J. Ocean Eng. Technol. Search

CLOSE


J. Ocean Eng. Technol. > Volume 39(6); 2025 > Article
Cheong and Song: Discrete Design Optimization of Detachable Mooring System for Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Based on Global Exploration Algorithm and Surrogate Models

Abstract

The fairlead chain stopper (FCS) is a newly developed detachable mooring system designed for installation on a floating offshore wind turbine. In this study, a discrete design optimization of the FCS was conducted using various surrogate models combined with a global exploration algorithm. The structural design of the FCS was assessed numerically through finite element analysis. Several surrogate models were used to enhance the convergence efficiency of the optimization procedure. The constraints for the optimization problem were defined based on strength performance evaluations. The thickness dimensions of the key components were treated as discrete or continuous design variables, enabling a comparative analysis of their influence on achieving the minimum weight, which was set as the objective function. A discrete-variable-capable global exploration algorithm was adopted to search for the optimal solution. The optimal solution for the FCS design could be determined with high accuracy using an artificial neural network-based surrogate model. A comparison of the continuous and discrete design optimum results showed relatively minor variations in the design variables across surrogate models. This study confirmed that the surrogate model accuracy plays a more critical role in determining the optimal results than the type of design variable used.

1. Introduction

Climate change driven by global warming has gradually increased the intensity of recent typhoons and hurricanes, elevating the risk of large-scale damage and structural failure in floating offshore wind turbines. In response to such conditions, there is a growing demand for a new type of detachable mooring system that enables emergency detachment and reduces offshore maintenance costs.
The fairlead chain stopper (FCS) is a newly designed system that enables faster and safer attachment and detachment than existing detachable mooring systems for floating offshore structures. This system aims to enhance the efficiency of installation and decommissioning processes for floating offshore wind turbines. These turbines must meet the structural performance requirements set by classification societies and withstand high mooring loads. In addition, they require optimal structural designs that ensure structural integrity using high-strength materials and achieve weight reduction.
Research on the structural performance evaluation and optimization of detachable mooring systems for floating offshore wind turbines has been limited. Lee and Park (2024) proposed a structural strength evaluation method for the submersible mooring pulley (SMP), a key component of a new detachable mooring system designed to enhance the maintenance efficiency and economic feasibility of floating offshore wind farms. Their study conducted structural analyses accounting for mooring loads acting on the SMP and confirmed the validity of the design, providing fundamental data for future structural optimization. Lee and Song (2023) evaluated the structural safety of the FCS, a detachable mooring system for megawatt-class floating offshore wind turbines, by fabricating a scaled 3D-printed model and conducting structural tests. Based on the test results, the structural soundness of the FCS was verified, and the feasibility of full-scale application was qualitatively validated. Park and Song (2021) proposed a discrete design approximate optimization technique for minimizing the weight of an A60-class deck penetration piece by combining various metamodels with a multi-island genetic algorithm. The fire resistance performance was evaluated through transient heat transfer analysis, and the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed optimization approach were validated by comparing its results with actual analysis data. Benítez-Suárez et al. (2025) presented an efficient preliminary design strategy for reducing the cost of jacket substructures for NREL-5 MW offshore wind turbines using a particle swarm optimization-based approach. The convergence behavior and design diversity were improved compared to randomly initialized populations by introducing a precomputed swarm particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, and the design suitability was numerically validated. As part of the development of a detachable mooring system, Yu et al. (2023) conducted a numerical evaluation of the structural and fatigue strength of an FCS designed for a 10 MW-class floating offshore wind turbine. The designed FCS was assessed for structural integrity and fatigue life based on the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) classification standards, and it met the structural and fatigue safety requirements. Ma et al. (2025) performed design optimization of the OC3 spar floater, accounting for rigid-body motion and hydroelastic responses. The optimal shape was derived by selecting the cylinder diameter, wall thickness, draft, and ballast height as design variables, achieving a 20%–40% reduction in surge, pitch, and hub motions. Lee et al. (2025) designed a mooring system for a combined wind and wave energy system operating in intermediate water depths and compared the performance of various mooring configurations, including chains, fiber ropes, and clump weights. The system stability, tension response, and installation cost were comprehensively evaluated by numerical simulations, and the most cost-effective mooring configuration was proposed. Yu et al. (2025) assessed the structural safety of an FCS used in the disconnectable mooring system of floating offshore wind turbines. The stress distribution under extreme and fatigue loading conditions was examined using finite element analysis, and the design adequacy and durability were confirmed. Im et al. (2025) numerically analyzed the dynamic response and tension variation caused by clump weights in contact with the seabed in the mooring system of floating offshore wind structures. They suggested that seabed contact increases the standard deviation of mooring line tension, which could affect the fatigue life, and proposed a strategy to distribute the clump weights to mitigate this effect. Li et al. (2024) evaluated the dynamic response of floating offshore wind turbine mooring systems under different inline tensioner configurations. Fully coupled load analyses were conducted to assess the tension variations, platform motion responses, and reverse tension generation, offering structural stability insights and design guidelines for each configuration. Chen et al. (2024) designed a mooring system for a 15 MW floating offshore wind turbine to be deployed in the South China Sea and evaluated the mooring line tension, breaking load, and fatigue damage by numerical analysis. A design solution that ensures structural stability and long-term fatigue life was proposed, combining the University of Maine design mooring (UDM) and VolturnUS mooring platforms. Brommundt et al. (2012) optimized a mooring system for floating offshore wind turbines using frequency-domain analysis. They derived an optimal configuration that minimized motion responses, considering the design parameters such as mooring line length, stiffness, and anchor location. Kim et al. (2013) designed a mooring system for a floating offshore wind turbine installed in the waters off Jeju Island. The analysis model evaluated the mooring line tension and motion response characteristics under environmental loading, and a suitable design configuration was proposed to ensure structural stability and optimal mooring layout. A review of previous studies revealed little optimal design research on detachable mooring systems, such as the FCS, for floating offshore wind turbines. Therefore, an optimization methodology was proposed for the structural design of the FCS using various surrogate models and a global exploration algorithm.
The objective of this study was to reduce the weight of the FCS installed on the substructure of a floating offshore wind turbine by applying an approximate optimization technique based on a global exploration algorithm. A structural performance evaluation was carried out by defining the design load conditions according to the offshore classification rules provided by DNV and performing finite element method (FEM)-based structural analysis. Surrogate models used for approximate optimization were constructed using the design of experiments (DOE), and the response data were obtained in conjunction with the FEM results. The design variables were defined as the thicknesses of the major structural components of the FCS, and discrete design specifications feasible for manufacturing were considered. The objective function to be minimized was the weight, and the constraints were defined by applying 90% of the material yield strength as the allowable stress, in accordance with the DNV offshore classification rules. The DOE was structured using an orthogonal array design (OAD) to ensure solution diversity and analytical efficiency, accounting for variations in the design variables. The surrogate models constructed through this approach included the response surface model (RSM), Kriging, Chebyshev orthogonal polynomial (COP), and artificial neural network (ANN). The accuracy of each model in approximating the responses within the design space was evaluated. Furthermore, this study examined an optimal combination of design variables that minimizes the FCS weight while satisfying various constraints and compared the convergence characteristics of each surrogate model. The optimal designs derived from the surrogate models were validated by comparing their predicted responses with the actual responses obtained from full structural analysis and with the results based on continuous design variables, thereby examining the applicability and accuracy of each surrogate model.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the design elements of the FCS, structural performance criteria, and the results of structural analysis. Section 3 discusses the DOE and the construction of each surrogate model, while Section 4 presents the results of the approximate design optimization. Finally, a comprehensive conclusion is provided.

