Mitigation of Assembly Constraints For Floating

Journal of Physics: Conference
Series
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- UK perspective research landscape for
Mitigation of assembly constraints for floating offshore renewable energy and its role in
delivering Net Zero
offshore wind turbines using discrete event Deborah Greaves, Siya Jin, Puiwah Wong
et al.
simulation - The effects of second-order

hydrodynamics on a semisubmersible
floating offshore wind turbine
To cite this article: B Moverley Smith et al 2023 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2626 012044 I Bayati, J Jonkman, A Robertson et al.
- A Flexible, Multi-fidelity Levelised Cost of

Energy Model for Floating Offshore Wind
Turbines Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis
and Optimisation Approaches
View the article online for updates and enhancements. V Sykes, M Collu and A Coraddu
This content was downloaded from IP address 146.164.26.27 on 19/04/2024 at 13:42

EERA DeepWind conference 2023 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2626 (2023) 012044 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2626/1/012044
Mitigation of assembly constraints for floating

offshore wind turbines using discrete event simulation
B Moverley Smith1,2 , J Ongley2 , A Angeloudis3 , P R Thies4
1
EPSRC and NERC Centre for Doctoral Training in Offshore Renewable Energy (IDCORE),
The University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering, Robert Stevenson Road, The King’s
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3FB, UK
2
Xodus Group, Xodus House, 50 Huntly St, Aberdeen, AB10 1RS, UK
3
The University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering, Robert Stevenson Road, The King’s
Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK
4
University of Exeter, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, Penryn Campus, TR10
9FE, Penryn, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. There is a large and increasing pipeline of floating offshore wind projects with
total global floating offshore wind capacity projected to grow year on year by, on average,
between 59 and 104 % in the 2020s. This will lead to competition for infrastructure resources,
in particular, port facilities for the construction and marshalling of the floating foundations
and turbines. It is likely that multiple ports will need to be combined to provide the necessary
fabrication capacity for a floating offshore wind farm of commercial scale. To enable an efficient
and coordinated utilisation of multiple fabrication ports, it is crucial to understand the likely
duration of different assembly and construction activities at different locations. However, at
present this task is difficult to perform using top-down estimation models, as commercial-scale
floating offshore wind farms comprising many tens of units have not been built to date. In
this work we present a methodology, based on discrete event simulation (DES) and time series
analysis, to produce an explicit simulation-based estimate of assembly activity durations, which
are sensitive to setting specific factors. Three example case studies are outlined to demonstrate
the ability to capture the variation in activity duration due to resource availability, and the
season and location of activity. The methodology will be of use to project planners as it can
be used at an early stage in the project life-cycle to appraise and adopt different construction
strategies.
1. Introduction
Floating offshore wind is a technology set to undergo a rapid and large-scale uptake. At the end of
2022 there were less than 30 floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) deployed across the world,
totalling a cumulative capacity of under 200 MW [1]. Despite the limited operational knowledge
and refinement of this nascent technology, governments have set increasingly ambitious targets
for floating offshore wind deployment by 2030. In the UK, the government has set a target of 5
GW of floating offshore wind capacity by 2030 [2], and, at the recent ScotWind round of seabed
leasing in Scottish waters, 15 GW of floating offshore wind capacity was awarded [3]. Globally,
the compound annual growth rate of floating offshore wind capacity is projected to be between
59 and 104% over the next 10 years [4].
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Table 1: Footprint of different offshore wind foundation technologies
Foundation design Approximate footprint (m2 )

