Given the rapid expansion of the wind energy sector, many wind farms are being constructed in regions susceptible to earthquakes, making it crucial to assess the seismic fragility of wind turbines. However, limited research efforts have been devoted to investigating the influence of earthquake ground motion types on the responses of wind turbines. In the present study, an elaborate three-dimensional finite element model of an example wind turbine is developed using ABAQUS, and the dynamic responses of the wind turbine under four types of ground motion are recorded in the same earthquake, namely a near-field pulse-like record with the forward-directivity effect ground motion, a near-field pulse-like record with the fling-step effect ground motion, a near-field non-pulse ground motion, and a far-field ground motion, are analysed and compared. In addition, an investigation is carried out into the influence of permanent ground displacement on the seismic responses of the wind turbine. Following that, the fragility curves for the specified damage states of the wind turbine tower are constructed, considering different ground motion types and pulse periods. The results show that the seismic responses of wind turbines are significantly influenced by the ground motion type and pulse period, while the permanent ground displacement has a marginal effect.
AlaviBKrawinklerH (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33: 687–706.
2.
AliADe RisiRSextosA, et al. (2020) Seismic vulnerability of offshore wind turbines to pulse and non-pulse records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics49: 24–50.
3.
AsarehMSchonbergWVolzJ (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.
4.
ATC (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors in: Report NoFEMA-P695. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
5.
BisoiSHaldarS (2014) Dynamic analysis of offshore wind turbine in clay considering soil–monopile–tower interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering63: 19–35.
6.
BurksLBakerJ (2014) Fling in near-fault ground motions and its effect on structural collapse capacity. In: National conference on earthquake engineering frontiers of earthquake engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, 21-25 July 2014.
7.
ChaudhariVSomalaS (2021) Fragility analysis of offshore wind turbine expose to near-field pulse-like ground motion. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering22: 1331–1345.
8.
ChaudhariVSomalaS (2022) Fragility of offshore wind turbines variation with pulse-period and amplitude: directivity and Fling step. Structures41: 66–76.
9.
CornellCJalayerFHamburgerR, et al. (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering128: 526–533.
10.
De RisiRBhattacharyaSGodaK (2018) Seismic performance assessment of monopile supported offshore wind turbines using unscaled natural earthquake records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering109: 154–172.
11.
Det Norske Veritas (2014) DNV-OS-J101: Design of offshore wind turbine structures. Copenhagen, Denmark: DNV. Available at:https://www.dnv.com.
12.
DimopoulosCGantesC (2012) Experimental investigation of buckling of wind turbine tower cylindrical shells with opening and stiffening under bending. Thin-Walled Structures54: 140–155.
13.
EslamiAGhorbaniA (2023) Assessment of near-field strong ground motion effects on offshore wind turbines resting on liquefiable soils using fully coupled nonlinear dynamic analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering149(11): 04023095.
14.
FanJLiQZhangY (2019) Collapse analysis of wind turbine tower under the coupled effects of wind and near-field earthquake. Wind Energy22: 407–419.
HuoTTongLZhangY (2018) Dynamic response analysis of wind turbine tubular towers under long-period ground motions with the consideration of soil-structure interaction. Advanced Steel Construction: International Journal14: 227–250.
17.
JamesMHaldarS (2022) Seismic vulnerability of jacket supported large offshore wind turbine considering multidirectional ground motions. Structures43: 407–423.
18.
JonkmanJButterfieldSMusialW, et al. (2009) Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development Technical Report No NREL/TP-500-38060. Golden (CO): National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
19.
KeSGeYWangT, et al. (2015) Wind field simulation and wind induced responses of large wind turbine tower-blade coupled structure. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings24: 571–590.
KjφRlaugRKayniaA (2015) Vertical earthquake response of megawatt-sized wind turbine with soil-structure interaction effects. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44: 2341–2358.
22.
KooijmanHLindenburgCWinkelaarD (2003) Aero-elastic modelling of the DOWEC 6 MW pre-design in PHATAS. Technical Report DOWEC-F1W2-HJK-01-046/9.
