Energies 09 00264 PDF

energies
Article
Design and Analysis of Jacket Substructures for
Offshore Wind Turbines
I-Wen Chen, Bao-Leng Wong, Yu-Hung Lin, Shiu-Wu Chau and Hsin-Haou Huang *
Department of Engineering Science and Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106, Taiwan;
r03525024@ntu.edu.tw (I-W.C.); r03525073@ntu.edu.tw (B.-L.W.); r02525008@ntu.edu.tw (Y.-H.L.);
chausw@ntu.edu.tw (S.-W.C.)
* Correspondence: hsinhaouhuang@ntu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-2-3366-5753; Fax: +886-2-2392-9885
Academic Editor: Frede Blaabjerg

Received: 31 January 2016; Accepted: 30 March 2016; Published: 2 April 2016
Abstract: This study focused on investigating various existing types of offshore jacket substructures
along with a proposed twisted-tripod jacket type (modified jacket (MJ)-structures). The architectures
of the three-leg structure, as well as the patented twisted jacket structure motivated the design
of the proposed MJ-structures. The dimensions of the structures were designed iteratively using
static stress analysis to ensure that all structures had a similar level of load-carrying capability. The
numerical global buckling analyses were performed for all structures after the validation by the
scaled-down experiments. The local buckling strength of all compressive members was analyzed
using the NORSOK standard. The results showed that the proposed MJ-structures possess excellent
structural behavior and few structural nodes and components competitive with the patented twisted
jacket structures, while still maintaining the advantages of low material usage similar to the three-leg
jacket structures. This study provides alternatives for the initial selection and design of offshore wind
turbine substructures for green energy applications.
Keywords: offshore wind turbine; jacket structure; static analysis; buckling analysis
1. Introduction
The consumption and overdevelopment of fossil energy have caused serious environmental
problems and are believed to be some of the critical factors contributing to global warming. Renewable
energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass, are all clean energy with tremendous amounts
of resources for electricity generation. It was centuries ago when the technology of wind energy
made its first steps. As one of the most developed renewable energy technologies, wind power has
become the primary consideration with accelerated growth during the past few decades [1–4]. 2014
was a record year for the wind industry, as annual installations crossed the 50 GW mark for the first
time. More than 51 GW of new wind power capacity was brought on line. The big story, of course,
was China, installing an astonishing 23 GW in 2014, cornering 45% of the annual market, mostly
onshore [5]. 2014 saw total cumulative installations in the offshore sector rise to nearly 9 GW. Most
of all offshore wind installations can be found in European waters. As of 30 June 2015, cumulatively,
there are 3072 offshore wind turbines with a combined capacity of 10,393.6 MW fully-grid connected
in European waters in 82 wind farms across 11 countries, including demonstration sites [6]. However,
governments outside of Europe have set ambitious targets for offshore wind, and development is
staring to take off in China, Japan, South Korea, U.S. and, of course, Taiwan.
There are needs to develop associated wind technology, including support structures that can
withstand local environmental conditions. Commonly, a few types of offshore wind tower support
structures include monopile, gravity, tripod, jacket, tripile and floating types. The type of wind tower
is chosen on the basis of two factors: depth of the open sea and the condition of the seabed [7,8].
Energies 2016, 9, 264; doi:10.3390/en9040264 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 264 2 of 24
Monopile and gravity structures are often found to be the most suitable for constructing in the shallow
water region, where the water depth is lower than 30 m. Golightly [9] showed that the monopiles are
developed in water depths greater than 30 m. Tripod and jacket structures can be built in transitional
water regions, which have a water depth between 30 and 50 m. Floating structures are mostly
constructed in deep water regions, where the water depth exceeds 50 m [10,11]. Note that a number of
floating wave and offshore wind hybrids have been proposed as a new concept in recent times with
the development of floating offshore wind prototypes [12].
The cost of the substructure and foundation was evaluated for approximately 14% of the total
capital expenditures of the offshore wind plant reference project [13]. It has been suggested that using
jacket structure rather than others offshore has positive effects, such as low wave and current impact
loads on the structure compared to others [14]. In particular, four substructure types (monopile, tripile,
tripod and jacket) designed for an average water depth of 70 m in central Mediterranean waters were
compared [15]. The results showed that the jacket type substructure is least expensive considering the
cost of procurement and fabrication for the Hurd Bank site (one of the sites considered for wind farms
in Malta). In addition, the results of finite element analysis concluded that the jacket was the most
hydrodynamically transparent among the four types. All aforementioned results agreed with those
in [16,17] and indicated that the jacket type is most attractive for substructures in water depths greater
than 30 m and is the most cost-efficient solution for wind turbines up to 8 MW.
A number of traditional jacket substructures have been introduced and investigated, including
K-braces, X-braces, Z-braces, subdivided-braces, rhombus-braces and mixed-braces [18,19]. For
instance, a jacket with Z-braces seems to have less mass of the structure and smaller dynamic forces
acting on the structures, as compared to the jacket with X-braces [18]. Tubular joints are widely used
for the jacket substructures. The tubular members create a complicated geometry at the intersection of
members, i.e., joint-can. Joint-cans can play an important role in the jacket substructures. For extreme
loads in the jacket, joint-cans help increase extreme capacity to a certain extent [20]. A well-designed
jacket frame equipped with joint-cans dissipates energy much more effectively in comparison with a
poorly-designed jacket frame without joint-cans [21]. Buckling of braces will be normally encountered
prior to joint failure if the joint-cans were to be carefully designed and constructed [22]. This is rather
expected since the buckling of structural members is better understood and controlled than the fracture
of joints.
A recently-designed new jacket substructure was invented and patented by Keystone Engineering
Inc., called the inward battered guide structure (IBGS), or “twisted jacket” foundation [23–25].
A number of advantages of the IBGS have been suggested, such as the fabrication costs are
approximately 20% less expensive than traditional offshore wind turbine jackets, it has fewer nodes
and components compared to a traditional jacket, it is safer and easier to manufacture than a traditional
jacket, it is more compact, allowing for more structures to be transported, and it has less offshore
welding and underwater work, greatly reducing commercial and schedule risks, etc. [25].
This study compares several jacket substructures on the basis of stress and buckling analysis.
In total, 14 substructures categorized into four types were constructed and investigated, including
one proposed type. Stress analysis using beam element models, as well as global and local buckling
analysis were performed. The results provide insights into development of a novel design for offshore
wind turbine substructures.
2. Design and Specification of Jacket Substructures
2.1. Basic Information for Design

The substructures investigated in the present study were designed and modeled for potentially
supporting heavy wind turbines, such as the NREL 5-MW baseline wind turbine [26,27] in the Taiwan
Strait with an average water depth 50 m. The wind turbine machine and tower were not of interest in
Energies 2016, 9, 264 3 of 24
the design.
Energies The
2016, 9, 264 weight of the structures above the tower and loads acting on the wind turbine 3 ofand
22
tower were simplified in the analysis.
All
Allsubstructures
substructureswerewereinitially
initiallydesigned
designedwith
withthe
theassumed
assumeddimensions.
dimensions.StressStressanalyses
analysesdescribed
described
ininSection
Section33were
werethen
then performed determine the
performed to determine themaximum
maximumvon vonMises
Misesstresses
stressesin in
thethe structures.
structures. The
The dimensions
dimensions of the
of the structures
structures werewere iteratively
iteratively modified
modified so that
so that the the maximum
maximum stresses
stresses generated
generated in all
indesigned
all designed structures,
structures, under under identical
identical loadboundary
load and and boundary conditions,
conditions, fell at fell at a similar
a similar level.that
level. Note Note the
that the iteration
iteration procedureprocedure didtonot
did not aim aim tothe
optimize optimize theand
structures structures and once
was stopped was the
stopped
maximum once stress
the
maximum
was found stress was
within found
the within
expected the expected level.
level.
2.2.Dimensions
2.2. DimensionsofofJacket
JacketSubstructures
Substructures
Thisstudy
This studyconsidered
considered 14 14 jacket
jacket substructures
substructurescategorized
categorizedintointofour groups
four for for
groups comparison.
comparison.Each
jacket
Each structure
jacket waswas
structure assumed 70.570.5
assumed m inmtotal height
in total installed
height at a at
installed 50.0-m water
a 50.0-m depth.
water depth.
First, three traditional jacket substructures (abbreviated as J-structures) were
First, three traditional jacket substructures (abbreviated as J-structures) were selected selected as reference
as
structures: namely, X-braces (JX), K-braces (JK) and Z-braces (JZ) (Figure 1a). Second,
reference structures: namely, X-braces (JX), K-braces (JK) and Z-braces (JZ) (Figure 1a). Second, recently-patented
twisted jacket substructures
recently-patented (TJ-structures)
twisted jacket were (TJ-structures)
substructures considered [23–25].wereDetailed geometrical
considered [23–25].information,
Detailed
however, was not disclosed anywhere in the patents. Thus, the geometrical
geometrical information, however, was not disclosed anywhere in the patents. Thus, the geometrical information of the
TJ-structures
information assumed
of the in this assumed
TJ-structures study should
in thisnot reflect
study the not
should real-world cases.
reflect the Four TJ-structures
real-world cases. Four
were considered:
TJ-structures namely, 0˝ twisted
were considered: namely, (TJ0), 30˝ twisted
0° twisted (TJ30),
(TJ0), 30° 60˝ (TJ30),
twisted twisted60° (TJ60) 90˝ twisted
and (TJ60)
twisted and
(TJ90) (Figure 1b).
90° twisted (TJ90) (Figure 1b).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure1.1.(a)(a)
Figure Traditionaljacket
Traditional jacketsubstructures
substructures(J-structures):
(J-structures):Z-braces
Z-braces (JZ),K-braces
(JZ), K-braces (JK)and
(JK) andX-braces
X-braces
(JX); (b) twisted jacket substructures (TJ-structures): 0 ˝ twisted (TJ0), 30˝ twisted (TJ30), 60˝ twisted
(JX); (b) twisted jacket substructures (TJ-structures): 0° twisted (TJ0), 30° twisted (TJ30), 60° twisted
(TJ60)andand90° ˝ twisted (TJ90); (c) tripod jacket substructures (PJ-structures): Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod
90twisted
(TJ60) (TJ90); (c) tripod jacket substructures (PJ-structures): Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod
(PJK) and X-tripod (PJX);
(PJK) and X-tripod (PJX); (d) (d)twisted-tripod
twisted-tripodjacket
jacketsubstructures
substructures(modified
(modifiedjacket
jacket(MJ)-structures):
(MJ)-structures):
0 ˝ tripod (MJ0), 30˝ tripod (MJ30), 60˝ tripod (MJ60) and 90˝ tripod (MJ90).
0° tripod (MJ0), 30° tripod (MJ30), 60° tripod (MJ60) and 90° tripod (MJ90).
The
Thestudy
studyinin[28]
[28]concluded
concludedthat
thatboth
boththree-
three-and
andfour-leg
four-legjacket
jacketsubstructures
substructuresare aresuitable
suitablefor
for
deep
deepwater
waterconditions.
conditions.ItItalso
also noted the designed
noted that the designedthree-leg
three-legjacket
jacketisisthe
the most
most lightweight
lightweight andand
cost
cost efficient
efficient among
among the studied
the studied models.models.
A similarA conclusion
similar conclusion
was reachedwas in reached in a study
a comparison comparison
[29]. We
study [29]. We thus considered the three-leg jacket substructures (termed tripod jacket structures in
the present study, abbreviated PJ-structures) as the third type. Three PJ-structures were considered:
namely Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod (PJK) and X-tripod (PJX) (Figure 1c). Last, with the advantages of
both TJ-structures and PJ-structures taken into consideration (e.g., few structural members, few
Energies 2016, 9, 264 4 of 24
thus considered the three-leg jacket substructures (termed tripod jacket structures in the present study,
abbreviated PJ-structures) as the third type. Three PJ-structures were considered: namely Z-tripod
(PJZ), K-tripod (PJK) and X-tripod (PJX) (Figure 1c). Last, with the advantages of both TJ-structures
and PJ-structures taken into consideration (e.g., few structural members, few welded connections, low
cost, etc.), a number of twisted tripod jacket structures (or modified jacket structures, abbreviated as
MJ-structures) were designed. Similar to the TJ-structures, the MJ-structures were designed with four
different twisted angles of the three main structural legs: namely 0˝ tripod (MJ0), 30˝ tripod (MJ30),
60˝ tripod (MJ60) and 90˝ tripod (MJ90) (Figure 1d). It is noted that the designed MJ-structures are not
optimal. Detailed final geometrical information is directed to Appendix A in this paper.
2.3. Terms and Definitions of Abbreviations for Jacket Members and Parts
This section lists the abbreviations that will be used hereafter in the study for convenience (Table 1).
Abbreviations are defined at four levels: (1) α, (2) β, (3) γ and (4) δ. Members and parts are termed in
the order of αβγ, and the part (location) of the members are termed αβγδ. The definitions and examples
of the terminology for jacket structural members and parts is directed to Appendix B in this paper.
Table 1. Abbreviations for jacket structure members and parts.
Level Abbreviation Definition