Monopile [5] 750
Jacket [6] 270
Floating semi-submersible foundation [7] 3500
(a) Transit and storage of jacket foundations. (b) Transit of FOWT foundation. Photo: Boluda
Photo: OHT [9] [10]
Figure 1: Logistical arrangements for marshalling different offshore wind turbine foundations
The increase in the number of FOWTs to be deployed over a relatively short time span will
inevitably lead to supply-based challenges. An area which poses substantial risks to floating
offshore wind projects is the construction and installation phase [8], as the nature of the
technology introduces novel challenges. Although FOWTs and established bottom fixed offshore
wind turbines are similar in many ways, from a logistical point of view one of the most significant
differences is the size and footprint of the foundations (see table 1). As an example of the
implications of this difference, consider the transport arrangement of the two structures, shown
in figure 1. The smaller size of the jacket foundations allows approximately ten to be transported
to the marshalling port at once (figure 1a). By contrast, only a single FOWT semi-submersible
foundation can be carried by a transport barge at a time (figure 1b). A similar size issue affects
the storage capacity of the marshalling port, as the number of FOWT foundations which can
be stored at one time is a fraction of the number of jackets.
To overcome the additional space demands, floating offshore wind projects will need to
consider using multiple ports concurrently in the construction phase to meet deployment targets.
This approach presents a much greater logistical challenge compared to the construction of
bottom fixed offshore wind projects, as synchronising multiple construction activities in parallel
will require a detailed understanding of FOWT construction processes, including required
resources and the likely duration of each activity. The construction of FOWTs for a project
represents a significant planning and logistics problem as three main assembly activities need to
be performed on every FOWT before it can be transported and installed at the wind farm site,
namely (a) assembly of the foundation, (b) loadout of the foundation with possible subsequent
transit between different construction sites by sea, and (c) wind turbine generator (WTG) and
tower integration with the floating foundation [11, 12] (figure 2). To assist with the planning of
2
Figure 2: Assembly activities in the construction of a floating offshore wind foundation
these phases, it will be crucial for project planners to understand the likely duration of different
assembly activities across ports over the year. However, it is difficult to get an estimate of this
kind using conventional top-down approaches, as there have not been any floating offshore wind
farms constructed in this manner to date. In this work we accordingly present detailed project-
specific methodology using discrete event simulation (DES) which results in a probabilistic
representation of the duration of different assembly activities, accounting for the effects of
resource availability, and the likely weather conditions at different ports in different seasons.
Case studies are presented for each stage of the construction process, demonstrating the value
of the method in understanding the effect of the these port-specific external factors.
Discrete event simulation is a well-established methodology which has been used for
several decades to model process-orientated systems in the areas of logistics, construction and
transportation [13]. It is therefore well suited to the simulation of offshore wind construction and
many commercial and academic tools have been created which address both the construction
and maintenance of offshore wind farms. A review of state of the art models was performed in
[14] and although there has been continuing activity in the area since that publication, the focus
of these tools to date has been on bottom fixed offshore wind projects, and little attention has
so far been paid to floating offshore wind farm construction, with the authors aware of only two
papers which explicitly consider the topic. [15] models the construction of a floating offshore
wind farm, and does account for weather-induced delay for transit between ports and WTG
and tower integration. However, there is no consideration at all of the fabrication process of
the foundation, and no representation and investigation of resource scarcity on total durations
for different activities. [16] does consider the fabrication of the foundation explicitly. However,
there is no attention to the effect of weather on activity duration, and again no consideration
of resource availability. The approaches taken by both papers are therefore not sufficient to
assess the multi-port construction approach proposed above, as such assessment requires explicit
consideration of all stages of FOWT construction, accounting for the different key characteristics
of each port, namely the level of scarce resource available and the location-dependent weather.
This paper seeks to address this gap by proposing and demonstrating a methodology which will
allow for such comparison of different ports, providing a valuable planning tool in a multi-port
approach.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology
developed, and introduces the case studies which are used to demonstrate the value of this
method when comparing project decisions. Section 3 presents the results of these case studies,
which are then discussed in section 4, along with some current limitations of the approach.
Finally, a conclusion is drawn in section 5, with reflections on the benefits of the method and
3
outline of future work.
2. Methodology
To estimate the durations of different assembly activities, two techniques are used. First, each
assembly activity is modelled using discrete event simulation (DES) [17]. This model is then
combined with time series analysis of historical weather data. Using Monte Carlo analysis, this
provides a statistical understanding of activity sensitivity to the prevailing weather conditions
at different locations and for different seasons.
2.1. Discrete event simulation (DES)

