Offshore Wind Optimisation Seminar London 3rd February 2014

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations
3rd - 4th February 2014 Dexter House, London

Dr. Chris Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. Geotechnical & Engineering Geology Consultant
Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar
Source: BELWIND Website
Sources from top left clockwise: Arup, BIFAB, COWI, RAVE Alpha Ventus Source: Univ. Mass. 1974 Source: WINDFLOAT Website
Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. - Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar 3rd - 4th February 2014
Summary - Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations

Introduction Global Offshore Wind Energy Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT] Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations Monopiles Design & Installation 4 Leg Piled Jackets OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket Tripods Weserwind Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind BARD Tripile Gravity Base Structures [GBS] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods Others: Guyed Tower - A-Framed Monopile - TITAN Jack Up Foundation Costs - Comparisons Foundation Issues & Problems (1); Early Refusals & Piling Noise Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (2); Vibro Installation & Scour Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3); Grouted Connections Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (4); Monopile Resonance, Cyclic Friction Degradation & Long Term Tilt in Sands Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind Resource Fabrication Costs (Early 2010) Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites Offshore Wind Cost Trends Need for Reduction Seabed Anchored Foundation Templates [SAFT] Conclusions, References, Contact Details
Introduction Global Offshore Wind Energy

Clean & abundant energy on global scale should accelerate
as fossil fuel costs rise & renewables gain economies of scale and innovation occurs The Crossover several European countries is increasing.
First offshore windfarm Denmark 1991. Proportion of RE in But: as OW industry goes large scale, developers & lenders
are conservative and risk averse. Stated liking for Creative innovation but also proven technnology. & UK. France, USA, China, Japan developing rapidly Meditteranean, India, Brazil, S. Africa & others in future.
European focus is on Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium

Source: Moustafaeipour, 2009
Bigger, higher larger conventional 3 blade Siemens/Vestas
HAWT turbines dominant. Several 8 MW versions could be twin blade and VAWT in future (Sandia Labs. Studies). & tripods (Germany) [30-45 m WD] eventually to spar and TLP floaters [40-60 m +WD]
Move offshore from monopiles [15 - 30 m WD] jackets(UK)
In UK, offshore wind developers registered interest in
deploying 46 GW of capacity & 10 GW has been progressed to consent determination, construction and operation. wind power to 100 per megawatt hour (MWh), with 18 GW capacity off UK coast by 2020.
UK governments Renewables Roadmap aims to cut cost of
LCOE Ranges and Averages [IRENA, 2013]
Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines
Oil & Gas Platforms

Relatively stiff structures, usually
Offshore Wind Turbines

Relatively flexible towers on variety of
founded on long driven piles and mudmats structure weights
foundation types, monopiles 4 to 9 m diameter, tripods/4 leg jackets, GBS. Eigenvalue resonance
Axial loads dominate due to high Structural dynamics are not critical with
Structural dynamics always critical. 3P Bending moment and lateral response
weight >>> bending moments
more important than axial load important loading
Wave loads tend to dominate design in
high energy areas such as North Sea relationship
Wind and wave loads both very Complex uncorrelated/uncoupled

Straightforward Force Response Each design is one-off Prototype at a
single location
Large Nos. of OWT in arrays (80 [German AV Tripods] to 2000 [FOREWIND Statoil UK])
Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]

Choice of foundation solution influenced by: Water depth and seabed conditions, especially depth to rockhead Environmental loading (wind, wave, tidal) Onshore fabrication, storage and transportation requirements. Offshore vessel & equipment spread costs & availability Installation & Construction methodology available. Developer CAPEX investment appetite and OPEX (Repair & Maintenance) predictions Smarter solutions available (suction caissons, GBS, lighter jackets/trusses, hybrids, seabed anchored templates) Foundations 30 to 40% of overall CAPEX & rising. Cost reductions essential Smarter lighter hybrid foundations needed & move away from riskier costly conventional driven tubular steel piling.
Source: UPWIND Project Final Report 2011
Source: NREL
Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US

Codes and Standards Hierarchy Offshore German Windfarms A.
Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie [BSH, Federal Regulator] B1. Germanischer Lloyd [GL] B2. Det Norsk Veritas [DNV] B3. IEC B4. DIN (German National Standards)
C1. API-RP2A (Oil & Gas Offshore Structures) C2. DIBt C3. Norsok (Norwegian Offshore) C4. DASt Richtlinie D. Other Specific Standards where above do not cover technical design in sufficient detail
Most Relevant Codes and Standards

Det Norske Veritas DNV Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101, Design for Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, Norway, 2004. Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Guidelines, IV Industrial Services, Part 2 Guideline for the certification of offshore wind turbines, Germanischer Lloyd Windenergie GmbH Hamburg, 2005. BSH Standard: 2007-06, Design of Offshore Wind Turbines API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, July 1993. - WSD Working stress design, 21st edition, December2000.

