CARBON

TRUST

Application Guide for the specification

of the Depth of Lowering using the
Cable Burial Risk Assessment
(CERA) methodology

Department
of Energy &
Climate Change

MAINSTREAM
RENEWABLE
POWER

The energy to lead

SCOTTISH POWER
RENEWABLES
SSE
Renewables

VATTENFALL
Statkraft
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

This document is based on the "Cable Burial Risk Assessment Methodology

Guidance for the Preparation of Cable Burial Depth of Lowering Specification,
CTC 835 February 2015"

Date of issue 17th December 2015

Editor Jan Matthiesen Carbon Trust

Authors Colin Davison DONG Energy

Dimitris Kostopoulos Carbon Trust

Jamie Irvine Cathie Associates

Vito Persetto Stat kraft

2
Table of Contents

List of Figures 4

List of Tables 5

List of Abbreviations & Symbols 6

Definitions 8

1. Background and scope 10

1.1. Introduction 10
1.2. Background 10
1.3. Scope and limitations 11
1.4. When to apply CBRA 11

2. Input data 13
2.1. Surveys 13
2.2. Essential data and information 13

3. CBRA methodology 16
3.1. Process flow 16
3.2. Risks and hazards affecting cable burial 16
3.3. Benthic Fishing 17
3.4. Shipping 19
3.5. FoS and specification of the DoL 33
3.6. Conclusions and recommendations 35

4. References 36

Appendix A Motivation to develop CBRA 39

Appendix B Description of the Risks 42

Appendix C Worked Example 45

Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

List of Figures

Figure 1 Definition of Trench Parameters ..................................................................... 8

Figure 2 CBRA process flow ........................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...... 16

Figure 3 Process to determine the PTraffic Risk probability modifier ............................... 22

Figure 4 Illustration of the buffer zone for anchor risk analysis (Dship Drag) ... . ....... • ..... 27

Figure 5 Relationship between Vessel DWT and Anchor Size ..................................... 31

Figure 6 Main levers affecting the final specification of the DoL ................................ 34

Figure 7 Cable route and seabed conditions for the example ..................................... 45

Figure 8 Vessel traffic per section of the considered cable route .............................. 46

Figure 9 DoL specification without FoS and varying acceptable return period .......... 50

4
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

List of Tables

Table 1 Required inputs to perform CBRA .................................................................. 15

Table 2 Risks Affecting cable burial. ............................................................................ 17

Table 3 Fishing Gear Penetration [Linnane 2000] ....................................................... 17

Table 4 Example of categorisation of the frequency of an event based on the wind

farm lifetime ........................................................................................................... 24

Table 5 Example of Probability Modifiers for Water Depth ......................................... 25

Table 6 Indicative values of Vship ................................................................................... 27

Table 7 Example of Failure rates and return periods from the literature .................. 29

Table 8 Anchor weight and equipment number relationship [IACS Requirements

concerning Mooring, Anchoring and Towing] ........................................................ 32

Table 9 Example of a distribution of anchor sizes and maximum penetration depth 33

Table 10 Breakdown of the route and soil type ........................................................... 45

Table 11 Input assumptions for the example .............................................................. 45

Table 12 Assesment of the route specific risks ........................................................... 47

Table 13 Estimation of the Dship drag and Pwd for the vessels/anchor sizes of interest
47

Table 14 Results of the probabilistic assesment...

......................................................... 48

Table 15 DoL specification mitigating the risk from anchor without FoS ................... 48

Table 16 Final DoL specification including FoS ........................................................... 49

Table 17 Sensitivity of Pincident and Pwd .......................................................................... 50

5
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

List of Abbreviations & Symbols

AIS Automatic Identification System

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

BPI Burial Protection Index

BSH Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie, German Federal

Maritime and Hydrographic Agency

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change

DoL Depth of Lowering

DNVGL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd, Ship and offshore

classification society

DWT Vessel Deadweight

EN Equipment Number

FoS Factor of Safety

HHP High Holding Power [Anchor]

IACS International Association of Classification Societies

ICPC International Cable Protection Committee

IMO number International Maritime Organization number identifying the vessel

KP Kilometre Point

MBES Multi-beam Eco Sounder

MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity

OWA Offshore Wind Accelerator

OSIG Offshore Site Investigation and Geo-technics

p Symbol indicating the probability

PCPT Piezo Cone Penetration Test

R Symbol indicating the risk

Su Undrained shear strength [kPa]

6
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

SUT Society for Underwater Technology

TWG Technical Working Group

uxo Unexploded ordinance

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

7
Definitions

A B C

A Depth of Low ering

B Target Depth of Low ering
C Target Trench Depth
D Depth of Cover
Figure 1 Definition of Trench Parameters

Benthic fish - Fish that lives on or in the seabed

Depth of Cover (D in Figure 1) - The thickness of material on top of the cable after
trenching and accounting for potential backfill / seabed mobility. It may not be
required for cable protection however could be required for consenting conditions
e.g. BSH imposes the 2 K rule in the German Exclusive Economic Zone of the North
Sea and the Baltic Sea; the thermal properties of the soil could influence the cable
design [e.g. cable overheating].

Depth of Lowering (A in Figure 1) - This is the minimum depth recommended for

protection from the external threats. This is the direct output of the risk assessment
and should include a Factor of Safety [FoS].

Factor of Safety - Factor used to provide a design margin over the theoretical
design capacity to allow for uncertainties in the process. This is generally specified
by the developer.

Mean seabed level - The average undisturbed/natural level of the seabed before
construction works.

Probability - Measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number between

0 and 1, where 0 is impossibility and 1 is absolute certainty.
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Return period - Average period of time between occurrences of a given event. The
inverse of return period expressed in years is the probability of such an event
occurring in any given year.

Risk - Exposure to hazard which could result in damage to the cable or

persons/equipment interacting with the cable

Probabilistic Risk Assessment - It is a systematic and comprehensive methodology

to evaluate risks associated with a complex engineered technological entity.

Quantitative risk assessment - A process for assigning a numeric value to the

probability of loss based on known risks and available, objective data.

Qualitative risk analysis - A collaborative process of assigning relative values to

assets, assessing their risk exposure, and estimating the cost of controlling the risk.
Differs from quantitative risk analysis in that it utilizes relative measures and
approximate costs rather than precise valuation and cost determination.

Residual Risk - Risk remaining after protective measures have been taken.

Semi-quantitative risk assessment - It provides an intermediary level between the

textual evaluation of qualitative risk assessment and the numerical evaluation of
quantitative risk assessment.

Target Depth of Lowering (8 in Figure 1) - This is the depth that cable installation
contractors should target. Generally this is specified by the developer. Target Depth
of Lowering should be equal to or greater than the recommended minimum Depth of
Lowering to allow for any uncertainty and/or anticipated localised depth variations
during trenching operations. Where the target Depth of Lowering is not achieved no
remedial action would be required as long as the recommended Minimum Depth of
Lowering is achieved.

Target Trench Depth (C in Figure 1) - This is the trench depth specified to achieve
the target Depth of Lowering. The cable installation contractors should determine
the target trench depth according to the target DoL, cable properties, preferred
trenching tool and taking into account the seabed conditions such as minor
bedforms.

Tolerable/Acceptable Risk - Risks considered acceptable by the key project

stakeholders.

9
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

1. Background and scope

1.1. Introduction
The "Cable Burial Risk Assessment Methodology: Guidance for the Preparation of
Cable Burial Depth of Lowering Specification" [Carbon Trust 2015, accessible here ]
was published by the Carbon Trust to provide a standardised, systematic,
quantitative and robust method for assessing the risks affecting offshore wind farm
power cables and specify the required protection level, thus the Depth of Lowering
(DoL). The main objective of the method is to optimise the DoL of offshore wind farm
cables in terms of specifying an economically feasible DoL which ensures a
satisfactory level of protection and by implication, residual risk.

This Application Guide aims to illustrate how to specify the DoL with the CBRA
methodology. The structure of the document is as follows. In chapter 1 the
background and scope of the CBRA methodology is explained. In chapter 2 all the
required inputs that should be available to apply a robust CBRA are briefly
presented. In chapter 3 the CBRA methodology is presented in detail illustrating the
process that should be followed to specify the DoL focusing on the description of
what have been historically perceived as the main anthropogenic hazards to subsea
cables [shipping and fishing]. In appendix A is given more background information on
the motivation to develop CBRA. In appendix B the common risks that affect cable
burial are described. Finally a worked step by step example is given in appendix C.

1.2. Background
The OWA is a world leading industry-led collaborative programme designed and
managed by the Carbon Trust, between DECC, the Scottish Government, Carbon
Trust and nine major offshore wind farm developers representing 72% of the
licensed capacity in UK waters [DONG Energy, E.ON, Mainstream Renewable Power,
RWE lnnogy, Scottish Power Renewables/lberdrola, SSE Renewables, Statkraft,
Statoil and Vattenfall]. The multi-million pound programme has been running since
2008 with the objective of bringing down the costs of low carbon electricity produced
by offshore wind farms. Five Technical Working Groups have been formed on specific
areas of offshore wind farm development [Access Systems, Cable Installation,
Electrical Systems, Foundations, and Wake Effects].

In late 2013 the OWA Cable Installation Technical Working Group [TWG] contracted
UTEC Geomarine, Cathie Associates and Xodus Group to complete a study on site
investigations, trenching assessments and burial risk assessments that are
completed in the design stage of wind farm projects. The study included consultation
with trenching contractors, consultancies and the wind farm developers of the OWA.
The development of the Cable Burial Risk Assessment methodology [CBRA] was part
of that project.

The main driver to develop CBRA is that the optimisation of the DoL specification will
result in a reduction of the required DoL in many ground conditions and external risk
10
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

scenarios thus leading to significant reduction of risks and costs associated with
cable installation. The motivation to develop CBRA is further described in Appendix
2.

1.3. Scope and limitations

The CBRA methodology considers the risks associated with all common hazards for
which cable burial is a mitigating measure. The optimal DoL is specified based on
probabilistic risk analysis considering the acceptable risk and the cost to achieve the
specified DoL. The fundamental assumption of the method is that it is impractical to
protect a subsea cable from all possible threats, e.g. it is not sensible to specify a
DoL to protect from a 20 tonne anchor if the vessels equipped with such anchors are
only transiting once per year over the asset.