I, II, III, IV First, second, third and fourth face
α
a, b, c, d Leg member
e Central vertical member (for TJ-structures only)
β 1, 2, 3, 4 First, second, third and fourth layer counting from the top
z and / Oblique member with “z” and “/” orientation
- Horizontal member (“-” orientation)
γ
U, I, D Upper, middle and lower oblique member (for TJ-structures only)
N Particularly for leg members
δ T, B, M, R, L Top, bottom, middle, right and left part
3. Methods of Analysis
3.1. Basic Properties

Commercial finite element software packages, including Abaqus/CAE and Abaqus/Standard,
were used for stress and postbuckling analysis. All structures were assumed to be made of structural
steel A36, where in the simulations, the density, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and yield stress were
set to 7800 kg/m3 , 200 GPa, 0.3 and 250 MPa, respectively. Material was assumed linear elastic for
all analyses, except for global buckling analysis. The beam element method was employed for stress
analysis and local buckling strength check. The modified Riks method with solid and shell elements
was employed for unstable collapse and postbuckling analysis. In all analyses, the interaction between
soil and structure was neglected, and thus, the structures were assumed fixed in all six degrees of
freedom at the bottom.
3.2. Static Stress Analysis

The readers should be aware that the analysis of the present study was limited to static methods.
Dynamic analyses, including modal analysis and time-domain analysis, as well as fatigue analysis, are
important and require additional comprehensive investigation in the future. The beam element type,
B31 (2-node linear beam in space), in Abaqus was selected for stress analysis. The maximum mesh size
of all jackets was 3 m, such that the element numbers meshed for all jackets range from 151 to 432.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 5 of 24
3.2.1. Load Settings

In general, loads that should be considered for design include permanent, variable, environmental,
accidental, etc. [30,31]. The overall load combination applied on the whole offshore wind turbine
structure is complex in nature and site specific. Since the focus of the present study was on the
investigation of the modified substructures and the comparison of those proposed structures with
other existing structures, for simplicity and without loss of generality, only permanent load-like mass of
the structures and environmental loads, such as wind, wave and current loads, were considered in the
analysis. Other environmental loadings, such as tidal, seismic and ice loads, as well as soil conditions
and temperature effect, were not taken into account. Two load combinations were considered: normal
condition with simplified (2D) loads and extreme condition comprehensive (3D) loads.
3.2.2. Load Combination 1: Normal Condition with Simplified (2D) Loads

The normal condition considered in this case refers to local oceanographic data collected near the
Pescadores Islands (Penghu). Annual average wind speed, average wave height, average wave period,
and average speed of ocean currents were set to 7.5 m/s, 0.49 m, 7.5 s and 0.134 m/s, respectively, for
the normal condition [32].
In this load combination, we simply assumed that the wind, wave and current loads act in the
same horizontal direction and that the resultant forces and moment are solely in-plane (Appendix
C.4). The combination of simplified (2D) loads includes the self-weight of the 5-MW baseline wind
turbine machine and tower, side wind load and wind load moment acting on the top transition piece
and the wind load, wave load and current load acting on the substructure. The self-weight of the
baseline wind turbine machine and tower refer to [26,27]. It is simplified to a vertical point load
acting on the center of the transition piece. The side wind load and wind load moment are effective
loads and representative of the wind load acting on the wind turbine machine. They can be simply
calculated using elementary mechanics, so long as the wind load acting on the blades and tower are
identified. Wave and current loads are calculated using Morison’s equation and Airy’s linear theory
with additional assumptions and approximations. The detailed description of the load settings is
directed to Appendix C in this paper.
3.2.3. Load Combination 2: Extreme Condition with Comprehensive (3D) Loads

The extreme condition in this case considers the wind speed, wave height, wave period and speed
of ocean currents equal to 70 m/s, 14.88 m, 12.47 s and 1.4 m/s, respectively.
The self-weight of the baseline wind turbine machine and tower was set identical to the first load
case. The airflow around a stationary wind turbine is described by the time-averaged continuity and
momentum equations together with a k-ω turbulence model [33]. Therefore, the flow solver StarCCM+
was employed to calculate the fully-three-dimensional flow around the wind turbine at the wind
speed of 70 m/s. Wave and current loads are calculated using Morison’s equation and the nonlinear
immediate-depth 5th-order Stokes’ wave theory. For the three-legged structures (all structures, except
J-structures), the wave and current loads were applied in the principal direction (denoted (0)), defined
as the positive direction of the x-axis for all three- and four-legged models in Appendix B), whereas for
the four-legged structures (J-structures in this study), these loads were applied in the diagonal direction
(denoted (45)), because the wave and current loads applied in the diagonal direction generated higher
stresses than those applied in the principal direction.
3.3. Unstable Collapse and Postbuckling Analysis

