Recommended site investigation practice for

offshore energy systems

Don J. DeGroot, Sc.D., P.E.
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Amherst, MA, USA
Presentation is based on the paper by Don J. DeGroot (UMass Amherst), Tom Lunne
(Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) and Tor Inge Tjelta (Forewind-Statoil):
"Recommended best practice for geotechnical site charaterisation of offshore cohesive
sediments." Invited Keynote Paper. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics. Perth, Western Australia, Nov. 2010.

Offshore Geotechnical Engineering

1. Site investigations
2. Soil structure interaction: foundation systems, pipelines
3. Instrumentation and monitoring
4. Geohazards assessment

Frigg TCP2 platform

North Sea, UK
From US Minerals Management Services

1
 Emerging Offshore Infrastructure – wind farms

from www.hornsrev.dk
Musial et al. (2006)

Forewind Project
• Dogger Bank Zone
• area = 8660 km2
• water depth = 18–63 m
• 9 GW to 13 GW
• ≈ 10% UK electricity
l i i
• > 2000 turbines
Denmark

From Barthelmie et al. (2009) From Forewind

2
 Tidal Power
• TidGen, water depth = 15
to 20 m
• OCGen, > 25 m water
depth
• Piles or suction caissons

from Ocean Renewable Power Co.

Pipelines: Thousands of miles

Pipeline-soil interaction:
- Soil investigations (upper 0.5 meter
is critical)
- Pipe seabed friction
- Trenching systems
- Pipe settlement

From BOEMRE
From NGI

3
 Seabed cables

From image.guardian.co.uk

Offshore environments
Barents Sea:
Beaufort Sea: ice loading
ice loading, ice gouging
North Sea/Norwegian Sea:
Relict permafrost
heavy seas, massive submarine landslides

Newfoundland: Caspian Sea:

Gulf of
icebergs over pressures, mud
Mexico
volcanoes, high salinity,
fissured soils

Gulf of Mexico: Malaysia:

highly irregular gas blow outs
seabed
topography, West
Africa
overpressures
NW
Shelf
West Africa:
rapid sedimentation, Australia:
very weak sediments, calcareous soils
From NGI
From NGI
surficial crust

- non-hydrostatic pore pressures - gas exsolution

- low effective stress state - shallow gas and gas hydrates
- deep to ultra deep water - temperature changes

4
 0 0
Site W, non-gouged
Site T, gouged
Beaufort Sea 40
5
pth below sealevel (m)
(Young 1986)
Site W
80

Depth (m)
Seabed
10

120
15 Site T
Seabed
Linear regression
West Azeri 160 Caspian sea water
Dep

20
Site W data (van Paassen & NaCl saturation
Gareau 2004) 200
0 100 200 300
Salinity (g/kg)
25
0 200 400 600 800

'p at 1oC [kPa]

Offshore Nigeria
(Ehlers ett al.
(Ehl l 2005)

West Azeri
(Allen et al. 2005)

Offshore Geohazards

Tsunami impact Tsunami

moderate ((deep water)) impact severe
Wave generation

Submarine landslide Mud

volcano
Debris flow
Gas
Gas hydrates or free gas chimney
Earthquake
Underground
blowout

Overpressure Diapirism
After NGI Doming

5
 Storegga
Submarine
Landslide

- in location of low seafloor slope

- about 8000 yrs BP
- slide volume = 3500 km3
- rapid sedimentation, over
pressures, earthquake, trigger,
retrogressive sliding

From Bondevik et al. (2003)

3500 km3 = 4x1011 ready mix concrete trucks

Troll A Platform
- 470 meter height, tallest structure ever
moved by man
- Built in a fjord and towed 200 km into
North Sea in 1996

From Statoil

6
Focus of presentation

- Geotechnical engineering site investigations

- In situ and laboratory testing

- Transitional, deepwater , and ultra deepwaters

(for offshore wind, transitional = 30 to 60m, deep > 60m)
((for oil & g
gas: deep
p > 200 to 300 m,, ultradeep
p > 1500 m;;
investigations are approaching 3,000+ m, > 4000 psi)

- Therefore, cohesive soils

Integrated approach via multidisciplinary geo-teams

Geological
Multibeam SWATH Bathymetry model

Soil investigations
- field tests
- sampling
- lab. testing
Site
3D Seismics + HR 2D
Characterization

Design
properties
From NGI

7
Clay soil behavior Consolidation behavior

- stress (geologic) history

- anisotropy
- rate effects, temp effects
- stiffness degradation

Stiffness Behavior
Shear behavior

Clay soil behavior - anisotropy

1f ( = 0°)
1f ( = 45 ± 15
15°))

TC 1f TE
DSS ( = 90°)

su(CAUC) = 0.28'p su(DSS) = 0.23'p su(CAUE) = 0.17'p

DeGroot et al. (2010)

8
 Clay soil behaviour – rate effects
0.40
Sheahan
CK0UC et al. (1996)
0.35
OCR 1.5
0.30 1
'vm

CPTU, TV 1
su/

1.4
0.25 2 FC
4 Sec.
0.20 1.3
8
su
0.15 1.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 su0 2 FVT, UUC
.
Axial Strain Rate, a (%/hr) Hr.
1.1
1.5 Days
Min.
10
1.0 3
CK0U
4
qin/qin(ref)

