Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2013
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France

OMAE2013-11200

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE

MONOPILES USING FLOATING VESSELS

Lin Li, Zhen Gao, Torgeir Moan

Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU)
Otto Nielsens vei 10, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT foundations, sea cables and of operation and maintenance work.

Monopiles are the most commonly used support structures Transportation and installation of offshore wind turbines is a
for offshore wind turbines with up to 40m water depth due to critical phase of their life cycle. Compared with onshore work,
the simplicity of the structure. The installation of turbine offshore operations are much more risky and expensive, both
support structures can be carried out by a jack-up vessel which from the financial and the engineering point of view. The
provides a stable working platform. However, the operational unstable and choppy offshore environmental conditions are the
weather window using jack-up vessels is very limited due to the first concern, which lead to more loads on the structure and
low sea states required for jacking up and down. cause severe risks. Due to the great environmental loads, larger
Compared to jack-up installation vessels, floating vessels support structures are called for, which will in turn raise
have more flexibility due to fast transportations between challenge for offshore installations. Besides, the components of
foundations. However, the vessel motions will affect the motion offshore wind turbines should be installed to very precise
responses of the lifting objects, which might bring installation tolerances, so the weather window for the installation will be
difficulties. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the dynamic very limited [1]. Therefore, safety assessment of installation
responses of the coupled system to ensure safe offshore operations of offshore wind turbines in the design phase is of
operations. great importance.
In this paper, the installation operation of a monopile Several different foundation structures for various water
using a floating installation vessel is studied by a numerical depths and soil conditions have been proposed for the offshore
model. Time domain simulations were carried out to study the wind turbines (OWTs). For bottom-fixed OWTs, in general the
installation process of a monopile, including lowering phase, industry prefers working with four types of foundations:
landing phase and steady states after landing. Sensitivity gravity-based, monopile, jacket and tripod [2]. Among these,
studies were performed focusing on the effects by the gripper monopiles are the most commonly used foundations with up to
device stiffness and landing device stiffness. Comparisons of 40m water depth due to the structural simplicity, less
critical responses by using floating vessel and a jack-up vessel manufacturing and installation expenses. It is estimated that
were also studied in the paper. more than 75 % of all installations to date are founded on
monopiles [3]. A typical monopile is a long tube with a diameter
of 4 to 5 meters which is limited by the size of available driving
INTRODUCTION equipment. It is driven into the sea bed by means of a very large
Wind energy is proven to be one of the most promising hydraulic hammer if the soil condition is suitable. The constant
renewable clean energy sources for future investment. As the pounding with the hammer in pile driven process leads to the
available space with favorable wind conditions is getting scare steel becoming brittle and unsuitable for large load bearing.
onshore, offshore wind energy turns into an increasing attractive Therefore, the solution is to place a transition piece with a
option due to the superior wind conditions associated with the slightly different diameter on top of the monopile. The
vast offshore areas. However, offshore wind energy is facing transition piece is pre-assembled onshore with a connecting
great challenges. The main obstacle is the high costs in flange for the tower, an access platform, ladders, tubes for

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 cables and other secondary structural members. The piece is therefore interesting to investigate the feasibility of installing
connected with the monopile with an overlap length of around the support structures with floating installation vessels.
1.5 times of the monopile diameter [4]. The annulus between Compared to jack-up installation vessels, floating vessels
the pile and the transition piece is grouted with high-density [9][10] have more flexibility for offshore operations and will be
concrete and the transition piece is adjusted to true verticality. effective in mass installations of a wind farm due to fast
Figure 1 shows a typical offshore wind turbine substructure transportations between foundations. Hence, the potential of
including a monopile and a transition piece. reducing installation costs by using floating installation vessel is
huge. On the other hand, unlike the jack-up vessel which stands
still on the sea bed, the motions of the floating installation
vessel and the lifted objects are fully coupled during installation
process and sensitive to the sea conditions. The vessel motions
will affect the motion responses of the foundations, which might
bring installation difficulties. Therefore, it is of importance to
examine the dynamic responses of the coupled system during
different phases of the installation in order to ensure safe
offshore operations.
The purpose of this paper is to simulate the installation
operation of a monopile using a floating installation vessel
based on a numerical model. In this study only step two in the
installation process described above are taken into account.
Upending and hammering of the monopile are not included.
Installation of the transition piece is not included either.
FIGURE 1. Monopile and transition piece for offshore wind Numerical simulations are carried out using the Marintek
turbines [5] SIMO software [11][12]. A gripper device fixed on the vessel is
simulated to control the horizontal motions of the monopile and
The installation of the monopile and the transition piece to guide it when lowered towards the sea bed. When the pile
offshore are normally carried out by the same installation lands on the seabed, a landing device is used in addition to
vessel. The installation process can be summarized into four guide the pile position to the designed point. All the simulations
main steps: are performed in time domain considering stochastic wave
1) Upending the monopile from a horizontal position on the conditions. Critical responses during each simulation case, such
vessel to a vertical position. As the monopile is a very long as motions of the lifted objects, contact forces between the
structure, it is transported horizontally on the vessel and it monopile and the gripper or the landing devices and tensions in
should be upended to a vertical position with the aid of the lifting wire are compared for different cases. Sensitivity studies
onboard crane. were performed by considering important parameters for the
2) Lowering the monopile through the wave zone down to the operation, such as the stiffness of the gripper device and landing
sea bed. The hydrodynamic wave loads will induce the motions device. Comparisons of the responses with the same installation
of monopile when it passes through the wave zone. The operations by using a jack-up vessel were also included.
monopile should be landed to the designed point on the sea bed
precisely. SIMULATION MODEL
3) Driving the monopile into the sea bed with a hydraulic A floating installation vessel was chosen for the
hammer. The monopile is penetrating into the soil with the simulation. The main dimensions of the vessel can be found in
constant vertical pounding forces from the hammer. Table 1. The vessel is a monohull heavy lift vessel. The crane is
4) Lifting the transition piece from the vessel and lowering it capable of performing lifts of up to 5000 tons at an outreach of
on top of the monopile. The transition piece is transported 32 meters in fully revolving mode. The main hook features a
vertically on the vessel and it is lifted by the crane and lowered clear height to the main deck of the vessel of maximum 100
down on the top of the monopile. meters. The vessel has been designed with a combination
The installation of turbine support structures can be dynamic positioning (DP) system and eight-line mooring
carried out by a jack-up vessel [6][7][8] which provides a stable system. The positioning system allows for operations in shallow
working platform for the lifting and piling operations. Jack-up water and in very close proximity to other structures. Therefore,
vessels are also used for installation of wind turbine tower and the lifting capacity and the positioning system of the floating
rotor and nacelle assembly. However, the positioning operations vessel make it capable to perform the installation of monopiles
of the jack-up vessel itself are time consuming and require very in shallow water sites. The monopile used in the model was a
low sea states. The operational weather window using jack-up long slender hollow cylinder with main dimensions listed in
vessels will consequently be very limited which will increase Table 1.
the installation waiting time and thereby increase the costs. It is

