. Predicted Reduction for Fixed & Floating: 25 to
30% by 2030.
4. OW could deliver LCoE of less than Euro 100/MwHr by mid 2020s. “Comparable
position to that of the nascent UK oil and gas companies in the 1970s”.
5. Deep water OW is untapped. Potential is huge. Development of Floating alternatives

in WD > 50 m 2 Semi Subs (IDEOL & WINDFLOAT) & Spar (HYWIND) lead the race.
6. However, recent low bids for North Sea fixed structure OW suggest an “Investor
Confidence Gap” between Fixed Vs Floating. Floating wind needs substantial reduction
in LCOE requiring a considerable technology gamechager.
7. VAWT TLP offers interesting performance benefits such as increased energy

capture and reduced loads on the tower and blades. Favourable LCOE estimates suggest
further investigation and consideration is merited.

Conclusions [2] Anchoring and Mooring
1. For difficult rocky, irregular seabeds in deeper water, innovative and creative thinking
will be needed, particularly if TLP VAWT develops, as is expected. Anchoring in soft
soils will be via suction caissons, in hard soils and bedrocks mostly drilled anchors.
2. Floating projects will encounter many subsea bedrock sites of varying geomorphology
and complexity around the world. Development of a fast effective subsea ROV template
drilling system for multiple rock anchor installation is essential.
3. 4 Conventional Anchoring Solutions - Case Studies

Gravity Anchors - Oregon WEC OPT
Suction Caissons - HYWIND Buchan Deep
Drag Anchors - Principle Power Portugal
4. Innovation Examples
1: Nylon Rope and Gravity Anchor Bags [TTI];
2: Submerged Taut Moored Substructure [SBM];
3: Dynamic Tether: Elastomer/Spring [TFI];
4: “Ballgrab” Platform Mooring Connectors [First Subsea]
5: Drilled Anchors [McL&H];
6: Seabed Anchored Foundation Template [SAFT]

References (1)
1. Arias, R.R., Ruiz, Á.R. & de Lena Alonso, V.G. (2012), “Mooring and Anchoring”: In: L. Castro-Santos and
V. Diaz-Casas (eds.), Floating Offshore Wind Farms, Green Energy and Technology, p. 89 – 199.
2. Atkins (2017), “Floating Wind Unlocking the Innovative Foundations for Deeper Waters”, All
Energy 2017, Glasgow, 10th -11th May 2017 p.10.
3. Bergamo, Evaluation of Full Scale Shear Performance of Tension Anchor Foundations: Load Displacement
Curves and Failure Criteria”, Bergamo, P. Donohue, S., Callan, D. Holland, A. Brown, W. McSherry, M.,
Cillian Ward, C., Amato, G. McCarey, J., Sivakumar, V. Ocean Engineering 131 (2017), p. 80–94.
4. Carbon Trust (2015), “Floating Offshore Wind: Market and Technology Review”, Scottish
Govt. p. 164.
5. Crown Estate (2012),“UK Market Potential and Technology Assessment for Floating
Offshore Wind Power”, 21st December 2012, DNV-GL Ref. p.24.
6. First Subsea (2013), “Getting to Grips with Offshore Handling and Assembly of Wind, Wave
and Tidal Devices”, All Energy 2013, Aberdeen, 22nd -23rd May 2013 p.17.
7. Flory, J. F., Banfield, S. J., Ridge, I. M. L., Yeats, B., Mackay, T., Wang, P. and Foxton, P. (2016), “Mooring
Systems for Marine Energy Converters”. In J. Zande, & B. Kirkwood (Eds.), OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE
Monterey, OCE 2016.
8. Golightly, C.R. (2013), “Efficient Anchored Template Foundations for Offshore Wind
Turbines [OWT]”, Proc. EWEA 2013, Ref. Paper No. 377, p.1.
9. Lazard (2016), “Lazard’s Levelised Cost of Energy”, Version 10.0., December 2016, p. 22.
10. Mochet, C. (2017), “Fixing Floaters”, OE Digital, 30th October 2017.