23.
LiKBianHLiuC, et al. (2015) Comparison of geothermal with solar and wind power generation systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews42: 1464–1474.
24.
LiWHuangJDuY (2019) Dynamic response analysis of wind turbines under long-period ground motions. Data Mining in Structural Dynamic Analysis. Singapore: Springer, 65–85.
25.
LiZXuBZhaoY (2024) Two-scale probabilistic seismic fragility assessment for a prestressed concrete-steel hybrid wind turbine tower with incremental dynamic and multiple stripe analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering1–22. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2024.2361770.
26.
LiaoWLohCWanS (2001) Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near-fault ground motions. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings10: 219–229.
27.
LinYZongZTianS, et al. (2018) A new baseline correction method for near-fault strong-motion records based on the target final displacement. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering114: 27–37.
28.
MaHZhuoWDavideL, et al. (2019) Probabilistic seismic response and uncertainty analysis of continuous bridges under near-fault ground motions. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering13(6): 10.
29.
MoRKangHLiM, et al. (2017) Seismic fragility analysis of monopile offshore wind turbines under different operational conditions. Energies10: 1037.
30.
NejadABachynskiEMoanT (2019) Effect of axial acceleration on drivetrain responses in a spar-type floating wind turbine. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering141: 031901.
31.
PadgettJNielsonBDesRochesR (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics37(5): 711–725.
32.
PatilAJungSKwonO (2016) Structural performance of a parked wind turbine tower subjected to strong ground motions. Engineering Structures120: 92–102.
ProwellIVeersP (2009a) Assessment of Wind Turbine Seismic Risk: Existing Literature and Simple Study of Tower Moment Demand. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
35.
ProwellIVeletzosMElgamalA, et al. (2009b) Experimental and numerical seismic response of a 65 kW wind turbine. Journal of Earthquake Engineering13: 1172–1190.
36.
RenQXuYZhangH, et al. (2021) Shaking table test on seismic responses of a wind turbine tower subjected to pulse-type near-field ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering142: 106557.
37.
SadowskiACamaraAChuquitaypeC, et al. (2017) Seismic analysis of a tall metal wind turbine support tower with realistic geometric imperfections. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46: 201–219.
38.
SahraeianSMasoumiMNajafgholipourM, et al. (2023) Seismic response of monopile foundation of offshore wind turbines under near-field and far-field ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering174: 108166.
39.
SigurðssonGRupakhetyRRahimiS, et al. (2020) Effect of pulse-like near-fault ground motions on utility-scale land-based wind turbines. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering18: 953–968.
40.
StamatopoulosG (2013) Response of a wind turbine subjected to near-fault excitation and comparison with the Greek Aseismic Code provisions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering46: 77–84.
41.
SunCJahangiriV (2018) Bi-directional vibration control of offshore wind turbines using a 3D pendulum tuned mass damper. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing105: 338–360.
42.
XuYRenQZhangH, et al. (2021) Collapse analysis of a wind turbine tower with initial-imperfection subjected to near-field ground motions. Structures29: 373–382.
43.
YılmazMOzakgulKCaglayanB (2021) Seismic fragility analysis of multi-span steel truss railway bridges in Turkey. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering19: 420–437.
44.
YuanCChenJLiJ, et al. (2017) Fragility analysis of large-scale wind turbines under the combination of seismic and aerodynamic loads. Renewable Energy113: 1122–1134.
45.
ZhangJHuoY (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures31: 1648–1660.
46.
ZhengHWangXLiuC, et al. (2022) Nonlinear seismic performance of a large-scale vertical-axis wind turbine under wind and earthquake action. Renewable Energy200: 24–36.
47.
ZuoHBiKHaoH (2018) Dynamic analyses of operating offshore wind turbines including soil-structure interaction. Engineering Structures157: 42–62.
48.
ZuoHBiKHaoH, et al. (2020) Fragility analyses of offshore wind turbines subjected to aerodynamic and sea wave loadings. Renewable Energy160: 1269–1282.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