2. Structure Analysis

2.1 Design Concept of FCS

The FCS analyzed in this study was a detachable mooring system designed for use during the transportation and mooring processes of floating offshore wind turbines. The FCS was specifically engineered to allow convenient connection and disconnection between the mooring line and the substructure. In particular, the system offered functional advantages by enabling rapid relocation of the substructure in large-scale maintenance or emergences. The subject of this study was a detachable mooring system developed for a 10 MW-class floating offshore wind turbine. The adopted substructure was a semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbine (SFOWT) composed of three floating platform columns. Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the SFOWT with the FCS installed.
The FCS was installed on each floating platform column. A submersible mooring pulley was positioned at the junction where the mooring line connected through the FCS meets the mooring line connected to the anchor (Fig. 1). The turbine applied to the SFOWT was a horizontal-axis type based on the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) / International Baccalaureate (IB) class offshore Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU) 10 MW reference wind turbine (Muggiasca et al., 2021). The FCS enhances work safety by allowing workers to operate the mooring system from a tugboat rather than directly touching it during installation and operation, as shown in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, complete remote operation is difficult owing to the nature of mooring devices. Therefore, reducing the weight of the FCS is expected to have practical benefits, including reducing workload and work risks. In the design of the newly developed detachable mooring systems, such as the FCS considered in this study, exploring weight-reduction design strategies is just as important as ensuring structural safety. Fig. 2 presents a schematic diagram of the structural configuration and major components of the FCS.
The FCS was connected to the mooring chain positioned above the sea surface and was designed to maintain structural stability even under the minimum breaking load (MBL) conditions acting on the mooring line (Fig. 2). The FCS consisted of two main structural components: the arm and the housing. Among these, the five-pocket chain wheel guided the direction of chain insertion during the installation and removal of the mooring chain. The arm guided the path of the chain while simultaneously distributing the load transmitted through the chain stopper across the entire structure. The chain stopper and upper chain stopper could directly withstand the loads generated during the operation, detachment, and installation of the mooring chain―the housing functions as the main support structure that securely connects the entire FCS to the substructure. In addition, the hydraulic cylinder support accommodated the hydraulic actuator that controls the upper chain stopper. All these critical components interconnected using a pin-joint mechanism that allows rotational motion. The plate components of the FCS, including the wall plate, guide plate, arm pin plate, housing wall plate, top plate, and base plate, accounted for 67% of the overall structural weight. On the other hand, the absence of clearly defined design guidelines for determining their thickness dimensions necessitated the adoption of optimization-based approaches to achieve weight reduction and establish the optimal thickness configuration.