The stability of the substructure during and after construction is of particular interest. In this
analysis, not only simulations were carried out, but also the experimental validation was conducted
using small-scale test specimens. First, the numerical simulation and experiment with scaled-down
Energies 2016, 9, 264 6 of 24
models were performed for validation. Then, full-scale models of all 14 substructures were numerically
investigated for the comparison.
3.3.1. Experiment
Small-scale
Energies 2016, 9, 264 experimental validation is an alternative and economic when the full-scale 6 of 22
experimental validation is difficult. Three scaled-down test specimens of the MJ0-structure, having
ascale
scaleofof1:330,
1:330,made
madewith
withsolid
solid steel
steel tubes,
tubes, were
were fabricated (Figure 2a). Because fabrication of of the
the
scaled-downspecimens
scaled-down specimens with
with hollow
hollow tubestubes was extremely
was extremely difficult,difficult, solid cross-sections
solid cross-sections were
were purposely
purposely
chosen as anchosen as an alternation.
alternation. The MTS 810The MTS 810
materials materials
testing system testing system
was used for was used for unidirectional
unidirectional compressive
compressive
testing. Both testing.
the top Both the top ends
and bottom and bottom ends were
were slightly slightly
inserted inserted
in the metalinplates
the metal plates
to create to create
fixed-end
fixed-endconditions.
boundary boundary The conditions. The displacement-controlled
displacement-controlled tests were performed, tests and
were
the performed,
compression and the
rate and
compression
total displacement rate and total
of the displacement
tests were set to of the tests
´0.04 mm/s were
andset to mm,
´25 −0.04respectively
mm/s and −25 mm, respectively
(Figure 2b). During
(Figure
each 2b). During each displacement-controlled
displacement-controlled experiment, the load cellexperiment, the loadcontinuously
of the MTS machine cell of the MTS machine
measured the
continuously measured
corresponding the corresponding
applied vertical load on top ofapplied vertical leading
the structure, load on to top of the structure, leading
a force-displacement to a
diagram
force-displacement
for diagram for analysis and comparison.
analysis and comparison.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.2. (a)
Figure (a) Schematic
Schematicofofa ascaled-down
scaled-down test
test specimen
specimen of the
of the MJ0-structure;
MJ0-structure; (b) snapshot
(b) snapshot of
of the
the experimental
experimental setup. setup.
3.3.2. Numerical
3.3.2. Numerical Simulation
Simulation
The modified
The modified RiksRiks method
method withwith solid
solid and
and shell
shell elements
elements in in Abaqus
Abaqus waswas employed
employed for for unstable
unstable
collapse and
collapse and postbuckling
postbuckling analysis
analysis [34].
[34]. InInsimple
simplecases,
cases,linear
lineareigenvalue
eigenvalue analysis is sufficient
analysis for
is sufficient
design evaluation. The Riks analysis, a load-deflection analysis method, yields
for design evaluation. The Riks analysis, a load-deflection analysis method, yields very accurate very accurate results
for problems
results for problemswith with
material nonlinearity,
material nonlinearity,geometric
geometric nonlinearity
nonlinearity prior
priortotobuckling
buckling or unstable
or unstable
postbuckling response.
postbuckling response.
The first
The first part
part was
was the
the analysis
analysis using
usingthe thescaled-down
scaled-downmodel modelfor forvalidation
validationpurposes.
purposes. In In the
the
simulation,the
simulation, thematerial
material
waswas assumed
assumed perfectly
perfectly plastic,plastic,
and theand the properties
properties were defined were defined3.1.
in Section in
Section 3.1. The C3D8R (8-node linear brick, reduced integration with hourglass
The C3D8R (8-node linear brick, reduced integration with hourglass control) elements were used for control) elements
were
the usedscaled-down
whole for the whole scaled-down
model with the model
maximum withmesh
the maximum
size equal to mesh size
0.025 mm.equal
Theto 0.025 mm.
applied force,The
as
applied
well as theforce,
top as
andwell as theboundaries
bottom top and bottom
were setboundaries
to representwerethesetexperiment.
to represent the experiment.
The second
The second partpart was
wasthetheanalysis
analysisofofallall
1414structures
structuresusing full-scale
using models
full-scale models for comparison.
for comparison. The
C3D8R
The C3D8R(8-node linear
(8-node brick,brick,
linear reduced integration
reduced with hourglass
integration control)
with hourglass elements
control) were used
elements werefor the
used
transition piece, whereas the S4R (4-node doubly-curved general-purpose
for the transition piece, whereas the S4R (4-node doubly-curved general-purpose shell, reduced shell, reduced integration
with hourglass
integration control under
with hourglass controlfinite
undermembrane strains) strains)
finite membrane elements were used
elements were forusedthe
forrest of the
the rest of
substructures. The maximum mesh size of the full-scale models was set
the substructures. The maximum mesh size of the full-scale models was set to 150 mm. A nonlinear to 150 mm. A nonlinear
load-displacement relation was obtained from each analysis. We defined two points on the obtained
nonlinear curve leading to the maximum load and the critical load for comparison purposes.
The maximum load is the point with the absolute maximum load of the entire curve, whereas the
critical load is the point at which the slope of the curve, i.e., the stiffness of the entire structure in the
vertical direction, is 20% of the initial slope near the origin of the curve. With the two points defined,
Energies 2016, 9, 264 7 of 24
load-displacement relation was obtained from each analysis. We defined two points on the obtained
nonlinear curve leading to the maximum load and the critical load for comparison purposes. The
maximum load is the point with the absolute maximum load of the entire curve, whereas the critical
load is the point at which the slope of the curve, i.e., the stiffness of the entire structure in the vertical
direction, is 20% of the initial slope near the origin of the curve. With the two points defined, two loads
and the corresponding displacements were obtained. Note that the maximum load is the load that the
structure can no longer survive. In addition, determination of the critical load provides additional
information that the structure may soon, and how soon to, experience catastrophic collapse.
3.4. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength Using the NORSOK Standard

The NORSOK standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry to ensure adequate
safety, value adding and cost effectiveness for petroleum industry developments and operations [35].
The standard specifies guidelines and requirements for the design and documentation of offshore steel
structures and is applicable to all types of offshore structures made of steel with a specified minimum
yield strength less than or equal to 500 MPa. Since the offshore steel structures used in the present
study follow the standard, it was therefore of interest to check if all structural members in each type
satisfy the requirements of the standard specifically in local buckling.
Structural members in all 14 types of substructure are tubular, subjected to combined axial
compression and bending loads. The condition without hydrostatic pressure was assumed to meet
the simulation conditions. According to the standard, tubular members subjected to combined axial
compression and bending should be designed to satisfy the following conditions at all cross-sections
along their length: b
NSd M2 y,Sd ` M2 z,Sd
CR1 “ ` ď 1.0 (1)
Nt,Rd MRd
$» fi2 » fi2 ,0.5
’ /
NSd 1 & Cmy My,Sd Cmz Mz,Sd fl .
CR2 “ ` –
NSd
fl ` –
NSd
ď 1.0 (2)
Nc,Rd MRd ’
% 1 ´ NEy 1´ N /
-
Ez
where NSd is the design axial force, NEy and NEz are the Euler buckling resistance corresponding to
the member y- and z-axis, respectively, Nt,Rd is the design axial tension resistance, Nc,Rd is the design
axial compressive resistance, MRd is the design bending moment resistance, My,Sd is the in-plane
design bending moment, Mz,Sd is the out-of-plane design bending moment and Cmy and Cmz are the
reduction factors corresponding to the member y- and z-axis, respectively. Readers are directed to
the NORSOK standard for the complete definition of each parameter shown in Equations (1) and (2).
Since buckling of structural members is of particular interest in the present study, only members under
compression were checked using the aforementioned criteria.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Stress Analysis

The maximum von Mises stresses and their corresponding locations occurring on the structures
for 14 substructures under two load cases were obtained from stress analyses (Table 2). The maximum
stresses were iteratively obtained, so that the values of all 14 cases fell at a similar level under the
extreme condition. The location of the maximum von Mises stresses in all cases on the present
designs are also given in Table 2. Notably, the structures were not optimized during the iteration. The
maximum stresses can be further decreased by increasing the structural member sizes in all cases.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 8 of 24
Table 2. List of maximum von Mises stresses for 14 substructures under various load settings (denoted
(0) and denoted (45)) represent the principal and diagonal directions, respectively).
Normal Condition + 2D Extreme Condition + 3D

Jacket Type
(Wave, Current Directions) Max. von Mises Max. von Mises
Location Location
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
JZ (0) 18.48 a4NB N/A N/A
JK (0) 19.81 a4NB N/A N/A
JX (0) 21.15 a4NB N/A N/A
JZ (45) N/A N/A 32.60 II3/M
JK (45) N/A N/A 32.05 b4NB
JX (45) N/A N/A 35.02 III3zT and IIII3/T
TJ0 17.10 a3NB 32.84 a3NB
TJ30 18.53 a3NB 37.26 a3NT
TJ60 18.84 a3NB 37.59 a2DB
TJ90 19.31 b3NB 46.24 a2IT
Energies 2016, 9, 264 8 of 22
PJZ 20.11 a4NB 39.55 I3/M
PJK TJ30 21.65
18.53 a3NB
a4NB 37.26
39.30 a3NT
I3/B
PJX TJ60 22.47
18.84 a3NBa4NB 37.59 32.71 a2DB I3zT
MJ0 TJ90 23.04
19.31 b3NBa3NB 46.24 45.30 a2IT c2NM
MJ30 PJZ 30.19
20.11 a4NBa2NT 39.55 39.83 I3/M a3NB
MJ60 PJK 46.53
21.65 a4NB I2-L 39.30 41.79 I3/B a2NM
MJ90 PJX 34.62
22.47 a4NB II2-L 32.71 39.73 I3\T a2NM
MJ0 23.04 a3NB 45.30 c2NM
MJ30 30.19 a2NT 39.83 a3NB
4.2. Unstable Collapse and
MJ60 Postbuckling46.53
Analysis I2-L 41.79 a2NM
MJ90 34.62 II2-L 39.73 a2NM
The first part is the validation of the simulation and experimental results using scaled-down
4.2. Unstable Collapse and Postbuckling Analysis
models. Figure 3a,b show the after-compression deformation pattern of the scaled-down experimental
test specimens and The numerical
first part is the validation
models, of the simulation
respectively. and experimental
Moreover, results using scaled-down
the load-displacement curves obtained
models. Figure 3a,b show the after-compression deformation pattern of the scaled-down
from both theexperimental
experimental and numerical tests are illustrated in Figure 3c. The results
test specimens and numerical models, respectively. Moreover, the load-displacement showed excellent
agreement, indicating thatfrom
curves obtained the both
numerical methodand
the experimental used for analysis
numerical tests are is reliableinand
illustrated the3c.numerical
Figure The model
results showed
is highly representative. excellent agreement, indicating that the numerical method used for analysis is reliable
and the numerical model is highly representative.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 3. After compression deformation patterns of the scaled-down (a) experimental test specimens
Figure 3. After
andcompression deformation
(b) the numerical patterns
model; (c) a diagram of of
thethe scaled-downtest
load-displacement (a)results
experimental test specimens
from unstable
collapse andmodel;
and (b) the numerical postbuckling
(c) aanalysis.
diagram of the load-displacement test results from unstable collapse
and postbuckling analysis.
The second part is the analysis of 14 substructures using full-scale models. The force-displacement
relations were determined for obtaining the maximum and critical loads and their corresponding
vertical displacements (Figure 4). For instance, the force-displacement diagram of the JX-structure
(Figure 5) shows that the maximum load and the corresponding displacement are 119.5 MN and
142.0 mm and that the critical load and the corresponding displacement are 113 MN and 76.8 mm,
Energies 2016, 9, 264 9 of 24
The second part is the analysis of 14 substructures using full-scale models. The force-displacement
relations were determined for obtaining the maximum and critical loads and their corresponding
vertical displacements (Figure 4). For instance, the force-displacement diagram of the JX-structure
(Figure 5) shows that the maximum load and the corresponding displacement are 119.5 MN9 of
Energies 2016, 9, 264
and
22
Energiesmm
142.0 2016,and
9, 264
that the critical load and the corresponding displacement are 113 MN and 76.89mm, of 22
respectively. The
respectively. The TJ-structures
TJ-structures resisted
resistedhigh
high critical
criticaland
and maximum
maximumloads
loadscompared
comparedto toother
othertypes,
types,
respectively. The TJ-structures resisted high critical and maximum loads compared to other types,
possibly because the TJ-structures consist of a central huge column that is capable of withstanding
vertical compressive
vertical compressive loads,
loads, hence
hence preventing
preventingbuckling.
buckling.The
Theproposed
proposedMJ-structures
MJ-structuresare
arecomparable
comparableto
vertical compressive loads, hence preventing buckling. The proposed MJ-structures are comparable
other types under Riks analysis.
to other types under Riks analysis.
to other types under Riks analysis.
Figure 4. Comparison charts of

ofall 14
14jacket
jacketstructures
structuresshowing: (a)
(a)maximum
maximumandandcritical
criticalloads,
loads,and;
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Comparison
Comparison charts
charts of all
all 14 jacket structures showing:
showing: (a) maximum and critical loads, and;
and;
(b)
(b) the
the corresponding
corresponding displacements
displacements under
under unstable collapse and postbuckling analysis.
(b) the corresponding displacements under unstable collapse and postbuckling analysis.
Figure 5. A load-displacement diagram (of the JX-structure) showing the example of the maximum
Figure 5. A load-displacement diagram (of the JX-structure) showing the example of the maximum
Figure
load 5. A
with theload-displacement diagram
corresponding vertical (of the JX-structure)
displacement on the top showing the example
of the structure (119.5of the 142.0
MN, maximum
mm)
load with the corresponding vertical displacement on the top of the structure (119.5 MN, 142.0 mm)
load with the corresponding vertical displacement on the top of the structure (119.5 MN,
and the critical load with the corresponding vertical displacement (113.1 MN, 76.8 mm) defined 142.0 for
mm)a
and the
and the critical
critical load
load with
with the
the corresponding
corresponding vertical
vertical displacement
displacement (113.1
(113.1 MN,
MN, 76.8
76.8 mm)
mm) defined
defined for
for aa
full-scale model.
full-scale model.
full-scale model.
4.3. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength

Let (CR,max)j = Max {(CR1)j, (CR2)j}, where (CR1)j and (CR2)j were obtained using Equations (1) and (2)
Let (CR,max)j = Max {(CR1)j, (CR2)j}, where (CR1)j and (CR2)j were obtained using Equations (1) and (2)
for the member j of a substructure. Then, the maximum criteria calculated for a substructure with in
for the member j of a substructure. Then, the maximum criteria calculated for a substructure with in
total n members in compression were obtained as CR,max = Max {(CR,max)1, (CR,max)2, … , (CR,max)j, … ,
total n members in compression were obtained as CR,max = Max {(CR,max)1, (CR,max)2, … , (CR,max)j, … ,
(CR,max)n }. When the maximum criteria value, CR,max, is greater than one, the corresponding structural
(CR,max)n }. When the maximum criteria value, CR,max, is greater than one, the corresponding structural
member is subjected to local buckling failure. The maximum criteria of 14 substructures are
member is subjected to local buckling failure. The maximum criteria of 14 substructures are
illustrated in Figure 6. The results showed that all structures under the present designs were shown
Energies 2016, 9, 264 10 of 24

Let (CR,max )j = Max {(CR1 )j , (CR2 )j }, where (CR1 )j and (CR2 )j were obtained using Equations (1) and
(2) for the member j of a substructure. Then, the maximum criteria calculated for a substructure with
in total n members in compression were obtained as CR,max = Max {(CR,max )1 , (CR,max )2 , . . . , (CR,max )j ,
. . . , (CR,max )n }. When the maximum criteria value, CR,max , is greater than one, the corresponding
structural member is subjected to local buckling failure. The maximum criteria of 14 substructures are
illustrated in Figure 6. The results showed that all structures under the present designs were shown safe
Energies 2016, 9, 264 10 of 22
from local buckling failure and possessed similar local buckling strength during the comprehensive
extreme condition.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 10 of 22
Figure 6. A bar chart showing the maximum criteria for 14 substructures using local buckling strength
analysis under the extreme condition with comprehensive (3D) loads.
4.4. Miscellaneous Properties

Figure 6. A bar chart showing the maximum criteria for 14 substructures using local buckling strength
A bar
Figure 6.The chartofshowing
weight the maximum
the structures criteria for 14leads
that straightforwardly substructures using
to the cost of local buckling
materials strength
and the number
analysis
analysis underjoints,
of welded
under the extreme
the extreme condition
which implies with
the with
condition comprehensive
complexity (3D)loads.
of construction
comprehensive (3D) loads.
and the risks of fatigue and fracture,
both under the present 14 geometrical designs, were also of main concern. Figure 7 shows the ratio
4.4. Miscellaneous
of the weightProperties
to height, the number of joints and the ratio of joint numbers to floor numbers. The
4.4. Miscellaneous Properties
J-structures and PJ-structures were counted as three floors, and the TJ-structures and MJ-structures
The weight of the structures that straightforwardly leads to the cost of materials and the number
Thewere
weight of the
counted structures
as two floors. that straightforwardly leads to the cost of materials and the number
of welded joints, which
Underwhich implies
the present the
designs,complexity
the group ofofofJ-structures
constructionis theand the risks
heaviest, of fatigue
possessing and fracture,
the greatest
of welded joints, implies the complexity construction and the risks of fatigue and fracture,
both under the present
number 14 geometrical designs, were also of main concern. Figure 7 shows of the ratio
both under the of joints per
present 14floor number. The
geometrical MJ-structures,
designs, were also anticipated
of main to combine
concern.both the advantages
Figure 7 shows the ratio
TJ- andto
of the weight PJ-structures,
height, thearenumber
the lightest, simultaneously
of joints and thepossessing the least
ratio of joint numberto
numbers of floor
joints per floor
numbers. The
of the weight
number.
to height, the number of joints and the ratio of joint numbers to floor numbers. The
J-structures andThe performancewere
PJ-structures of MJ-structures
counted ascan be further
three floors,optimized
and the by increasing the
TJ-structures thicknesses
and MJ-structures
J-structures
and and PJ-structures
diameters were counted
of the structural membersas orthree floors, the
by adjusting andarchitecture
the TJ-structures and MJ-structures
of the substructure to
were counted as two floors.
were counted
changeas thetwo floors. ratio of structural members through iteration.
slenderness
Under the present designs, the group of J-structures is the heaviest, possessing the greatest
number of joints per floor number. The MJ-structures, anticipated to combine both the advantages of
TJ- and PJ-structures, are the lightest, simultaneously possessing the least number of joints per floor
number. The performance of MJ-structures can be further optimized by increasing the thicknesses
and diameters of the structural members or by adjusting the architecture of the substructure to
change the slenderness ratio of structural members through iteration.
Figure 7. Comparison charts of all 14 jacket structures showing: (a) the ratio of the weight to height;
Figure 7. Comparison charts of all 14 jacket structures showing: (a) the ratio of the weight to height;
(b) the number of joints; (c) the ratio of joint numbers to floor numbers.
(b) the number of joints; (c) the ratio of joint numbers to floor numbers.
5. Conclusions
In summary, this study presented the investigation of various types of offshore jacket
substructures along with a proposed twisted-tripod-jacket type. The dimensions of the structures
Energies 2016, 9, 264 11 of 24
Under the present designs, the group of J-structures is the heaviest, possessing the greatest
number of joints per floor number. The MJ-structures, anticipated to combine both the advantages of
TJ- and PJ-structures, are the lightest, simultaneously possessing the least number of joints per floor
number. The performance of MJ-structures can be further optimized by increasing the thicknesses and
diameters of the structural members or by adjusting the architecture of the substructure to change the
slenderness ratio of structural members through iteration.
5. Conclusions
In summary, this study presented the investigation of various types of offshore jacket substructures
along with a proposed twisted-tripod-jacket type. The dimensions of the structures were decided
iteratively using static stress analysis to ensure that all structures had a similar level of load-carrying
capability. The numerical global buckling analyses were performed for all structures after being
validated by the scaled-down experiments. Analyses of local buckling strength using the NORSOK
standard were also of interest. The results revealed that all structures were safe under the provided
load combinations. The MJ-structures were expected and proven to possess excellent structural
behavior similar to the patented twisted jacket structures, while still maintaining the advantage of
low material usage, similar to the three-leg jacket structures. Although the design of offshore wind
turbine substructures is site dependent and requires additional dynamic and fatigue analysis with
many specific site load combinations, the results obtained in this study shall provide alternatives for
the initial selection and design of offshore wind turbine substructures.
Acknowledgments: The help of Yann Quemener, Tsung-Yueh Lin and Chien-Hua Huang from the Research
Department of the CR Classification Society (CR) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was financially supported
partly by the CR Classification Society (No. 103E31037) and partly by the Ministry of Science and Technology
(MOST), Taiwan (Nos. 104-3113-E-002-001 and 105-3113-E-002-001).
Author Contributions: Hsin-Haou Huang conceived of and supervised the study. I-Wen Chen and
Bao-Leng Wong performed the simulations. Yu-Hung Lin performed the experiments. Hsin-Haou Huang,
I-Wen Chen, Bao-Leng Wong and Yu-Hung Lin analyzed the data. Shiu-Wu Chau generated input load data for
the analysis. Hsin-Haou Huang and I-Wen Chen wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of
the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; nor in the decision
to publish the results.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
J: Traditional jacket substructure

TJ: Twisted jacket substructure
PJ: Tripod jacket substructure
MJ: Twisted-tripod jacket substructure
JZ: Traditional jacket substructure Z-braces
JK: Traditional jacket substructure K-brace
JX: Traditional jacket substructure X-braces
TJ0: Twisted jacket substructures 0˝ Twisted
TJ30: Twisted jacket substructures 30˝ twisted
PJZ: Tripod jacket substructures Z-tripod
PJK: Tripod jacket substructures K-tripod
PJX: Tripod jacket substructures X-tripod
MJ0: Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 0˝ tripod
Energies 2016, 9, 264 12 of 24

Appendix A. Definitions and Dimensions of Jacket Substructure Members

Four types of jacket substructure were designed in the study: the traditional jacket substructure
(J), the twisted jacket substructure (TJ), the tripod jacket substructure (PJ) and the twisted-tripod jacket
substructure (MJ).
A.1. Traditional Jacket Substructure (J-Structure)

The J-structure is four-legged. The terminology of the structural members is shown in Figure A1.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 12 of 22
Three J-structures were designed: X-braces (JX), K-braces (JK) and Z-braces (JZ). The dimensions are
listed in Table
dimensions areA1. The
listed inside and
Table A1.top
Theviews of the
side and topJ-structure areJ-structure
views of the shown in Figure A2 (JX
are shown structure
in Figure A2
shown as an example).
(JX structure shown as an example).
Figure A1.
Figure Terminology of
A1. Terminology of the
the structural
structural members
members of
of aa J-structure.
J-structure.
A1. Specification of
Table A1.
Table of three
three J-structures.
J-structures.
Traditional Jacket Substructure