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 included to guide the landing of the monopile to the designed
point.
TABLE 1. Main parameters of the floating installation vessel
and the monopile THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Vessel Monopile The software SIMO has been used for dynamic analysis.
Length overall [m] 183.0 Total mass [tons] 500 SIMO is a non-linear time domain program for dynamic
Breadth [m] 47.0 Length [m] 60 analysis of rigid-body motions of an operation system
Operational draught [m] 13.5 Outer diameter [m] 5.7 consisting of surface vessels and various other bodies. For the
Displacement [tons] 52000 Thickness [m] 0.06 coupled system of a floating vessel and the monopile, there are
Figure 2 shows a schematic layout of the operation 12 degrees of freedom (DOFs). The following twelve equations
arrangement. In practice, there are three main bodies in the of motion are solved in a stepwise integration method [11].
 m  A      x  D1x  D2 f  x   Kx  0 h t    x  d
t
monopile lifting model - the floating installation vessel, hook
and the monopile. In current model, the sling between the (1)
monopile and the hook is assumed very stiff. Hence, the hook  q  t , x, x 
and the monopile can be seen as rigidly connected and modeled m the total mass matrix of the vessel and the monopile;
as one body for simplicity. Therefore, in the numerical model, A frequency-dependent added mass matrix;
only two bodies are considered: the floating vessel and the D1 linear damping matrix;
monopile. The crane is assumed rigidly connected to the vessel. D2 quadratic damping matrix;
The global coordinate system is a right-handed coordinate K coupled hydrostatic stiffness matrix;
system, shown in Figure 2, with the following orientation is h the retardation function for the vessel, which is calculated
used: X axis points towards the stern, Y – towards starboard, from frequency dependent added mass or potential damping;
and Z – upwards. The origin is located at [mid-ship section, q external force vector, including wind force qWI, 1st and 2nd
center line, still water line]. order wave excitation forces q(1)WA and q(2)WA, current force qCU
and any other forces qEXT.
q  t, x, x   qWI  qWA
(1)
 qWA
(2)
 qCU  qEXT (2)
The coupled stiffness matrix K includes the hydrostatic
stiffness of the ship, the stiffness from the mooring line, and the
coupling between the vessel and the monopile via lift wire and
gripper device.
The force model on the vessel and the monopile are
described separately as follows.
Force model on the floating vessel
The potential added mass and damping coefficients, the
hydrostatic stiffness as well as the first order wave excitation
force transfer functions are all calculated in WAMIT based on
FIGURE 2. Lifting arrangement of the monopile
panel method. Thus, the retardation functions in Eqn. (1) and
The motions of the crane tip will affect the responses of the first order excitation force in Eqn. (2) can be obtained in
the whole lifting system. Thus, the crane tip position should be SIMO using the input from WAMIT. Moreover, in the current
chosen carefully in practice. In present study, a representative vessel model, the following simplifications are applied for the
coordinate of the crane tip in the global coordinate system of vessel force model:
the model is: x = -40m, y = 30m, z = 73.5m. 1) Waves are considered as main factor, and wind and current
There are two types of couplings between the vessel and forces are not included;
the monopile: the wire coupling through the main lift wire and 2) Second order wave forces could induce slowly-varying
the coupling on the gripper device. A winch is connected to the resonant motions of the vessel mainly in surge, sway and yaw. It
crane tip and the lift wire can be extended through the winch so is assumed that the dynamic position system on the vessel is
as to lower the monopile. The function of the gripper device is efficient enough to control the slow-drift motions. Hence, the
to control the horizontal motions of the monopile during second order wave forces are removed in the model. Therefore,
lowering and landing. It will also support the monopile during the exciting forces for the floating vessel in the model only
driving operations. The gripper is also rigidly fixed on the consists of the first order wave excitation force vector q(1)WA.
vessel. The z-coordinate of the gripper is set as 4.5 meters 3) The mooring line systems are simplified by adding linear
above the still water and the horizontal coordinates equal to the stiffness terms in surge, sway and yaw. The viscous effects from
mean values of the horizontal coordinates of the monopile axis the vessel hull and the mooring system are simplified as linear
at initial static position. A landing device in the seabed is

