Investment allocation for offshore wind turbines (OWT) as an important class of structures is typically carried out through supporting decision-making approaches utilizing some fragility functions. This study attempts to deliver fragility functions for OWTs on monopile foundations accounting for soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. Simultaneous wind, wave, and earthquake loads were considered probabilistically by adjusting their occurrence hazard levels for predefined damage states in diverse performance levels. The designated damage states in this study are defined based on collapse probability and some targeted performance levels which could be very straightforward to distinguish. The damage state detection is based on rotation in the connection section of the tower’s transition part to the foundation, which perceptibly reveals the effects of SSI on fragility functions. The expected results comprise modified fragility functions accounting for SSI effects contributing to less median spectral acceleration, more evidently rotational demands, further dispersions, and a subsequent dominant increase in the probability of exceeding performance limit states. Considering operational performance level, the most applied design performance level for turbines as an important class of structures, not considering the SSI effects could noticeably underestimate the demands and lead to high-risk decisions.
AdamCJägerC (2012) Seismic collapse capacity of basic inelastic structures vulnerable to the P-delta effect. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(4): 775–793.
2.
AjamyAAsgarianBVenturaCE, et al. (2018) Seismic fragility analysis of jacket type offshore platforms considering soil pile-structure interaction. Engineering Structures174: 198–211.
3.
AlamJKimDChoiB (2017) Uncertainty reduction of seismic fragility of intake tower using Bayesian Inference and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Structural Engineering & Mechanics63: 47–53.
4.
API (2007) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design. USA: API.
5.
AsarehMASchonbergWVolzJ (2016) Fragility analysis of a 5-MW NREL wind turbine considering aero-elastic and seismic interaction using finite element method. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design120: 57–67.
6.
ASCE/SEI 7-22 (2022) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
7.
AsgarianBMahmoodYMirtaheriM, et al. (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis of high-rise towers. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings19(8): 922–934.
BanerjeeAKPramanikDRoyR (2016) Seismic structural fragilities: “Proposals for improved methodology per spectral matching of accelerogram. Engineering Structures111: 538–551.
10.
BazeosNHatzigeorgiouGHondrosI, et al. (2002) Static, seismic and stability analyses of a prototype wind turbine steel tower. Engineering Structures24: 1015–1025.
11.
BOEM/BSEE E17PS00128Tajalli BakhshTMonimMSimpsonK, et al. (2020) Potential Earthquake, Landslide, Tsunami and Geo-Hazards for the U.S. Offshore Pacific Wind Farms. Camarillo, CA: Office of Renewable Energy Programs.
12.
BooreDMSmithCE (1999) Analysis of earthquake recordings obtained from the Seafloor Earthquake Measurement System (SEMS) instruments deployed off the coast of southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America89(1): 260–274.
13.
BoulangerRW (2000) The PySimple1, TzSimple1, and QzSimple1 Material Models. Documentation for the OpenSees Platform. https://opensees.berkeley.edu.
14.
BoulangerRw.CurrasCJKutterBL, et al. (1990) Seismic Soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering, ASCS125(9): 750–759.
15.
BoulangerRWKutterBLBrandenbergSJ, et al. (2003) Pile Foundations in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground during Earthquakes: Centrifuge Experiments and Analyses. Report UCD/CGM-03/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling. Davis, CA: University of California, 205.
16.
BredmoseHMariegaardJ.PaulsenB. T., et al. (2013a) The Wave Loads project. Technical University of Denmark, DTU Wind Energy. DTU Wind Energy E No. 0045.
17.
BredmoseHSlabiakPSahlberg-NielsenL, et al. (2013b) Dynamic excitation of monopiles by steep and breaking waves: experimental and numerical study. Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. USA: American Society Of Mechanical Engineers.
18.
CavalieriaFCorreiabAACrowleycH, et al. (2020) Dynamic soil-structure interaction models for fragility characterization of buildings with shallow foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering132: 106–127.
19.
ChaYJBaiJW (2016) Seismic fragility estimates of a moment-resisting frame building controlled by MR dampers using performance-based design. Engineering Structures116: 192–202.
20.
CimellaroGPReinhornAD’AmbrisiA, et al. (2009) Fragility analysis and seismic record selection. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 379–390.