A DES models the system of interest as a collection of entities which can interact with one
another. These entities each follow a process: a sequential set of actions which are triggered
when the system reaches a certain state, known as an event. This event can be predetermined,
such as when the simulation clock reaches a specific time, or can be dependent upon other entities
performing actions, such as finishing an action and causing a resource to become available. A
DES proceeds by way of a ”simulation executive”, a computational process that assesses the
”future” time of all triggering events in each entity’s process, advancing the simulation time
to the earliest event, and then triggering the relevant action(s). This is repeated until all
processes are complete or a predetermined simulation time has been reached [18]. To model
the construction of a FOWT using this framework, each component is modelled as an entity,
which each follow a process to assemble themselves into a containing FOWT entity. The events
which trigger the assembling actions are the completion of any predecessor activities (such as
scaffolding erected, other components in place, etc.), availability of one or more required finite
resources (such as welders, cranes, riggers, etc.) and a suitable future weather window long
enough to perform the action. Each action’s duration can be estimated in a number of ways,
including bottom-up, parametric, or Delphi methods. Once an action is complete, the system
is updated, triggering other actions. Each port is modelled as an encapsulating entity which
possess all the required resources. The level of these resources at each port are specified by the
user.
2.2. Time series analysis with Monte Carlo

As noted above, some tasks are dependent upon certain weather conditions to proceed. Typically,
these limits are safety-related, such as wind limits for cranes, and wave limits for sea-based
operations. To investigate the impact of weather-related delay on the assembly activities, time-
series analysis is performed on one-hour resolution historical weather data retrieved from the
ERA5 data service [19], and incorporated into the DES. An example of an acceptable weather-
dependent window identification strategy is summarised in algorithm 1. For any task with a
weather limit, the algorithm checks if there is a suitable weather window forecast from the
present time to cover the entire duration of the task including contingency, taking into account
relevant alpha factors (a factor applied to the weather limit to account for uncertainty in the
forecast), and waits until the weather is suitable before proceeding. In this way, the time taken
to wait for a suitable weather window can be estimated.
Using a Monte Carlo technique, the above process can be implemented for many thousands
of starting points in the historical time series. Statistical analysis of the results provides proba-
bility distributions of delay for the activities for different seasons and locations.
2.3. Case studies

Three case studies are considered to demonstrate the value added from analysis using the
methodology. Each case study provides an example of the impact of different project choices on
4
Algorithm 1 Establishing a suitable waiting period Twaiting for a task
INPUTS : Initial simulation time t0 , simulation duration tsim , simulation timestep ∆t, wind
velocity magnitude limit Umax , duration of weather window required d, task starting time tstart ,
wind data time series u(t, T ), where t the start time of a time series spanning a period T .
1: Set t = t0
2: while t ̸= tstart do
3: if max (u(t, d)) > Umax then:
4: t = t + ∆t
5: else
6: t = tstart
7: end if
8: end while
9: Twaiting = tstart − t0
the duration of different assembly activities.
2.3.1. Foundation assembly: activity procedure and resource availability The foundation under
consideration is a three column semi-submersible, with identical sides made up of two bottom
braces joined with a K-node, two diagonal V-braces, and an upper brace, as in figure 3. Each
component is assumed to be positioned in place using either a self propelled modular transporter
(SPMT) or a crane, depending on the altitude of its final alignment, and then tack welded into
position. The assumed process sequence for each side of the foundation is as follows:
(i) Position corner columns
(ii) Position and tack weld K-node
(iii) Weld and test both ends of K-node
(iv) Position and tack weld V-braces
(v) Weld and test upper end of V-braces
(vi) Weld and test lower end of V-braces
(vii) Position and tack weld upper brace
(viii) Weld and test both ends of upper brace
The crane or SPMT is assumed to only be required until the tack welding has been completed.
The cranes are subject to a 9 m/s wind limit, and the SPMTs are subject to a 20 m/s wind
limit. The welding duration is calculated according to the following equation [20]:
TW = 1.3 × a2w Lw (1)

