See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373523112

Cable Integrity Risk Assessment (CIRA) OSIG 2023

Conference Paper · August 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 346

1 author:

Victor Terente
Cathie Associates
23 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Terente on 31 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cable Integrity Risk Assessment (CIRA)
L.J. Burley, V.A. Terente, L.J. Hewitson & H.JM. Stuart
Cathie, Newcastle, UK

Ensuring cable performance in mobile environments requires adequate protection and a comprehensive risk
management system. Understanding the current and potential risks over the lifetime of offshore cables is key
to planning and budgeting maintenance operations, monitoring campaigns and potential remedial measures.
The Cable Integrity Risk Assessment (CIRA) is a management procedure designed as a repeatable process for
installed cables, defining post installation cable risk, utilising a similar method to that outlined in CBRA Carbon
Trust guidance but focused on planning remedial works. The CIRA uses site data such as the measured depth
of burial, initially during installation, as-surveyed following installation, or during the cable's lifetime to calcu-
late risk damage profiles and recommend priority areas where remedial measures are required, ensuring that
risk is suitably managed and within acceptable limits. Data examples are presented, to illustrate the proposed
system.

fishing gear. To mitigate this risk, offshore cables are

1 Cable Installation and Lifetime Challenges
1.1 Subsea Cable Market
Subsea cables generally fall into two categories; com-
munication cables and power cables. Whilst the
global communications network of subsea cables is
critical, estimated to stretch to almost 1.5M km (C.
Basole, 2022) and transmit 97% of communications
worldwide (Kazaz, 2020), this report focuses on
power cables, primarily; interconnectors, export and
inter-array cables for offshore wind farms.
Export cables are responsible for the transmission
of offshore renewable developments back to the grid.
Nearly 40 000 km of export cables are forecast to be
laid worldwide by 2030, compared with just over
7500 at the end of 2020 (Ayoub, 2021).
Inter-array cables transmit power to the offshore
substation, which connects to the export cable from
the wind turbines or other technology (Mountassir
and Strang-Moran, 2018). By 2030, over 63 200 km
of array cables are expected to be installed globally
compared to less than 9700 km which were installed
by the end of 2020 (Ayoub, 2021).
Interconnector cables are used to connect the elec-
trical system with surrounding countries. In the UK
alone there are currently eight interconnector cables
connecting to neighboring countries, with a further
six planned. Multi-purpose interconnectors will also
become more prevalent, integrating interconnection
and offshore wind as one combined asset.
1.2 Threats to Installed Subsea Cables
The two biggest threats to subsea cables are from an-
chors penetrating the seafloor and entanglement of
buried to a specified target burial depth by means of
burial tool such as jet trencher, mechanical trencher,
plough etc. or by external protection such as mattress-
ing, rock placement, Cable Protection System (CPS)
etc. when laid on the seabed surface.
Over the lifetime of the cable, it may become ex-
posed due to sediment mobility, increasing the risk
from other external threats. Sediment mobility is a
particular problem in shallow water where strong
tidal currents are present in non-cohesive soils.
Strong seabed currents are common in the UK, am-
plified by storms and tidal surges, which are predicted
to become larger and more frequent due to climate
change. Territories such as "The Wash" and "Race
Bank" conjure notions of a seabed bathymetry that is
constantly changing. Large-scale offshore wind farm
developments are present in such locations so ade-
quate burial is required to mitigate risk (Ouyang et al.,
2017). Cable burial to a target Depth of Lowering
(DoL) may not always be achieved during construc-
tion due to soil conditions, choice of burial tool, and
obstacles such as boulders. This may elevate the risk
of the cable immediately after installation and during
operation.
Cables without sufficient protection or burial are
at risk of anchor penetration and fishing entanglement
as well as on bottom stability issues. In addition, if
metocean conditions are severe enough to cause cable
movement when resting on the seabed, this may im-
pact the integrity of the cable due to abrasion, high
tension, free spanning fatigue or contact with other
subsea infrastructure.
There has been a significant rise in cable damage
claims in recent years, over a third of which are
caused by fishing vessels with towed gear, bottom
and beam trawls and dredges. According to statistics,
anchors are also responsible for about a quarter of all
subsea cable damage. Most of these incidents are typ-
ically the result of fishing or merchant vessels anchor-
ing outside of the permitted boundaries (Kazaz,
2020).
Over-burial of a cable is generally associated with
seabed mobility and can also have negative conse-
quences on cable performance. When subsea cables
are surface laid, the surrounding water acts as an ef-
fective conductor and allows heat to dissipate. In-
creasing the burial depth of subsea cables increases
the insulation surrounding them, reducing the cables
ability to dissipate heat. If the cable is extensively
over-buried, it may lead to overheating, damaging its
integrity and reducing performance.
1.2.1 Future Threats
Future offshore wind developments will be located
