Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/
marstruc

Study on a new method for installing a monopile

and a fully integrated offshore wind turbine
structure
Arunjyoti Sarkar*, Ove T. Gudmestad
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Material Science,
University of Stavanger, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 6 August 2012
Received in revised form 24 May 2013
Accepted 29 June 2013

This paper presents a preliminary technical feasibility study on a

new methodology proposed for installing a monopile-based bottom
supported offshore wind turbine structure. The concept is developed to address the problem of waiting for a suitable weather
window which is commonly faced by the existing installation
methods that uses a typical jack-up platform. In the methodology, a
oating vessel along with a oatable subsea structure tted with a
hull on the top, hereafter named SSIP (subsea structure for
installing a pile), is proposed rst to install a monopile. Then the
same structure is used to carry an FIUS (fully integrated upper
structure) of an offshore wind turbine, which is characterized by a
telescopic tower, and install it over the monopile by using an FOP
(oat-over-pulling) arrangement. Here, the installation methodologies are rst briey described along with the critical load cases
associated with them. These load cases are then numerically
studied for a signicant wave height (HS) of 2.5 m, and the results
are summarized. For installing a fully integrated offshore wind
turbine upper structure on a monopile foundation by the FOP
method, two installation schemes are presented, and their dynamic
characteristics are compared. It is shown that the proposed methodologies have potential to provide installation solutions which can
be environmentally more robust compared to the existing method
for installing an offshore wind turbine.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Monopile installation
Integrated offshore wind turbine
installation
Submerged support structure
SSIP
FIUS
FOP method

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 47 4639 8218; fax: 47 5183 1950.

E-mail addresses: arunjyotisarkar@yahoo.com (A. Sarkar), ove.t.gudmestad@uis.no (O.T. Gudmestad).
0951-8339/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.06.001

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

161

1. Introduction
Due to the increasing focus on offshore wind energy, it is expected that a large number of monopilebased bottom supported offshore wind turbines (OWT) will be installed by the renewable energy
industry in the coming years. The components of a bottom supported OWT can be grouped into two,
namely: the foundation (monopile/jacket/tripod/gravity foundation, etc.), and the upper structure
(which includes the transition piece, the tower, the nacelle and the blades). The experience gained from
various projects executed so far has revealed the necessity to develop installation friendly OWT
structures by incorporating technological solutions used by the offshore oil and gas (O&G) industry
which has been developing since installing the rst offshore oil platform in offshore Baku, Azerbaijan in
1949 [1]. The objective of this paper is to present new installation methods for a monopile foundation,
and a fully integrated upper structure (FIUS), which has been developed by combining some of the eld
proven technologies, and to show its effectiveness from the perspective of allowable installation
seastate.
The installation of various components of an OWT is commonly carried out by using a jack-up vessel
as it provides a stable working platform to carry out the marine operations safely and precisely. The
main drawback of this approach arises from the fact that a jack-up vessel normally has a low transfer
seastate (the seastate in which a jack-up can be safely transferred from the oating mode to the
standing mode or vice-versa), which is typically HS 1.5 m [2]. This has caused large wastage of offshore
work time during the installation phase in various projects executed in the North Sea region. The
reason for this wastage is, for a large part of the year, most sites in the North Sea area are dominated by
seastates higher than HS 1.5 m, as can be observed in Fig. 1 (regenerated from Ref. [2]).
One of the various possible solutions to address this problem is to develop an installation methodology (and the installation aids) which can be utilized by a oating vessel. However, the main
problem associated with a oating vessel is the six rigid body degrees of freedom which make it unsuitable for being used to install various components of an OWT. These marine operations are sensitive
to the motions of the work-platform.
One possible approach to use a oating vessel (e.g., for installing a monopile) is to keep it sufciently stable rst by anchoring it rmly to the seabed, and then by engaging its dynamic positioning
(DP) system. However, the experience from projects executed in the offshore UK sector shows that the
allowable installation seastate for upending and installing monopiles using such an approach can be
limited to HS 1.5 m or below [3]. Further, with increasing water depths, this method appears unsuitable
as the anchor lines become more exible. Offshore pile driving operations are quite common in the
offshore O&G industry which has installed large jacket type structures. Generally, a jacket structure is
rst launched at the site and then upended by ooding some of its members to place it at the desired
location. Alternatively, it is lifted from a barge by a large crane onboard a vessel. Once it stands on the
seabed in a stable conguration supported by the mudmats, the piles are driven into the seabed either
through the jacket legs or through the pile guides [4]. This operation can be performed at a relatively
higher seastate, depending on the unpiled stability of the jacket structure.

Fig. 1. Weather windows, based on 4 North Sea sites, 6 h, annual avg. (regenerated from Ref. [2]).

162

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

In some of the recent OWT projects, jacket type foundations supported by pre-installed piles, which
are relatively much smaller in size compared to a monopile, have been used. The piles are pre-installed
by using a template structure that provides temporary support, and once the piles are driven into the
seabed the template is recovered [5]. This approach is especially important for accurate relative
placement of the piles, so that the jacket structure can be placed over them at a later stage. This method
can be adopted by a oating vessel as it isolates the marine operation from the motions of the vessel,
and can be carried out at a relatively higher seastate, provided the template structure after the piles
are placed in it is sufciently stable.
With this background, one can consider using a temporary support structure to install a monopile
from a oating vessel. Such an idea involving a subsea structure for installing a pile (SSIP) and a oating
vessel has been proposed in Ref. [6]. The technical feasibility of the concept is shown. In that proposal, a
V shaped hull tted at the top level of the structure, is used to aoat and tow it to the site.
The installations of various components of the upper structure are normally carried out separately. On
top of the monopile foundation, a transition piece may be installed which supports the tower. The use of a
transition piece can be avoided if the moniopile is surface piercing type. Afterward, the nacelle and the
blades are installed on top of the tower. The blades and the hub (i.e., the rotor assembly) can be installed
either together or separately. These offshore operations are difcult and time consuming, as they require
great precision at a large altitude [7]. Normally a jack-up vessel is used to carry out these operations.
Installation of a fully integrated upper structure has also been attempted from a oating crane barge
[8]. But such a direct method has in general limited application due to the low allowable seastate for
installation. The mass of the nacelle, xed on top of a full length tower, considerably affect the oating
stability of a barge.
On the other hand, the offshore oil and gas industry has developed the oat-over installation
method for the topside structure installations, which has gained considerable popularity through
various projects (such as [9]). It has been shown in Ref. [10] that the method can be used to install a
topside structure over a spar type platform on the West African coast where the sea is dominated by
larger swells. Various studies have been presented on the impact loading that the structures may
experience during the mating operation in a oat-over installation (such as [1113]).
An installation method, similar to the oat-over installation technique for a fully integrated upper
structure (FIUS) of an OWT involving external buoyancy element(s), has been described in Ref. [14].
Such a oating system can be towed to the site from a sheltered fabrication yard, and installed over a
submerged foundation. The method involves (1) a telescopic tower to lower the center of gravity of the
oating system, and (2) blades which are horizontally orientated (based on [15]) to avoid any hydrodynamic loading on them during the towing and installation phase. The requirement of external
buoyancy in such an approach can be met by an SSIP structure whose hull can be designed with
sufcient reserve buoyancy. Based on these ideas, the installation methodology for an FIUS is developed here, which is termed as the oat-over-pulling (FOP) method, and described in Section 2.2.
The primary focus of this paper is to present the technical feasibility regarding the on-site application
of the methodologies developed for a monopile and an FIUS. Some of the key issues, such as: the towing
study of the SSIP structure, the design of various sub-systems of the structure (such as, pile gripper,
blade orientation frame etc., described in Section 2), and other practical aspects which are typically
carried out during a detailed engineering study are not included here. A brief description of the SSIP
structure along with the dimensions for some of the main members chosen for this study is presented in
the next section. The installation methodologies are also briey described therein, and the critical load
cases are identied. These load cases are numerically studied for a targeted seastate of HS 2.5 m (peak
period TP 7 s and water depth of 50 m) to establish the dominant design parameters which are presented
in Section 3. For installing the integrated upper structure on a monopile by the FOP method, two
possible schemes are presented and their dynamic behaviors are compared in Section 4. Finally, some of
the important issues which need further investigation are discussed and conclusions are drawn.
2. Description of the SSIP structure and the installation methodologies
The foot print conguration of the suggested SSIP structure is triangular at the base (Figs. 2 and 3).
The buoyancy elements (mentioned as hull here after, H in Fig. 2) at the top level are used to oat

