Next Article in Journal
CFD Simulation of Ship Seakeeping Performance and Slamming Loads in Bi-Directional Cross Wave
Next Article in Special Issue
Pressure Sensing Technique for Observing Seabed Deformation Caused by Submarine Sand Wave Migration
Previous Article in Journal
Coastal Phytoplankton Pigments Composition in Three Tropical Estuaries of Indonesia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study on Seismic Response of Pile Group Foundation in Coral Sand and Fujian Sand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/jmse8050310
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Features of Earthquake-Induced Seabed Liquefaction and Mitigation Strategies of Novel Marine Structures

by
Yu Huang
1,2,* and
Xu Han
1
1
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8(5), 310; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050310
Submission received: 31 March 2020 / Revised: 21 April 2020 / Accepted: 27 April 2020 / Published: 29 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Marine Engineering Geology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the accelerated development of marine engineering, a growing number of marine structures are being constructed (e.g., seabed pipelines, drilling platforms, oil platforms, wind turbines). However, seismic field investigations over recent decades have shown that many marine structures were damaged or destroyed due to liquefaction. Seismic liquefaction in marine engineering can have huge financial repercussions as well as a devastating effect on the marine environment, which merits our great attention. As the effects of seawater and the gas component in the seabed layers are not negligible, the seabed soil layers are more prone to liquefaction than onshore soil layers, and the liquefied area may be larger than when liquefaction occurs on land. To mitigate the impact of liquefaction events on marine engineering structures, some novel liquefaction-resistant marine structures have been proposed in recent years. This paper reviews the features of earthquake-induced liquefaction and the mitigation strategies for marine structures to meet the future requirements of marine engineering.

1. Introduction

An increasing number of structures are being constructed in offshore areas; these include wharfs, cross-sea bridges, seabed tunnels, wind turbines and oil platforms. An important challenge of our times is to develop eco-friendly and renewable energy sources in marine areas [1,2]. Thus, offshore engineering has greatly developed in various countries and the pace of marine resource development is gradually accelerating [3]. The United Nations pointed out that the 21st century is the century of the oceans.
However, marine geohazards occur frequently because of the complex and harsh marine environment [4,5]. Under cyclic loading, such as storms, sea ices, waves and earthquakes, the strength and stiffness of marine soft clay will decrease and liquefaction may occur [6]. Seabed liquefaction can lead to catastrophic consequences, such as the creation of a submarine slope, pile foundation instability, flotation of buried pipelines, and overturning of wind turbines [7,8,9]. For example, Christian et al. reported a flotation accident on a 3.05-m diameter steel pipeline in Lake Ontario in 1974, which was induced by seabed liquefaction [10]. In 2010, huge waves caused liquefaction of the seabed soil in some areas of the Yellow River Delta in China, and an offshore platform capsized, causing two deaths and economic losses of 5.92 million RMB [11]. In the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, Kamisu and Hiyama wind farms located 300 kilometers away from the epicenter survived without major damage because the wind turbine system (~3 s) is designed to have a dominant period of ~3 s, which is considerably different from that of the seismic motions at the farm sites (0.07–1.0 s). However, one wind turbine with a monopile foundation tilted due to the seismic seabed liquefaction [12]. These liquefaction-induced accidents had huge financial impacts and severely affected the environment. Due to the serious consequences, researchers have made great efforts in the studies of seabed liquefaction induced by various types of excitation. For instance, Jia and Ye carried out systematic wave flume experiments and numerical simulation works respectively, which well explained the hydrodynamic behaviors (liquefaction and re-suspension) of marine deposits under the sea wave loads [13,14]. Sui et al. considered distribution gradient terms of soil properties and analyzed liquefaction of an inhomogeneous seabed caused by waves [15]. Huang et al. comprehensively reviewed the mechanisms of wave-induced liquefaction and relevant remedial measures [16]. Additionally, in some high-altitude areas, ice-induced vibration needs to be considered, which may also cause liquefaction around marine structures [17,18]. The duration of wave and ice loads is much longer than that of earthquakes. However, earthquakes can produce more energy in a short time compared to waves or ice sheets, so marine structures located in the earthquake zone will be at great risk due to seismic liquefaction. Unfortunately, most earthquakes occur on the seafloor, especially in offshore areas [19]. In Japan, a large earthquake occurs off the coast every three to four years on average, with potential to cause severe damage to marine structures [20]. Therefore, it is important to understand the effect of seismic seabed liquefaction on marine engineering structures.
Significant advances have been made in the study of onshore seismic liquefaction and anti-liquefaction measures [21,22]. However, the ocean environment is more complicated than the onshore one. Earthquake-induced seabed liquefaction has some unique features. For example, the dynamic response of the seawater during an earthquake event can also cause liquefaction in the seabed [23]. Furthermore, the biggest feature and most important development trend which ocean engineering faces is moving from shallow to deep sea. In marine engineering, especially in the abyssal environment, reinforcing the seabed soil skeleton or improving the pore water to prevent liquefaction are not always applicable because of the difficulty and cost. In recent years, scientists have been extensively studying earthquake-induced seabed liquefaction and damage mitigation related to the design of new marine structures. For example, Groot et al. systematically summarized the physical principles of various triggering mechanisms for liquefaction affecting ocean construction [8]. Esfeh et al. used an advanced liquefaction model with FLAC3D and successfully analyzed the liquefaction effect on floating structures [24]. Through dynamic centrifugal tests, Yu et al. studied the dynamic behaviors of different types of foundation (mono-pile and gravity) under seismic loadings that caused liquefaction [25]. Wang et al. presented a comprehensive review of research on mainstream wind turbine foundations and new suction bucket foundations based on both experimental and numerical methods [26].
However, the characteristics of marine seismic liquefaction and the latest marine structures proposed for reducing liquefaction damage have not been reviewed systematically. This article summarizes previous studies and outlines specific issues of seismic liquefaction in marine engineering. Moreover, perspectives on novel liquefaction-resistant marine structures are presented to help cope with the future trends and challenges of ocean engineering. This paper can help readers understand the problems of marine engineers in designing liquefaction-resistant marine structures, and provide useful guidelines on the subject.