further offshore to take advantage of the strongest
wind conditions as the sector develops in terms of
technology, scale, and capability (Strang-Moran,
2020). The development of floating offshore wind
will expand to deeper, more remote areas of the sea-
bed, including seismically active regions (e.g. Tai-
wan). Taiwan's active tectonic landscape, typhoon-
prone climate, steep marine slopes, and underwater
topography are reflected by frequent sediment density
flows. In the 2006 Pingtung earthquakes, sediment
flows caused 22 cable breaks (Gavey et al., 2017).
Earthquakes can cause soil to liquify, potentially
leading to cables floating to the seabed surface where
their specific gravities are lower than the liquefied
soil (Sumer and Kirca, 2022). Those risks need to be
monitored through the design life of the cable.
1.3 Consequences of Subsea Cable Damage
A subsea cable break can have substantial and expen-
sive financial ramifications. Recent power cable re-
pairs have cost up to US$13M, withholding the losses
of energy while the cable is broken (Kazaz, 2020). To
repair power cables, contingency plans and frame-
work agreements with cable installation and repair
companies and their own stock of spare cable and
subsea joints are generally used. A jointing vessel
must typically be mobilised, and the jointing process
can take up to five days. Generally, based on 2018
data, the overall time from failure to a complete
power cable repair is 40-60days (McLachlan, 2018).
This timeframe is likely to be longer due to increas-
ingly limited vessel availability. Taking an average of
2018 cable repair timelines of 50 days and using a
theoretical break of the export cable for the London
Array wind farm as an example, you can estimate the
potential loss in revenue. The London Array Wind
Farm generated a total of 20 444GWh between May
2021-May 2022 (Andrew, 2022), the total power lost
over 50days would equate to 2800GWh. 4C Offshore
estimates London Arrays revenue to be
£147.56/MWh (4C Offshore, 2022), so theoretically
over 50 days would lead to a potential loss in revenue
of approximately £413M.
According to the UK Operations & Maintenance
Centre of Excellence and industry data obtained by
Catapult, subsea cable failures account for 75–80% of
the total cost of offshore wind insurance claims but
cables only make up 9% of an offshore wind farm's
overall cost (Mountassir and Strang-Moran, 2018).
Forty-three array and export cable failures were re-
ported between 2007-2019 in the UK. Recorded cable
failures at UK projects between 2014-2017 resulted
in a cumulative generating loss of about 1.97TWh
(Mountassir and Strang-Moran, 2018), equating to
approximately £227M (based on a strike price of
£115/MWh). This only considers the correctly re-
ported failures over this time, and it is expected that
the number will be higher. The 1998 subsea power
cable failure in Auckland, New Zealand, when a
110kV cable overheated and caused a blackout in the
city for about a month, provides more extreme exam-
ple of how such events can cause isolation, and severe
consequences to households, businesses, education,
emergency services and national security (Parker,
2013).
2 Background to Submarine Cable Risk
Management
The most common mitigation method to protect
against the external threats discussed previously is
burial. For several years, the standard burial depth
was 0.6m, aimed at providing cable protection from
fishing gear. The Burial Protection Index (BPI), de-
veloped in the 1990s for fibre optic communication
cables, was the best practice for subsea cables in var-
ying seabed conditions. The method was used to set
optimum DoL for adequate protection from external
threats. Although the BPI method had been modified
by developers and contractors to suit their needs, it
was recognised that there were several limitations
(Carbon Trust, 2015). These included the fact that the
method only covered a limited range of anchor sizes,
the conservatism with regards to protection from fish-
ing gear and soft clay, and the lack of incorporation
of water depth, probability of incidents involving an-
chors, frequency and size of vessels in transit, as well
as coastal erosion and changes in the seabed profile.
The Carbon Trust, comprised of several high-pro-
file industry contributors, developed the Cable Burial
Risk Assessment (CBRA) methodology. The CBRA
method is a standardised and repeatable process that
quantifies the potential risk. This can then be used to
define recommended target burial depths for con-
struction which is both practically and economically
achievable, whilst providing adequate protection
(Carbon Trust, 2015). The CBRA addresses the key
limitations of the BPI methodology and utilises
knowledge on ground conditions and vessel traffic to
conduct a probabilistic assessment. The aim of the
CBRA is to determine a DoL for construction pur-
poses, which may vary along the cable route, associ-
ated with a probability of anchor strike that is accepta-
ble to the developer, operator, and key stakeholders.
The CBRA should be used for proposed or ‘to be
installed’ cables to reduce the external threats to a rea-
sonable risk level by calculating threatline depths and
determine an appropriate DoL. However, there is cur-
rently no industry standard to quantify risk on an in-
stalled cable.
risk’; and ‘Identifying any necessary remedial ac-
tions’.
The CIRA method is based on three distinctive
stages:
• Stage 1. Definition of Hazards and prelim-
inary categorisation of route risks in sec-
tions.
• Stage 2. Detailed analysis of key sections
considered at risk.
• Stage 3. Assessment and prioritization of
remedial measures.