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

163

Fig. 2. Sketch of the SSIP structure and member notations (left) and a side view (right).

and tow it to the site. At the site, these elements are ooded so that the structure can sink and stand on
the seabed, and support the monopile from the lateral loads imparted by the current and the waves.
The shape of the hull is chosen such that the horizontal offset between the center of gravity (COG) and
the center of buoyancy (COB) of the whole structure remains small. It is further assumed that few
compartments of the hull may be ballasted to achieve this condition more accurately. Refer Table 1 and
Figs. 2 and 3 for the notations and dimensions of different structural members as used in this study.
Realistic values are chosen for these dimensions, while an optimization of the weight of the structure is
not attempted here. These dimensions are regarded as very preliminary which are primarily based on
the stability requirements. Optimization of the shape and the size of the hull can be carried out by
considering the motions of the structure and the forces on the hull during towing. These are considered
as separate studies.
A pile gripper (Fig. 2) is tted to the hull which initially supports the self-weight of the monopile.
Later, when the monopile is vertically supported by the seabed, the gripper provides only lateral
support against the environmental loads. Further, it will also support an integrated upper structure of
an offshore wind turbine during its towing and installation phase.

Fig. 3. Top view of the SSIP structure (V-shape hull) and some main approximate dimensions.

164

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Table 1
Assumed dimensions of the members of the SSIP structure.
Member

Diameter (m)

Thickness (m)

Length (m)

Legs
Horiz members at lower level (LH)
Diagonal members (DM)
Horiz members at upper level (UH)
Hull (H), 2 off
Footings

2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
H 7.2
7.0 circular

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
B 8.0

18.0
30.0
15.0
17.0
L 21.0 (approx.)

The hull (H members, Table 1) may be connected to the structure by means of rack and pinion
systems as commonly used in a jack-up vessel. These jacking systems can also be used to adjust the
inclination of the monopile when it is supported by the gripper or by the seabed.
The V shape of the structure as it appears in the top view (Fig. 3) makes it possible to recover it
from the sideways (horizontal) position in case the pile is extended above the water surface.
The group of inclined members DM (Fig. 2) is assumed to be lled with grout to increase the selfweight of the structure. This is required to resist the large overturning moment experienced by the
structure while supporting the monopile at the targeted seastate of HS 2.5 m [6].
2.1. Monopile installation methodology and associated critical load cases
The monopile installation methodology is similar to [6], which is briey described below. It is
assumed that the monopile will be tted with two end plugs to oat and tow it to the site. Existing end
plugs (such as, shown in Fig. 4) are assumed to be used for this purpose. All marine operations are
carried out from a oating vessel. At rst, the top end of the monopile is lifted by the crane onboard a
oating vessel. During this phase, the self-weight of the monopile is mainly supported by the buoyancy
due to the bottom end-plug being in place. Application of buoyancy may be benecial in order to use an
onboard crane whose capacity might be slightly smaller than the self-weight of the monopile. The
steps of the installation methodology are described below.

Fig. 4. Monopile end-plug (courtesy: IHC Handling System).

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

165

Fig. 5. SSIP placed at the location of the monopile.

Step 1: the SSIP is placed on the seabed by ballasting the hull (Fig. 5).
Step 2: the top end-plug is removed to pour water so that it can be upended (Fig. 6).
Step 3: the monopile is supported by the pile gripper of the SSIP structure and the bottom end-plug
is released (i.e., it falls on the seabed) and recovered (Fig. 7).
Step 4: the SSIP hull is lowered slowly so that the monopile is vertically supported by the seabed,
and the gripper is released so that the penetration due to the self-weight can take place. After this, the
SSIP structure provides only lateral support to the monopile. The verticality of the monopile can be
adjusted by the gripper at this stage (Fig. 8).
Step 5: once the monopile is driven sufciently deep into the seabed, the SSIP structure is recovered
by deballasting the hull (Fig. 9). The installation vessel can be used to pull the structure sideways and
recover it.
The fundamental aspects of feasibility of this operation are the strength and the stability of the
structure against the superimposed loads. These are studied here by considering the following two
critical load cases.
1. The structure supporting the self-weight of the monopile and encountering the environmental
loads (Fig. 7).
2. The structure supporting the monopile against the environmental loads, while the self-weight of
the monopile is transferred to the seabed (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6. Upend the monopile.

166

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Both of these two cases are studied for a seastate of HS 2.5 m (Table 5) and the results are presented
in Section 3.3. Other important aspect is the stability of the SSIP structure and its motion characteristics
in the oating mode, which is presented in Section 3.1.
Also in the above description, it can be noted that the pile gripper is an important sub-system which
should be capable to absorb any impact load that may appear during the contact between the monopile
and the gripper. It should also be capable to transfer the environmental loads superimposed on the
monopile along with its self-weight onto the SSIP structure. These design aspects of the gripper are not
included here. However a conguration of the gripper, without including design feasibility, is suggested in Appendix A.
2.2. Integrated upper structure installation methodology by the FOP method and corresponding critical load
cases
Following [15], the blades of the integrated system are assumed to be orientated in a horizontal
plane above the nacelle by using a rotatable frame (Fig. 10). The tower is assumed to be a 3-stage
telescope type, so that the COG of the combined oating system (SSIP FIUS) remains at a suitable
location to maintain adequate stability. Some major properties of the upper structure are presented in

Fig. 7. Monopile supported by the SSIP gripper.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

167

Fig. 8. Monopile vertically supported by seabed and laterally by the SSIP structure.

Table 2, which can be suitable for a 5 MW wind turbine. The blade orientation frame and the lifting
system for the telescopic tower are not described here. It can be mentioned that due to the different
moment of inertia values of the blades about its two principal directions, they may require adequate
lateral support during the transit phase. Following [16], the approximate weight that the orientation
frame has to carry is w120 Ton (includes the weight of the blades hub, excludes the self-weight of the
frame). A winch tted with the frame and located inside the nacelle may be used to orientate the
blades, which should be considered during a detailed engineering study. Connection of various

Fig. 9. Once the pile is sufciently driven the SSIP structure is recovered.