It is anticipated that where stakeholders and consenting bodies require a significant

DoL due to a perceived threat, CBRA could be used to provide a detailed
understanding of the project risk and support the safe reduction of the specified DoL
based on actual site conditions.

CBRA does not:

 Cover the entire cable route design process;

 Consider hazards which are not mitigated by means of cable burial, e.g. UXO;
 Consider the requirements of regulatory bodies who might prescribe a
minimum DoL; however, it might be used as a tool to offer a justified
optimisation;
 Specify the methods or extent of survey data that should be acquired. A
number of other guidelines and specifications already exist for this. However,
is should be clear that the quality of the input dictates the quality of the output
and therefore CBRA assumes that high quality survey data is available;
 Explicitly consider the risk to the cable during installation. However, by
optimising the DoL, the handling of cables by any burial tool is reduced and
trenching is potentially completed faster with tools that expose the cable to
less risk;
 The selection of an appropriate trenching tool.

CBRA is not intended to be a means of cost reduction although this is anticipated to

be possible in many projects, nor it is intended to replace engineering judgement
which is always vital.

1.4. When to apply CBRA

CBRA may be applied multiple times during the wind farm development and project
phases:

 During the design stages to specify the DoL;

11
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

 After cable installation to determine the change in risk profile and

requirements for post installation mitigation if the DoL is not achieved
[residual risk]; and,
 While the cable is in operation, by updating the input data CBRA can be used
to assess the impact of changes in the surrounding conditions to the risk
profile of the asset [risk management].

Finally, the CBRA methodology whilst intended to be used in array and export cables
in offshore wind farms may equally apply to interconnectors or any other subsea
cable.

12
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

2. Input data
2.1. Surveys
The objective of the site survey for offshore cable projects is to obtain sufficiently
detailed and reliable site specific seabed information to enable the safe and
economic design and installation of assets on or below the seabed level. Detailed
data needs to be obtained for the total length of the planned cable route, covering a
corridor of sufficient width to provide adequate information for the design of the
cable route as well as installation and operation related activities, taking into
account possible route adjustments due to subsequent findings. Offshore surveys
are required at varying stages of the project as follows:
 Project Planning/feasibility survey;

 Engineering survey for detailed design;

 Installation and commissioning [both pre-installation and post installation];

and,

 Operational maintenance survey.

Due to the different requirements of each stage, the survey scope will differ with the
engineering survey being typically more detailed than the feasibility survey and
including specialist surveys such as Unexploded Ordinance [UXO]. It should be
highlighted that it is important to specify and use appropriate baseline datum to
allow robust and direct comparison between subsequent surveys.
In offshore wind, surveys have a sample frequency similar to trenched pipelines with
an average spacing of 0.5 km to 1 km. It is essential to consider that in order for the
survey to provide reliable information and fulfil its objective it is recommended that
the design is undertaken by a sufficiently experienced and skilled personnel.

2.2. Essential data and information

Whatever methodology is adopted for the specification of the DoL it will always rely
on the quality of the data/information used as input to the assessment. The following
information is considered essential to perform a CBRA along a given cable route:
 Route specific geotechnical survey data targeted at soil and seabed features:

- Piezo Cone Penetration Test [PCPT] to an appropriate depth below seabed

at appropriate intervals along the proposed route and/or where sub-
bottom profiling show differences in soil condition and within the array
area [subject to array geometry and cable routing];

- Direct sampling to an appropriate depth below seabed at appropriate

intervals along the proposed route and within array area [subject to array
geometry and cable routing]. might be Vibrocore, Gravity Core, Piston
Core, Borehole or similar; and,
13
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

- Geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples to confirm

engineering properties of sediments.

 Geophysical data (as above):

- High Resolution MBES Survey to establish the bathymetry and identify

seabed morphology along and within the route corridor for the export
cable and within the array area;

- Side Scan Sonar to locate and determine the nature and geometry of
seabed features;

- Magnetometer survey to locate metallic obstructions; and,

- Sub-bottom profiling to retrieve detailed data on the structure of

sediments and differentiate between sediment units within the top 5m of
the seabed.

 Sediment mobility studies [see B 1.1];

 Regional Geological Data (Maps & Memoirs);

 AIS Shipping Data including information on the vessels in transit (age, type,
possible failure rate etc.) that will help the designer assess the likelihood of
emergency situations requiring the deployment of anchors as well as the
behaviour of captains in emergencies;

 Fishing Studies: Although useful, extensive studies are not considered crucial.
As explained in section 3.3 a pragmatic approach is possible limiting the
required amount of analysis;

 Cable Dimensions;

 Vessel Incident Data;

 Information on other subsea infrastructure [existing and planned].

The AIS shipping data should be processed to yield the following track information:

 Vessel IMO, MMSI, Name, Type, Length, Beam, Deadweight, Draught;

 Vessel Speed and course [across the cable].

This data will be used as inputs to CBRA and to the engineering judgement for the
DoL specification. Table 1 indicates the required inputs [list may not be exhaustive].

14
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 1 Required inputs to perform CBRA

Type Description

Project information Cable route

Cable dimensions and specifications

Consenting and other authority/stakeholder requirements

Desk study/ Desk Studies and/or Regional geological data [maps and
background data memoirs]

Met ocean studies/data

Location of existing infrastructure

Survey information Geophysical survey

Geotechnical survey

Sediment mobility studies

Shipping data AIS shipping data

Vessel incident data

Fishing studies

15
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

3. CBRA methodology
3 .1. Process flow
Figure 2 illustrates the CBRA process flow, thus the steps taken to specify the DoL.
Once the inputs have been collated as discussed in section 2, the risk assessment is
performed. The DoL is successively specified based on the outcome of the iterative
probabilistic process and the acceptable risk. The CBRA assessment could be
revisited several times during the lifecycle of a project as discussed in Section 1.4.

Cable Routeing

Data Collation

Assessment of seabed conditions

Identification and Assessment of the Risks

Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Identification of an Acceptable Risk to all Stakeholders

Specification of the Depth of Lowering

Figure 2 CBRA process flow

3.2. Risks and hazards affecting cable burial

CBRA considers the risks that are mitigated by means of cable burial and the risks
that affect the burial of cables e.g. sediment mobility. Table 2 summarises the
considered risks. There are two types of hazards namely natural and anthropogenic.
In appendix B a short description is given for each hazard, whereas the following
subsections focus on the risks related to the main anthropogenic hazards for the
mitigation of which the DoL has been historically specified [fishing and shipping]. The
discussion on each risk is not intended to be exhaustive and focuses on describing
the impact of each risk to the specification of the DoL. It should be highlighted that
although the approach is the same in inter-array cables and export cables, the
outcome of the risk assessment is different in the two cases due to the different
magnitude of the risks and/or consequences. For example in the infield area the risk

16
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

from shipping is in principle limited compared to export cables since the infield area
in principle excludes major shipping lanes.

There are a number of hazards to cables that are not covered by CBRA since they are
not normally mitigated by means of cable burial. However, these risks need to be
addressed on a project by project basis. A brief description of these hazards is given
in appendix B3.

Table 2 Risks Affecting cable burial

Risk Type Description

Natural Sediment mobility [e.g. Megaripples, sandwaves]

Seismic activity

Submarine landslide

Anthropogenic Fishing

Vessel anchoring

Dredging/ Aggregate Extraction/ Subsea Mining

Other existing and/or planned Cables, Umbilicals, Pipelines

3.3. Benthic Fishing

Cable Burial has been historically adopted as an effective means of protecting a

cable from benthic fishing activity. In many countries e.g. in the Netherlands, fishing
is not allowed within a wind farm. In other areas local restrictions may apply e.g.
exclusion zone of 50 m around a turbine but in general fishing is performed within
wind farms. It is possible to ascertain the size of the fishing fleet working along a
proposed cable route and the adopted methods using:
 AIS data [noting that vessels with gross tonnage of less than 300 t are not
presently required to carry AIS transponders];

 Maritime and Coastguard Agency vessel traffic information;

 VMS data [only vessels exceeding 12m length are covered];

 Direct consultation of local and national fisheries organisations.

The BPI value of 1 for protection from damage by common fishing gear requires
burial depths of between 0.5 m in fine sand and 2.5 m in very soft clay, which is very
conservative and therefore deemed excessive and redundant.

17
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Work by Linnane et al. (2000) indicates that fishing gear penetration is limited to a
maximum of 0.3 m penetration even in soft sediment. Table 3 reports the fishing
gear penetration summary produced by Linnane et al. (2000).

Table 3 Fishing Gear Penetration (Linnane et al. 2000)

Penetration Depth Reference Gear type Substratum

100-150 mm
Arntz and Weber, 1970 Otter boards muddy fine sand

a thin layer of top

Bridger, 1970 Otter trawl ticklers sand
substrate
80-100 mm Margetts and Bridger, 1971 Beam trawls muddy sand
100-200 mm Houghton et al., 1971 Beam trawls sand
0-27 mm Bridger, 1972 Beam trawls mud
rather limited de Clerck and Hovart, 1972 Beam trawls rough ground
few centimetres Caddy, 1973 Otter boards sandy sediment
10-30 mm de Groot, 1984 Beam trawls mud, sand
200 mm Khandriche, et al., 1986 Otter board mud
a few centimetres Blom, 1990 Beam trawls sand
fine to medium hard
= 60 mm Bergman et al., 1990 Beam trawls
sand
5-200 mm Otter board
Krost et al, 1990 mud, sand
20-50 mm rollers on foot rope
200 mm Laane et al., 1990 Beam trawls mud, sand
20-300 mm Rauck, 1988 Beam trawls mud, sand
Rumohr [in Krost et al,
5-170 mm Otter board mud, sand
1990]
Laban and Lindeboom,
40-70 mm Beam trawls fine sand
1991
50-60 mm BEON, 1991 Beam trawls fine sand
few cm. - 300 mm Jones, 1992 Otterboards deepest in soft mud
Santbrink and Bergman, fine to medium sand
20-40 mm Beam trawls
1994 sediment
substratum
15-70 mm de Groot, 1995 Beam trawls
dependant
Lindeboom and de Groot Otterboards in the
~ 140 mm mud
1998 Irish Sea

18
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

In assessing the threat from fishing gear the following should be taken into account:

1. For fishermen deep penetration of their gear in the seabed is an unfavourable

condition due to the increased fuel consumption and wear of the equipment;

2. It is common knowledge in the industry and evidence suggests that the fishing
gear currently used for benthic fishing [Pelagic Trawl, Gill Nets, Beam Trawl,
Pots & Traps, Demersal Trawl and Seine Nets) does not normally penetrate
the seabed beyond 0.3 m [30 cm].

