Article

Optimized Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Substructure

Design Trends for 10–30 MW Turbines in Low-, Medium-,
and High-Severity Wave Environments
Joseph Habib Dagher, Andrew J. Goupee * and Anthony M. Viselli

University of Maine Advanced Structures and Composites Center, Orono, ME 04469, USA;
[Link]@[Link] (J.H.D.); [Link]@[Link] (A.M.V.)
* Correspondence: agoupe91@[Link]

Abstract: Floating offshore wind is a promising renewable energy source, as 60% of the wind resources
globally are found at depths requiring floating technologies, it minimizes construction at sea, and
provides opportunities for industrialization given a lower site dependency. While floating offshore
wind has numerous advantages, a current obstacle is its cost in comparison to more established
energy sources. One cost-reduction approach for floating wind is increasing turbine capacities, which
minimizes the amount of foundations, moorings, cables, and O&M equipment. This work presents
trends in mass-optimized VolturnUS hull designs as turbine capacity increases for various wave
environments. To do this, a novel rapid hull optimization framework is presented that employs
frequency domain modeling, estimations of statistical extreme responses, industry constructability
requirements, and genetic algorithm optimization to generate preliminary mass-optimal VolturnUS
hull designs for a given turbine design and set of site conditions. Using this framework, mass-
optimized VolturnUS hull designs were generated for 10–30 MW turbines for wave environments of
varying severities. These design studies show that scaling up turbine capacities increases the mass
efficiency of substructure designs, with decreasing returns, throughout the examined turbine capacity
range. Additionally, increased wave environment severity is shown to increase the required mass of
Citation: Dagher, J.H.; Goupee, A.J.; a given substructure design.
Viselli, A.M. Optimized Floating
Offshore Wind Turbine Substructure Keywords: floating offshore wind; renewable energy; cost-reduction; trends; VolturnUS; optimization;
Design Trends for 10–30 MW Turbines substructure
in Low-, Medium-, and High-Severity
Wave Environments. Designs 2024, 8,
72. [Link]
designs8040072 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: José António Floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) technology is anticipated to be a major aspect
Correia of the global green energy transition in the coming decades, with the global floating off-
shore wind pipeline seeing a 69% increase from 60,746 MW to 102,529 MW in 2022 alone [1].
Received: 8 June 2024 While the floating offshore wind market currently enjoys worldwide governmental support
Revised: 7 July 2024
and is drawing large investments for offshore lease sites, notably the United States Bureau
Accepted: 15 July 2024
of Ocean Energy Management’s 2022 lease auctions that sold for a total of USD 5.44 billion,
Published: 18 July 2024
there are still economic barriers to large-scale commercial implementation [1]. A major
barrier towards implementation is the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of commercial-scale
floating offshore wind farms, currently estimated to be USD 89/MWh, in comparison to
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
more established sources of energy such as fixed-bottom offshore wind and land-based
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. wind, which have estimated LCOEs of USD 63/MWh [1] and USD 32/MWh [2], respec-
This article is an open access article tively. In response to this economic obstacle, there are currently international efforts to
distributed under the terms and reduce the LCOE of floating offshore wind, such as the United States Department of En-
conditions of the Creative Commons ergy’s goal of a 70% reduction by 2035 [3]. To achieve the necessary LCOE reductions that
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// would make FOWT technologies more commercially competitive, there has been significant
[Link]/licenses/by/ commercial and research interest in system optimization and cost reductions in recent
4.0/). years [4].

Designs 2024, 8, 72. [Link] [Link]

Designs 2024, 8, 72 2 of 26

Several of such studies examined the broad optimization of substructure configuration.

Firstly, Karimi et al. used a multi-objective genetic algorithm optimization routine along
with a frequency-domain model to minimize both system cost and nacelle accelerations
in order to investigate optimal substructure configurations for a 5 MW turbine [5]. It was
found in this work that both tension-leg platforms (TLPs) and semi-submersible designs
with one central and three radial flotation columns lead to the most cost-optimal and nacelle
acceleration-minimized design configurations. Furthermore, focusing specifically on the
topology optimization of semi-submersibles using a multi-objective genetic algorithm seek-
ing to minimize system cost and peak nacelle accelerations, Mas-Soler et al. similarly found
that a semi-submersible platform with one central and three radial flotation columns and
additionally a three column design to be the optimal topologies [6]. As these studies dealt
with broad topology optimization, the designs generated were general and not necessarily
industry ready. Additionally, for commercial design purposes, there is no need to minimize
the nacelle accelerations past a design constraint limit. The most important aspect for
commercial hull design is the minimization of costs as long as the designed system satisfies
the necessary American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) hydrostatics, accelerations, motions,
and constructability constraints [7].
Furthermore, as an optimal design topology has become more well-established in the
literature, more optimized open-source designs have been generated. One such optimized
design is TaidaFloat, a mass-optimized three-column semi-submersible design generated
using high-fidelity tools such as OrcaWave and AQWA by [8]. As governmental and
worldwide pushes for LCOE reduction have increased [3], hull optimization work has
diverged from traditional semi-submersible, spar, and TLP designs. One such study carried
out by Ramsay et al. covered the cost-optimization of a cruciform barge design with water
ballast motion mitigation technology [9]. Notably, these studies examined designs for
one wave environment, and for one turbine design, leading to questions about how the
topology optimization changes for variations in these factors. Additionally, throughout the
range of hull design optimization work, there is a lack of work specifically relating to rapid
optimization, which this research aims to address, as current hull design processes can take
months to complete and the ability to rapidly generate designs in a matter of minutes could
accelerate this process.
Moreover, throughout the large body of hull design research, there is a lack of work
investigating the scaling of a singular commercially available hull design for varied turbine
power ratings and wave environments. Additionally, with the exception of the hull scaling
laws proposed by Sergiienko et al. [10] based on open-source designs, much of the present
work does not reflect the rapid growth in the capacities of commercial turbine into the
20 MW range [1]. The work present in the current literature involves the examination of
trends across already-designed substructures from various sources. In one such work, Ed-
wards et al. cover the progression of design optimization from the beginning of the floating
offshore wind industry to the present day [11]. In this study, trends in design dimensions
such as semi-submersible width and draft are analyzed, but considering the variation in
hull designs and developers, only gross, overall trends can be observed with a limited
amount of fidelity. Additionally, while environmental considerations are discussed for
various designs, trends in designed dimensions as a function of environmental conditions
are not covered.
Considering these current industry and research trends and needs, this work aims to
provide: (1) A robust, rapid, first-pass hull design optimization methodology and corre-
sponding MATLAB toolbox that returns mass-minimized substructure designs for a given
turbine and wave environment subject to the relevant ABS design requirements [7] with
a computational time of 5–10 min, which is a novelty and can be useful for accelerating
the time necessary to produce a final hull design. (2) Design trends of VolturnUS sub-
structures tracked over a range of turbine power ratings, from 10 to 30 MW, and through
wave environments of varying severities using the hull design mass optimization tool.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 3 of 26

From these trends, conclusions about the cost-efficiency and scaling of substructure designs
for different wave environments and turbine power ratings can be drawn.

Overview of Processes
The flow of the substructure mass optimization routine designed for this work is
provided in Figure 1. Through sequentially running this optimization routine for vari-
ous combinations of turbine designs and wave environment conditions, mass-minimized
VolturnUS hull designs were generated for 10–30 MW turbines at low-, medium-, and high-
severity wave environments.

Figure 1. Substructure mass minimization routine process.

As is shown in Figure 1, the substructure optimization routine receives inputs of the

turbine design parameters, the offshore site’s wave environment conditions, and the con-
straints for the hull design. The turbine design parameters are taken from a turbine design
parameter estimation tool, the offshore site’s metocean conditions are determined through
statistical analyses of raw time series metocean condition data, and the design constraints
come from a combination of IEC 61400-3-2 [12], ABS guidelines [7], and requirements
Designs 2024, 8, 72 4 of 26

from past VolturnUS designs. All of these inputs are then fed to the hull optimization tool,
which uses a physics-based model of the FOWT design to compute stability characteristics,
dynamic responses, and structural loads constraint violations and assign fitness values to
specific design configurations. A genetic algorithm optimization routine is used to deter-
mine the mass-optimal hull design for the provided turbine design and wave environment
conditions inputs.