3.2 Stage 1. Definition of Key Hazards and

3 Cable integrity Risk Assessment (CIRA)
preliminary categorisation of route risks in
sections.
The aim of a CIRA is to proactively manage the risk
of cable damage and minimise the need for emer-
3.2.1 Definition of Key Hazards
gency remedial works in installed cables. This is
The first stage is to identify the key hazards relevant
achieved by focusing on sections identified as high
to a particular asset. Key data required to define base-
risk and by periodic monitoring of bathymetry and
line hazards in the North Sea include mainly sediment
DoL.
mobility, vessel traffic density and fishing activity.
Other hazards may be relevant in other maritime areas
3.1 Methodology and Stages (e.g., seismicity, submarine landslips etc.).
An initial sensitivity assessment of those hazards
The CIRA uses the methodology outlined in Fig-
is conducted to define the key parameters required for
ure 1. The burial depths surveyed immediately post
the initial characterization and monitoring of risk, for
construction or during the operational phase of a ca-
example sediment mobility may be a high influence
ble are used to quantify the risks along the cable route.
hazard in a particular project if bathymetric data com-
The applications of the CIRA can be split into two
parisons and water depths indicate significant mobil-
stages:
ity and will require periodic monitoring.
• Post construction – This application aims to pro-
vide ongoing assistance during the installation phase
3.2.2 Categorisation of route risks in sections
to aid decisions on multiple passes, remedial require-
The second stage within the CIRA methodology
ments and reasonable endeavors discussions. This can
would be the definition of cable route KP sections to
be performed either on the installation vessel or re-
assign risk categories. This stage is based on post con-
motely. This is particularly important if the specified
struction/surveyed burial depth data. Burial depth will
DoL has not been achieved. This application helps to
determine the level of risk posed by the hazards iden-
inform and reduce, where possible, the necessity for
tified in the previous stage.
additional cable protection measures (e.g., rock pro-
The cable sections identified would be assigned a
tection).
risk rating, ranging from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Very High’
• Lifetime – Review of the contractor’s as built
based on their exposure to the hazards identified, as
depth of burial against the initial CBRA recommen-
outlined as an example in the risk matrix in Table 1.
dations/targets. This assessment reassesses risk along
If detailed information such as multiple bathymetric
the cable route. It quantifies risk and identifies where
surveys, AIS data, or fishing information are not
the highest lifetime risk exists along the route, provid-
available to quantify the risks projected over the life
ing recommendations for the future survey durations
of the asset, the CIRA process can be referred to as a
and potential remedial works. This application is
‘Preliminary’ or ‘Qualitative’ CIRA. The outputs
maintained through the lifetime with the operator, re-
from the table can be used to create charts to help vis-
performing the CIRA after significant events or peri-
ualise high risk locations across the cables route
odic surveys and updating the risk profile. This can
which can be discussed further below.
therefore be used in conjunction with other live anal-
ysis. Risk is calculated at the point of the most recent
survey and integrated within an overall operation and
management plan. Measuring the cables expo-
sure/burial through its lifetime can be especially ben-
eficial in areas with high sediment mobility. The
methodology in Figure 1 can be broken down into
three main steps: ‘Defining the risk’; ‘Calculating the
Figure 1: CIRA Methodology
 Area of Area of po- Stage 2. Detailed analysis of key sections consid-
Depth of fishing ac- tential sea- ered at risk.
Risk Category
Burial tivity/ves- bed mobil-
sel traffic ity
Exposure/