Therefore a pragmatic approach suggests to consider 0.3 m as the effective

maximum penetration depth of benthic fishing gear. Site specific fishing activity
should be investigated to ensure the applicability of the above statement. In case no
other risks are present by applying for example a FoS of 2 the DoL results in 0.6 m.
However, it should be highlighted that in many real cases there are more factors
influencing the DoL specification and a FoS of 2 would be unjustifiably conservative.

3.4. Shipping
3.4.1. Factors affecting the risk profile

Grounding of ships in shallow water may present a hazard to subsea cables, however
errant or emergency anchoring of vessels is perceived as the most significant threat
to subsea cables from shipping. That said, the magnitude of this risk is often
exaggerated. CBRA provides a methodology with high potential for standardisation to
robustly assess the risk and specify an appropriate mitigating measure. In assessing
the risk from shipping the following should be taken into account:

 Future variations of vessel traffic should be considered. This includes:

- Changes in shipping patterns once the wind farm installation Is

concluded;
- The possible vincinity of the wind farm to other planned or under
construction offshore projects lany activity e.g. offshore wind, oil and gas
or other] should be carefully evaluated, as it can occur that the vessel
traffic density could drastically change in time either way [e.g. from 4,000
vessels per year in a certain section of the route after 2 years of
operation the number of vessels could drop to 30 vessels per year and
vice versa);
- Other factors locally influencing the vessel traffic should be considered
e.g. an expansion of a port in the vicinity of the project etc.

 The vessel traffic should be divided into categories of similar threat levels e.g.
the vessels should be categorised according to their type, their deadweight
and corresponding anchor they carry;

19
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

 All the vessels do not fail with the same rate. It is important to understand
that modern vessels with enhanced redundancy in navigation and safety
systems will most likely fail less than old tankers (see the following section
for a discussion on failure rates];

 The vessel traffic is expected to significantly differ within the offshore wind
farm infield area and along the export cable corridor. Between export cables
and interconnector cables the vessel traffic is expected to be of similar
pattern and magnitude [local variations do exist but the main aspects are
similar].

CBRA only considers the deployment of anchors under emergency situations in the
probabilistic risk assessment. There could be different situations e.g. accidental
deployment of anchors due to equipment failure or a mistake by the crew. These are
not considered by CBRA as it is complex to assess the probability of a human error
with a standardised approach. However, it should be highlighted that by mitigating
against the probability of occurrence of an anchor deployment in emergency
situations, the cases that are not considered only affect the level of
residual/acceptable risk [thus related to the largest and less frequent anchors] and
therefore the impact from the additional risk occurring is marginal. Moreover, in the
case of errant or accidental deployment of anchors it is unlikely that the anchors will
exert their ultimate holding capacity thus reaching their maximum penetration
depth. As a consequence although CBRA does not consider errant deployment of
anchors, accounting for the maximum penetration depth and the exertion of the
ultimate holding capacity from a given anchor is a conservative approach, thus the
additional effective risk from errant anchoring due to equipment failure or crew
error is marginal.

3.4.2. Probabilistic assessment

In order to determine a cost effective and practically achievable DoL which provides
an appropriate level of protection, it is important to assess the risk of anchoring with
a systematic, accurate and quantitative approach. The CBRA method has been
conceived in such a way that removes as far as possible the qualitative inputs and
clearly identifies all the influential parameters to allow an informed discussion.

CBRA evaluates the exposure of the cable to external threats by considering the
amount of time a vessel spends within a critical distance of the cable and the
probability that this vessel might have an incident that requires the deployment of an
anchor. The fundamental assumption on this point is that the deployment of an
anchor is a risk to the cable and therefore no consideration is made on whether
the anchor actually hits the cable or not. In practice there is always a likelihood
that when an anchor is deployed it could bounce along the seabed (anchor tripping)
or not penetrate deep enough to hit the cable or even get dragged for a distance
inferior to what is expected and therefore not effectively representing a threat. CBRA
does not consider the dynamics of the interaction between the anchor, the seabed

20
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

and the cable to avoid complexity and uncertainty due to the lack of reliable data
which would introduce room for interpretations to the analysis. Moreover, by
assuming that the anchor is a threat when deployed and not only when it hits the
cable, a conservative and safe approach is adopted that avoids the underestimation
of the risk.

The probability of anchor deployment in the vicinity of a cable is given by:

Number of vessels in the section

Pstrike = PTraffic Risk (

Vship
DShip Drag
* 8760 hrs per year * Pincident * Pwd
)

Equation 1 Probabilistic formula to assess the risk from anchoring

Where:
PTrafficRisk probability modifier based on the tolerable level of risk
PWD probability modifier for nature and depth of seabed
Vship (metre/hr) ship speed when the anchor is deployed
DShipDrag (metres) distance travelled by the anchor in order to be a threat to the cable
probability of incident requiring the deployment of an anchor for that
vessel size and type
8760 hrs factor to annualise the results

The determination of each factor is discussed in detail in the following subsections. It

should be noted that equation 1 only identifies the probability of an anchor
deployment in the vicinity of a cable that could result in an anchor strike. As already
discussed the deployment of an anchor will not necessarily result into an anchor
strike, similarly an anchor strike will not necessarily result in an immediate cable
failure. Additional armour provides a certain level of protection from external
aggression. It could occur that a cable is struck a number of times without
sustaining critical damage. However this could introduce internal weaknesses
(especially in the insulation) which will eventually develop in failures. It is therefore
considered most conservative to assume that any anchor deployment is a hazard.

21
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

3.4.3. PTraffic Risk and acceptable risk (acceptable return period)

Calculate the value of

Pstnke for all vessels
{Prraffic Risk =1)
111 ' ·,

requires mitigation
18.00% 90.00%
The required OoL is Agree the value of
derived and if considered
16.00% 80.00% Pstrike that wou ld be
impractical the acceptable accept able to the
level of r isk shou ld be re- st akeholders
considered 14.00% 70.00%
PTraffic
Risk
12.00% 60.00% C
The risk from these
; 10.00%
vessels is tolerable 50.00%
>

8.00% 40.00%
E
6.00% 30.00%

4.00% 20.00%
The anchor/vessel size
required for this % of Calculat e t he value
vessels is t aken from the 2.00% 10.00% of Ptraffic Risk {Scale 0
vessel distribution curve to 1) wh ich achieves
0.00% 0.00% this tolerable level
Vessel SizeDistribution

The value of ( 1- Ptraffic Risk)

x 100% Is the %of vessels
for which cable burial Is
required for protection

Figure 3 Process to determine the PTraflic Risk probability modifier

22
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

The probabilistic approach is intended to be iterative as depicted in Figure 3; in order

to specify a DoL which results in a tolerable residual risk the value of PTraffic Risk is
modified as follows:

1. Calculate the value of Pstrike for all vessels ( PTraffic Risk = 1I;

2. Calculate the value of the return period corresponding to this value of the
Pstrike [the inverse of the probability);

3. Agree an acceptable return period with the involved stakeholders;

4. Calculate the value of the Pstrike that satisfies the acceptable return period;

5. Calculate the value of PTraffic Risk (Scale 0 to 1) which achieves the tolerable
level of the Pstrike;

6. The value of ( 1- PTraffic Risk) x 100% is the percentage of vessels for which cable
burial is required for protection;

7. The anchor/vessel size required for this percentage of vessels is taken from
the appropriate distribution curve;

8. The required DoL is derived; and,

9. If the DoL is considered impractical the acceptable level of risk should be re-
considered.

If the cable burial depth exceeds the expected penetration depth of the largest
anchor identified for a vessel in transit in the vicinity of the cable then the probability
of a strike is zero (PTrafficRisk= 0). Similarly, if no shipping is anticipated in the area the
probability of a strike is zero (PTraffic Risk= 0). If the cable is not buried the results of the
assessment represent the worst case scenario for the cable being subject to risk
from any anchoring vessel, i.e. PTraffic Risk = 1. If very limited infield shipping traffic is
anticipated [i.e. PTraffic Risk ==0) further analysis to assess the risk from anchors may be
redundant.
With the availability of accurate shipping information it is possible to estimate the
consequences of selecting a recommended minimum DoL which will not provide
protection from some percentage of the largest vessels. It is important at this point
that project developers/owners consider if it is realistic to require protection from all
vessels that might cross the route. In order to answer this question an iterative
probabilistic approach is adopted: by changing the value of PTraffic Risk the minimum
DoL is determined which results in a probability of cable strike (equivalently an
acceptable return period] which is acceptable to the project developers/owners, or
determines the risk at an economically achievable DoL. The selection will be driven
by the risk profile which is acceptable to be used to inform the potential for incidents
during the life span of the cable and hence estimate the full life costs.

23
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 4 Example of categorisation of the frequency of an event based on the wind farm lifetime

Return period Frequency Description

<25 years >4x10- 2 Greater than 100% likelihood of an event

occurring during 25 year lifetime
25 to 100 years 4x 10- 2 to 10- 2 100 to 25% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
100 to 250 years 10- 2 to 4x10- 3 25 to 10% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
250 to 500 years 4x10- 3 to 2x10- 3 10 to 5% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
500 to 1,000 years 2x10- 3 to 10- 3 5 to 2.5% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
1,000 to 2,500 years 10- 3 to 4x10- 4 2.5 to 1% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
2,500 to 5,000 years 4x10- 4 to 2x10- 4 1 to 0.5% likelihood of an event occurring
during 25 year lifetime
5,000 to 10,000 years 2x10- 4 to 10-4 0.5 to 0.25% likelihood of an event
occurring during 25 year lifetime
10,000 to 25,000 years 10-4 to 4x10- 5 0.25 to 0.1% likelihood of an event
occurrinq during 25 year lifetime
25,000 to 100,000 4x10- 5 to 10- 5 0.1 to 0.025% likelihood of an event
years occurring during 25 year lifetime
>100,000 years <10-5 Less than 0.025% likelihood of an event
occurring during 25 year lifetime

The acceptable risk is not a straightforward topic as it depends on the risk appetite
of the involved stakeholders and is therefore open to interpretations on what is or is
not acceptable. Often the risk categories from the DNV-RP-F107 are adopted to
indicate a level of probability with the risk profile. However, as discussed in Appendix
A 1.2 this failure frequency is derived based on operations and risks/consequences
that are not present in offshore wind farms [environmental risks etc.). In addition,
the categorisation of the DNV-RP-F107 is deemed not to be entirely appropriate for
offshore wind farms. Table 4 indicates an alternative approach which categorises a
certain event based on the wind farm lifetime. It should be highlighted that this
table does not give any indication on what is a high, a low or an acceptable risk
(the identified categorisation in this document is given as purely a numerical
exercise). As a consequence due to the lack of fit for purpose industry standards on
the acceptable return period the engagement with all the project stakeholders is
strongly recommended for the definition of the acceptable level of risk for subsea
cables in offshore wind farms.