2. Substructure Optimization Framework

In this section, the processes and methods used to study the design trends of the
VolturnUS substructure for a range of wave environments and turbine capacities will be
detailed. Firstly, a generalized turbine design parameter estimation tool to predict trends
in turbine dimensions and mass properties throughout a relevant range of rated capacities
is presented. Secondly, the wave environments of three commercially relevant sites with
range of severities are defined to create mass-optimal hull designs for. Thirdly, a review
of the VolturnUS geometry and the methods used for system performance evaluation are
detailed. Lastly, the genetic algorithm used for the determination of the mass-optimal
substructure design is outlined.

2.1. Turbine Design Parameter Estimation Model

In order to study the cost-optimality trends of various FOWT hull designs, a general-
ized turbine design tool is needed that can accurately predict trends in turbine dimensions
and mass properties throughout a relevant range of turbine capacities. The tool developed
in this work will be used to generate turbine designs throughout a range of turbine capac-
ities. Recent efforts have developed a set of scaling laws for turbines up to a capacity of
24 MW using open-source turbine design data [10]. This work aims to estimate turbine
gross property design trends up to the 30 MW range, as announced projects have reached
planned capacities in the 30 MW range [13], and recent United States Department of Energy
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)-funded work has indicated the
feasibility of designs up to even 50 MW [14].
While the current literature generally uses the rotor diameter as the main independent
variable for predictive turbine design [10], this work uses the rated power output of the
turbine as the main independent variable. The reasoning behind this logic is because this
work intends to examine designs over a range of turbine power ratings, and it is more
intuitive and relevant to track hull and turbine design trends as a function of turbine power
rating rather than turbine rotor diameter. Following the work of Sergiienko et al. [10],
power fits were generated using MATLAB’s built-in ‘fit’ function, which uses a method
of least-squares [15]. Power fits that follow the form of Equation (1) were used to track
turbine design properties, apart from those properties in which realistic design constraints
or design variability between developers limits the use of power fits.

y = aPb (1)
where y is the turbine property in question, P is the power rating of the turbine in MW,
and coefficients a and b are determined using the least-squares MATLAB algorithm.
In the case of the various centers of gravity, these values were normalized to their
respective tower lengths and a constant multiplier was developed for these prediction
equations. Additionally, the blade tip clearance to the tower base had to be limited to a
reasonable range to yield feasible designs, which was chosen to be six meters based on
available turbine data. The tower length and hub height were both back-computed using
the already determined turbine properties. The turbine parameter equations, and their
respective coefficients of determination (R2 ) and sum of squared errors (SSE) values, which
are both measures of the goodness-of-fit of the equations with respect to the data [10], are
listed in Table 1.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 5 of 26

Table 1. Turbine parameter equations and their goodness-of-fit values.

Parameter Model Equation R2 SSE

Rotor radius (m) 32.95P0.47 0.943 -
Total RNA mass (t) 48.45P1.07 0.968 -
RNA CG above tower top (m) 0.040Ltower - 7.62 × 10−5
RNA CG from tower center (m) −0.033Ltower - 3.55 × 10−5
Maximum turbine thrust (kN) 126.9P1.02 0.976 -
Blade tip clearance to hull top (m) max[34.76P−0.54 , 6m] 0.542 -
Tower length (m) ( L BTC + Rrotor )/1.040 0.991 -
Tower mass (t) 115.4P0.83 0.887 -
Tower base diameter (m) 0.069Ltower - 2.00 × 10−4
Tower center of gravity from base (m) 0.362Ltower - 3.57 × 10−4

In the model equations presented in Table 1, P represents the rated power output
of the turbine with units of MW, Ltower represents the length of the tower with units of
meters, L BTC represents the blade tip clearance in units of meters, and Rrotor represents
the rotor radius. For the constant-coefficient fit equations (RNA CGs, tower base diameter,
and tower vertical CG), for which R2 values are not applicable, all the slope coefficients
were found to have SSE values on the magnitude of 10−4 or smaller, meaning that while
the R2 values would not show strong trends, their use is still reasonable. Additionally,
the weaker trends found in the RNA CGs, blade tip clearance, and tower base diameter
show that there is a noteworthy variation between the designed dimensions from different
developers due to design decisions, regulations, and potentially other factors. With respect
to the aerodynamics values such as the thrust, the rotor radius, and the tower length, there
is less of a margin for variation as these values come from established turbine physics [16].
Lastly, from this analysis, it is observed that the major dimensions, masses, and thrusts of
turbine designs from a range of various developers have strong trends and can be predicted
with a reasonable level of accuracy. To verify the reliability the turbine estimation model
from Table 1, open-source turbine design data (WindPACT 1.5 MW, Hitachi 2 MW, NREL
5 MW, LEANWIND 8 MW, IEA 10 MW, WINDMOOR 12 MW, IEA 15 MW, University
of Texas 20 MW, and IEA 22 MW [10,17]) was gathered and plotted alongside the tool’s
results, shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Cont.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 6 of 26

Figure 2. Wind turbine estimation tool comparison to open-source turbine designs.

As is shown in Figure 2, the predictive turbine design tool has good agreement with
the open-source turbine design data, showing that the tool is acceptable for the tracking of
gross, overall turbine design value trends.

2.2. Site Selection and Characterization

In this work, VolturnUS hull designs will not be compared only over a range of turbine
capacities, but also for a range of wave environment severities. Three offshore sites will
be used for design comparison purposes: the Gulf of Maine Research Array (MeRA) in
the United States [18], the Celtic Sea PDA 2 in Wales [19], and GoliatVIND in Norway [20].
These three sites were chosen due to their commercial relevance and because they have
significantly different extreme event properties. To characterize the wave environments for
these offshore sites for metocean analysis, guidance from the ABS is used [7].
In the ABS “Guide for Building and Classing Floating Offshore Wind Turbines July
2020”, which in turn references IEC 61400-3-3 [12], several sets of design load cases (DLCs)
and survival load cases (SLCs) are presented. DLCs are various combinations of envi-
ronmental, turbine operational, and numerous other conditions that may reasonably be
experienced by a FOWT system, while SLCs are conditions that verify the survivability
of the system and its air gap to the wave-free surface when subjected to conditions more
severe than the most extreme DLCs outlined in the standard [7]. In general, for rigorous
design purposes, all DLCs must be simulated to ensure the survivability of a given FOWT
hull design. From previous work in FOWT hull design load studies, it has been determined
that while other DLCs may control system design, designing to withstand DLC 6.1 will
largely yield reasonable estimations of a system’s necessary overall design [21]. For the
purposes of this work, the emphasis is on rapid initial hull design, and therefore DLC 6.1 is
used as the primary load case.
To generate the DLC 6.1 50-year sea state metocean conditions for any given site, statistical
analysis was performed on wave height data. Using these wave data and statistical analyses,
the relevant DLC 6.1 wave environment conditions for hull design (wave height and wave
period) can be estimated. Firstly, the wave height data for any given site was gathered
from the BMT AGROSS (BMTA) database [22]. Following the retrieval of the data from
the BMTA database, the Wave Analysis for Fatigue and Oceanography (WAFO) MATLAB
toolbox [23] was used for the DLC 6.1 metocean condition estimation. Through the WAFO
toolbox, the Gumbel distribution was used as the extreme value distribution (EVD) to predict
the 50-year extreme wave events, as is common practice in extreme metocean condition
prediction [24,25]. Additionally, to estimate of the peak 50-year wave period of a given site,
the prediction equation in the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) offshore standard, DNV-OS-J101,
was used [26]. To generate the estimate of the peak wave period in the 50-year severe sea state
(SSS), the use of Equation (2) is recommended in DNV-OS-J101 [26]:
Designs 2024, 8, 72 7 of 26

s s
HS,SSS HS,SSS
11.1 ≤ TP ≤ 14.3 (2)
g g

where HS,SSS is the severe sea state significant wave height, g is the acceleration due to
gravity, and TP is the peak-estimated wave period for the SSS. The upper end of Equation (2)
is used to generate an estimate of the maximum wave period that will be seen by the hull.
Lastly, using these methods of 50-year significant wave height and peak wave period
estimation, the DLC 6.1 wave environment conditions for the three offshore sites were
characterized, as is shown in Table 2. Using the listed wave environment conditions,
mass-optimized VolturnUS hull designs will be designed for 10–30 MW turbines.