2. Seismic Field Investigations in Marine Engineering

A large number of earthquakes occur in highly populated coastal areas such as the Pacific Rim earthquake zone and the Mediterranean earthquake zone. Therefore, earthquake damage investigations such as the seismic survey of the Grand Banks submarine landslide were conducted as early as 1929 [27]. In 1964, after the Alaska earthquake, investigations on seabed liquefaction and submarine landslides were also carried out [28,29]. Due to the difficulties of underwater surveying, there are a limited number of seismic damage investigations on the sea floor compared with those on land. However, from the existing cases, we can still conclude that earthquake-induced seabed liquefaction has caused serious damage to marine engineering structures in the past. Recently, there has been growing interest in seismic field investigations in marine engineering. Sumer et al. summarized seismic liquefaction around ocean engineering structures in Japan and Turkey [20]. Kardogan et al. reported on historical cases of earthquake-induced liquefaction of pile-support wharf structures [30]. This article supplements these studies and summarizes earthquake-induced liquefaction field investigations in marine engineering (Table 1) to provide readers with a systematic understanding of historical cases over the last three decades.

3. Features of Earthquake-Induced Seabed Liquefaction

Both submarine seismic liquefaction and onshore seismic liquefaction can be explained using the principle of effective stress. However, the amount of seismic damage in marine areas indicates that seabed seismic liquefaction has many characteristics that differ from those of onshore seismic liquefaction.