2.2 Design Load Conditions

For mooring systems such as the FCS, their structural performance must be evaluated to ensure compliance with the design load conditions specified by classification societies during the certification process. In addition, the load conditions encountered during towing operations in actual service must also be considered in the design assessment. In this study, the design load conditions for structural performance evaluation were defined based on the DNV offshore classification rules (DNV, 2024). The design working range (DWR) in the horizontal plane relative to the sea surface and the design inlet angle (DIA) in the vertical plane must be defined within the limits prescribed by the offshore classification rules because the FCS is directly attached to the SFOWT platform. Fig. 3 presents the applicable ranges for DWR and DIA specified by DNV.
The design working range (DWR) in the horizontal plane was set to 0°, and the design inlet angle (DIA) in the vertical plane was defined as 10° and 29°, the latter being the angle at which the maximum mooring line tension occurs according to the results of the integrated load analysis, as shown in Fig. 3 (IAE, 2023). The integrated load analysis was performed under the conditions of the SFOWT being subjected to the extreme wind speed model (EWM) and extreme sea state (ESS). The mooring system included three mooring lines spaced 120° apart along the Z-axis. The center of gravity of the floating body in the integrated load analysis model was located 8.24 m below the waterline; its displacement volume, roll and pitch moments of inertia, and yaw moments of inertia were 10,456.6 m3, 8.57 × 109 kg·m2, and 1.29 × 1010 kg·m2, respectively. The mooring system consisted of a fairlead with a radius of 52.69 m, an SMP with a radius of 117.72 m, and an anchor with a radius of 852.69 m. The design load acting on the chain stopper of the FCS under mooring conditions must be based on the MBL, as specified by DNV (2021b). This study adopted a studless chain, 147 mm in diameter, suitable for a 10 MW-class floating offshore wind turbine. The MBL of this chain was confirmed to be 21,179 kN. Under towing conditions, the FCS directly connected to the SFOWT receives the towing force, and the loads acting on the upper stopper and chain wheel were estimated to be 3,434 kN each, based on the integrated load analysis results (IAE, 2023). Table 1 lists all the design load conditions used in the structural performance evaluation of this study.
Based on the conditions summarized in Table 1, the structural performance evaluation of the FCS was conducted using three load cases: DLC1, DLC2, and DLC3. Among these, DLC1 and DLC2 were defined to assess the structural stability of the FCS under mooring conditions, while DLC3 was established to evaluate the structural integrity of the FCS during towing operations.

2.3 Structure Analysis Results

Finite element analysis (FEA) modeling and the pre- and post-processing procedures for the FCS were performed using the HyperWorks software (Altair Engineering Inc., 2021). The FEA model used in this study was generated with an element size of 25 mm determined through convergence analysis (Fig. 4(a)), and comprised 496,472 elements and 384,305 nodes. The core components of the FCS were modeled using a combination of shell and solid elements (Fig. 4(b)), and appropriate contact conditions were applied to the interfaces between the components.
Table 2 summarizes the mechanical properties of the materials used in the FCS. High-strength alloy steel SCM440 was applied to the stopper and pin-related components. OILESS500-ABR material was used for solid-type bushing, and A148-grade steel was adopted for the chain wheel where the mooring chain was installed. In addition, other major structural components were fabricated using DH36 and A694F70 steels. These materials were selected based on their high yield strength to withstand the heavy loads in marine environments. Although they have superior mechanical performance compared to general structural steels, they are relatively more expensive.
Fig. 5 presents the degrees of freedom and boundary conditions, including contact regions, used in the structural analysis. The boundary conditions of the FCS were defined based on the fixed point of the main pin that connects to the SFOWT (Fig. 5), with all degrees of freedom (a) Convergence analysis results (b) FEA model configuration constrained except for rotation in the direction of gravity. The contact conditions were also applied at the interfaces between some contact components, as detailed in Table 3 and Fig. 5. The contact behavior in the normal direction was defined using the penalty method, with the penalty stiffness coefficient automatically determined by the Abaqus solver. The contact behavior in the tangential direction was modeled using the tangential penalty approach, in which the slip stiffness was calculated using the Abaqus solver based on the contact area and material stiffness. Symmetric boundary conditions were applied to the entire model, improving efficiency across the modeling and computational processes.
The design load conditions summarized in Table 1 were applied to the FEA model, as shown in Fig. 6, and structural analysis was conducted based on these conditions.
Based on the loading configurations shown in Fig. 6, the design loads under mooring conditions were applied as bearing loads at the curved contact surface between the mooring chain and the chain stopper, while under towing conditions, the towing force acted directly on the upper stopper and chain wheel of the FCS, with distributed loads applied to these components; 50% of the loads shown in Table 1 was applied because the analysis model represents a half-width structure. Structural analysis was conducted using the general-purpose FEA software ABAQUS (Simulia Dassault Systèmes, 2020), and the results are summarized in Table 4. The stress evaluations were based on the von Mises stress criterion, and the structural safety assessment was conducted in accordance with the DNV offshore classification rules (DNV, 2021a). In this evaluation, the allowable stress for each material was defined as 90% of its yield strength. The allowable stress values for the materials were as follows: 436.5 MPa for A694F70, 279 MPa for DH36, 750.6 MPa for SCM440, 526.5 MPa for A148, and 555.3 MPa for OILESS500-ABR.
The structural performance evaluation of the FCS was conducted based on the results presented in Table 4 by examining whether the maximum stress occurring in each component under the defined load conditions exceeded the allowable stress of the corresponding material. The analysis showed that, under all load cases, the calculated maximum stress values did not exceed the allowable stress limits defined by the DNV offshore classification rules, confirming the structural stability of the FCS. In particular, the highest stress was observed under the DLC2 loading condition, with the maximum stress occurring in the component made of DH36, closely approaching its allowable limit. Fig. 7 shows the overall stress distribution of the FCS under DLC2. Significant stress concentration occurred in the chain stopper region during the mooring conditions, followed by the relatively high stress levels in the arm pin bearing plate and the arm wall plate.