Finally, the probabilistic risk assessment may be repeated after cable installation
and burial, or later in the life time of the cable when vessel traffic and/or seabed
24
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

levels may have changed. The DoL should be used to inform the percentage of
vessels which carry anchors large enough to be a threat to the cable. This defines
the value of PTraffic Risk which represents the actual residual risk to the cable. This will
define the requirement for eventual remedial operations on the cable.

3.4.4. Pwd
Table 5 Example of Probability Modifiers for Water Depth

Vessel deadweight, DWT (ti 2,000 5,000 20,000

Vessel draft 4.0 6.0 10.0

Water Depth/Profile Probability Modifier

Water Depth Greater than e.g. 50m 0 0 0.1

Water Depth between e.g. 30m and 50m 0.0 0.1 0.3

Water Depth between e.g. 1Om and 30m 0.3 0.5 0.9

Wide Shipping Channel with shallow water 0.2 0.5 0.6

at margins

Narrow Shipping Channel with shallow 0.3 0.7 0.9

water at margins

Proximity of a designated anchorage 0.9 0.9 0.9

The effect of the water depth [and of the bathymetric profile] is considered important
and is included as a qualitative factor. Although qualitative, if the model is developed
logically the results will be repeatable. The water depth and the bathymetric profile
influence the navigation of vessels and their behaviour in emergency situations, thus
the likelihood of anchor deployment. In addition water depth also affects the
selection of the trenching tool [e.g. ROV jet trenchers are affected by the water
depth].

During emergencies involving loss of control of a vessel [uncontrollable drifting]

prior to deploying an anchor, Captains typically consider:

 The risk of the vessel hitting an obstacle;

 The risk of the vessel going into very shallow water, thus the risk of
grounding.

These two aspects will guide the decision of the Captain whether to deploy the
anchors. For example assuming a vessel with 10 m draft drifting in 50 m water depth
and heading towards a windfarm is clearly a situation where the vessel will deploy
the anchor as quickly as possible. If however, no obstacle is around and the vessel is
drifting towards areas with no significant change in water depth, it is more likely that
the Captain will not deploy the anchor and will focus on recovering control of the

25
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

vessel. It is therefore of utmost importance to understand the probable behaviour of

the different vessel types in emergency situations and how these are affected by the
water depth. It is strongly recommended that the probability modifiers should be
project specific and should be developed based on:

 The seabed profile (water depth);

 Potential obstacles; and,

 The vessel traffic.

For example, at some locations along the cable route, the water depth may be great
enough to prevent the use of an anchor, reducing the probability of damage to a
cable to 0; however, at the other extreme, close to an anchorage a modifier of 1
might be used. In any case local conditions should be thoroughly assessed to
develop the modifiers.

Table 5 gives an illustration of the assignment of Pwo in various situations for three
vessel sizes; however, this is only intended to be an example and therefore these
values are not expected to be appropriate in the vast majority of practical
scenarios. The assessment can be made conservative by setting the value to 1.0 for
all water depths. However this will introduce the paradox that the calculation is the
same in 10 m water depth and in 1000 m water depth, thereby implying that the
vessel behaviour is the same during emergencies regardless of the water depth.

3.4.1. Vship and Dship Drag

and Dship Drag determine the exposure of the cable in terms of the number of hours
Vship

per year that a vessel is close enough to the cable to become a threat if it deploys its
anchor. Vship and Dship Drag vary for each vessel type/size. The sum of the exposure time
of each vessel along the route [or section] gives the total exposure time of the cable
per year.

Vshipis the velocity with which the vessel drifts while it is deploying an anchor. The
deployment of anchors at high vessel drift speed is undesirable due to personnel and
equipment safety requirements. Vship is typically less than 1 knot while for smaller
vessels its maximum could even be 2 knots. For the largest vessels Vship is
considerably less than 1 knot as they should almost stationary to safely deploy an
anchor. However, it should be highlighted that there could be situations where the
deployment of the anchor will occur at a higher vessel velocity e.g. in close proximity
of an obstacle.

26
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

AIS Tracks
Fishing Vessels
Dredging
Cargo
Other
Passenger
Port Authority, Pilots and Crew Boats
Tanker
Tug
Unspecified
Sailing or Pleasure
Cable Route
200m Buffer
500m Buffer

Figure 4 Illustration of the buffer zone for anchor risk analysis (DShip Drag)

Table 6 Indicative values of Vship

Scenario Vship
I
Small vessel anchoring <2knots

Large vessel anchoring <1knots

Local current speed Depends on local conditions but could potentially be e.g.
-4knots

In the event of losing the propulsion system, the vessel will be influenced by the met
ocean conditions e.g. currents. There are locations where currents could have a
higher velocity e.g. 4 knots and this means that the anchor could be deployed at
higher velocity, thus potentially increasing the exposure time of the cable. Table 6
summarises indicative speeds for controlled anchoring. It is strongly recommended
to carefully consider the local conditions and specify V ship in accordance with the
specific behaviour during emergencies of each vessel type in transit.
D ship Drag is the distance travelled by the anchor when deployed in order to exert its

holding capacity and (theoretically) immobilise the vessel. A vessel transiting beyond
a distance equal to D ship Drag from the cable is not a hazard. D ship Drag can be estimated
using the kinetic energy theorem based on the vessel's weight, speed and anchor
holding capacity in the anticipated conditions (equation 2).

27
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Equation 2 Formula for a rough estimation of DShip Drag ignoring hydronamics

m*
Dship Drag = 4 * UHC
Where:
D ship drag (m) distance traveled by the anchor in order to be a threat to the cable
m Vessel mass (deadweight + ship light weight), usually taken as displacement (tons)
(m/s)
Vship ship speed when the anchor is deployed
UHC Ultimate Holding Capacity of the anchor

However, this equation ignores the hydrodynamics of the anchor movement on the
seabed and has uncertainty with regards to the estimation of the UHC as it depends
on the anchor type, size, weight and the soil characteristics. The UHC can be
estimated upon consultation with anchor manuals [e.g. an anchor manual from an
anchor supplier [Vryhof] can be found here) where normally is defined as anchor
weight multiplied by an efficiency factor. The efficiency factor can vary significantly
with the soil conditions and therefore this estimation is highly approximate.

A more pragmatic approach suggests the use (where possible) of empirical data
from anchor trials where the drag distance of various anchor types may be
measured in various soil conditions. The anchor penetration trials of BSH and
TenneT performed in the German Bight have given experimental results on the drag
distance of anchors in various types of sand. By expanding the trials in other soil
types and anchor sizes/types, Dship Drag could be obtained from experimental data and
not from theoretical formulas.

Dship Drag may be determined for the probabilistic analysis as follows:

 Breakdown the vessels into different size/type categories e.g. <2000te, 2000-
4000t, etc. This should provide a level of refinement without the need to
assess each vessel individually;
 Determine the anchor size for each vessel type and estimate the DShip Drag for
each type. Therefore, the time that the cable is exposed to each vessel is
different for each vessel size/type;
 To simplify a butter zone around the cab le could be determined based on the
largest vessel against which you mitigate. For example if the 90th percentile
size vessel (thus anchor) is considered the risk against which you mitigate,
the drag distance for the 90th percentile vessel could be calculated and set as
the buffer distance either side of the cable as shown in figure 4. This approach
is conservative.
The choice of the area under observation affects the outcome of the probabilistic
assessment. The selection of a very larger buffer increases the exposure time for
the cable and may result in a very conservative assessment. It is strongly
rec om mended to ca re fully consider the site specific vessel information and soil
drag.
conditions when specifying the DshipDrag

28
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

3 .4. 2. P incident
Table 7 Example of Failure rates and return periods from the literature
Probability Return
Reference per vessel period
per year (years)
DNV-RP-F107:

Probability of loss of control onboard when on collision 2x10- 4 5000

course per pass [main reasons no crew on bridge,
negligent/tired/drunk crew, accident or radar failure/poor
visibility]

DNV-RP-F107: 5.7
1.75x10- 1
Machinery breakdown for single engine tankers in the
north sea

Kristoffersen & Monnier [1997] (SAFECO] 2.5x10-4 4000

DNV for Marine Coastguard Agency
1.5x10-4 6667
Probability of engine failure

Southampton So lent University, 15 years of Shipping

Accidents: A review for WWF 1.43x10-3 700

Average vessel loss rate per year [1997 to 2011]

IMO, International Shipping Facts and Figures

1.44x10-3 694
Average vessel loss rate per year [2006 to 201 O]

OGP
3x10- 3 333
Total loss per ship per year

has the greatest influence on the outcome of the probabilistic assessment. It

Pincident

is therefore critical to properly assess the probability that a vessel may have an
incident which requires the use of an anchor. It is recognised that developing an
accurate value for the probability of an incident is complex and that the availability of
information varies significantly from location to location. In some locations the
availability of incident data from National Authorities allows assessment of the
number of incidents for a certain vessel type or class [e.g. Marine Accident
Investigation Board [UK]). Alternatively, Lloyds Register annually publish both World
Casualty Statistics and World Fleet Statistics which can be used to determine a
frequency rate for a given region.

Where statistical data on the number of incidents is not available figures from the
literature can be used. However, careful consideration is recommended to ensure
that unrealistically low or high values are avoided. At it can be seen in table 7 the
variability of failure rates found in the literature is striking with a range of return
periods from 5 to 5000 years. This enhances the need for local investigation and
should at least include the larger vessels since these will drive the decision on the
29
acceptable risk and the mitigating measure. In addition, the behaviour of these
vessels in emergenciesshould be assessed (see discussion on PWD).