168

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

components (e.g., hydraulics, cables, etc.) in this approach is considered to be an open research
question at this stage. A schematic of the frame is suggested in Appendix B for description purpose, a
feasibility study is not included at present.
Some insight into few possible lifting concepts for a telescopic tower applicable for an OWT can be
found in Ref. [17]. However, it is here assumed that the tower lifting system will be a conventional type,
similar to those used in a jack-up platform, as can be found in Ref. [18]. A geared system or a hydraulicram pin-in-hole type system is normally preferable. Reference [19] describes a hydraulic-ram-lock type
lifting system for a two stage telescopic tower and presents a preliminary design check.
The design of a fully integrated system must ensure that sufcient clearance always exists between
the blade tips and the water surface during the towing and installation phase. For the assembly
considered here, it is estimated that the tips are located at 20.0 m (approx.) above the mean water line.
Using a blade length of 63.0 m [16], and considering pure rotational motion about the center of oatation, the required angular displacement of the structure for a wet blade condition is estimated to be
17. However, if the clearance appears insufcient due to the combined effect of heave, roll and pitch
motion of the structure, one possible solution may be obtained by lifting the tower by few meters. Such
issues should be included during a detailed design phase.
The methodology for placing such an integrated upper structure by using the same SSIP structure
(Fig. 2), and following the FOP arrangement, is described below.
Step 1: an FIUS is attached to the pile gripper of the SSIP structure with its nacelle located at the
lowest possible position (considering the wet blade condition), while the blades are orientated in a
horizontal plane. Subsequently, the whole system is aoat and towed to the site (Fig. 10).
Step 2: at the site, the hull is adequately ballasted so that the excess buoyancy is adequately
removed.
Step 3: riggings (wires) are connected from the bottom of the upper structure, through two
pulleys/trunions attached to the monopile top, to a winch onboard a oating installation vessel

Fig. 10. SSIP structure carrying a FIUS (dimensions not in scale).

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

169

Table 2
Major properties of the offshore wind turbine upper structure (conservative values are used).
Properties

Value

Mass of nacelle
Total mass of the blades
Total height of tower from seabed
Total mass of tower
Tower diameter for hydrodynamic calculations
Length of a blade
Mass of a blade
Mass of the hub

400 Ton (metric ton)

60 Ton
150 m (50 m water depth)
760 Ton
6.0 m
63.0 m (5 MW OWT, [16])
18 Ton
57 Ton

which is positioned in the DP mode. Once the connection is complete, the winch can be slowly
wound (i.e., the wire is pulled) so that the wire(s) are always in tension, and thus the upper structure
is guided to sit on the top of the monopile. The hull will be completely submerged before the upper
structure is placed (Figs. 11 and 12).
It is here assumed that the wire will be able to provide the required stiffness to the assembly against
surge and sway. The yaw motion of the structure can be controlled by connecting another wire to the
secondary crane or to a tug boat. Shock absorbers/fenders should be provided on top of the monopile to
withstand any impact load due to the lateral or vertical motion of the tower end (of the FIUS) during
the touchdown. Such practical issues should be studied in details during the actual design phase.
Another alternative connection is suggested in Appendix C where the bottom end of the tower may
obtain some stiffness against the lateral motions by introducing additional guides; the effectiveness of
such a system needs to be studied in details.
Step 4: once the FIUS is locked with its seat attached on top of the monopile, the SSIP hull is quickly
ballasted further so that it stays close to its independently neutrally buoyant state and then the gripper

Fig. 11. The oating structure is pulled by the vessel to place it on top of the monopile.

170

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Fig. 12. Hull completely submerged while placing on top of the monopile.

is released to recover it (Fig. 13), leaving the FIUS on its foundation. The oating installation vessel,
which tows the SSIP FIUS assembly, will be able to recover the structure from sideways.
Step 5: after adjusting the inclination of the tower (if required), its joint with the monopile is
grouted. Once the joint is sufciently cured, the telescopic tower is lifted to the desired height and all
connections are xed. The blades are then orientated to their desired vertical plane.
The fundamental aspects for the on-site feasibility of installing the assembly on the monopile in this
method are: (1) the tension in the wire, and (2) the downward speed of the assembly during the

Fig. 13. The SSIP structure is recovered.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

171

touchdown. These are checked in Section 4.2. The oating stability and the motion characteristics of
the structure are shown in Section 4.1.
Apart from these, the towing analysis of the assembly is important to ensure that no wet-blades
condition arises, and to estimate the loads for designing the gripper and the hull. These design aspects are not included here.
3. Analyses of the load cases for the monopile installation
As mentioned earlier, for installing a monopile, it is apparent that the SSIP structure has two
operating modes like a typical jack-up platform, namely, the oating mode (oat-alone) and the
standing mode. These load cases are studied and the results are discussed below.
3.1. Float-alone mode of the SSIP
To obtain the stability curves and the response amplitude operators (RAOs) for the oating mode of
the SSIP structure, a numerical model is set in MOSES software (Ultramarine) [20]. The rectangular hull
and the tubular members are modeled with their dimensions as presented in Table 1; the weight and
the radii of gyration are assigned at the COG of the structure. In the calculation, strip theory is used for
the rectangular hull, while the Morisons force model is used for the tubular members with the hydrodynamic coefcients taken from DNV-RP-H103 [21]. All tubular members are assumed to be
ooded in the model. Wind load is ignored since the exposed area is small. The rigid body natural
frequencies are presented in Table 3.
Fig. 14 presents the static stability curves (the righting arm vs. the roll angle) for different orientations of the hull in still water. Since the length of the hull is small, any effect from the waves on the
stability curves is ignored.
Since the hull of the SSIP is located at the top of the structure, the COB is always above the COG
which provides a stable equilibrium to the structure in the oating mode. This condition is important,
as the structure will be initially oating, then fully submerged, and later again will oat up to the free
water surface. Fig. 14 shows that the static stability is sufcient.
The RAO of the oating SSIP structure for 0 , 45 and 90 headings (Figs. 1517) are studied to nd
its fundamental dynamic behavior in the open ocean, i.e., the periods in which possible motion
amplication in the oating mode may occur. The results show, at 0 heading, the oating structure has
a peak for the pitch motion at 11 s. For 45 heading, the peaks occur at 11 s for the pitch and at 9 s for
the roll. At 90 heading, the peak responses appear at 11 s for the pitch and at 9 s for the roll motion.
The values of the peak periods fall in the range of the excitation periods in which waves appear in
nature, suggesting that the fatigue damage of structural elements in the oating condition needs
proper attention. Small differences between the peak responses in the RAO and the natural frequencies
(Table 3) can be attributed to the shape and the size of the water plane area of the hull, and the viscous
drag due to the cylindrical members.
3.2. Transfer from the oating mode to the standing mode
Such a load case is normally critical for a typical jack-up platform since its hull is lifted out of the
water. This transfers the self-weight of the structure from the buoyancy to the leg reaction(s) as soon as
the footing(s) touches the seabed. Hence, the mode-transfer seastate of a jack-up platform must be

Table 3
Rigid body natural frequencies of the SSIP structure in oating mode.
Degrees of freedom