3. Surrogate Models

3.1 Design of Experiments

The surrogate model used for approximate optimization was constructed to predict the response characteristics of the objective and constraint functions within a given design space with minimal error. The model plays a critical role in improving convergence and computational efficiency during the optimization process. DOE was used to generate surrogate models for the approximate optimization, and the FEA model and structural analysis results were linked to the DOE. The design variables and their variation levels were defined as the thicknesses of the main components of the FCS, with three levels assigned for each variable. Fig. 8 presents the components selected as design variables, and Table 5 provides detailed information.
The rationale for selecting the design variables for the optimal design of the FCS is that the chosen plate components account for approximately 67% of the total weight, making a substantial contribution to the overall weight (Fig. 8 and Table 5). Furthermore, these components serve as primary load-transfer paths, as indicated in the stress contours of Fig. 7, highlighting their critical importance in the structural design of the FCS. The range of the design variable values was ±20% of the upper and lower limits of the existing design thickness (Table 5).
Among the response functions, the objective function was defined as the weight of the FCS (f), while the constraints were set as the maximum stress under DLC1 (g1) and DLC2 (g2) for the mooring conditions, and under DLC3 (g3) for the towing conditions. One hundred and twenty-eight orthogonal array experiments were constructed based on the variation levels of the design variables listed in Table 5 and using the following equation:
(1)
L3m=[3(3m-1)/2]
where m is an integer greater than or equal to 2, where 3m represents the total number of experiments, and (3m−1)/2 indicates the number of columns in the orthogonal array experiment (Park, 2012). Table 6 lists the design matrix summarizing the results of the objective function and constraints according to the variation in design variables.
Four surrogate models (RSM, Kriging, COP, and ANN) were individually constructed based on the DOE results for the FCS summarized in Table 6. Each surrogate model was evaluated and compared for its ability to approximate the response functions—such as the objective function and constraints—within the design space.

3.2 Surrogate Modeling

The RSM is expressed as a second-order polynomial regression model using the least squares method, as shown in the following equation (Song and Lee, 2010):
(2)
gr=A0+i=1kAiZi+i=1kAiiZ2+i<1KAiZiZi+e
Given n experimental points, with a response vector g and a matrix Z defined by k basis variables, the unknown RSM coefficient vector Ar can be derived by minimizing the random error vector e in the relationship between g and Z, as shown in the following equation:
(3)
gr=ZAr+e
(4)
Ar=(ZTZ)-1ZgT
The surrogate model for RSM can be constructed by applying the approximation coefficients calculated from the above equation. Kriging is defined as the sum of a global model, which represents the overall trend of the actual design space to be approximated, and a local model, which accounts for the deviation between the actual function and the global model (Cho et al., 2009).
(5)
g˜(x)K=Z(x)TAK+E(x)
where AK is the unknown coefficient vector. E(x) represents the spatial correlation among the design data and is defined using a Gaussian correlation function.
The COP model is a polynomial regression model that uses orthogonal polynomials typically used at uniformly spaced sampling points (Baek et al., 2011).
(6)
g˜(x)C=b0+b1p1(x)2+b2p2(x)+b3[p1(x)3-3a2-720p1(x)h2]+bnpn(x)+
where,
p0(x)=1,         n=0p1(x)=x-x¯,         n=1p2(x)=(x-x¯)2-a2-120h2,n=2pn(x)=Pn-1(x)p1(x)-(n-1)2[a2-(n-1)2]h2pn-1(x)/[4(4(n-1)2-1)],n=3,4,5,
where χ̄ is the mean value of the design variable; a is the number of levels; h is the level spacing coefficient, and b is the approximation coefficient. The approximation coefficient can be expressed using the following equation:
(7)
b0=g¯c
bn=k=1apn(xk)gCkk=1apn2(xk),         k=1,2,,a
The prediction accuracy of surrogate models, such as ANNs, depends on the conditions of the sampling data generated within the design space and on the chosen approximation technique. The ANN model used in this study was constructed using a radial basis function (RBF) as the activation function. The ANN model consists of an input layer, a hidden layer that performs nonlinear activation, and an output layer with linear output, as shown in Fig. 9. The hidden layer contains n neurons.
The RBF-based ANN model approximates the response function using a linear combination of radially symmetric functions based on Euclidean distance. Given a set of neural network nodes x1 ··· xnΩRn, the basis function of the RBF-based ANN model is defined as follows (Dyn et al., 1986):
(8)
gi(x)=(x-xj)R,j=1,,n
where ∅ denotes the power spline basis function, and ‖xxj‖ represents the Euclidean distance. The power spline basis function is defined as follows:
(9)
=rc
where c is a positive constant that serves as the shape parameter of the basis function. Considering the input data x1 ···, xnΩRn, and corresponding output data y1 ···, ynΩRn, the RBF-based ANN model, after undergoing the training process illustrated in Fig. 9, is defined as Eq. (10):
(10)
g˜(x)A=j=1nαjgj(x)+αn+1;j=1nαjgj(xi)+αn+1=yi,i=1,,n
where αj is the unknown approximation coefficient.
The accuracy of the constructed surrogate model was evaluated using the coefficient of determination, R2 as defined in Eq. (11):
(11)
R2=1-(ti-yi)2(ti-t¯)2
In the above equation, ti, yi, and represent the actual result, the result predicted by the surrogate model, and the mean of the actual results, respectively. An R2 value closer to 1.0 indicates a higher level of agreement between the actual results across the entire design space and the predictions made by the surrogate model. Table 7 lists the accuracy of each surrogate model with respect to the response functions.
According to the results in Table 7, all surrogate models except for COP achieved an average R2 value above 0.93 for the objective function and the constraints, indicating generally high approximation accuracy. Hence, these models can be used effectively to enhance computational efficiency in the approximate optimization process. Among the four surrogate models, ANN showed outstanding performance with an average R2 value reaching 1.0.