1.0
0.9
Log tf Log strain rate
DeJong Ladd and DeGroot (2003)
et al. (2006)
T-bar
0.5
0.01 0.1 1 10
v/d (s-1)

Clay soil behavior – remoulded shear strength

Troll clay Sensitivity = s /s = 2 to 12 Thixotropic hardening
u ur 10
Fits: y = y0 + ax/(b + x)
8
a]
su(FC) [kPa

4
su fall cone
2 Fit to fall cone data

0
4

3
Gvh [MPa]]

Gvh bender elements

1
Fit to bender element data

0
0 10 20 30 40
DeGroot et al. (2010) Time (days)

9
Design parameters - clays
Offshore geotechnical design:
- Randolph et al. (2005)
- Andersen et al. (2008) Triaxial
Extension Triaxial
Compression
DSS

Triaxial
Extension DSS

From NGI and COFS

Offshore wind turbine platforms

Jacket structure

Gravityy platform
p
M
Monopile
il
- 6 m and greater diameter

From Wind Energy The Facts Tripod structure

10
from Landon et al. (2010)

Design parameters - clays

1. Effective stress state – u0 is the challenge

2. Stress (geologic) history = yield stress or preconsolidation stress

('vy = 
( 'p ) and corresponding OCR =  'p/
/'v00 = YSR)

3. Undrained shear strength (su) anisotropy

4. Stiffness (e.g., Gmax, G(), M)

5. Flow parameters (cv, kv)

6. Remoulded and reconsolidated Most critical:

'v0, 'p, su
7. Cyclic and dynamic properties

How to best determine (accurately) these soil properties??

11
In Situ Testing Enterprise
CPT FVT T-bar Ball

The Soil Sampling Enterprise

1. Drilling 2. Sampler 3. Processing 4. Transportation

5. Storage 6. Extraction 7. Specimen Prep. 8. Testing

12
 Site Characterization
CPT
In Situ Testing Laboratory Testing

Requires Requires
Empirical Good Quality
Correlate &
Correlations Samples
Corroborate
T-bar

Design Parameters
-
'p, su, M,
M GG, etc
FVT

Offshore SI deployment modes

Drilling mode: borehole advanced using rotary drilling
from vessel (= vessel based drilling) or seabed system
(= seabed based drilling)

Non-drilling mode: advance of tools from seabed (i.e.,

no borehole drilling)

Critical issues:
1. Dynamic positioning
ROV

2. Depth accuracy for in situ testing and soil sampling

is critical, For vessel based system use of "hard-tie"
heave compensation
3. Set down conditions – for seabed systems,
minimize disturbance and imposed seabed stresses
Strout & Tjelta (2007)
26/xx

13
 In Situ Testing – Seabed Frames

Neptun

Roson – A.P. van den Berg

Benthic GeoTech
GEO CPT ROV IFREMER Penfield PROD

Benthic GeoTech:
Portable Remotely
Operated Drill (PROD)
- 260 meters of drill tools

From Benthic GeoTech

14
In situ testing - recommendations CPT

Tools
1. CPTU - main recommended tool. Best tool for soil
type estimating 
profiling soil behavior type,
profiling, 'p and su, can
measure Vvh (Gvh), u(t). But problems persist with
friction sleeve + want hydrostatic compensation. T-bar Ball
……… Lunne (2010) CPTU'10

2. T-bar and Ball - especially for very soft sediments

and shallow test depths,
p , best option
p for soil shear
degradation, can do variable rate testing FVT

3. FVT - remains a good tool for estimating su and sur

but CPTU and full-flow more cost effective and give
continuous profiles

Example CPTU in NE Massachusetts

Boston Blue Clay
- Newbury, MA
Significant variations
in qt, fs and u2 with
depth
Stiff, high OCR
CLAY Crust

Sensitive, soft CLAY

Dissipation Test

Increasing silt content

Interbedded Layers,
Silt, Clay, Sand

15
 su degradation from full flow penetrometers

qrem

DeJong et al. (2010)

SI for West of Duddon Sands Offshore Wind Project

• area = 66 km2
• water depth ≈ 24 – 30 m
• 139 turbines (approved for 108 after SI), ≈ 400 MW (roughly similar
size as Cape Wind)

Nominal site investigation plan:

• 139 CPTU (35 to 40 m below seabed)

• 39 boreholes with sampling (40 to 60 m depth)

• possible drilling and downhole CPTU (40 to 60 m

d th d
depth; depending
di on fifirstt sett CPTU
CPTUs))

• plus additional CPTU (shallow) and vibrocores

(shallow) for substations, cable routing.

