Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea

Steel monopiles, jackets requiring four steel pinpiles, and gravity-based foundations were applied in offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. This paper compares the underwater noise generated during the piling activities of steel monopiles at the Belwind wind farm (Blighbank) with...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Scientific World Journal
Main Authors: Alain Michel Jules Norro, Bob Rumes, Steven Johan Degraer
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: The Scientific World Journal 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624
id fthindawi:oai:hindawi.com:10.1155/2013/897624
record_format openpolar
spelling fthindawi:oai:hindawi.com:10.1155/2013/897624 2023-05-15T16:33:26+02:00 Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea Alain Michel Jules Norro Bob Rumes Steven Johan Degraer 2013 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624 en eng The Scientific World Journal https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624 Copyright © 2013 Alain Michel Jules Norro et al. Marine Biology Research Article 2013 fthindawi https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624 2019-05-25T21:51:15Z Steel monopiles, jackets requiring four steel pinpiles, and gravity-based foundations were applied in offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. This paper compares the underwater noise generated during the piling activities of steel monopiles at the Belwind wind farm (Blighbank) with that of jacket pinpiles at the C-Power project (Thorntonbank). Underwater noise was measured at various distances from the pile driving location. The underwater noise was quantified by its zero to peak sound pressure level ( ), unweighted sound exposure level (SEL), cumulative SEL, and 1/3 octave spectra. No significant differences in could be demonstrated (monopile : 179–194 dB re 1 μPa, jacket : 172–189 dB re 1 μPa). SEL showed no statistical difference between monopile and jacket and varied between 145 and 168 dB re 1 μPa2s. Furthermore, near identical spectra were measured for both types of piling. Piling of the jacket pinpiles took, however, about 2.5 times the time of the monopile. When standardised to megawatt installed per foundation both types of piling scored near equally. As an illustration, the radius of major behavioural disturbance ( dB re 1 μPa) in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena was estimated by a model at 16 km for monopiles and at 8 km for jacket. Article in Journal/Newspaper Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Hindawi Publishing Corporation The Scientific World Journal 2013 1 7
institution Open Polar
collection Hindawi Publishing Corporation
op_collection_id fthindawi
language English
topic Marine Biology
spellingShingle Marine Biology
Alain Michel Jules Norro
Bob Rumes
Steven Johan Degraer
Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
topic_facet Marine Biology
description Steel monopiles, jackets requiring four steel pinpiles, and gravity-based foundations were applied in offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. This paper compares the underwater noise generated during the piling activities of steel monopiles at the Belwind wind farm (Blighbank) with that of jacket pinpiles at the C-Power project (Thorntonbank). Underwater noise was measured at various distances from the pile driving location. The underwater noise was quantified by its zero to peak sound pressure level ( ), unweighted sound exposure level (SEL), cumulative SEL, and 1/3 octave spectra. No significant differences in could be demonstrated (monopile : 179–194 dB re 1 μPa, jacket : 172–189 dB re 1 μPa). SEL showed no statistical difference between monopile and jacket and varied between 145 and 168 dB re 1 μPa2s. Furthermore, near identical spectra were measured for both types of piling. Piling of the jacket pinpiles took, however, about 2.5 times the time of the monopile. When standardised to megawatt installed per foundation both types of piling scored near equally. As an illustration, the radius of major behavioural disturbance ( dB re 1 μPa) in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena was estimated by a model at 16 km for monopiles and at 8 km for jacket.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Alain Michel Jules Norro
Bob Rumes
Steven Johan Degraer
author_facet Alain Michel Jules Norro
Bob Rumes
Steven Johan Degraer
author_sort Alain Michel Jules Norro
title Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
title_short Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
title_full Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
title_fullStr Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
title_full_unstemmed Differentiating between Underwater Construction Noise of Monopile and Jacket Foundations for Offshore Windmills: A Case Study from the Belgian Part of the North Sea
title_sort differentiating between underwater construction noise of monopile and jacket foundations for offshore windmills: a case study from the belgian part of the north sea
publisher The Scientific World Journal
publishDate 2013
url https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624
genre Harbour porpoise
Phocoena phocoena
genre_facet Harbour porpoise
Phocoena phocoena
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624
op_rights Copyright © 2013 Alain Michel Jules Norro et al.
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/897624
container_title The Scientific World Journal
container_volume 2013
container_start_page 1
op_container_end_page 7
_version_ 1766023128407867392