4. Approximate Design Optimization

Based on the information in Table 5, an approximate design optimization was performed to determine the structural design for the FCS, composed of discrete design variables, which satisfies the allowable stress constraints specified by the offshore classification rules while minimizing weight. A global exploration algorithm—PSO—was applied to accommodate both discrete and continuous design variables. The surrogate models used in the approximate design optimization were the RSM, Kriging, COP, and ANN models developed in Section 3. The optimization problem was formulated to identify the optimal design variables that minimize the weight of the FCS while satisfying the stress constraints under various design load conditions, including mooring and towing. The results of the approximate design optimization for each surrogate model were compared with the actual calculated results for the objective function and constraints, as well as the results obtained using continuous design variables. The most suitable approximate design optimization approach for minimizing the weight of the FCS was evaluated from this comparison. The formulation of the FCS optimization problem used in this study is as follows:
Minimize
(12)
f=f(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6)
Subject to
g1(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6)=LC1Stress279g2(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6)=LC2Stress279g3(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6)=LC3Stress279x1=64;80;96x2=24;30;36x3=80;100;120x4=64;80;96x5=83;104;124x6=83;104;124
In Eq. (12), the upper limit values for the constraints under each DLC were set to 279 MPa, which corresponds to the minimum allowable stress among the materials applied to the FCS, based on the DNV offshore classification rules. The approach of using the classification-society-based allowable stress or a safety margin relative to the material yield strength as the structural strength constraint was adopted in several studies (Song et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2021; Song, 2025).
The PSO algorithm used for the optimal design search was a metaheuristic optimization technique inspired by the social behavior of swarming organisms, such as birds or fish searching for food. Within the design space, particles move as if flying, with a certain velocity and direction, and determine their next position by referring to their best-known position and the best-known position of the swarm or its neighbors. PSO is advantageous for global and discrete optimum searches because it considers multiple candidate solutions from the early stages of exploration and updates the search through iterative adjustments of velocity and position (Kennedy et al., 2001). When the PSO algorithm begins the search, the initial positions and velocities of the particles are generated randomly within the design range of the optimization variables. The velocity vector of each particle at step k + 1 is updated using the current position and velocity information at step k and the value of the objective function, as described in the following equation:
(13)
vk+1i=wvki+c1r1(pki-xki)+c2r2(pkg-xki)
where r1 and r2 are random numbers between 0 and 1, and ω, c1, and c2 represent the inertia factor, self-confidence factor, and swarm-confidence factor, respectively. pki denotes the best position found so far by the i-th particle (cognitive contribution), while pkg represents the best position found by the swarm up to step k (social contribution). According to Eq. (13), the velocity vector of the i-th particle at step k + 1 is updated by incorporating its best position and the global best position of the swarm up to the previous step. The position of the i-th particle at step k + 1 is then updated to a new location using the velocity vector calculated in Eq. (13), as follows:
(14)
xk+1i=xki+vk+1iΔt
where Δt is considered as the unit time. Table 8 lists the PSO parameters used for the approximate design optimization of the FCS.
Based on the discrete design variable space defined in the formulation of the FCS approximate design optimization, the RSM, Kriging, COP, and ANN models were applied, and the PSO algorithm was used to derive the approximate optimal solutions. The results obtained by applying the optimal design from the approximate design optimization were compared with the actual calculated results for each objective function and constraint to evaluate the accuracy of the optimization results for each surrogate model. Table 9 lists the results of the approximate design optimization. All results from the approximate optimization yielded design optima that satisfied the constraints and minimized the weight, regardless of the type of surrogate model used (Table 9). On the other hand, the actual values of g1 and g2 did not satisfy the constraint upper limit of 279 MPa when the COP model was applied. The average approximation accuracy of the COP model was 0.88, the lowest among the four surrogate models, as shown in Table 7. Consequently, the use of the COP model in the FCS approximate design optimization yielded optimal design results that violated the constraints. Although the design obtained using the COP model showed the greatest weight reduction, it cannot be considered a valid solution because of the constraint violation. In contrast, the ANN model, which showed the highest approximation accuracy, produced response function results with the lowest error ratio compared to the actual response functions and achieved a 3.3% reduction in weight relative to the initial design weight of 17 tons, confirming it as the best-performing model. Therefore, the ANN model can be identified as the most suitable surrogate model for the approximate design optimization of the FCS structural design. A comparison of the RSM and Kriging models showed that although Kriging exhibited higher approximation accuracy than RSM and achieved greater weight reduction, its error ratios in the response functions were higher than those of the RSM. These results suggest that the performance of approximate design optimization is influenced by the approximation accuracy of the surrogate model and the characteristics of each model.
Fig. 10 shows the convergence behavior of the optimization process, in terms of the objective function.
The convergence characteristics of the objective function varied according to the surrogate model (Fig. 10), and the ANN model showed the widest search range during the optimization process. The results of the discrete design optimization were compared with those of the optimization using continuous design variables by converting the discrete range of the design variables in Eq. (12) to a continuous range and performing the approximate design optimization under the same conditions:
(15)
64.0x196.024.0x236.080.0x3120.064.0x496.083.0x5124.083.0x6124.0
Table 10 compares the results of the approximate design optimization using continuous design variables with those of the discrete design optimization.
A comparison of the results of continuous and discrete design optimization showed that the differences in design variables for each surrogate model were relatively small. Given the practical applicability of the optimal design to actual manufacturing, the approximate design optimization using discrete design variables is considered more Surrogate model Optimum design (mm) Approximate response functions Actual response functions Error ratio (Average) appropriate. Therefore, for structural designs such as the FCS, the characteristics and approximation accuracy of the surrogate model are strongly correlated with the optimal design outcome, whereas the format of the design variables has a relatively minor impact.