16
17
In Situ Testing: methods and data interpretation

1. Deck-to-deck zero readings

2. Long continuous push strokes for CPTU, full-flow
3. Full-flow - measure push and extraction, cyclic at selected
depths
4. Be very specific with N factors for conversion qnet to su =
qnet/N, e.g., Nkt,CAUC, NT-bar,suave, etc.
5 General vs site specific N factors
5.
See:
Lunne et al. (2010) – Canadian Geotechnical Journal
DeJong et al. (2010) – Geotechnical Testing Journal
Low et al. (2010) - Géotechnique

In situ pore pressure

- critical to conduct of reliable site charaterisation program  'v0
- very difficult challenge → but exciting developments continue

Genesis: "under-consolidated" vs post

deposition equilibrium changes

Workshop Report: Sheahan & DeGroot. (2009).

Seabed sediment pore pressure: genesis,
West Azeri field (Allen et al. 2005) measurement and implications for Design/Analysis

18
In situ pore pressure - direct measurement options
1. CPTU & Piezoprobes – dissipation testing
2. Piezometers – predrilled borehole or push-in piezometer

Target layer

Flemings et al. (2008) Strout & Tjelta (2007)

In situ pore pressure - recommendations

Piezometers via long term monitoring is the only reliable method to
obtain direct measurement of equilibrium in situ pore pressure

Cost is not trivial and installation has often been challenging but new
solutions keep being developed, e.g.,

Luva Investigation (Tjelta & Strout 2010)

- 1300 m water depth
- used PROD system
- very accurate depth control
- 20 to 100 bml
- t ~ 4 to 5 hrs for 20 m,
- 100% success rate

19
 Sampling and sample quality
Poor sampling – soft clays

In situ condition

Lab condition
Ladd and DeGroot 2003

Sampler design - recommendations

- appropriate sampler
geometry

- truly stationary piston

relative to seabed

- steady rate of penetration

- real time measurement of

penetration &
underpressure
d b
below
l piston
i t

After Lunne and Long (2006), Lunne et al. (2008)

20
Sampler design - recommendations
Drilling mode (vessel or seabed):
- thin walled piston sampling with
favorable geometery

Non-drilling mode (seabed based)

- samplers such as DWS

- gravity sampler with piston fixed

relative to seabed, e.g., STACOR

- gravity sampler but piston fixed

relative to vessel e.g., Kullenberg

- gravity sampler without fixed piston

Deep water sampler (DWS)

Assessment of sample quality - recommendations

1. No definitive method to determine quality relative to the "perfect sample".

2. Ideally want an a priori non-destructive method for quantification of

sample quality (x-raying
(x raying is non
non-destructive
destructive but not quantitative)

76 mm
tubes

3. The current "gold" standard for rating of sample quality = volumetric strain
(v or e/e0) during laboratory 1-D reconsolidation to estimated in situ
stress state ['v0, 'h0] (i.e., NGI method; Lunne et al. 1997, 2006)

21
Shallow seabed properties
How to characterize the upper few decimeters of the seabed??
- major application = flowlines, pipelines, conductors, etc.
- in situ effective stress ~ 2 to 3 kPa at 0
0.5
5 m depth
- inadequacy of lab testing and conventional in situ testing

Side-scan sonar image of lateral buckling

(from Burton et al., 2008)
Lateral buckle model showing contact pressure
(in Pa) along pipe (from Burton et al, 2009)

Shallow seabed properties - recommendations

Collect box cores and test immediately after retrieval to the vessel
- common size 0.5 m x 0.5 m x 0.5 to 1 m height

22
WND East coast USA

Luva

Laboratory testing
1. Classification and index testing
2. Index strength tests (e.g., FC, UUC, TV, etc.)
3. "Advanced" laboratory tests (e.g., CRS, Triaxial, DSS, etc.)

23
 Problems with Index strength testing (FC, TV, PP, UUC, etc.)
- unknown effective stress state
- significant influence of sample disturbance
- highly variable (and often fast) shear rates
- how account for anisotropy
Net result = highly scattered, often unreliable, data
2
UUC
1 TV

-1
evation (m)

-2

-3
Ele

-4

-5

-6

-7
0 10 20 30
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

CH Clay Nigerian Swamp Harrison Bay, Alaska

Laboratory testing - recommendations

1. Reliable determination of design parameters:
- 1-D CRS test for stress history, compressibility & flow behavior
- Consolidated-undrained (CU) tests (e.g. CAUC, DSS, CAUE)
for measurement of stress-strain-strength behavior and
anisotropy

2. Essential to evaluate sample quality (e.g., e/e0 at 'v0)

3. Always evaluate su profiles in context of stress history data

4. Remediation of sample disturbance

24
Repeatable and reliable test procedures
1. Develop project specifications with an understanding
of appropriate procedures and standards to specify.

2. Clear communication among all parties and use of

proper QA/QC programs.

3. Universal adaptation of the proposed ISO standard

on Marine Soil Investigations will provide a
valuable reference framework.
framework

In Sum
- offshore geotechnical engineering offers major
challenges and fantastic opportunities for
development of innovative solutions

Terrestrial Site Investigation Solutions

Offshore Site Investigations

25
Acknowledgements

1. Colleagues and students at:

− UMass Amherst
− Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Tom Lunne, Lars Andresen)
− Statoil-Forewind (Tor Inge Tjelta)
− Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western
Australia (Mark Randolph)
− MIT (Charles Ladd and John Germaine).

2 US National Science Foundation

2.

26