{"id":25632,"date":"2026-02-05T00:32:35","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T00:32:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=25632"},"modified":"2026-02-09T17:03:02","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T17:03:02","slug":"offshore-wind-turbine-ii-with-jacket-based-foundation-owt-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=25632","title":{"rendered":"Offshore Wind Turbine II with Jacket-based Foundation (OWT 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1. Introduction <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Offshore wind turbine foundations play a critical role in both structural stability and environmental performance, as they require large quantities of steel or concrete and often dominate the cradle-to-gate impacts of offshore wind farms. While foundations are designed to withstand wind, wave, and soil interaction loads, their material demand strongly influences embodied energy and emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Foundation Design Options and LCA Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This study evaluates three offshore wind turbine foundation types\u2014monopile, jacket with suction buckets, and gravity-based foundation\u2014using life-cycle assessment (LCA). All foundations are modeled for the same reference turbine (NREL 5 MW) to isolate the environmental effects of foundation design. The resulting indicators are synthesized using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to support sustainability-oriented foundation selection.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fig. 1. Monopile foundation geometry<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The foundations are assessed under identical turbine loading and operational conditions to ensure comparability. The LCA focuses on material production, transportation, construction, and maintenance of the foundation structures, while turbine components above the foundation are excluded from the system boundary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The jacket foundation is modeled as a four-legged steel lattice structure supported by suction buckets, commonly used in intermediate water depths.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Fig. 2. Geometry of the jacket foundation<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The gravity-based foundation is modeled as a reinforced concrete caisson that achieves stability primarily through self-weight.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Fig. 3. Geometry of the gravity-based foundation (GBF)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

These geometric definitions form the basis for material quantification in the LCA. A cradle-to-gate system boundary is adopted, including raw material extraction, material processing, and structural fabrication, while transport, installation, operation, major maintenance, and decommissioning are excluded. The functional unit is defined as one complete foundation supporting the NREL 5 MW turbine..<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fig. 4. System Boundary for the Cradle-to-Gate Life-Cycle Assessment<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fig. 5. Maintenance Intervention Timelines for the Three Foundation Alternatives<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Environmental Impact Results and Multi-Criteria Evaluation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

4.1 Life-Cycle Impact Results<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6 compares the environmental impacts of the three foundation designs on a log10 scale, which is required because the gravity-based foundation (GBF) produces impacts several orders of magnitude higher than the other options. The GBF clearly dominates all indicators due to the large volumes of reinforced concrete used in the caisson, shaft, and base slab.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fig. 6. Life-cycle impact comparison of the three foundation designs on a <\/em>log10 scale<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The jacket foundation shows higher impacts than the monopile, driven by additional steel for bracing, suction buckets, and more maintenance interventions, but its overall footprint remains far lower than that of the GBF. The monopile performs best across all indicators, as its simple geometry minimizes material demand and maintenance contributes only marginally to total impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1. Embodied Energy and Emission Outputs from the LCI Model<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

4.2 Interpretation of Environmental Differences<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The differences between the designs are driven primarily by material demand and structural efficiency. The gravity-based foundation performs worst due to the very large volume of reinforced concrete and the high embodied impacts of embedded steel. The jacket foundation shows moderate impacts because its lattice structure requires more steel and maintenance than a monopile, while the monopile remains the most material-efficient and environmentally favorable option. These differences are large enough that the overall ranking is robust despite simplified geometry assumptions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.3 Multi-Criteria Evaluation (AHP)<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The AHP results rank the monopile as the best-performing option (\u224858%), followed by the jacket foundation (\u224837%), while the gravity-based foundation performs worst (\u22485%). <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Fig. 7. AHP-Based Ranking of the Three Foundation Design Options<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

