DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS February 2017 Prepared under BOEM Contract M15PX00051 by Fugro Marine GeoServices, Inc. 101 West Main Street Suite 350 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-049 DISCLAIMER Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Contract Number M15PX00051. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Renewable Energy Environmental Studies webpage (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental- Studies-EnvData/). The report is also available at the National Technical Reports Library at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/. CITATION Fugro Marine GeoServices Inc. 2017. Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon. OCS Study BOEM 2017-049. FUGRO MARINE GEOSERVICES, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Study Title: Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Executive Summary INTRODUCTION BOEM is responsible for managing energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This includes ensuring that future renewable energy facilities located within the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are properly studied using appropriate geophysical and geotechnical equipment and employing a series of standardized methodologies. Offshore renewable energy includes, but is not limited to, wind, wave, ocean current, solar, and hydrogen production energy. The Atlantic OCS is considered by BOEM to be a “Frontier Region” where little information exists about the geologic conditions and how those conditions may impact development of offshore wind farms. In contrast, regions such as the Gulf of Mexico, Baltic and North Seas have significantly more information and experience regarding geologic conditions and how those conditions may affect construction and performance of oil and gas structures and offshore wind structures. Although experience in planning, designing, constructing, and operating marine structures in those regions provide valuable knowledge that can be transferred to the Atlantic OCS wind industry, the combination of water depths, geologic conditions, and wind farm developments will present a unique combination of variables for the nascent US Atlantic wind industry. The purpose of this study is to investigate and assess the various methodologies and equipment choices for providing site investigations that identify shallow hazards, geologic hazards, biological conditions, geotechnical properties, and archaeological resources in accordance with 30 CFR 585.626 and 585.627. The information presented in this study is based on decades of experience accumulated by the oil and gas industry offshore, about a decade of experience accumulated by the offshore wind industry in Europe, and the understanding of the geology within the Atlantic OCS. Hence, the information developed during this study should prove to be a valuable resource for future US offshore wind development projects especially within the Atlantic OCS. We note that geophysical and geotechnical equipment and investigation techniques are continually evolving in response to industry needs. In the offshore wind industry evolution is driven in a large part based on a desire to reduce construction and operational costs, developing larger wind turbines, developing wind farms in frontier regions, and knowledge gained from construction and operation of existing wind farms. Site investigation methods for seismic reflection surveying, seismic data processing, and measuring dynamic soil properties are among the most rapidly evolving areas for the industry. Therefore, we believe that this study represents a snap shot in time of a changing industry. We thank the staff at the BOEM for their support in preparing this study. We also thank Dr. Melissa Landon and Dr. Mark Legg for their contributions to this study. ES.1 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Executive Summary OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY This report is divided into six volumes that address various aspects of the scope of this study. Volume content is organized as follows: • Volume 1 – Wind Farm Facilities, Geologic and Bathymetric Conditions, and Site Investigation Approaches: Introduces the typical components of offshore wind farms, provides a concise introduction about geologic characteristics within the Atlantic OCS, introduces the various offshore foundation types and systems for offshore wind turbines, lists the main factors that control the selection of a specific foundation system, and provides examples of alternative plans that can be adopted to conduct geophysical and geotechnical site investigations. • Volume 2 – Geophysical Surveys Benefits and Risks: Analyzes the benefits and risks associated with the different techniques adopted during geophysical surveys and the viability of using the different techniques within the Atlantic OCS. • Volume 3 – Geotechnical Investigation Benefits and Risks: Analyzes the benefits and risks associated with the different in-situ tests adopted during geotechnical investigations and the viability of using the different techniques within the Atlantic OCS. It introduces the different laboratory tests and the design parameters that can be measured using each of them. It also presents additional details about choosing the number and type of in-situ and laboratory tests for each foundation type. • Volume 4 – Best Practice Recommendations for Geophysical Surveys: Presents best practice recommendations for survey techniques and equipment for geophysical surveys. • Volume 5 – Best Practice Recommendations for Geotechnical Investigations: Presents best practice recommendations for geotechnical site investigation techniques and equipment for these investigations. • Volume 6 – Geophysical and Geotechnical Guidebook: A guidebook for equipment selection and utilization dependent on the site conditions and structures anticipated for future offshore renewable projects within the Atlantic OCS. ES.2 FUGRO MARINE GEOSERVICES, INC. VOLUME 1 WIND FARM FACILITIES, GEOLOGIC AND BATHYMETRIC CONDITIONS, AND SITE INVESTIGATION APPROACHES Study Title: Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation Methodology Assessment for Siting Renewable Energy Facilities on the Atlantic OCS Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Volume 1 - Wind Farm Facilities, Geologic and Bathymetric Conditions, and Site Investigation Approaches Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1.4 1.2 Overview of the Study .................................................................................. 1.8 1.3 Components of Offshore Wind Farms .......................................................... 1.9 1.3.1 Offshore Wind Turbine Structure ...................................................... 1.9 1.3.2 Electrical Service Platforms (ESPs) & Inter-Array Export Cables .... 1.9 1.4 Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf ................................................................. 1.11 1.4.1 Northern Atlantic OCS: Glacial and Proglacial Sites ...................... 1.12 1.4.2 Mid-Atlantic OCS: Non-Glacial in Origin ......................................... 1.13 1.4.3 Southern Atlantic OCS: Non-Glacial in Origin and Carbonates ...... 1.14 1.5 Foundation Systems ................................................................................... 1.19 1.5.1 Offshore Foundation Types ............................................................ 1.19 1.5.2 Foundation Systems (Support Structures or Sub-Structures) ........ 1.25 1.6 Selection of the Foundation System ........................................................... 1.29 1.6.1 Factor 1 – Geotechnical / Geological Site Conditions .................... 1.34 1.6.2 Factor 2 – Water Depth .................................................................. 1.38 1.6.3 Factor 3 – Environmental Loads .................................................... 1.38 1.6.4 Factor 4 – Size and Type of the Wind Turbines ............................. 1.40 1.6.5 Factor 5 – Manufacturing, Installation and Maintenance Costs ...... 1.40 1.6.6 Factor 6 – Environmental Regulations ........................................... 1.41 1.7 Planning for a Successful Site Investigation Campaign ............................. 1.42 1.7.1 Single Investigation / Survey .........................................................
Recommended publications
  • Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018

    Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018

    Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth.
  • Borrow Pit Volumes**

    Borrow Pit Volumes**

    EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION AND LAYOUT **BORROW PIT VOLUMES** When trying to figure out Borrow Pit Problems you need to understand a few things. 1. Water can be added or removed from soil 2. The MASS of the SOLIDS CAN NOT be changed 3. Need to know phase relationships in soil….which I will show you next Phase relationship in Soil This represents the soil that you take from a borrow pit. It is made up of AIR, WATER, and SOLIDS. AIR WATER So if you separated the soil into its components it would look like this. It is referred to as a Soil Phase Diagram. SOIL When looking at a Soil Phase Diagram you think of it two ways, 1. Volume, 2. Mass. Volume Mass Va AIR Ma = 0 Va = Volume Air Ma = Mass Air = 0 V WATER M Vw = Volume Water w w Mw = Mass Water Vs = Volume Solid Ms = Mass Solid Vs SOIL Ms Vt = Volume Total = Va + Vw + Vs Mt = Mass Total = Mw + Ms EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION AND LAYOUT **BORROW PIT VOLUMES** Basic Terms/Formulas to know – Soil Phase relationship Specific Gravity = the density of the solids divided by the density of Water Moisture Content = Mass of Water divided by the Mass of Solids Void Ratio = Volume of Voids divided by the Volume of Solids Porosity = Volume of Voids divided by the Total Volume, Higher porosity = higher permeability Density of Water = γwater = Mw/Vw Specific Gravity = Gs = γsolids /γwater =M /(V * γ ) English Units = 62.42 pounds per CF(pcf) s s water SI Units = 1,000 g/liter = 1,000kg/m3 Moisture Content (w) = Mw/Ms Porosity (n) = Vv/Vt Vv = Volume of Voids = Vw + Va Vt = Total Volume = Vs +Vw + Va Degree of Saturation
  • Determination of Geotechnical Properties of Clayey Soil From