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 damping terms in surge, sway and yaw. Roll damping of the are the acceleration and velocity at the center of the strip due to
vessel is also considered. the body motions; D is the outer diameter of the cylinder; CM,
For the mooring system simplification, the linear stiffness CA and Cq are the mass, added mass and quadratic drag force
in surge, sway and yaw are calculated assuming the natural coefficients, respectively.
period in the three DOFs equal to 90 sec, which is a reasonable The first terms in the equation are wave excitation force,
value for this type of vessel. Then, the stiffness could be including diffraction and Froude-Krylov force (FK term). The
obtained by Eqn. (3). second term is the inertial term and the third term is the
 2 
2 quadratic drag term. CM and Cq are dependent on many
Kii      mii  Aii  , i  1, 2,6 (3) parameters like Reynolds number (Re), Kaulegan-Carpenter
 Ti 0  number (KC) and surface roughness ratio [14].
where Ti0 is the natural period for the ith DOF, here Ti0 = 90 sec, The outer surface of the monopile is assumed to be
mii and Aii are the mass and potential added mass respectively. smooth, and Re number is in the magnitude of 106 to 107. The
The damping effects from the vessel hull and the mooring KC number in the operational sea states is in the range of 1 to 3.
system are non-linear, and the total damping must be According to DNV-RP-C205 [15], the quadratic drag
determined by stochastic linearization. Here we use simplified coefficient can be chosen as Cq = 0.7, taking into account the
linear damping to estimate the viscous damping from mooring flow separation of the water outside the monopile.
system. According to the DNV-OS-E301[13], the damping The monopile is a bottomless cylinder, and there is water
coefficient in surge, sway and yaw in the model can be chosen with free surface inside the cylinder when it is submerged. This
as 10%, 20% and 15% of critical damping, respectively. Critical amount of water influences the hydrodynamic coefficients of the
damping is given by Eqn. (4). cylinder. Moreover, the submerged length of the cylinder
Bii  2 Kii   mii  Aii  , i  1,2,6 (4) increases with time. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the
hydrodynamic coefficients of the bottomless cylinder
where Kii is the stiffness, and mii and Aii are the mass and considering time varying submergence.
potential added mass, respectively. The added mass coefficients of the monopile with different
Force model on the monopile submergences were calculated in HydroD (the solver is
WAMIT) [16]. The results from HydroD were the 3D
The external forces on the monopile include gravity force, hydrodynamic added mass of the whole body. However, in
buoyancy force, and hydrodynamic wave forces. The structure order to use the strip theory to simulate the hydrodynamic
is a hollow steel cylinder and the thickness is very small. forces in SIMO, 2D coefficients are required. Hence, the 2D
Therefore, the wave force acting on the bottom of the monopile added mass coefficients were obtained by dividing the 3D
is negligible. The main contribution is the wave force normal to coefficients with submerged length. The water depth considered
the monopile central axis. It should be mentioned that the was 25 meters and the wave periods were from 5 sec to 12 sec.
influences from the vessel diffraction waves on the The results showed that the 2D added mass coefficients
hydrodynamic forces of the monopile were not included. increased with submerged length. However, for submergences
The diameter of the monopile is relatively small compared larger than 5 meters, the 2D added mass coefficients
with the wave length. For a wave period from 5 sec to 12 sec, approached to a constant of about 1.8 in the wave periods
the wave length to the diameter ratio is from 7 to 30 for a water concerned. Furthermore, the total excitation forces were
depth of 25 meters. For a wave height of 5 meters, the wave calculated by using Morison’s equation and the strip theory with
height to the structure diameter ratio is less than 1. In this case, the 2D added mass coefficients as input, and was compared
the inertial force is the governing force. Furthermore, the with 3D excitation forces calculated in HydroD. Very good
motion of the monopile is large and the submergence is agreements were obtained for submergence larger than 5
increasing during he lowering phase; thus, the linear theory meters. As the responses for submergence less than 5 meters
from the panel method is not applicable. The instantaneous were less critical compared with larger submergences, an
position of the monopile must be accounted for at each time asymptotic value of 1.8 was chosen as the 2D added mass
step. Then, the Morison’s formula should be used. The coefficient. The mass coefficient in the Morison’s equation in
monopile can be simulated as a slender body by using the strip Eqn. (5) was CM = CA = 1.8. The resonant flow motions
theory. Therefore, the horizontal wave force fW,s per unit length (sloshing) inside the monopile do not occur at the wave
on each strip of a vertical moving circular cylinder can be frequencies of interest.
determined by Morison’s equation[14]. As observed, when the submerged length was large, the
 D2  D2 1 2D added mass coefficient from the bottomless cylinder was
fW ,s   wCM   s   wC A  xs   wCq D |  s  xs | ( s  xs ) (5)
4 4 2 about twice as the value from the cylinder with bottom. This
In the equation, positive force direction is the wave means the water inside the cylinder behaves as ‘frozen water’.
propagation direction.  s and  s are water particle Therefore, when modeling the monopile, each strip of the body
acceleration and velocity at the center of the strip; xs and xs can be divided into three components, which are illustrated in
Figure 3.