Natural period (s)

Heave
Roll
Pitch

5.5
8.8
10.6

172

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Fig. 14. Static stability of the SSIP in oat-alone mode.

limited (typically HS 1.5 m [2]), so that adverse impact loadings in the lifting mechanism can be
avoided.
This load case is not checked for the SSIP structure as the hull will be completely submerged near
the mid water depth during this mode transfer, as can be observed from the assumed water depth
(50 m) and the structures main dimensions. By proper adjustment of the ballast, the landing speed
resulting after the submerged free fall will be small. Hence any impact load during this mode transfer
can be ignored. But this load case should be checked during a detailed design phase of the lifting
mechanism connecting the hull and the structure.
Also the stability of the structure during this submerged free fall stage does not appear to be critical,
since most of the drag force will act on the hull, while the COG is located below it. This will create a
stable upright conguration during this stage.
3.3. Standing mode of the SSIP monopile installation
The analysis methodology for the standing mode load cases is similar to that presented in Ref. [6] by
using the RIFLEX software [22]. It is concluded in Ref. [6] that the design of such a structure will be
primarily governed by the overturning moment due to the large hydrodynamic load attracted by a
monopile. Following this, the DM members (ref. Table 1) are assumed to be lled with grout to increase the self-weight of the structure. Apart from the imposed environmental loads, the hammer

Fig. 15. SSIP oating mode RAO for 0 heading.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

173

Fig. 16. SSIP oating mode RAO for 45 heading.

blows at the top of the pile are modeled in Ref. [23] and it is reported that the blows do not create a
critical load case for the structure. This is obvious since during the hammering operation, the pile is
vertically supported by the seabed while the structure provides only lateral support to it.
The analysis of the SSIP structure in the standing mode is carried out by using the dimensions of a
monopile as shown in Table 4. As mentioned earlier, two load cases are considered for this mode, which
are,
Load case 1: the monopile is rigidly supported by the gripper tted to the hull (Fig. 7).
Load case 2: the monopile resting on the seabed and the gripper provides only lateral support
(Fig. 8).
Some major properties estimated for the SSIP structure are presented in Table 4. The assumed soil
condition is shown in Table 5.
3.3.1. Mathematical model for the standing mode
Analyses for these two load cases are carried out in Riex (Marintek) [22]. The schematic diagrams
of the mathematical models for these two cases are shown in Fig. 18.
For the load case 1, the monopile is assumed to be rigidly supported by the gripper, i.e., the selfweight of the monopile and the superimposed hydrodynamic loads are transferred to the structure
through the gripper. In the numerical model, this connection is implemented by adding 3 off structural
members between the hull and the monopile (Fig. 18, left). Since a detailed study on the forces in the
gripper is not included here, this gripper model is considered sufcient.
For the load case 2, the guide supports are modeled by using the roller contact surface modeling
feature available in RIFLEX [22]. The water inside the monopile is included in the model.

Fig. 17. SSIP oating mode RAO for 90 heading.

174

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Table 4
The main dimensions of the monopile and major properties of the SSIP
structure as used for the analysis.
Some properties of the monopile and the SSIP structure
Monopile
Diameter at bottom end
Diameter at top end
Length
Mass
SSIP structure
Size of equilateral triangular base
Height
Approx. mass
Submerged weightb
COG (from base level)
COB (from base level)
a
b

6.0 ma
4.5 m
60.0 m
440 Ton
36.0 m
25.0 m
1044 Ton
8970 kN
18.18 m
23.2 m

Constant diameter used for hydrodynamic calculations.

Fully ballasted.

A seastate of HS 2.5 m with TP 7 s (Table 5), which is commonly encountered in the North Sea region,
is modeled to generate the wave loading by following the JONSWAP spectrum (DNV-RP-H103, 2011,
[21]). A current of 1.0 m/s throughout the water depth is also included in the same direction as the wave
heading.
All members, including the hulls, are modeled as tubular elements. For the chosen seastate, the
diffraction parameter (Eq. (1)) for the hulls is estimated to be w0.5. This indicates that the diffraction
effect is not expected to be very large [24], and the hydrodynamic forces are mainly inertia dominated.
Hence using slender elements with Morisons force model is considered to be sufcient here. However,
this does not include any sheltering effect between the hulls. The tubular elements modeling the hulls
are assigned with cross sectional areas same as the hull, while their hydrodynamic coefcients corresponding to the box shape are estimated from DNV-RP-H103 [21] following the breadth/height and
breadth/width ratios. All hydrodynamic coefcients estimated for various members based on the
dimensions shown in Table 1 are presented in Table D1 of Appendix D.

Diffraction parameter;

pD

(1)

where D characteristic dimension, L wave length.

The structure is checked for various wave heading angles, and only the worst results are reported
here. The foundations are modeled as pinned supports and the tubular members are modeled with
EulerBernoullis beam elements. The simulation duration can be taken as 4 h as the monopile is
expected to penetrate the seabed sufciently deep during that time.

Table 5
Environmental input used in the analysis.
Geotechnical data, footing capacity and weather condition input
Cohesion Cu value for clay type soil
NC (dimensionless bearing capacity constant)
Circular footing diameter (SSIP legs)
Horizontal capacity of SSIP footing
Vertical capacity of SSIP footing
HS
TP
Water depth
Current

250 kPa
6
7.0 m
6414 kN
38,484 kN
2.5 m
7s
50.0 m
1.0 m/s throughout the depth

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

175

Fig. 18. Schematic diagram of the mathematical model of load case 1 (left), and load case 2 (right).

3.3.2. Natural periods in the standing mode

Table 6 presents rst few natural periods for the two standing mode cases of the SSIP structure as
described in the previous section. The values indicate that the natural periods are away from the range
of the wave periods that commonly appears in nature.
3.3.3. Basis for geotechnical and structural check
The stability criterion against overturning of the structure is dened as the allowable minimum
compressive force in the legs > 0, i.e., no tension is allowed, or in other words there is no separation
between the footing and the seabed. The maximum loads are checked against the structural strength of
various members following API-RP-2A [25] and AISC Manual for Steel Construction [26]. These are also
checked against the capacities of the footings with respect to vertical bearing and horizontal sliding.
The geotechnical data, as presented in Table 4, are used to estimate the allowable bearing capacities
of the footing(s). The vertical bearing capacity is estimated following Skempton [27], as shown in Eq. (2).