5. Conclusions

This study applied a PSO-based approximate design optimization approach to reduce the weight of the FCS mounted on the substructure of a 10 MW-class floating offshore wind turbine and identified the most suitable surrogate model for discrete design optimization.
A structural performance evaluation was conducted by defining the design load conditions based on the offshore classification rules provided by DNV, and FEA was performed. Under all design load conditions, the maximum calculated stress did not exceed the allowable stress defined by DNV rules, confirming the structural integrity of the FCS. Among the components, the maximum stress in the part made of DH36 steel was closest to the allowable limit.
The surrogate models for approximate design optimization were constructed using DOE, and the response function data regarding the FCS weight and maximum stresses under different load conditions were obtained by linking with the FEA results. The design variables and their variation levels were defined as the thickness dimensions of the major components of the FCS at three levels, reflecting discrete design specifications feasible for manufacturing. An OAD was used to design 128 experiments to ensure solution diversity and analytical efficiency. Four surrogate models (RSM, Kriging, COP, and ANN) were developed. The response approximation accuracy of each model within the design space was evaluated. Except for the COP model, all surrogate models achieved high approximation accuracy with average R2 values exceeding 0.93 for the objective function and constraints. In particular, the ANN model achieved an average R2 value of 1.0, showing excellent performance.
In the approximate design optimization, each surrogate model (RSM, Kriging, COP, and ANN) was applied. The optimization problem was formulated to identify the optimal design variables that minimize the weight of the FCS while satisfying the stress constraints under various mooring and towing load conditions. After applying PSO to the approximate design optimization, all surrogate models produced design optima that satisfied the constraints and minimized the weight. Nevertheless, the actual stress constraints under mooring conditions exceeded the upper allowable limit when using the COP model. On the other hand, when the ANN model showing the highest approximation accuracy was applied, the results of the response functions had the lowest error ratios compared to actual response values, and the weight was reduced most significantly (3.3% from the initial design of 17 t). A comparison of the results of continuous and discrete design optimization showed that the variation in design variables across surrogate models was relatively minor. Considering the practical applicability of the optimal design, approximate design optimization using discrete design variables was deemed more suitable. This study confirms that for structural design problems such as the FCS, the characteristics and approximation accuracy of the surrogate model play a more critical role in determining the optimal outcomes than the type of design variable used. Future studies will extend this research to include reliability-based design optimization that accounts for design uncertainties.

Conflict of Interest

Chang-Yong Song serves on the journal publication committee of the Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology and had no role in the decision to publish this article. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Funding

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation & Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No.20223030020240) and Glocal University Project of Mokpo National University in 2025.

Fig. 1
FCS for a 10 MW-class floating offshore wind turbine
ksoe-2025-034f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Overall design configuration of the FCS
ksoe-2025-034f2.jpg
Fig. 3
Load application angles (DNV, 2024)
ksoe-2025-034f3.jpg
Fig. 4
FEA model of the FCS
ksoe-2025-034f4.jpg
Fig. 5
Boundary conditions for FEA
ksoe-2025-034f5.jpg
Fig. 6
Load conditions for FEA
ksoe-2025-034f6.jpg
Fig. 7
DLC2 stress contour results (unit: MPa)
ksoe-2025-034f7.jpg
Fig. 8
Design variables for FCS
ksoe-2025-034f8.jpg
Fig. 9
Learning procedure of ANN with RBF
ksoe-2025-034f9.jpg
Fig. 10
Iterative convergence results of the objective function
ksoe-2025-034f10.jpg
Table 1
Design load conditions
# of load case DWR DIA Force (kN) Operation condition
DLC1 10° 21,179 Mooring
DLC2 29° 21,179 Mooring
DLC3 46° 6,868 Towing

DLC: design load condition

Table 2
Material properties
Material type Density (t/mm3) Elastic modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Yield stress (MPa)
A694F70 7.85E–09 209,000 0.3 485
DH36 7.85E–09 209,000 0.3 310
SCM440 7.85E–09 209,000 0.3 834
A148 7.85E–09 209,000 0.3 585
OILESS500-ABR 7.4E–09 126,000 0.3 617
Table 3
Contact conditions
Contact component Contact type Friction coefficient
Main pin Flange bushing Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Flange bushing Top plate Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Flange bushing Base plate Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Arm pin Arm pin bushing Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Arm pin bushing Arm pin bearing plate Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Chain wheel pin Chain wheel bushing Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Chain wheel bushing 5-pocket chain wheel Surface-to-surface contact 0.3
Other contact area Tie contact -
Table 4
Structure analysis results
# of load case Max. stress (MPa) Structure safety