Table 2. Overview of selected offshore sites, their relevant conditions, and locations.

Site Name Maine Research Array Celtic Sea GoliatVIND

Country USA Wales Norway
HS,50 (m) 1 7.69 11.69 15.10
TP,50 (s) 1 12.66 15.61 17.91
Water Depth (m) 175 73 365
Coordinates 43◦ 23′ N, 69◦ 21′ W 51◦ 10′ N, 5◦ 30′ W 72◦ 0′ N, 22◦ 30′ E
1The 50-year significant wave heights, HS,50 , and subsequent 50-year peak wave periods, TP,50 , were calculated
using a 3 h averaging period.

2.3. Substructure Performance Evaluation

This section begins with a review of the VolturnUS substructure. Subsequently, the ini-
tial hull design process used for the performance analyses of this work will be described.
This analysis will begin by covering hydrostatic calculations, which includes estimations
of hull stability under various conditions and its stiffness in the relevant degrees of free-
dom. After this, the prediction of the hull rigid-body natural periods will be discussed,
along with frequency-domain hull motion response amplitude operator (RAO) estimation
using the natural periods. These RAOs will then be used for peak hull motion and nacelle
acceleration estimations. Following this discussion, a method of hull load estimation and
structural sizing is proposed. Finally, typical values for the aforementioned constraints are
given for future use in a hull mass-optimization routine.

2.3.1. Review of VolturnUS Substructure

The VolturnUS is a post-tensioned concrete semi-submersible. The use of post-
tensioned concrete instead of steel for the substructure design offers several advantages,
including the application of globally applicable techniques from industrialized pre-cast
bridge construction, higher resistance to corrosion, longer design life with lower operations
and maintenance costs, and a heavier, more stable system compared to an equivalent steel
system [27]. At the end of the system’s life cycle, the concrete can be recycled as aggregate
for other concrete projects and the steel reinforcement can also be reused [28]. The geometry
of the system consists of four total columns—three radial columns for providing stiffness
and stability, and one central column that supports the turbine [29–31]. The hull’s loads are
transferred between the central column and the radial columns by three post-tensioned
concrete bottom beams and by three hinged steel top struts. The bottom beams of the
system are ballasted with seawater to achieve the desired draft. The keystone is the section
of the hull that connects the bottom of the central column to the bottom beams, as is shown
in Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows a diagram of the relevant design dimensions for the
VolturnUS substructure.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 8 of 26

Figure 3. VolturnUS substructure layout and relevant design dimensions for optimization listed.

As seen in Figure 3, there are five independent design dimensions for VolturnUS
substructure mass optimization: (1) central and radial column diameter (these are kept the
same), (2) freeboard, (3) bottom beam height, (4) keystone radius, and (5) system radius. All
other dimensions, such as section thicknesses, are dependent on these design dimensions
for the purposes of this tool. The optimal values for these design dimensions for various
wave environments and turbine designs are determined using a genetic algorithm hull
mass optimizer with a set of performance-based design constraints, which are detailed in
the following sections.

2.3.2. Hydrostatic Constraints

To assess the fitness of any given VolturnUS substructure design (specified values
for column diameter, system radius, bottom beam height, freeboard, and keystone radius)
for a defined wave environment and turbine design, performance design constraints are
Designs 2024, 8, 72 9 of 26

computed. The first set of performance constraints that are evaluated by the optimization
routine in this work are the hydrostatic constraints: the platform pitch under peak thrust,
the freeboard in the damaged condition, and the tow-out drafts. To begin the calculation of
the hydrostatic constraints, all hull mass properties and basic stability metrics are computed.
Firstly, all hull component structural volumes and then masses are calculated using the
densities listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Hull component material densities.

Hull Component Material Density (kg/m3 )

Steel 7850
Post-tensioned concrete 2482
Ballast 1025

Next, the hull component centers of gravity (KG) and centers of buoyancy (KB) from
the hull’s keel are computed using Equation (3):

∑ w i Xi
Xsystem = (3)
∑ wi
where Xsystem is hull’s KG or KB, Xi is the ith hull component’s KG or KB, and wi is the
ith hull component’s mass or volume for KG and KB calculations, respectively. After this,
the hull’s water plane second moment of area is calculated using Equation (4):
Z
Iwp,system = y2 dA (4)
A
where y is the perpendicular distance from the x-axis (the axis of rotation passing through
the waterplane centroid) to a differential hull area in the water plane, dA. Using the water
plane second moment of area and the system’s displaced volume, the metacentric radius,
BM is found, as is shown in Equation (5):

Iwp,system
BMsystem = (5)
∇system
where ∇system is the hull’s submerged volume. Using BM, the system’s metacentric height,
GM, is found as shown in Equation (6).

GM = KB + BM − KG (6)
Lastly, before the calculation of the hydrostatic constraints can begin, a given hull
design’s relevant stiffnesses and natural periods must be computed. The six FOWT hull
degrees of freedom are shown in Figure 4.
From previous hull design work covering the VolturnUS geometry [32], there are three
components of the hull hydrostatic stiffness matrix that are important for initial design perfor-
mance evaluation: the stiffnesses in heave (K33) and in roll and pitch (K44 and K55, respectively).
This is because the stiffnesses in surge and sway are more a function of the mooring system
used, so they generally do not vary much with platform geometry, and the yaw stiffness is
irrelevant for zero-degree wave heading analysis. Additionally, due to symmetry, the roll and
pitch stiffnesses of the hull are the same, so only two stiffnesses are evaluated in this work,
and the formulas for their computation are provided in Equations (7) and (8).

K33 = ρballast gAwp (7)

K55 = ρballast g∇ GM (8)

where Awp is the waterplane area of the hull. Additionally, the effect of mooring stiffness has
been neglected for these degrees of freedom (DOFs) as it is usually not significant. Using these
stiffnesses, the hull’s rigid body natural frequencies can be found as shown in Equation (9):
Designs 2024, 8, 72 10 of 26

s
2π Ki
ωn = = (9)
Tn mi + m a,i

where Ki is the stiffness for the ith degree of freedom, mi is the mass or inertia for the
ith degree of freedom, and m a,i is the added mass or inertia for the ith degree of freedom
induced by the acceleration of the hull through the seawater [33]. The added mass for an
arbitrary degree of freedom is defined as provided in Equation (10):

m a = ρCa VR (10)
where Ca is the added mass coefficient and VR is the reference volume, which are calculated
using the equations for various section geometry provided in DNV-RP-C205 [34]. Also
found in DNV-RP-C205 [34] are the added mass moment of inertia equations for given refer-
ence geometries. The natural frequencies of the hull designs are not directly constrained in
the optimization routine, but their values are indirectly influenced through constraints on
hull motions, accelerations, and loads, which, in turn, push the hull’s natural frequencies
away from the peak wave frequencies to avoid resonant excitation.

Figure 4. Rigid-body FOWT hull degrees of freedom.