CrouseCBQuilterJ (1991) Seismic hazard analysis and development of design spectra for Maul A platform. In: Proceedings of Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. New Zealand, 20–23 Nov, 1991, 137–148.
23.
DamgaardMIbsenLBAndersenLV, et al. (2013) Cross-wind modal properties of offshore wind turbines identified by full-scale testing. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics116:94–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.03.003.
24.
Database CenterSAC, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEA) (2020) Applied Technology Council (ATC). 2020: California Universities for Engineering (CUREE), Retrieved May 05, 2020. https://www.sacsteel.org.
25.
De RisiRBhattacharyaSGodaK (2018) Seismic performance assessment of monopile-supported offshore wind turbines using unscaled natural earthquake records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering109: 154–172.
26.
DeodatisGEllingwoodBRFrangopolDM (2013) Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle Performance of Structures and Infrastructures. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
27.
DevriendtCJordaensPJSitterGD, et al. (2013) Damping estimation of an offshore wind turbine on a monopile foundation. IET Renewable Power Generation7(4):401–412. DOI: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0276.
28.
DimovaSLHirataK (2000) Simplified seismic fragility analysis of structures with two types of friction devices. Earthq. Eng. Struc29: 1153–1175.
29.
DNV (2002) Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines. Høvik, Norway: DNV.
30.
Dueñas-OsorioLBasuB (2008) Unavailability of wind turbines due to wind-induced accelerations. Engineering Structures30: 885–893.
31.
EllingwoodBRCelikOCKinaliK (2007) Fragility assessment of building structural systems in Mid-America. Earthq. Eng. Struc36: 1935–1952.
32.
FEMA 356 (2000) Federal emergency management agency (FEMA). In: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of BuildingsReport No. FEMA 356. Washington, DC: Applied Technology Council.
33.
FEMA 440 (2005) Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA P695 (2009) Federal emergency management agency (FEMA). In: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
36.
Flores‐BerronesRWhitmanRV (1982) Seismic Response Of End‐bearing Piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering109(5).
37.
FuhrmanDREltard-LarsenBSumerBM, et al. (2015) Interaction of the tsunami with the seabed. Implications for wind farms, aquaculture, coastal ecosystems and marine protected areas. UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
38.
Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services GmbH Company (2010) Guidelines for the Certification of Wind Turbines. Hamburger, Germany: Germanischer Lloyd.
39.
GivensMJ (2013) Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction of Instrumented Buildings and Test Structures, Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles, California.: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California.
40.
GWEC (2014) Global Wind Energy Outlook. Lisbon, Portugal: GWEC.
41.
Haj NajafiLTehranizadehM (2015a) Ground motion selection and scaling in practice. Peryodica Polytechnica- Civil Engineering59(2): 233–248. DOI: 10.3311/PPci.7808.
42.
Haj NajafiLTehranizadehM (2015b) New intensity measure parameter based on record’s velocity characteristics. Scientia Iranica, Transaction A- Civil Engineering22(5): 1674–1691. Available at: https://scientiairanica.sharif.edu/article_1988.html(Q2)-ISI.
HaseltonCBLielALangeS, et al. (2007) Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings. PEER Report. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
45.
HaseltonCBLielATaylor-LangeS, et al. (2016) Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse. ACI Structural Journal113: 1141–1152.
46.
HasselmannKBarnettTPMeerburgA, et al. (1973) Measurements of Wind-Wave Growth and Swell Decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP). Hamburg, Germany: Deutches Hydrographisches Institut.
47.
HeXLuZ (2019) Seismic fragility assessment of a super tall building with hybrid control strategy using IDA method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering123: 278–291.
48.
HoseyniSMYousefpourFAghaei AraeiA, et al. (2014) Effects of soil-structure interaction on fragility and seismic risk; a case study of power plant containment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries32: 276–285.
49.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(12): 1489–1511.
50.
IEC. Wind Turbines: Pt. l (2005) Design Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
51.
JägerCAdamC (2013) Influence of collapse definition and near-field effects on collapse capacity spectra. Journal of Earthquake Engineering17(6): 859–878.
52.
JonkmanJMusialW (2010) Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3) for IEA Task 23 Offshore Wind Technology and Deployment. Golden, Colorado, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical Report NREL/TP-500-48191.
53.
JonkmanJButterfieldSMusialW, et al. (2009) Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development. Golden, CO, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical Report NREL/TP-500-38060.
54.
KatsanosEISanzAAGeorgakisCT, et al. (2017) Multi-hazard response analysis of a 5MW offshore wind turbine. Procedia Engineering199: 3206–3211.
55.
KayniaAMKauselE (1982) Dynamic Stiffness and Seismic Response of Pile Groups, Research Report R82-03. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
56.
KayniaAMNovakM (1992) Response of pile foundations to Rayleigh waves and obliquely incident body waves. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics21(4).
KimSStewartJP (2003) Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction from Strong Motion Recordings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(323).
59.
KwonOSElnashaiAS (2007) Probabilistic Seismic Assessment of Structure, Foundation and Soil Interacting Systems. USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. NSEL Report Series Report, No. NSEL-004.
60.
LiCHaoHLiHN, et al. (2015) Theoretical modeling and numerical simulation of seismic motions at seafloor. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering77: 220–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.05.016.
61.
LiCLiHNHaoH, et al. (2018) Seismic fragility analyses of sea-crossing cable-stayed bridges subjected to multi-support ground motions on offshore sites. Engineering Structures165: 441–456. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.066.
62.
LiCPanHTianL (2023) Seismic performance analyses of pile-supported transmission tower-line systems subjected to depth-varying spatial ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering27(9): 2381–2405.
63.
LignosDG (2014) Modeling Steel Moment Resisting Frames with Open Sees. Berkeley, CA, USA: OpenSees Workshop, University of California.
64.
LignosDGKrawinklerH (2012a) Sideway Collapse of Deteriorating Structural System under Seismic Excitations. Stanford, CA: Blume Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Report No. 177.
65.
LignosDGKrawinklerH (2012b) Sideway Collapse of Deteriorating Structural System under Seismic Excitations. USA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University. Report 177, Ph.D. Dissertation.
66.
LignosDGKrawinklerHWhittakerAS (2011) Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4‐story steel moment frame. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics40: 807–825. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1061.
67.
LiuJMengXTianL, et al. (2024a) Failure mechanisms and seismic fragility analysis of overhead transmission lines incorporating pile-soil-structure interaction. Engineering Failure Analysis160: 108201.
68.
LiuJMengXTianL, et al. (2024b) Multi-metric evaluation of the optimal intensity measure for mainshock-aftershock fragility analysis of transmission towers. Engineering Structures308: 118020.
69.
MaH (2012) Seismic analysis for wind turbines including soil-structure interaction combining vertical and horizontal earthquake. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal: Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia Sismica.
70.
MalhotraSAl-BahadlyI (2011) Selection, design and construction of offshore wind turbine foundations. Wind Turbines. United States: InTechOpen Publisher. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5772/643.
71.
MardfekriMGardoniP (2013) Probabilistic demand models and fragility estimates for offshore wind turbine support structures. Engineering Structures52: 478–487.
72.
MedinaRAKrawinklerH (2003) Seismic Demands for Nondeteriorating Frame Structures and Their Dependence on Ground Motions, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University. Ph.D dissertation, TR-144.
73.
MenglinLHuaifengWXiC, et al. (2011) Structure–soil–structure interaction: literature review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering31(12): 1724–1731.
74.
MikamiAStewartJPOstadanF, et al. (2006) Representation of ground motion incoherence for the analysis of kinematic soil-structure interaction. Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
75.
MitropoulouCCPapadrakakisM (2011) Developing fragility curves based on neural network IDA predictions. Engineering Structures33: 3409–3421.
76.
MoRKangHLiM, et al. (2017) Seismic fragility analysis of monopile offshore wind turbines under different operational conditions. Energies10: 1037–1059.
77.
NielsonBGDes RochesR (2007) Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36: 823–839.
78.
NIST/GCR 11-917-14 (2011) Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures. Gaithersburg, MD: NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Report. NIST/GCR 11-917-14.
79.
NutaE (2010) Seismic Analysis of Steel Wind Turbine Towers in the Canadian Environment. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
80.
OpenSees (2019) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley, CA, USA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
81.
PanHLiCTianL (2021) Seismic fragility analysis of transmission towers considering effects of soil-structure interaction and depth-varying ground motion inputs. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(11): 4311–4337.