where TW is the time to weld, aw is the weld area (equal to plate thickness for butt welds), and
Lw is the weld length.
Two resources are required for this process: welding teams and equipment to position the
components. Therefore, to investigate the effect of resource availability, the simulation was
performed iteratively with varying numbers of cranes and welding teams. After welding, non-
destructive testing (NDT) such as ultra-sonic or magnetic particle inspection is required to
verify weld quality, ensuring it is free from defects. According to applicable technical standards,
a minimum period of time must pass to allow hydrogen to dissipate from the weld before NDT
testing can be performed. This lasts 48 hours as standard, but can be reduced to 24 hours
if ”consistent low failure rate of delayed cracking has been documented for the materials and
5
Figure 3: Foundation design considered in simulation
welding consumables in question” [21]. Simulations with both 48 and 24 hour waiting times
were therefore performed to investigate the effect of this reduction.
2.3.2. Transit between ports: seasonal variation in duration The expected delay for transit
is calculated for a route between a construction port in the north east of Scotland and a
construction port in the Orkney Islands. The foundation is assumed to be carried on a semi-
submersible barge, as in figure 1b. The assumed speed of the barge is 5 knots, with a wind and
significant wave height limit of 15 m/s and 2.5 m respectively. The appropriate alpha factor
(used to account for forecast unreliability) was applied to these limits when running the weather
forecasting subroutine [22]. The route has a calculated distance of 129 nm. To account for the
large geographical area of interest, all weather nodes along the route are considered with the
appropriate node checked to account for the vessel’s progress along the route.
2.3.3. WTG and tower integration: spatial variation in duration The total duration for the
integration of the WTG and supporting tower with the foundation is calculated by the method
described. In this case study the tower supporting the WTG is assumed to be made of three
sections. The activity is modelled using the following assumed sequence of tasks:
(i) Position and attach tower section 1
(ii) Position and attach tower section 2
(iii) Position and attach tower section 3
(iv) Position and attach nacelle
(v) Position and attach blade 1
(vi) Position and attach blade 2
(vii) Position and attach blade 3
All tasks are assumed to be performed using a crawler crane and as such are subject to a 9 m/s
wind limit.
3. Results
Results are presented for each case study considered.
6
Figure 4: Case study results demonstrating the effect of resource constraint on foundation
assembly duration, showing 24 and 48 hour hydrogen dissipation times
3.1. Foundation assembly: activity procedure and resource availability

Figure 4 highlights the effect of resource constraints on total foundation construction time. The
construction time is shown to be very sensitive to the number of welding teams working on the
foundation, but there is almost no effect on the total time when the total number of cranes
available is increased. This holds even when there are large numbers of weld teams. Although
there is no occurrence here, figure 4 therefore demonstrates the ability of the proposed method
to investigate resource level interaction. Reducing the time to wait before NDT is performed
from 48 hours to 24 hours leads to a reduction in total duration of 13% when 6 welding teams
are available to work on the foundation.
3.2. Transit between ports: intra-annual delay

The distribution of delay calculated from simulations of the transit case study starting in either
in the months of January or July are shown in figure 5a. The large majority (83%) of delays
calculated for the month of July are equal to zero, compared to 23% of simulations resulting
(a) Distribution of delay for transit starting in (b) Comparison of the distribution of delay for
January and July a transit starting in a given month across the
year
Figure 5: Results of transit simulation
7
Figure 6: Mean contingency factor for WTG integration for locations across the British Isles
in zero delay in the month of January. Comparison of the calculated delay for all months is
represented by the box plots in figure 5b, where the boxes represent the interquartile (p25-p75)
range, and the horizontal lines are the median (p50) delay. The p50 delay ranges from 61 hours
in January, to zero in the summer months (June, July, August).
3.3. WTG and tower integration: spatial variation