Once the individual subsections have been identified
✓ ✗ or ✓ and further data such as AIS data has been processed,
A Very High ~0m
≤0.5m ✓ ✓ the defined risks can be quantified in key sections.
B High ≤0.5m ✓ ✗ For sediment mobility, the areas of erosion and
≤0.4m ✗ ✗ deposition should be quantified and if possible, the
C Medium <1m ✓ ✗ rate of movement and potential cable exposure esti-
>1m ✓ ✓ mated. Figure 3 displays changes in bathymetry be-
>1m ✗ ✓ tween 2014-2018 from which sediment mobility rates
D Low
<1m ✗ ✗ can be determined in an example section. As anno-
E Very Low >1m ✗ ✗ tated in Figure 3, based on past bathymetric sets to
Table 1: Example of risk categories to be applied to route calculate seabed movement, we can predict when the
sections. cable may become exposed.
For fishing, statistical analysis of vessel activity is
A minimal burial can be agreed with the developer or assessed, with the type and penetration depth of
cable owner by determining acceptable risk, which equipment quantified for each zone, as per the Carbon
can highlight areas where further action is required. Trust (2015) CBRA Guidelines. The size of the fish-
This strategy means that potentially less of the route ing fleet operating along a proposed cable route can
will need remedial works than previously planned. A be determined using AIS, Maritime and Coastguard
traffic-light system, as exemplified in Table 1, can be Agency vessel traffic data, as well as VMS data. Us-
used to spatially visualise risk levels along the cable ing this data, it is possible to estimate fishing vessels'
route, as shown in Figure 2. This approach provides sizes and fishing techniques (Carbon Trust, 2015).
useful visual and easy to follow guidance to deter- For shipping, a probabilistic assessment is then
mine what remedial work is likely to be needed and conducted, using shipping intensity, vessel size, an-
where. The CIRA recommends at least the following chor size and associated depth of penetration. The
3 category definitions: number of vessels carrying anchors large enough to
• Red/Orange/ highest risk - Risks might include exceed DoL is determined and the probability of a
potential cable exposure. In such areas, further strike on the cable calculated. The CIRA method
studies which may be recommended include free identifies the probability of an anchor striking a cable
span assessments and on bottom stability assess- by considering the amount of time a vessel spends
ments. within a critical distance of the cable and the proba-
• Yellow/medium risk - cables buried at a shallow bility that a vessel might have an incident that re-
depth, thus with increased risk from primary haz- quires the deployment of an anchor. The probabilistic
ards such as fishing and anchor strikes. They may assessment for emergency anchoring is determined
also be potential locations for future exposure to
mobile sediments.
• Green/lower risk – Cables sufficiently buried in
an area with low seabed mobility and low external
threat – survey plans may be designed to not in-
clude these areas or have them as low priority.

Figure 2: Risk Level along route

 ~30m movement
in ~4 years

~20m movement in ~2.5 - 3

years (potential exposure)

Figure 3: Multiple Bathymetry Surveys showing the Progression of a Sandwave (2014-2018)

for the average and worst-case surveyed DOL
(Carbon Trust, 2015). Table 2: Risk Categories and recommended Monitoring Plan
Risks are quantified to the as-buried cable. Figure Recommended Survey Frequency
Risk Category
3 displays a sandwave that is moving across the sea- (years)
floor. As the cable is assumed stationary and the sand- Very High 1-2
wave moves laterally, the thickness of soil over the
High 2-5
cable reduces, making it more susceptible to risk. The
highlighted ‘Critical Area’ is a location where this has Medium 5-10
occurred, significantly increasing the risk of cable ex- Low 10-15
posure. Areas of deposition can be seen around KP
12.52; these are associated with increased cable burial
during the period of surveys (2014-2018) and there-
fore potential overheating.

