See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331443556

Topology optimization design for offshore platform jacket structure

Article in Applied Ocean Research · March 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.01.003

CITATIONS READS

43 4,168

6 authors, including:

Xiaojie Tian Guijie Liu

Ocean University of China Ocean University of China
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,184 CITATIONS 152 PUBLICATIONS 1,362 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guijie Liu on 22 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

T
Topology optimization design for offshore platform jacket structure
a,b a a,b,⁎ a a,b c,⁎⁎
Xiaojie Tian , Qingyang Wang , Guijie Liu , Yunxiang Liu , Yingchun Xie , Wei Deng
a
Department of mechanical and electrical engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China
b
Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering of Shangdong Province, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China
c
Institute of Oceanographic Instrumentation, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Qingdao, 266061, China

A R TICL E INFO A BSTR A CT

Keywords: Offshore jacket platform is widely used as production or oil recovering platform in the shallow sea, and is also
Offshore platform applied to the offshore wind turbine supporting structure in the recent years. The jacket structures are normally
Jacket structure designed to be conservative and bulky according to various design codes. In this work, a structural optimization
Topology optimization design method for jacket platform structure has been developed based on topology optimization theory. The
Finite element analysis
topology optimization method is applicable at an early design stage, which can determine the initial structure
and force transmission path. The whole design space is chosen as design variables, and the goal is to maximize
the structural stiffness. A set of constraints based on multi-criteria design assessment is applied according to
standard requirements, which includes stress, deformation, vibration and design variable constraints. The op-
timization results are compared with the original platform for static performance, dynamic performance and
Ultimate Carrying Capacity (UCC). Results show that the optimized structure show a 13.7% reduction in the
global mass, 46.31% reduction in the maximum equivalent stress, and large ultimate carrying capacity ability
under the same environmental loads. It is demonstrated that the proposed topology optimization method is
capable of effectively determining the optimal design of jacket platform structures.

1. Introduction
As the foundation platform of ocean engineering, jacket platform is
the main supporting part of offshore structures, which is generally
working within the depth of 10 m to 200 m. Jacket platform is widely
used as production or oil recovering platform in the shallow sea, and is
also applied to the offshore wind turbine supporting structure in the
recent years [1–3]. It subjects to environmental loads during their
lifetime; these loads are imposed on the platform through natural
phenomena such as wind, current, wave, earthquake, snow and earth
movement. The design, analysis, and construction of offshore structures
compatible with the extreme offshore environmental conditions are the
most challenging and creative task. Compare to the land-based, offshore
structures have added complication of being placed in an ocean en-
vironment where hydrodynamic interaction effects and dynamic re-
sponse become major considerations in their design. Therefore, a good
jacket platform structure is very important for its service life.
As one of the earliest emerging offshore platforms, the structural
design of jacket platform has become more and more mature. However,
with the consideration of green economy and new marine energy de-
veloping in recent years, design of jacket platform has put forward new
requirements. The new design structure should improve the structural
performance and reduce manufacturing cost. For the design and man-
ufacture of traditional offshore platforms, platforms are usually de-
signed to be conservative and bulky, in order to ensure the normal
exploitation of resources and the safety of workers, which caused high
costs during the process of manufacture and installation.
Lots of scholars researched optimization methods for offshore sup-
porting structures. Feng et al. [4] proposed the shape optimization
design for jacket platforms by seeking the nodal position and cross-
sectional dimensions to obtain the minimum weight of platform. Liu
et al. [5] presented acceleration-oriented design optimization of ice-
resistant jacket platforms. This method focused on the dynamic per-
formance of the jacket platforms to achieve an economical and rational
design. Yang et al. [6] used the reliability based design optimization for
the tripod sub-structure of offshore wind turbines. A much higher re-
liability model is obtained based on the Monte Carlo simulation. Lee
et al. [7] also compared methods of reliability-based design optimiza-
tion and deterministic optimization for a monopole transition piece in
an offshore wind turbine system. Chen and Fu [8] proposed a fuzzy
approach to the lectotype optimization of offshore platforms. Chew
et al. [9] presented an analytical gradient-based method to optimize the

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of mechanical and electrical engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author at: Institute of Oceanographic Instrumentation, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Qingdao, 266061, China.
E-mail addresses: liuguijie039@163.com (G. Liu), dengwei_sdioi@163.com (W. Deng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.01.003

Available online 09 January 2019

Received 19 March 2018; Received in revised form 23 November 2018; Accepted 2 January 2019

