Foundation Capabilities and Limitations: Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations
Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

3rd - 4th February 2014 Dexter House, 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. - Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar 3rd - 4th February 2014
Summary - Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations
Introduction Global Offshore Wind Energy
Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines
Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]
Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US
Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations
Monopiles Design & Installation
4 Leg Piled Jackets OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket
Tripods Weserwind Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind
BARD Tripile
Gravity Base Structures [GBS] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower
Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods
Others: Guyed Tower - A-Framed Monopile - TITAN Jack Up
Foundation Costs - Comparisons
Foundation Issues & Problems (1); Early Refusals & Piling Noise
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (2); Vibro Installation & Scour
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3); Grouted Connections
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (4); Monopile Resonance, Cyclic Friction Degradation & Long Term Tilt in Sands
Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource
Fabrication Costs (Early 2010)
Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites
Offshore Wind Cost Trends Need for Reduction
Seabed Anchored Foundation Templates [SAFT]
Conclusions, References, Contact Details
Introduction Global Offshore

Wind Energy
Clean & abundant energy on global scale should accelerate
as fossil fuel costs rise & renewables gain economies of

scale and innovation occurs The Crossover
First offshore windfarm Denmark 1991. Proportion of RE in
several European countries is increasing.
But: as OW industry goes large scale, developers & lenders
are conservative and risk averse. Stated liking for Creative

innovation but also proven technnology.
European focus is on Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium
& UK. France, USA, China, Japan developing rapidly

Meditteranean, India, Brazil, S. Africa & others in future.
Source: Moustafaeipour, 2009
Bigger, higher larger conventional 3 blade Siemens/Vestas
HAWT turbines dominant. Several 8 MW versions could be

twin blade and VAWT in future (Sandia Labs. Studies).
Move offshore from monopiles [15 - 30 m WD] jackets(UK)
& tripods (Germany) [30-45 m WD] eventually to spar and

TLP floaters [40-60 m +WD]
In UK, offshore wind developers registered interest in
deploying 46 GW of capacity & 10 GW has been progressed

to consent determination, construction and operation.
UK governments Renewables Roadmap aims to cut cost of
wind power to 100 per megawatt hour (MWh), with 18

GW capacity off UK coast by 2020.
LCOE Ranges and Averages [IRENA, 2013]
Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines
Oil & Gas Platforms
Offshore Wind Turbines
Relatively stiff structures, usually

founded on long driven piles and
mudmats
Relatively flexible towers on variety of

foundation types, monopiles 4 to 9 m
diameter, tripods/4 leg jackets, GBS.
Axial loads dominate due to high

structure weights
Structural dynamics always critical. 3P

Eigenvalue resonance
Structural dynamics are not critical with

weight >>> bending moments
Bending moment and lateral response

more important than axial load
Wave loads tend to dominate design in

high energy areas such as North Sea
Wind and wave loads both very

important
Straightforward Force Response

relationship
Complex uncorrelated/uncoupled
loading
Each design is one-off Prototype at a

single location
Large Nos. of OWT in arrays (80 [German AV

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
available.
Developer CAPEX investment appetite and
OPEX (Repair & Maintenance) predictions
Smarter solutions available (suction
caissons, GBS, lighter jackets/trusses,
hybrids, seabed anchored templates)
Foundations 30 to 40% of overall CAPEX &
rising. Cost reductions essential
Smarter lighter hybrid foundations needed
& move away from riskier costly conventional
driven tubular steel piling.
Source: UPWIND Project Final Report 2011
Source: NREL
Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US

Codes and Standards Hierarchy
Offshore German Windfarms
Most Relevant Codes and Standards
A.
Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und

Hydrographie [BSH, Federal Regulator]
B1. Germanischer Lloyd [GL]

B2. Det Norsk Veritas [DNV]
B3. IEC
B4. DIN (German National Standards)
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, July

1993.
- WSD Working stress design, 21st edition, December2000.
C1. API-RP2A (Oil & Gas Offshore

Structures)
C2. DIBt
C3. Norsok (Norwegian Offshore)

C4. DASt Richtlinie
D. Other Specific Standards
where above do not cover
technical design in sufficient
detail
Det Norske Veritas DNV Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101,

Design for Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, Norway, 2004.
Germanischer Lloyd
Rules and Guidelines, IV Industrial
Services, Part 2 Guideline for the certification of offshore
wind turbines, Germanischer Lloyd Windenergie GmbH
Hamburg, 2005.
BSH Standard: 2007-06, Design of Offshore Wind Turbines
API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
EN 1997-1:2009-09: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Deisgn;

Parts 1, 2 and 3.
RECOFF Recommendations for Design of Offshore wind
turbines (RECOFF), European Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development Programme
Norsok Standard N-003 Marine Actions, 2007.
Foundation Concepts 2012 2020 [Roland Berger Study 2013]
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 and seabed junk & unexploded ordnance [UXO]
Boreholes, vibrocores and cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering 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 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 limitations &
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.
Reasonably well understood design
and drivability methods with
offshore track record / experience
Flexible & adaptable to:
- different/varying soil conditions
- water depth
- scour conditions (no protection
vs protection/mitigation
Variable diameter and wall
thickness permitted on same
project
Acts in tension & compression
Different penetrations and number
Flexibility in installation methods
vessels (pre-piling Vs through
sleeve).
Allows for drilling out and redriving
if necessary (but expensive & to
be avoided)
Move to SCs for jackets (DONG,
Statoil, Dudgeon trials)
BIFAB Jacket Beatrice. Source: SSE Renewables
Source: OWEC Tower
Tripods Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind

Weserwind - ALPHA VENTUS
German federal funding 2001 2007
6 OWEC jackets/6 OWT tripods
EPCI Contract value EUR 32m
Client consortium: Vattenfall, Eon & EWE
(DOTI)
1st offshore us of seabed template prepiling (IHC)
Adopted by Borkum West 2, Globaltech 1
OGN-Aquind
Newcastle based Oil & Gas fabricator
TRITON 3 leg truss jacket for use in WD
over 30 m & up to 80 m
Major UK Govt. funding in 2012 for
development and design of prototype
jacket
Steel savings, planning to be able to
fabricate 150 jackets per year at
Hadrians Yard in Wallsend
BARD Tripile
Gravity Base Structures [GBS] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower

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
and analyses necessary for
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.
Dudgeon full field SC jackets
planned for 2016.
Source: DONG
Source: SLP Engineering
Source: DONG
Source: Oxford University Civil Engineering
Guyed Tower and A-Framed Monopile
Source: Bunce and Carey EWEA 2001
Source: WA Design Ltd.
TITAN 200 FWSS Jack Up Concept
Source: http://offshorewindpowersystemsoftexas.com/titan_200_deep_offshore_platform
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (1); Early Refusals & Piling Noise
Piling Refusals
Heavy long large diameter monopiles
and jacket piles increasingly being overdriven 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); Vibro Installation & Scour
Vibro-Installation
Tripods levelled using seabed vibroinstallation 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=1.31.6 * 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 (3); Grouted Connections

For OWT monopiles, the transition piece [TP] transmits high
bending moments. Brittle rock-like grouted connections were
adopted for most European projects for speed & cost savings.
Most excluded reinforcing shear keys due to design code
omission. These have settled, cracked and failed on 70% UK
monopiles. Systemic design fault. Variety of extensive and
costly repairs have been required on many European projects.
Oil & gas platform jackets used API designed grouted
connections for decades, but grout connection in jackets hold
a large mass so are always in compression. OWTs are light &
subjected to long term cyclic bending, so complex vertical +
bending force coupling & tensile stresses.
Ability to transfer large moment is not fully understood &
design theories have limitations & shortfalls. The use of
conical TP sections as a solution [controlled failure] is
uncertain in the long term.
Industry best practice and code guidelines review on reliability
of grouted connections. DNV guidelines were revised in 2011
(new Code 2014), but still anomalies in predicting behaviour.
Research ongoing to understand size and fatigue effects.
Many developers reverting to bolted flange connections
(Scroby Sands, North Hoyle and Blyth 12 years ago), with
some considering pile swaging or even slip joints as a more
reliable long term solution. Requires verticality, careful driving.
Source: Lotsberg 2012
Source: Harding et al 2012
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
Long Term OWT Tower Tilt in Sands
Settling of towers/monopiles embedded in sands but not
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.
Cyclic
Displacement
Accumulation in
Sands. Source:
Achmus, AbdelRahman & Kuo
(2007)
Foundation Costs Comparisons
Source: UPWIND Project Final report
Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource
Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010.
Future Offshore Wind Tethered Floating Structures 2 Examples
Source: Maine Int. Consulting, 2013.
Fabrication Costs (early 2010)
Source: Ballast Nedam, 2010.
Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites
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 overdesigned 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: The Offshore Valuation, 2010
Source: van der Zwaan et al, 2011
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, overconservative 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. 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?
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. 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.
10. Globally, early development of floating alternatives increasing, HYWIND
[Statoil], Principle Power [WINDFLOAT], Wave Hub [Glosten], Blue H,
Offshore Japan [Various], France [IDEOL, WINFLO, VERTIWIND].
11. Gyro-stabilised floaters, fully submerged concrete/composites, tension
tethered damped synthetic mooring line, FPSO template, vertical axis
turbines [VAWT] in WD > 50 m hold out most promise. Hybrid wind/tidal?
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 UKs 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.
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
www.gwec.net/publications/country-reports
IRENA Costs Database; irena.org/costs
UK Govt. Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy
https://www.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
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: www.linkedin.com/pub/5/4b5/469
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.

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations: Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations: Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations

Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

Source: BELWIND Website

Sources from top left

Source: WINDFLOAT Website

Summary - Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations

Introduction Global Offshore Wind Energy

Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines

Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]

Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US

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] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower

Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods

Others: Guyed Tower - A-Framed Monopile - TITAN Jack Up

Foundation Costs - Comparisons

Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3); Grouted Connections

Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource

Fabrication Costs (Early 2010)

Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites

Offshore Wind Cost Trends Need for Reduction

Seabed Anchored Foundation Templates [SAFT]

Conclusions, References, Contact Details

Introduction Global Offshore

as fossil fuel costs rise & renewables gain economies of

First offshore windfarm Denmark 1991. Proportion of RE in

several European countries is increasing.

But: as OW industry goes large scale, developers & lenders

are conservative and risk averse. Stated liking for Creative

European focus is on Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium

& UK. France, USA, China, Japan developing rapidly

Source: Moustafaeipour, 2009

Bigger, higher larger conventional 3 blade Siemens/Vestas

HAWT turbines dominant. Several 8 MW versions could be

Move offshore from monopiles [15 - 30 m WD] jackets(UK)

& tripods (Germany) [30-45 m WD] eventually to spar and

In UK, offshore wind developers registered interest in

deploying 46 GW of capacity & 10 GW has been progressed

UK governments Renewables Roadmap aims to cut cost of

wind power to 100 per megawatt hour (MWh), with 18

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

Axial loads dominate due to high

Structural dynamics always critical. 3P

Structural dynamics are not critical with

Bending moment and lateral response

Wave loads tend to dominate design in

Wind and wave loads both very

Straightforward Force Response

Each design is one-off Prototype at a

Large Nos. of OWT in arrays (80 [German AV

Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]

Source: UPWIND Project Final Report 2011

Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US

Most Relevant Codes and Standards

Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und