D
qu Cu NC 1 0:2
B

(2)

where qu bearing capacity (i.e., load per unit area), Cu unconned strength of soil, D foundation
penetration, B foundation diameter, NC dimensionless constant for bearing capacity.
From this, (taking D 0, i.e., no penetration),

qu Cu NC

(3)

The sliding capacity of the footing can be expressed as (Tirant [28]),

H Cu A

(4)

Table 6
First few natural periods of the SSIP structure.
Natural periods in
Standing mode 1 (s) (Fig. 7)

Standing mode 2 (s) (Fig. 8)

1.012
0.996
0.726
0.558

1.113
1.0818
0.487
0.437

176

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

where A footing area. Here, the diameter of the circular footings tted below the legs of the SSIP
structure, is assumed to be 7.0 m.
Using the data presented in Table 5 along with Eqs. (3) and (4), the capacities of the footing(s) are
estimated including a factor of safety of 1.5, and presented in Table 5.
3.3.4. Analyses results for the SSIP in standing mode
The analysis results for the standing modes are discussed below. The maximum and the minimum
axial forces in the legs, and the maximum horizontal and vertical loads on the footings, are shown in
Table 7.
The results in Table 7 show that all axial forces in the legs are compressive, i.e., the structure is safe
against overturning. The foundation reactions presented in Table 7 are all within the allowable limits of
vertical bearing and sliding (Table 5), i.e., geotechnically this structure can withstand a seastate of HS
2.5 m for the assumed soil condition.
From the results, it is evident that load case 1 is critical for the maximum strength related issues, i.e.,
the bearing capacity of the footings and the strength of the structural members. Load case 2 is critical
for the overturning criterion since the minimum compressive load in the legs occurs in this case. This is
because, in load case 1 the SSIP structure supports the self-weight of the monopile, which also acts
against the overturning moment imposed by the lateral loads. On the other hand, in load case 2, when
the monopile is vertically supported by the seabed, the restoring moment against overturning is
exerted only by the self-weight of the SSIP structure. Maximum forces against the vertical bearing and
sliding of the footings also appear in load case 1 for the same reason.
Table 8 summarizes the comparison of stresses due to the imposed loads on different structural
members with the allowable stresses which are estimated following [25] and [26]. Only the maximum
loads are presented here. The shear stresses in all members are found to be small and not presented.
The results indicate that the structure can withstand a seastate of HS 2.5 m, and provide adequate
support to the monopile. The unity ratios are small, indicating that the design can be optimized further.
It should be noted, however, that using a lighter structure will reduce the safety margin against
overturning. A detailed check of the structural strength of the hull is not included here.
4. Analyses of the load cases for the upper structure installation
It is evident that an FIUS (with two or three stage telescopic tower) cannot oat in still water on its
own as it does not have a positive righting arm. The main purpose for connecting it with the SSIP is to
add enough external buoyancy so that the combined system may have sufcient oating stability. The
analyses of different load cases for the upper structure installation, as mentioned earlier, are presented
below.
4.1. SSIP oating along with the upper structure
During the transit and the placement phase, the upper structure remains attached to the pile
gripper of the same SSIP which has previously been considered for the monopile installation. Some of
the major parameters of the combined oating system are presented in Table 9. The whole oating
system is numerically modeled in MOSES software [20]. The SSIP structure is modeled in the same way
as described in Section 3.1. The combined radii of gyration are assigned at the resultant COG of the

Table 7
Results for the standing modes of the SSIP structure with monopile.
Forces in the legs and foundation

Load case 1 (kN)

Load case 2 (kN)

Max axial force in the legs

Min axial force in the legs
Max vertical force in the SSIP footing(s)
Max horizontal force in the SSIP footing(s)

9222
3614
7673
5115

6508
250.8
5414
3610

Note: all axial forces are found to be compressive for the chosen seastate.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

177

Table 8
Forces in the structural members from the analyses.
Maximum forces in a leg member and member geometry
Membera

Axial
force (kN)

Bending
moment (kNm)

Allowable stress

Applied stressb

Comp (MPa)

Bending (MPa)

Comp (MPa)

Bending (MPa)

L
LH
DM

9222
692
885

3859
2691
2036

198
123
197

222
228
228

40
3.7
4.7

27
30
23.4

a
b

Unity ratio
check
0.3
0.14
0.1

Refer Table 1 for member notations.

Maximum force and maximum moment are combined together for conservatism.

oating assembly. The tower is represented by a tubular element, and Morisons model is used to
estimate the hydrodynamic force on it. Any effect due to the wind or the current is ignored. The rigid
body natural frequencies are shown in Table 9.
The stability curves are presented in Fig. 19 for 0 , 45 and 90 heading directions, which show that
the combined system is sufciently stable.
The RAOs are presented in Figs. 2022. It can be observed that for 0 heading, the peak response for
the pitch motion occurs at 13.5 s. For 45 heading, the peaks occur at 14 s (approx.) for the pitch and at
10.5 s for the roll. At 90 heading, the peak responses appear at 10.5 s for the roll, and at 14.5 s (approx.)
for pitch. The locations of all peaks fall in the range of the wave excitation periods commonly occurring
in nature, and hence a detailed towing analysis should be undertaken for designing the gripper. The
difference between the peak responses in the RAO and the natural frequencies (Table 9) can be
attributed to the shape and the size of the water plane area of the hull, and the viscous damping effect
from various tubular members and the tower.
4.2. SSIP installing the upper structure on a monopile by FOP method
During this operation, the hull of the SSIP is sufciently ballasted so that it is almost submerged.
This reduces the water plane area to a small value and makes the system more sensitive to further
ballasting. The rigging connecting the structure and the vessel through the sheaves/trunions xed on
the monopile is set and checked by using an ROV. When the upper structure is placed on the monopile,
the nacelle and the blades should be sufciently above the water surface. The analysis for this case has
been carried out in SIMO (Marintek) [29]. Two installation schemes have been checked, which are,
Scheme 1: The wire, after passing through the sheaves, directly connected to the vessel (Fig. 23).
Scheme 2: Adding a 100 Te clump weight in the middle of the wire (in the part between the monopile
and the oating vessel) in Scheme 1 as shown in Fig. 24.
Table 9
Estimated properties of the SSIP structure oating with a fully fabricated
upper structure.
Parameters

Value

COB (from base level)

COG (from base level)
Radius of gyration rx
Radius of gyration ry
Radius of gyration rz
Total available buoyancy (approx)
Total weight in air (approx)
Heave natural frequency
Roll natural frequency
Pitch natural frequency

24.0 m
18.28 m
17.8 m
17.58 m
10.38 m
2431 Ton
2057 Ton
6.1 s
10.3 s
13 s

178

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Fig. 19. Stability curve for the SSIP connected with upper structure in oating condition.

4.2.1. Description of the mathematical model

In this study, the mathematical model (Figs. 23 and 24), which is built in SIMO [29], consists of three
main objects, which are: (1) oating installation vessel, (2) monopile with guide surface (sheaves
through which the wire passes), and (3) SSIP with the integrated upper structure.
The data of an installation vessel available in the O&G industry (courtesy: Subsea 7, Stavanger) has
been used for modeling the oating vessel in SIMO [29]. It has overall length 153 m, breadth 28 m,
design draught 7.5 m, max crane capacity 400 Te (up to 15 m radius) and DP system Kongsberg
Simrad SDP22. This vessel has been used for installing large template structures in various projects. The
minimum distance between the installation vessel and the nearest blade tip is taken as 20 m, which
gives D (Fig. 23) 186 m (approx).
In SIMO, the SSIP is modeled as a body with six degrees of freedom. The rectangular hull is modeled
with tubular elements of same cross sectional area and with equivalent hydrodynamic properties by
using [21], as mentioned earlier in Section 3.3.1 (Ref. Table D1 of Appendix D for the hydrodynamic
coefcients of various members). The tower of the FIUS is modeled with a tubular element including
proper hydrodynamic coefcients. All elements except the hull are ooded, while the FIUS tower is
ooded up to the mean water line. The radii of gyration are assigned at the COG of the combined
system. In this approach, the motions of the SSIP will be modeled conservatively as it does not include
the sheltering effect between the hulls and the radiation damping. For a more accurate modeling, the