The selection of Pincident. is critical and there is a risk of either over-conservativism or

underestimation. It is recongnized that selection of Pincident will prompt rigorous debate
amongst stakeholders. The value may also vary along the proposed route. Several
values for the P incident in table 7 especially those associated with probability of loss of
control are calculated based on platform risk and/or grounding"9 rii;k c:;ikul;itioni; .lnd
inc.udes; c:.i .,~~~ ~1.c:h ;ii; ;; ::~~nc~ of c:r~v,,, c:rr.w ;;s;l~r.p . .ilc:oh:1l/dru~ ,1bu;:;e, \•,1hi::h
mily not result in anchor drop hl, t cc;,J .d re5ult in c~lli.:;ion er grcunding. It i!;
therebn:: strongly recommended to estimate local failure rates based on the local
vessel traffic. In case values found in the literature ilre .1doptcd thi5 5hculr. be dc;"r.
. .
WI:" C.lU:l~n.

3.4.3. Anchor penetration

3cing de:.ign::·d t~ ::enetr;;tc· the 5C.lb::·d tn .ic:hievr. i1 holding c:.lp.lc: ty, .l"c:hcr5 m;;y
dilm.lge c:ilhle5. All 5hip!; .1rr. f tt::·d with .inc: "ar5 thilt mily b::· r.cpb~-ed eith::·-- il:i .l
tempo--.ll)' m~oring, .l5 p.l '1 of i1 pl.lnned prnc:er. ure, or for !.ilkt~, if the !;hir- i!. .it risk
.:or some re~!:;D .. Ifor ex;: mple l::>!.!:; of pcwer). Anchor size requirements are based en
various regulations i ndudi .. g th::>!i•: ::u ::lished by Ll::>~'d::;, Americ~n 3L. r:·~u of
Shipp ng and IA::S. Lsin~ :·e IACS r J les it is possible to d,:termine the approximat,:
s ze of ,mc .. cr!:; u!:ed by th,: \'C!:;!:el!. cro!:sirg : .. c c~blc rcutes. Th,: ,clc in£ c~ =~ci:y
of ~n ~ .. chor i!i determinec =~' th:· soil ,:::>rditi::>n!. ~nd by the ge::>metry ~ .. d ,,vei£ ht c.:
lhe anc··ar, wh eh ~ proportional to the fluke lenglh. The UH C ar lhe anchor ma~• be
roughly e~lirnaled by as~uming an erriciency rac:lor mulliplied by lhe cin:hor ,,•eigt· L
-loweve .. , lhe erriciency r=cLor .cirgely va .. ies arnon£ lhe c:;r•1"1anly c1vc1ilal::le an:hor!::i
(e.g. kcrn 3 lo 100) rraking Lhis esli"1,;tlion L.ncerla n. The s Le or lhe anc··ar Legal
requiremenll en ;;t vesse. is de .errni ··ed by ils Ee uipme·· LNumber rEN: (equalion 3).

Fqu;ctinn :{ For-mul.1 tnr the ul(.ul.uinn otthP. F1111ipmt'!nt Mumht'!r- IFMl

! .4
EN = Dl111'• + 2. h. 8 + l O

0 :·111 Mcul;kJ b1 c:::acl ·l

Ar~:, I' Jlf:"I" lr: ·.·i~Y.' :"I" th~ hull. ~-.1!"•~'~,t'll!"t .Jr~ ;1 "I(: h:"IU,r:,. -,,~:"10.'~ -h~ 51.r·,m••r I n:.rt
Wu.-;.•rlin..:

30
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

18000

16000

14000

12000
~
10000

u
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
DWT

Figure 5 Relationship between Vessel DWT and Anchor Size

The EN is related to the displacement and sail area both above and below the
waterline. The calculation includes parameters for breadth and effective height and
therefore, the analysis should be considered an approximation; however the DWT
represents approximately 2/3 of the classification value. Figure 5 illustrates the
relationship between vessel DWT and anchor size. This relationship correlates well
with anchor sizing proposed by Luger and that IACS rules result in broadly similar
anchor sizes to Lloyds and DNV. Using this relationship and the distribution of
vessels crossing the cable route, the distribution of anchor weights can be
estimated.

Alternatively once the EN is calculated the weight of the anchor can be estimated
from the IACS tables [table 8). From the commonly available anchor catalogues it is
possible to identify the distribution of the fluke length of anchors on vessels crossing
the cable route. It should be noted that the fluke length can vary significantly
depending on the manufacturer and type of anchor used, particularly where high
holding power anchors (IHHPl are in use . H HP anchors have bee n designed to be
much smaller in weight for the same performance; however, the penetration depths
do not vary with the EN. Having identified the fluke length of anchors anticipated in
an area the potential penetration depth can be determined.

The nature of the seabed affects the potential penetration depth of an anchor;
therefore an assessment of the seabed conditions along the route is important as
part of the threat assessment. Work by the US Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
[NCEL] indica tes that in sands and stiff clays the fluke tip penetration is limited to 1
fluke length [i.e. 1 time the fluke tip depth). In soft silt s and clays anchor penetration
is between 3 and 5 fluke lengths [i.e. 3- 5 times the fluke tip depth). Tab le 9
illustrates an exa mple of theo retical penetration depths for a rang e of anchor sizes.

31
Application Gui de for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 8 Anchor weight and equipment number relationship [IACS Requirements concerning
Mooring, Anchoring and Towing)

Slockless bower Stud link chain cable for

anchors bower anchors

Min. dia.
Mass
E.N. No. per Total Mild Special Extra
• anchor length steel quality special
quality
Gr. I Gr. 2 Gr. 3
(kg) (m) (mm) (mm) (mm)

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

205-240 3 660 302.5 26 22 20.5

240-280 3 780 330 28 24 22
280-320 3 900 357.5 30 26 24
320-360 3 1020 357.5 32 28 24
360-400 3 1140 385 34 30 26
400-450 3 1290 385 36 32 28
450-500 3 1440 4 12.5 38 34 30
500-550 3 1590 4 12.5 40 34 30
550-600 3 1740 440 42 36 32
600-660 3 1920 440 44 38 34

660-720 3 2100 440 46 40 36

720-780 3 2280 467.5 48 42 36
780-840 3 2460 467.5 50 44 38
840-9 10 3 2640 467.5 52 46 40
9 10-980 3 2850 495 54 48 42
980. 1060 3 3060 495 56 50 44
1060- 1140 3 3300 495 58 50 46
1140- 1220 3 3540 522.5 60 52 46
1220- 1300 3 3780 522.5 62 54 48
1300- 1390 3 4050 522.5 64 56 50

1390- 1480 3 4320 550 66 58 50

1480- 1570 3 4590 550 68 60 52
1570- 1670 3 4890 550 70 62 54
1670- 1790 3 5250 577.5 73 64 56
1790- 1930 3 56 10 577.5 76 66 58
1930-2080 3 6000 577.5 78 68 60
2080-2230 3 6450 605 81 70 62
2230-2380 3 6900 605 84 73 64
2380-2530 3 7350 605 87 76 66
2530-2700 3 7800 632.5 90 78 68

2700-2870 3 8300 632.5 92 81 70

2870-3040 3 8700 632.5 95 84 73
3040-3210 3 9300 660 97 84 76
3210-3400 3 9900 660 100 87 78
3400-3600 3 10500 660 102 90 78
3600-3800 3 11 100 687.5 105 92 81
3800-4000 3 11 700 687.5 107 95 84
4000-4200 3 12300 687.5 11 1 97 87

32
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 9 Example of a distribution of anchor sizes and maximum penetration depth

Vessel Size Estimated Estimated Fluke length Anchor Penetration Depth

Displacement Anchor size [m] [m]
[DWT]
[t] [kg]
Sands Soft Clay

500 850 335 0.70 0.49 1.60

1000 1700 524 0.81 0.57 1.86
2000 3400 825 0.94 0.67 2.16
3000 5100 1077 1.03 0.73 2.36
4000 6800 1302 1.10 0.77 2.52
5000 8500 1509 1.15 0.81 2.64
6000 10200 1702 1.20 0.85 2.75
8000 13600 2060 1.28 0.90 2.93
10000 17000 2388 1.34 0.95 3.08
15000 25500 3125 1.46 1.04 3.37

Anchor penetration trials undertaken by TenneT in loose to dense sands in the

German Bight indicate that in granular material the penetration depth of 11 ton
anchors is less than 1 m (including measurement uncertainties]. much less than the
expected theoretical result. If more trials are performed it may be proven that the
suggested penetration depth of 3 to 5 fluke lengths in low strength material is
potentially excessive.

3.5. FoS and specification of the DoL

At this stage the following should have been identified:
1. The penetration depth of external hazards against which mitigation 1s
required;
2. Eventual constraints from natural hazards (e.g. sediment mobility of the site
requiring an additional 0.4 m DoL);
3. Other constraints e.g. crossing of infrastructure.
Based on the above and with the application of a suitable FoS the OoL can be
specified. The application of the FoS is recommended due to:
 The inherent uncertainty in the soil profile along the cable route due to the
variability of soil properties from single site investigation points;
 The inaccuracies in positioning and resolution of shallow geophysical
surveys;
 Shipping data is normally based on limited sampling that may not be fully
representative of the lifetime of the cable;
 The approximate manner in which anchor sizes are estimated;
33
Application Gui de for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

 The i na ccu racy of measurement of the DoL; and

 The uncertainty on the performance of burial equipment in terms of the
DoL.
a ch ieva bable

The FoS may vary between projects and con si derat ion should be given to the va Ii dity
of a constant FoS particularly along long export or interconnector cables. An
example of the factors that should be considered when selecting a FoS are:
 In areas of high shipping density the un ncerta i nty in an
nc hor sizing
increases, therefore an increased FoS may be app ro priat e;
 The FoS should be varied based on the quality, appropriateness and
distribution of the route survey data;
 FoS m ay vary based on sensitivity and variability checks of seabed
strength;
 FoS may vary along the cable route or the infield array area according to
factors that may influence the risk profile.