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1) Component 1 is the steel structure of the cylinder. It Docking cone coupling forces
always contributes to the total mass of the body. When the strip
Both the gripper device and the landing device (a
is submerged, the displacement of water from component 1 is
template on the sea bed) are modeled in SIMO by ‘docking
the only contribution to the buoyancy force.
cone coupling’ [11]. The docking cone coupling is simulated as
2) Component 2 represents the added mass from water inside
a guide pin attached on the lowering object and a docking cone
the cylinder. It contributes to the total mass of the body only in
fixed on the other body or on the sea bed. The funnel shaped
horizontal plane and it is accounted for only when the strip is
cone has two parts: the conical part (opening diameter Dc1,
submerged.
height Hc1) and the cylindrical part (diameter Dc2, height Hc2),
3) Component 3 represents the added mass from the water
which are illustrated in Figure 4. The docking cone shape
outside the cylinder. It has the same properties as component 2.
parameters used in present simulations are shown in Table 3.
The conical part guides the pin to enter the cone and provides
both axial and radial forces. After a success entering, the
cylindrical part of the cone only provides forces in radial
direction to keep the pin inside the cone.
TABLE 3. Docking cone shape parameters
Dc1 [m] Hc1 [m] Dc2 [m] Hc2 [m]
2.0 3.0 0.1 5.0

FIGURE 3. Modeling of forces for slender element using the

strip theory
By defining the volume or mass of the three components
above, all the matrix terms for each strip can be calculated. All
the distributed forces are then integrated along the pile to obtain
the total force and moment. It should be mentioned the effects
of water exchanging and flow separation at the end of the FIGURE 4. Illustration of docking cone coupling and force
monopile were not considered. model

Wire coupling forces The contact forces are calculated based on the relative
position of the guide pin and the cone. The stiffness of the
The couplings between the vessel and the lifting bodies are docking cone can be defined by specifying the relative distance
realized by lift wires. The wire coupling force is modeled as a between the pin and the cone axis at different axial positions.
linear spring force according to [11]: Interpolation is applied for all the other axial positions. The
T  k  l (6) force model is shown in Figure 4.
where T is the wire tension; Δl is the wire elongation and k is When using the docking cone coupling to model the
effective axial stiffness, which is given by: gripper device, the cone is fixed to the monopile and the guide
1 l 1 is fixed on the vessel. The cone is modeled only with a
  (7)
k EA k0 cylindrical part and only gives horizontal forces. Both the guide
where E is modulus of elasticity; A is the cross-section area of pin and the cone are moving with the attached bodies. For the
the wire, and k0 is the crane flexibility. Knowing the position of landing device, the docking cone is fixed on the sea bed, while
the two ends of the wire, the elongation and thereby the tension the guide pin is on the monopile. The docking cone for landing
can be determined. The material damping in the wire is has both conical and cylindrical part to guide the monopile land
included, and the damping per wire length is chosen as 2% of on the designed position.
EA value [12]. It should be noticed that for each pair of docking cone
The wire stiffness affects the natural frequencies of the coupling the guide pin is defined as one point, which means it
whole lifting system, and influences the responses of the system could not give any moments. This would result in large
significantly. Therefore, the wire properties should be carefully rotational motions of the body, i.e. the monopile can rotate
selected. In the numerical model, the properties of the wire around the tip where the guide pin of the landing device is
coupling force term are shown in Table 2. attached. Therefore, for the gripper device, two pairs of
couplings are applied with two guide pins at different vertical
TABLE 2. Properties of the lift wire positions related on the vessels and thereby can provide
Initial Material moments to the pile. For the landing device, two pairs of
EA [kN] k0 [kNm-1]
length [m] damping [kNs] docking cone and guide pin are modeled with opposite
6.0 2.0E+5 5.0E-5 4.0E+3 directions to provide both forces and moments. One cone is

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 fixed at the sea bed with the guide pin on the monopile, and the The environmental conditions for the time domain
other cone is attached on the monopile with the guide pin at the simulations were selected as Hs=2.5m. The wave spectral peak
opening of the first cone. period (Tp) has been varied, from 5 sec to 12 sec, thus covering
a realistic range. Only wave direction (Dir) of 45 degree was
TIME DOMAIN SIMULATIONS
considered. For each combination of Hs and Tp, the irregular
Time domain simulation methods waves were modeled by the 6-parameter JONSWAP spectrum.
For each case, simulations for different realizations of irregular
Step-by-step integration methods were used to calculate waves were carried out to account for the variability of waves.
the response by using an iterative routine. The third order
Runge-Kutta method was used for numerical iteration [11]. The Convergence test
1st order wave forces for the vessel were pre-generated by Fast The lowering and landing processes of the monopile have
Fourier Transformation (FFT) at the mean position. The wave transient effects by the nonlinear loads due to waves. In order to
particle motions for calculation of hydrodynamic forces on the get reliable results, it is important to make sure a good
monopile were calculated in time domain by direct summation convergence of the numerical model. By running 30 different
of cosine series due to the time varying submergence of the pile. realizations (random seed number) of each irregular wave case,
The total dynamic simulation time for each case was 20 the motions and responses from each seed can be compared
minutes. The winch started to run at 300 sec to avoid initial with the mean values of all the 30 samples. Besides, a
transient effects. The winch speed was 0.05 m/sec, and the cumulative averaged value for seed number i (the mean value
winch stopped at 800 sec. Thus, the total lowering length was from seed 1 to i) can be calculated, indicating the speed of
25 meters. During the winch running time, the monopile lower convergence.
tip went through splash zone and entered into the sea bed The whole dynamic simulation can be divided into three
landing device. After the winch stopped, the dynamic simulation main phases, which will be discussed in the next section. The
continued with the monopile and the vessel system in a steady convergence of dynamic responses from all the three phases
state. During the lowering process, the gripper device provided was checked. The main responses concerned in the convergence
horizontal forces to the monopile. study are the motions of the monopile tip, the lift wire tension,
In the time domain simulation, the time step must be the contact forces from the gripper device and landing device.
carefully determined. The time step must be small enough to Figure 5 shows an example of the convergence in the landing
capture the highest frequency of the resonant phenomena. The phase from 30 random seeds. It can be seen from the figure that
natural periods of the monopile motions are shown in Table 4. 30 seeds were enough to obtain convergent results for the
The natural periods were calculated with monopile at three extreme responses concerned. In present study, 30 seeds were
different positions by assuming the vessel was fixed. In the used for each case, and the mean values of the extreme
initial positions, the monopile was in air. Gripper device responses from all the seeds are used for detailed analysis and
provided horizontal stiffness and the wire length was the initial comparisons between different cases.
length. In the transition position, the pile was lowered 20 meters
max. x - tip motion [m]

by the winch and the lower tip was just above the landing 3
value from random seed
device. In the final position both landing device and gripper 2
cumulative averaged value
mean value of 30 seeds
device contribute to horizontal stiffness. The wire length in the
final position was 25 meters longer than in the initial position. 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The highest frequency in the system was the roll/pitch natural seed number
max.tension [kN]

frequencies in the initial position. Furthermore, to capture one 8000 value from random seed
cumulative averaged value
cycle of phenomena in the time domain, about 15 time steps are 7000 mean value of 30 seeds
required. Therefore, the time step should be smaller than the 6000

roll/pitch natural period (0.73 sec) divided by 15. The time step 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
seed number
max. gripper force [kN]

in the simulation was finally chosen as 0.01 sec.

5000 value from random seed
TABLE 4. Natural periods of the monopile rigid-body motions 4000 cumulative averaged value
mean value of 30 seeds
(case: V2G2L2 [refer to Table 5]) 3000
2000
Transition 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Motion mode Initial position Final position
position seed number
max. land force [kN]

5000
Surge [s] 1.19 2.0 1.56 value from random seed
4000
Sway [s] 1.19 2.0 1.56 3000
cumulative averaged value
mean value of 30 seeds
Heave [s] 1.33 1.86 2.01 2000

Roll [s] 0.73 5.16 1.51 1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pitch [s] 0.73 5.16 1.51 seed number

Yaw [s] 40.04 40.04 40.04

FIGURE 5. Convergence test results (Hs=2.5 m, Tp=6.0 s,
Dir=45 deg, Case: V2G1L1, [refer to Table 5])

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Sensitivity study pha se 1 pha se 2 pha se 3
-38

position [m]
a)
Sensitivity studies were performed in the numerical -39 monopile tip x position

simulations. The studies compared the effects of the following -40

-41
parameters to the responses: installation vessel type, the gripper
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
device stiffness and the landing device stiffness. time [s]
a) Installation vessel

position [m]
0
Two types of vessels were considered in the simulations: a b) monopile tip z position
-10
jack-up installation vessel and the floating installation vessel -20
described in previous section. The purpose is to compare the 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
performance of the two types of vessels to carry out the time [s]

installation operation of a monopile. 3000

c)

force [kN]
landing contact force
2000
The floating vessel was modeled as large floating body
1000
with 6 degrees of freedom. The motions of the vessel and the
0
lifting objects are coupled together by lift wire and gripper 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
time [s]
device. The jack-up vessel was modeled as a bottom-fixed
3000
structure, and there were no motions transferring from the d)

force [kN]
gripper contact force
2000
vessel to the lifting system. 1000
b) Gripper device stiffness 0
The gripper device provides horizontal forces for the 200 300 400 500 600 700
time [s]
800 900 1000 1100 1200

monopile in order to reduce the motions in waves during 8000

e)
lowering. As described in previous section, the horizontal forces
force [kN]
6000 lift-wire tension

depend on the stiffness of the device and relative distance 4000

2000
between the guide pin and the cone axis. Larger gripper
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
stiffness will control the horizontal motions at the gripper time [s]

position better compared with small stiffness. However, large

contact forces will give huge impact on the gripper which might FIGURE 6. Time history of lowering and landing a monopile.
damage the structure. Therefore, it is necessary to study the (Hs =2.5 m, Tp=6.0 s, Dir=45 deg, Case: V2G1L1-seed 1[refer
effect of the stiffness of the gripper device to the monopile to Table 5])
motions and contact forces. Two gripper stiffnesses were Phase 1: lowering phase. The winch starts running at 300
considered in the sensitivity study. sec. The monopile is lowered into water and the pile tip passes
c) Landing device stiffness though the splash zone until to the position just above the
Similar to the gripper device, two landing device landing device. In phase one, the lift wire length is increasing,
stiffnesses were studied to evaluate the effects on the responses which decreases the natural frequencies of the lifting system.
of the lifting system. The landing contact force is always zero. The z-position of the
The parameters considered in the sensitivity studies are monopile is decreasing and the wave forces acting on the
summarized in Table 5. For simplicity, abbreviations are used to monopile induce large rotational motions. The contact forces on
represent the corresponding values. the gripper device provide certain controls on the monopile
TABLE 5. Sensitivity study parameters horizontal motions. It can also be observed that in the lowering
phase, the responses amplitude in general increase with
Abbre- Abbre-
Parameter Value 1 Value 2 increasing pile submergence.
viation 1 viation 2
Floating Phase 2: landing phase. Phase two begins when the
Vessel type Jack-up V1 V2 landing docking cone force is larger than zero. The monopile
vessel
Gripper stiffness starts entering into the cone. The contact force from the conical
4000 G1 8000 G2
[kN/m] section of the cone gives vertical forces on the pile at the initial
Landing stiffness
4000 L1 8000 L2
phase of landing. Hence, the monopile will move in positive z
[kN/m] direction which increases the z-position of the body. If the
vertical contact forces are very large, slack wire might occur.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The monopile tip firstly enters the conical section and then the
cylindrical section. Hence, the horizontal motions are reduced
Response time series gradually as it goes deeper in the cone. The maximum motions
Figure 6 shows an example of the time history of critical and forces in landing phase always occurred when the monopile
responses: the monopile end tip positions, the landing and tip was in the conical section of the landing docking cone.
gripper contact forces and the lift wire tension. As shown, the Phase 3: steady state phase. Phase three starts at 800 sec,
whole lowering process can be divided into three phases. when the winch stops. After a successful landing, the pile enters