PorterKKiremidjianA (2001) Assembly-based Vulnerability of Buildings and its Uses in Seismic Performance Evaluation and Risk Management Decision-Making. USA: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
84.
ProwellIVeletzosMElgamalA, et al. (2008) Shake table test of a 65 kW wind turbine and computational simulation. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 12–17, 2008, 12–17.
85.
ProwellIVeletzosMElgamalA, et al. (2009) Experimental and numerical seismic response of a 65 kW wind turbine. Journal of Earthquake Engineering13: 1172–1190.
86.
ReeseLC (1983) Behavior of pile groups under lateral loading. In: U.S., Department of Transportation. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
RobertsonANWendtFJonkmanJM, et al. (2015) OC5 Project Phase I: Validation of Hydrodynamic Loading on a Fixed Cylinder. International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2015), Kona, Hawaii, June 21‒26, 2015: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
89.
SarpkayaT (2010) Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
90.
ShinozukaMFengMQKimHK, et al. (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. Journal of Engineering Mechanics126: 1287–1295.
91.
ShresthaS (2015) Design and Analysis of Foundation for Onshore Tall Wind Turbines. MS Thesis. Clemson, South Caroline: Clemson University.
92.
SleefeGE (1990) The long-term measurement of strong-motion earthquakes offshore southern California. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Offshore Technology Conference. Houston: Offshore Technology Conference, 561–568.
Suja-ThauvinLBachynskiEEPierellaF, et al. (2020) Critical assessment of hydrodynamic load models for a monopile structure in finite water depth. Marine Structures72: 102743. DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102743.
95.
TempelJVDMolenaarDP (2002) Wind turbine structural dynamics – a review of the principles for modern power generation, Onshore and Offshore. Wind Engineering26(4) DOI: 10.1260/030952402321039412.
96.
TianLGaiX (2016) Nonlinear seismic behavior of different boundary conditions of transmission line systems under earthquake loading. Shock and Vibration2016: 1–9.
97.
TianLPanHYMaRS (2019) Probabilistic seismic demand model and fragility analysis of transmission tower subjected to near-field ground motions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research156: 266–275. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.011.
98.
VamvatsikosDCornellCA (2005) Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE131(4): 589–599.
99.
XieWSunL (2019) Experimental and numerical verification on effects of inelastic tower links on transverse seismic response of tower of bridge full model. Engineering Structures182: 344–362.
100.
XieWSunL (2021a) Transverse seismic response and failure mode of towers of a cable-stayed bridge full-model: tests and simulations. Engineering Failure Analysis122: 105224.
101.
XieWSunL (2021b) Experimental and computational assessment of shear beams as earthquake resilient measure for double-column piers supported by pile-group. Engineering Structures242: 112509.
102.
YeterBGarbatovYGuedes SoaresC (2017) Risk-based multi-objective optimization of a monopile offshore wind turbine support structure. In: OMAE17-61756, in: Proc. Of the 36th International Conference on Ocean. Trondheim, Norway: Offshore and Arctic Engineering. June 25–30.
103.
YeterBGarbatovYSoaresCG (2019) Uncertainty analysis of soil-pile interactions of monopile offshore wind turbine support structures. Applied Ocean Research82: 74–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2018.10.014.
104.
YeterBTekgozMGarbatovY, et al. (2020) Fragility analysis of an ageing monopile offshore wind turbine subjected to simultaneous wind and seismic load. Safety in Extreme Environments2: 155–170. DOI: 10.1007/s42797-020-00015-9.
105.
YuanCChenJLiJ, et al. (2017) Fragility analysis of large-scale wind turbines under the combination of seismic and aerodynamic loads. Renewable Energy113: 1122–1134.
106.
ZareianFMedinaRA (2010) A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane Structural systems. Computers & Structures88(1-2): 45–53.
107.
ZhaoX, PMaisserP (2006) Seismic response analysis of wind turbine towers including soil-structure interaction. Proc. Institution Mech. Eng. Part K J. Multi-body Dyn220: 53–61.
108.
ZhengXYLiHRongW, et al. (2015) Joint earthquake and wave action on the monopile wind turbine foundation: an experimental study. An experimental study”. Mar Struct44: 125–141.
109.
ZhengSShiXJiaH, et al. (2020) Seismic response analysis of long-span and asymmetrical suspension bridges subjected to near-fault ground motion. Engineering Analysis115: 104615.