3.1. Marine Deposits Layer

Based on extensive soil liquefaction cases, particle size distribution curve boundaries for the possibility of liquefaction can be drawn, as shown in Figure 1 [20]. Generally, if the curve of the seabed soil samples falls within the range defined by the two blue boundaries, it is necessary for us to consider the risks of soil liquefaction in engineering design. Well-sorted aeolian sands are widespread in offshore areas, which is inclined to liquefaction easily [46]. For example, the offshore areas of China are mainly layered soils composed of sand, silt and clay (as shown in Figure 2) [47,48], and the submarine soil layers in the North Sea of Europe are dominated by sands [49].
In addition, another important feature of the marine deposits layer is the presence of calcareous sands. It worth noting that calcareous sands are widely distributed in the South China Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, the coasts of Australia, etc. Calcareous sands may have higher resistance to liquefaction than siliceous sands [50]; however, they are also at a great risk of liquefaction [51]. The liquefaction mechanisms of calcareous sands are not very clear yet due to their unique structural characteristics, such as crushability, high content of angular particles and mineralogy surface roughness [52]. Studies on the seismic liquefaction behavior of calcareous sands are of great significance in marine engineering and need to be further carried out.

3.2. Influence of Sea Water

When analyzing seismic earthquake forces in marine areas, it is necessary to consider the increase in pore-water pressure on the seabed caused by earthquake-induced water waves acting in offshore areas. Thus, the external excitation that triggers the liquefaction of the soil is not only seismic action but also wave action. Waves can cause two types of seafloor liquefaction: instantaneous liquefaction and residual liquefaction [16].
Moreover, after the seafloor is liquefied, the soil is liable to form mud flows due to the action of waves and seawater; the suspended flow can diffuse over a long distance, which results in lateral spread over a larger area compared with land liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs in soil layers below the seabed surface, the pore-water pressure dissipates much more slowly than on land, and the strength recovery is slower [53].

3.3. Influence of Submarine Gas Composition

Gas is always present in gas-charged sediments which are widespread in marine or offshore environments [54]. Under normal conditions, methane is the dominant gas component [55]. As there are many differences between the behavior of unsaturated soils and typical saturated soils under seismic loading [56], it is necessary to clarify and summarize the differences in their liquefaction characteristics.
Firstly, seismic cyclic loading is likely to cause the discharge of shallow seabed gas, which will accelerate the increase in pore pressure and make liquefaction more likely to occur [53].Moreover, research suggests that small amount of tiny gas bubbles suppress the accumulation of soil pore-water pressure, but may increase the instantaneous liquefaction risk under waves or vertical seismic motion [57]. Figure 3 shows the change in pore pressure with depth for saturated and unsaturated soils. If the soil contains some air or gas, the pore pressure will dissipate very rapidly with depth. In unsaturated soil, the pore pressure gradient can be extremely large, especially near the seabed surface, which means considerable lift can be generated during the passage of a wave trough [58].
Additionally, natural gas hydrates are widely distributed in marine sediments. Under standard conditions, 1 unit volume of hydrate can release about 164 units of methane [59]. When a large amount of gas migrates upward, it may be trapped under the low-permeability soil layer, which can reduce the effective stress to zero and cause potential instability [60]. An earthquake can trigger dissociation of a large amount of gas hydrate. Moreover, Xu et al. studied the shear behavior of dissociated gas hydrate in undrained conditions using DEM and found that the dissociation of gas hydrate produced significant excess pore pressure and volume expansion, and occasionally static liquefaction [61].
In conclusion, under the influence of sea water and trapped gas, seabed soil layers are more prone to liquefaction than onshore soil layers, and the liquefied area may be larger.

4. Seismic Liquefaction Mitigation Strategies of Novel Marine Structures

4.1. Conventional Liquefaction-Resistance Measures

Generally, for seabed liquefiable foundation soils, it is imperative to lower the risks of liquefaction. Measures to reduce liquefaction damage can be summarized into three categories [16]: (i) reinforcement of seabed soil; (ii) improvement of pore water; and (iii) improvement of structures. In the design stages, the advantages and disadvantages of various remedial measures are compared, and the most suitable and economical method is selected. Sometimes, a combination of two or more countermeasures leads to better results.