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 into the cylindrical part of the landing device. The horizontal frequencies at transition position are close to the peak periods
motions of the pile tip are constrained by the device. In this of short waves. Hence, the resonance effects in short waves
phase, the stiffness of the lifting system is stable with fixed during lowering were critical. The tension in phase one was
winch. The whole system is in a steady state. dominated by the rotational motions of the pile, and the peak
For sensitivity study, it is more reasonable to compare frequency was twice as large as roll spectral peak frequency.
responses by using different parameters at the same phase due The heave motion also affected the tension during lowering. In
to the time-varying properties of the system. steady state, the peak frequency of the pile roll motion
corresponded to the roll natural frequency in the final position,
Response spectrum analysis
and the tension was dominated by monopile heave motion.
The response spectra for the lowering and steady state In long waves, there were two peaks in the monopile roll
phases can be obtained from the time series. As the landing motion spectrum in both phases. The secondary peak
phase was very short and transient due to the contact of the frequencies were the natural frequencies of the pile roll motion,
monopile tip with the landing device, the spectrum in this phase while the main peak frequencies corresponded to the spectral
was not studied. peak frequencies of the vessel roll motion. This means in long
Figure 7 shows two examples of response spectra with waves, the monopile motions were dominated by the vessel
Tp=6.0s and 10.0s, respectively. The wave spectrums are also motion. The wire tensions were dominated by the heave motion
shown in the figure. The responses considered here are the roll in long waves. The rotational motions of the monopile also
motions of the vessel and the monopile, as well as the lift wire affected the tension in lowering phase, while in steady state the
tension. The spectrum density curves on the figures are the effects from the vessel motion can be observed
mean spectrum from 30 seeds and normalized by the maximum
Vessel type effects
values, which are given in Table 6.
Phase 1 - lowering (Tp=6.0s) Phase 3 - steady state (Tp=6.0s) Phase 1- lowering Phase 2 - landing Phase 3 - steady state
1 7
Normalized spectrum density [-]

Rotational motion [deg]

wave
6 V1G2L2
0.8 roll-vessel
roll-monopile 5 V2G2L2
0.6 wire tension 4
3
0.4
2
0.2 1

0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7|0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 [rad/s]
Tp [s]

Phase 1 - lowering (Tp=10.0s) Phase 3 - steady state (Tp=10.0s)

1
Lift wire tension [kN]

7000
Normalized spectrum density [-]

wave
0.8 roll-vessel
roll-monopile
6000
0.6 wire tension

0.4
5000
0.2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 Tp [s]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7|0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 [rad/s]
5000
Gripper contact force [kN]

FIGURE 7. Normalized wave and response spectra (Hs =2.5m; 4000

Dir=45deg; Case: V2G2L2 [refer to Table 5])
3000

TABLE 6. Normalization factors for spectrums in Figure 7 2000

Roll – Roll- Wire 1000

Tp spectrum Wave
vessel monopile tension 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 2 2 2 Tp [s]
[s] [m s/rad] [deg s/rad] [deg s/rad] [kN s/rad]
5000
Phase 1 0.608 3.72E-3 0.889 4.32E+4
Landing contact force [kN]

6.0 4000
Phase 3 0.608 3.93E-3 0.156 1.11E+3
3000
Phase 1 0.594 0.656 0.965 1.26E+4 2000
10.
Phase 3 0.594 0.778 0.294 1.94E+4 1000

0
In short waves, the monopile roll motions were excited 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tp [s]
close to the main wave frequency range. The hydrodynamic
wave loads on the monopile dominated the motions of the pile. FIGURE 8. Extreme responses by using different vessels (Hs
As shown in Table 4, the monopile rotational motion natural =2.5 m, Dir=45 deg)