4.4 Engineering Implications<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The combined LCIA and MCDA results identify the monopile as the most environmentally favorable foundation due to its low material demand and efficient structural form. The jacket foundation remains a reasonable alternative where higher stiffness or deeper water conditions require it, although with higher environmental impacts. The gravity-based foundation performs the worst and is only justified in specific cases where pile installation is not feasible. Overall, the results confirm that material efficiency strongly aligns with environmental performance, supporting the monopile as the preferred solution for typical offshore wind sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Engineering Discussion and Recommendation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The results show that differences between the three foundation concepts are driven primarily by material demand and structural efficiency. Foundations that achieve load transfer with lower material volumes consistently perform better from an environmental perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The monopile emerges as the most favorable option due to its simple structural concept and efficient use of steel. Its low material demand results in the lowest environmental impacts, although its applicability is limited in deeper waters or complex seabed conditions where stiffness and drivability become critical constraints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The jacket foundation provides greater structural versatility and performs reliably in deeper water and higher fatigue environments. This comes at the cost of increased steel use and higher environmental impacts compared to the monopile, but its overall performance remains reasonable and clearly superior to gravity-based solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gravity-based foundation shows the highest environmental burden by a large margin, driven by the extensive use of reinforced concrete. While it offers functional advantages in specific cases such as very soft soils, noise-restricted sites, or ice-prone regions, it should be regarded as a site-specific solution rather than a general alternative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, the engineering interpretation aligns closely with the environmental findings: material efficiency strongly correlates with environmental efficiency. For typical offshore wind sites under the assumptions considered, the monopile is the preferred foundation concept, with jackets serving as a viable alternative when site conditions require greater structural flexibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This study compares three offshore wind turbine foundation types using life cycle assessment and multi criteria evaluation. The results show that the monopile has the lowest environmental impacts, followed by the jacket, while the gravity based foundation performs worst due to its high material demand. Overall, the findings highlight that material efficient structural design is closely linked to environmental performance in offshore wind foundations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Esteban, M. D., L\u00f3pez-Guti\u00e9rrez, J.-S., & Negro, V. (2019). Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering<\/em>, 7<\/em>(3), 64-. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse7030064<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications \u2013 A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research<\/em>, 186<\/em>(1), 211\u2013228. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejor.2007.01.004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Li, B., Rong, K., Cheng, H., & Wu, Y. (2021). Fatigue Assessment of Monopile Supported Offshore Wind Turbine under Non-Gaussian Wind Field. Shock and Vibration<\/em>, 2021<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1155\/2021\/6467617<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Negro Valdecantos, V., Esteban, M. D., & L\u00f3pez-Guti\u00e9rrez, J.-S. (2020). Offshore Wind Farms<\/em>. MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/books978-3-03928-563-1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Richards, I. A., Byrne, B. W., & Houlsby, G. T. (2020). Monopile rotation under complex cyclic lateral loading in sand. G\u00e9otechnique<\/em>, 70<\/em>(10), 916\u2013930. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1680\/jgeot.18.P.302<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Romero-S\u00e1nchez, C., Bord\u00f3n, J. D. R., & Padr\u00f3n, L. A. (2024). Influence of Foundation\u2013Soil\u2013Foundation Interaction on the Dynamic Response of Offshore Wind Turbine Jackets Founded on Buckets. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering<\/em>, 12<\/em>(11), 2089. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse12112089<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Solbrekke, I. M., & Sorteberg, A. (2024). Norwegian offshore wind power\u2014Spatial planning using multi\u2010criteria decision analysis. Wind Energy (Chichester, England)<\/em>, 27<\/em>(1), 5\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/we.2871<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tavner, P. J. (2021). Offshore Wind Power: Reliability, Availability and Maintenance<\/em> (2nd ed.). Institution of Engineering & Technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tu, W., He, Y., Liu, L., Liu, Z., Zhang, X., & Ke, W. (2022). Time Domain Nonlinear Dynamic Response Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbines on Gravity Base Foundation under Wind and Wave Loads. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering<\/em>, 10<\/em>(11), 1628. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse10111628<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VAHDATIRAD, M., GRIFFITHS, D., ANDERSEN, L., S\u00d8RENSEN, J., & FENTON, G. (2014). Reliability analysis of a gravity-based foundation for wind turbines: A code-based design assessment. G\u00e9otechnique<\/em>, 64<\/em>(8), 635\u2013645. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1680\/geot.13.P.152<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zhou, H., He, B., Gao, P., Jin, W., Zhang, D., Zhang, C., Sa, W., He, C., & Ye, J. (2025). Numerical Study on the Hydrodynamic Performance of Offshore Wind Turbine Jacket Foundation Under Extreme Wave\u2013Current: A Case Study. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering<\/em>, 13<\/em>(9), 1819. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse13091819<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction  Offshore wind turbine foundations play a critical role in both structural stability and environmental performance, as they require large quantities of steel or concrete and often dominate the cradle-to-gate impacts of offshore windContinue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":297,"featured_media":0,"parent":25626,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-25632","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/297"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25632"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28524,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25632\/revisions\/28524"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}