4.2. Liquefaction-Resistance Measures of New Marine Structures

In recent years, novel liquefaction-resistant marine structures to prevent liquefaction have been widely researched. This is because traditional measures are difficult and costly to take on the ocean floor. It is worth noting that marine structures are divided into two types in this paper: (1) non-supported structures, such as submarine pipelines and cables; and (2) foundation-supported structures, such as wind turbines, drilling platforms and oil platforms.

4.2.1. Non-Supported Structures

This section provides a brief introduction to pipelines. Submarine pipelines are an important part of the marine oil and gas extraction system, and are currently the most convenient and economical tool for transporting oil and gas. Seismic liquefaction is one of the main causes of damage to submarine pipelines, mostly through the following two failure modes: (1) due to the difference in soil gravity between the pipe and the liquefied seabed, the pipe will rise or sink; (2) seabed sliding causes lateral movement of the pipe. In conventional mitigation measures, the pipelines are buried deeper; however, it is difficult to do so in a marine environment. Ren et al. proposed a new measure for liquefaction damage prevention by reinforcing pipelines with wing plates, and verified the feasibility through shaking-table tests [62]. Yang proposed a simple portal frame to limit the displacement of pipelines. Compared with general anchoring reinforcements, the portal frame allows a certain upward displacement of the pipeline, which greatly reduces the stress of the pipeline and improves the safety when liquefaction occurs [63].

4.2.2. Foundation-Supported Structures

As listed in Table 1, many marine facilities experienced strong earthquakes and were damaged to a certain extent. Among various foundation-supported structures (offshore drilling platforms, oil platforms, wind turbines, cross-sea bridges, etc.), offshore wind turbines are gradually becoming the focus of attention. This is mainly because of the trend of developing clean and eco-friendly energies. Wind energy as a representative has aroused great research interest. Europe is a pioneer of offshore wind turbine (OWT) construction [64]. A 2019 report on European offshore wind turbines showed that OWTs are moving towards the deeper sea (Figure 4). As OWTs are deployed in deeper water, the OWT foundations are being modified, as shown in Figure 5.
Meanwhile, the wind turbine is a slender structure, which has a larger length/width ratio compared to other marine structures, so it is very sensitive to lateral loads [65]. Under the combined effect of winds, waves, and possible seismic loads, the structure–soil interaction will become quite complicated. The soils around the foundations of wind turbines may be greatly disturbed and have a great potential of liquefaction. Thus, in this section, we take the wind turbine as a typical marine structure and highlight research on new foundation structures of liquefaction resistance as applied to it.
At present, there are five main types of foundation structure for OWTs: gravity, monopile, jacket, suction bucket and floating foundation. Many researchers have studied the damage-mitigation performance of the above foundation forms, mainly by numerical methods and dynamic centrifuge experiments. To meet the various marine engineering challenges in the future and improve the liquefaction-resistant performance of the foundations, many innovative structure improvements have been proposed (Table 2).
The monopile foundation is the main type of OWT foundation currently in use. A new adaptation is the multi-pile foundation (to some extent, the jacket foundation can also be classified as a multi-pile foundation). Hao et al. carried out dynamic centrifugal model tests on the tripod foundation and found that it has better resistance to liquefaction than the common monopile one [75]. Wang et al. proposed a new hybrid monopile foundation, also based on centrifugal tests, and found that the mixed foundation has smaller lateral displacement and enhanced liquefaction resistance than ordinary monopile foundations [73,74]. General views of these two alternatives are illustrated in Figure 6. In fact, the concept of a hybrid monopile can be used to strengthen existing structures.
New anti-liquefaction jacket foundations have not been proposed in published articles to our knowledge. However, Ju et al. used the finite element method to analyze the seismic response of NREL 5-MW jacket-type OWT under combined loads (earthquakes, waves and winds), and found that the first-mode tuned mass dampers are necessary, which can effectively reduce the vibration induced by combined loads when liquefaction occurred [82].
As shown in Table 2, the suction bucket foundation is a hot topic currently. Many modifications of the suction bucket foundation have been proposed and implemented, such as the large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation, with certain success in real engineering by mitigating liquefaction damage (details in Section 4.2.3). Many other new liquefaction resistant structures are still in the research stage of model testing and numerical calculations; these include suction buckets with honeycomb compartments, a modified suction caisson with an external skirt, an umbrella suction anchor foundation, and so on (Figure 7). Experiments by Wang et al. showed that the honeycomb-compartment bucket can reduce soil settlement by about 50% according to experimental data [81]. Li et al. found that the external skirt provides the modified suction caisson with a higher lateral capacity [79,80]. Liu et al. studied a new umbrella suction anchor foundation with anchor branches that closely fit the seafloor; this system improves the anti-overturning ability of the master cylinder and the anti-scouring ability of the surrounding seabed soil [64,68]. Compared with conventional foundations, these new structures show good liquefaction-resistance performance, and have broad application prospects in practical marine engineering.
With the development of marine engineering, gravity foundations have been gradually phased out because they can only be used in shallow waters and cannot meet future demands. In contrast, floating foundations are suitable for deep-sea environments. It is foreseeable that research on floating foundations will increase in the coming years, and new liquefaction-resistant structures of floating foundations may be developed and applied in the field, which will become the next research hotspot.