Using these mass properties and stiffnesses, the hydrostatic constraints of the system
can be evaluated. Firstly, for the hydrostatic constraints, under the peak thrust load of
the turbine, the pitch angle of the hull and the minimum tilted freeboard of the hull are
Designs 2024, 8, 72 11 of 26

limited. The pitch angle of the system under the peak thrust load is found as shown in
Equation (11) and the minimum freeboard in the peak thrust case at the furthest radial
column is computed as provided in Equation (12):

Ft Lt + WRN A CGRN A,x

θheel = (11)
K55
Dcolumn
FBheel = FBinitial − ( Rsystem + ) sin(θheel ) (12)
2
where Ft is the thrust force, Lt is the thrust moment arm length from the mooring fairlead
to the hub height, WRN A is the RNA weight, CGRN A,x is the RNA x-center of gravity, FB is
the freeboard, and Rsystem is the system radius. For this work, the pitch angle under a peak
thrust load is limited to 6.5 degrees and the minimum freeboard under the peak thrust load
is limited to 1.5 m [7].
The second hydrostatic constraint examined is the damaged freeboard of the hull
design, as is stipulated in the ABS FOWT guidelines [7]. For the VolturnUS, the worst-case
damaged freeboard of the hull occurs when a watertight chamber at the far radial column
floods, and it is computed as is shown in Equation (13):

ρgVc D ρgVc rc
FBdamage = FBinitial − − ( Rsystem + column ) sin( ) (13)
K33 2 K55
where Vc is the watertight chamber’s volume, rc is the radial distance from the system’s
CG to the watertight chamber’s CG, and Dcolumn is the column diameter. As is seen with
all operational cases, the freeboard must remain greater than or equal to 1.5 m [7]. Lastly,
the tow-out drafts of the FOWT system with and without the turbine are calculated to
ensure the possibility of transporting the system to its offshore site.

2.3.3. System Dynamics Constraints

Another set of system performance constraints that are evaluated for any given Voltur-
nUS substructure design within the mass optimization routine are related to the system
dynamics. The dynamics constraints considered for designs in this work are (1) the min-
imum dynamic air gap and (2) the peak nacelle accelerations in the fore–aft and vertical
directions. Firstly, for the system dynamics analyses performed in this work, estimations of
any given VolturnUS system’s motion magnitude response amplitude operators (RAOs)
are required. Within this optimization routine, to provide rapid estimates of the motion
RAOs, a method of scaling [10] was applied to the OpenFAST-generated motion RAOs of
the VolturnUS-S 15 MW system [32]. To generate the VolturnUS-S 15 MW system motion
RAOs, 5000-s wave simulations were run with wave periods ranging from 2.5 to 30 s at
increments of 0.25 s and a wave heading of zero degrees. Aerodynamic effects were not
considered and a wave amplitude of 1 m was used. Lastly, the viscous damping matrix for
the hull was generated using OpenFOAM [32]. A table of the period and magnitude scaling
factors used in this work for the surge, heave, and pitch RAOs is provided in Table 4:

Table 4. Multiplicative RAO scaling factors.

Rigid Body DOF Period Scaling Factor Magnitude Scaling Factor

Surge 1 1
Heave T33,proto /T33,model p 1
Pitch T55,proto /T55,model 3
mmodel /m proto

Where mmodel and m proto are the model and prototype FOWT system masses and
Ti,model and Ti,proto are the model and prototype FOWT system natural periods for the
ith degree of freedom. As is seen in Table 4, the surge RAO is assumed to be the same
for every design and the heave and pitch RAO periods are scaled by the listed factors to
ensure the correct locations of the peaks for the respective prototype designs. Additionally,
Designs 2024, 8, 72 12 of 26

as the heave and surge motion RAOs have unitless magnitudes, their magnitudes did not
require scaling. The pitch RAO, however, requires scaling to reflect how larger systems
would pitch less than a smaller system for the same wave height, as the pitch RAO is not
unitless. For this reason, the pitch RAO magnitude is Froude scaled based on the cubic
root of the ratio between the model and prototype system masses [10]. A comparison of
scaling model’s predicted surge, heave, and pitch motion RAOs for the optimized Celtic
Sea VolturnUS 10, 20, and 30 MW designs is provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Comparison of scaled and OpenFAST-generated VolturnUS-S 15 MW RAOs for the (a) surge,
(b) heave, and (c) pitch degrees of freedom.

As is shown in Figure 5, the scaled RAOs for surge remain the same, for heave the
frequencies of the responses are scaled, and for pitch both the magnitudes and frequencies
of the responses are scaled. Furthermore, using a frequency-domain model of the wave
environment with the RAOs of a given substructure configuration, the system dynamics
can be studied. For this work, as detailed in the preceding sections, the sea state that is
considered is the extreme 50-year sea state, known as DLC 6.1. The JONSWAP spectrum
is widely used near the spectral peak [35], and therefore is an acceptable wave spectrum
idealization of DLC 6.1 for this work.
The first dynamics constraint analyzed in the hull mass optimization routine is the
minimum air gap. The air gap for a FOWT system is defined as the distance from the lowest
working deck of the hull to the free surface of the seawater [36]. For the VolturnUS, the lowest
working deck is defined as the tops of the central and radial columns, and the worst-case air
gap scenario evaluated in this work is for a high wave occurring at the far edge of the radial
column when the radial column is at its lowest position, as shown in Figure 6.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 13 of 26

Figure 6. Still water (left) and dynamic wave (right) environment minimum air gap cases.

To analyze the vertical position of the far edge of the radial column in the frequency
domain, the heave and pitch RAOs of the hull were combined to create the vertical motion
RAO provided in Equation (14):

Dcolumn
h RCV (ω ) = h33 (ω ) + ( Rsystem + )h55 (ω ) (14)
2
where h33 (ω ) and h55 (ω ) are the heave and pitch motion RAOs, respectively. To compute
the worst-case vertical motion of a given hull design with respect to the DLC 6.1 sea state,
the variance of the response with respect to the sea state, ω 2 , is first computed using
Equation (15) [37]:
Z ∞
σ2 = S(ω )|h RCV (ω )|2 dω (15)
0

where S(ω ) is the computed JONSWAP wave spectrum. From the variance found in
Equation (15), the statistical maximum response over a short-term description of the sea is
found using Equation (16) [37]:
r
t
Rmax = 2σ2 ln( ) (16)
Tm
where t is the short-term (three-hour) description of the sea, Tm is the JONSWAP-estimated
mean wave period, and Rmax is the statistically predicted maximum value of the desired
response over the short-term description of the sea. In this case, this is the peak vertical
displacement response of the given VolturnUS configuration in the DLC 6.1 sea state. Lastly,
the minimum required freeboard can be predicted from the sum of the square root of
maximum response and the peak wave height squared, as is shown in Equation (17):
q
FBreq = ( Rmax,RCV )2 + (0.93HS )2 + 1.5m (17)

where the maximum wave height is 0.93 times the significant wave height and the required
ABS minimum air gap of 1.5 m [7] is added to the total quantity. The square root of the
sum of the wave height and maximum response squared is taken to provide a reasonable
estimate of the peak response, as it involves two time-varying signals [38]. The required
freeboard returned by the Equation (17) is compared to the freeboard of each VolturnUS
design generated in an iteration of the optimization routine, and if the freeboard of the
design is greater than or equal to the required freeboard, the air gap constraint is considered
to be satisfied.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 14 of 26

The other system dynamics constraints that are examined by the optimization routine
are the fore–aft and vertical nacelle accelerations of the system. The acceleration of the
nacelle in these two directions, shown in Figure 7, is limited to protect the turbine compo-
nents and to reduce the system’s loads, as the nacelle’s accelerations can produce loads
comparable to the magnitude of the aerodynamic thrust [39].

Figure 7. VolturnUS FOWT system with nacelle acceleration directions shown.

To analyze the nacelle accelerations of a given VolturnUS system configuration to

analyze if they are above the acceptable limits, a frequency-domain model is used with the
JONSWAP of the wave environment to compute statistical maximum responses. Firstly,
to create the nacelle acceleration RAOs, only rigid body motions are examined, meaning
effects from tower bending are ignored. Accordingly, the rigid body motion RAOs were
converted to acceleration RAOs for each relevant degree of freedom by taking their second
derivatives, as is shown in Equation (18):

ḧ(ω ) = −h(ω )ω 2 (18)

where h(ω ) is the RAO magnitude at a given frequency, ω. The relevant rigid-body motion
degrees of freedom for vertical nacelle acceleration are heave and pitch, with the pitch
contribution being negligible due to small angles, and the relevant degrees of freedom for
the fore–aft acceleration are surge and pitch, resulting in the fore–aft and vertical nacelle
acceleration RAOs provided in Equations (19) and (20), respectively:

ḧ FA (ω ) = zhub ḧ55 (ω ) + ḧ11 (ω ) (19)

ḧV (ω ) = ḧ33 (ω ) (20)

where the zhub represents the moment-arm distance of the system from the mooring fairlead
to the hub height. Using the nacelle acceleration RAOs with the maximum response
method outlined in Equations (15) and (16), an estimation of the peak nacelle accelerations
for a given VolturnUS hull configuration at a particular sea-state can be determined and
Designs 2024, 8, 72 15 of 26

given a subsequent fitness value for the optimization routine depending on if the nacelle
accelerations are within the desired limit.