Traditional Jacket Substructure (J)
(J)
Jacket Type Z-Braces K-Braces X-Braces
Jacket Type Z-Braces K-Braces X-Braces
Total Height 66.00 m 66.00 m 66.00 m
Total Height 66.00 m 66.00 m 66.00 m
Length of Leg 67.97 m 67.97 m 67.97 m
Length of Leg 67.97 m 67.97 m 67.97 m
LengthofofTop
Length TopBrace
Brace 20.07mm
20.07 16.85 m
16.85 m 20.07
20.07 m
m
LengthofofMiddle
Length MiddleBrace
Brace 28.94mm
28.94 23.49 m
23.49 m 28.94
28.94 m
m
LengthofofBottom
Length BottomBrace
Brace 37.18mm
37.18 28.17 m
28.17 m 37.18
37.18 m
m
LengthofofTop
Length TopHorizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace 14.58mm
14.58 14.58 m
14.58 m 14.58
14.58 m
m
Length
LengthofofMiddle
MiddleHorizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace 22.24
22.24mm 22.24
22.24 m
m 22.24 m
22.24 m
Length
LengthofofBottom
BottomHorizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace 31.13
31.13mm 31.13
31.13 m
m 31.13 m
31.13 m
Thickness
ThicknessofofBrace
Brace 0.03
0.03mm 0.03
0.03 m
m 0.03 m
0.03 m
Thickness
ThicknessofofLeg
Leg 0.04
0.04mm 0.04
0.04 m
m 0.04
0.04 mm
Diameter of Brace 0.90 m 0.90 m 0.90 m
Diameter of Leg 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m
Length of Middle Horizontal Brace 22.24 m 22.24 m 22.24 m
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace 31.13 m 31.13 m 31.13 m
Thickness of Brace 0.03 m 0.03 m 0.03 m
Thickness of Leg 0.04 m 0.04 m 0.04 m
Energies 2016, 9, 264 Diameter of Brace 0.90 m 0.90 m 0.90 m 13 of 24
Energies 2016, 9, 264 Figure

FigureA2.
A2.Side
Sideand
and top viewsofofthe
top views theX-braces
X-braces(JX)(JX) structure.
structure. 13 of 22
A.2. A.2.
Twisted Jacket
Twisted Substructure
Jacket Substructure(TJ-Structure)
(TJ-Structure)
The The
terminology
terminology of of
thetheTJ-structure
TJ-structure members
members is isshown
shownininFigure
FigureA3.A3.
FourFour TJ-structures
TJ-structures werewere
designed:
designed: ˝
0° twisted
0 twisted (TJ0),
(TJ0), 30° ˝
30twisted
twisted(TJ30), ˝
(TJ30), 60°
60 twisted (TJ60)and
twisted (TJ60) ˝
and9090° twisted
twisted (TJ90).
(TJ90). In Figure
In Figure A4, A4,
the bottom-end
the bottom-end center
center andand thethe top-endcenter
top-end center of a leg
leg are
areprojected
projected toto
Points
PointsA and B on
A and B the x-z plane,
on the x-z plane,
respectively.
respectively. TheThe center
center of of thethecentral
centralcolumn
column isis projected
projectedtotoPoint
PointOO onon
thethe
same plane.
same The The
plane. angleangle
á á
between
between twovectors,
two ⃑⃑⃑⃑⃑
𝑂𝐴 and
vectors, OA and OB,⃑⃑⃑⃑⃑
𝑂𝐵is defined as the twisted
, is defined as theangle. The dimensions
twisted angle. Theof the TJ-structures
dimensions of the
are listed in Table A2. The side and top views of the TJ-structure are shown in Figure
TJ-structures are listed in Table A2. The side and top views of the TJ-structure are shown in Figure A4A4 (TJ30 structure
(TJ30shown as anshown
structure example).
as an example).
Figure
Figure A3.A3. Terminologyof
Terminology of the
the structural
structural members
membersofof
a TJ-structure.
a TJ-structure.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 14 of 24
Figure A3. Terminology of the structural members of a TJ-structure.
Figure A4.
Figure A4.Illustration
Illustrationfor
for the definitionofofthe
the definition the twisted
twisted angle.
angle.
TableA2.
Table Specification of
A2.Specification offour
fourTJ-structures.
TJ-structures.
Twisted
Twisted Jacket Structure
Jacket Structure
Jacket Structure
Jacket Structure TJ0
TJ0 TJ30
TJ30 TJ60
TJ60 TJ90
TJ90
Total Height
Total Height 66.00
66.00 m m 66.00 66.00
m m 66.0066.00
m m 66.00 m 66.00 m
Length
Length ofofLeg
Leg 66.86
66.86 m m 66.97 66.97
m m 67.2867.28
m m 67.68 m 67.68 m
Length
Length of of TopBrace
Top Brace 11.57 m m 11.48
11.57 m m
11.48 11.2011.20
m m 10.82 m 10.82 m
Length of Middle Brace 11.57 m
Length of Middle Brace 11.57 m 11.48 m
11.48 m 11.20 m
11.20 m 10.82 m
10.82 m
Length of Bottom Brace 20.58 m 20.57 m 20.54 m 20.49 m
Length of Bottom Brace
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace 20.58
14.09 m m 14.08 m m
20.57 20.54
14.03 m m 13.95 m20.49 m
Length ofThickness
Bottom Horizontal
of Top Brace Brace 14.09
0.04 m m 0.0414.08
m m 14.03
0.04 m m 0.04 m13.95 m
Thickness
Thickness of of Top Brace
Middle Brace 0.050.04
m m 0.050.04 m m 0.05 m0.04 m 0.05 m0.04 m
Thickness
Thickness of of BottomBrace
Middle Brace 0.050.05
m m 0.050.05 m m 0.05 m0.05 m 0.05 m0.05 m
Thickness of Bottom Horizontal Brace 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m
Thickness of Bottom Brace 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m
Thickness of Leg 0.04 m 0.04 m 0.04 m 0.04 m
Thickness
Energies 2016, of Bottom
9, 264Thickness Horizontal
of Central ColumnBrace 0.040.05
m m 0.040.05 m m 0.04 m0.05 m 0.04 m0.05 m 14 of 22
Thickness
Diameter ofof Leg
Top Brace 1.20.04
m m 1.2 0.04 m m 1.2 m 0.04 m 1.2 m 0.04 m
Diameter
Diameter
Thickness ofofofMiddle
Middle
Central Brace
Brace
Column 1.61.6
m mm 1.61.6
0.04 m mm
0.04 1.61.6
m m m 1.6 m
0.04 1.60.04
m m
Diameter
Diameter ofof Bottom
Bottom
Diameter of Top Brace Brace
Brace 1.6 m
1.6 m
1.2 m 1.6 m
1.6
1.2mm 1.61.6
m1.2
mm 1.6 m 1.61.2
mm
Diameter
Diameter ofofBottom
BottomHorizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace 1.61.6
mm 1.61.6
mm 1.61.6
m m 1.6 m1.6 m
Diameter of Leg 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m
Diameter of Leg 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m
Diameter of Central Column 3.60 m 3.60 m 3.60 m 3.60 m
Diameter of Central Column 3.60 m 3.60 m 3.60 m 3.60 m
FigureA5.
Figure Sideand
A5.Side andtop
topviews
views of
of the 0˝ twisted (TJ30)
the 0° (TJ30)structure.
structure.
A.3. Tripod Jacket Substructure (PJ-Structure)

The terminology of the PJ-structure members is shown in Figure A6. Three PJ-structures were
designed: Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod (PJK) and X-tripod (PJX). The dimensions of the PJ-structures are
Figure A5. Side and top views of the 0° twisted (TJ30) structure.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 15 of 24
A.3. Tripod Jacket Substructure (PJ-Structure)
A.3. Tripod Jacket
The terminology ofSubstructure (PJ-Structure)
the PJ-structure members is shown in Figure A6. Three PJ-structures were
designed: Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod
The terminology (PJK) and
of the PJ-structure X-tripod
members (PJX).
is shown The dimensions
in Figure of the PJ-structures
A6. Three PJ-structures were are
designed: Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod (PJK) and X-tripod (PJX). The dimensions of the PJ-structures are
listed in Table A3. The side and top views of the PJ-structure are shown in Figure A7 (PJZ structure
listed in Table A3. The side and top views of the PJ-structure are shown in Figure A7 (PJZ structure
shown as anshown
example).
as an example).
Figure A6. Terminology

Figure ofofthe
A6. Terminology thestructural members
structural members of a PJ-structure.
of a PJ-structure.
Table A3. Specification of three PJ-structures.