Fig. 20. SSIP oating mode RAO for 0 heading.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

179

Fig. 21. SSIP oating mode RAO for 45 heading.

motions should be estimated by using 3D diffraction theory. In this paper, the main objective is
conned in studying the characteristics of the two schemes and evaluating the possibility for using
them to install the structure. Further, the hull will be completely submerged during the touchdown
phase. Hence this model is considered sufcient, even though it does not include an exact model of the
SSIPs hull geometry.
The wire connecting the winch located on the vessel and the oating structure is modeled by using
the simple wire coupling modeling feature available in SIMO [29], which models the wire as a mass
less string with specied axial stiffness. In-house data available in Subsea 7 have been used for this
purpose.
The monopile is modeled with a body which is xed on the seabed. The sheaves tted on the
monopile is modeled by using the facility of guide point available in SIMO [29].
For Scheme 2, the clump weight is modeled with a body of three degrees of freedom, i.e., its
rotational inertias are neglected as their effect will be small. It is modeled as a cuboid whose dimensions are estimated from the weight and the density of steel (7850 kG/m3), and the hydrodynamic
coefcients are estimated from Ref. [21].
The analysis is run for a seastate of HS 2.5 m (TP 7 s) which is modeled with JONSWAP spectrum with
an angle of attack of 0  15 to the vessels heading. A current of 1.0 m/s throughout the water depth is
also included along the same direction as the wave. The overall analysis methodology, which is
commonly used for the splash zone lifting analysis of subsea template structures, is taken from Refs.
[21] and [30]. Heave compensation system (active/passive) in the winch, and shock absorbers between
the structure and the monopile, are not modeled in the current analysis.

Fig. 22. SSIP oating mode RAO for 90 heading.

180

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Fig. 23. Schematic of integrated upper structure installation method scheme 1.

It can be noted that the stiffness of the oating assembly against heave, surge and sway is provided
only by the wires. As mentioned earlier, the yaw motion of the assembly can be controlled by connecting another wire(s) with the secondary crane(s) of the vessel or with a tug boat. These practical
issues should be considered during a detailed engineering study.
The wind load is currently ignored since the blades are orientated on a horizontal plane. However, at
a specic site with strong wind, the oating assembly may exhibit larger inclination; such a possibility
needs proper consideration in a specic project.
4.2.2. Acceptance criteria and results
Following the discussion presented in Section 2.2, the acceptance criteria to study the feasibility of
this marine operation are listed below,

Fig. 24. Schematic of the oat-over method scheme 2.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

181

1. There should be no slack condition in the wire(s) to avoid any snap load, i.e., the minimum dynamic
tension in the connecting wire will be always >0.
2. The maximum dynamic tension should be less than the capacity of the winch. It is assumed that
the specication for a winch will be issued following the preliminary analysis results.
3. The allowable maximum landing speed is 0.2 m/s. Subsea template structures are commonly
designed for this landing impact speed, but this value may change depending on the designers
specication.
The results of the analysis for the two schemes are presented in Table 10. It is observed that the
possibility of a slack-wire event exists, and is affected by the distance D (Fig. 23) and by the addition
of a clump weight.
In Scheme 1, when the distance is small (i.e., q in Fig. 23 is large), the chance of slack is highest. This can
be explained as the total effect of the heave and the pitch motions of the oating vessel, which increases
with q. The values in Table 10 show that for a no-slack condition in Scheme 1, the required distance D
may become unreasonably high. On the other hand, the addition of a 100 Ton clump weight in Scheme 1
(i.e., Scheme 2), can address this problem where the required distance D appears to be reasonable.
The maximum dynamic tension values show that a winch capacity of w500 Ton can be safely used
for this installation.
The observed maximum vertical speeds of the combined structure in both schemes are more than
the assumed allowable landing speed of 0.2 m/s. This points out that the provision of a shock absorber
may be necessary for installing the upper structure. Another possible solution will be to design the
structures for a higher landing speed.
Hence, it can be inferred that the on-site installation of an upper structure following the FOP
methodology as described here is possible at a seastate of HS 2.5 m with a suitably designed shock
absorber. It can be assumed that the type of shock absorbers commonly used by the O&G industry for
installing much heavier topside structures by the oat-over installation method [1013] can be applied.
It can also be noticed that using the winch in an active heave compensation mode may improve the
behavior of the system, as it can effectively reduce the contribution of the vessels motion to the
possibility of a slack wire, or to the motion of the combined structure.
The angular motions (roll and pitch, Table 10) of the combined oating system appear to be large.
The chances of wet blade-tip occurrence exist in Scheme 1, which shows improvement in Scheme 2
Table 10
Results of the two FOP installation schemes. The length of wire connecting the winch is reduced step-by-step to increase the
depth of SSIP hull submergence H (Fig. 23).
Scheme
no.

Distance
D (m)

Avg. depth
H (m)

Max
tension
(kN)

Min
tension
(kN)

Max vertical
speed (m/s)

Max roll
(degree)b

Max pitch
(degree)b

Min blade tip

clearance from
MWL (m)c

315

3.3
5.3
3.0
5.0
1.83
3.5
5.0
3.2
3.7
4.4
5.2
3.5
4.6
5.4

4061
4022
3539
3438
2928
3008
3030
3316
3527
3505
3503
2927
2767
3042

0a
0a
42
39
187
500
557
187
118
91
151
534
766
770

1.3
1.3
1.3
0.99
1.25
1.06
0.98
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.66
0.6
0.66

10.3
8.3
9.6
8.2
10.3
9.1
7.5
9.07
8.6
8.3
8.0
8.1
7.8
7.6

7.5
5.9
7.4
6.0
8.6
7.36
5.2
8.4
7.9
7.3
6.1
7.5
6.8
5.8

2.2d
4.8
2.7
4.8
1.2d
3.03
5.9
2.06d
2.8
3.5
4.8
3.4
4.26
5.32

416
516

2e

186

246

a
b
c
d
e

Slack in wire.
At the COG of the oating assembly.
Maximum roll and pitch is combined together with 5.0 m set back considering heave as a conservative approach.
Occurrence of wet blade-tip, considering 2.5 m water surface elevation (conservative).
For Scheme 2, the worse tension values which appear in W2 (Fig. 24) are presented.

