Campaign Design
Scope test locations and intervals from project decisions, not generic investigation templates.
Offshore Wind Site Investigation Workflows
Guidance for planning and executing investigation campaigns that produce reviewable, decision-ready geotechnical inputs for offshore wind foundation engineering.
Last updated: 2026-03-28
What This Topic Covers
This hub covers offshore wind site investigation from campaign framing through interpreted outputs used in design and operational decisions. It focuses on the link between data quality, interpretation strategy, and engineering usability.
Why It Matters in Offshore Wind
Investigation quality drives confidence in foundation concept selection, design assumptions, and installation planning. Weak early decisions in investigation scope often propagate into expensive redesign or campaign inefficiency.
Key Workflow Overview
- Define decisions that the investigation must support before selecting test scope.
- Align CPT, geophysics, and lab plans with ground model update needs.
- Run quality checks and interpretation with explicit assumptions and traceable versions.
- Deliver outputs structured for foundation and operations teams, not just reporting completeness.
Methods, Standards, and Workflow Notes
Data Quality Control
Track acquisition metadata and interpretation assumptions to avoid hidden uncertainty in downstream design.
Integration
Coordinate investigation outputs with LPA, pile design, and installation planning from the start.
Review Readiness
Structure outputs for fast technical review with assumptions, limitations, and sensitivity notes visible.
Articles in This Topic Cluster
How to Plan an Offshore Wind Site Investigation for Design Decisions
A practical planning framework that starts with decision needs and maps them to data acquisition scope.
Use Article TemplateFrom CPT Logs to Investigation Recommendations
A draft workflow pattern for converting interpreted data into campaign recommendations and design handover notes.
Use Article TemplateFrequently Asked Questions
What is the most common site investigation planning mistake?
Starting from available tests rather than project decisions, which produces data that is hard to use in foundation workflows.
When should the ground model be updated?
Continuously as new validated data arrives, with clear version control and impact notes for design assumptions.
Related Standards and References
- Applicable project investigation specifications.
- Method notes for CPT interpretation and data validation.
- Foundation-design input requirements used by project teams.
Technical lead: Frederik [Surname] · Last updated: 2026-03-28