Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and structures routinely rely on third party survey data to identify and assess the risk of surface or buried geohazards. In many instances, both the acquisition parameters used and subsequent data processing are not carried out with the ultimate goal of the survey or the end user in mind. This can result in an incorrect assessment of geohazard risk, with serious impact on offshore installation operations to follow. This paper reviews two case histories from the North Sea, where inappropriate data processing and reporting have had impact on offshore installation operations. Introduction. In spite of the fact that specialist companies have been carrying out geophysical surveys for offshore engineering projects for many decades, a communication gulf seems to remain between the main parties who should all have an interest in acquiring accurate and relevant geophysical data; the Company responsible for a proposed development, the Survey Company providing the survey services and the offshore construction Contractor, who uses the survey reports to identify and assess the risk of seabed or subsurface geohazards and to provide engineers with soil parameters for design. The standard suite of geophysical methods employed for engineering route or site surveys includes swathe bathymetry, side scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling. In many instances, neither the acquisition parameters used nor the subsequent data processing are carried out with the survey purpose or the end user in mind. This has the unfortunate result of increasing the risk of an incorrect geohazard evaluation by the Contractor, which subsequently can have serious impact on offshore installation operations, with schedule delay, equipment damage or unforeseen mitigation costs as a consequence. Several recent pipeline installation projects in the southern North Sea have been affected by the use of an unfit-for-purpose survey report. Two specific case histories illustrate the problem. Case I. A standard geophysical pipeline route survey was carried out in a section of the southern North Sea known for its migrating fields of megaripples and sand waves. Seabed conditions in this region can vary within short distances between complex fields of migrating asymmetric sand waves or megaripples, areas of moribund sand features or flat sandy seabed. Digital terrain model data (DTM) from the proposed route corridor were supplied to the contractor for use in optimisation of a proposed pipeline route through the sand features. On the basis of the final route selection, a maximum slope of 6 degrees was expected to be encountered along the optimised route. At the initiation of the offshore installation operations, however, slopes in excess of 30 degrees were recorded. The burial of the pipeline in these conditions resulted in high torsional forces on the tracked trencher, causing severe damage to the equipment and resulting in an insufficient burial depth on sections of the pipeline route. Subsequent investigation revealed that the DTM was based on multi-beam bathymetric data processed using a 10 m grid spacing whereas relevant seabed features had a spacing significantly less than 10 m. The smoothing effect on the seabed contours resulted in a highly inaccurate representation of gradients
present along the pipeline installation route. The difference between the low resolution bathymetric surface used to evaluate geohazard risk and the actual seabed surface was later documented by high resolution bathymetric data collected by a rockdumping vessel during mitigation works in the areas of insufficient pipeline burial. The contrast between the two survey results can be seen in the calculated gradient maps depicted in Figure 1.
KP 7.65 KP 7.65
KP 8.30
KP 8.30
During the subsequent investigation, the original boomer data were procured from the Company and re-examined. The study identified numerous point diffractions as well as concentrations of diffractions on the seismic profiles. In consideration of the fact that the clay was of glacial origin, the diffractions were interpreted to be possible buried boulders. A horizon consisting of an intense concentration of smaller diffractions was interpreted to represent the lag layer at the sand / clay boundary. Yet no mention of these features was made in the survey report. Independent analysis of the data by the British Geological Survey (Long D. and Wilson, C.K., 2004) subsequently confirmed that the reinterpretation was valid, and consistent with BGS core archive data from the region, as seen in the example in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Comparison of slope imagery expressed as slope gradient in degrees. Both route corridors are centred on the pipeline lay route. The surface on the left was contoured at a grid spacing of 10 m, the surface on the right with a grid spacing of 0.5 m.