4.2.3. An Example on Site

In this section, we enter a concrete example in reference to the field of wind turbines (large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation in Qidong Sea), in order to make readers understand the issues discussed in this article more clearly.
Qidong Sea is located in Jiangsu Province, China, near the border between the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. In October 2010, the first large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation (diameter 30 m, buried depth 7 m) was constructed in this area. As shown in Figure 2, the ground conditions China’s four major marine areas are soft and layered. In this wind farm, the geological survey showed that the soil properties from 0 to 33.5 m below the seabed are mainly silty sand and sandy silt, and the soil properties change into dense silty fine sand with the buried depth greater than 33.5 m [83]. These soils are liable to liquefy under strong seismic motion. Therefore, the effect of soil liquefaction needs to be considered in the design process of the wind turbines.
According to the detailed geological surveys and the seismic fortification intensity of this site (7 degrees), Zhang et al. used the ADINA program to analyze the liquefaction-resistance ability of soils below and inside this foundation and showed improvements due to the overburden pressure of the foundation and the constraint effect of the skirt [76,77]. They found that the concrete bucket foundation could still work after soil liquefaction. However, they only added the design ultimate wind loads to the structure, and the dynamic effects of seismic waves combined with the winds were not considered.
Many other new structures have not been constructed in real engineering, but some related research works are also based on site geological conditions. For example, the model tests of modified suction buckets with honeycomb compartment were also carried out in Jiangsu Province [84], and the umbrella suction anchor foundation has been designed for the Yellow River Delta area in the future [64].
In addition, although there are no actual engineering cases of new measures, many scholars have studied earthquake-induced liquefaction in Taiwan, Mexico and other sites. Kuo et al. focused on Changbin offshore wind farm in Taiwan Strait, and evaluated the liquefaction potential based on the typical ground profile of this site [85]. Mardfekri et al. proposed a probabilistic framework to evaluate the vulnerability of wind turbines in the Gulf of Mexico [86]. Martín del Campo et al. used numerical methods to analyze a wind turbine in Mexico under combined loads of earthquakes and winds, and made the fragility analysis [87].
In the above research, we can see that there are not many examples of new liquefaction-resistant structures that have been built. Works of this topic are still dominated by model tests and numerical simulations. The advanced numerical models are generally consistent with the results of the dynamic centrifugal tests. Numerical calculation has the advantages of being efficient and low cost while being able to evaluate many parameters and provide insight into the entire process of liquefaction-induced failure of structures. However, in view of the complexity of the marine environment, pore-pressure models and soil-structure interactions need to be further studied. Thus, numerical analysis of seismic seabed liquefaction will still be a focus of future research.