    Determination of Geotechnical Properties of Clayey Soil From

    DETERMINATION OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF CLAYEY SOIL FROM RESISTIVITY IMAGING (RI) by GOLAM KIBRIA Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON August 2011 Copyright © by Golam Kibria 2011 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like express my sincere gratitude to my supervising professor Dr. Sahadat Hos- sain for the accomplishment of this work. It was always motivating for me to work under his sin- cere guidance and advice. The completion of this work would not have been possible without his constant inspiration and feedback. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Laureano R. Hoyos and Dr. Moham- mad Najafi for accepting to serve in my committee. I would also like to thank for their valuable time, suggestions and advice. I wish to acknowledge Dr. Harold Rowe of Earth and Environmental Science Department in the University of Texas at Arlington for giving me the opportunity to work in his laboratory. Special thanks goes to Jubair Hossain, Mohammad Sadik Khan, Tashfeena Taufiq, Huda Shihada, Shahed R Manzur, Sonia Samir,. Noor E Alam Siddique, Andrez Cruz,,Ferdous Intaj, Mostafijur Rahman and all of my friends for their cooperation and assistance throughout my Mas- ter’s study and accomplishment of this work. I wish to acknowledge the encouragement of my parents and sisters during my Master’s study. Without their constant inspiration, support and cooperation, it would not be possible to complete the work.
  • Geotechnical Investigation Across a Failed Hill Slope in Uttarakhand – a Case Study

    Geotechnical Investigation Across a Failed Hill Slope in Uttarakhand – a Case Study

    Indian Geotechnical Conference 2017 GeoNEst 14-16 December 2017, IIT Guwahati, India Geotechnical Investigation across a Failed Hill Slope in Uttarakhand – A Case Study Ravi Sundaram Sorabh Gupta Swapneel Kalra CengrsGeotechnica Pvt. Ltd., A-100 Sector 63, Noida, U.P. -201309 E-mail :[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Lalit Kumar Feedback Infra Private Limited, 15th Floor Tower 9B, DLF cyber city Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: A landslide triggered by a cloudburst in 2013 had blocked a major highway in Uttarakhand. The paper presents details of the geotechnical and geophysical investigations done to evaluate the failure and to develop remedial measures. Seismic refraction test has been effectively used to characterize the landslide and assess the extent of the loose disturbed zone. The probable causes of failure and remedial measures are discussed. Keywords: geotechnical investigation; seismic refraction test; slope failure; landslide assessment 1. Introduction 2.2 Site Conditions Fragility of terrain is often reflected in the form of The rock mass in the area has unfavorable dip towards disasters in the hilly state of Uttarakhand. Geotectonic the valley side. In a 100-150 m stretch, the gabion wall configuration of the rocks and the high relative relief on the down-hill side of the highway, showed extensive make the area inherently unstable and vulnerable to mass distress. The overburden of boulders and soil had slid movement. The hilly terrain is faced with the dilemma of down, probably due to buildup of water pressure behind maintaining balance between environmental protection the gabion wall during heavy rains.
  • SOP14 Geophysical Survey

    SOP14 Geophysical Survey

    SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization.
  • Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes

    Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes

    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (1998) - Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 10 Mar 1998, 2:30 pm - 5:30 pm Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes Cameran Mirza Strata Engineering Corporation, North York, Ontario, Canada Robert K. Barrett TerraTask (MSB Technologies), Grand Junction, Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Mirza, Cameran and Barrett, Robert K., "Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes" (1998). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 7. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/4icchge/4icchge-session07/7 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 927 Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, March 9-12, 1998. GUIDELINES FOR SEALING GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATORY HOLES Cameran Mirza Robert K. Barrett Paper No. 7.27 Strata Engineering Corporation TerraTask (MSB Technologies) North York, ON Canada M2J 2Y9 Grand Junction CO USA 81503 ABSTRACT A three year research project was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1991 to detennine the best materials and methods for sealing small diameter geotechnical exploratory holes.
  • Soil Plugging of Open-Ended Piles During Impact Driving in Cohesion-Less Soil

    Soil Plugging of Open-Ended Piles During Impact Driving in Cohesion-Less Soil

    Soil Plugging of Open-Ended Piles During Impact Driving in Cohesion-less Soil VICTOR KARLOWSKIS Master of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2014 © Victor Karlowskis 2014 Master of Science thesis 14/13 Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics ABSTRACT Abstract During impact driving of open-ended piles through cohesion-less soil the internal soil column may mobilize enough internal shaft resistance to prevent new soil from entering the pile. This phenomena, referred to as soil plugging, changes the driving characteristics of the open-ended pile to that of a closed-ended, full displacement pile. If the plugging behavior is not correctly understood, the result is often that unnecessarily powerful and costly hammers are used because of high predicted driving resistance or that the pile plugs unexpectedly such that the hammer cannot achieve further penetration. Today the user is generally required to model the pile response on the basis of a plugged or unplugged pile, indicating a need to be able to evaluate soil plugging prior to performing the drivability analysis and before using the results as basis for decision. This MSc. thesis focuses on soil plugging during impact driving of open-ended piles in cohesion-less soil and aims to contribute to the understanding of this area by evaluating models for predicting soil plugging and driving resistance of open-ended piles. Evaluation was done on the basis of known soil plugging mechanisms and practical aspects of pile driving. Two recently published models, one for predicting the likelihood of plugging and the other for predicting the driving resistance of open-ended piles, were compared to existing models.
  • Side Scan Sonar and the Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage Timmy Gambin

    Side Scan Sonar and the Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage Timmy Gambin

    259 CHAPTER 15 View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OAR@UM Side Scan Sonar and the Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage Timmy Gambin Introduction Th is chapter deals with side scan sonar, not because I believe it is superior to other available technologies but rather because it is the tool that I have used in the context of a number of off shore surveys. It is therefore opportune to share an approach that I have developed and utilised in a number of projects around the Mediterranean. Th ese projects were conceptualised together with local partners that had a wealth of local experience in the countries of operation. Over time it became clear that before starting to plan a project it is always important to ask oneself the obvious question – but one that is oft en overlooked: “what is it that we are setting out to achieve”? All too oft en, researchers and scientists approach a potential research project with blinkers. Such an approach may prove to be a hindrance to cross-fertilisation of ideas as well as to inter-disciplinary cooperation. Th erefore, the aforementioned question should be followed up by a second query: “and who else can benefi t from this project?” Benefi ciaries may vary from individual researchers of the same fi eld such as archaeologists interested in other more clearly defi ned historic periods (World War II, Early Modern shipping etc) to other researchers who may be interested in specifi c studies (African amphora production for example).
  • Promoting Geosynthetics Use on Federal Lands Highway Projects

    Promoting Geosynthetics Use on Federal Lands Highway Projects

    Promoting Geosynthetics Use on Federal Lands Highway Projects Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-06-009 December 2006 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 FOREWORD The Federal Lands Highway (FLH) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) promotes development and deployment of applied research and technology applicable to solving transportation related issues on Federal Lands. The FLH provides technology delivery, innovative solutions, recommended best practices, and related information and knowledge sharing to Federal agencies, Tribal governments, and other offices within the FHWA. The objective of this study was to provide guidance and recommendations on the potential of systematically including geosynthetics in highway construction projects by the FLH and their client agencies. The study included a literature search of existing· design guidelines and published work on a range of applications that use geosynthetics. These included mechanically stabilized earth walls, reinforced soil slopes, base reinforcement, pavements, and various road applications. A survey of personnel from the FLH and its client agencies was performed to determine the current level of geosynthetic use in their practice. Based on the literature review and survey results, recommendations for possible wider use of geosynthetics in the FLH projects are made and prioritized. These include updates to current geosynthetic specifications, the offering of training programs, development of analysis tools that focus on applications of interest to the FLH, and further studies to promote the improvement of nascent or existin esign methods. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S.
  • South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight

    South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight

    RAIL FACT SHEETS South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight About the Tunnel with At-Grade Freight For the tunnel alternative, the railroad tracks will be lowered in a trench south of Oregon Expressway to approximately Loma Verde Avenue. The twin bore tunnel will begin near Loma Verde Avenue and extend to just south of Charleston Road. The railroad tracks will then be raised in trench to approximately Ferne Avenue. The new electrified southbound railroad tracks will be built at the same horizontal location as the existing railroad track, however, the northbound track will be moved to the east within the limits of the tunnel to accommodate the spacing required between the twin bores. The railroad tracks in the trench and tunnel will carry only passenger trains. The freight trains will remain at-grade. The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road remain at their existing grade and will have a similar configuration that exists today with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes on Charleston Road. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the overpass of the railroad. By the numbers Neighborhood Considerations • Diameter of twin bores is 30 feet. • Alma Street will permanently be reduced to one lane • Railroad track is designed for 110 mph. in each direction from south of Oregon Expressway to Ventura Avenue and from Charleston Road to Ferne • Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are Avenue. designed for 25 mph. • The train tracks will be approximately 70 feet below the Proposed Ground Level View - Looking Southwest • Maximum grade on railroad is 2%.
  • IMCA D033 Limitations in the Use of Scuba Offshore

    IMCA D033 Limitations in the Use of Scuba Offshore

    AB The International Marine Contractors Association Limitations in the Use of SCUBA Offshore IMCA D 033 www.imca-int.com October 2003 AB The International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) is the international trade association representing offshore, marine and underwater engineering companies. IMCA promotes improvements in quality, health, safety, environmental and technical standards through the publication of information notes, codes of practice and by other appropriate means. Members are self-regulating through the adoption of IMCA guidelines as appropriate. They commit to act as responsible members by following relevant guidelines and being willing to be audited against compliance with them by their clients. There are two core committees that relate to all members: Safety, Environment & Legislation Training, Certification & Personnel Competence The Association is organised through four distinct divisions, each covering a specific area of members’ interests: Diving, Marine, Offshore Survey, Remote Systems & ROV. There are also four regional sections which facilitate work on issues affecting members in their local geographic area – Americas Deepwater, Asia-Pacific, Europe & Africa and Middle East & India. IMCA D 033 This guidance document was prepared for IMCA under the direction of its Diving Division Management Committee, enhancing and extending guidance formerly available via guidance note AODC 065, which is now withdrawn. www.imca-int.com/diving The information contained herein is given for guidance only and endeavours to reflect best industry practice. For the avoidance of doubt no legal liability shall attach to any guidance and/or recommendation and/or statement herein contained. Limitations in the Use of SCUBA Offshore 1 BACKGROUND SCUBA – self-contained underwater breathing apparatus – was first developed in the 1940s and has since become widely used for recreational and amateur diving.
  • Geotechnical Manual 2013 (PDF)

    Geotechnical Manual 2013 (PDF)

    2013 Geotechnical Engineering Manual Geotechnical Engineering Section Minnesota Department of Transportation 12/11/13 MnDOT Geotechnical Manual ii 2013 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MANUAL ..................................................................................................... I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SECTION ............................................................................................................... I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... I 1 PURPOSE & OVERVIEW OF MANUAL ........................................................................................................ 8 1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SECTION .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 MANUAL DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 9 2 GEOTECHNICAL PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................................................................