0141-1187/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

X. Tian et al.
diameter and thickness of offshore wind jacket substructure. Gentils
et al. [10] developed an optimization method coupled parametric finite
element analysis and genetic algorithm offshore support structure. This
method can optimize the outer diameter and thickness of various
components simultaneously. These optimization methods are usually
based on the original structure configuration, and only the size and
position of piles are adjusted a little. So the effect of optimization is not
particularly significant.
For structural optimization, there are three major categories: size,
shape and topology optimization, and the process of optimization is
gradually increasing from easy to difficult [11–13]. The optimum
structure derived from sizing and shape optimization is only a result of
the initial topology design. In other words, the structure from sizing and
shape optimization may not be the true optimum structure if the initial
topology design is not an optimal structure [14]. Finding a good
structural configuration before shape and sizing optimization is an
important but difficult task and stresses the need for topology optimi-
zation.
With the development of topology optimization technology in re-
cent years, especially the development of continuum structure optimi-
zation, the speed and scale of optimization are greatly improved.
Topology optimization can be incorporated in a very early phase of the
product development process to propose complete a new design
[15,16]. It is a considerably practical aid in structural design as it
produces design solutions of high performance by finding the optimal
structural layout. Several methods have been developed for topology
optimization of continuum structures, such as the solid isotropic mi-
crostructure with penalization (SIMP) method, the evolutionary struc-
tural optimization (ESO) method, level set method and so on [17]. SIMP
method assumes isotropic materials and takes the element relative
density as the continuous design variable [18]. ESO method realize the
determination of void elements’ sensitivities rather than heuristic esti-
mation. This formulation claims the justification for optima output from
a convergent and mesh-independent procedure [19]. Level set method
is the implicit representation of structural boundary by using the zero
level set of higher order functional in the design domain [20]. Both the
SIMP and level set methods employ sensitivity analysis and a mathe-
matical programming method such as MMA, and they have been suc-
cessfully used to solve the minimum mean compliance problem and the
compliant mechanism problems. It has been reported that SIMP, level
set method are computationally effective, but their convergence to the
global optimum solution is not guaranteed [21].
Especially for the truss structure, it can be directly optimized
through the establishment of continuum model to obtain a reasonable
force path. Aiming at offshore engineering structures, Liu et al. estab-
lished the calculation model of Marine platform in ANSYS software, and
carried out static, dynamic and optimized design of the platform under
different working conditions. The topological optimization with volume
as the objective function reduces the result by 8% [22]. Lu et al. con-
sidered the dynamic performance of the jack-up platform and con-
ducted multi-objective optimization based on the dynamic performance
of the pile leg. The results showed that the method had good con-
vergence [23]. This article uses this idea to design the jacket structure,
and to find an initial structural configuration for jacket structure
foundation by maximizing its structural stiffness. It also can provide
enough resistance for extreme design loads and increase its dynamic
performance.
This work attempts to explore the applicability of topology opti-
mization techniques in the field of jacket platform structural design;
demonstrating how these techniques can help to develop better solu-
tions and procedures while reducing, at the same time, the costs of
design, deployment and manufacturing.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the optimum
methodology used in this paper. Section 3 introduces the characteristics
of the reference jacket platform model. Section 4 analyzes the en-
vironmental load of jacket platform. The topology optimization design
39
Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50
for jacket structure is introduced in Section 5. Section 6 evaluate and
verify the structural performance of the topology design. Finally the
conclusions are given.
2. Methodology
The solving method for topology optimization mainly contains
analytical method and numerical method. The analytical method began
with Maxwell, where he first performed the basic topology analysis of a
stress-constrained minimum weight truss in 1854. In 1904, Michell [24]
proposed the conditions for the optimal truss, which is known as Mi-
chell criterion. It is also considered as a milestone for the theory of
structural optimization design. Although Michell theory has been
greatly developed, it is difficult to solve the problem by using the
analytical method. Therefore, the application of structural optimization
obtained by the analytical method is extremely limited. Now numerical
methods are usually used to solve the optimization problems.
For most designs, the goal is mainly to maximize the structural
stiffness, so usually, the objective function of topology optimization is
the value of a linear function for the equilibrium displacement field.
This linear function is called compliance, and it is the inverse of a global
stiffness, so when compliance is minimized, the structure will attain the
maximum stiffness. The objective of our topology optimization problem
is to determine the stiffest possible structure, or find the solution with
minimum compliance, for a given space; by providing the volume
constraints. Therefore, the optimization problem in this study can be
stated as:
N
min: c (x ) = UT KU = e=1
(x e ) P ueT k 0 ue
x
V (x )
subjectto: V0
=f
KU = F
0 x min xi 1 (1)
Where, U is the global displacement matrix, F is the global force matrix,
K is the global stiffness matrix, ue and k0 is the displacement vector and
stiffness matrix of element, x is the vector of design variable, xmin is the
minimum vector of relative density (its value is usually greater than
zero to avoid singularities), N is total number of finite element dis-
cretized by the design area, p is the penalty factor, V(x) and V0 are the
material volume and design volume respectively, and f is the specified
volume ratio.
2.1. Topology optimization method
SIMP method is based on the continuous variable between 0–1 and
the elastic modulus of material. The topology optimization is accom-
plished by removing the value of small variables. SIMP method can
associate the density value of design variable with the element elastic
modulus by interpolation function. Material interpolation schemes
consider the design variables as a continuous variable between com-
plete void or fill, where, the value xmin in Eq. (1) is a practical lower
bound of the element density introduced to avoid singularity in the
numerical implementation.
The mathematical models for SIMP is expressed in Eq. (2):
E p (xe ) = E min + xep (E 0 E min ) (2)
Where, Ep indicate the elastic modulus after interpolation. E0 and Emin
are the elastic modulus of solid material part and void part respectively.
2.2. Solving method
To solve topological optimization problems, there are several dif-
ferent approaches such as Optimality Criteria (OC) method, Sequential
linear programming (SLP) method, Method of Moving Asymptotes
(MMA) method, and some others. OC method [25] is mainly based on
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

an inspired display of the variable update scheme renew design vari-

ables. It is typically used in situations where the number of global
constraints is much less than the number of design variables. MMA
method [26] transforms the implicit optimum problem into a series of
explicit simple convex approximation sub-problems by introducing
moving asymptotic parameters. It has better adaptability for complex
topological optimization problems and is more suitable for the optimum
problem with multiple constraints and complex objective functions.
Considering the efficiency and robustness of algorithm, MMA
method is used in this paper to solve the continuum topology optimi-
zation problem. The optimization problem can be approximated by
MMA as shown in Eq. (3).

minf˜0 (x (k) )
x
(MMA) s. t . f˜i (x (k) ) 0
(k ) (k )
xj (j = 1, 2, ..., n; i = 1, 2, ..., m)
j j (3)

Where, α(k) j and β(k) j are the moving limits, fi is the approx-
imating function, the specific meaning of each parameter in the formula
is detailed in [27].

2.3. Numerical instability and suppression techniques of topological

optimization
During the process of topology optimization, there are some nu-
merical instabilities, such as the checkerboard pattern, mesh-dependent
optimization defects, which cause some difficulties for the topological
configuration extraction [28]. In order to get the desired structure to-
pology with clear, homogeneous and easily manufacturing properties, it
is necessary to restrain the numerical instability. The main method is to
use a more stable finite element model, and filter the density or element
sensitivity, etc.
Sensitivity filtering method is used in this study, which is based on
convolution filtering. It is a local constraint method and centered on an
element. The sensitivity of this element can be replaced by the weighted
average value of each element sensitivities within its filter radius. The
independence of mesh is ensured by changing the sensitivity.
N
c 1 c Table 1. And the whole finite element model is established in Fig. 2.
= N
Hˆ f x f
xe xe Hˆ
f =1 f f =1
xf
(4)
Where, Ĥf is the convolution operator (weight factor) and can be ex-
pressed as:
Hˆ f = rmin dist(e, f ), {f N |dist(e, f ) rmin }, e = 1, ...N
(5)
The control function dist(e,f) is defined as the distance between the
center e of the element and the center f of the element. Outside of the
filter area, the convolution operator Ĥf is 0. The convolution operator
decreases linearly with the distance of element f.
3. Reference jacket platform model
Jacket platform is mainly composed of two parts. One part mainly
contains the deck, and other facilities and equipment, which is called
the upper structures. It can be used for oil and gas collecting and pro-
cessing site, human life site and other uses. The other part is composed
of jacket and steel pipe piles, commonly known as the support struc-
ture. It can be used to support the upper facilities and equipment. The
lower piles can support all loads and fix platform position, and its
number, length, and diameter are determined by the geological con-
ditions and load of seabed. Jacket is a space frame composed of leg
columns and braces. Leg columns are hollow, and the steel pipe piles
penetrate into the sea bed through the legs to fix the jacket and transmit
the upper load. The vertical and horizontal braces between leg columns
are called supports for transmitting loads and making sure the overall
Fig. 1. Offshore jacket platform photo in site.
stability of the structure. The leg column, pile, and braces act together
to form the support structure for the jacket platform [29].
In this study, JZ20-2MUQ platform is used as a reference. JZ20-
2MUQ platform is located at Liaodong Bay, Bohai Sea. It is a typical
jacket platform with four-legs. The designed water depth is 25 m, the
overall height of the jacket is 40.5 m, the pile diameter is 1 m, the wall
thickness is 0.02 m, and the weight of the upper deck is 1600 t. The
bottom size of the platform is 11 × 11 m2, and the top area is
6.75 × 6.75 m2 (Fig. 1).
Based on the above geometric dimensions, the 3D geometry of the
referenced model is generated, mainly consisting of the lower sup-
porting structure. The upper part is simplified as mass points acted on
the lower part. The sizes of main support structures are shown in
Usually, jacket structure is mainly composed of X-type and K-type
structure. The jacket in this study is welded by a four-layer K-tube
structure and four X-tube structures.
Because leg column, pile and braces are tubular structures, they can
be effectively and accurately modelled using pipe elements. The ele-
ment type used here is PIPE59, which has six degrees of freedom at each
node. And it is a uniaxial element with tension-compression, torsion,
and bending capabilities. Additionally, the element loads include the
hydrodynamic and buoyant effects of the water and the element mass
include the added mass of the water and the pipe internals. Therefore,
PIPE59 element is very appreciable for the simulating pipe members
and pile of the jacket below sea level.
The main part of the support structure is made of steel Q235, which
has been widely used for jacket platform structures [29]. Q235 is
adopted for finite element model and its material properties are listed in
Table 2.
The coordinate system is set at the water surface and the bottom in
four corners are mud surfaces. The upper section is represented as a
lumped mass, applied via multi-point constraint on the model top. The
bottom is applied fixed constraints, while the effect of platform legs
with soil is equivalent as a fixed constraint. Loads applied on the jacket
structure for both ultimate and operational conditions are defined in
Section 4.

40
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Table 1
Offshore platform parameters and element type.
Category Structure Outer diameter/m Thickness/m Element

1 Tilt brace for jacket 0.6 0.02 PIPE59

2 Horizontal brace for jacket 0.6 0.02 PIPE59
3 Main leg column 1.0 0.02 PIPE59

P = ( /2) u2Cs (7)

Where, F is the wind force, P is the wind pressure, ρ is the mass density
of air (1.22 kg/m3 for standard temperature and pressure), u is the wind
speed, CS is the shape coefficient, A is the area of object.
In the absence of data indicating otherwise, the shape coefficients in
Table4 are recommended for perpendicular wind approach angles with
respect to each projected area. In this paper, considering the shape of
the initial optimization model, we take the shape coefficient in 1.0.

4.2. Current load

In general, the speed of ocean current varies very slowly with time.
In engineering design, the ocean current is often regarded as a steady
flow for convenient calculation. And the force acting on the object is
merely dragged force. However, in the co-existence of waves and cur-
rents conditions, we cannot ignore the speed caused by the waves. At
this time, the calculation of current load should take into account the
drag force caused by superposition of the velocity of the current and the
wave water particle. The drag force load per unit area in the water is
shown in Eq. (8)
1
Pl = CD Uc2 (Pa)
2 (8)
Where, CD is the drag force coefficient, the size often takes 1 [32], ρ is
the seawater density and its value is 1025 kg/m3, UC is current velocity.
Fig. 2. Model of JZ20-2MUQ platform structure.
4.3. Wave load
Table 2
Material properties of Q235. For the small-scale object, it is defined as D/L ≤ 0.2, where D is the
Property Symbol Value
characteristic length of an object and L is the wavelength. For example,
D is the diameter for a cylinder. For shallow waves, the wavelength L is
Young's modulus E 2.1 × 1011 N·m−2 [33]:
Poisson ratio μ 0.3
Shear modulus τ 7.6 × 1011 N·m−2 L = T gh (9)
Material density ρ 7800 Kg·m−3
Allowable normal stress σ 192 × 106N·m−2 Where, T is the wave period, g is the acceleration of gravity, h is water
depth.
For the wave force and current force on per unit length of a small-
4. Design load analysis scale component, Morrison formulate is used to calculate the drag force
and inertia force. And then two kind of forces are synthesized in the
Offshore platforms have long engaged in production operations in same phase, as shown in Eq. (10). For the platform rod, the pressure in
the sea. The sea and meteorological conditions in the working zone the wave load zone is shown in Eq. (11).
have a great impact on the structural safety and operational efficiency.
1
Therefore, determining the environmental load and weather conditions F= CD A |u x | u x + CM Vux
2 (10)
of the platform is the first task to be considered in the design of offshore
structures. Offshore structures bear a lot of environmental loads, in- 1
P= CD |u x | u x + CM u x
cluding wind load, wave load, current load, sea ice load and earthquake 2 (11)
load, as shown in Fig. 3. By referring to the relevant data, the hydro-
Where, A is the projection area per unit length pile column perpendi-
logical conditions of Liaodong Bay in the Bohai Sea are shown in
cular to the vector u x , V is the drainage volume for unit length of the
Table 3.
component. ux and u x are respectively the relative velocity and accel-
eration vectors perpendicular to the axial component, which obtained
4.1. Wind load by Stokes solution. CM is the inertia force coefficient, the size often
takes 1.6 [32]. Other symbols have the same meaning as before.
The wind drag force on an object should be calculated as shown in
Eq. (6) [31]. For the platform rod, the pressure in the wave load zone is 4.4. Ice load
shown in Eq. (7).
The force of sea ice on marine structure is called ice load. For off-
F = ( /2) u2Cs A (6) shore platform, cone ice breaking devices are often installed on the legs

41
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Fig. 3. Loads on offshore platform jacket structure.

Table 3
Environmental parameters conditions [30].
Item Conditions Parameters and values

Sea wind Operating conditions One minute operating status (once a year) is 30.6 m/s
Ultimate conditions Storm self-saving state (once in a century) is 46.31 m/s
Wave Operating conditions The maximum wave height is 1.4 m and period is 5s
Ultimate conditions The maximum wave height is 8.0 m and period is 9.6s
Current Operating conditions The maximum flow rate is 1.03 m/s
Ultimate conditions The maximum flow rate is 1.67 m/s
Sea ice General ice Year Ice thickness 15 cm; compression strength 1.5 MPa, bending strength 0.7MPa
Extreme Ice Age Ice thickness 40 cm, compressive strength 1.5 MPa, bending strength 0.7Mpa; Flow ice size 5 × 5×0.7m3; flow ice Speed 1.03 m/s

Table 4 Table 6
Wind Shape Coefficients. Environmental loads summary.
Area Shape Coefficient (CS) Type of load Wind Flowing ice Ice field

Beams 1.5 Load size(kPa) 1.31 3.534 480

Sides of buildings 1.5
Cylindrical sections 0.5
Overall projected wind area of platform 1.0
in this paper.
Two kinds of ice loads that mainly generate damages to marine
engineering structures are as following [32].

(1) The load of ice field on vertical pile. The ice load generated by
massive ice field squeezing isolated vertical piles is shown in Eq.
(12):

P = mK1 K2 Rc bh (12)

Where, m is the shape factor of pile column, see Table 5, K1 is the

local extrusion coefficient, K2 is the contact coefficient between the
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of cone breaking ice structure. pile column and the ice layer, Rc is the ultimate compressive
strength of ice cubes, b is the width or diameter of piles, and h is the
thickness of ice.
Table 5
Shape coefficient of pile column. (2) The load of flowing ice on vertical pile. When the sea ice is carried
by wind and current, the maximum value of the ice pressure on pile
Tip Angle of pile tip(2α) 180° 120° 90° 75° 60° half round
column can be calculated by the Eq. (12). If the kinetic energy of ice
Coefficient (m) 1.00 0.81 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.90 can only partly cut into the pile, the ice will stay in front of the pile.
In this case, the maximum impact ice pressure acting on the pile
will be less than the above, but the impact of ice on the platform
near the sea surface to destroy the ice through the direct action of tri- should not be ignored. Therefore, the kinetic energy of flowing ice
angular breaking devices on the ice, so as to reduce the squeezing force is mainly consumed on the work of ice field squeezing. The ice
of the ice and reduce the load on the jacket platform. The principle of pressure P on the pile at any moment is shown in Eq. (13).
ice breaking device is shown in Fig. 4 and the ice breaking angle α is 60°
P = 0.68vh (BL Rm tan )1/2 (13)

42
X. Tian et al.
Fig. 5. a) The variation of wave and current load with water depth and time, b) wave and current load varies with water depth at 3/4 period.
Fig. 6. Flowchart of Topology optimization solution.
Where, L is the length of flowing ice, B is the width of flowing ice, h
is height of flowing ice, and v is the velocity of flowing ice.
4.5. Design loads summary
In this paper, the topological optimization analysis of continuous
body structure is carried out with wind load, current load and wave
load in extreme condition. The static analysis and dynamic analysis of
the jacket before and after optimization were carried out under the
same environmental loads.
Under various environmental conditions, load magnitude varies
little with height for wind load and sea ice load, so it is calculated as a
constant value. The calculated results are shown in Table 6. For the
wind load and current load, they could be calculated by the corre-
sponding criterion. For the ice load, the ice filed load is very large.
However, it is not considered in the following analysis, because the
jacket is often equipped with a cone ice breaking structure.
For the wave and current load, its magnitude varies a lot with the
43
Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50
water depth and time. It can be expressed through the wave theory and
Morrison equation, as shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the wave and
current load changes periodically, and have the maximum value at 3/4
period. Fig. 5 (b) indicates the load curve at 3/4 period. In the sub-
sequent analysis, the maximum current and wave load value is applied
on the model. So the applied load is according to the load curve as
shown in Fig. 5 (b).
5. Topology optimization design
In this paper, the topology optimization method is used to ignore
the initial design of the structure completely, and the design space is
constructed as a monolithic continuum structure. The optimal response
and the target are set by adding reasonable constraints such as external
loads and manufacturing, and the final structure is obtained through an
iterative solution. The goal of optimization is to increase the service life
of the structure and reduce the design and manufacturing costs. The
topology optimization process is shown in Fig. 6.
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Fig. 7. Designed space of topology optimization for jacket platform structure.

Fig. 8. Loads distribution on the topology optimization design space.

Fig. 9. Evolution in topology optimization of jacket structure.

44
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Fig. 10. Model reconstruction process under different filtration densities.

Table 7 other constraints.

Platform weight of different models.
Pre-optimization Optimization model
Model a Model b
Weight of platform (t) 329.97 268.62 305.46
18.59% 7.43%
For the initial design space, it is often determined according to the
shape of the initial model structure, and then use CAD software to es-
tablish the continuum structure of the initial model and import CAE
software. Due to the different modeling mechanisms of CAD and CAE
software, the imported model needs to be cleaned up firstly before
analyzing imported models, such as removing shared edges, repairing
missing faces and so on. Next, the imported model is meshed, and
added material properties and boundary conditions to perform finite
element analysis on the model. And then the optimal response are set
on the initial model, such as compliance, frequency, volume, etc. In
addition, the optimization still needs to consider the feasibility of
processing and manufacturing constraints, such as draft, extrusion and
The initial structure can be optimized by different optimization
methods and solution methods by a series of iterations. Until the opti-
mization iteration is convergence, the topology optimized results would
Model c be reconstructed and compared with the pre-optimization model to
evaluate its performance. If topology optimization cannot meet the
316.87
3.98%
expectation results, the design parameters need to be modified, and
structure would be re-topology optimized until a satisfactory topology
structure would be obtained. It is noted that the structure obtained by
the topology optimization is not necessarily the final design. The opti-
mized model only reflects the force transmission path of the structure
under the action of the external load. Therefore, it is needed to re-
construction of the optimized model for the final structure.
5.1. Modeling of jacket structure
Firstly, the optimal design area of jacket structure is determined.
Considering the requirements of manufacturing, installation and other
practical requirements, large design area is selected as much as possible
to fully enlarge the optimization potential. For the leg of jacket plat-
form, it is often designed as the double diagonal state, which can

Fig. 11. Stress cloud of the jacket model before and after optimization.

45
X. Tian et al.
Fig. 12. Displacement cloud of the jacket platform before and after optimization.
Table 8
Static characteristics of the jacket platform before and after optimization.
Optimized project Pre-optimization
Jacket weight (t) 329.97
Maximum displacement(mm) 16.56
Maximum stress(MPa) 59.6
enhance the anti-overturning ability of platform structure. From the
planar perspective, it can be regarded as a trapezoid structure with
small top.
Referring to the structure of JZ20-2MUQ jacket platform, only the
underwater structure is selected to establish the three-dimensional
continuum model as shown in Fig. 7. To be consistent with the proto-
type model, the optimum model still adopts four legs supporting on the
lower and retains the cross braces on the upper. It can be clearly seen
that the grey part is defined as the optimization space, while legs and
braces are defined as non-optimization space and do not participate in
the optimization process but contribute to the overall flexibility. In
addition, in order to ensure the optimization result with a clear truss
structure, the internal material is removed during establishing the op-
timization model. And two layers of the solid structure are added at the
middle position of original model, as shown in Fig. 7.
Details and distribution of loads on the optimization model is shown
in Fig. 8. The design loads for the optimization are obtained from the
load analysis in Section 4, mainly including wind load, current load,
and wave load. The current and wave load both act on the optimization
space, but wind load partly act on the upper marine equipment and
partly act on the optimization space. Therefore, wind load on the upper
marine equipment is acted onto the cross brace above the optimization
zone with additional torque. In addition, the gravities of upper marine
equipment and lower section are both considered. For marine equip-
ment on the upper section of jacket, the equipment weight is equivalent
to four mass points and act on legs.
The size of load is changing with the depth, so the effect of load on
the model can obtained by interpolation algorithm. Then, force equa-
tions are generated in OptiStruct software, which are applied on the
model. Compared with the operating conditions, the platform has a
large static stress and displacement under the conditions of extreme
marine environment. Therefore, in the topology optimization process,
the environmental load of the extreme condition is often used as the
control load of the platform design.
For the model boundary constraints, four fixed constrains are
46
Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50
Optimized Reduced amount Reduced ratio
316.87 13.1 3.98%
9.214 7.346 44.36%
22.4 37.2 62.4%
applied at the bottom and four symmetry constrains are applied at the
middle. Considering the actual interaction between pile leg of jacket
and soil, pile structure in mud is generally simplified to the length of 6
times pile diameter, and fixed constraints are applied at the bottom.
Considering the external loads are not symmetric, two vertical ortho-
gonal planes of symmetry need to be imposed as additional design
conditions to the optimum model.
In order to obtain a relatively clear truss structure, the minimum
flexibility of the model is taken as the optimization objective function,
and the volume fraction and maximum displacement of the model are
restrained.
5.2. Results of topology optimization
During the topology optimization process, the element density value
of design space should be close to the ends of 0–1, so as to inhibit the
generation of intermediate density and make the optimized structure
clearer. At the same time, it can be guaranteed that the optimized
structure can reduce the structural weight in accordance with the safety
performance, so as to obtain better distribution of materials.
Topology optimization of the model was carried out using the
OptiStruct optimization module in HyperWorks software [33]. The
optimum objective function is the minimization of compliance for de-
signed structure, maximizing the stiffness, while reducing structural
volume of the design-space. The process of topology optimization is
shown in Fig. 9. After 73 iterations, the optimization process converges
and a clear topological truss structure is obtained. Fig. 9 shows the
evolution in topology of the jacket structure, together with the values of
volume and relative stiffness for each iteration. It is noted that how the
elements with low sensitivity value are being gradually eliminated,
decreasing the volume of the piece until the conditions are satisfied and
the solution of maximum stiffness is found.
For the last topology iteration results in Fig. 9, two layers of X-
shaped structure are appeared in the designed zone, which is in line
with the design principles of marine engineering structures. However,
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Fig. 13. Vibration modals of platforms before and after optimization.

Table 9 0.416, one layer structure emerges inside of structure. And when the
Modal frequency of platform before and after optimization. filtration density is 0.328, two layer structure emerges. As the de-
Modes Pre-optimization Optimized
creasing of filtration density, less materials are removed.
The final model could be reconstructed by the optimization results.
1st mode 1.7320 3.1171 For different optimized truss structures, cylindrical pipe material with a
2st mode 1.7423 3.1823 certain thickness is chosen to obtain the platform structure as shown in
3st mode 1.9963 3.1827
4st mode 2.4499 3.2273
Fig. 10. The pipe construction can better withstand the axial force,
5st mode 2.4645 3.3159 bending moment, torque and hydrostatic pressure, is widely used in
6st mode 3.0236 3.3178 marine engineering buildings. For the weight of platform, the three
optimization models have reduced to some extent. Especially, model a
has reduced the most weight to 18.59%, as it has the simplest structure.
optimized structure have no internal structures. It is because that the According to the topological optimization results, the three models
element sensitivity filtering value is set to 0.515, the elements with a, b, and c all can be used as the initial structure of further detailed
lower sensitivity values inside structure are removed in the process of design. Considering that the traditional jacket structure is often con-
optimizing iteration. It also shows that the outer structure is the main nected by the horizontal supports, model b and c both meet the re-
force transmission path. But compared to the classical model obtained quirements. But model c has more horizontal poles in the lower part.
by the conventional trial and error design method, the optimized Model b is selected for the final initial structure of jacket platform. The
structure without inner structure may cause unstable of the overall optimization process itself ends with the transformation of the shape-
platform. To get the inner structure, element sensitivity filtering value optimized data into a geometry-based CAD model, which itself has to be
should be reduced gradually until the optimization result of the inner meshed and reanalyzed using FEA in order to validate the final design.
structure appears, as shown in Fig. 10. When the element sensitivity is For ensuing the consistency of the analysis before and after optimized

47
X. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50

Fig. 14. Time-displacement curve of platform top points (a) pre-optimized model, (b) optimized model.

Fig. 15. Time-stress curve of platform top points (a) pre-optimized model, (b) optimized model.

6. Discussion and verification

The optimum solution is next verified by FE analysis and its per-

formance is compared to the initial design under the same conditions. A
clear truss structure was obtained by topology optimization of the
model optimization area, and the model was reconstructed using
PIPE59 element in ANSYS. Platform models before and after optimi-
zation are shown in Fig. 10. The final weight of the optimized model is
7.43% lighter than the classical model. It can be seen that the new
model increases an X-shaped structure on the upper part, reduces the
horizontal braces structures and enlarges the X-shaped structure of
lower part simultaneously. Based on the previous research, the static
Fig. 16. Relationship of external load and displacement of jacket structure. performance, dynamic performance and ultimate carrying capacity of
platforms before and after optimization in the real marine environment
parameters are compared (Table 7).
Table 10
Ultimate carrying capacity of pre-optimization and optimized jacket platform.
6.1. Static analysis of ultimate state design
UCC (KN) 0° direction 45° direction
Stress distribution within such a large structure is a dominant factor
Pre-optimized 2820 2660
Optimized 5680 4400 in the design procedure of an offshore structure. Ultimate state analysis
Increased ratio 101.42% 65.41% is performed for the jacket platform under the ultimate environmental
load applied on the FEM model, which is list in Table 3. The equivalent
stress distributions and the displacement cloud before and after opti-
model, the upper frame structure of jacket platform is also added to the mization is shown in Figs.11 and 12.
optimized model, and pipe sizes of optimized model is the same as that It can be seen from Figs. 11 and 12 that the stress and displacement
of the original model. of the optimized model are greatly reduced. Compared with the pre-
It can be concluded from the above optimization results that the optimization model, the stress distribution of the optimized model is
topological optimization method is a kind of conceptual design method, more uniform. And its maximum equivalent stress value is only
which only provides the optimal transmission path. Further optimiza- 27.16 MPa, which is reduced by 46.31% comparing to the pre-optimi-
tion is needed for the specific size and relative position of structures. In zation model. It is proved that the optimization structure has a good
order to get better structural performance, detailed shape and size op- force transmission path and is better to withstand the environment load
timization are necessary after topology optimization. with less materials. In Fig. 12, main legs of optimized model have no

48
X. Tian et al.
deformation, and the maximum displacement value appears on one X
node. For the pre-optimization model, the main leg deformations are
very obvious, and large deformations are appearing on three X-shape
structures with large displacement values. The static characteristics are
listed in Table 8 in detail.
6.2. Dynamic analysis of ultimate state design
Because the jacket platform is very susceptible to wind, current and
wave loads during their serve life, it is very important to evaluate its
dynamic response for the platform model before and after optimization.
The natural periods and corresponding vibration mode shapes are
computed by analysis. The first six dominant vibration modes are
shown in Fig. 13 and the natural period Modal frequency are listed in
Table 9.
Comparing to the pre-optimization model, the modal frequency of
each order for optimized model are all bigger, which is far from the
resonant frequency under wave loads. Additionally, the first six modal
frequency optimized structure have little differences. The maximum
deformation values of various order are much bigger, and it is located at
the X-shape of lower part. The maximum deformation of pre-optimi-
zation model is located at the upper part. There are two braces layers
for the pre-optimization model, which can resist the deformations of
middle structures. But the bigger deformation of optimized model has
much influences on the dynamic characters of platform. Based on the
static analysis, the modal deformations are still smaller than the ulti-
mate deformations. Also, the modal frequencies are far from the re-
sonant frequency, which reduces the resonance probabilities.
The transient dynamic analysis is also compared before and after
optimization. The maximum displacement and stress over time are
extracted, which is located at the top and bottom part, respectively. The
maximum displacement changing curves over time are shown in
Fig. 14. Platforms would sway under the effect of environmental loads.
The maximum displacement amplitude of pre-optimization platform is
15 mm, but the maximum displacement amplitude of optimized model
is only 2 mm. It can be seen that, the displacement of optimized model
has decreased a lot, which increase the stability largely. The stress
curve of before and after optimized model are shown in Fig. 15. It can
be seen that the stress amplitude is reduced from 15.1Mpa to 2.2Mpa,
which reduced the stress sharply. It can be conclude that the optimized
model has good performance under the dynamic loads.
6.3. Limit analysis
The linear static analysis of the optimization results can only give
the laws of stress, strain and displacement of the material in the elastic
state. As the external load increases, the deformation of the jacket
structure will enter the plastic state, and the relationship between stress
and strain will change into a nonlinear relationship. When the external
load reaches to a certain limit, the deformation will increase un-
limitedly, resulting in the loss of carrying capacity of the structure. This
state is the plastic limit state of the structure, and the load at this time is
the Ultimate Carrying Capacity (UCC) of the structure. Therefore, in
order to explore the UCC of the optimization results, it is necessary to
analyze the plastic deformation state of the jacket structure.
When performing the limit analysis, the finite element models of
pre-optimization and optimized are both reestablished by BEAM 188
element. The external environmental load is converted into a con-
centrated force acting on the model. Considering the loading of 0° and
45° direction, the limit analysis of platform was carried out by the in-
cremental method. With the increasing of the external environmental
load, the maximum displacement of structure is increasing and reaches
the maximum value under the ultimate load, as shown in Fig. 16. When
the applied load exceeds the limit state, the deformation of the jacket
platform increases sharply, resulting in the calculation result no-con-
verging, and the calculation would stop. At this point, the ultimate load
49
Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50
of the jacket structure is obtained. It can be clearly seen that the opti-
mized structure have more UCC under the same deformation dis-
placement.
UCC of the pre-optimized and optimized model can be obtained, as
shown in the Table 10. It can be seen that the ultimate carrying capacity
of the optimized structure has increased 101.42% and 65.41% for 0°
and 45° direction respectively. Therefore, the optimized structure not
only has lighter weight but also has better ultimate carrying capacity,
which can improve the safety of the whole structure.
7. Conclusion
This paper presents the topology optimization method in the design
process of offshore jacket platform. Topology optimization offers new
potential in the industrial design process, which results in lighter,
stronger, and more durable structures. The underwater jacket structure
is selected to determine the design area. A clear truss structure is ob-
tained through a series of topology iterations. The optimization results
are verified by FE analysis for the static performance, dynamic per-
formance, and ultimate carrying capacity. The following conclusions
can be drawn from this study:
(1) The topological optimization method based on SIMP have good
effect for the jacket structure design.
(2) By using the proposed optimization model, the mass of the jacket
structure is reduced by 13.7%. This indicates the mass of the jacket
structure can be significantly reduced by using the proposed opti-
mization model.
(3) The static analysis results indicate that the maximum equivalent
stress value is reduced by 46.31%. It is proved that the optimized
jacket structure has a better force transmission path and is better to
withstand the environment load with less materials.
(4) The dynamic analysis results show that the modal frequencies are
far from the resonant frequency, which reduces the resonance
probabilities.
(5) The limit analysis results show that UCC of optimized platform