182

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

(D 246 m). As mentioned earlier, this may be addressed by lifting the tower by few meters such that it
does not affect the stability signicantly. The other solution is to optimize the design of the SSIP
structure for better performance, or providing liquid damper inside the hulls.
This also points out the importance of carrying out a towing analysis in a detailed engineering
phase. Due to the increased relative current speed, the inclination of the combined assembly is expected to be large, which will increase the probability of wet blade-tip event.
Large angular motions also result in large lateral movement of the tower end. The design of the
shock absorbers, as mentioned earlier, should also include the impact load that may be imparted by the
lateral movement of the end of the tower during the touchdown.
The alternative scheme presented in Appendix C may be able to reduce the overall movement of the
assembly by using 3 or 4 wires, as the tower end will receive some lateral stiffness by this arrangement
from the deformation of the wires. The effectiveness of that approach and the tension in the wires
should be investigated in details in further studies.
5. Discussion
Some of the important aspects which need further attention are listed below.
1. The overturning moment is a primary design challenge for the SSIP structure. A reliability study on
the overturning should be carried out.
2. The current structure conguration is suitable for a water depth around 50 m. For other water
depths (higher/lower), a separate study has to be carried out to check the standing mode stability
of the structure.
3. In this methodology, the assumed crane capacity of the oating vessel is smaller than the
monopiles self-weight, i.e., the vessel is not able to recover the monopile from the buoyancy
support. This makes the marine operation irreversible once the top end-cap of the monopile is
removed and hence a standby contingency plan may be essential in case the pile needs to be
rescued for some reason.
4. The conguration of the hull is not optimized in this study. A different conguration (e.g., a twin
hull shape) may be useful to improve the stability in the standing mode.
5. The sliding force at the footing of the structure in load case 1 may present a challenge for the geotechnical stability of the structure. Standard designs which are used in the footings of a jack-up
platform can be adopted to increase the sliding resistance.
6. It is assumed that the hull will be connected to the SSIP structure with a typical rack and pinion
system as commonly used in a jack-up platform. The stresses in the system during the oating
mode, the towing mode and the mode transfer need to be checked in a detailed design study.
7. The installation time for a monopile in this methodology has to include the time for ballasting and
deballasting the hull. Hence, the total time required for an individual pile installation will increase.
The benet of using this methodology is expected to come from the increase in the allowable
installation seastate, as this will, in turn, increase the weather window for executing the project.
8. For the towing mode of the combined system (FIUS SSIP), the loads in the pile gripper of the SSIP
which holds the FIUS should be investigated in detail.
9. The FIUS considered here does not have a separate transition piece. Hence, to adjust the verticality
of the tower, a provision may be required in the telescopic lifting system.
10. The fully integrated concept is primarily based on a telescopic tower and an orientation frame for
the blades. The design feasibility and the cost impact of such systems, which are not addressed
here, have to be studied in detail.
11. The upper structure installation by using the FOP approach is possible only when the foundation
(any type) is fully submerged in water and its top end is sufciently below the free water surface.
This method, for example, cannot be used to install an upper structure over a foundation that is of
water surface piercing type.
12. In case of soft pockets in the soil, sometimes the pile tends to move a short distance rather quickly
in an uncontrolled manner. A provision to clamp the hammer with the pile temporarily can remove
any risk of serious failure in such an event.

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

183

13. The application of an active heave compensation system in the winch of the vessel needs to be
studied in detail as it may be useful for a gentle landing of the upper structure on the foundation
without using any shock absorber.
14. Towing analysis of the SSIP FIUS assembly is not included here, which should be carried out
separately.
15. Appendices A, B and C present some possible direction to carry out further research on the gripper
and on an alternative connection scheme in FOP method.

6. Conclusion
This paper summarizes the preliminary studies carried out on a new methodology developed for
installing a monopile-based bottom supported offshore wind turbine which needs two end-caps and a
submerged support structure as the main installation aids apart from a oating installation vessel. Only
the on-site installation feasibility study is included here.
End-caps which are available in the market can be used, while the submerged support structure
(SSIP) is described and studied here. The methodologies for installing rst a monopile and
later carrying and placing a fully integrated upper structure (FIUS) on top of a monopile by oatover-pulling (FOP) method are described. The critical load cases appearing in the methodologies
are identied and numerically analyzed for a seastate of HS 2.5 m (TP 7 s) and a water depth of
50 m.
The results show that such a submerged support structure opens a possibility to obtain a wider
weather window compared to the existing methods for installing a bottom supported OWT which are
limited to HS 1.5 m. This however may be affected depending on the results from a towing analysis
which is not included here. It is also shown that the design of such a structure will be mainly governed
by the stability issues (overturning and sliding) in the standing mode. For the upper structure
installation by FOP method, it is concluded that using a clump weight can be benecial to avoid any
occurrence of slack in the rigging, while keeping the required distance between the vessel and the SSIP
to a reasonable value.
The optimization of the SSIP for better motion responses, the design of the pile gripper, the design
feasibility of the blade orientation frame, and the overall cost impact are some of the open research
questions at present. Several important points for further detailed investigations are listed in the
discussion.
Acknowledgment
This work is funded by NORCOWE as a part of the research initiative taken at the University of
Stavanger to address the challenges faced by the offshore wind industry in marine operations. The
authors are thankful to Dr. Daniel Karunakaran and Subsea 7 (Stavanger) for the support provided to
carry out the analysis using RIFLEX and SIMO.
Appendix A
The schematics of the proposed pile gripper for the SSIP structure are shown in Fig. A1. This should
be treated as a general preliminary proposal; its design feasibility is an open research question at this
stage.
Here, 6 off hydraulically operated pistons are used for gripping a monopile, and an FIUS during the
marine operations. Three of them are located at the top surface of the hull, and the rest are on the
bottom surface.
This will provide adequate lever arm to the pistons to withstand the superimposed bending
moment and shear force. The bending moment will primarily produce axial reaction in the pistons. For
the chosen monopile dimension, water depth, and seastate, the maximum estimated bending moment
is 25,000 kNm for load case 1 of Section 3.3, and the pistons need to be designed to carry this force. The
approximate maximum axial force that a piston needs to carry is 300 Ton, which indicates that design

184

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

of such a component is feasible. However, the forces during the towing with an FIUS attached may be
larger, which needs to be studied separately in details.
The self-weight of the monopile/FIUS will be carried by the lower three components as shown in
Fig. A1 (right). The design should facilitate only the axial force transfer to the piston.

Fig. A1. Schematic diagram of the pile gripper for an SSIP structure (gure for information only, not in scale)

The contact between the monopile and the piston gripper is schematically shown in Fig. A2.
At the initial stage, G2 and G3 are at the retracted position (Fig. A2, left). The pile is then brought at
the central position and it is laterally supported by G1. Any impact load will be absorbed by G1 at this
stage.
Afterward, G2 and G3 are carefully extended so that the pile is nally gripped by the six pistons
together (Fig. A2, right). The crane wire is then released, and the self-weight of the pile will be
transferred on the upper three pistons.
An ROV is required to monitor and control the whole operation.

Fig. A2. Contact of the monopile with the gripper during installation (gure for information only, not in scale)

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

185

Appendix B
The schematic of an orientation frame is shown below. This should be treated as a general proposal;
the feasibility to construct such a system is an open research question.
The total estimated weight of the blades and hub is approximately 60 Tons (NREL 5 MW reference
offshore wind turbine [16] of the reference list added in the main text).
A winch tted at the rotation center of the frame should be designed to carry this load. Further
detail study is required to investigate the problems of connecting the pitch controller systems, cables,
etc.

Fig. B1. Blades-Nacelle structural relation (interior of Repower 5 MW OWT shown as an example, available from: http://www.
repower.de/leadmin/download/produkte/RE_PP_5M_uk.pdf, accessed on 22.05.2013), g not in scale.