8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 8 shows the maximum values of critical responses floating vessel could compensate the relative motions between
during the three phases by using floating and jack-up vessels. the crane tip and the lift point on top of the monopile, while for
The simulation cases in the figures are represented by jack-up vessel the crane tip was fixed. However, as the crane tip
abbreviations, and the definition of the abbreviations can refer motion increased greatly in long waves, the compensation
to Table 5. The monopile rotational motions in the figure are the effects would be minor compared in shorter waves. Similarly,
maximum rotations of the pile referring to the horizontal plane the motions of the floating vessel would compensate the relative
and calculated by combining the pith and roll motions. It can be motions of the gripper device and the monopile, which reduced
observed from the figure the responses of the lifting system the gripper contact forces.
were sensitive to the vessel type. In the landing phase, the maximum responses occur due to
1) Responses by using jack-up vessel the impact between the monopile end tip and the landing
device. Therefore, the difference between the jack-up vessel and
When jack-up vessel was used, the maximum forces and
the floating vessel is small. The responses by using a jack-up
motions decreased with increasing wave spectral peak periods
vessel were slightly larger in short waves, while in longer waves
for all phases. The natural frequencies of the monopile
the responses by using the floating vessel were more critical.
rotational motions during lowering were close to the short wave
The reason was due to the effects from the increasing of crane
peak periods (see Table 5 and Figure 7). The motions would be
tip motions in long waves.
excited significantly in the short wave frequency range. In
In steady state phase, the rotational motions of the pile and
longer waves, the responses were smaller as the natural
the wire tension were larger when using the floating vessel,
frequencies of the monopile were away from the main wave
especially in long waves. In this phase, the monopile was
frequency range.
controlled together by lift wire at the top, gripper device in the
2) Responses by using floating vessel middle and landing device in the lower end. The crane tip
The rotational motions of the monopile in the first two horizontal motions could cause larger wire tension and induce
phases and the contact forces during landing were firstly larger rotational motions of the monopile when using the
decreased from short to intermediate waves and then increased floating vessel. Moreover, the pile section in the gripper moved
in longer waves when the floating vessel was applied. This was together with the vessel while the pile end tip was controlled by
mainly due to the influences from the crane tip motions on the the landing device fixed on the sea bed, which would also
floating vessel. Figure 9 shows one example of the maximum induce larger rotational motions of the pile compared with the
motions of the crane tip during lowering phase. It can be seen case using a jack-up vessel.
that the crane tip motions increased with increasing wave 4) Comparisons of responses at different phases
periods. In shorter waves, the crane tip motions were small and
In shorter waves, the monopile motion, lift wire tension
the effects on the monopile motions were limited. The motions
and gripper contact force in the first two phases were both
of the monopile lifting system were dominated by the wave
critical. In longer waves, largest responses happened at the
loads on the monopile and sensitive to shorter waves. As the
landing phase due to the transient effects when the monopile
wave periods increased, the crane tip motion increased
started entering into the landing device. The responses in steady
significantly and dominated the motions of the monopile.
state were less critical when the wave periods were small, but
Therefore, the rotational motions of the monopil and the contact
they increased significantly in longer waves.
forces during landing increased in longer waves.
5 Gripper device stiffness effects
x-motion
4
y-motion
The effects by using different gripper stiffnesses on the
z-motion responses of the lifting system are shown in Figure 10. In the
Motion [m]

3
figure the relative motions at the gripper device are the
2 horizontal motions between the gripper device and the
monopile.
1
As shown, the monopile rotational motion and the lift wire
0 tension in lowering and landing phases were reduced slightly
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
when the gripper device stiffness increased. In the steady state
Tp [s]
phase, the effects of the gripper device stiffness on the pile
FIGURE 9. Maximum crane tip motions during lowering phase motion and wire tension were minor.
(Hs =2.5 m, Dir=45 deg, Case: V2G2L2 [refer to Table 5]) However, the gripper contact force and the relative
motions between the pile and the gripper device were very
3) Comparisons of responses using different vessels sensitive to the gripper stiffness. The gripper contact forces in
In the lowering phase, the lift wire tension and gripper lowering and landing phases were significantly increased when
device contact force using a jack-up vessel were larger than using higher stiffness. In steady state phase, the effects of the
responses by using floating vessel. The crane tip motion on the gripper stiffness on the contact force were less compared with

9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the first two phases. The relative motions at the gripper device However, the landing contact forces were greatly affected
were reduced greatly with larger gripper stiffness. by the landing stiffness. In the landing phase, the maximum
In practice, the gripper device is a rigid structure and its landing contact forces using stiffness L2 were about 1.4 times as
connection with the vessel is flexible. Hence the stiffness of the large as using stiffness L1. The maximum monopile tip motions
gripper in this paper refers to the stiffness of the connection were slightly reduced in this phase.
device. The relative motion between the monopile and the In the final phase, the landing contact forces were
gripper device refers to the deformation of the connection increased when larger stiffness was applied. The motions of the
device, which should be limited in a certain level. Therefore, pile tip decreased greatly with increasing stiffness. From marine
the stiffness of the connection should be chosen properly in operation point of view, enough landing stiffness is necessary to
order to control the deformation of the structure and ensure the control the pile tip motions in the landing device in order to
operability. accelerate the pile penetrating into the soil.
Phase 1- lowering Phase 2 - landing Phase 3 - steady state Phase 1- lowering Phase 2 - landing Phase 3 - steady state
7 7
Rotational motion [deg]

Rotational motion [deg]

6 V1G1L2 6
5 V2G1L2 5
4 V1G2L2 4
3 V2G2L2 3
2 2
1 1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Tp [s] Tp [s]

7000 8000
Lift wire tension [kN]

Lift wire tension [kN] 7000

6000
6000
5000
5000

4000 4000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tp [s] Tp [s]

5000 5000
Gripper contact force [kN]

Landing contact force [kN]

V1G1L1
4000 4000
V2G1L1
V1G1L2
3000 3000
V2G1L2
2000 2000

1000 1000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tp [s] Tp [s]

0.8 2.5
Relative gripper motion [m]

Monople tip motion [m]

0.6 2

1.5
0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12|5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tp [s] Tp [s]

FIGURE 10. Extreme responses by using different gripper FIGURE 11. Extreme responses by using different landing
stiffnesses and vessels (Hs =2.5m, Dir=45deg) stiffnessses and vessels (Hs =2.5m, Dir=45deg)