3.2.3 Stage 3. Assessment and prioritization

of remedial measures.
Once the areas requiring remedial works have been
identified, an assessment is carried out to ascertain the
nature and priority of such actions. Actions may in-
clude additional remedial protection (rock berms,
concrete mattress, cast iron pipes, U-duct, concrete
bags, mortar bags and flexible concrete mattressing,
etc.), reburial, vessel exclusions, or on-going moni-
toring plan.
Engineering judgement is then used to determine
the most appropriate form of remedial work. The pre-
ferred method of remediation will depend on a num-
ber of factors including: burial depth, soil type, avail-
able remedial methods, and cost. The final remedial
option and priority is then discussed with the devel-
oper or cable owner.
Future survey plans may then be recommended to
prioritise areas at higher risk in the future delivering
a significant cost saving, especially when considering
longer routes, Table 2.
 4 Discussion
Monitoring installed subsea cables is essential to an-
ticipate remedial works and maintain an adequate risk
against damage, particularly if the lifetime of wind-
farms or interconnectors prolong beyond a standard
25year lifespan. As cables move into deeper and
harsher environments, the cost of repair and remedia-
tion will also increase, requiring specialised vessels
to travel greater distances to reach the damaged areas.
A standardised, repeatable approach of risk manage-
ment can help minimize emergency repairs without
increasing the assets vulnerability to damage.
If an initial CBRA has been undertaken, the CIRA
cable management system should be considered as an
efficient follow-on process. The required data has al-
ready been stored and incorporated into a model, so
modifications based on updated ground conditions
and understandings on achieved DoL can be incorpo-
rated quickly to assess the variations in risk, keeping
all the information in one place and ready to be ac-
cessed by the developers and OFTOs.
New shipping channels may be conceived to avoid
offshore developments. Commercial shipping is
likely to be prohibited and unable to navigate such
developments. With altered shipping activity and
consequently anchorage and fishing practices, the risk
along a cable route is likely to be altered during the
lifetime of a windfarm or interconnector.
It is also possible that the cable was not originally
buried deep enough to account for such a risk. New
developments will also bring new exclusion zones,
limiting vessel traffic, anchorage, and fishing activity
in areas that risk damage to infrastructure. These
likely changes in association with new offshore de-
velopments mean that new AIS data should be incor-
porated into analysis to update the risk associated
from strikes to the cable if significant vessel density
changes are observed.
Over the cable’s lifetime, seabed mobility will oc-
cur in many cable sections. New bathymetry surveys
can accurately determine the changes in seabed level
and help determine the expected rate and direction of
sediment mobility across the seabed. This can locate
areas where the cable has insufficient burial or where
the cable is exposed, facilitating a more detailed un-
derstanding of site characteristics. This data can be
incorporated into the remedial protection strategy of
the CIRA to protect from future mobility.
A thorough understanding of seabed geology is
crucial to the conception of remedial strategy and sur-
vey plans as the presence of certain soils and or ob-
stacles will render some options ineffective. Combin-
ing new data with knowledge of past remedial works
and existing geology fosters the ability for sound en-
gineering judgment to mitigate risks in an effective
and financially sustainable way.
As well as ongoing physical surveys to determine
DoL, many developers are now considering installing
cable detection systems within the cable itself to mon-
itor changes in burial. Distributed Thermal Sensors
(DTS) use fibre optic to provide a continuous thermal
profile along the cable route which is then used to cal-
culate the depth of lowering. These systems reduce
the need for physical surveys and allow for notifica-
tions to be applied along the cable should there be a
reduction in cable depth. DTS also allows for the data
to be obtained more frequently if required e.g., assess
the effect of the cable following a large storm, how-
ever their use in array cable monitoring is not wide-
spread.
5 Conclusions
Subsea cables will need to maintain their functional-
ity through their design life against ever changing ex-
ternal hazards and are likely to be deployed in more
remote and harsh environments, increasing risk from
stronger currents, earthquakes and typhoons. Climate
change is only forecasted to increase with the likeli-
hood of extreme weather events and increased rates
of sediment mobility. This will increase the im-
portance of monitoring and maintenance to protect
the cable asset and reduce the need for remedial
works.
The CIRA methodology is proposed as an effec-
tive risk management tool that uses a staged probabil-
istic approach to assess the key areas of risk along the
route. The method provides a standardised approach
to characterise the risk profile of the cable and in-
forms a future asset management strategy. Breaking
the route down into zones of different risk levels pro-
vides stakeholders with simple guidance on the ap-
propriate forms of action for each zone. A recom-
mended remediation strategy can then be produced
based on an adequate quantification of risk, detailed
assessment of conditions and engineering judgement.
This quantitative approach is expected to reduce the
volume of monitoring and remedial work needed in
the future and reduce the risk of emergency repair
works.
The standardised risk approach used by the CIRA
methodology also helps to provide developers with an
estimated whole life maintenance cost and risk of ca-
ble assets. This may reduce insurance premiums and
guide future bid valuations.
 6 REFERENCES