A694F70 DH36 SCM440 A148 OILESS500-ABR
DLC1 291.5 (Part 15) 272.3 (Part 7) 725.6 (Part 3) 7.9 (Part 10) 220.8 (Part 13) OK
DLC2 290.7 (Part 15) 270.0 (Part 7) 725.8 (Part 3) 8.8 (Part 10) 199.6 (Part 13) OK
DLC3 120.6 (Part 18) 122.7 (Part 14) 406.8 (Part 11) 168.2 (Part 10) 54.5 (Part 12) OK
Table 5
Design variables and their level
Design variable Lower level Initial level Upper level
x1: Thickness of DV#1 (mm) 64 80 96
x2: Thickness of DV#2 (mm) 24 30 36
x3: Thickness of DV#3 (mm) 80 100 120
x4: Thickness of DV#4 (mm) 64 80 96
x5: Thickness of DV#5 (mm) 104 130 156
x6: Thickness of DV#6 (mm) 104 130 156
Table 6
Design matrix of orthogonal array experiments
Run # x1 (mm) x2 (mm) x3 (mm) x4 (mm) x5 (mm) x6 (mm) f (t) g1 (MPa) g2 (MPa) g3 (MPa)
1 64 24 80 64 104 104 15.494 335.029 333.989 156.824
2 64 24 80 64 104 104 15.494 335.029 333.989 156.824
3 64 24 80 64 130 130 15.688 335.038 333.962 161.206
126 64 24 120 80 156 104 17.032 335.199 332.583 126.991
127 64 24 120 96 104 156 17.513 335.524 332.437 115.501
128 64 24 120 96 104 156 17.513 335.524 332.437 115.501
Table 7
Comparison of R2 results
Surrogate model f g1 g2 g3 Average
RSM 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.97
Kriging 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99
COP 0.99 0.77 0.82 0.92 0.88
ANN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 8
Parameter setup for PSO
Parameter Value
Maximum iterations 100
Number of particles 10
Inertia 0.85
Global increment 0.9
Particle increment 0.9
Maximum velocity 0.1
Table 9
Discrete design optimization results for FCS
Surrogate model Optimum design (mm) Approximate response functions Actual response functions Error ratio (Average)
RSM x1 = 87 f : 0.01%
x2 = 30 f = 16.594 t f = 16.595 t g1: 2.33%
x3 = 92 g1 = 278.997 MPa g1 = 272.636 MPa g2: 6.04%
x4 = 71 g2 = 269.056 MPa g2 = 253.721 MPa g3: 1.04%
x5 = 124 g3 = 141.912 MPa g3 = 140.455 MPa (2.36%)
x6 = 114

Kriging x1 = 82 f : 1.75%
x2 = 29 f = 16.215 t f = 16.504 t g1: 4.57%
x3 = 90 g1 = 278.998 MPa g1 = 266.795 MPa g2: 3.83%
x4 = 74 g2 = 275.125 MPa g2 = 264.969 MPa g3: 6.12%
x5 = 119 g3 = 141.351 MPa g3 = 133.195 MPa (4.07%)
x6 = 112

COP x1 = 98 f : 0.01%
x2 = 24 f = 15.968 t f = 15.9702 t g1: 3.90%
x3 = 80 g1 = 278.772 MPa g1 = 290.073 MPa g2: 7.40%
x4 = 64 g2 = 265.947 MPa g2 = 287.192 MPa g3: 1.74%
x5 = 83 g3 = 158.691 MPa g3 = 161.505 MPa (3.26%)
x6 = 83

ANN x1 = 87 f : 0.04%
x2 = 30 f = 16.447 t f = 16.441 t g1: 4.33%
x3 = 89 g1 = 278.958 MPa g1 = 267.382 MPa g2: 1.42%
x4 = 73 g2 = 265.861 MPa g2 = 262.131 MPa g3: 0.73%
x5 = 96 g3 = 141.001 MPa g3 = 142.038 MPa (1.63%)
x6 = 102
Table 10
Comparison of the continuous design optimization results
Surrogate model Discrete optimum design (mm) Continuous optimum design (mm) Response functions with a discrete optimum design Response functions with a continuous optimum design
RSM x1 = 87 x1 = 86.759
x2 = 30 x2 = 24.639 f = 16.595 t f = 16.583 t
x3 = 92 x3 = 100.082 g1 = 272.636 MPa g1 = 278.911 MPa
x4 = 71 x4 = 69.579 g2 = 253.721 MPa g2 = 257.885 MPa
x5 = 124 x5 = 120.556 g3 = 140.455 MPa g3 = 144.894 MPa
x6 = 114 x6 = 93.627

Kriging x1 = 82 x1 = 81.666
x2 = 29 x2 = 29.161 f = 16.504 t f = 16.214 t
x3 = 90 x3 = 89.428 g1 = 266.795 MPa g1 = 278.992 MPa
x4 = 74 x4 = 74.604 g2 = 264.969 MPa g2 = 276.461 MPa
x5 = 119 x5 = 116.611 g3 = 133.195 MPa g3 = 139.752 MPa
x6 = 112 x6 = 111.172

COP x1 = 98 x1 = 94.905
x2 = 24 x2 = 24.000 f = 15.9702 t f = 15.968 t
x3 = 80 x3 = 80.007 g1 = 290.073 MPa g1 = 278.999 MPa
x4 = 64 x4 = 64.000 g2 = 287.192 MPa g2 = 266.157 MPa
x5 = 83 x5 = 83.135 g3 = 161.505 MPa g3 = 158.684 MPa
x6 = 83 x6 = 83.419

ANN x1 = 87 x1 = 86.337
x2 = 30 x2 = 29.645 f = 16.441 t f = 16.445 t
x3 = 89 x3 = 90.581 g1 = 267.382 MPa g1 = 278.992 MPa
x4 = 73 x4 = 72.106 g2 = 262.131 MPa g2 = 266.572 MPa
x5 = 96 x5 = 103.973 g3 = 142.038 MPa g3 = 140.193 MPa
x6 = 102 x6 = 99.799

References

Altair Engineering Inc. (2021). HyperWorks user guide, Troy, MI, USA.

