Large Marine Concrete Structures: The Norwegian Design Experience

  • Tor Ole OlsenEmail author
  • Olav WeiderEmail author
  • Anders Myhr
Part of the Ocean Engineering & Oceanography book series (OEO, volume 3)


The beauty of buoyancy has fascinated man, and the effect has been utilized at all times. Floating structures as ships or floating bridges have been used for several thousand years, predominantly for transport purposes. Norway, with its long coast and dependency of the ocean, has always had a special relationship to the sea and the buoyancy force. Norwegian Vikings built wooden long ships and sailed from Europe to America some 500 years before the Italian explorer C. Columbus did. Their ships were slender with a low draft to enable them to easily manoeuvre up shallow rivers and are considered by many to be the most beautiful ship design ever built. In modern times, Norwegians utilize the oceans in many ways, and now the need for structures to be put in the oceans is large and increasing, as population grows and environmental concerns increase.


Concrete Structure Offshore Structure Light Weight Aggregate Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforce Concrete Submerged Float Tunnel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ACI Committee. (2010). Report on float-in concrete structures, ACI Committee 357.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. R. (1976). Design and concstruction of a 375 000 bbl pre-stressed concrete floating LPG storage facility for the java sea. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2487.Google Scholar
  3. Brandsegg, A. S. et al. (2013). The 6th Conference onStrait Crossings, extreme crossings and new technologies: Development of a submerged floating tunnel concept for crossing the Sognefjord., Bergen, Norway. Arranged by the Norwegian Road Administration and Tekna.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, M. P., & Mitchell, D., 1991. Pre-stressed concrete structures. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Derrington, J. (1977). Pre-stressed concrete platforms for process plants. London: The Concrete Society in Association with the Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  6. Ellefsen, H. (1972). Photo of the Condeep concept. The contractor Høyer Ellefsen was the inventor of the Condeep.Google Scholar
  7. ESA. (2012). ESA—ship arctic. Retreived from December 1, 2014, from
  8. FIB. (2009). Concrete structures for oil and gas fields in hostile marine environments. Lausanne, Switzerland: Federation International du béton.Google Scholar
  9. Fjeld, et al. (1994). The north sea concrete platforms—20 years of experience. Houston: OTC.Google Scholar
  10. Gazprom. (2013). Gazprom—Sakhalin II. Retreived December 1, 2014, from
  11. Gloyd, C. S. (1988). Concrete floating bridges. Concrete International 10(5), 17–24.Google Scholar
  12. Haugerud, S., Olsen, T. O., & Muttoni, A. (2001). The Lake Lugano crossing—technical solutions. Fourth Symposium on Strait Crossings, Norway.Google Scholar
  13. Helland, S., Aarstein, R., & Maage, M. (2010). In-field performance of North Sea offshore platforms with regard to chloride resistance. Structural Concrete, Thomas Telford and FIB, 11, No1.Google Scholar
  14. KHM. (2013). Gokstadskipet. Retreived October 1, 2014, from
  15. Landbø, T. (2011). Lukkede oppdrettstanker i betong. Trondheim: TEKMAR.Google Scholar
  16. Landbø, T. (2013). OO star wind floater—a robust and flexible concept for floating wind. Stavanger: s.n.Google Scholar
  17. Morgan, R. G. (1975). History of and experience with concrete ships. Berkeley, California: Ben C. Gerwick jr.Google Scholar
  18. Morgan, R. G. (1977). Development of the concrete hull. Concrete afloat. London: The Concrete Society in association with the Toyal Institution of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  19. MPU. (1999). Photo taken during wave tank testing of the MPU Heavy Lifter. OSLO: MPU Enterprise.Google Scholar
  20. MPU. (2007). Illustration created by resources at MPU. Norway: MPU Enterprise.Google Scholar
  21. Muttoni, A., Haugerud, S. A., & Olsen, T. O. (2001). The New AlpTransit railway across the alps—a crossing proposal for the Lake Lugano. Fourth Symposium on Strait Crossings, Norway.Google Scholar
  22. Nilssen, S. (2008). Photo of Oseberg A. Norway: Hydro.Google Scholar
  23. Nordenson, G., Seavitt, C., & Yarinsky, A. (2010). On the water—Palisade Bay. New York: MoMA.Google Scholar
  24. NS. (1998). NS 3473 Norwegian standard: Concrete structures—design rules (5th edition). Norwegian: Standard Norge.Google Scholar
  25. Nyhus, B. S. (2014). Consistent practical design of concrete structures. fib Structural Concrete in the fall of 2014 (to be published).Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, T. O. (2012). Photos from personal gallery. Oslo: Dr. Techn. Olavolsen AS.Google Scholar
  27. Olsen, T. O., Sharp, A., & Mainwaring, G. (2013). Ultra-long undersea tunnels. Bergen: Strait Crossings, Extreme Crossings and New Technologie.Google Scholar
  28. OO. (2007). Illustrations created by resources at Dr.techn. Olav Olsen. Oslo: Dr. techn. Olav Olsen.Google Scholar
  29. OO. (2010). Illustration produced by resources at Dr.techn.Olav olsen AS. Oslo: Dr.techn.Olav olsen AS.Google Scholar
  30. OO. (2012). Photoes taken by representatives of Dr.techn. Olav Olsen AS. Oslo: Dr.techn.Olav olsen AS.Google Scholar
  31. OO. (2014). Illustration produced by resources at Dr.techn.Olavolsen AS. Oslo: Dr.techn. Olav Olsen AS.Google Scholar
  32. OO., & Reinertsen. (2012). Illustration created during collaborative work between Dr.techn. Olav Olsen and Reinertsen. Oslo: Dr.techn. Olav Olsen and Reinertsen.Google Scholar
  33. Sandmæl, F. (2013). Yogamid, located outside Monaco, private communication. Google Scholar
  34. Sandvik, K. et al. (2004). Offshore structures—a new challenge. XIV National Conference on Structural Engineering, Acapulco.Google Scholar
  35. SEIC. (2006). Photo taken by resources at Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. Russia: SEIC.Google Scholar
  36. Selmer, F. (1988). Statpipe—shore approach immersed concrete tunnel. Skanska Norway AS: Ingeniør F. Selmer A/S.Google Scholar
  37. SVV. (2013). 3D visualization of the proposed floating tunnel across Sognefjorden. Norwegian: Statens Vegvesen.Google Scholar
  38. The Norwegian Concrete Association. (1988). Norwegian concrete engineering. Concrete for the world. Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Association.Google Scholar
  39. The Norwegian Concrete Association. (1990). Norwegian Concrete engineering. Concrete for the world. Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Association.Google Scholar
  40. The Norwegian Concrete Association, Byggeindustrien and the Norwegian fib delegation. (2012). CONCRETE under the Northern lights.
  41. UHPFRC 2013 (2013). Proceedings of the RILEM-fib-AFGC International Symposium on Ultra-Hibh Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete UHPFRC, Marsielle: Edited by Toutlemonde and Resplendino. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L. Google Scholar
  42. Valenchon, C., & Nagel, R. (1995). The N’kossa concrete oil production barge. OMAE, 14th International Conference, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  43. Van Zaal, R. (2009). Airial photo of the Adriatic LNG terminal. Italy: LNG Terminal in the Adriatic.Google Scholar
  44. Vici Ventus. (2009). Offshore wind turbines: Concrete foundations. Vici Ventas Retreived January 10, 2014, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr.techn.Olav OlsenLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations