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 [14]. 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 [2325].
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.
The
Energies
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
substructureswere
wereinitially
initiallydesigned
designedwith
withthe
theassumed
assumeddimensions.
dimensions.Stress
Stressanalyses
analysesdescribed
described
ininSection
determine the
themaximum
maximumvon
vonMises
Misesstresses
stresses
structures.
Section33were
werethen
then performed
performed to determine
in in
thethe
structures.
The
The
dimensions
of the
structures
were
iteratively
modified
so that
maximum
stresses
generated
dimensions
of the
structures
were
iteratively
modified
so that
the the
maximum
stresses
generated
in all
indesigned
all designed
structures,
under
identical
loadboundary
and boundary
conditions,
at a similar
level.that
Note
structures,
under
identical
load and
conditions,
fell at fell
a similar
level. Note
the
that
the iteration
procedure
didtonot
aim tothe
optimize
theand
structures
and once
was the
stopped
once stress
the
iteration
procedure
did not aim
optimize
structures
was stopped
maximum
maximum
stress
was
found
within
the expected level.
was found
within
the
expected
level.
2.2.Dimensions
DimensionsofofJacket
JacketSubstructures
Substructures
2.2.
Thisstudy
studyconsidered
considered 14
14 jacket
four
groups
for for
comparison.
Each
This
jacket substructures
substructurescategorized
categorizedinto
into
four
groups
comparison.
jacket
structure
waswas
assumed
70.570.5
m inmtotal
height
installed
at a at
50.0-m
water
depth.
Each
jacket
structure
assumed
in total
height
installed
a 50.0-m
water
depth.
First,
three
traditional
jacket
substructures
(abbreviated
as
J-structures)
were
selected
as reference
First, three traditional jacket substructures (abbreviated as J-structures) were selected
as
structures:
namely,
X-braces
(JX),
K-braces
(JK)
and
Z-braces
(JZ)
(Figure
1a).
Second,
recently-patented
reference structures: namely, X-braces (JX), K-braces (JK) and Z-braces (JZ) (Figure 1a). Second,
twisted jacket substructures
(TJ-structures)
were (TJ-structures)
considered [2325].
geometrical
recently-patented
twisted jacket
substructures
wereDetailed
considered
[2325].information,
Detailed
however,
was
not
disclosed
anywhere
in
the
patents.
Thus,
the
geometrical
information
of the
geometrical information, however, was not disclosed anywhere in the patents. Thus, the geometrical
TJ-structures
assumed
in this assumed
study should
reflect
the not
real-world
cases.
Four TJ-structures
information
of the
TJ-structures
in thisnot
study
should
reflect the
real-world
cases. Four
were considered:
namely, 0 twisted
30 twisted
(TJ30),
60 (TJ30),
twisted60
(TJ60)
and (TJ60)
90 twisted
TJ-structures
were considered:
namely, (TJ0),
0 twisted
(TJ0), 30
twisted
twisted
and
(TJ90)
(Figure
1b).
90 twisted (TJ90) (Figure 1b).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure1.1.(a)(a)
Traditionaljacket
jacketsubstructures
substructures(J-structures):
(J-structures):Z-braces
Z-braces
(JZ),K-braces
K-braces
(JK)and
andX-braces
X-braces
Figure
Traditional
(JZ),
(JK)
twisted (TJ0), 30 twisted (TJ30), 60 twisted
(JX);
(b)
twisted
jacket
substructures
(TJ-structures):
0
(JX); (b) twisted jacket substructures (TJ-structures): 0 twisted (TJ0), 30 twisted (TJ30), 60 twisted
twisted (TJ90); (c) tripod jacket substructures (PJ-structures): Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod
(TJ60)and
and90
90twisted
(TJ60)
(TJ90); (c) tripod jacket substructures (PJ-structures): Z-tripod (PJZ), K-tripod
(PJK)
and
X-tripod
(PJX);
(d)twisted-tripod
twisted-tripodjacket
jacketsubstructures
substructures(modified
(modifiedjacket
jacket(MJ)-structures):
(MJ)-structures):
(PJK) and X-tripod (PJX); (d)
tripod (MJ0), 30 tripod (MJ30), 60 tripod (MJ60) and 90 tripod (MJ90).
0
0 tripod (MJ0), 30 tripod (MJ30), 60 tripod (MJ60) and 90 tripod (MJ90).

The
Thestudy
studyinin[28]
[28]concluded
concludedthat
thatboth
boththreethree-and
andfour-leg
four-legjacket
jacketsubstructures
substructuresare
aresuitable
suitablefor
for
deep
the designed
designedthree-leg
three-legjacket
jacketisisthe
the
most
lightweight
deepwater
waterconditions.
conditions.ItItalso
also noted
noted that the
most
lightweight
andand
cost
cost
efficient
among
the studied
A conclusion
similar conclusion
was
in a study
comparison
efficient
among
the studied
models.models.
A similar
was reached
in reached
a 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) , (2) , (3) and (4) . Members and parts are termed in
the order of , and the part (location) of the members are termed . 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

a, b, c, d

Leg member

Central vertical member (for TJ-structures only)

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)

U, I, D

Upper, middle and lower oblique member (for TJ-structures only)

Particularly for leg members

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, Youngs modulus, Poissons 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 Morisons equation and Airys 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- 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 Morisons 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-down
with
hollow
tubestubes
was extremely
difficult,difficult,
solid cross-sections
were purposely
scaled-downspecimens
specimens
with
hollow
was extremely
solid cross-sections
were
chosen
as anchosen
alternation.
The MTS 810The
materials
testing
system
was used
for was
unidirectional
compressive
purposely
as an alternation.
MTS 810
materials
testing
system
used for unidirectional
testing.
Both testing.
the top Both
and bottom
were slightly
inserted
in the
metalinplates
to create
fixed-end
compressive
the top ends
and bottom
ends were
slightly
inserted
the metal
plates
to create
boundary
displacement-controlled
tests were performed,
the performed,
compression and
rate and
fixed-endconditions.
boundary The
conditions.
The displacement-controlled
tests and
were
the
total
displacement
of the
tests
were set to of
0.04
mm/s
andset
25
(Figure
2b). During
compression
rate and
total
displacement
the tests
were
to mm,
0.04respectively
mm/s and 25
mm, respectively
each
displacement-controlled
experiment, the load cellexperiment,
of the MTS machine
measured
the
(Figure
2b). During each displacement-controlled
the loadcontinuously
cell of the MTS
machine
corresponding
applied vertical
load on top of
the structure,
a force-displacement
diagram
continuously measured
the corresponding
applied
vertical leading
load on to
top
of the structure, leading
to a
for
analysis and comparison.
force-displacement
diagram for analysis and comparison.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.2. (a)

(a) Schematic
Schematicofofa ascaled-down
scaled-down
test
specimen
of the
MJ0-structure;
(b) snapshot
of
Figure
test
specimen
of the
MJ0-structure;
(b) snapshot
of the
the
experimental
setup.
experimental setup.

3.3.2. Numerical
Numerical Simulation
Simulation
3.3.2.
The modified
modified Riks
Riks method
method with
with solid
solid and
and shell
shell elements
elements in
in Abaqus
Abaqus was
was employed
employed for
for unstable
unstable
The
collapse and
and postbuckling
linear
eigenvalue
analysis
is sufficient
for
collapse
postbuckling analysis
analysis [34].
[34]. InInsimple
simplecases,
cases,
linear
eigenvalue
analysis
is sufficient
design
evaluation.
The
Riks
analysis,
a
load-deflection
analysis
method,
yields
very
accurate
results
for design evaluation. The Riks analysis, a load-deflection analysis method, yields very accurate
for problems
with with
material
nonlinearity,
geometric
nonlinearity
prior
unstable
results
for problems
material
nonlinearity,
geometric
nonlinearity
priortotobuckling
buckling or
or unstable
postbuckling
response.
postbuckling response.
The first
first part
part was
was the
the analysis
analysis using
usingthe
thescaled-down
scaled-downmodel
modelfor
forvalidation
validationpurposes.
purposes. In
In the
the
The
simulation,the
thematerial
material
assumed
perfectly
the properties
were
defined3.1.
in
simulation,
waswas
assumed
perfectly
plastic,plastic,
and theand
properties
were defined
in Section
Section
3.1.
The
C3D8R
(8-node
linear
brick,
reduced
integration
with
hourglass
control)
elements
The C3D8R (8-node linear brick, reduced integration with hourglass control) elements were used for
were
usedscaled-down
for the whole
scaled-down
withmesh
the maximum
mesh
size
equal
0.025 mm.
the
whole
model
with the model
maximum
size equal to
0.025
mm.
Theto
applied
force,The
as
applied
force,
well
as theboundaries
top and bottom
boundaries
were
setexperiment.
to represent the experiment.
well
as the
top as
and
bottom
were set
to represent
the
The second
second part
1414
structures
using
full-scale
models
for comparison.
The
The
part was
wasthe
theanalysis
analysisofofallall
structures
using
full-scale
models
for comparison.
C3D8R
(8-node
linear
brick,brick,
reduced
integration
with hourglass
control)
elements
were used
the
The
C3D8R
(8-node
linear
reduced
integration
with hourglass
control)
elements
werefor
used
transition
piece,
whereas
the
S4R
(4-node
doubly-curved
general-purpose
shell,
reduced
integration
for the transition piece, whereas the S4R (4-node doubly-curved general-purpose shell, reduced
with hourglass
control under
finite
membrane
strains) strains)
elements
were used
of the
integration
with hourglass
control
under
finite membrane
elements
were for
usedthe
forrest
the rest
of
substructures.
The
maximum
mesh
size
of
the
full-scale
models
was
set
to
150
mm.
A
nonlinear
the substructures. The maximum mesh size of the full-scale models was set 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
M2 y,Sd ` M2 z,Sd
NSd
`
1.0
Nt,Rd
MRd
$
fi2
fi2 ,0.5

/
&
Cmy My,Sd
Cmz Mz,Sd fl .
1

fl
`
1.0
`
NSd
NSd
/
MRd
1 N
% 1 NEy
Ez

CR1

CR2

NSd
Nc,Rd

(1)

(2)

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).
Jacket Type
(Wave, Current Directions)
JZ (0)
JK (0)
JX (0)
JZ (45)
JK (45)
JX (45)
TJ0
TJ30
TJ60
TJ90
Energies 2016, 9, 264
PJZ
PJK TJ30
PJX TJ60
MJ0 TJ90
MJ30 PJZ
MJ60 PJK
MJ90 PJX

4.2. Unstable

MJ0
MJ30
MJ60
Collapse
and
MJ90

Normal Condition + 2D
Max. von Mises
Stress (MPa)
18.48
19.81
21.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.10
18.53
18.84
19.31
20.11
21.65
18.53
22.47
18.84
23.04
19.31
30.19
20.11
46.53
21.65
34.62
22.47

23.04
30.19
Postbuckling46.53
Analysis
34.62

Location
a4NB
a4NB
a4NB
N/A
N/A
N/A
a3NB
a3NB
a3NB
b3NB
a4NB
a4NB
a3NB
a3NBa4NB
b3NBa3NB
a4NBa2NT
a4NB I2-L
a4NB II2-L
a3NB
a2NT
I2-L
II2-L

Extreme Condition + 3D
Max. von Mises
Stress (MPa)

37.26
37.59
46.24
39.55
39.30
32.71
45.30
39.83
41.79
39.73

N/A
N/A
N/A
32.60
32.05
35.02
32.84
37.26
37.59
46.24
39.55
39.30
32.71
45.30
39.83
41.79
39.73

Location
N/A
N/A
N/A
II3/M
b4NB
III3zT and IIII3/T
a3NB
a3NT
a2DB
a2IT
8 of 22
I3/M
I3/B
a3NT
I3zT
a2DB
c2NM
a2IT
a3NB
I3/M
a2NM
I3/B
a2NM
I3\T

c2NM
a3NB
a2NM
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
The numerical
first part is the
validation
of the simulation
and experimental
results using scaled-down
test specimens and
models,
respectively.
Moreover,
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
showed
excellent
test specimens and numerical models, respectively. Moreover, the load-displacement
agreement, indicating
thatfrom
the both
numerical
methodand
used
for analysis
reliableinand
the3c.numerical
model
curves obtained
the experimental
numerical
tests are is
illustrated
Figure
The
results
showed
excellent
agreement,
indicating
that
the
numerical
method
used
for
analysis
is
reliable
is highly representative.
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
deformation
patterns
scaled-downtest
(a)results
experimental
test specimens
andcompression
(b) the numerical
model; (c) a diagram
of of
thethe
load-displacement
from unstable
collapse andmodel;
postbuckling
and (b) the numerical
(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
and
Energies 2016, 9, 264
22
Energiesmm
2016,and
9, 264
of 22
142.0
that the critical load and the corresponding displacement are 113 MN and 76.89mm,
respectively. The
The TJ-structures
TJ-structures resisted
resistedhigh
high critical
criticaland
and maximum
maximumloads
loadscompared
comparedto
toother
othertypes,
types,
respectively.
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
possibly because the TJ-structures consist of a central huge column that is capable of withstanding
possibly because the TJ-structures consist of a central huge column that is capable of withstanding
vertical compressive
compressive loads,
comparable
to
vertical
loads, hence
hence preventing
preventingbuckling.
buckling.The
Theproposed
proposedMJ-structures
MJ-structuresare
are
comparable
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
14
(a)
Figure
ofall
all
14jacket
jacketstructures
structuresshowing:
showing:
(a)maximum
maximumand
andcritical
criticalloads,
loads,and;
and;
Figure 4.
4. Comparison
Comparison charts
charts of
all 14
jacket
structures
showing: (a)
maximum
and
critical
loads,
and;
(b)
the
corresponding
displacements
under
unstable collapse and postbuckling analysis.
(b)
the
corresponding
displacements
under
(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
5. A
diagram
(of the JX-structure)
the example
the 142.0
maximum
load
with
theload-displacement
corresponding vertical
displacement
on the top showing
of the structure
(119.5of
MN,
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,
142.0 for
mm)
and the critical load with the corresponding vertical displacement (113.1 MN, 76.8 mm) defined
a
and the
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
and
full-scale model.
full-scale model.
model.
full-scale

4.3. Analysis of Local Buckling Strength

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

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) 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
Energies 2016,
9, 264
10 of 22
extreme
condition.

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
Figure 6.The
A bar
chartofshowing
the maximum
criteria for 14leads
substructures
using
local buckling
strength
weight
the structures
that straightforwardly
to the cost of
materials
and the number
analysis
underjoints,
the extreme
extreme
condition
with
comprehensive
(3D)loads.
loads.
of welded
which implies
the with
complexity
of construction
and
the risks of fatigue and fracture,
analysis
under
the
condition
comprehensive
(3D)
both under the present 14 geometrical designs, were also of main concern. Figure 7 shows the ratio

4.4. Miscellaneous
Properties
of the weight
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
counted
as two
floors. that straightforwardly leads to the cost of materials and the number
Thewere
weight
of the
structures
of welded joints,
which
implies
the
complexity
ofJ-structures
construction
the risks
of fatigue
and fracture,
Underwhich
the present
designs,
the group ofof
is theand
heaviest,
possessing
the greatest
of welded joints,
implies
the complexity
construction
and
the risks
of fatigue
and fracture,
both under
the present
14 geometrical
designs,
were also
of main
concern. Figure
7 shows of
the ratio
number
joints per
number. The
MJ-structures,
anticipated
to combine
the advantages
both under
the of
present
14floor
geometrical
designs,
were also
of main
concern.both
Figure
7 shows the
ratio
TJ- andto
PJ-structures,
the lightest,
simultaneously
the least
numberto
of floor
joints per
floor
of the weight
height, thearenumber
of joints
and thepossessing
ratio of joint
numbers
numbers.
The
of the weight
to
height,
the
number
of
joints
and
the
ratio
of
joint
numbers
to
floor
numbers.
The
number.
performancewere
of MJ-structures
be further
increasing the
thicknesses
J-structures
andThe
PJ-structures
counted ascan
three
floors,optimized
and the by
TJ-structures
and
MJ-structures
J-structures
PJ-structures
were counted
floors, the
andarchitecture
the TJ-structures
and MJ-structures
and and
diameters
of the structural
membersas
orthree
by adjusting
of the substructure
to
were counted as two floors.
were counted
floors. ratio of structural members through iteration.
changeas
thetwo
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:
TJ:
PJ:
MJ:
JZ:
JK:
JX:
TJ0:
TJ30:
TJ60:
TJ90:
PJZ:
PJK:
PJX:
MJ0:

Traditional jacket substructure

Twisted jacket substructure
Tripod jacket substructure
Twisted-tripod jacket substructure
Traditional jacket substructure Z-braces
Traditional jacket substructure K-brace
Traditional jacket substructure X-braces
Twisted jacket substructures 0 Twisted
Twisted jacket substructures 30 twisted
Twisted jacket substructures 60 twisted
Twisted jacket substructures 90 twisted
Tripod jacket substructures Z-tripod
Tripod jacket substructures K-tripod
Tripod jacket substructures X-tripod
Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 0 tripod

Energies 2016, 9, 264

MJ30:
MJ60:
MJ90:

12 of 24

Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 0 tripod

Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 60 tripod
Twisted-tripod jacket substructures 90 tripod

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
The
and
of the
areJ-structure
shown in Figure
A2 (JX
structure
dimensions
areA1.
listed
inside
Table
A1.top
Theviews
side and
topJ-structure
views of the
are shown
in Figure
A2
shown
as
an
example).
(JX structure shown as an example).

Figure A1.
A1. Terminology
Terminology of
Figure
of the
the structural
structural members
members of
of aa J-structure.
J-structure.
Table A1.
Table
A1. Specification of
of three
three J-structures.
J-structures.

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

X-Braces
X-Braces
66.00 m
66.00 m
67.97 m
67.97 m
20.07
20.07 m
m
28.94
28.94 m
m
37.18
37.18 m
m
14.58
14.58 m
m
22.24 m
m
22.24
31.13 m
m
31.13
0.03 m
m
0.03
0.04
m
0.04 m
0.90 m
0.90 m
1.80 m
1.80 m

Length of Middle Horizontal Brace

Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
Thickness of Brace
Thickness of Leg
Diameter of Brace
Energies 2016, 9, 264
Diameter of Leg

Energies 2016, 9, 264

22.24 m
31.13 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

22.24 m
31.13 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

22.24 m
31.13 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

Figure
viewsofofthe
theX-braces
X-braces
structure.
FigureA2.
A2.Side
Sideand
and top
top views
(JX)(JX)
structure.

13 of 24

13 of 22

A.2. A.2.
Twisted
Jacket
Substructure
Twisted
Jacket
Substructure(TJ-Structure)
(TJ-Structure)
The The
terminology
of of
thetheTJ-structure
isshown
shownininFigure
Figure
Four
TJ-structures
terminology
TJ-structure members
members is
A3.A3.
Four
TJ-structures
werewere

designed:
0 twisted
(TJ0),
30twisted
twisted(TJ30),
(TJ30), 60
60 twisted
twisted (TJ60)
twisted
(TJ90).
In Figure
A4, A4,
designed:
0 twisted
(TJ0),
30
(TJ60)and
and9090
twisted
(TJ90).
In Figure
the bottom-end
center
and
the
top-endcenter
center of a leg
toto
Points
A and
B on
x-z plane,
the bottom-end
center
and
the
top-end
leg are
areprojected
projected
Points
A and
B the
on the
x-z plane,
respectively.
center
thecentral
centralcolumn
column is
is projected
OO
onon
thethe
same
plane.
The The
angleangle
respectively.
TheThe
center
of of
the
projectedtotoPoint
Point
same
plane.

between
twovectors,
vectors, OA
is defined
as the twisted
The dimensions
TJ-structures
OB,
between
two
and
and

, is defined
as theangle.
twisted
angle. Theof the
dimensions
of the
are
listed
in
Table
A2.
The
side
and
top
views
of
the
TJ-structure
are
shown
in
Figure
A4
(TJ30
structure
TJ-structures are listed in Table A2. The side and top views of the TJ-structure are shown in Figure A4
as anshown
example).
(TJ30shown
structure
as an example).

Figure
Terminologyof
of the
the structural
structural members
ofof
a TJ-structure.
Figure
A3.A3.
Terminology
members
a TJ-structure.

Energies 2016, 9, 264

14 of 24

Figure A3. Terminology of the structural members of a TJ-structure.

Figure
A4.
definitionofofthe
the
twisted
angle.
Figure
A4.Illustration
Illustrationfor
for the
the definition
twisted
angle.
TableA2.
A2.Specification
Specification of
Table
offour
fourTJ-structures.
TJ-structures.

Twisted
Structure
Twisted Jacket
Jacket Structure
Jacket
Structure
TJ0
TJ30
Jacket Structure
TJ0
TJ30
Total
Height
66.00
66.00
Total
Height
66.00
m m 66.00
m m
Length
ofofLeg
66.86
66.97
Length
Leg
66.86
m m 66.97
m m
Length
TopBrace
Brace
11.57
m m 11.48
m m
Length
of of
Top
11.57
11.48
Length of Middle Brace
11.57 m
m
Length
of Middle Brace
11.57 m 11.48
11.48
m
Length of Bottom Brace
20.58 m
20.57 m
Length
of
Bottom
Brace
20.58
m
20.57
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
14.09 m
14.08 m m
Length ofThickness
Bottom Horizontal
Brace
14.09
m
of Top Brace
0.04 m
0.0414.08
m m
Thickness of
of Top
Middle
Brace
0.050.04
m m 0.050.04
m m
Thickness
Brace
Thickness
BottomBrace
Brace
0.050.05
m m 0.050.05
m m
Thickness
of of
Middle
Thickness of Bottom Horizontal Brace
0.05 m
0.05 m
Thickness of Bottom Brace
0.05 m
0.05 m
Thickness of Leg
0.04 m
0.04 m
Energies 2016,
9, 264Thickness
Thickness
of Bottom
Horizontal
Brace
of Central
Column
0.040.05
m m 0.040.05
m m
Thickness
Leg
Diameter ofof
Top
Brace
1.20.04
m m 1.2 0.04
m m
Diameter
Brace
Diameter
ofMiddle
Middle
Brace
1.61.6
m mm 1.61.6
m mm
Thickness
ofof
Central
Column
0.04
0.04
Diameter
of
Bottom
Brace
1.6
m
1.6
m
Diameter
of
Bottom
Brace
1.6
m
1.6
Diameter of Top Brace
1.2 m
1.2mm
Diameter
BottomHorizontal
HorizontalBrace
Brace
1.61.6
mm
1.61.6
mm
Diameter
ofofBottom
Diameter of Leg
1.80 m
1.80 m
Diameter of Leg
1.80 m
1.80 m
Diameter of Central Column
3.60 m
3.60 m
Diameter of Central Column
3.60 m
3.60 m

TJ60

TJ90

TJ60
TJ90
66.00 m
66.0066.00
m m 66.00 m
67.68 m
67.2867.28
m m 67.68 m
11.2011.20
m m 10.82 m
10.82 m
11.20 m
10.82 m
11.20 m
10.82 m
20.54 m
20.49 m
20.54
m
20.49 m
14.03 m
13.95 m
14.03
m
0.04 m
0.04 m13.95 m
0.05 m
0.04 m 0.05 m0.04 m
0.05 m
0.05 m 0.05 m0.05 m
0.05 m
0.05 m
0.05 m
0.05 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.05 m 0.04 m0.05 m 14 of 22
0.04 m
0.04 m 1.2 m 0.04 m
1.2 m
m m 1.6 m
1.60.04
m m
1.61.6
m
0.04
1.61.6
m1.2
mm 1.6 m
1.61.2
mm
1.61.6
m m
1.6 m
1.6 m
1.80 m
1.80 m
1.80 m
1.80 m
3.60 m
3.60 m

3.60 m

3.60 m

FigureA5.
A5.Side
Sideand
andtop
topviews
views of
of the
the 0
0 twisted (TJ30)
Figure
(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
(PJ-Structure)
The terminology
ofSubstructure
the PJ-structure
members is shown in Figure A6. Three PJ-structures were
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
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
thestructural
structural members
of a PJ-structure.
Figure A6.
Terminology
ofofthe
members
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
66.00
m 66.86 m66.00 m
Length
of Leg
66.86
m m 66.8666.00
m
Length
of
Top
Brace
18.32
m
16.39
m
Length of Leg
66.86 m
66.86 m 18.32 m66.86 m
Length of Middle Brace
26.23 m
22.76 m
26.23 m
Length
Brace
18.32
m 32.99 m18.32 m
LengthofofTop
Bottom
Brace
32.99
m m 27.0016.39
m
Length of
Horizontal
Brace
11.07
m m 11.0722.76
m
Length
ofTop
Middle
Brace
26.23
m 11.07 m26.23 m
Length of Middle Horizontal Brace
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
Thickness of Brace
Thickness of Leg
Diameter of Brace
Diameter of Leg

17.25 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

17.25 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

17.25 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
1.80 m

Length of Middle Horizontal Brace

Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
Thickness of Brace
Thickness of Brace
Thickness of Leg
Thickness of Leg
Diameter of Brace
Diameter of Brace
Diameter of Leg
Energies 2016, 9, 264
Diameter of Leg

17.25 m
24.41 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
0.90 m
1.80 m
1.80 m

17.25 m
24.41 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
0.90 m
1.80 m
1.80 m

17.25 m
24.41 m
24.41 m
0.03 m
0.03 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.90 m
0.90 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.
Side
and
top
(PJZ)structure.
structure.
Figure
Side
and
topviews
viewsof
of the
the Z-Tripod
Z-Tripod (PJZ)

A.4. Twisted-Tripod Jacket Substructure (MJ-Structure)

A.4. Twisted-Tripod
Jacket
Substructure
A.4. Twisted-Tripod
Jacket
Substructure(MJ-Structure)
(MJ-Structure)
The terminology of the MJ-structure members is shown in Figure A8. Four MJ-structures were
The terminology
of the
MJ-structuremembers
members is shown
Four
MJ-structures
werewere
The terminology
of the
MJ-structure
shownininFigure
FigureA8.
A8.
Four
MJ-structures
designed:
0
tripod
(MJ0),
30
tripod
(MJ30),
60
tripod
(MJ60)
and
90
tripod
(MJ90).
The
definition

designed:
0 tripod
(MJ0),
tripod
(MJ30),60
60 tripod
tripod (MJ60)
tripod
(MJ90).
TheThe
definition
designed:
0 tripod
(MJ0),
3030tripod
(MJ30),
(MJ60)and
and9090
tripod
(MJ90).
definition
of the
twisted
angle
forfor
thethe
MJ-structures
isisthe
same
as
that
for
the TJ-structures.
TJ-structures.The
Thedimensions
dimensions of
of
the
twisted
angle
MJ-structures
the
same
as
that
for
the
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
in Table
A4.
The
top views
viewsofofthe
the
MJ-structure
are shown
of the MJ-structures
are listed
in Table
A4.
Theside
sideand
and top
MJ-structure
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 A9 (MJ60 structure shown as an example).
Figure A9 (MJ60 structure shown as an example).

Figure
A8.
Terminology
structuralmembers
members
MJ-structure.
Figure
A8.
Terminologyof
of the
the structural
of of
anan
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.

Table A4.Tripod
Specification
ofSubstructure
four MJ-structures.
Twisted
Jacket
(MJ)
Jacket Type
MJ0
MJ30
MJ60
Total Height Twisted Tripod Jacket
66.00Substructure
m
66.00(MJ)
m
66.00 m
Jacket
MJ0 m
MJ30
MJ60
Length
ofType
Leg
66.86
66.97 m
67.28 m
LengthTotal
of Top
Brace
17.23
17.15
16.93
Height
66.00
mm
66.00
m m 66.00
m m
of Leg
66.86
mm
66.97
m m 67.28
m m
Length Length
of Middle
Brace
50.85
51.10
51.12
of Top BraceBrace
17.23
mm
17.15
m m 16.93
mm
Length ofLength
Top Horizontal
11.07
10.70
9.61
Length of Middle Brace
50.85 m
51.10 m
51.12 m
Length
of Bottom
Brace
24.41
24.38
24.32
Length
of Top Horizontal
Horizontal Brace
11.07
mm
10.70
mm
9.61
m m
Thickness
of
Horizontal
Brace
0.03
m
0.03
m
0.03
Length of Bottom Horizontal Brace
24.41 m
24.38 m
24.32 m m
Thickness
of
Horizontal
Brace
0.03
m
0.03
m
0.03
m m
Thickness of Top Brace
0.06 m
0.06 m
0.06
Thickness
of
Top
Brace
0.06
m
0.06
m
0.06
m
Thickness of Middle Brace
0.06 m
0.06m
0.06 m
Thickness of Middle Brace
0.06 m
0.06m
0.06 m
Thickness of Leg
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
Thickness of Leg
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
Diameter
of of
Horizontal
0.90mm
0.90
0.90
Diameter
HorizontalBrace
Brace
0.90
0.90
mm
0.90
m m
Diameter
ofof
Top
0.90mm
0.90
0.90
Diameter
TopBrace
Brace
0.90
0.90
mm
0.90
m m
Diameter
MiddleBrace
Brace
1.20
1.20
mm
1.20
m m
Diameter
ofof
Middle
1.20mm
1.20
1.20
Diameter
of
Leg
1.80
m
1.80
m
1.80
m
Diameter of Leg
1.80 m
1.80 m
1.80 m

MJ90
66.00 m
MJ90
67.68 m
16.63
66.00
m m
67.68
m m
50.89
16.637.87
m m
50.89 m
7.8724.16
m m
0.03
24.16 m m
0.030.06
m m
0.060.06
m m
0.06 m
0.04 m
0.04 m
0.900.90
m m
0.900.90
m m
1.201.20
m 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) , (2) , (3) and (4) . Members and
Abbreviations were defined at four levels: (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) . Members and parts were
parts were termed in the order of , and the parts (location) of the members were termed
termed in the order of , and the parts (location) of the members were termed (Table 1).
(Table 1). Examples are given for all four types of substructures.
Examples are given for all four types of substructures.
Abbreviations
of theoffirst
all four
of substructures
are shown inare
Figures
A10A13.
Abbreviations
thetwo
firstlevels
twofor
levels
for types
all four
types of substructures
shown
in
For instance,
I
is
the
face
normal
to
the
positive
x-axis,
and
others
are
defined
accordingly
in the
Figures A10A13. For instance, I is the face normal to the positive x-axis, and others are defined
clockwise
manner;
ismanner;
definedLevel
from top
to bottom.
A to
number
to abbreviate
a
accordingly
in theLevel
clockwise
is defined
from top
bottom.of
A examples
number of examples
to
member
or a part
of the or
structure
in the
figures,
as well.
abbreviate
a member
a part ofare
the given
structure
are given
in the
figures, as well.
is noted
becauseofoftheir
theirspecial
special design,
design, the
areare
given
for for
a few
specific
It isItnoted
thatthat
because
theTJ-structures
TJ-structures
given
a few
specific
abbreviations
that
are
not
used
for
other
structures.
For
example,
structural
members
and
parts
of of
abbreviations that are not used for other structures. For example, structural members and parts
the TJ-structures
requirean
anabbreviation
abbreviation for
thethe
legslegs
and and
central
the TJ-structures
do do
notnot
require
forthe
thethree
threefaces.
faces.Instead,
Instead,
central
column require specific abbreviations at Level . In addition, U, I, D are abbreviated for members at
column require specific abbreviations at Level . In addition, U, I, D are abbreviated for members
particular positions (Figure A11).
at particular positions (Figure A11).

Energies 2016, 9, 264

Energies2016,9,264
Energies 2016, 9, 264
Energies 2016, 9, 264

18 of 24
17of22
17 of 22
17 of 22

FigureA10.FourlevelsofabbreviationsandexamplesusedforJstructuremembersandparts.
Figure
FigureA10.
A10.Four
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.

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

FigureA12.FourlevelsofabbreviationsandexamplesusedforPJstructuremembersandparts.
Figure A12. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for PJ-structure members and parts.
FigureA12.
A12.Four
Four
levels
abbreviationsand
andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forPJ-structure
PJ-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.
Figure
levels
ofof
abbreviations

Energies 2016, 9, 264

18 of 22

Energies 2016, 9, 264

Energies 2016, 9, 264

19 of 24
18 of 22

Figure A13. Four levels of abbreviations and examples used for MJ-structure members and parts.
Figure
FigureA13.
A13.Four
Fourlevels
levelsof
ofabbreviations
abbreviationsand
andexamples
examplesused
usedfor
forMJ-structure
MJ-structuremembers
membersand
andparts.
parts.

Appendix
C. Detailed
Description
ofof
Appendix
C.Detailed
Detailed
Description
ofLoad
LoadSettings
Settings
Appendix
C.
Description
Load
Settings
C.1. General
Information
C.1. General
Information

C.1. General Information

The normal
condition
considered refersto
tolocal
local oceanographic
oceanographic data
collected
near Pescadores
The The
normal
condition
considered
data
collected
Pescadores
normal
condition
consideredrefers
refers to local
oceanographic data
collected
nearnear
Pescadores
Islands
(Penghu). Annual
averagewind
windspeed,
speed, average
average wave
height, average
wave
period
and and
Islands
(Penghu).
average
wave
period
Islands
(Penghu).Annual
Annual average
average wind
speed, average
wave wave
height, height,
average wave
period
and average
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
average
speed
of ocean
currents
were
set
to 7.5
0.49
m, 7.5
s and
m/s, respectively,
for the
speed
of ocean
currents
were set
to 7.5
m/s,
0.49m/s,
m, 7.5
s and
0.134
m/s,0.134
respectively,
for the normal
normal
condition
[32].
In
this
load
combination,
we
simply
assumed
that
the
wind,
wave
and
current
normal
condition
[32].
In
this
load
combination,
we
simply
assumed
that
the
wind,
wave
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
in the
same
horizontal
direction
and that
thethat
resultant
forces andforces
moment
aremoment
solely in-plane
loadsactact
in the
same
horizontal
direction
and
the resultant
and
are solely
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,
wave
height,
wave
period
in-plane (Figure A14). The extreme condition considered assumes 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.
andand
speed
of ocean
currents
equal equal
to 70 m/s,
12.47m,
s and
1.4sm/s,
period
speed
of ocean
currents
to 7014.88
m/s,m,14.88
12.47
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.
Schematic
showing
windsand
andwaves
waves
same
direction.
Figure
A14.
Schematic
showingthe
thein-plane
in-plane winds
in in
thethe
same
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
and (A2)
[36]. and on a unit height of a tower are expressed by F1 and f2,
The
wind(A1)
forces
on blades

respectively (Figure A15a). The resulting base

and the
moment are given by
1 shear
1 base overturning
2
2
()
(A1)
F
=

()

()
1
2

Equations (A1) and (A2) [36].

2
2

1
1
F = 1 + 2 () = 2 + ()2 ()
2
2
0

(A1)

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].
H
H
1
1
2
U pzq2 CD D pzq zdz
(A1)
F F1 ` f 2 pzq dz air UH C f A `
2
2 air
Energies 2016, 9, 264

19 of 22

H
11 2
11
zdz = airUH
M
=
F1 H
C2 AH `
U pzq2 C2D D pzq zdz
2 pzq
1`
+ f
2 ()
2 2 f + 2 2aira () ()

0 0

(A2)
(A2)

00

where
the
airair
density,
UH
air is is
whereHHisisthe
theheight
heightfrom
fromthe
theground
groundtotothe
thecenter
centerofofthe
thehub,
hub,
the
density,
UHisisthe
themean
mean
a
wind
speed
at
the
height,
C
is
the
wind
force
coefficient
for
the
blades,
C
is
the
drag
force
coefficient
D
f
wind speed at the height, Cf is the wind force coefficient for the blades, CD is the drag force coefficient
for
A is
reference
areaarea
for the
D(z) is
the is
diameter
of the tower
z isand
the height
forthe
thetower,
tower,
A the
is the
reference
forblades,
the blades,
D(z)
the diameter
of the and
tower
z is the
ofheight
the tower.
In
Equation
(A1),
the
integrated
thrust
force
acting
on
the
complete
rotor
was
considered
of the tower. In Equation (A1), the integrated thrust force acting on the complete rotor was
(denoted
F1 ),(denoted
while theFdrag
force acting on the tower was considered as a distributed force shown
considered
1), while the drag force acting on the tower was considered as a distributed
inforce
the second
term.
The
profile
of The
the wind
onwind
the tower
be assumed
any function.
In
shown in the second term.
profileforce
of the
force can
on the
tower cantobebeassumed
to be any
Equations
(A1)
and
(A2),
that
is
assumed
to
the
same
as
the
velocity
pressure
at
the
height
z.
function. In Equations (A1) and (A2), that is assumed to the same as the velocity pressure at the height z.
The
Thegoverning
governingequations
equationstotodescribe
describethe
theairflow
airflowaround
arounda astationary
stationarywind
windturbine
turbineare
aredescribed
described
by
the
time-averaged
continuity
and
momentum
equations
together
with
a
k-
turbulence
by the time-averaged continuity and momentum equations together with a k- turbulencemodel,
model,
where
wherethe
theflow
flowsolver
solverStarCCM+
StarCCM+isisemployed
employedtotocalculate
calculatethe
thefully-three-dimensional
fully-three-dimensionalflow
flowaround
around
the
thewind
windturbine
turbineatatthe
thewind
windspeed
speedofof7070m/s.
m/s.The
Thecorresponding
correspondingwind
windloading
loadingisisgiven
givenin
inTable
TableA5,
A5,
where
the
coordinate
system
and
the
force/moment
definition
are
depicted
in
Figure
A15b.
where the coordinate system and the force/moment definition are depicted in Figure A15b.

(a)

(b)

Figure
A15.A15.
(a) Schematic
of planar
windwind
forcesforces
on a wind
[36]; (b)
schematic
of 3D wind
settings.
Figure
(a) Schematic
of planar
on a turbine
wind turbine
[36];
(b) schematic
of 3Dload
wind
load settings.
Table A5. Comprehensive (3D) wind loads under the extreme condition.
Wind Speed
Wind
70Speed
m/s
70 m/s

Table A5. Comprehensive

(3D)Fywind loadsFunder
the extreme
condition.
Component
Fx
z
QLo
QLa
Qv
Blade
38.948 kN
118.5 kN
411.21 kN
13.89 MN-m
5.38 MN-m
0.849 MN-m
Component
Fx5.177 kN
Fy
Fz kN
QLoMN-m
QLa MN-m
Qv kN-m
Nacelle
10.226
kN
0.405
0.975
0.454
6.556
Blade
kN MN 118.5
kN kN 411.21
kNkN
13.89
MN-m
MN-m
MN-m
Tower 38.948
261.2
315.11
37.953
11.397
MN-m 5.38
4.705
MN-m 0.849
1.354
kN-m
Nacelle

5.177 kN

10.226 kN

0.405 kN

0.975 MN-m

Tower Loads
261.2 MN
C.3. Wave and Current

315.11 kN

37.953 kN

11.397 MN-m

0.454
MN-m
4.705 MN-m

6.556 kN-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 Morisons load formula [30,31]:
1
() = (1 + ) + ||
2
where:
v = fluid particle (waves and/or current) velocity (m/s)
= fluid particle acceleration (m/s2)
2

(A3)

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 Morisons load formula [30,31]:
.
1
d f N ptq p1 ` C A q Av ` CD Dv |v|
2

(A3)

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)
= 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 Morisons equation and Airys 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 C M Av
(A4)
.

where the maximum magnitude of the sinusoidal fluid particle acceleration, vmax 4T2 a expp 4
zq,
gT 2
was considered in Equation (A4) for static analysis. The wave load therefore assumed the form:
d f wave pzq C M A

4 2 a
4 2
expp 2 zq
2
T
gT

(A5)

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 Morisons
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 Morisons 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
(2D) loads
loads for
for jacket
jacket substructures.
substructures.
Figure A16.
A16. Schematic
Schematic of
of the
the simplified
simplified (2D)

References
References
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.

8.
8.

9.

10.
11.

Li, K.; Bian, H.; Liu, C.; Zhang, D.; Yang, Y. Comparison of geothermal with solar and wind power
Li,
K.; Bian, systems.
H.; Liu, C.;
Zhang,
D.; Yang,
Y. Comparison
of geothermal
generation
Renew.
Sustain.
Energy
Rev. 2015, 42,
14641474. with solar and wind power generation
systems.
Energy
2015,W.N.;
42, 14641474.
[CrossRef]
Dai, K.; Renew.
Bergot,Sustain.
A.; Liang,
C.;Rev.
Xiang,
Huang, Z.
Environmental issues associated with wind
Dai,
K.; Bergot,
A.; Liang,
Xiang,2015,
W.N.;
Z. Environmental issues associated with wind energyA
energyA
review.
Renew.C.;
Energy
75,Huang,
911921.
review.
Renew.
2015, 75, 911921.
[CrossRef]
Baker, C.
WindEnergy
engineeringPast,
present
and future. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2007, 95, 843870.
Baker,
C. J.K.;
WindZafirakis,
engineeringPast,
future. J.AWind
Ind.
2007,Renew.
95, 843870.
Kaldellis,
D. The windpresent
energy and
(r) evolution:
shortEng.
review
of aAerodyn.
long history.
Energy
[CrossRef]
2011, 36, 18871901.
Kaldellis,
J.K.;Energy
Zafirakis,
D. The
wind Global
energyWind
(r) evolution:
A shortMarket
review
of a long
history.
Energy
Global Wind
Concil
(GWEC).
ReportAnnual
Update
2014;
GlobalRenew.
Wind Energy
2011,
36,Brussels,
18871901.
[CrossRef]
Concil:
Belgium,
2015.
Global
Wind Energy
Global(EWEA).
Wind ReportAnnual
Global Wind
Energy
The European
WindConcil
Energy(GWEC).
Association
The European Market
OffshoreUpdate
Wind 2014;
IndustryKey
Trends
and
Concil:
Brussels,
Belgium,
2015.
Statistics 1st half 2015; The European Wind Energy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
The
European
Wind Energy
Association (EWEA).
The European
Wind IndustryKey
Trends and
Vries,
W.E. Assessment
of Bottom-Mounted
Support Structure
TypesOffshore
with Conventional
Design Stiffness
and
Statistics
1stTechniques
half 2015; for
TheTypical
European
Association:
Brussels,
Belgium,
2015.
Installation
DeepWind
WaterEnergy
Sites; Deliverable
Report
D4.2.1
(WP4: Offshore
foundation and
Vries,
W.E.
Assessment
Bottom-Mounted
Support
Structure Types
withBelgium,
Conventional
support
structures);
TheofEuropean
Wind Energy
Association:
Brussels,
2007. Design Stiffness and
Installation
Techniques
for
Typical
Deep
Water
Sites;
Deliverable
Report
D4.2.1
(WP4:
Offshore
foundation
and
Lesny, K.; Richwien, W. Design, Construction and Installation of Support Structures for
Offshore.
Wind Energy
support
structures);
The
European
Wind
Energy
Association:
Brussels,
Belgium,
2007.
Systems Global Wind ReportAnnual Market Update Optimising Design and Construction for Safe and Reliable
Lesny,
K.; Richwien,
W. Design,
Construction
Installation
of Support
Structures
for Offshore.
Operation;
Srensen, J.D.,
Srensen,
J.N., Eds.;and
Woodhead
Publishing
Limited:
Cambridge,
UK,Wind
2010.Energy
Systems
Global
Wind ReportAnnual
Market
Update
Optimising
Design
and Construction
Safe and Reliable
Golightly,
C. Tilting
of monopiles long,
heavy
and
stiff; pushed
beyond
their limits.forAvailable
online:
Operation;
Srensen,
J.D.,
Srensen,
J.N.,
Eds.;
Woodhead
Publishing
Limited:
Cambridge,
UK,
2010.
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).
Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.P. Trends, prospects, and R&D directions in wind turbine technology. Compr.
Renew. Energy 2012, 2, 671724.
Musial, W.; Butterfield, S.; Ram, B. Energy from offshore wind. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference (NREL/CP-50039450), Houston, TX, USA, 14 May 2006.

Energies 2016, 9, 264

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.

29.
30.
31.
32.

23 of 24

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).
Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.P. Trends, prospects, and R&D directions in wind turbine technology.
Compr. Renew. Energy 2012, 2, 671724.
Musial, W.; Butterfield, S.; Ram, B. Energy from offshore wind. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference (NREL/CP-50039450), Houston, TX, USA, 14 May 2006.
Prez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141153. [CrossRef]
Mon, C.; Smith, A.; Maples, B.; Hand, M. 2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2015.
Gong, W. Lattice Tower Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support Structures. Masters Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 2011.
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, 1417 March 2011.
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, 1924 June 2011.
Seidel, M. Jacket substructures for the REpower 5M wind turbine. In Proceedings of the Conference European
Offshore Wind 2007, Berlin, Germany, 46 December 2007.
Shi, W.; Park, H.; Chung, C.; Baek, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, C. Load analysis and comparison of different jacket
foundations. Renew. Energy 2013, 54, 201210. [CrossRef]
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).
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, 5059. [CrossRef]
Alanjari, P.; Asgarian, B.; Bahaari, M.R.; Honarvar, M.R. On the energy dissipation of jacket type offshore
platforms with different pileleg interactions. Appl. Ocean Res. 2009, 31, 8289. [CrossRef]
Alanjari, P.; Asgarian, B.; Kia, M. Nonlinear joint flexibility element for the modeling of jacket-type offshore
platforms. Appl. Ocean Res. 2011, 33, 147157. [CrossRef]
Hall, R.A.; Shaw, R.L. Offshore Structure Support. U.S. Patent 7,942,611 B2, 17 May 2011.
Hall, R.A. Offshore Support Structure and Associated Method of Installing. U.S. Patent 8,511,940 B2,
20 August 2013.
Keystone Keystone Engineering Inc., Inward Battered Guide StructureThe 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).
Li, P. Analysis and Design of Offshore Jacket Wind Turbine. Masters Thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 2010.
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]
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.
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, 7781.
Det Norske VeritasGermanischer Lloyd (DNV GL). Recommended Practice DNV-OS-J101Design of Offshore
Wind Turbine Structures; DNV GL: Hvik, Norway, 2014.
Det Norske VeritasGermanischer Lloyd (DNV GL). Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C201Environmental
Conditions and Environmental Loads; DNV GL: Hvik, Norway, 2010.
Su, C.H.; Liaw, C.T. Oceanographical Observation DataAnnual Report 2011 (Penghu Harbor); Harbor & Marine
Technology Center: Taipei, Taiwan, 2013.

Energies 2016, 9, 264

33.
34.
35.
36.

37.
38.

24 of 24

Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence modeling for engineering applications. AIAA J. 1994,
32, 15981605. [CrossRef]
Abaqus 6.14. Abaqus Analysis Users Guide; Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, USA, 2015.
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).
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,
2024 July 2008.
Morison, J.R. The Force Distribution Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles; University of California: Berkeley, CA,
USA, 1950.
Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1990; pp. 174256.
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/).