Case II. In a second example, also from the southern North Sea, a survey report supplied as part of the technical documention for a proposed pipeline route interpreted the presence of single sub-surface boulders on boomer profiles. These were plotted on geological cross sections without additional comment in the report text. The cross sections were then provided to the Contractor in order to evaluate the trenchability of the pipeline route. As the survey report did not indicate any unusual concentration of boulders in the proposed development area, the Contractor planned accordingly in terms of equipment selection and project scheduling. However, during the pipeline burial operation, numerous buried boulders were encountered, as well as a lag deposit at the contact between the seabed sand and the underlying clay. As a result, a radical difference between the actual versus the predicted pipeline plough and trencher performances was experienced.
Figure 2. Vibrocore sample from BGS core archives showing the lag layer at the sand / clay contact, unreported despite a horizon of point diffraction concentrations on the boomer profiles (Long, D. and Wilson, C.K., 2004).
Discussion. Due to the inability to identify geohazard risk at an early stage, both cases described above resulted in time-consuming and costly disputes between client and contractor. The root causes were inappropriate data processing or an interpretation that did not focus on the end user needs. A better understanding of the strengths and limitations of geophysical methods would clearly be of benefit to all parties, and in particular within the survey industry itself. Quality control which addresses the simple question of whether the data being acquired, interpreted and reported will answer the questions for which the survey is being performed,
would go a long way in solving the disparity between the high expectations to survey results and the relatively little useful or reliable data actually produced. Geotechnical engineers use geophysical survey data for two principle purposes; to provide lateral control between geotechnical test locations, where soil conditions are known, and to identify and evaluate geohazard risk. The geotechnical evaluation has direct influence on the choice of sub-sea installation methodology and on subsea pipeline and structure design. Many codes are available for engineering survey practice; in the North Sea, common codes include those from British Standards and Standards Norway (BSi, 1993, NORSOK, 2004), but these tend to focus almost exclusively on geotechnical testing techniques. The engineering community, in the form of the Society for Underwater Technologys Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Committee and the International Marine Contractors Association has attempted to draft a number of guidelines for route and site surveys (OSIG, 2004, 2005 and IMCA, 2006); however, apart from the IMCA guidelines for multibeam bathymetric surveys, little attention has been paid to providing good practise guidelines for acquisition parameters, data processing flow or resolution requirements for engineering surveys. An odd situation when the information required for engineering use is either on or within a few metres of the seabed, where ultra high resolution is the key to the identification of features relevant to engineering projects. There was no single culprit in either of the specific cases described earlier. Both Companies who engaged the specialist Survey Companies to carry out the survey work and the Contractor who evaluated
the survey reports did not have the required expertise in evaluation of geophysical data necessary to spot the deficiencies in the geophysical survey reports. The specialist Survey Company either did not have an adequate understanding of the issues relevant to subsea engineering, or chose to unquestioningly perform the work according to a set of inappropriate specifications set out by their client. Conclusions. This paper presents only two of countless examples which illustrate the existence of a gap between the resolution and data presentation that are presently achievable and the reality of the inadequate survey reports routinely produced for the engineering community. A heightened awareness among geophysicists and offshore surveyors of the data required by geotechnical engineers, as well as the formation of accepted good practise guidelines, are needed to focus attention on the particular requirements of the fit-for-purpose engineering survey.
References: 1. British Standard, 1999. Code of practice for site investigations (with Amendment No. 1 of 31 Dec., 2007). 194 pp. 2. IMCA, 2006. Guidelines for the use of multibeam echosounders for offshore surveys. IMCA S 003, Rev. 1, 38 pp. 3. Long, D. and Wilson C.K, 2004. An assessment of the ground conditions for trenching pipelines in the Murdoch area, southern North Sea. Commissioned Report CR/04/021, British Geological Survey, 94 pp. 4. NORSOK, 2004. Marine Soil Investigations. NORSOK Standard G-001, Rev. 2, 66 pp. 5. OSIG, 2004. Guidance Notes on Geotechnical Investigations for Marine Pipelines, OSIG Rev. 3, 47 pp. 6. OSIG, 2005. Guidance Notes on Site Investigations for Offshore Renewable Energy Projects, OSIG Rev. 02, 25 pp.