structures are both higher than the pre-optimized structures whe-
ther it is 0° or 45° load direction.
These positive results indicates that topology optimization is a
powerful tool to find the optimal material distribution for the pre-de-
sign of engineering structures. It may be a perspective design method to
other offshore structures in the future.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51609223, 51606178), Projects of Qingdao Application Basic
Research (16-5-1-21-jch), and National Science Fund for Distinguished
Young Scholars (51625902).
References
[1] M. Jang, L.P. Li, Offshore Engineering Structures—Jacket Platform, Dalian
University of Technology Press, Dalian, 2009.
[2] T. Taghikhany, S. Ariana, R. Mohammadzadeh, S. Babaei, The effect of semi-active
controller in sirri jacket seismic vibration control, Int. J. Mar. Sci. Eng 3 (2) (2013)
77–84.
[3] K. Wei, S.R. Arwade, A.T. Myers, S. Hallowell, J.F. Hajjar, E.M. Hines, W. Pange,
Toward performance-based evaluation for offshore wind turbine jacket support
structures, Renew Energ 97 (2016) 709–721.
[4] S. Feng, Y.P. Song, R.X. Zhang, Optimum design of structure shape for offshore
jacket platforms, China Ocean Eng 14 (4) (2000) 435–445.
[5] X. Liu, G. Li, Q.J. Yue, R. Oberliers, Acceleration-oriented design optimization of
ice-resistant jacket platforms in the Bohai Gulf, Ocean Eng 36 (2009) 1295–1302.
[6] H.Z. Yang, Y. Zhu, Q.J. Lu, J. Zhang, Dynamic reliability based design optimization
of the tripod sub-structure of offshore wind turbines, Renew Energ 78 (2015)
16–25.
[7] Y.S. Lee, B.L. Choi, J.H. Lee, S.Y. Kim, S. Han, Reliability-based design optimization
X. Tian et al.
of monopile transition piece for offshore wind turbine system, Renew Energ 71
(2014) 729–741.
[8] S. Chen, G. Fu, A fuzzy approach to the lectotype optimization of offshore plat-
forms, Ocean Eng 30 (2003) 877–891.
[9] K.H. Chew, K. Tai, E.Y.K. Ng, M. Muskulus, Optimization of offshore wind turbine
support structures using an analytical gradient-based method, Energy Procedia 80
(2015) 100–107.
[10] T. Gentils, L. Wang, A. Kolios, Integrated structural optimisation of offshore wind
turbine support structures based on finite element analysis and genetic algorithm,
Acs Appl. Energy Mater. 199 (2017) 187–204.
[11] B. Torstenfelt, A. Klarbring, Conceptual optimal design of modular car product
families using simultaneous size, shape and topology optimization, Finite Elem.
Anal. Des. 43 (14) (2007) 1050–1061.
[12] R.Z. Gustavo, J.N. Antonio, L. Francisco, A.C. Carlos, A survey of multi-objective
metaheuristics applied to structural optimization, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 49
(2014) 537–558.
[13] X. Yan, X. Huang, Y. Zha, Y.M. Xie, Concurrent topology optimization of structures
and their composite microstructures, Comput. Struct. 133 (2014) 103–110.
[14] Y.Q. Wang, Z. Kang, Q.Z. He, An adaptive refinement approach for topology opti-
mization based on separated density field description, Comput. Struct. 117 (2013)
10–22.
[15] L.B. Lauren, B. Alessandro, K. Neil, F.B. William, H.P. Glaucio, Connecting archi-
tecture and engineering through structural topology optimization, Eng. Struct. 59
(2014) 716–726.
[16] J.H. Zhu, W.H. Zhang, L. Xia, Topology optimization in aircraft and aerospace
structures design, Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 23 (2016) 595–622.
[17] G.I.N. Rozvany, A critical review of established methods of structural topology
optimization, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 37 (2009) 217–237.
[18] M.P. Bendsøe, N. Kikuchi, Generating optimal topology in structural design using a
homogenization method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 71 (1988) 197–224.
[19] Fei Zhao, A nodal variable ESO (BESO) method for structural topology optimiza-
tion, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 86 (2014) 34–40.
50
View publication stats
Applied Ocean Research 84 (2019) 38–50
[20] Michael Yu Wang, Xiaoming Wang, Dongming Guo, A level set method for struc-
tural topology optimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg 192 (2003)
227–246.
[21] H.A. Eschenauer, N. Olhoff, Topology optimization of continuum structures: a re-
view, Appl. Mech. Rev. 54 (2001) 331–390.
[22] Liu Yuhui, Study on Optimization Design of Jack-up Platform With Three Legs,
Master Thesis China University of Petroleum (East China), 2013.
[23] Lu Xingguo, Structural Strength Analysis and Optimum Design of Pile Leg of Self-
elevating Offshore Platform, Master Thesis Zhejiang Ocean University, 2016.
[24] A.G.M. Michell, The limits of economy of material in fame structure, Philos. Mag.
Abingdon (Abingdon) 8 (6) (1904) 589–597.
[25] K.M. Zhou, J.F. Li, X. Li, A review on topology optimization of structures, Adv Mech
35 (1) (2005) 66–76.
[26] K. Svanberg, The method of moving asymptotes: a new method for structural op-
timization, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Eng. 24 (1987) 359–373.
[27] O. Sigmund, J. Petersson, Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey
on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima,
Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 16 (1998) 68–75.
[28] Offshore Oil Engineering Design Guide, Offshore Oil Engineering Platform Structure
Design Vol. 4 Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, 2007.
[29] Q.Z. Yan, F.J. Yang, The reliability analysis of offshore platform under environ-
mental load in Bohai bay, Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 11 (24) (2011) 5782-07.
[30] API R, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms—working Stress Design, 22st ed., API Publishing Services,
Washington, D.C, 2014 API RP 2A-WSD.
[31] D.C. Sun, B. Pan, Design and Research of Ocean Jack-up Mobile Platform, Shanghai
Jiao Tong University Press, Shanghai, 2008.
[32] M.W. Dingemans, Water Wave Propagation Over Uneven Bottoms, Delft University
of Technology, TU Delft, 1994.
[33] Q.Q. Hong, K. Zhao, Zhang P. OptiStruct, HyperStudy: Theoretical Foundation and
Engineering Application, China Machine Press, Beijing, 2012.