Specification of the Depth of Loweri ng

figure 6 Main levers affecting the final specification of the Dol

No specific FoS is recommended in this document. The designers should choose a

FoS based on their own acceptable risk profile, the local conditions and engineering
judgement. In any case care should be taken not to specify a FoS which results in a
target DoL which is not economically achievable. The selection of the FoS should aim
34
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

to optimise cable protection without resulting in unjustified conservativism and an

overly onerous installation cost.

3.6. Conclusions and recommendations

This application guide has provided a detailed explanation on how to apply the CBRA
methodology in specifying the DoL for subsea cables. CBRA does not consider
financial and other factors associated with the burial itself [required cost to achieve
a certain protection level, vessel and burial tool availability, procurement strategy
etc.] which are of utmost influence and importance in the final specification of the
DoL.
The final DoL is derived by applying engineering judgement and carefully considering
all the project specific surrounding and economic conditions alongside the outcome
of CBRA.
Where the recommended minimum DoL is limited e.g. less than 0.3 m where only
fishing is assessed as a threat, a minimum additional clearance of 0.3 m is
recommended [FoS 2 in this case, however this is only an example] to avoid a DoL
less than 0.5 m which is difficult to achieve in practice.
It is recognised that there may be uncertainty and/or debate regarding some of the
input parameters. It is recommended to undertake sensitivity analysis in order to
assess the potential implications of the parameters under consideration (e.g. Pincident)
and gain insights on the selection of the suitable values.

35
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

4. References
The work presented in this document is based on the following references:

- Allan PG [1998]: Geotechnical Aspects of Submarine Cables. IBC Conference

on Subsea Geotechnics, November 1998
- Allan PG I1998]: Selecting Appropriate Cable Burial Depths - A Methodology.
I BC Conference on Submarine Communications, November 1998
- Allan PG and Comrie RJ [2001]: The Selection of Appropriate Burial Tools and
Burial Depths, Conference paper presented at SubOptic, Kyoto 2001
- BERR [20081: Review of Cabling Techniques and Environmental Effects
Applicable to the Offshore Wind Farm Industry. Technical report, Department
for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [BERRI in association with
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [defra]. January 2008

- BOEMRE [2011a]: Guidelines for Providing Geological and Geophysical,

Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 285,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
[BOEMRE]. United States Department of the Interior, April 2011
- BOEM RE [2011 bl: Offshore Electrical Cable Burial for Wind Farms: State of
the Art, Standards and Guidance & Acceptable Burial Depths, Separation
Distances and Sand Wave Effect. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation & Enforcement [BOEM RE] - United States Department of the
Interior, November 2011
- BSH [2007]: Design of Offshore Wind Turbines. Standard No. 7005, Federal
Maritime and Hydrographic Agency [BSH]
- BSH [2015]: Bundesfachplan Offshore fur die deutsche ausschlierBiche
Wirtschaftszone der Nordsee 2013/2014 und Umweltbericht. Federal
Maritime and Hydrographic Agency [BSH]. June 2015
- Carbon Trust [2015]: Cable Burial Risk Assessment Methodology. Guidance
for the Preparation of Cable Burial Depth of Lowering Specification, CTC835,
February 2015
- Cigre [2009]: Third-Party Damage to Underground and Submarine Cables.
Technical Brochure 398, Working Group B1 .21
- Cigre [2015]: Offshore generation cable connections. Technical Brochure 610,
February 2015
- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [1884]: International Convention for
the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables, March 1884
- DNV [2010a]:Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection. Recommended Practice
DNV-RP-F107, Det Norske Veritas [DNV]. October 2010

36
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

- DNV [201 Ob]: Interference Between Trawl Gear and Pipelines. Recommended
Practice DNV-RP-F111, Det Norske Veritas [DNV]. October 2010

- DNV [2014]: Subsea Power Cables in Shallow Water Renewable Energy

Applications. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-J301, Det Norske Veritas
[DNV]. February 2014
- GOV [2014]: Offshore Code of Practice - International Guideline on the risk
management of offshore wind farms. Gesamtverband der Deutschen
Versicherungswirtschaft [German Insurance Association, GDV]. September
2014
- Hoshina R and Featherstone J [2001]: Improvements in Submarine Cable
System Protection, Conference paper presented at SubOptic, Kyoto 2001
- IADC Oil & Gas Drilling Lexicon, internet source: http://www.iadclexicon.org/
- IACS [2007]: Requirements Concerning Mooring, Anchoring and Towing.
International Association of Classification Societies [IACS]

- lnvestorWords, internet source: www.investorwords.com

- Kristoffersen MO and Monnier I [1997]: Statistical Analysis of Ship Incidents,

SAFECO WP III.2, Det Norske Veritas [DNV]. DNV Technical Report 97-2039

- Linnane A. Ball B, Munday N, van Marlen B, Bergman M and Fonteyne R

[2000]: A Review of Potential Techniques to Reduce the Environmental Impact
of Demersal Trawls. Irish Fisheries Investigations [New Series] No. 7 - 2000
- Luger D and Harkes M: Anchor tests in the German Bight - Test set-up and
results. Deltares, September 2013
- Maushake C [2013]: Anchor test in the German Bight ‐ detecting the
penetration depth of ship anchors. Hydrographische Nachrichten der
Deutschen Hydrographischen Gesellschaft [Hydrographic News German
Hydrographic Society]. No. 96, October 2013
- Mechanical Engineering Blog, internet source:
www.mechanicalengineeringblog.com
- Mole P, Featherstone J and Winter S [1997]:Cable Protection - Solutions
through new installation and burial approaches. REE No 5, May 1997
- NCEL [1987]. Drag Embedment Anchors for Navy Moorings. Techdata Sheet
Rep. No. 83-08R, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory [NCEL]
- Red Penguin Associates Ltd [2012]: Export transmission cables for offshore
renewable installations - Principles of cable routing and spacing. The Crown
Estate
- SSE [2004]: Procedure for Sub Sea Cable Route Selection. Scottish and
Southern Energy [SSE]
- SUT [2014]: Guidance Notes for the Planning and Execution of a Geophysics
and Geotechnical Ground Investigations for Offshore Renewable Energy

37
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Developments. Society for Underwater technology [SUT], Offshore Site

Investigation and Geotechnical Committee, May 2014

- The Crown Estate [2012]: Export transmission cables for offshore renewable
installations - Guideline for leasing of export cable routes/corridors

- United Nations [1958a]: The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 19

April 1958

- United Nations [1958b]: The Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 29 April
1958

- United Nations [1982]: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
10 December 1982

38
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Appendix A Motivation to develop CBRA

The CBRA methodology has been developed taking into account all the fundamental
concepts already established in the industry from the experience accumulated from
the protection of telecom cables, pipelines and umbilicals. CBRA advances these
concepts by adding a pragmatic approach and novelties like the probabilistic risk
assessment, ultimately proposing an innovative fit for purpose methodology for the
assessment of the protection of subsea cables for offshore wind farms.

A.1. Superseding the Burial Protection Index

The BPI has been in use since the late 90's and was originally developed to assess
the required protection level of fibre optic telecommunication cables. Although it has
been widely applied to the 1st and 2nd generation offshore wind farms the BPI is now
associated with conservativism and an inherently oversimplified approach that
ignores the site specific factors and the real risk to which the cables are exposed.
This often leads to over burial of cables. In summary the main limitations in the BPI
include but are not limited to:
 It is a semi-qualitative approach;
 It is no longer widely used - individual risk based approaches have been
developed by developers and consultancies;
 It only covers anchors of limited sizes with unclear definitions;
 It is conservative with regards to protection from fishing gear in soft clay sea
beds;
 It ignores site specific factors like:
- Water depth;
- Probability of incidents involving anchors;
- Frequency and size of vessels in transit;
- Coastal erosion and changes in the seabed profile; and,
 It does not provide a means of quantifying the residual risk.
When the BPI was adopted these limitations were addressed through the
engineering judgement of the design team; however, this limits the standardisation
of specifications and introduces uncertainty as it relies on the individual experience
of the involved personnel and may either lead to conservatism or underestimation of
the hazards. Finally, the BPI was developed to address the lack of detailed data for
the installation of telecom cables [i.e. telecom cables are often thousands
kilometres long with limited survey data, however often it is the situation that the
water depth is such that no burial is required]. This is a fundamental difference
compared to offshore wind farms where high quality site specific data is potentially
available and could/should be used to assess the "real and effective" risk to which

39
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

cables are exposed. CBRA aims to establish this mind-set and this document aims to
show how CBRA may be applied.

A.2. Superseding individual risk based approaches

The experience of the 1st and 2nd generation offshore wind farms showed that the
lack of optimisation in the specification of the DoL increases the risks and costs
associated with Cable installation. As a consequence the industry gradually shifted
to risk based probabilistic approaches evaluating the effective risk profile and
successively assessing the required protection level. These methodologies to a large
extent were based on the following recommended practices [primarily the first one]:
1. DNV-RP-F107 Risk assessment of pipeline protection, published in October
2010

2. DNV-RP-J301 Subsea power cables in shallow water renewable energy

applications, published in February 2014

The DNV-RP-F107 is an extremely useful document adopted as the main reference

for probabilistic risk approaches. Fundamental concepts were introduced including
but not limited to:
 The ALARP risk mitigation approach;
 The systematic identification of hazards and corresponding mitigating
measures in order to achieve an acceptable risk level; and,
 The categories of acceptable risk thus probabilities of occurrence for
pipelines and umbilicals.
However, this recommended practice was developed for pipelines [as its title
suggests] and therefore is not fully applicable to subsea cables. Its limitations
include but are not limited to:
 Overall the document is driven by risks and consequences that are
significantly different compared to offshore wind farms and subsea cables in
general. For example damage to a pipeline can result in significant
environmental damage as well as significant economic costs due to shutdown
of offshore facilities and potentially a long lead time for replacement of
damaged sections;
 A different range of activities take place around oil and gas platforms
compared to offshore wind farms e.g. oil platforms are normally manned
often with guard/standby vessels generally in deeper water opposed to
offshore wind farms that are normally unmanned and this means that the
vessel traffic around oil and gas platforms is fundamentally different
compared to offshore wind farms;
 It does not provide guidance on how to perform a probabilistic risk
assessment to assess the likelihood of an anchor strike. The latter together

40
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

with the risk from benthic fishing activity are the main anthropogenic hazards
for which cable burial is adopted as a primary mitigating measure;

 The risk profile categories have been derived with different risks and
consequences compared to offshore wind farms.