References (2)
11. Myhr, A., Bjerkseter, C., Ågotnes, A. and Nygaard, T.A. (2104), “Levelised Cost of Energy for Offshore
Floating Wind Turbines in a Life Cycle Perspective”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 66, June 2014, pp 714–728.
12. NREL (2012), “Improved Offshore Wind Resource Assessment in Global Climate
Stabilization Scenarios”, Ref. NREL/TP-6A20-55049, October 2012, p. 29.
13. NREL (2015), “An Assessment of the Economic Potential of Offshore Wind in the United
States from 2015 to 2030”, Ref. NREL/TP-6A20-67675, March 2017, p. 77.
14. Possner, A. & Caldeira, K. (2017), “Geophysical Potential for Wind Energy over the Open
Oceans”, p. 6.
15. Offshore Evaluation Group (2010), “The Offshore Valuation Report; A Valuation of the
UK’s Offshore Renewable Energy Resource”, Public Interest Research Centre, p. 108.
16. US Dept.of Energy EERE (2017)“Offshore Floating Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Project
Identifies Promising Platform Design”, 17th October 2017.
17. SBM Offshore (2017), “Post 2020 Commercial Deployment Challenges for Floating Wind£.
FOWT 2017, Marseilles, p.8
18. TFI Marine - tfimarine.com/default-item/products-portfolio/
19. Vryhof Anchors (2012), “The Use of Drag Embedment Anchors in Offshore Applications”,
Offshore Renewable Energy, 10th-12th May 2012, Porto, Portugal, p. 42.
20. Wiser, R., Jenni, K., Seel, J., Baker, E., Hand, M., Lantz, E., Smith, A., (2016), “Forecasting
Wind Energy Costs and Cost Drivers: The Views of the World’s Leading Experts Authors”,
Ref. LBNL- 1005717 June 2016, p. 87.

Recommended Links
EC Marine Knowledge 2020 Database: ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/marine_knowledge_2020
IRENA Costs Database: irena.org/costs
USA Offshore Wind Database: offshorewind.net
UK Floating Wind: thecrownestate.co.uk/media/428739/uk-floating-offshore-wind-power-report.pdf
4C Offshore Wind Database: 4coffshore.com
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: +32 478 086394
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.


Anchoring & Mooring For Floating Offshore Wind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anchoring & Mooring For Floating Offshore Wind

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

Anchoring & Mooring For Floating Offshore Wind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anchoring & Mooring for Floating Offshore Wind

8th November 2017 Future Offshore Foundations, Brussels

SPAR - HYWIND TLP - PELASTAR SEMI SUB WINDFLOAT

Source: Univ. Mass. 1974

Source: Statoil Source: Glosten Associates Source: WINDFLOAT

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

PART 2 – ANCHORING AND MOORING

Case Studies 1. Gravity Anchors - Oregon WEC OPT

Innovations 1: Nylon Rope and Gravity Anchor Bags [TTI]

Source: World Bank/Potsdam Institute November 2012

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Possner & Caldera [PNAS] 2017

A: Climatology of Kinetic Energy

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

S. North Sea Cont.

Source: Statoil Global Offshore Wind 2014

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: US NREL Database

• Heavier & longer over-designed “monopiles” [in reality very

Source: Carbon Trust 2015

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: www.openocean.fr 2017

“We find ourselves in a comparable position to that of the

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Roddier & Weinstein, 2010

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Myhr et al, 2014.

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Floating Wind Energy Projects of The World, Inducomm, 2017

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: US DoE EERE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory June 2016

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Expected Impact of Wind Technology, Market, and Other Changes

Wind Technology, Market or Other Change % Rating as Mean Rating

Foundation and Support Structure Design Advances 80 2.8

Installation Process Efficiencies 78 2.7

Foundation and Support Structure Manufacturing 68 2.6

Economies of Scale Through Increased Project Size 65 2.6

Installation and Transportation Equipment Advances 63 2.5

Increased Turbine Capacity & Rotor Diameter 59 2.4

Reduced Financing Costs & Project Contingencies 58 2.5

Increased Competition Between Component Suppliers, 46 2.3

Rotor Design Advances 46 2.2

Source: Wiser et al [LBNL] 2016

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Expert Estimates of Median-Scenario

$160 (2017) >> $110 (2030)

“The competition is with solar, onshore wind and

Unsubsidized LCOE in the US by Source

Offshore Wind Needs to go to Euros 50 MWh

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Recommended: Intermoor Mooring Chart 2013

Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. – Anchoring for Floating Wind Turbines

Source: Gael Force UK (Video: bit.ly/2hdldcE)