Table A3. Specification of three PJ-structures.
Tripod Jacket Substructure (PJ)
Tripod Jacket Substructure (PJ)
Jacket Type PJZ PJK PJX
Jacket Type PJZ PJK PJX
Total Height 66.00 m 66.00 m 66.00 m
Total Height
Length of Leg 66.00
66.86 m m 66.8666.00
m m 66.86 m66.00 m
Length of Leg
Length of Top Brace 66.86 m
18.32 m 16.3966.86 m 18.32 m66.86 m
m
Length of Middle Brace 26.23 m 22.76 m 26.23 m
Length
LengthofofTop
BottomBrace
Brace 18.32
32.99 m m 27.0016.39
m m 32.99 m18.32 m
Length ofTop
Length of Middle Brace
Horizontal Brace 26.23
11.07 m m 11.0722.76
m m 11.07 m26.23 m
Energies 2016, 9, 264 Diameter of Leg 1.80 m 1.80 m 1.80 m 16 of 24
Figure A7. Side and top views of the Z-Tripod (PJZ) structure.
Figure A7.A7.
Figure Side and
Side top
and topviews
viewsof
of the
the Z-Tripod (PJZ)structure.
Z-Tripod (PJZ) structure.
A.4. Twisted-Tripod Jacket Substructure (MJ-Structure)
A.4. Twisted-Tripod Jacket
A.4. Twisted-Tripod Substructure
Jacket Substructure(MJ-Structure)
(MJ-Structure)
The terminology of the MJ-structure members is shown in Figure A8. Four MJ-structures were
The terminology
The terminology of the
of the MJ-structuremembers
MJ-structure members is shown
shownininFigure
FigureA8. Four
A8. MJ-structures
Four werewere
MJ-structures
designed: 0°
designed:
tripod
˝ (MJ0),
0 tripod (MJ0),
30° tripod
˝ (MJ30), 60°˝ tripod (MJ60) and 90°
˝ tripod (MJ90). The definition
designed: 0° tripod (MJ0), 30°30tripod
tripod (MJ30),60°
(MJ30), 60 tripod
tripod (MJ60)
(MJ60)and and9090°tripod (MJ90).
tripod TheThe
(MJ90). definition
definition
of the
of twisted
the angle
twisted forfor
angle thethe
MJ-structures
MJ-structures isisthe
thesame
same as
as that
that for
for the TJ-structures.
the TJ-structures.The
Thedimensions
dimensions of
of the twisted angle for the MJ-structures is the same as that for the TJ-structures. The dimensions of
the MJ-structures are listed
of the MJ-structures in Table
are listed A4.
in Table The
A4. Theside
sideand top views
and top viewsofofthe
the MJ-structure
MJ-structure are shown
are shown in in
the MJ-structures are listed in Table A4. The side and top views of the MJ-structure are shown in
Figure A9 (MJ60 structure shown as an example).
Figure A8.
Figure Terminology
A8. Terminologyof
of the structuralmembers
the structural membersof of
anan MJ-structure.
MJ-structure.
Figure A8. Terminology of the structural members of an MJ-structure.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 16 of 22
Energies 2016, 9, 264 17 of 24
Table A4. Specification of four MJ-structures.
Specification
Table A4.Tripod
Twisted Jacket ofSubstructure
four MJ-structures.
(MJ)
Jacket Type MJ0 MJ30 MJ60 MJ90
Total Height Twisted Tripod Jacket 66.00Substructure
m 66.00(MJ)
m 66.00 m 66.00 m
Jacket
Length ofType
Leg MJ0 m
66.86 MJ30
66.97 m MJ60
67.28 m MJ9067.68 m
LengthTotal
of Top Brace
Height 17.23
66.00 mm 17.15
66.00 m m 66.00 16.93
m m 66.0016.63
m m
Length Length of Leg
of Middle Brace 66.86
50.85mm 66.97 m m 67.28
51.10 m m
51.12 67.68 m m
50.89
Length ofLength of Top BraceBrace
Top Horizontal 17.23
11.07mm 17.15 m m 16.93
10.70 mm
9.61 16.637.87
m m
Length of Middle Brace 50.85 m 51.10 m 51.12 m 50.89 m
Length of Bottom
Length of Top Horizontal Brace
Horizontal Brace 24.41
11.07 mm 24.38
10.70 mm 24.32
9.61 m m 7.8724.16
m m
Thickness of Horizontal Brace
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace 0.03
24.41 m m 0.03
24.38 m m 24.32 m m
0.03 24.16 m m
0.03
Thickness of Top Brace
Thickness of Horizontal Brace 0.06 m
0.03 m 0.06 m
0.03 m 0.06
0.03 m m 0.030.06
m m
Thickness of Top
Thickness of Middle BraceBrace 0.06 m
0.06 m 0.06 m
0.06m 0.06 m
0.06 m 0.060.06
m m
Thickness of Middle Brace 0.06 m 0.06m 0.06 m 0.06 m
Diameter
Diameterof of
Horizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace 0.90mm
0.90 0.90
0.90 mm 0.90
0.90 m m 0.900.90
m m
Diameter
Diameter ofofTop
TopBrace
Brace 0.90mm
0.90 0.90
0.90 mm 0.900.90
m m 0.900.90
m m
Diameter
Diameter ofof MiddleBrace
Middle Brace 1.20
1.20mm 1.20 mm
1.20 1.20 m m
1.20 1.201.20
m m
Diameter of
Diameter of Leg Leg 1.80 m
1.80 m 1.80 m
1.80 m 1.80 m
1.80 m 1.801.80
m m
Figure A9. Side and top views of the 60°

˝ tripod (MJ60) structure.
Figure A9. Side and top views of the 60 tripod (MJ60) structure.
Appendix B. Definitions and Examples of the Terminology for Jacket Structural Members and Parts
Appendix B. Definitions and Examples of the Terminology for Jacket Structural Members and Parts
Abbreviations were defined at four levels: (1) 𝛼 , (2) 𝛽 , (3) 𝛾 and (4) 𝛿 . Members and
Abbreviations were defined at four levels: (1) α, (2) β, (3) γ and (4) δ. Members and parts were
parts were termed in the order of 𝛼𝛽𝛾, and the parts (location) of the members were termed 𝛼𝛽𝛾𝛿
termed in the order of αβγ, and the parts (location) of the members were termed αβγδ (Table 1).
(Table 1). Examples are given for all four types of substructures.
Examples are given for all four types of substructures.
Abbreviations
Abbreviationsof theoffirst
thetwo
firstlevels
twofor all four
levels for types of substructures
all four are shown inare
types of substructures Figures
shown A10–A13.
in
For instance, “I” is the face normal to the positive x-axis, and others are defined
Figures A10–A13. For instance, “I” is the face normal to the positive x-axis, and others are defined accordingly in the
clockwise manner;
accordingly in theLevel 𝛽 ismanner;
clockwise definedLevelfromβ top to bottom.
is defined from topA to
number
bottom.of A examples to abbreviate
number of examples to a
member or a part
abbreviate of the or
a member structure
a part ofare
the given in the
structure figures,
are given as well.
in the figures, as well.
It isItnoted
is noted
thatthat becauseofoftheir
because theirspecial
special design,
design, thetheTJ-structures
TJ-structures areare
given for for
given a few specific
a few specific
abbreviations that are not used for other structures. For example, structural
abbreviations that are not used for other structures. For example, structural members and parts members and parts of of
the TJ-structures
the TJ-structures do donotnot requirean
require anabbreviation
abbreviation for forthe
thethree
threefaces.
faces.Instead, thethe
Instead, legslegs
and and
central
central
column require specific abbreviations at Level α. In addition, “U, I, D” are abbreviated for members at
column require specific abbreviations at Level 𝛼. In addition, “U, I, D” are abbreviated for members
particular positions (Figure A11).
at particular positions (Figure A11).
Energies 2016, 9, 264 18 of 24
Energies 2016, 9, 264 17 of 22
Energies 2016, 9, 264 17 of 22
Energies 2016, 9, 264 17 of 22

Figure A10. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for J‐structure members and parts.
Figure A10.Four
FigureA10. Fourlevels
levelsof
ofabbreviations
abbreviationsand
andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forJ-structure
J-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.
Figure A10. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for J-structure members and parts.

Figure A11. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for TJ‐structure members and parts.
FigureA11.
Figure A11.Four
Fourlevels
levelsof
ofabbreviations
abbreviationsand
andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forTJ-structure
TJ-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.
Figure A11. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for TJ-structure members and parts.

Figure A12. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for PJ‐structure members and parts.
Figure A12. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for PJ-structure members and parts.
FigureA12.
Figure Four
A12.Four levels
levels ofof abbreviationsand
abbreviations andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forPJ-structure
PJ-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 18 of 22
Energies 2016, 9, 264 19 of 24

Energies 2016, 9, 264 18 of 22
Figure A13. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for MJ-structure members and parts.
Figure A13.Four
FigureA13. Fourlevels
levelsof
ofabbreviations
abbreviationsand
andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forMJ-structure
MJ-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.
Appendix C. Detailed
Appendix
Appendix C.
Description
C.Detailed
Detailed Description
Description
ofof
ofLoad
LoadSettings
Load Settings
Settings
C.1. General Information

The The
normal
The normal
normalcondition
condition
condition considered
consideredrefers
considered refersto tolocal
local oceanographic
refers to local
oceanographic data
oceanographic data data collected
collected
collected nearnear Pescadores
near Pescadores
Pescadores
Islands
Islands (Penghu). Annual
(Penghu). averagewind
windspeed,
speed, average
average wave height, average wave period and and
Islands (Penghu).Annual
Annual average
average wind speed, average wave wave
height, height, average
average wave wave
period period
and average
average
average speed speed of
of oceanocean currents
currents were
were set
set to 7.5
to 7.5 m/s, 0.49 m, 7.5 s and 0.134 m/s, respectively, for the
speed of ocean currents were set to 7.5 m/s, 0.49m/s, 0.49
m, 7.5 m, 7.5
s and s and
0.134 m/s,0.134 m/s, respectively,
respectively, for the normal for the
normalnormal condition
condition [32].[32].
In In
thisthis load
load combination,
combination, we
we simply
simply assumed
assumed that
that the wind,
the wave
wind, waveand current
and current
condition [32]. In this load combination, we simply assumed that the wind, wave and current loads
loads act in the same horizontal direction and that the resultant forces and moment are solely
loadsactact in the
in the same same horizontal
horizontal direction
direction and thatandthethat the resultant
resultant forces andforces
moment andaremoment are solely
solely in-plane
in-plane (Figure A14). The extreme condition considered assumes the wind speed, wave height, wave
(Figure A14). The extreme condition considered assumes the wind speed,
in-plane (Figure A14). The extreme condition considered assumes the wind speed, wave height, wave wave height, wave period
period and speed of ocean currents equal to 70 m/s, 14.88 m, 12.47 s and 1.4 m/s, respectively.
andand
period speed of ocean
speed currents
of ocean equal equal
currents to 70 m/s,
to 7014.88
m/s,m,14.88
12.47m,
s and
12.471.4sm/s,
and respectively.
1.4 m/s, respectively.
Figure A14. Schematic showing the in-plane winds and waves in the same direction.
C.2. Wind Load