Landing device stiffness effects CONCLUSIONS

Figure 11 presents the maximum responses by using two Numerical models for installation of an offshore wind
different landing device stiffnesses L1 and L2. The monopile tip turbine monopile were established in SIMO with the focus on
motions in the figure are the extreme offsets of the pile end tip the phase of lowering the monopile from above the sea water to
from the axis of the landing device. the sea bed. The model included a floating installation vessel
As shown, the landing stiffness had no effects on the and a monopile. The couplings between the vessel and the
lowering phase, and the monopile rotational motion and the lift monopile were realized by lift wire and gripper device. A
wire tension were not sensitive to landing device stiffness. landing device was also modeled to guide the lowering of the

10 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 monopile into sea bed. Several assumptions and simplifications 5) The 2nd wave force was not included in the floating vessel
were made in the force modeling both for the floating vessel force model. If the floating vessel has slowly drift motions, the
and the monopile. effects on the lifting system will be increasing. The wind and
Time domain simulations were carried out for Hs = 2.5 m, current forces on the monopile were not included either.
Tp = 5sec to 12sec and Dir =45deg. Due to the transient effects 6) The diffracted waves due to the presence of the floating
in the process, 30 random realizations for irregular waves are vessel and the radiated waves induced by the vessel motions
needed to obtain good convergences for critical responses could influence the wave field of the monopile. Moreover, the
concerned. hydrodynamic coefficients of the monopile might be increased
The whole process can be divided into 3 phases: lowering, when it is close to the vessel due to the wall effect. These
landing and steady states phases. The dynamic properties of the effects should be investigated in the future work.
coupled system were changing from phase to phase. The
responses from different phases were analyzed separately. This REFERENCES
paper also compared the responses of the lifting system by [1] Twidell, J. and Gaudiosi, G. (2008) Offshore Wind Power.
using different vessel type, gripper device stiffness and landing Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd
device stiffness. The following conclusions are drawn from this [2] Kurt E. T. (2012) Offshore wind - A comprehensive guide
study: to successful offshore wind farm installation. Academic
1) The monopile rotational resonant motions are excited by Press
wave loads on the monopile in short waves, while in longer [3] Moeller, A. (2008) Efficient offshore wind turbine
waves the motions are mainly induced by the floating vessel foundations. POWER EXPO 2008:International
motions. Exhibition on Efficient and Sustainable Energy.
2) When a jack-up vessel is used, the lifting system is more [4] WindEnergie, G. L. (2004). "Guidelines for the
sensitive to shorter waves. The responses reduce with increasing Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines." Final Draft,
Tp. However, the responses decrease from short to intermediate Edition.
waves and increase in longer waves when using the floating [5] Wind Energy – The Facts (WindFacts). European Wind
vessel. Energy Association (EWEA). URL: http://www.wind-
3) The vessel type affects the rotational motions of the energy-the-facts.org/ (Date of access: 29.10.2012)
monopile. The rotations by using a floating vessel are much [6] Kim, Y. K., Shin, J. R. and Yoon, D. Y. (2012). A Design
larger than using a jack up vessel in long waves due to the of Windmill Turbine Installation Vessel Using Jack-Up
influence of the vessel motions. system. Proceedings of the 22nd International Offshore
4) Gripper device stiffness affects the gripper contact forces and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece
and the relative motion of the monpile and gripper device [7] Jack-up installation vessels. URL:
significantly. Proper gripper device stiffness should be selected http://www.a2sea.com/fleet/installation_vessels.aspx (Date
to control the relative motion. of access: 29.10. 2012)
5) The landing contact force in the landing phase increases [8] Service Jack. URL: http://www.master-marine.no (Date of
greatly by using larger landing stiffness. Larger landing stiffness access: 29.10.2012)
also provides better control on the pile end tip motion in steady [9] Oleg Strashnov - 5000-mt crane vessel. URL:
state, which could be beneficial for the pile penetrating into the http://www.seawayheavylifting.com.cy/ (Date of access:
soil by its self-weight. 29.10.2012)
The limitations of the current numerical model and [10] Heavy Lift Vessel Svanen. URL: http://www.offshore-
possible future work are discussed as follows: energy.nl/page_9945.asp (Date of access: 29.10.2012)
1) The stiffness of gripper and landing devices in the model [11] SIMO (2010). SIMO Theory Manual, Version 3.6,
were assumed values. In practice, these properties should be MARINTEK. Trondheim, Norway.
derived from the real structures. [12] SIMO (2010). SIMO User’s Manual, Version 3.6,
2) The contact forces acting on the monopile, the gripper and MARINTEK. Trondheim, Norway.
landing device are huge. Structural analysis under the contact [13] DNV (2010). DNV OS E-301 Offshore Standard: Position
forces may be necessary to ensure a safe operation. mooring.
3) The wire stiffness would influence the responses of the [14] Faltinsen O. M.(1990), Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore
system by changing the natural frequencies of the system. Structures, Cambridge University Press
Moreover, the crane tip and gripper device motions are [15] DNV (2010). DNV RP C-205 Recommended Practice:
influence by the crane tip position. Sensitivity study on the wire Environmental conditions and environmental loads.
stiffness and crane tip position could also be interesting. [16] DNV (2011). SESAM User Manual-HydroD, Version 4.5.
4) The sea states in present study only focused on Hs = 2.5 m
and wave direction Dir =45deg. More sea states with different
wave directions could be included to compare the performance
of the system by using jack-up and floating vessels.

11 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use