Appendix C
An alternative proposal for connecting the wires in FOP method is presented below.
The schematic diagram below presents a possible alternative approach to connect wires with the
FIUS SSIP assembly, which can provide some stiffness to the end of the tower against lateral
movements.
Here, the wires are connected at point(s) P1 and P2, and passes through two guides (G1 and G2)
before passing through the sheaves located on top of the monopile. For restraining the lateral motions
adequately, more than two wires may be required.
Any rotational movement of the assembly will deform the wire which is always in tension. This will
add some restoring force at the bottom end of the tower.
However, the effectiveness of this arrangement, and the resulting tension in the wire in such an
application should be studied during the detailed engineering phase to design the guides, the wires,
and the connections.

186

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

Fig. C1. Schematics of wire connection through guides located at the tower end (not in scale)

Appendix D

Table D1
Hydrodynamic coefcients used for various members of the SSIP structure (x axial direction; y, z lateral directions for any
member)
Member

Monopile
Hull
All other members (tubular)

Added mass coefcients

Drag coefcients

CAx

CAy

CAz

CDx

CDy

CDz

mA a
0.3b

1
1.5
1

1
1.5
1

2a
2b

2
2
2

2
2
2

x direction hydrodynamic forces acting only at the bottom end of the monopile.
For the hull, the hydrodynamic forces in the x direction are acting at the ends, but they are modeled along the length of the
member.
b

1. All members are fully submerged in water in all load cases.

2. Hydrodynamic forces in the axial directions of the tubular members of the SSIP structure are ignored.
3. mA added mass acting only at the bottom end of the monopile (when end cap is in place, standing mode load case
1) volume of the half sphere at the end 58 Ton (conservative), the upper end is out of water.
4. Most of the hydrodynamic forces come from the hull and the monopile. All coefcients are estimated from the ratio of
dimensions of the members following Appendices A and B of DNV-RP-H103. For the drag coefcients, rst the steady state
values are estimated following DNV-RP-H103, which is then multiplied by a factor of 2 considering the unsteady ow
(conservative).
5. The diameter of the FIUS tower contributing in the hydrodynamic force is assumed as same as the monopile.
6. Entrapped water and grout in few members are modeled by dening the cross section of the respective members and
density of uid inside.

References
[1] Chakrabarti S. Handbook of offshore engineering, vol. 1. Illinois, USA: Elsevier; 2008.
[2] Brug EVD. Optimal integrated combination of foundation concept and installation method. WE@SEA project 2004-011.
Available from: <http://www.we-at-sea.org/leden/docs/reports/RL5-1%202004-011%20Foundation%20and%20installation
%20concept.pdf> [accessed 29.05.2012].

A. Sarkar, O.T. Gudmestad / Marine Structures 33 (2013) 160187

187

[3] Presentation title. Sheringham Shoal offshore wind farm (Statoil). Arena Now. Available from: <http://arenanow.no/?
page80&show78 (File:- Science Meets Industry 25.04 2012: Statoil, Sheringham Shoal)>; 2012 [accessed 29.05.2012].
[4] Chakrabarti S. Handbook of offshore engineering, vol. 2. Illinois, USA: Elsevier; 2008.
[5] Presentation title. Norwind installer specialist installer of seabed foundation. Arena Now. Available from: <http://
arenanow.no/?page80&show78 (File:- NorWind Installer AS EWEA 2011)>; 2011 [accessed 29.05.2012].
[6] Sarkar A, Gudmestad OT. Study on a new methodology proposed to install a monopile. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international offshore and polar engineering conference (ISOPE) 2012;vol. 1. p. 20713.
[7] Hermon SA. Offshore wind farms analysis of transport and installation cost. Available from: <http://www.ecn.nl/docs/
library/report/2002/i02002.pdf>; 2002 [accessed 17.01.2013].
[8] Gosch D. The repower 5M in the Beatrice eld. Available from: <http://www.bwea.com/pdf/28proceedings/Wed_lomond_
Gosch.pdf>, [accessed 29.05.2012].
[9] Salama KS, Suresh PK, Gutierrez EC. Deck installation by oatover method in the Arabian Gulf. Offshore technology
conference 1999, OTC 1999-11026, Houston, Texas.
[10] Ji C, Halkyard J. Spar deck oat-over feasibility for West Africa environment condition. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference offshore mechanics and arctic engineering (OMAE) 2006;vol. 1. p. 1519.
[11] He M, Yuan R, Li H, Yu W, Quin J, Wang AM. Floatover installation analysis and its application in Bohai bay. In: Proceedings
of the 21st international offshore and polar engineering conference (ISOPE) 2011;vol. 1. p. 719.
[12] Jung JJ, Lee WS, Shin HS, Kim YH. Evaluating the impact load on the offshore platform during oat-over topside installation. In: Proceedings of the 19th international offshore polar engineering conference (ISOPE) 2009;vol. 1. p. 20510.
[13] Tahar A, Halkyard J, Steen A, Finn L. Float over installation method comprehensive comparison between numerical and
model test results. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 2006;128(3):25662.
[14] Sarkar A, Gudmestad OT. An approach to reduce the installation time of a bottom supported offshore wind turbine. In:
Proceedings of the 24th international conference condition monitoring diagnostic engine management COMADEM 2012.
p. 10825.
[15] Gudmestad OT, Grnli J, Gudmestad HA. Windmill and method of installation, intervention or decommissioning. Norwegian Patent application 20092435, led: 25.06.2009.
[16] Jonkman J, Buttereld S, Musial W, Scott G. Denition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore development.
Technical report NREL/TP-50038060. Colorado, USA: NREL; 2009.
[17] Way J, Bowerman H. Integrated installation of offshore wind turbine. UK: DTI. Available from: <http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk//http://www.berr.gov.uk/les/le20343.pdf>; 2003 [accessed 23.04.2012].
[18] GL. Rules for classication and construction industrial services (IV-6-5). Hamburg, Germany: GL; 2007.
[19] Korovkin P. Mobile offshore wind turbine. Masters thesis: Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and
Material Science. Norway: University of Stavanger; 2012.
[20] Ultramarine. Reference manual for MOSES. Houston, Texas, USA: Ultramarine; 1989.
[21] DNV. Modelling and analysis of marine operation. Norway: DNV-RP-H103; 2011.
[22] Marintek. Riex theory manual. Trondheim, Norway: Sintef; 2008.
[23] Sarkar A, Gudmestad OT. Installation of monopiles for offshore wind turbine by using endcaps and a subsea holding structure.
In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference offshore mechanical arctic engineering OMAE 2011;vol. 5. p. 30915.
[24] Chakrabarti SK. Hydrodynamics of offshore structures. Southampton, UK: WIT Press; 1978.
[25] API. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing xed offshore platforms working stress design.
21st ed. Washington DC, USA: API RP 2A WSD; 2000.
[26] AISC. Specication for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for buildings. Chicago, IL, USA: American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.; 1978.
[27] Skepmton AW. Bearing capacities of clays. London, Division 1: Building Research Congress; 1951. p. 1809.
[28] Tirant PL, Perol C. Stability and operation of jack-ups. Editions Technip; 1993.
[29] Marintek. SIMO theory manual. Trondheim, Norway: Sintef; 2009.
[30] Sarkar A, Gudmestad OT. Splash zone lifting analysis of subsea structures. In: Proceedings of the 29th international
conference offshore mechanics and arctic engineering OMAE 2010;vol. 1. p. 30112.