Baek, S. H., Kim, H. S., & Han, D. S. (2011). Structural optimization of variable swash plate for automotive compressor using orthogonal polynomials. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers-A, 35(10), 1273-1279. https://doi.org/10.3795/KSME-A.2011.35.10.1273
crossref
Benítez-Suárez, B., Quevedo‑Reina, R., Álamo, G. M., & Padrón, L. A. (2025). PSO‑based design and optimization of jacket substructures for offshore wind turbines. Marine Structures, 101, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2024.103759
crossref
Brommundt, M., Krause, L., Merz, K., & Muskulus, M. (2012). Mooring system optimization for floating wind turbines using frequency domain analysis. Energy Procedia, 24, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.111
crossref
Chen, M., Jiang, J., Zhang, W., Li, C. B., Zhou, H., Jiang, Y., & Sun, X. (2024). Study on mooring design of 15 MW floating wind turbines in South China Sea. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12010033
crossref
Cho, S. K., Byun, H., & Lee, T. H. (2009). Selection method of global model and correlation coefficients for Kriging metamodel. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers-A, 33(8), 813-818. https://doi.org/10.3795/KSME-A.2009.33.8.813
crossref
DNV. (2024). Structural design of offshore Units (DNV-OS-C101). Det Norske Veritas.

DNV. (2021a). Floating wind turbine structures (DNV-ST-0119). Det Norske Veritas.

DNV. (2021b). Position mooring (DNV-OS-E301). Det Norske Veritas.

Dyn, N., Levin, D., & Rippa, S. (1986). Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial basis functions. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7(2), 639-659. https://doi.org/10.1137/0907043
crossref
Im, D., Kim, D., & Bae, Y. H. (2025). Analysis of the seabed contact effects of clump weights on a floating offshore wind mooring system. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, 39(2), 142-151. https://doi.org/10.26748/KSOE.2024.102
crossref
Institute for Advanced Engineering (IAE). (2023). Integrated Load Analysis Report (DMS-IA-GEN-DOC-REP-0005).

Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R. C., & Shi, Y. (2001). Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.

Kim, H., Jeon, G., Choung, J., & Yoon, S. (2013). Study on mooring system design of floating offshore wind turbine in Jeju offshore area. International Journal of Ocean System Engineering, 3(4), 209-217. https://doi.org/10.5574/IJOSE.2012.3.4.209
crossref
Lee, C. F., Fjermedal, S., & Ong, M. C. (2025). Design and comparative analysis of mooring systems for a combined wind and wave energy system at intermediate water depth. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 10(4), 492-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2024.11.002
crossref
Lee, D. J., Song, C. Y., & Lee, K. (2021). Surrogate model based approximate optimization of passive type deck support frame for offshore plant float-over Installation. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, 35(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.26748/KSOE.2021.002
crossref
Lee, K., & Park, B. (2024). A study on the strength evaluation method of submersible mooring pulleys for detachable mooring systems. Journal of Wind Energy, 15(1), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.33519/kwea.2024.15.1.010
crossref
Lee, K., & Song, C. Y. (2023). Structural model test for strength performance evaluation of disconnectable mooring apparatuses installed on floating-type offshore wind turbine. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(5), 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11051085
crossref
Li, W., Du, G., Lin, S., Chuang, Z., & Wang, F. (2024). Dynamic response assessment of floating offshore wind turbine mooring systems with different in-line tensioner configurations based on fully coupled load calculations. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(12), 2138. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12122138
crossref
Ma, C., Lee, S., Zhu, X., & Zi, G. (2025). Design optimization of OC3 spar floater based on rigid motion and hydroelastic response. Ocean Engineering, 334, 121543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2025.121543
crossref
Muggiasca, S., Taruffi, F., Fontanella, A., Carlo, S. D., Giberti, H., Facchinetti, ., & Belloli, A. M. (2021). Design of an aeroelastic physical model of the DTU 10MW wind turbine for a floating offshore multipurpose platform prototype. Ocean Engineering, 239, 109837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109837
crossref
Park, S. H. (2012). Design of experiments. Minyoung Publishing.

Park, W. C., & Song, C. Y. (2021). Surrogate models and genetic algorithm application to approximate optimization of discrete design for A60 class deck penetration piece. Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, 27(2), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2021.27.2.377
crossref
Simulia Dassault Systèmes.. (2020). Abaqus user manual, Irving.

Song, C. Y. (2025). Probabilistic design optimization of shipboard radar mast by adopting RBFN meta-model and various reliability methods. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 17, 100667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2025.100667
crossref
Song, C. Y., & Lee, J. (2010). Comparative study of approximate optimization techniques in CAE-based structural design. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers-A, 34(11), 1603-1611. https://doi.org/10.3795/KSME-A.2010.34.11.1603
crossref
Song, C. Y., Lee, J., & Choung, J. (2011). Reliability-based design optimization of an FPSO riser support using moving least squares response surface meta-models. Ocean Engineering, 38(2–3), 304-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.11.00
crossref
Yu, Y. J., Park, S. H., Jang, Y. S., & Cho, S. R. (2023). Structural and fatigue strength evaluation of a fairlead chain stopper for floating offshore wind turbines. Journal of Wind Energy, 14(4), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.33519/kwea.2023.14.4.001
crossref
Yu, Y. J., Park, S. H., Jang, Y. S., & Cho, S. R. (2025). Structural safety evaluation of a fairlead chain stopper for the disconnectable mooring system of floating offshore wind turbines. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, 39(3), 327-337. https://doi.org/10.26748/KSOE.2024.093
crossref


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

PUBLICATION ETHICS
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
President Office BD Rm. 1302, 13 Jungang-daero 180beon-gil, Dong-gu, Busan 48821, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-51-759-0656    Fax: +82-51-759-0656    E-mail: ksoehj@ksoe.or.kr                

Copyright © 2026 by The Korean Society of Ocean Engineers.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next