Figure 6 shows the variation in the summer contingency factor, αSummer , for performing the
WTG and tower integration activity at different locations around the British Isles. αSummer is
calculated follows:
1 M ay Jun + D Jul + D Aug )
(Dw + Dw w w
αSummer = 4 (2)
Dnw
where Dw M is the average duration calculated for the month M , and D
nw is the duration of
activity with no weather delay. There is a clear variation in this factor for the locations
considered, ranging from the lowest value 1.42 in the north east of Scotland, to 2.4 on the
northern island archipelagos of Orkney and Shetland.
4. Discussion
The approach adopted in this work is discussed by exploring each of the above case studies in
turn.
8
4.1. Exploring the effects of assembly procedure and resource availability

Consideration of figure 4 shows the types of useful information that can be produced by a DES
model of a complex construction process. Although weather is not considered in this scenario,
there are several factors which affect the duration of the activity which are directly under a
project planner’s control. In the case study under consideration, the total time for construction
is affected very little by the number of cranes which can be used in the construction, despite
the fact that nine of the components require a crane to be lifted into position. This is due to
the assumption that the crane is only required whilst the component is moved into position and
tack welded, a process assumed to last 10 hours. In contrast, the time to perform the weld is
far greater, at over 100 hours for most connections. As each welding procedure requires a weld
team, and many welding operations can be performed simultaneously, the reduction in total
time with increasing weld teams is the governing factor here.
It should be noted that a similar trend will not necessarily exist for other FOWT foundation
designs. Designs which require cranes for longer periods, or with shorter welding periods, may
exhibit a different relationship between the total foundation assembly time and the number of
both crane and welder resources available. To capture these effects for different designs, a unique
DES of that assembly procedure should be carried out.
The benefit of such an analysis to a project planning process is that at an early stage in the
project plan it is easy to estimate the optimal number of resources required.
4.2. Accounting for seasonal weather in project planning

As demonstrated by the analysis on transit delay, the time taken to perform an assembly related
activity at one point of the year is not the same as at another. This type of information
can be very useful to anyone planning marshalling activities as it gives an insight into the
relative rates of progress of turbines through the whole construction process in different seasons.
The variations can then be incorporated into the marshalling plan, to make optimum use of
resources. Additionally, knowledge of the variation in rate is useful to ensure that sufficient
storage space is available to deal with the queue of partially assembled turbines forming in the
system. Knowledge of the underlying distribution of delay is also valuable, as planners can
determine what level of risk of delay (p50, p75, p90, etc.) is acceptable, and design the system
accordingly.
4.3. Accounting for weather when selecting assembly locations

Comparing the effect of weather on activity duration for different locations shows a significant
impact on the resulting times, even when considering a reasonably small geographical area such
as the UK, and in months with less adverse weather conditions. The knowledge gained from
an analysis of what ports are more adversely affected by weather could be extremely useful
when deciding what ports to use for a project, and deciding which tasks to perform at which
location. As an example, if a project was planning to use a port on the south west of Wales
(αsummer = 2.15), and a port on the south east of Ireland (αsummer = 1.69), it might make sense
to perform the highly wind sensitive WTG integration in the Irish port, and a less wind-limited
activity like the foundation assembly at the Welsh port. In this way, it is possible to mitigate
some project risks during the planning process.
4.4. Factors affecting accuracy of results