2.3.4. Structural Loads Constraints

The last design constraint considered by the hull mass optimization routine is the peak
structural loads within the hull. Following a similar process as the previous performance
constraints, the peak structural load prediction employs frequency-domain analyses to
obtain gross, overall loads that are then fed into a finite-element routine, which computes
stresses and factors of safety, and finally evaluates the fitness of a hull design based on
this. The dynamic loads considered are the surge inertial force, the heave inertial force,
and the tower base bending moment. The static loads considered are the hull’s dead loads,
the buoyant forces, and the hydrostatic pressures.
Firstly, to generate the surge and heave inertial force RAOs, the rigid-body acceleration
RAOs for the respective degrees of freedom are multiplied by the mass and added mass of
the degree of freedom, as is shown in Equations (21) and (22).

F11 (ω ) = (m + m a,11 )ḧ11 (ω ) (21)

F33 (ω ) = (m + m a,33 )ḧ33 (ω ) (22)

Furthermore, to generate the tower base bending moment RAO for a given design, not
only the rigid-body pitch motion RAO is needed but estimates of the mass and geometric
properties for the turbine tower and RNA are required as well. The formulation of the
tower base bending moment RAO is provided in Equation (23):

MTB (ω ) = ( Jtower + JRN A )ḧ55 (ω ) + mtower ḧtower (ω )zCG,tower +

m RN A ḧ RN A (ω )zCG,RN A − mtower gzCG,tower h55 (ω ) − m RN A gzCG,RN A h55 (ω ) (23)

where J is a mass moment of inertia, m is a component mass, ḧ(ω ) is an acceleration at

wave frequency ω, and zCG denotes a vertical center of gravity. To predict the peak values
for the surge inertial force, heave inertial force, and tower base bending moment, the peak
statistical response model of Equations (15) and (16) is once again used with the JONSWAP
of the wave environment for each of the loading RAOs.
In the application of the surge inertial force, heave inertial force, and tower base
bending moment to the hull, all loads were assumed to be active at the same instant in
time and applied quasi-statically with a zero-degree wave heading, as is shown in Figure 8,
in addition to the system’s self-weight, buoyant, and hydrostatic loads.

Figure 8. Assumed environmental loading application scheme for the VolturnUS substructure.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 16 of 26

As is outlined for DLC 6.1 loads in the ABS guidelines, the “normal” (N) load factor
of 1.35 is applied to all these loads [7]. The surge and heave inertial forces are applied as
uniformly distributed loads along the bottom beam in their respective directions, and the
tower base bending moment is applied at the top of the central column.
To determine the member loads, stresses, and factors of safety of the hull sections,
a finite element solver was developed and used. In the finite element tool, firstly, the radial
symmetry of the system was employed such that only one bottom beam, radial column,
and top strut section would be examined. To use this symmetry, lateral motion boundary
conditions were applied to the tower and central column of the system. Additionally,
to model the hinges at the ends of the top strut, a method of LaGrange multipliers was
used. Lastly, the elements used in this finite element model were six-DOF, two-noded
Timoshenko beam elements [40]. A visualization of the radial symmetry discretization
scheme for the VolturnUS is presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Finite element discretization scheme for VolturnUS, where red points are nodes and black
lines are elements.

Finally, using these peak factored live loads on the hull formulated in the preceding
sections, the required amount of post tensioned steel ducts to keep the peak tensile stresses
in all concrete sections below the ABS-defined limit of 200 psi (1380 kPa) [7] is then
determined. If the required amount of post-tensioning ducts is feasible based on the
available space in the sections for the ducts, the structural loading constraint is considered
to be met.

2.3.5. Review of Constraints

All the major design constraints outlined in this section are summarized in Table 5
with the constraint limit values used for them in this work.
The hull design constraint limit values outlined above will be used for all hull mass
optimization studies in this work. These constraint values come from a combination of
design codes [7] and from previous VolturnUS hull design work. While these are the major
constraints outlined in this work, there are other constraints that are not listed in Table 5,
including but not limited to constraints to yield feasible geometry (such as the columns
Designs 2024, 8, 72 17 of 26

cannot touch, the keystone radius cannot be longer than the bottom beam, etc.) and to
prevent other issues, such as hulls that require negative amounts of ballast.

Table 5. Hull design constraint limit values.

Performance Constraint Constraint Limit

Damaged Freeboard (m) ≥1.5
Pitch under peak thrust (◦ ) ≤6.5
Tow-out draft, no turbine (m) ≤9.0
Tow-out draft, with turbine (m) ≤11.0
Air gap (m) ≥1.5
Fore–aft nacelle acceleration (g) ≤0.30
Vertical nacelle acceleration (g) ≤0.30
Peak tensile bending stress in concrete section (kPa) ≤1380

2.4. Genetic Algorithm Optimization Routine

In this work, an in-house genetic algorithm optimization routine is employed to gen-
erate mass-optimized VolturnUS substructure designs over a range of sites and turbine
capacities subject to the hull design performance constraints. Genetic algorithms were cho-
sen for this work due to their ease of implementation, proven effectiveness [4], and ability
to handle complex optimization problems, meaning that no gradient or slope information
is needed from the objective function for their use [41]. The general methodology for a
genetic algorithm is that an initial population with a size n pop is created using random
numbers for each of the design variables, or genes, of each member of the population.
Each of these members of the population is assigned a fitness score based on the objective
function and the values of their design variables that their genes hold. Using the three main
operators: reproduction, crossover, and finally mutations, a new population is generated
that retains some of the better properties and phases out some of the worse properties
from the previous population [41]. This process of applying these three main operators
is repeated until the converge criteria is achieved or the maximum allowable number of
iterations is reached. A flowchart of the general methodology used by genetic algorithms is
provided in Figure 10.

Figure 10. General flowchart of a genetic algorithm.

In the following sections, the specific methodology used for the three main operators
is discussed.

2.4.1. Reproduction
Following the use of a random number generator to create the initial population of
designs between the specified upper and lower bounds specified for each design variable,
Designs 2024, 8, 72 18 of 26

the reproduction operator is applied to the population. In the reproduction operation, the fit-
ness values of each of the members of the population is evaluated, then, using a specified
methodology, the mating pool for the next generation is created with the goal of individuals
with better qualities being sent to the mating pool. In this work, a weighted roulette wheel
method of reproduction was used. In unweighted roulette wheel selection, each individual
in the population is assigned a probability that is proportional to their fitness score divided
by the sum of all the fitness scores from the population, as is presented in Equation (24) [41],
a cumulative probability distribution vector of these values is assembled, and a “roulette
wheel”, which is a random number generator, is rolled n pop times.

f itnessi
pi = n pop (24)
∑ i =1 f itnessi
A random value between 0 and 1 is selected for each roll of the “roulette wheel”
and the member of the population whose position in the cumulative probability vector
corresponds to this value is chosen to go to the mating pool [41]. In this work, a “survival
of the fittest” factor, αdarwin , is introduced to this process, which is multiplied by the fitness
values of the best members of the population and divides the fitness values of the worst
members of a population before probabilities are determined in order to give “more fit”
members of the population a higher chance of being in the mating pool and to give “less
fit” members of the population a lower change of being in the mating pool for the iteration.

2.4.2. Crossover
Following the establishment of the mating pool, the next operation that is performed
is crossover. In crossover, offspring are created by exchanging genetic information between
parent members of the mating pool. There are many ways of performing the crossover op-
eration, such as single-point, in which a random point along the vector genetic information
for one parent is chosen, and all the genetic information after that point is swapped [42],
but in this work, a uniform method of crossover was used, which is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Uniform crossover operation, giving a constant probability, pc , that any given segment of
genetic information will be swapped between parents x and y.