5. Conclusions

The features of onshore seismic liquefaction are quite different from seabed liquefaction, which is more complicated and requires great attention and extensive research. In addition, mitigation strategies of novel marine foundation structures were reviewed considering their resistance of liquefaction. Based on the reviewed studies, the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1)
This article summarizes seismic liquefaction field investigations in marine engineering to provide a systematic understanding of the historical cases published over recent decades. These cases show that seismic-induced liquefaction has a huge impact on marine structures and should be taken into account when designing in the future.
(2)
Seabed seismic liquefaction has different characteristics to those seen in land seismic liquefaction. The effect of seawater and trapped or escaping gas on seismic liquefaction is not negligible; seabed soil layers are more prone to liquefaction than onshore soil layers, and the liquefied area may be larger than on land.
(3)
Many novel improvements of foundation structures that reduce liquefaction damage in marine engineering have been proposed in recent years; these include the hybrid monopile foundation, umbrella suction anchor foundation, and anchor piles with suction for floating foundations, etc. Experimental and numerical analyses show that these new marine structures have better liquefaction-resistance performance than traditional structures and need to be further promoted in engineering design.
(4)
Having the advantages of low cost, fast construction and reusability, the suction bucket modification used in OWTs is the most widely studied concept nowadays. However, the monopile is the main foundation type for OWTs in current use. The hybrid monopile concept can be used to strengthen existing monopile structures to increase their liquefaction resistance. In addition, it is foreseeable that the research on floating foundations is likely to expand in the coming years, and new liquefaction-resistant structures with floating foundations may become the next research hotspot.
(5)
Many other marine structures have been designed while taking into account seismic liquefaction. However, the prevention of submarine seismic liquefaction damage is still facing many difficulties and challenges. Thus, we should give priority to marine geological disaster prevention in project site selection and design to minimize the damage caused by seismic liquefaction around marine structures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.H. and X.H.; methodology, Y.H.; investigation, X.H.; writing—original draft preparation, X.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.H. and X.H.; supervision, Y.H.; funding acquisition, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41625011), the Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader (Grant No.17XD1403700) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the assistant of our group members in the discussion.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Willis, D.J.; Niezrecki, C.; Kuchma, D.; Hines, E.; Arwade, S.R.; Barthelmie, R.J.; DiPaola, M.; Drane, P.J.; Hansen, C.J.; Inalpolat, M.; et al. Wind energy research: State-of-the-art and future research directions. Renew. Energy 2018, 125, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, X.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Duan, L.; Wang, T.; Adcock, T.; Jiang, Z.; Gao, Z.; Lin, Z.; et al. Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 379–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Zhang, M.; Zhang, W.; Huang, Y.; Cai, Y.; Shen, S. Failure mechanism of submarine slopes based on the wave flume test. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 1249–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jia, Y.; Zhu, C.; Liu, L.; Wang, D. Marine Geohazards: Review and Future Perspective. Acta Geol. Sin.-Engl. Ed. 2016, 90, 1455–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huang, Y.; Jin, P. Impact of human interventions on coastal and marine geological hazards: A review. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 77, 1081–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, Q.; Ren, Y.; Niu, J.; Cheng, K.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y. Characteristics of soft marine clay under cyclic loading: A review. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 77, 1027–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, W.; Askarinejad, A. Centrifuge modelling of submarine landslides due to static liquefaction. Landslides 2019, 16, 1921–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. de Groot, M.B.; Bolton, M.D.; Foray, P.; Meijers, P.; Palmer, A.C.; Sandven, R.; Sawicki, A.; Teh, T.C. Physics of liquefaction phenomena around marine structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2006, 132, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jeng, D.-S.; Chen, L.; Liao, C.; Tong, D. A numerical approach to determine wave (current)-induced residual responses in a layered seabed. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 35, 1271–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Christian, J.T.; Taylor, P.K.; Yen, J.K.C.; Erali, D.R. Large diameter underwater pipe line for nuclear power plant designed against soil liquefaction. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–8 May 1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Du, F. Research on Geological Causes of Shengli Well Workover Platform III Overturning Accident. Master’s Thesis, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China, 30 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bhattacharya, S.; Goda, K. Use of offshore wind farms to increase seismic resilience of Nuclear Power Plants. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 80, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Jia, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, J.; Liu, X.; Jeng, D.-S.; Shan, H. Effects of wave-induced seabed liquefaction on sediment re-suspension in the Yellow River Delta. Ocean Eng. 2014, 89, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ye, J.; Wang, G. Numerical simulation of the seismic liquefaction mechanism in an offshore loosely deposited seabed. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2016, 75, 1183–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sui, T.; Jin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Shi, J. Effects of the Soil Property Distribution Gradient on the Wave-Induced Response of a Non-Homogeneous Seabed. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Huang, Y.; Bao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Liu, C.; Lu, P. Analysis of the mechanism of seabed liquefaction induced by waves and related seabed protection. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ding, H.Y.; Qi, L.; Du, X.Z. Estimating soil liquefaction in ice-induced vibration of bucket foundation. J. Cold Reg. Eng. 2003, 17, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chunning, J.I.; Hai, Z.; Lei, G.U.O. Study of soil dynamic liquefaction in ice-induced vibration of offshore platform. Mar. Sci. Bull. 2008, 27, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  19. Momma, H.; Fujiwara, N.; Suzuki, S. Deep-sea monitoring system for submarine earthquakes, environment. Sea Technol. 1998, 39, 72–76. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sumer, B.M.; Ansal, A.; Cetin, K.O.; Damgaard, J.; Gunbak, A.R.; Hansen, N.-E.O.; Sawicki, A.; Synolakis, C.E.; Yalciner, A.C.; Yuksel, Y.; et al. Earthquake-induced liquefaction around marine structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. 2007, 133, 55–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bao, X.; Jin, Z.; Cui, H.; Chen, X.; Xie, X. Soil liquefaction mitigation in geotechnical engineering: An overview of recently developed methods. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 120, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhu, C. Centrifuge testing of liquefaction mitigation effectiveness on sand foundations treated with nanoparticles. Eng. Geol. 2019, 249, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rodriguez-Castellanos, A.; Martinez-Calzada, V.; Efrain Rodriguez-Sanchez, J.; Orozco-del-Castillo, M.; Carbajal-Romero, M. Induced water pressure profiles due to seismic motions. Appl. Ocean Res. 2014, 47, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Esfeh, P.K.; Kaynia, A.M. Numerical modeling of liquefaction and its impact on anchor piles for floating offshore structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 127, 105839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, H.; Zeng, X.; Li, B.; Lian, J. Centrifuge modeling of offshore wind foundations under earthquake loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 77, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, X.; Zeng, X.; Li, J.; Yang, X.; Wang, H. A review on recent advancements of substructures for offshore wind turbines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 158, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nof, D. Rotational turbidity flows and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. Deep-Sea Res. Part I-Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 1996, 43, 1143–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parsons, T.; Geist, E.L.; Ryan, H.F.; Lee, H.J.; Haeussler, P.J.; Lynett, P.; Hart, P.E.; Sliter, R.; Roland, E. Source and progression of a submarine landslide and tsunami: The 1964 Great Alaska earthquake at Valdez. J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth 2014, 119, 8502–8516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Landen, D. Alaska Earthquake, 27 March 1964. Science 1964, 145, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kardogan, P.S.O.; Bhattacharya, S. Review of Liquefaction Around Marine and Pile-Supported Wharf Structures. In Proceedings of 3rd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium; Firat, S., Kinuthia, J., AbuTair, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 6, pp. 893–903. [Google Scholar]