EN 1997-1:2009-09: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Deisgn; Parts 1, 2 and 3. RECOFF Recommendations for Design of Offshore wind turbines (RECOFF), European Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme Norsok Standard N-003 Marine Actions, 2007.
Foundation Concepts 2012 2020 [Roland Berger Study 2013]
Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations

Environmental Surveys

Biogenic reefs & Benthic communities Marine archaeology, wrecks and seabed obstructions Grab and gravity core sampling of Seabed surface sediments, for scour, plumes and cable burial Seabed mobility, sand waves and shoals
Geophysical and Geotechnical Surveys

Swath bathymetry, side scan sonar imagery Seismic reflection profiling for geological shallow stratigraphy and shallow gas presence Magnetometer for pipelines, cables, metal objects and seabed junk & unexploded ordnance [UXO] Boreholes, vibrocores and cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering parameters and soil layering
Guidance Notes
Society for Underwater Technology (SUT)/ Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics (OSIG) Committee (2005). Guidance Notes on Site Investigation for Offshore Renewable Projects, Rev. 02, March 2005. Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie [BSH], (2008). Ground Investigations for Offshore Windfarms. BSH Standard No. 7004, p. 40.
Monopiles Design & Installation

Not a Pile but Driven Tubular Steel Thin Walled Shell. Typically 4.5 - 9 m diameter, sometimes tapered Wall thicknesses 30 - 80 mm. D/t ratio very high ~ 80 120. WD cut-off 20 to 35 m > pile lateral & seabed soil stiffnesses & layering. Weights up to 900 tonnes, limited by float out & crane capacities Driven or drive-drill-drive (UK) or even drilled and grouted (France) Transition piece glued onto monopile with brittle high strength cement ~ very strong granite > problems Simple, quick, suited to shallow water: problems - driving refusals & weight. Structure frequency limitations & fabrication, handling and installation constraints.
4 Leg Piled Jackets OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket

Usually driven tubular steel piles
up to 2.5 m Dia. Reasonably well understood design and drivability methods with offshore track record / experience Flexible & adaptable to: - different/varying soil conditions - water depth - scour conditions (no protection vs protection/mitigation Variable diameter and wall thickness permitted on same project Acts in tension & compression Different penetrations and number Flexibility in installation methods vessels (pre-piling Vs through sleeve). Allows for drilling out and redriving if necessary (but expensive & to be avoided) Move to SCs for jackets (DONG, Statoil, Dudgeon trials)
BIFAB Jacket Beatrice. Source: SSE Renewables
Source: OWEC Tower
Tripods Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind

Weserwind - ALPHA VENTUS
German federal funding 2001 2007 6 OWEC jackets/6 OWT tripods EPCI Contract value EUR 32m Client consortium: Vattenfall, Eon & EWE
(DOTI) 1st offshore us of seabed template prepiling (IHC) Adopted by Borkum West 2, Globaltech 1
OGN-Aquind
Newcastle based Oil & Gas fabricator TRITON 3 leg truss jacket for use in WD
over 30 m & up to 80 m Major UK Govt. funding in 2012 for development and design of prototype jacket Steel savings, planning to be able to fabricate 150 jackets per year at Hadrians Yard in Wallsend
BARD Tripile
Gravity Base Structures [GBS] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower

Simplicity: Certainty of delivery, increased programme opportunities with fewer constraints Minimal Seabed Preparation: Installed directly onto seabed whenever possible avoiding need to remove or disturb surface sediments Self-Floating: No heavy lift or specialist towing or installation vessels required. Reduced supply chain & weather constraints. Improved cost certainty, increased supplier base & lower costs Flexibility: Can be relocated, repowered and removed at end of operational life. RC non-piled ballasted GBS with skirt option best solution in WD up to 60 m Large OWT up to 8 MW & standardised design Collar designs can accommodate ~ 2 deg vertical alignment tolerance Loading situation different to piled foundations & substantial vertical loading required to ensure stability But: Generally impractical for OWT in relatively shallow (< 15 m) water Bad publicity: German Strabag BSH rejection & over-designed Thornton Bank GBS. Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. - Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar 3rd - 4th February 2014
Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods

Suitable for all sand densities and intermediate strength clay Installation relatively simple & extensive oil & gas experience from GoM, North Sea, W.Africa Installation/capacity prediction analyses well developed. Scour protection design essential Highest quality geotechnical data and analyses necessary for stability assessment. Cyclic loading assessment critical Monopods installed successfully for Horns Rev Met Masts in 2009 & adopted in 2012 for UK Forewind/Firth of Forth Met Masts (Universal Foundation Monopod). SPT in NL developing tripod SC solution funded by Carbon Trust. Dudgeon full field SC jackets planned for 2016.
Source: DONG Source: SLP Engineering
Source: DONG Source: Oxford University Civil Engineering
Guyed Tower and A-Framed Monopile
Source: Bunce and Carey EWEA 2001
Source: WA Design Ltd.
TITAN 200 FWSS Jack Up Concept
Source: http://offshorewindpowersystemsoftexas.com/titan_200_deep_offshore_platform
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (1); Early Refusals & Piling Noise
Piling Refusals Heavy long large diameter monopiles and jacket piles increasingly being overdriven and drilled out in glacial deposits and bedrocks: Expensive and risky. Pile Tip Buckling (cf. Valhall Norwegian Aker/BP problems in 2004, Oil & Gas platform expensive repair and claim). Over driving in very dense and /or cemented glacial materials in S. North Sea may lead to buckling failures if the industry continues to adopt conservatively long piles Piling Noise 2011 rules in Germany 160 Dba @ 750 m. restricted working periods & expensive mitigation measures. In UK soft start up piling and observations required. Helical piles considered in Scotland. Germany Air Bubble Curtains [ABC] & Hydro Sound Dampers [HSD] London Array, Baltic Sea tests. Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. - Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar 3rd - 4th February 2014
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (2); Vibro Installation & Scour
Vibro-Installation Tripods levelled using seabed vibroinstallation to ~8 15 m using vibro hammers to reduce conventional hammer noise, allowing sequential levelling. Newish technique used on several large projects. Accepted commercially viable offshore Germany for partial pile installations through pile sleeves or pre-installed groups or monopiles. Scour Prediction & Mitigation Scour prediction according to DNV; S=1.31.6 * D. depends upon WD, soil type and grading and seabed current. May be allowed to develop (longer piles) or gravel and rock dump protection required (~ 500 -700 k Euros per monopile) Alternatives include frond mats (plastic seaweed), rock mats, pile eddy breaking fins or diversion berms and fences Accurate and cheap acoustic direct scour monitoring now possible (e.g. Alpha Ventus). Available commercially.
Source: SLP Engineering
Source: Thyssen-Krupp.
Source: CEFAS Travelling Sand Waves @ Monopiles
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3); Grouted Connections

For OWT monopiles, the transition piece [TP] transmits high bending moments. Brittle rock-like grouted connections were adopted for most European projects for speed & cost savings. Most excluded reinforcing shear keys due to design code omission. These have settled, cracked and failed on 70% UK monopiles. Systemic design fault. Variety of extensive and costly repairs have been required on many European projects. Oil & gas platform jackets used API designed grouted connections for decades, but grout connection in jackets hold a large mass so are always in compression. OWTs are light & subjected to long term cyclic bending, so complex vertical + bending force coupling & tensile stresses. Ability to transfer large moment is not fully understood & design theories have limitations & shortfalls. The use of conical TP sections as a solution [controlled failure] is uncertain in the long term. Industry best practice and code guidelines review on reliability of grouted connections. DNV guidelines were revised in 2011 (new Code 2014), but still anomalies in predicting behaviour. Research ongoing to understand size and fatigue effects. Many developers reverting to bolted flange connections (Scroby Sands, North Hoyle and Blyth 12 years ago), with some considering pile swaging or even slip joints as a more reliable long term solution. Requires verticality, careful driving.
Source: Lotsberg 2012
Source: Harding et al 2012
Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (4); Monopile Resonance, Cyclic Friction Degradation & Long Term Tilt in Sands
Monopile Resonance Selection of dynamic properties essential for cost effective/reliable design. Affects rotor and support structure interaction & soil-foundation dynamic response. Design solutions depend upon ratio between fundamental structure eigenfrequency fo, rotor frequency fR and blade passing frequency fb = Nb* fR choice between soft-soft [fo < fR], soft-stiff [fR < fo < fb] and stiff-stiff [fB < fo]. Cyclic Friction Degradation Substantial reductions in axial pile friction and lateral P-Y response may occur due to the cyclic long term loading experienced by monopiles supporting large heavy 3-bladed 5 MW + HAWT turbines Long Term OWT Tower Tilt in Sands Settling of towers/monopiles embedded in sands but not keyed into bedrock may be large, leading to excessive tilt and shutdown & resetting for gearbox turbines. Tilt of 0.5 deg is usual for OWT. Permanent tilt due to Construction tolerance permanent tilt is subtracted, with typical values 0.20 to 0.25 deg. Allowable operational rotational stiffness is typically 25 to 30 GNm/radians. Dr. C. R. Golightly GO-ELS Ltd. - Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar 3rd - 4th February 2014
Cyclic Displacement Accumulation in Sands. Source: Achmus, AbdelRahman & Kuo (2007)
Foundation Costs Comparisons
Source: UPWIND Project Final report
Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind resource
Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010.
Future Offshore Wind Tethered Floating Structures 2 Examples
Source: Maine Int. Consulting, 2013.
Fabrication Costs (early 2010)
Source: Ballast Nedam, 2010.
Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites
Offshore Wind Cost Trends Need for Reductions