In the uniform method of crossover, the genetic information of every randomly selected
pair of parents is looped through, and using a constant probability of crossover, pc , and a
random number generator, it is determined if each gene will be swapped between parents.

2.4.3. Mutation
After, reproduction and crossover, mutation occurs. In mutation, genes randomly
mutate with the probability, pm . As with the other two main operations, there are numerous
ways to carry out the mutations [42]. In this work, a process of random mutations was
applied, meaning that each gene of each member of the newly generated, but not yet
mutated, children generated in crossover was looped through, and using pm and a random
number generator, it was determined if the gene would mutate. A principle of genetic
algorithms is that mutations must be random, but that small mutations must be favored over
large mutations [41]. To carry out mutations that follow this principle, a beta distribution
random number generator function was used to determine the new values of mutated
Designs 2024, 8, 72 19 of 26

genes. For the beta distribution function, the mode was set to the unmutated value of
the gene, and the upper and lower limits were set to those of the specific design variable,
therefore favoring smaller mutations over large ones, and keeping the value of the mutated
gene between the upper and lower limits prescribed in the problem statement.

2.4.4. Substructure Optimization Routine Application

Finally, the described genetic algorithm was applied to the substructure optimization
problem. To do this, a fitness function was formulated following the quadratic penalty
method [43]. The fitness function with the applied quadratic penalty in the context of the
substructure optimization routine is shown in Equation (25).
nc
Φ( X ) = mhull ( X ) + c ∑ (max[ gi ( X ), 0])2 (25)
i =1

where each design is characterized by a vector of hull design dimensions X, which deter-
mine its fitness Φ( X ). The hull structural mass is denoted as mhull ( X ) and the term gi ( X )
represents the normalized magnitude of any constraint violations, which is scaled by a large
constant c. If for each performance constraint, if there is a violation, then gi ( X ) > 0, if there
is no violation, then gi ( X ) ≤ 0. This means that if no constraints for the design are violated,
then the fitness function simply becomes the hull’s mass. If certain constraints are violated,
then the fitness function grows at a large rate, making the design infeasible, and steering the
optimization routine away from more designs like it. This genetic algorithm optimization
routine is used for all substructure mass minimization studies throughout this work.

3. Results
In this section, the optimization routine is first validated by generating and detailing
a design comparison with the IEA 15 MW VolturnUS-S model. Secondly, as previously
outlined, it is of interest to examine two separate phenomena that are relevant to current
trends in the floating offshore wind industry:
1. How do mass-optimized hull designs change for different wave environments?
2. How does the turbine-capacity-normalized hull mass, and therefore mass efficiency
of the hull, change as the turbine power rating of the design increases?
Using the commercial turbine design parameter estimation tool, the three characterized
wave environments, and the hull mass optimization tool, these phenomena will be examined.

3.1. Validation of Framework

To validate the optimization routine and design framework, an optimized concrete sub-
structure for the IEA 15 MW turbine [44] was generated to be compared to the VolturnUS-S
design [32]. Although steel and concrete hull designs are not directly comparable, their
dimensions, displacement, and overall design are expected to exhibit similar trends. Ad-
ditionally, the relationship between steel and concrete substructures for the same turbine
design has been examined in previous works [45–47], which can be used for a comparison.
For the design optimization study of the concrete VolturnUS substructure for the IEA
15 MW, the DLC 6.1 wave environment conditions in Table 6 and IEA 15 MW turbine
design properties in Table 7 are used, as was done in the VolturnUS-S definition report.

Table 6. DLC 6.1 wave environment conditions for design comparison [32].

Condition Value
HS , 50 (m) 10.7
TP , 50 (s) 14.2
Designs 2024, 8, 72 20 of 26

Table 7. IEA 15 MW turbine design properties for design comparison [32,44].

Property Value
Rated capacity (MW) 15
Rotor radius (m) 120
Total RNA mass (t) 991
RNA CG above tower top (m) 3.98
RNA CG from tower center (m) 5.49
Maximum turbine thrust (MN) 2.77
Tower mass (t) 1263
Tower base diameter (m) 10
Tower center of gravity from base (m) 41.5
Hub height from base (m) 135

Additionally, only for this IEA 15 MW validation case, to keep the steel and concrete
FOWT systems as consistent as possible, the freeboard was constrained to 15 m and the
maximum allowable heel angle constraint was set to 6◦ , as was done for the VolturnUS-S [32].
Using the described wave environment conditions, turbine design, and constraints, a mass-
optimized concrete substructure for the IEA 15 MW turbine was designed. A side-by-side
schematic of the optimized concrete design and the VolturnUS-S is provided in Figure 12.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 12. Comparison of IEA 15 MW optimized concrete VolturnUS (left) and steel VolturnUS-S
substructure (right) designs in (a) trimetric, (b) top, and (c) front views.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 21 of 26

As is shown in Figure 12, the general dimensions and layouts of the concrete substruc-
ture and the VolturnUS-S are visually similar. A comparison of the platform properties is
provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of optimized concrete substructure and VolturnUS-S design properties [32].

Property Optimized Concrete VolturnUS VolturnUS-S

Column separation (m) 52.37 51.75
Bottom beam height (m) 7.63 7.00
Radial column diameter (m) 14.22 12.50
Central column diameter (m) 14.22 10.00
Freeboard (m) 15.00 15.00
Draft (m) 20.00 20.00
Hull displacement (m3 ) 26,480 20,206
FOWT system mass (t) 26,371 20,093
Ballasted platform mass (t) 24,117 17,854
Platform structural mass (t) 18,698 3914
Tower interface (t) - 100
Total ballast mass (t) 5418 13,840
Tower mass (t) 1263 1263
RNA mass (t) 991 991

From the comparison of the platform designs provided in Table 8, it is shown that the
dimensions of the optimized reinforced concrete VolturnUS platform are all slightly larger
than those of the VolturnUS-S, which is expected between concrete and steel substructures
for the same turbine design [45,46]. It is observed that the column separation increases by
1.2%, the bottom beam height increases by 9.0%, and the radial column diameter increases
by 13.8% from the VolturnUS-S to the optimized concrete VolturnUS design. The larger
change of 42.2% in the central column from the steel to concrete designs is also partially
due to the change in material, but is largely affected by the optimization routine’s choice of
uniformity for the radial and central column diameters. Furthermore, as is seen in Table 8,
the overall FOWT system mass increases by 31.1% from the VolturnUS-S to the concrete
system, along with a 377% increase in platform structural mass, and a 60.9% decrease
in ballast mass. The increases in the overall system mass and platform structural mass
and the decrease in ballast mass of these observed magnitudes are all common throughout
the literature for similar concrete and steel hull design studies [45–47]. Lastly, a design
performance comparison is provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Comparison of optimized concrete substructure and VolturnUS-S performance [32].

Optimized
System Concrete VolturnUS-S
VolturnUS
Heave natural frequency (Hz) 0.053 0.049
Pitch natural frequency (Hz) 0.029 0.036
Peak DLC 6.1 fore–aft nacelle acceleration (m/s2 ) 1.243 2.000
Peak DLC 6.1 vertical nacelle acceleration (m/s2 ) 0.960 1.300
Peak DLC 6.1 tower base bending moment (kN-m) 40,863 45,000

As is shown in Table 9, the heave natural frequency of the optimized concrete Voltur-
nUS system increases 7.9% and the pitch natural frequency decreases 19.7% from that
of the VolturnUS-S. This, in conjunction with the higher system mass likely causes the
37.9% and 26.2% decreases in the peak DLC 6.1 fore–aft and vertical nacelle accelerations,
respectively, and the 9.2% decrease in the peak DLC 6.1 tower-base bending moment from
the VolturnUS-S to the optimized concrete system.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 22 of 26

3.2. Design Trends

Designs for hulls to support 10 MW through 30 MW turbines were generated for the
Gulf of Maine, Celtic Sea, and GoliatVIND sites Table 2, which represented sites with low-,
medium-, and high-severity wave environments, respectively. Plots of the hull masses
normalized by turbine power rating for each site were generated by sequentially running
the optimization routine for a variety of turbine capacities and wave environments and are
provided in Figure 13.