4C Offshore. (2023). London Array Offshore Wind Farm

- United Kingdom. Available at https://www.4coff-
shore.com/windfarms/united-kingdom/london-array-united-
kingdom-uk14.html, accessed on 3 January 2023.
Ayoub, B. (2021). Offshore Wind Project Intelligence. Cables
Addition. RenewableUK. 14pp.
Basole, C.R. (2022). Submarine Cable Market Size Report,
2022-2030. Grand View Research.
Carbon Trust. (2015). Cable Burial Risk Assessment Methodol-
ogy. Department of Energy and Climate Change.
DBEIS. (2022). UK Energy in Brief 2022. Department for Busi-
ness, Energy &Industrial Strategy. Pp. 32–34.
Gavey, R., Carter, L., Liu, J.T., Talling, P.J., Hsu, R., Pope, E.,
and Evans, G. (2017) Frequent sediment density flows dur-
ing 2006 to 2015, triggered by competing seismic and
weather events: Observations from subsea cable breaks off
southern Taiwan. Marine Geology. Pp. 147–158 in: Suba-
quatic paleoseismology: records of large Holocene earth-
quakes in marine and lacustrine sediments. 384pp.
GWEC. (2022). GLOBAL OFFSHORE WIND REPORT 2022.
Global Wind Energy Council. 108pp.
Kazaz, N. (2020). SUBSEA CABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS: THE
LEGAL APPROACH. HFW. 6pp.
Kolios, A.J. (2022). Maintenance Strategy Development for
Subsea Cables. Pp. 1–7 in: 2022 Annual Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium (RAMS).
McLachlan, M. (2018). Subsea cable and damage claims. Inter-
national Union of Marine Insurance.
Mountassir, O.E. and Strang-Moran, C. (2018) Offshore Wind
Subsea Power Cables Installation, Operation and Market
Trends. UK Operations & Maintinence Centre of Excellence.
Ouyang, Y., Hird, R., and Bolton, M. (2017) The use of fibre
optic distributed sensing technology to detect changes in sed-
iment overburden. SUT.
Parker, G. (2013). Subsea cable overheating risk reduced by
monitoring.
Smith A. (2022). UK offshore wind capacity factors – Energy
Numbers. Available at https://energynumbers.info/uk-off-
shore-wind-capacity-factors, accessed on 3 January 2023.
Strang-Moran, C. (2020). Subsea cable management: Failure
trending for offshore wind. Wind Energy Science Discus-
sions, 2020, 11pp.
Sumer, B.M. and Kirca, V.S.O. (2022). Scour and liquefaction
issues for anchors and other subsea structures in floating off-
shore wind farms: A review. Water Science and Engineering,
15pp.
Tang, W., Flynn, D., and Robu, V. (2021). Sensing Technolo-
gies and Artificial Intelligence for Subsea Power Cable Asset
Management. Pp. 1–6 in: 2021 IEEE International Confer-
ence on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM). 6pp.
Wind Europe. (2022). Offshore wind vessel availability until
2030: Baltic Sea and Polish perspective. Final Report, H-
BLIX. 71pp.

View publication stats