Cost increases since 2005 due to commodity price rises (mainly steel) and installation Monopile costs per kW flat-lining 1991 2008 Deeper waters:
- heavier and longer overdesigned monopiles - more extensive and expensive equipment and vessel spreads - higher downtime and weather standby costs Insistence on known technology leading to lack of innovation, conservatism, risk aversion on the part of developers and lenders. Lack of experience in developer organisations; general skills shortage.
Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010
Source: van der Zwaan et al, 2011
Main Conclusions (1)

1. Initially this new offshore industry has understandably used conservative
monopile and piled tripod (Germany) & 4-leg jacket (UK) solutions. CAPEX and investment still limited compared to other energy industries. solutions, steel /concrete, monopiles, AV piled tripods, BARD tripiles, triple & 4-leg jackets, truss towers, twisted jacket, guyed & A-frame monopiles, monopod suction caisson, triple/quad suction caissons. conservative long, stiff, heavy pile design, pile tip buckling, unplanned drilling/re-driving, tilt and settlement.
2. European Offshore Wind Industry has developed several foundation
3. Main Foundation Risks: Grouted connections, piling noise mitigation, over-
4. As more difficult rocky, irregular sites are encountered in deeper water,
innovative and creative thinking necessary at an earlier stage (c.f. Atlantic and Argyll Array cancellations due to challenging seabed conditions) Use bolted flanges or other direct connections. If unavoidable use shear keys & robust grout seals. Are non shear keyed conical [1o-3o] sections and/or elastomeric spring bearings valid for fatigue design life?
5. Grouted connections fiasco -70% UK MPs failed. To be avoided if possible.
Main Conclusions (2)

6. Industry as a whole needs more realistic offshore turbine tilt criteria, based
upon sound engineering analysis. Big impact on structure costs, influencing business cases. Development of tilt-tolerant DD turbines can reduce costs. (Met. Masts) in UK/Germany. Concrete GBS, twisted jackets & suction caissons more suited to some sites. Solutions extensive in offshore oil & gas. needed, selected/tailored to specific site conditions. Conservative risk averse attitudes in a relatively new industry should change as experience is gained. monopiles in ~40 m WD may be questionable & should be challenged. [Statoil], Principle Power [WINDFLOAT], Wave Hub [Glosten], Blue H, Offshore Japan [Various], France [IDEOL, WINFLO, VERTIWIND].
7. New foundation solutions [e.g. Carbon Trust] slowly & patchily embraced
8. For foundation costs to reduce [halved acc. US DoE], innovative solutions
9. The current plans to move to ~10 m dia., 1200 Tonne, 60 m + length
10. Globally, early development of floating alternatives increasing, HYWIND
11. Gyro-stabilised floaters, fully submerged concrete/composites, tension
tethered damped synthetic mooring line, FPSO template, vertical axis turbines [VAWT] in WD > 50 m hold out most promise. Hybrid wind/tidal?
References & Links

References

Douglas-Westwood (2013), World Offshore Wind Market Forecast 2013 -2022, 5th Edition. Golightly, C.R. (2014), Tilting of Monopiles; Long, Heavy and Stiff; Pushed Beyond Their Limits, Ground Engineering; 2014, vol 47, No. 1, pp 20-23. van der Zwaan, R., Rivera-Tinoco, R., Lensink, S. & van den Oosterkamp, P., (2010) Evolving Economics of Offshore Wind Power: Cost Reductions from Scaling and Learning , Amsterdam 2010, p. 9. The Offshore Evaluation Group (2010), The Offshore Valuation Report; A Valuation of the UKs Offshore Renewable Energy Resource, Public Interest Research Centre, p. 108. Maine International Consulting (2013), Floating Offshore Wind Foundations; Industry Consortia and Projects in the United States, Europe and Japan; An Overview, May 2013, p. 45 Roland Berger (2013), Offshore Wind Toward 2020; On The Pathway to Cost Competitiveness, April 2013, p. 25.
Links