Figure A14.
Figure Schematic
A14. showing
Schematic showingthe
thein-plane windsand
in-plane winds andwaves
wavesin in
thethe same
same direction.
direction.
The wind forces on blades and on a unit height of a tower are expressed by F1 and f2,
C.2. Wind Load (Figure A15a). The resulting base shear and the base overturning moment are given by
respectively
Equations
The wind(A1) and (A2)
forces [36]. and on a unit height of a tower are expressed by F1 and f2,
on blades
respectively (Figure A15a). The 𝐻resulting base
1 shear
𝐻
and the
1 base overturning moment are given by
(𝑧)𝑑𝑧 2 2
F = 𝐹
Equations (A1) and (A2) [36].1 + ∫ 𝑓2 = 𝜌 𝑈 𝐶 𝐴 + ∫ 𝜌 𝑈(𝑧) 𝐶 𝐷(𝑧)𝑧𝑑𝑧 (A1)
2 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐻 𝑓 2 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐷
0 0
𝐻 𝐻
1 1
F = 𝐹1 + ∫ 𝑓2 (𝑧)𝑑𝑧 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑈𝐻2 𝐶𝑓 𝐴 + ∫ 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑈(𝑧)2 𝐶𝐷 𝐷(𝑧)𝑧𝑑𝑧 (A1)
2 2
0 0
Energies 2016, 9, 264 20 of 24
C.2. Wind Load

The wind forces on blades and on a unit height of a tower are expressed by F1 and f2 , respectively
(Figure A15a). The resulting base shear and the base overturning moment are given by Equations (A1)
and (A2) [36].
żH żH
1 1
2
F “ F1 ` f 2 pzq dz “ ρ air UH C f A ` ρ U pzq2 CD D pzq zdz (A1)
2 2 air
Energies 2016, 9, 264 0 0 19 of 22
żH 𝐻 żH 𝐻
11 2 11
M𝑀
“=F1 H 𝐻 + f∫
𝐹1` 2 pzq zdz “ =ρ air𝜌UH𝑈
𝑓2 (𝑧)𝑧𝑑𝑧 C2 AH ` ρ U pzq2 C2D D pzq zdz (A2)
2 2 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐻f 𝐶𝑓 𝐴𝐻 + ∫2 2air𝜌a𝑖𝑟 𝑈(𝑧) 𝐶𝐷 𝐷(𝑧)𝑧𝑑𝑧 (A2)
0 0 00
where
whereHHisisthe theheight
heightfrom
fromthe theground
groundtotothethecenter
centerofofthe
thehub,
hub,ρ𝜌 air is is
thetheairair
density,
density,UHUHisisthe
themean
mean
a𝑖𝑟
wind speed at the height, C is the wind force coefficient for the blades, C is the
wind speed at the height, Cf is the wind force coefficient for the blades, CD is the drag force coefficient
f D drag force coefficient
for
forthe
thetower,
tower, A is
A the reference
is the reference areaarea
for the
forblades, D(z) is
the blades, the is
D(z) diameter of the tower
the diameter of the and z isand
tower the height
z is the
ofheight
the tower. In Equation (A1), the integrated thrust force acting on the complete
of the tower. In Equation (A1), the integrated thrust force acting on the complete rotor was rotor was considered
(denoted
considered F1 ),(denoted
while theFdrag force acting on the tower was considered as a distributed force shown
1), while the drag force acting on the tower was considered as a distributed
inforce
the second term. The profile
shown in the second term. of The
the wind
profileforce onwind
of the the tower
force can be assumed
on the tower cantobebeassumed
any function. In
to be any
Equations (A1) and (A2), that is assumed to the same as the velocity pressure at
function. In Equations (A1) and (A2), that is assumed to the same as the velocity pressure at the height z. the height z.
The
Thegoverning
governingequations
equationstotodescribe
describethetheairflow
airflowaround
arounda astationary
stationarywind windturbine
turbineare
aredescribed
described
byby the time-averaged continuity and momentum equations together with a k- turbulencemodel,
the time-averaged continuity and momentum equations together with a k-ω turbulence model,
where
wherethe theflow
flowsolver
solverStarCCM+
StarCCM+isisemployedemployedtotocalculate
calculatethe thefully-three-dimensional
fully-three-dimensionalflow flowaround
around
the
thewind
windturbine
turbineatatthethewind
windspeedspeedofof7070m/s.
m/s.TheThecorresponding
correspondingwind windloading
loadingisisgiven
givenin inTable
TableA5,A5,
where the coordinate system and the force/moment definition are
where the coordinate system and the force/moment definition are depicted in Figure A15b. depicted in Figure A15b.
(a) (b)
Figure A15.A15.
Figure (a) Schematic of planar
(a) Schematic windwind
of planar forcesforces
on a wind
on a turbine [36]; (b)
wind turbine schematic
[36]; of 3D wind
(b) schematic of 3Dload settings.
wind
load settings.
Table A5. Comprehensive (3D) wind loads under the extreme condition.
Wind Speed Table A5. Comprehensive

Component Fx (3D)Fywind loadsFunder
z the extreme
QLo condition.
QLa Qv
Blade −38.948 kN −118.5 kN 411.21 kN 13.89 MN-m 5.38 MN-m 0.849 MN-m
Wind
70Speed
m/s Component
Nacelle Fx−5.177 kN Fy
−10.226 kN Fz kN
0.405 QLoMN-m
0.975 QLa MN-m
−0.454 Qv kN-m
6.556
Tower ´38.948
Blade 261.2
kN MN ´118.5
−315.11
kN kN 411.21
37.953
kNkN 11.397
13.89 MN-m 5.38
MN-m 4.705 MN-m 0.849
MN-m −1.354
MN-mkN-m
70 m/s ´0.454
Nacelle ´5.177 kN ´10.226 kN 0.405 kN 0.975 MN-m 6.556 kN-m
MN-m
C.3. Wave and Current
Tower Loads
261.2 MN ´315.11 kN 37.953 kN 11.397 MN-m 4.705 MN-m ´1.354 kN-m
The sectional force dfN on a fixed slender structure in 2D flow normal to the member axis is given
by Morison’s load formula [30,31]:
1
𝑑𝑓𝑁 (𝑡) = 𝜌(1 + 𝐶𝐴 )𝐴𝑣̇ + 𝜌𝐶𝐷 𝐷𝑣|𝑣| (A3)
2
where:
v = fluid particle (waves and/or current) velocity (m/s)
𝑣̇ = fluid particle acceleration (m/s2)
2
Energies 2016, 9, 264 21 of 24
C.3. Wave and Current Loads

The sectional force dfN on a fixed slender structure in 2D flow normal to the member axis is given
by Morison’s load formula [30,31]:
. 1
d f N ptq “ ρ p1 ` C A q Av ` ρCD Dv |v| (A3)
2
where:
v = fluid particle (waves and/or current) velocity (m/s)

.
v = fluid particle acceleration (m/s2 )
A = cross-sectional area (m2 )
D = diameter or typical cross-sectional dimension (m)
ρ = mass density of fluid (kg/m3 )
C A = added mass coefficient (with cross-sectional area as the reference area)
CD = drag coefficient
The mass coefficient is then defined as CM “ 1 ` CA . Wave and current loads for the simplified
(2D) case were calculated using Morison’s equation and Airy’s linear theory and assumed in-plane
motion as depicted in Figure A14. For the wave load, the drag force was neglected for simplicity,
so that only the first term (the inertia force) on the right-hand side of Equation (A3) was taken into
consideration. For the current load, on the other hand, the inertia force was neglected. For instance,
the wave load is given by:
.
d f wave “ ρC M Av (A4)
. 2 2
where the maximum magnitude of the sinusoidal fluid particle acceleration, vmax “ 4πT2 a expp 4π
gT 2
zq,
was considered in Equation (A4) for static analysis. The wave load therefore assumed the form:
4π 2 a 4π 2
d f wave pzq “ ρC M A 2
expp 2 zq (A5)
T gT
where z = 0 is the location at sea level, z = ´Dw is at the sea bed, a is the wave height, T is the wave
period and g is the gravitational acceleration.
The wave load was further assumed constant, for simplicity, from the sea level to the depth dc .
The depth, dc , and the amplitude of the constant wave load, dfavg , were obtained, so that the resultant
wave force of the constant load (equal to d f wave ¨ dc ) is identical to that of the load from the linear
theory. Hence: ra
dc ´ D z¨ d f wave pzq dz
“ raw (A6)
2 ´ Dw d f wave pzq dz
ra
´ Dw d f wave pzq dz
d f avg “ (A7)
|dc |
The wave and current loads for the comprehensive (3D) case were calculated using Morison’s
equation and the nonlinear immediate-depth fifth-order Stokes’ wave theory. For the three-legged
structures (all structures, except J-structures), the wave and current loads were applied in the principal
direction, whereas for the four-legged structures (J-structures in this study), these loads were applied in
the diagonal direction. For comprehensive understanding of Morison’s equations for determining the
wind, wave and current loads on circular cylindrical structural members of fixed offshore structures,
the readers are referred to [37,38].
Energies 2016, 9, 264 22 of 24
C.4. Calculated Loads for Simulations