Whilst the results of the methodology can yield valuable results, care should be taken to
understand the limitations of the methods and data used.
4.4.1. Limitation of DES As shown in the foundation assembly case study, the sequence of
events modelled, and their inter-relatedness, has a very significant impact on the resulting
9
durations. Therefore, in order to present a realistic estimate of the different processes, the
sequence should be established to a low level of detail, i.e. with high specificity of the required
tasks, including scheduling interaction with other components, likely duration and resource
requirement. This is not always possible in the early stages of a project, when the approach in
this work would be most useful. Therefore, additional and out of sequence work may need to be
performed at an early stage in the project life cycle to refine the assembly activity procedures
to the level of detail required for the DES analysis, so that the added value of this approach can
be realised.
4.4.2. Limitation with weather data The weather data used for the prediction of weather-
related delay is historical weather data from the ERA5 weather model. There are problems
related both to the fact that the data is model derived and that it is historical. First, the wind
data used in the analysis is derived from the ERA5 model, a mesoscale model ”produced using
4D-Var data assimilation and model forecasts in CY41R2 of the ECMWF Integrated Forecast
System (IFS)” [23]. As such, the data produced is not an exactly accurate representation of
historical weather data for a single point, particularly if, as in the case of wind data, there are
significant changes due to the local topography [24]. Second, even if this problem is overcome by
using local data, a problem may remain in using historical weather data as a basis for making
predictions about future weather patterns, in the context of climate change. If climate change
increases average wind speed, or increases the occurrence of storm events, then the assumption
that weather dependent durations will be statistically similar in the past and the future may
not be valid. However, based on the timescales which are considered to be relevant for this work
(10-20 years from present), and the lack of consensus around the effect of climate on future wind
resource [25], no correction is made for the effects of climate change at this stage.
5. Conclusion
We have demonstrated a methodology to estimate, using an explicit representation of the
problem under consideration, the durations of different activities in the assembly of FOWTs.
Using DES combined with a Monte Carlo approach to a time series analysis of reanalysed weather
data, the expected duration of foundation assembly, transit between assembly ports, and the
integration of a WTG and tower with a FOWT foundation has been calculated. Additionally,
as demonstrated by the case studies, not only the mean duration, but also the underlying
distribution of durations for activities in different settings can be revealed by the method.
These results will be of great value to project planners, and will allow for some project risk
to be designed out.
Further work will address some of the limitations highlighted by a validation of the method’s
assumptions, potentially using data from industries adjacent to floating offshore wind, such as
oil and gas, and bottom fixed offshore wind. Further research effort will also be spent on linking
the models of construction activities into a comprehensive model of the entire assembly system
for multiple units. This will enable better understanding of the total flow of floating offshore
wind units through the construction phase, allowing planners to better understand the risks
associated with certain plans.
Acknowledgements
Funding is acknowledged from the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) for the Industrial CDT in
Offshore Renewable Energy (EP/S023933/1)
Hersbach, H. et al., (2018) was downloaded from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)
Climate Data Store.
10
References
[1] Harvey M, Strivens S, Evans H and Morris A 2022 Floating wind joint industry project phase iv summary
report Tech. rep. Carbon Trust London, UK
[2] HM Government 2022 British energy security strategy URL https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/british-energy-security-strategy
[3] Crown Estate Scotland 2022 Awards: Lead applicants, project partners, area, capacity and
foundations accessed: 16/12/2022 URL https://www.crownestatescotland.com/resources/documents/
scotwind-awards-with-project-partners-november-2022
[4] Global Wind Energy Council 2022 URL https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
GWEC-Report-Floating-Offshore-Wind-A-Global-Opportunity.pdf
[5] Gaertner E, Rinker J, Sethuraman L, Zahle F, Anderson B, Barter G, Abbas N, Meng F, Bortolotti P,
Skrzypinski W, Scott G, Feil R, Bredmose H, Dykes K, Sheilds M, Allen C and Viselli A 2020 Definition
of the IEA 15-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine Tech. rep. International Energy Agency URL
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75698.pdf
[6] Iberdrola 2022 How are offshore wind turbines anchored at sea? accessed: 16/12/2022 URL https:
//www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/offshore-wind-turbines-foundations
[7] Roddier D, Cermelli C, Aubault A and Weinstein A 2010 J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2(3) ISSN
19417012
[8] Matha D, Brons-Illig C, Mitzlaff A and Scheffler R 2017 14th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conf. vol 137
(Elsevier Ltd) pp 299–306 ISSN 18766102
[9] Buljan A 2020 Six moray east foundations in, ten more arrive in nigg URL https://www.offshorewind.
biz/2020/07/21/six-moray-east-foundations-in-ten-more-arrive-in-nigg/
[10] Boulda 2020 Foundation offshore floating wind farm https://www.boluda.eu/news/
Foundation-offshore-floating-wind-farm
[11] Crowle A P and Thies P R 2022 Proc. IMECHE Part M: J. Eng. for the Maritime Environment ISSN
20413084
[12] Chitteth Ramachandran R, Desmond C, Judge F, Serraris J J and Murphy J 2022 Wind Energy Sci. 7
903–924
[13] Banks J, Carson J, Nelson B and Nicol D 2005 Discrete Event Simulation (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson)
[14] Muhabie Y T, Rigo P, Ceoeda M, de Almeida D’Agosto M and Caprace J D 2018 Ocean Eng. 149 279–290
[15] Torres E S, Thies P R and Lawless M 2023 ASME Open J. of Eng. 2
[16] Sarichloo Z, Murphy A, Butterfield J, Doran J, Hannigan P and Desmond C 2022 Proc. ASME 2022 41st
Int. Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng. (Hamburg, Germany: OMAE2022)
[17] Page B and Kreutzer W 2006 Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 13(6) 441 ISSN 1614-7499 URL https://doi.org/
10.1065/espr2006.09.348
[18] Pidd M 1997 Computer Simulation in Management Science, Fourth Edition (Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons)
[19] Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, Biavati G, Horanyi A, Sabater J M, Nicolas J, Puebey C, Radu R, Rozum
I, schepers D, Simmons A, Soci C, Dee D and Thépaut J N 2018 Era5 hourly data on single levels from
1959 to present. copernicus climate change service (c3s) climate data store (cds) accessed: 20-02-2022
[20] Jármai K and Farkas J 1999 J. Constr. Steel Res. 50 115–135
[21] DNV 2017 Fabrication and testing of offshore structures Tech. Rep. DNVGL-OS-C401 DNV
[22] DNV 2021 Marine operations and marine warranty Tech. Rep. DNV-ST-N001 DNV
[23] ECMWF Era5: data documentation accessed: 16/12/2022 URL https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/
CKB/ERA5\%3A+data+documentation
[24] Gualtieri G 2021 Energies 14(14) ISSN 19961073
[25] Solaun K and Cerdá E 2019 Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 116 ISSN 18790690
11

