Abstract
The seismic response characteristics of three-bucket jacket foundations for offshore wind turbines (OWTs) and the liquefaction of the surrounding soil are particularly important for the development and application of this type of structure for offshore use. Using the shaking table test and three-dimensional finite element analysis, different magnitudes of simulated earthquake waves were used as inputs to the shaking table to model seismic excitations. The resulting changes in the excess pore water pressure and acceleration response of the soil under horizontal earthquake are compared in this paper. Calculations of the anti-liquefaction shear stress and equivalent shearing stress during the earthquake, determination of the areas prone to liquefaction, and identification of the effect of the three-bucket jacket foundation on the soil liquefaction resistance were conducted by developing a soil-structure finite element model. The development law of the soil’s amplification effect on seismic acceleration and the seismic response of the foundation soil under various magnitude earthquake waves were also discussed. Results indicate that liquefying the soil inside the bucket of the foundation is more difficult than that outside the bucket during the excitation of seismic waves due to the large upper load and the restraint of the surrounding hoop. This finding confirms the advantages of the three-bucket jacket foundations in improving the liquefaction resistance of the soil inside the bucket. However, the confinement has a barely noticeable impact on the nearby soil outside the skirt. The phenomenon of soil liquefaction at the bottom of the skirt occurred earlier than that in other positions during the seismic excitation, and the excess pore water pressure slowly dissipated. The acceleration amplification coefficient of the sand outside the bucket increases with depth, but that of the sand inside the bucket is substantially inhibited in the height range of the bucket foundation. This result proves the inhibition effects of the three-bucket jacket foundations on the seismic responses of soils. The liquefied soil layer has a significant effect in absorbing a certain amount of seismic wave energy and reducing the amplification effect. The numerical simulation results are consistent with the phenomenon and data measured during the shaking table test. The current study also verifies the feasibility of the excess pore water pressure ratio and the anti-liquefaction shear stress method for judging soil liquefaction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alati, N., Failla, G., and Arena, F., 2015. Seismic analysis of offshore wind turbines on bottom-fixed support structures. Philosophical Transactions, 373(2035): 20140086.
Asheghabadi, M. S., Sahafnia, M., Bahadori, A., and Bakhshayeshi, N., 2019. Seismic behavior of suction caisson for offshore wind turbine to generate more renewable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 16(7): 2961–2972.
Ding, H., Hu, R., Zhang, P., and Le, C., 2020. Load bearing behaviors of composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines on layered soil under combined loading. Ocean Engineering, 198: 106997.
Ding, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, P., and Le, C., 2015. Model tests on the bearing capacity of wide-shallow composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines in clay. Ocean Engineering, 103: 114–122.
Ding, H., Zhang, C., and Hang, X., 2007. Analysis of clay soil softening in ice-induced vibration of bucket foundation platform. Journal of Liaoning Technical University, 3: 369–371 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Emdadifard, M., and Hosseini, S. M. M. M., 2010. Numerical modeling of suction bucket under cyclic loading in saturated sand. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15: 1–16.
Fu, D., Zhang, Y., Yan, Y., and Jostad, H., 2020. Effects of tension gap on the holding capacity of suction anchors. Marine Structures, 69: 102679.
Huo, T., Tong, L., and Zhang, Y., 2018. Dynamic response analysis of wind turbine tubular towers under long-period ground motions with the consideration of soil-structure interaction. Advanced Steel Construction, 14(2): 227–250.
Ju, S. H., and Huang, Y. C., 2019. Analyses of offshore wind turbine structures with soil-structure interaction under earthquakes. Ocean Engineering, 187: 106190.
Karimi, Z., and Dashti, S., 2016. Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction on liquefiable ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(1): 04015061.
Ku, C. Y., and Chien, L. K., 2016. Modeling of load bearing characteristics of jacket foundation piles for offshore wind turbines in Taiwan. Energies, 9(8): 625.
Li, D., Zhang, Y., Feng, L., and Gao, Y., 2014. Response of skirted suction caissons to monotonic lateral loading in saturated medium sand. China Ocean Engineering, 28(4): 569–578.
Li, D., Zhang, Y., Feng, L., and Gao, Y., 2015. Capacity of modified suction caissons in marine sand under static horizontal loading. Ocean Engineering, 102: 1–16.
Ling, X., Wang, C., Wang, Z., Wang, C., and Wang, D., 2003. Study on large-scale shaking table proportional model test for free-ground liquefaction arisen from earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 23(6): 138–143.
Ogawa, N., Ohtani, K., Katayama, T., and Shibata, H., 2001. Construction of a three-dimensional, large-scale shaking table and development of core technology. Seismic Design for Engineering Plant, 359(1786): 1725–1751.
Prowell, I., 2011. An experimental and numerical study of wind turbine seismic behavior. PhD thesis. University of California.
Randolph, M. F., May, M., Leong, E. C., Hyden, E. C., and Murff, J. D., 1992. Soil plug response in open-ended pipe piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(5): 743–759.
Ren, Y., Vengatesan, V., and Shi, W., 2022. Dynamic analysis of a multi-column TLP floating offshore wind turbine with tendon failure scenarios. Ocean Engineering, 245: 110472.
Seong, J. T., Ha, J. G., Kim, J. H., and Park, H. J., 2017. Centrifuge modeling to evaluate natural frequency and seismic behavior of offshore wind turbine considering SFSI. Wind Energy, 20(10): 1787–1800.
Wang, X., Zeng, X., and Li, J., 2019a. Vertical performance of suction bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines in sand. Ocean Engineering, 180: 40–48.
Wang, X., Zeng, X., Li, X., and Li, J., 2020. Liquefaction characteristics of offshore wind turbine with hybrid monopile foundation via centrifuge modelling. Renewable Energy, 145: 2358–2372.
Wang, X., Zhang, P., Ding, H., and Liu, Y., 2019b. Experimental study on wide-shallow composite bucket foundation for offshore wind turbine under cyclic loading. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37(1): 1–13.
Wang, Y., Shi, W., Michailides, C., Wan, L., Kim, H., and Li, X., 2022. WEC shape effect on the motion response and power performance of a combined wind-wave energy converter. Ocean Engineering, 250: 111038.
Xie, D., 1988. Soil Dynamics. Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 203–213.
Zhang, J., Zhang, L., and Lu, X., 2007. Centrifuge modeling of suction bucket foundations for platforms under ice-sheet-induced cyclic lateral loadings. Ocean Engineering, 34(8–9): 1069–1079.
Zhang, L., Qiu, W., and Jiang, T., 2014. Shaking table model design under circumstances of similarity ratio is not strictly proportional. Journal of Shenyang University (Natural Science Edition), 26(5): 421–425 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Zhang, P., Xiong, K., Ding, H., and Le, C., 2014. Anti-liquefaction characteristics of composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 6(5): 053102.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52171274).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ding, H., Pan, C., Zhang, P. et al. Shaking Table Tests and Seismic Response of Three-Bucket Jacket Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines. J. Ocean Univ. China 21, 719–736 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-022-4742-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-022-4742-7