Sandy ocean soil is vulnerable to liquefaction under seismic action. This paper describes the structural design of a new large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation (LSPCBF) for offshore wind turbines that take the seismic response of the foundation into consideration. Using an integrated finite element model of the soil, bucket foundation, and upper structure that incorporates infinite elements for the soil boundary, the dynamic responses of the upper structure, the bucket foundation, and the soil surrounding the bucket foundation to three types of seismic wave acceleration time histories were determined using time history analysis. The Shanghai artificial seismic wave was used as an example. This wave causes the most intense seismic response of the seismic waves considered, based on the anti-liquefaction shear stress approach to estimating the area of soil liquefaction. The results showed that 88% of the soil outside the bucket in the range of the bucket depth is liquefied. In contrast, only 9% of the soil inside the bucket is liquefied. As the soil depth increases, the liquefaction range decreases substantially. The simulation results show that the LSPCBF can improve the liquefaction resistance of soil inside and directly below the bucket under seismic loading. Finally, the foundation stabilities under an ultimate load before and after an earthquake were compared. The horizontal displacement of the liquefied foundation increased by 41.1% and the vertical differential settlement increased by 6.2% after the earthquake. A large plastic zone was not formed, which means that an LSPCBF subjected to seismic action is still able to support the ultimate load.

1.
F. A.
Villalobos
,
B. W.
Byrne
, and
G. T.
Houlsby
, “
Drained capacity of suction caissons under monotonic loading for offshore applications
,”
Soils Found.
49
(
3
),
477
488
(
2009
).
2.
G. T.
Houlsby
,
R. B.
Kelly
,
J.
Huxtable
, and
B. W.
Byrne
, “
Field trials of suction caissons in clay for offshore wind turbine foundations
,”
Géotechnique
55
(
4
),
287
296
(
2005
).
3.
G. T.
Houlsby
,
R. B.
Kelly
,
J.
Huxtable
, and
B. W.
Byrne
, “
Field trials of suction caissons in sand for offshore wind turbine foundations
,”
Géotechnique
56
(
1
),
3
10
(
2006
).
4.
B. W.
Byrne
,
G. T.
Houlsby
,
C. M.
Martin
, and
P. M.
Fish
, “
Suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines
,”
J. Wind Eng.
26
(
3
),
145
155
(
2002
).
5.
G. T.
Houlsby
and
B. W.
Byrne
, “
Suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines and anemometer masts
,”
J. Wind Eng.
24
(
4
),
249
255
(
2000
).
6.
H. Y.
Ding
,
J. J.
Lian
,
A. D.
Li
, and
P. Y.
Zhang
, “
One-step-installation of offshore wind turbine on large-scale bucket-top-bearing bucket foundation
,”
Trans. Tianjin Univ.
19
(
3
),
188
194
(
2013
).
7.
J. J.
Lian
,
H. Y.
Ding
,
P. Y.
Zhang
, and
R.
Yu
, “
Design of large-scale prestressing bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines
,”
Trans. Tianjin Univ.
18
(
2
),
79
184
(
2012
).
8.
J. J.
Lian
,
L. Q.
Sun
,
J. F.
Zhang
, and
H. J.
Wang
, “
Bearing capacity and technical advantages of composite bucket foundation of offshore wind turbines
,”
Trans. Tianjin Univ.
17
(
2
),
132
137
(
2011
).
9.
P. Y.
Zhang
,
H. Y.
Ding
, and
C. H.
Le
, “
Motion analysis on integrated transportation technique for offshore wind turbines
,”
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy
5
(
5
),
053117
(
2013
).
10.
W.
De Vries
, Support structure concepts for deep water sites, EU Project UpWind, Final Report No. WP4.2, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands,
2011
.
11.
D.
Lombardi
,
S.
Bhattacharya
, and
D.
Muir Wood
, “
Dynamic soil–structure interaction of monopole supported wind turbines in cohesive soil
,”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
49
,
165
180
(
2013
).
12.
S.
Bhattacharya
,
N.
Nikitas
,
J.
Garnsey
,
N. A.
Alexander
,
J.
Coxd
,
D.
Lombardi
,
D.
Muir Wood
, and
D. F. T.
Nash
, “
Observed dynamic soil–structure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine foundations
,”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
54
,
47
60
(
2013
).
13.
X. Q.
Liu
, “
Sedimentary division in marginal seas of China
,”
Mar. Geol. Quat. Geol.
16
(
3
),
1
11
(
1996
); can be downloaded from http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HYDZ603.000.htm, in Chinese.
14.
N.
Bazeos
,
G. D.
Hatzigeorgiou
,
I. D.
Hondros
,
H.
Karamaneas
, and
D. L.
Karabalis
, “
Static, seismic and stability analyses of a prototype wind turbine steel tower
,”
Eng. Struct.
24
(
8
),
1015
1025
(
2002
).
15.
D.
Witcher
, “
Seismic analysis of wind turbines in the time domain
,”
Wind Energy
8
(
1
),
81
91
(
2005
).
16.
T.
Ishihara
and
M. W.
Sarwar
, “
Numerical and theoretical study on seismic response of wind turbines
,” in Proceedings of European Wind Energy Conference, Brussels (Belgium), The European Wind Energy Association,
2008
.
17.
I.
Prowell
,
M.
Veletzos
,
A.
Elgamal
 et al., “
Experimental and numerical seismic response of a 65 kW wind turbine
,”
J. Earthquake Eng.
13
(
8
),
1172
1190
(
2009
).
18.
S.
Bhattacharya
and
S.
Adhikari
, “
Experimental validation of soil–structure interaction of offshore wind turbines
,”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
31
(
5–6
),
805
816
(
2011
).
19.
S.
Bhattacharya
,
J.
Cox
,
D.
Lombardi
, and
D.
Muir Wood
, “
Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on two foundations
,”
Proc. ICE Geotech. Eng.
166
(
2
),
159
169
(
2012
).
20.
H. B.
Seed
and
I. M.
Idriss
,
Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, EERI Monograph Series
(
University of California
,
Berkeley, CA
,
1982
).
21.
H. B.
Seed
,
I. M.
Idriss
, and
I.
Arango
, “
Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data
,”
J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE
109
(
3
),
458
482
(
1983
).
You do not currently have access to this content.