EWEA Offshore Statistics 2013 ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA_OffshoreStats_July2013.pdf EC Marine Knowledge 2020 Database ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/marine_knowledge_2020 Global Wind Energy Council Country & Global Reports www.gwec.net/publications/country-reports IRENA Costs Database; irena.org/costs UK Govt. Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads USA Offshore Wind Database: offshorewind.net 4C Offshore Wind Database: 4coffshore.com UPWIND EWEA Project Final Report: upwind.eu
Contact Details
Dr.C.R. Golightly, BSc, MSc, PhD, MICE, FGS. Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Consultant Rue Marc Brison 10G, 1300 Limal, Belgium Tel. +32 10 41 95 25 Mobile: +44 755 4612888 Email: chris.golightly@hotmail.com skype: chrisgolightly; Linked In: www.linkedin.com/pub/5/4b5/469
YouPayforaSiteInvestigation WhetherYoudoOneorNot Cole etal,1991. IgnoreTheGeologyatYourPeril Prof.JohnBurland,Imperial College.

Offshore Wind Optimisation Seminar London 3rd February 2014

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Offshore Wind Optimisation Seminar London 3rd February 2014

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foundation Capabilities and Limitations

3rd - 4th February 2014 Dexter House, London

Offshore Wind Turbine Optimisation Seminar

Source: BELWIND Website

Summary - Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations

Introduction Global Offshore Wind Energy

European focus is on Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium

Bigger, higher larger conventional 3 blade Siemens/Vestas

Move offshore from monopiles [15 - 30 m WD] jackets(UK)

In UK, offshore wind developers registered interest in

UK governments Renewables Roadmap aims to cut cost of

LCOE Ranges and Averages [IRENA, 2013]

Differences; Oil & Gas Platforms Wind Turbines

Oil & Gas Platforms

Offshore Wind Turbines

founded on long driven piles and mudmats structure weights

Structural dynamics always critical. 3P Bending moment and lateral response

weight >>> bending moments

more important than axial load important loading

Wave loads tend to dominate design in

high energy areas such as North Sea relationship

Wind and wave loads both very Complex uncorrelated/uncoupled

Straightforward Force Response Each design is one-off Prototype at a

Types of Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines [OWT]

Source: UPWIND Project Final Report 2011

Codes and Standards; DNV, GL IEC, US

Most Relevant Codes and Standards

Foundation Concepts 2012 2020 [Roland Berger Study 2013]

Environmental, Geophysical & Geotechnical Site Investigations

Geophysical and Geotechnical Surveys

Monopiles Design & Installation

4 Leg Piled Jackets OWEC, BIFAB, Truss Towers, Twisted Jacket

BIFAB Jacket Beatrice. Source: SSE Renewables

Source: OWEC Tower

Tripods Alpha Ventus & OGN-Aquind

Gravity Base Structures [GBS] Gravitas, Vici Ventus, Gifford-Vinci, Seatower

Suction Caisson UF Monopod, Tripods, Quadrapods

Source: DONG Source: Oxford University Civil Engineering

Guyed Tower and A-Framed Monopile

Source: Bunce and Carey EWEA 2001

Source: WA Design Ltd.

TITAN 200 FWSS Jack Up Concept

Source: SLP Engineering

Source: CEFAS Travelling Sand Waves @ Monopiles

Pile Foundation Issues & Problems (3); Grouted Connections

Source: Lotsberg 2012

Source: Harding et al 2012

Foundation Costs Comparisons

Source: UPWIND Project Final report

Offshore Floating Solutions Huge Potential Offshore Wind resource

Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010.

Future Offshore Wind Tethered Floating Structures 2 Examples

Source: Maine Int. Consulting, 2013.

Fabrication Costs (early 2010)

Source: Ballast Nedam, 2010.

Maps: UK Round 3 & German North Sea Sites

Offshore Wind Cost Trends Need for Reductions

Source: The Offshore Valuation, 2010

Source: van der Zwaan et al, 2011

Main Conclusions (1)

2. European Offshore Wind Industry has developed several foundation

3. Main Foundation Risks: Grouted connections, piling noise mitigation, over-

4. As more difficult rocky, irregular sites are encountered in deeper water,

5. Grouted connections fiasco -70% UK MPs failed. To be avoided if possible.