Mitigation of Assembly Constraints For Floating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitigation of Assembly Constraints For Floating

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitigation of Assembly Constraints For Floating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Physics: Conference

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

simulation - The effects of second-order

- A Flexible, Multi-fidelity Levelised Cost of

This content was downloaded from IP address 146.164.26.27 on 19/04/2024 at 13:42

Mitigation of assembly constraints for floating

Table 1: Footprint of different offshore wind foundation technologies

Foundation design Approximate footprint (m2 )

Figure 2: Assembly activities in the construction of a floating offshore wind foundation

outline of future work.

2.1. Discrete event simulation (DES)

2.2. Time series analysis with Monte Carlo

2.3. Case studies

Algorithm 1 Establishing a suitable waiting period Twaiting for a task

the duration of different assembly activities.

TW = 1.3 × a2w Lw (1)

Figure 3: Foundation design considered in simulation

3.1. Foundation assembly: activity procedure and resource availability

3.2. Transit between ports: intra-annual delay

Figure 5: Results of transit simulation

3.3. WTG and tower integration: spatial variation

4.1. Exploring the effects of assembly procedure and resource availability

4.2. Accounting for seasonal weather in project planning

4.3. Accounting for weather when selecting assembly locations

4.4. Factors affecting accuracy of results

You might also like