Figure 13. VolturnUS-optimized hull structural mass per unit of turbine capacity for the MeRA, Celtic
Sea, and GoliatVIND offshore sites.

As is seen in Figure 13, instead of using the monetary cost of a given hull design,
the structural mass was used to track the gross overall hull cost. As is expected, the lowest
severity wave environment hull designs have the lowest structural masses, followed by
the medium- and high-severity environment designs. Additionally, as the turbine power
rating increases for each environment, the capacity-normalized optimized hull structural
mass decreases at a decreasing rate, indicating improved cost-efficiency. Lastly, the trends
in the hull design dimensions for the low-, medium-, and high-severity wave environments
are provided in Figure 14.
As is shown in Figure 14a,b, as the wave environment increases in severity, the length
of the bottom beam decreases for a given turbine capacity while its height increases in order
to resist the larger hydrodynamic loading. As seen in Figure 14c,d, column diameter and
freeboard climb with growing wave environment severity in order to maintain the ABS
air gap. As turbine capacity increases, the system radius and column diameter increase
to provide additional overturning stiffness for the system to resist the climbing thrust
loads. Additionally, bottom beam height sees a moderate increase as the turbine capacity
increases, while the freeboard remains generally constant.
In relation to the mass efficiency of the hull, the freeboard is a major driver of the mass
growth with increasing wave environment severity, experiencing an average elongation
of 49.5% from the low environment to the high environment. This is because, as the wave
environment severity increases, the system’s freeboard must increase to meet the ABS 1.5-m
minimum air gap, but doing so requires the elongation of all four columns, and therefore a
substantial increase in mass. All the while, even as the system radius, and therefore bottom
beam, sees an average decrease in length of 14.7% from low- to high-severity environments,
it is offset by an average increase in bottom beam height of 23.6% and in column diameter
of 22.5%. Lastly, as previously stated, while the bottom beam height experiences an upward
Designs 2024, 8, 72 23 of 26

trend with increasing turbine power rating, column diameter and system radius experience
strong upwards trends and drive system mass increases with increasing turbine capacity.
As the turbine capacity increases, the system radius increases at a decreasing rate for all
wave environments, along with the column diameter.

Figure 14. Mass-optimized VolturnUS substructure dimensions for (a) system radius, (b) bottom
beam height, (c) column diameter, and (d) freeboard for the MeRA, Celtic Sea, and GoliatVIND
offshore sites.

4. Conclusions
In this work, a rapid hull mass optimization routine was developed using commercial
data for a turbine prediction model, hydrostatics for initial sizing, frequency-domain
modeling for motion and environmental load analysis, and finite-element analysis for
structural sizing. Using this rapid hull mass optimization routine, a first pass design of a
FOWT hull can be drafted for a given site and turbine design in five to ten minutes. Using
this rapid initial design tool, detailed hull design work can be carried out significantly
faster. This optimization tool was validated through a design comparison study with the
VolturnUS-S, in which its results followed those of concrete and steel design comparison
studies found in the current literature [45–47].
Furthermore, the substructure mass optimization tool was used to generate mass-
optimized hull designs for low-, medium-, and high-severity wave environments for 10
through 30 MW turbine FOWT systems. It was determined that as the turbine capacity of
a FOWT system increases, the necessary hull structural mass per unit of turbine capacity
decreases, with diminishing returns, as is seen in Figure 13. This result is supported by
current industry trends in which the average offshore wind turbine power ratings for
announced projects is increasing at unprecedented rates, as the average installed offshore
wind turbine capacity is expected to increase from 10 MW to 16.7 MW from the current day
until 2029 [1]. Additionally, it was found that with increasingly severe wave environments,
the necessary hull structural mass increases and design constraints may have to be relaxed
to generate feasible designs for the high-severity wave environment regions. For a sample
10 MW system, the hull masses for the low- and high-severity environment designs differed
by 23.5%. This trend continues throughout the 10 to 30 MW turbine range explored.
Designs 2024, 8, 72 24 of 26

Finally, while these design trends show the potential hull mass efficiency gains with
growing turbine capacities, there are currently substructure constructability barriers to-
wards the creation of systems with large turbines, such as the 30 MW design discussed.
The major constructability barriers presently affecting the industry are found in the form of
constraints on the system width and draft. While there are certain limiting factors on system
width and draft that can be difficult to change, such as port-specific channel opening and
water depth restrictions [48], a significant logistical barrier to scaling up to larger FOWT
systems in the range of 30 MW are the semi-submersible barges currently in use for tow-out
operations. The current size restrictions of the barges would result in the overhanging of
the radial columns and therefore significant loads on the bottom beams of the VolturnUS.
Furthermore, having large-scale construction equipment such as cranes to assemble 30 MW
turbines, which could have hub heights in the range of 170 m according to the turbine
design parameter estimation model, could be additional barriers to constructability of the
larger systems. To address these issues, larger semi-submersible barges could be created,
larger-scale construction equipment could be required, additional methods for FOWT
system deployment could be investigated, or it may not be currently feasible to scale up
system capacities to achieve the structural weight efficiency gains. As well as fiscal and
logistical issues, the recyclability and life cycle of the larger systems must be examined,
as this could present considerations to scaling up. While these issues were not the focus
of this work specifically, they must be taken into consideration by floating offshore wind
developers as the industry continues to scale up system sizes and capacities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.H.D., A.J.G. and A.M.V.; methodology, J.H.D., A.J.G. and
A.M.V.; software, J.H.D., A.J.G. and A.M.V.; validation, J.H.D., A.J.G. and A.M.V.; formal analysis,
J.H.D.; investigation, J.H.D., A.J.G. and A.M.V.; resources, A.J.G. and A.M.V.; data curation, J.H.D.,
A.J.G. and A.M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.H.D.; writing—review and editing, J.H.D.,
A.J.G. and A.M.V.; visualization, J.H.D., A.J.G. and A.M.V.; supervision, A.J.G. and A.M.V.; project
administration, A.J.G. and A.M.V.; funding acquisition, A.J.G. and A.M.V. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially funded by the Department of Energy under two awards:
DE-0008965 and DE-AR0001747.
Data Availability Statement: The turbine designs used in this work can be recreated with the turbine
design parameter estimation tool or can be found in the cited references for the open-source designs.
The data used for the wave environment characterization is available through the BMTA database,
found in the references. The VolturnUS-S design information is available in its definition report, also
found in the references.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

CG Center of Gravity
DLC Design Load Case
DNV Det Norske Veritas
FOWT Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy
MeRA Maine Research Array
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-Hour
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
RNA Rotor Nacelle Assembly
SLC Survival Load Case
SWL Still Water Line
Designs 2024, 8, 72 25 of 26