The DNV-RP-J301 published in February 2014 is a very comprehensive document

virtually covering all the project stages of subsea cables in shallow water for
renewable energy applications (design, manufacturing, installation and operation).
However, in terms of the DoL specification it only provides valuable
recommendations without proposing a methodology that specifies the DoL. These
recommendations include but are not limited to (statements copied from the DNV-
RP-J301) :

 "The optimum depth of burial should be determined by applying a risk based

approach, yielding an adequate and economical burial with a consistent level
of protection"

 "Local regulations may require minimum burial depths and shallower burial
may not be allowed. A risk based assessment may aid the discussion with the
authorities and identify sections of the cable which should be buried
shallower or deeper than the blanket requirement" (note from the authors:
The German authorities reduced the DoL requirements based on a
probabilistic risk based approach and large scale anchor trials [BSH 2015];

 The risk based approach regarding external aggression in a relatively stable

seabed comprises the following steps:

- Determination of the external aggression risk along the cable route

[dropped anchor, dragged anchor, fishing gear interaction]
- Determination of the ground properties along the cable route to assess
potential penetration depths
- Division of cable route into sections of similar risk profile
- Application of a qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative method to
determine a minimum burial depth

The CBRA methodology has been developed aiming to optimise the DoL based on the
recommendations of both DNV recommended practices and on the accumulated
experience in the industry. Where applicable CBRA introduced new approaches to
bridge the gaps [e.g. for the probabilistic assessment of anchor strikes] and
ultimately aims to establish itself as a robust, standardised and fit for purpose
methodology used for the specification of the DoL of subsea cables for offshore wind
farms.

41
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Appendix B Description of the Risks

B.1. Natural Hazards

Natural hazards are not normally the main factors dictating the DoL. However,
depending on site specific conditions they may affect the cable route and influence
the DoL significantly. Careful, detailed and systematic assessment of these risks is
strongly recommended to minimise the risk to the cable and to estimate changes to
the risk profile over the lifetime.

B.1.1. Sediment Mobility

Sediment mobility is not in itself a threat to cable integrity. However, sediment
mobility may affect the specified DoL of buried subsea cables resulting in exposure
or additional covering of the cable over time, therefore changing the risk profile and
potentially resulting in increased risk from anchor strike or risk of failure due to
vortex induced vibration [strumming] of cable spans. In addition, a group of offshore
structures [e.g. WTGs] may result in a global scour of the seabed among the
structures potentially leading to exposure of cables.

Seabed features are usually classified in terms of the characteristic length, height
and degree of mobility. Often it will be the situation that a dune or ripple moves
laterally as well as vertically when it progresses. This means that the natural
development of a cable on a relatively flat seabed will be to bury itself deeper rather
than becoming exposed, although this behaviour heavily depends on local conditions.

The sediment mobility along a cable route is assessed with numerical modelling and
multiple accurate bathymetric surveys. The surveys should ideally be completed a
number of times, at the same and different times of year possibly recording
significant weather events between surveys. The main aspects to consider include
but are not limited to:

 Metocean conditions relevant to the particular section of the route;

 Eventual location of the section in the Surfing zone;

 Different Interface between the mobile layer and the underneath layer
[friction factor between layers];

 Main seabed features [e.g. Sandwaves, Megaripples, Sandbars, Outcrops, Pit

etc.); and,

 Potential for global scour between offshore structures;

CBRA does not discuss in detail or give any guidance on how to assess the sediment
mobility. However, the importance of this factor is recognised and it is strongly
recommended to accurately assess it with specific studies repeated in time. The

42
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

layer of the mobile sediment and the pattern of its movement will influence the cable
route and/or the specification of the DoL. Depending on various factors the DoL
might increase or decrease or in some cases the cable route might be modified.

B.1.2. Seismic Activity

Although not considered a significant risk in the North Sea, if cables are installed in
seismically active areas, bathymetric and sub-bottom profile data should be
inspected for evidence of surface expressions of faulting. Fault movement might
increase the length of cable required, causing tension or spanning of the cable.
Seabed liquefaction is also a potential risk (also present due to the wave loading).
Cable burial cannot normally be used to protect from damage due to ground
movement, additional slack cannot normally be laid into a trench, and the constraint
of backfill material will not allow the cable to move across a fault. Alternative cable
routing should be considered in order to avoid high risk areas.

B.1.3. Submarine Landslide

Where evidence of submarine landslides is identified from survey data, cable
routeing should be carefully considered. Dedicated geo-hazard studies should be
completed. Cable burial may protect from submarine landslides if the base of the
potential slide is identified and the cable is buried below this level. Particular care
should be taken when burying cables at the top of a slope that shows evidence of
previous slides. The trenching operations may remove material which results in
slope instability. Where the risk from submarine landslides cannot be fully avoided,
any future damage is likely to be treated as Force Majeure.

B.2. Anthropogenic Hazards

Anthropogenic hazards majorly influence the DoL. In most situations cable burial is
anticipated to be the most effective mitigation method for fishing and shipping with
route modification or exclusion zones to mitigate the risk from dredging/subsea
mining.

B.2.1. Dredging/Aggregate Extraction/Sub sea Mining

Dredging and aggregate extraction may pose a threat to submarine cables; however,
cable burial is not normally adopted to mitigate this risk, as it is considered
preferable to route away from these areas. Within UK waters, all active and
historical dredging areas are known and are covered by detailed surveys to allow a
certain amount of sediment to remain once a certain point is reached. All disposal
sites are also known and these should be avoided (if possible).

Cable routes should avoid areas where aggregate extraction is occurring;

alternatively a suitable exclusion zone should be agreed with consenting authorities

43
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

and the owners of the extraction license. This is more likely to be achieved for future
extraction sites.

Where a cable crosses a shipping lane or harbour approach that will be dredged to
maintain access, it is recommended that cable installation is conducted immediately
after the channel is dredged to its maximum depth or the specification of the DoL
should allow for the maximum dredge depth as communicated by the relevant
authorities. Port authorities should also be consulted over plans for future expansion
and allow for burial below any future dredging depths.

Historical dumping grounds should generally be avoided as they may present a

hazard to cables and the environment due to the risk of contamination and unknown
obstructions.

B.2.2. Other existing and/or planned Cables, Umbilicals, Pipelines

Where the cable route crosses other subsea infrastructure [cable, pipeline etc.]. the
DoL of the cable is specified such to avoid interference with the existing
infrastructure. Normally this means that the newer asset will be installed on top of
the existing asset. If this results into a shallow DoL with an unacceptable residual
risk, other mitigating measures should be adopted (e.g. mattresses, rock dumping).
Where it is possible to foresee the requirement for other cables, pipelines or
umbilicals to cross the proposed cable, it may be possible to increase the DoL of the
cable in order to allow the burial of assets installed in the future. Whilst the onus is
on the future cable or pipeline owner to provide appropriate protection, a
collaborative approach is recommended using suitable crossing agreements which
include appropriate risk assessments, as recommended by the ICPC
Recommendations.

B.3. Risks not considered by CBRA

There are a number of hazards to cables that are not covered by CBRA since they are
not normally mitigated by means of cable burial. However, these risks need to be
addressed on a project by project basis. For example, unexploded ordnance (UXO) is
a real and significant hazard to offshore projects and specific assessments and
mitigations need to be considered [surveys, avoidance or removal]. Similarly,
construction activity represents a hazard to subsea cables with the vast majority of
cable insurance claims relating to issues/incidents during construction [either
directly during installation or during operation but caused by events occurring during
the construction phase that led to cable damage]. CBRA does not explicitly consider
the risk from installation. It is recommended to develop project specific working
procedures, non-generic method statements, risk assessments and protocols to
mitigate construction risk as far as practically possible.

44
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Appendix C Worked Example

The example aims to show how to use the CBRA methodology illustrating the
process and highlighting important aspects. Since the objective is to illustrate the
probabilistic assessment, the determination of the various parameters is performed
in a rather simplistic manner. It is therefore expected that in real cases many
parameters will be significantly different and more analysis will be required for their
determination.

Step 1: Cable Routeing

A cable route is considered with two sections of sand, one section of soft clay and
total length of 40 km.
Figure 7 Cable route and seabed conditions for the example

Water
Depth Mean sea level
5

10
I I

15

Mean Seabed level

20

KP 0 – 15: SAND KP 15 – 32: CLAY KP 32 – KP 40: SAND

Table 10 Breakdown of the route and soil type

Route Section Water depth Dominant

[KP] Seabed
0 - 15 15 - 18m Sand
15 - 32 18 - 23m Soft Clay
32 - 40 12 - 20m Sand

Step 2: Data Collation

Table 11 Input assumptions for the example

Parameter Value

P1ncident 1.43x10 3 per vessel per year

Vship 2 Knots

Survey data is available informing on the sediment mobility of the site. Data for the
vessel traffic has been gathered [Figure 8] and the anchor sizes have been estimated
alongside the maximum penetration depth and the Dship Drag [Table 13]. It should be
highlighted that in this example it was chosen to assume a different Dship Drag for the
45
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

probabilistic calculation. In order to make the assessment more conservative an

alternative is to take the Dship drag of the largest anchor and perform the computation
for all anchor sizes with the same Dship Drag. The estimation of the Dship Drag is not a
straightforward task as it depends on the anchor geometry and the soil properties. In
this exercise it was estimated using equation 2 on the assumption that the efficiency
factor of all anchors is 5 for clay and 10 for sand.
The value of the Pincident and the value to of the Vship to be used in the probabilistic
assessment have been determined based on the site conditions and the engineering
judgement [table 11].

Step 3: Assessment of the Seabed Conditions

The seabed has no mobile sediment. The water depth in the 3 sections of this
example is reported in Table 10. The seabed shape has slopes.

Step 4: Identification and Assessment of the Risks

For simplification it is assumed that sediment mobility studies and site surveys have
demonstrated that there is no sediment mobility risk present at this cable route. In
addition the only anthropogenic risks present are the risk from fishing and the risk
from shipping (table 12).
The vessel traffic of the route is illustrated in figure 8 for each section. The assumed
vessel incident failure rate P1nciden1 and Vship are specified in table 11 and the estimated
Dship Drag and PwD are given in table 13.