Consider the mass density of the air to be 1.293 kg/m3 , that of the water 1000 kg/m3 , the drag
coefficient 0.9 and the mass coefficient 1.0. The calculated simplified (2D) loads were as follows:
the self-weight of the baseline wind turbine machine and tower is 1.859 MN; the side wind load is
16.644 kN; the wind load moment is 733.584 kN-m; the wind load is 32.73D N/m, the wave load
200.38A N/m and the current load 8.08D N/m (Figure A16), where D and A are the diameter and the
cross-sectional area of the tubular structural members, respectively. Here, the wind, wave and current
loads are distributed loads for the beam element models. Moreover, the comprehensive (3D) loads
were as follow: the self-weight of the baseline wind turbine machine and tower is 1.859 MN; wind
loads are given in Table A5; wave loads are complex and various at different locations, so they are not
specified in9,the
Energies 2016, 264Appendix C. 21 of 22
Figure
Figure A16.
A16. Schematic
Schematic of
of the
the simplified (2D) loads
simplified (2D) loads for
for jacket
jacket substructures.
substructures.
References
References
1. Li, K.; Bian, H.; Liu, C.; Zhang, D.; Yang, Y. Comparison of geothermal with solar and wind power
1. Li, K.; Bian, systems.
generation H.; Liu, C.; Zhang,
Renew. D.; Yang,
Sustain. Y. Comparison
Energy Rev. 2015, 42,of geothermal
1464–1474. with solar and wind power generation
2. Dai, K.; Renew.
systems. Bergot,Sustain.
A.; Liang, Energy
C.;Rev. 42, 1464–1474.
2015,W.N.;
Xiang, Huang, Z. [CrossRef]
Environmental issues associated with wind
2. Dai, K.; Bergot,
energy—A A.; Liang,
review. Renew.C.; Xiang,2015,
Energy W.N.; 75,Huang,
911–921. Z. Environmental issues associated with wind energy—A
3. review.
Baker, C. Renew.
WindEnergy 2015, 75, 911–921.
engineering—Past, present[CrossRef]
and future. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2007, 95, 843–870.
3.
4. Baker, C. J.K.;
Kaldellis, WindZafirakis,
engineering—Past,
D. The windpresent
energy and future. J.AWind
(r) evolution: shortEng.
reviewInd.
of aAerodyn. 95, 843–870.
2007,Renew.
long history. Energy
[CrossRef]
2011, 36, 1887–1901.
4.
5. Kaldellis,
Global Wind J.K.;Energy
Zafirakis,
ConcilD. The wind Global
(GWEC). energyWind
(r) evolution: A shortMarket
Report—Annual review of a long
Update 2014; GlobalRenew.
history. Energy
Wind Energy
2011,
Concil:36,Brussels,
1887–1901. [CrossRef]
Belgium, 2015.
5.
6. Global Wind Energy
The European WindConcil
Energy(GWEC). Global(EWEA).
Association Wind Report—Annual
The European Market
OffshoreUpdate
Wind 2014; Global Wind
Industry—Key Energy
Trends and
Concil: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
Statistics 1st half 2015; The European Wind Energy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
6.
7. The European
Vries, Wind Energy
W.E. Assessment Association (EWEA).
of Bottom-Mounted The European
Support Structure TypesOffshore Wind Industry—Key
with Conventional Trends and
Design Stiffness and
Statistics
Installation1stTechniques
half 2015; for
TheTypical
European
DeepWind
WaterEnergy Association:
Sites; Deliverable Brussels,
Report Belgium,
D4.2.1 2015.
(WP4: Offshore foundation and
7. Vries,
support W.E. Assessment
structures); TheofEuropean
Bottom-Mounted
Wind EnergySupport Structure Types
Association: withBelgium,
Brussels, Conventional
2007. Design Stiffness and
8. Installation Techniques for Typical Deep Water Sites; Deliverable Report D4.2.1
Lesny, K.; Richwien, W. Design, Construction and Installation of Support Structures for (WP4: Offshore foundation
Offshore. and
Wind Energy
support structures); The European Wind Energy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
Systems Global Wind Report—Annual Market Update Optimising Design and Construction for Safe and Reliable
8. Lesny, K.; Richwien,
Operation; W. Design,
Sørensen, J.D., Construction
Sørensen, J.N., Eds.;and Installation
Woodhead of Support
Publishing Structures
Limited: for Offshore.
Cambridge, UK,Wind
2010.Energy
9. Systems
Golightly,Global Wind Report—Annual
C. Tilting of monopiles long, Market Update
heavy andOptimising Design
stiff; pushed and Construction
beyond their limits.forAvailable
Safe and Reliable
online:
Operation; Sørensen, J.D., Sørensen, J.N., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge,
http://www.nce.co.uk/Journals/2014/06/03/z/h/d/GE-January-2014-Tilting-of-monopiles-Golightly.pdf UK, 2010.
(accessed on 17 January 2016).
10. Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.P. Trends, prospects, and R&D directions in wind turbine technology. Compr.
Renew. Energy 2012, 2, 671–724.
11. Musial, W.; Butterfield, S.; Ram, B. Energy from offshore wind. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference (NREL/CP-500–39450), Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 23 of 24
9. Golightly, C. Tilting of monopiles long, heavy and stiff; pushed beyond their limits. Available online:
http://www.nce.co.uk/Journals/2014/06/03/z/h/d/GE-January-2014-Tilting-of-monopiles-Golightly.pdf
(accessed on 17 January 2016).
10. Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.P. Trends, prospects, and R&D directions in wind turbine technology.
Compr. Renew. Energy 2012, 2, 671–724.
11. Musial, W.; Butterfield, S.; Ram, B. Energy from offshore wind. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference (NREL/CP-500–39450), Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
12. Pérez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141–153. [CrossRef]
13. Moné, C.; Smith, A.; Maples, B.; Hand, M. 2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2015.
14. Gong, W. Lattice Tower Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support Structures. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 2011.
15. Fenech, L.; Sant, T.; Muscat, M. Design and cost evaluation of a deep water support structure for a wind
turbine in central mediterranean waters. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Brussels,
Belgium, 14–17 March 2011.
16. Shi, W.; Park, H.C.; Chung, C.W.; Kim, Y.C. Comparison of dynamic response of monopole, tripod and jacket
foundation system for a 5-MW wind turbine. In Proceedings of the 21th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conferenece, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011.
17. Seidel, M. Jacket substructures for the REpower 5M wind turbine. In Proceedings of the Conference European
Offshore Wind 2007, Berlin, Germany, 4–6 December 2007.
18. Shi, W.; Park, H.; Chung, C.; Baek, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, C. Load analysis and comparison of different jacket
foundations. Renew. Energy 2013, 54, 201–210. [CrossRef]
19. Sun, X. Structure form selection of wind turbine towers. Sciencepaper Online, 2013. Available online:
http://www.paper.edu.cn/download/downPaper/201302-190 (accessed on 14 January 2016).
20. Shi, W.; Park, H.; Han, J.; Na, S.; Chang, W. A study on the effect of different modeling parameters on the
dynamic response of a jacket-type offshore wind turbine in the Korean southwest sea. Renew. Energy 2013,
58, 50–59. [CrossRef]
21. Alanjari, P.; Asgarian, B.; Bahaari, M.R.; Honarvar, M.R. On the energy dissipation of jacket type offshore
platforms with different pile–leg interactions. Appl. Ocean Res. 2009, 31, 82–89. [CrossRef]
22. Alanjari, P.; Asgarian, B.; Kia, M. Nonlinear joint flexibility element for the modeling of jacket-type offshore
platforms. Appl. Ocean Res. 2011, 33, 147–157. [CrossRef]
23. Hall, R.A.; Shaw, R.L. Offshore Structure Support. U.S. Patent 7,942,611 B2, 17 May 2011.
24. Hall, R.A. Offshore Support Structure and Associated Method of Installing. U.S. Patent 8,511,940 B2,
20 August 2013.
25. Keystone Keystone Engineering Inc., Inward Battered Guide Structure—The “Twisted Jacket”, Keystone
Engineering IBGS brochure 2.0, 2015. Available online: http://issuu.com/keystoneengineering/docs/
ibgs_brochure_2.0/5?e=0/10933386 (accessed on 9 January 2016).
26. Li, P. Analysis and Design of Offshore Jacket Wind Turbine. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 2010.
27. Jonkman, J.M.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore
system development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2009, 1. [CrossRef]
28. Vries, W.D.; Vemula, N.K.; Passon, P.; Fischer, T.; Kaufer, D.; Matha, D. Support Structure Concepts for Deep
Water Sites: Deliverable D4.2.8 (WP4: offshore foundations and support structures); The European Wind Energy
Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
29. Chew, K.H.; Ng, E.Y.K.; Tai, K. Offshore wind turbine jacket substructure: A comparison study between
four-legged and three-legged designs. J. Ocean Wind Energy 2014, 1, 77–81.
30. Det Norske Veritas—Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL). Recommended Practice DNV-OS-J101—Design of Offshore
Wind Turbine Structures; DNV GL: Høvik, Norway, 2014.
31. Det Norske Veritas—Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL). Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C201—Environmental
Conditions and Environmental Loads; DNV GL: Høvik, Norway, 2010.
32. Su, C.H.; Liaw, C.T. Oceanographical Observation Data—Annual Report 2011 (Penghu Harbor); Harbor & Marine
Technology Center: Taipei, Taiwan, 2013.
Energies 2016, 9, 264 24 of 24
33. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence modeling for engineering applications. AIAA J. 1994,
32, 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
34. Abaqus 6.14. Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide; Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, USA, 2015.
35. N-004 Design of Steel Structures (Rev 3). Available online: https://www.standard.no/en/sectors/
energi-og-klima/petroleum/norsok-standard-categories/n-structural/n-0042/ (accessed on 1 August 2015).
36. Kawai, H.; Michishita, K.; Deguchi, A. Design Wind Loads on a Wind Turbine for Strong Wind, Proceedings
of the BBAA VI International Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics & Applications, Milano, Italy,
20–24 July 2008.
37. Morison, J.R. The Force Distribution Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles; University of California: Berkeley, CA,
USA, 1950.
38. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1990; pp. 174–256.
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Energies 09 00264 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies 09 00264 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Academic Editor: Frede Blaabjerg

Energies 2016, 9, 264; doi:10.3390/en9040264 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

2. Design and Specification of Jacket Substructures

2.1. Basic Information for Design

Table 1. Abbreviations for jacket structure members and parts.

Level Abbreviation Definition

3.1. Basic Properties

3.2. Static Stress Analysis

3.2.1. Load Settings

3.2.2. Load Combination 1: Normal Condition with Simplified (2D) Loads

3.2.3. Load Combination 2: Extreme Condition with Comprehensive (3D) Loads

3.3. Unstable Collapse and Postbuckling Analysis

3.4. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength Using the NORSOK Standard

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Stress Analysis

Normal Condition + 2D Extreme Condition + 3D

Figure 4. Comparison charts of

4.3. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength

4.3. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength

4.4. Miscellaneous Properties

J: Traditional jacket substructure

MJ30: Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 0˝ tripod

Appendix A. Definitions and Dimensions of Jacket Substructure Members

A.1. Traditional Jacket Substructure (J-Structure)

Traditional Jacket Substructure

Energies 2016, 9, 264 Figure

A.3. Tripod Jacket Substructure (PJ-Structure)

Figure A6. Terminology

Table A3. Specification of three PJ-structures.

Figure A9. Side and top views of the 60°

Energies 2016, 9, 264 19 of 24

C.1. General Information

C.2. Wind Load

C.2. Wind Load

Wind Speed Table A5. Comprehensive

C.3. Wave and Current Loads

v = fluid particle (waves and/or current) velocity (m/s)

C.4. Calculated Loads for Simulations

You might also like