References
1. Musial, W.; Spitsen, P.; Duffy, P.; Beiter, P.; Shields, M.; Mulas Hernando, D.; Hammond, R.; Marquis, M.; King, J.; Sathish, S. Offshore
Wind Market Report: 2023 Edition; Technical Report; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2023.
2. Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Hoen, B.; Millstein, D.; Rand, J.; Barbose, G.; Darghouth, N.; Gorman, W.; Jeong, S.; O’Shaughnessy, E.;
et al. Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2023 Edition; Technical Report; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL): Berkeley,
CA, USA, 2023.
3. U.S. Department of Energy. Floating Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects. Available online: https:
//[Link]/eere/wind/floating-offshore-wind-shot (accessed on 1 May 2024).
4. Chen, J.; Kim, M.H. Review of recent offshore wind turbine research and optimization methodologies in their design. J. Mar. Sci.
Eng. 2022, 10, 28. [CrossRef]
5. Karimi, M.; Hall, M.; Buckham, B.; Crawford, C. A multi-objective design optimization approach for floating offshore wind
turbine support structures. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 2017, 3, 69–87. [CrossRef]
6. Mas-Soler, J.; do Amaral, G.A.; da Silva, L.Z.; Malta, E.B.; Carmo, L.H.S.; Ruggeri, F.; Simos, A.N. A parametric optimization approach
for the initial design of FOWT’s substructure and moorings in Brazilian deep-water fields. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2362, 012025.
[CrossRef]
7. American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Building and Classing Floating Offshore Wind Turbines; Technical Report; American Bureau
of Shipping: Spring, TX, USA, 2020.
8. Chen, C.A.; Chen, K.H.; Igarashi, Y.; Chen, D.; Ma, K.T.; Lai, Z.Y. Design of Mooring System for a 15 MW Semi-Submersible,
TaidaFloat, in Taiwan Strait. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Volume 86878, p. V005T06A071.
9. Ramsay, W.; Goupee, A.; Allen, C.; Viselli, A.; Kimball, R. Optimization of a Lightweight Floating Offshore Wind Turbine with
Water Ballast Motion Mitigation Technology. Wind 2022, 2, 535–570. [CrossRef]
10. Sergiienko, N.; Da Silva, L.; Bachynski-Polić, E.; Cazzolato, B.; Arjomandi, M.; Ding, B. Review of scaling laws applied to floating
offshore wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 162, 112477. [CrossRef]
11. Edwards, E.C.; Holcombe, A.; Brown, S.; Ransley, E.; Hann, M.; Greaves, D. Evolution of floating offshore wind platforms: A
review of at-sea devices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 183, 113416. [CrossRef]
12. IEC 61400-3-2; Wind Turbine Generator Systems—Part 3-2: Design Requirements for Offshore Wind Turbines. Technical Report
61400-3-2. International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
13. Hexicon. Mareld Vindkraftspark Samrådsunderlag; Technical Report; Hexicon: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021.
14. Yao, S.; Chetan, M.; Griffith, D.T.; Escalera Mendoza, A.S.; Selig, M.S.; Martin, D.; Kianbakht, S.; Johnson, K.; Loth, E. Aero-
structural design and optimization of 50 MW wind turbine with over 250-m blades. Wind Eng. 2022, 46, 273–295. [CrossRef]
15. The MathWorks Inc. Curve Fitting Toolbox; The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2023.
16. Manwell, J.F.; McGowan, J.G.; Rogers, A.L. Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2010.
17. Zahle, F.; Barlas, T.; Lønbæk, K.; Bortolotti, P.; Zalkind, D.; Wang, L.; Labuschagne, C.; Sethuraman, L.; Barter, G. Definition of the
IEA Wind 22-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2024.
18. Gulf of Maine Floating Offshore Wind Research Array. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 3 November 2023).
19. Offshore Wind Leasing Round 5—Project Development Areas (PDAs). Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 3 November 2023).
20. GoliatVIND. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 3 November 2023).
21. Blood, B. Comparison of Global Performance of a 15, 20, and 24 Mw Floating Offshore Wind Turbine. Master’s Thesis, University
of Maine, Orono, ME, USA, 2023.
22. WaveClimate Infoplaza. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 14 November 2023).
23. Brodtkorb, P.A.; Johannesson, P.; Lindgren, G.; Rychlik, I.; Rydén, J.; Sjö, E. WAFO-a Matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves
and loads. In Proceedings of the ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE, Seattle, WA, USA, 27
May–2 June 2000; p. ISOPE–I.
24. Bhaskaran, S.; Verma, A.S.; Goupee, A.J.; Bhattacharya, S.; Nejad, A.R.; Shi, W. Comparison of Extreme Wind and Waves Using
Different Statistical Methods in 40 Offshore Wind Energy Lease Areas Worldwide. Energies 2023, 16, 6935. [CrossRef]
25. Park, S.B.; Shin, S.Y.; Shin, D.J.; Jung, K.H.; Choi, Y.H.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.J. Extreme Value Analysis of Metocean Data for Barents Sea.
J. Ocean Eng. Technol. 2020, 34, 26–36. [CrossRef]
26. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). DNV-OS-J101: Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. DNV GL AS, 2014. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 15 June 2023).
27. Dwyer, M.G.; Viselli, A.M.; Dagher, H.J.; Goupee, A.J. Experimental Verification of ABS Concrete Design Methodology Applied
to the Design of the First Commercial Scale Floating Offshore Wind Turbine in the United States. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2017;
Volume 57779, p. V009T12A004.
28. Portland Cement Association. Recycled Concrete, 2024. Available online: [Link]
paving-pdfs/sustainability/[Link] (accessed on 5 July 2024).
Designs 2024, 8, 72 26 of 26

29. Viselli, A.M.; Goupee, A.J.; Dagher, H.J. Model test of a 1: 8-scale floating wind turbine offshore in the gulf of maine. J. Offshore
Mech. Arct. Eng. 2015, 137, 041901. [CrossRef]
30. Viselli, A.M.; Goupee, A.J.; Dagher, H.J.; Allen, C.K. Design and model confirmation of the intermediate scale VolturnUS floating
wind turbine subjected to its extreme design conditions offshore Maine. Wind Energy 2016, 19, 1161–1177. [CrossRef]
31. Viselli, A.M.; Forristall, G.Z.; Pearce, B.R.; Dagher, H.J. Estimation of extreme wave and wind design parameters for offshore
wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine using a POT method. Ocean Eng. 2015, 104, 649–658. [CrossRef]
32. Allen, C.; Viscelli, A.; Dagher, H.; Goupee, A.; Gaertner, E.; Abbas, N.; Hall, M.; Barter, G. Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S
Reference Platform Developed for the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; Technical Report; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2020.
33. Jonkman, J.M.; Robertson, A.; Hayman, G.J. HydroDyn User’s Guide and Theory Manual; National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Golden, CO, USA, 2014.
34. Det Norske Veritas. DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads; Technical
Report; Det Norske Veritas: Høvik, Norway, 2010.
35. Ryabkova, M.; Karaev, V.; Guo, J.; Titchenko, Y. A review of wave spectrum models as applied to the problem of radar probing of
the sea surface. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2019, 124, 7104–7134. [CrossRef]
36. American Bureau of Shipping. Guidance Notes on Air Gap and Wave Impact Analysis for Semi-Submersibles; American Bureau of
Shipping: Spring, TX, USA, 2020.
37. Faltinsen, O. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993; Volume 1.
38. Palmer, M. Propagation of Uncertainty through Mathematical Operations; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2003.
39. Sclavounos, P.; Tracy, C.; Lee, S. Floating offshore wind turbines: Responses in a seastate pareto optimal designs and economic
assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; American Society of
Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 48234, pp. 31–41.
40. Cook, R.D.; Malkus, D.S.; Plesha, M.E.; Witt, R.J. Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2007.
41. Deb, K. Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and Examples; PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.: Delhi, India, 2012.
42. Katoch, S.; Chauhan, S.S.; Kumar, V. A review on genetic algorithm: Past, present, and future. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021,
80, 8091–8126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Freund, R.M. Penalty and Barrier Methods for Constrained Optimization; Lecture Notes; Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
44. Gaertner, E.; Rinker, J.; Sethuraman, L.; Zahle, F.; Anderson, B.; Barter, G.E.; Abbas, N.J.; Meng, F.; Bortolotti, P.; Skrzypinski,
W.; et al. IEA wind TCP Task 37: Definition of the IEA 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; Technical Report; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2020.
45. Choisnet, T.; Geschier, B.; Vetrano, G. Initial comparison of concrete and steel hulls in the case of Ideol’s square ring floating
substructure. In Proceedings of the 15th World Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition, Tokyo, Japan, 19–21 February 2016;
Volume 31.
46. Oh, S. Comparison of concrete and steel semi-submersible floaters for 10 MW wind turbines. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2018, 012029.
[CrossRef]
47. Johansen, T.; Wiley, T.; Fulger, S.; Færøy Sæbo, E.; Kristian Sollie, O.; Sparkes, D. Comparative Study of Concrete and Steel
Substructures for FOWT; Technical Report; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Høvik, Norway, 2021.
48. Crowle, A.; Thies, P. Naval Architecture Methods For Floating Wind Turbine Installation; The Confederation of European Maritime
Technology Societies (CEMT): London, UK, 2022.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.