Figure 8 Vessel traffic per section of the considered cable route

Vessel Traffic Data

4000 100.00%
No. of vessels KP 0-15
90.0%
3500
No. of vessels KP15-32
80.0%
3000 No. of vessels KP32-40
70.0%
- Vessel traffic KP0-15
2500
60.0%
- Vessel traffic KP15-32
2000 50.0%
- Vessel traffic KP32-40 0..
u
40.0%
1500
30.0%
1000 -------
20.0%
500
10.0%

0 0.0%
<500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 8000 10000 15000
Vessel size (Displacement), te

46
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 12 Assessment of the route specific risks

Hazard Cable Risk

SOURCES Residual
Description Risk Mitigation
Risk

Soil conditions
Sand wave or
Sediment mobility study
megaripple mobility
Mobile has shown that there is no
could cause deburial or 0 0
Sediment evidence of mobile
increased burial of the
sediment at the site
cable
Anthropogenic
On bottom fishing Cable burial below depth
activity limited to water of fishing. Maximum
depths of <50 m. penetration of the fishing
Fishing 4 0
Snagging of cables with gear 0.3 m, thus
fishing gear and damage minimum DoL0.6 m with
during retrieval of gear. 0.3 m FoS.
Cable burial below anchor
penetration depth. CBRA
to assess the risk and
Shipping Major shipping lanes
7 amount of mitigation 2
/Anchors passing through the site.
measure. Application of
FoS on the outcome of the
DoL.

Step 5: Probabilistic Risk Assessment

The risk assessment indicated that vessel anchors are a threat to the cable and
recommended burial as a mitigation. The probability of an anchor deployment in the
vicinity of the cable was calculated using equation 1 undertaking the steps described
in section 3.4.3 [subsection on the acceptable risk] to determine the initial risk for
surface laid cable. The results are shown in table 14.

Table 13 Estimation of the Dship Drag and Pwo for the vessels/anchor sizes of interest
Estimated PwD
anchor weight
[kg]
Dship Drag Sand Dship Drag Clay KP 0-15 KP 15-32 KP32-40
DWT [Tons] [ml [ml [15-18m] [18-23m] [12-20m]
500 335 6.6 13.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
1000 524 8.4 16.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
2000 825 10.7 21.4 0.2 0.1 0.3
3000 1,077 12.3 24.6 0.2 0.1 0.3
4000 1,302 13.6 27.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
5000 1,509 14.7 29.3 0.4 0.3 0.5
6000 1,702 15.6 31.2 0.4 0.3 0.5
8000 2,060 17.2 34.3 0.5 0.4 0.6
10000 2,388 18.5 37.0 0.6 0.5 0.7
15000 3,125 21.2 42.4 0.7 0.6 0.8
47
 Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Table 14 Results of the probabilistic assessment

Probability of anchor deployment in the vicinity of the cable

DWT [Tons] KP 0-15 KP 15-32 KP 32-40

500 2.80E-08 3.77E-08 1.62E-08

1000 2.93E-07 3.23E-06 7.71 E-08

2000 2.21E-06 4.51 E-06 5.68E-06

3000 2.75E-06 2.54E-05 9.60E-06

4000 5.72E-05 4.99E-05 1.93E-05

5000 7.53E-05 2.12E-05 3.59E-05

6000 9.36E-05 2.84E-05 1.38E-04

8000 9.69E-05 6.27E-05 3.19E-05

10000 6.07E-06 1.04E-04 2.37E-04

15000 1.33E-06 3.23E-05 7.19E-05

Probability scenario Overall probability and return period in the route section
Total probability* 3.36E-04 3.32E-04 5.50E-04

Overall return period [years] 2978 3016 1819

*Total probability calculated as sum of the individual probabilities

Table 15 DoL specification mitigating the risk from anchors without FoS

% of vessels against Depth of Lowering to

Acceptable Vessel size [DWT] and anchor size
which mitigation is protect from emergency
Return to protect cable from
required anchoring [Unfactored]
Period KP KP KP
[years]
0 - 15 15 - 32 32 - 40 0 - 15 15 - 32 32 - 40 0 - 15 15 - 32 32 - 40
25 0.0% 0.0% 0%
100 0.0% 0.0% 0%
250 0.0% 0.0% 0%
500 0.0% 0.0% 0%
1,000 0.0% 0.0% 0%
6,000 te,
2,500 0.0% 0.0% 27% 0.85
1702 kg
5,000 te, 4,000 te, 10,000 te,
5,000 40.4% 39.7% 64% 0.81 2.52 0.95
1509 kg 1302 kg 2388 kg
6,000 te, 8,000 te, 15,000 te,
10,000 70.2% 69.8% 82% 0.85 2.93 1.05
1702 kg 2060 kg 3125 kg
8,000 te, 10,000 te, 15,000 te,
25,000 88.1% 87.9% 93% 0.90 3.08 1.05
2060 kg 2388 kg 3125 kg
8,000 te, 10,000 te, 15,000 te,
50,000 94.0% 94.0% 96% 0.90 3.08 1.05
2060 kg 2388 kg 3125 kg
8,000 te, 15,000 te, 15,000 te,
100,000 97.0% 97.0% 98% 0.90 3.37 1.05
2060 kg 3125 kg 3125 kg

48
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Step 6: Identification of the Acceptable risk

The probability of anchor impact is relatively high with average return periods in the
range of ~1800 to ~3000 years. This is due to the intense vessel traffic [>9,000
vessels in KP 32-40] and the conservative parameters adopted in the assessment. As
there are currently no guidelines as to acceptable risk, the required DoL for a range
of acceptable return periods are detailed in the table below. The project team and
stakeholders must decide the most appropriate acceptable return period to optimise
the burial depth with respect to operational risk against installation risk and cost
The results in table 15 indicate that for acceptable return periods less than or equal
to 1,000 years there is no requirement to protect from emergency anchoring as the
probability of occurrence is below the level of acceptable risk. In this case the DoL is
therefore is a function of the fishing risk. For illustrative purposes two different
acceptable return periods were selected in the example.

Step 7: Specification of the DoL

The example shows a slightly different outcome for each zone
 KP 0-15: The larger acceptable return period results in an increase in the
recommended DoL. This increase is not significant, however, it may reduce
the number of suitable trenching options or require multi-pass operations
increasing the installation risk and cost.
 KP 15-32: The larger acceptable return period results in a significant increase
in the recommended DoL, which could result in limited burial options or
requirements for addition protection
 KP 32-40: The larger acceptable return period results in a slight increase in
the recommended DoL which would not be anticipated to significantly affect
trenching options.
Accepting a higher residual risk can reduce the required burial depth by 10% to
300% potentially reducing installation cost and risk, however, the residual risk could
be orders of magnitude higher. Therefore it is vital the project team and
stakeholders fully understand the cost and risk consequences of when determining
the DoL and the residual risk.
Table 16 Final DoL specification including FoS
Route Dominant Mobile Fishing Anchor Threatline Factored DoL*
Section Seabed Sediment Threatline 2,500yr 25,000yr 2,500yr 25,000yr
[KP] Depth

0 - 15 Sand 0m 0.3 m 0m 0.9 m 0.6 m 1.13 m

15 - 32 Soft Clay 0m 0.3 m 0m 3.08 m 0.6 m 3.85 m

32 - 40 Sand 0m 0.3 m 0.85 m 1.05 m 1.06 m 1.32 m

*lncludinqan example of the application of a FoS

49
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Figure 9 DoL specification with FoS and varying acceptable return period

Route KP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 .0

1.0

2.0

3 .0
•••••• Acceptable return period
2,500 years
4.0 - - - Acceptable return period
25,00 0 years
5.0

Discussion on the example

From the example it clearly emerges the influence of two main factors in the
outcome of CBRA:
 The Pincident which practically sets the order of magnitude of the results;
 The acceptable return period whi ch determines the required amount of
mitigating measures.
Currently there is no power cable industry guidance on what could be a commonly
adopted framework of acceptable return period (thus risk) as it exists for pipelines in
the oil and gas industry. As a consequence it is of utmost importance to define the
acceptable risk through the engagement of the stakeholders involved in the project.
For the specification of t he DoL, a FoS should be applied to the outcome of CBRA.
The FoS is chosen based on the engineering judgement. Successively as depicted in
figure 6, thi s result is evalu at ed tog eth er with economic, m arket, procurem ent and
other project specific factors and finally the DoL is specified.

Table 17 Sensitivity of P1ncident and Pwo

Avera ge return period 1n the route section

Para m ete r Va lue
KP 0- 15 K P 15-32 KP 32-40

Pincident 1. 75x10- per vesse l per year

1
2978 3016 1819
1.43x10 3 per vesse l per year 362,01 3 366,598 221,125
2 kn ots 29 78 301 6 18 19
Vship 4 kn ots 1489 1508 910

50
Application Guide for the specification of the Depth of Lowering using CBRA

Acknowledgements

The OWA wishes to thank all the authors who contributed in the development of this
application guide. Further special acknowledgement is given to the all the members
of the Cable Installation Technical Working Group of the OWA and to all the
employees of the OWA partners that have reviewed the document. In addition, the
OWA would like to thank all the parties from the industry [Jan de Nul, Van Oard,
VBMS, Subsea Cables UK, Xodus] that have provided invaluable feedback on this
document. Finally the OWA would like to thank all the delegates in the many cable
related conferences in which CBRA was presented for engaging into high quality
technical discussions on the methodology and effectively steering the development
of this application guide.

www .carbontrust.com

+44 20 7170 7000

CTC857

Whilst reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within
this publication is correct, the authors, the Carbon Trust, its agents, contractors and
sub-contractors give no warranty and make no representation as to its accuracy and
accept no liability for any errors or omissions. Any trademarks, service marks or logos
used in this publication, and copyright in it, are the property of the Carbon Trust. Nothing
in this publication shall be construed as granting any licence or right to use or reproduce
any of the trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any proprietary information in
any way without the Carbon Trust's prior written permission. The Carbon Trust enforces
infringements of its intellectual property rights to the full extent permitted by law.
The Carbon Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and
Wales under Company number 4190230 with its Registered Office at:
4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NT

Published in the UK: February 2016 CARBON

© The Carbon Trust 2016. All rights reserved. TRUST