  31. Greene, H.G.; Gardnertaggart, J.; Ledbetter, M.T.; Barminski, R.; Chase, T.E.; Hicks, K.R.; Baxter, C. Offshore and onshore liquefaction at moss landing SPIT, central California-result of the October 17, 1989, Loma-Prieta Earthquake. Geology 1991, 19, 945–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Werner, S.D.; Dickenson, S.E.; Taylor, C.E. Seismic risk reduction at ports: Case studies and acceptable risk evaluation. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng.-Asce 1997, 123, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sumer, B.M.; Kaya, A.; Hansen, N.E.O. Impact of liquefaction on coastal structures in the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. In International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Proceedings, 12th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE-2002), Kyushu, Japan, 26-31 May 2002; Chung, J.S., Matsui, T., Chen, J., Kyozuka, Y., Eds.; International Society Offshore & Polar Engineers: Cupertino, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 504–511. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krinitzsky, E.L.; Hynes, M.E. The Bhuj, India, earthquake: Lessons learned for earthquake safety of dams on alluvium. Eng. Geol. 2002, 66, 163–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sengara, I.W.; Puspito, N.; Kertapati, E. Survey of geotechnical engineering aspects of the December 2004 great sumatra earthquake and indian ocean tsunami and the March 2005 nias-simeulue earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 2006, 22, S495–S509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hornbach, M.J.; Braudy, N.; Briggs, R.W.; Cormier, M.-H.; Davis, M.B.; Diebold, J.B.; Dieudonne, N.; Douilly, R.; Frohlich, C.; Gulick, S.P.S.; et al. High tsunami frequency as a result of combined strike-slip faulting and coastal landslides. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Verdugo, R.; Gonzalez, J. Liquefaction-induced ground damages during the 2010 Chile earthquake. Soil Dyn.Earthq. Eng. 2015, 79, 280–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bray, J.; Rollins, K.; Hutchinson, T.; Verdugo, R.; Ledezma, C.; Mylonakis, G.; Assimaki, D.; Montalva, G.; Arduino, P.; Olson, S.M.; et al. Effects of Ground Failure on Buildings, Ports, and Industrial Facilities. Earthq. Spectra 2012, 28, S97–S118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yamaguchi, A.; Mori, T.; Kazama, M.; Yoshida, N. Liquefaction in Tohoku district during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Soils Found. 2012, 52, 811–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bastin, S.H.; Bassett, K.; Quigley, M.C.; Maurer, B.; Green, R.A.; Bradley, B.; Jacobson, D. Late Holocene Liquefaction at Sites of Contemporary Liquefaction during the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2016, 106, 881–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Leite, J.; Lourenco, P.B.; Ingham, J.M. Statistical Assessment of Damage to Churches Affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) Earthquake Sequence. J. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 17, 73–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Aurelio, M.A.; Dianala, J.D.B.; Taguibao, K.J.L.; Pastoriza, L.R.; Reyes, K.; Sarande, R.; Lucero, A., Jr. Seismotectonics of the 6 February 2012 Mw 6.7 Negros Earthquake, central Philippines. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2017, 142, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cubrinovski, M.; Bray, J.D.; de la Torre, C.; Olsen, M.; Bradley, B.; Chiaro, G.; Stocks, E.; Wotherspoon, L.; Krall, T. Liquefaction-Induced Damage and CPT Characterization of the Reclamations at CentrePort, Wellington. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2018, 108, 1695–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Orense, R.P.; Mirjafari, Y.; Asadi, S.; Naghibi, M.; Chen, X.; Altaf, O.; Asadi, B. Ground performance in Wellington waterfront area following the 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 50, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sassa, S.; Takagawa, T. Liquefied gravity flow-induced tsunami: First evidence and comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami disasters. Landslides 2019, 16, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Bucci, M.G.; Almond, P.C.; Villamor, P.; Tuttle, M.P.; Stringer, M.; Smith, C.M.S.; Ries, W.; Bourgeois, J.; Loame, R.; Howarth, J.; et al. Controls on patterns of liquefaction in a coastal dune environment, Christchurch, New Zealand. Sediment. Geol. 2018, 377, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lu, X.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, J. Progress in the study on the bucket foundations of offshore platform. Adv. Mech. 2003, 33, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bhattacharya, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Hong, Y.J.W.E.E. Chapter 13—Civil Engineering Challenges Associated with Design of Offshore Wind Turbines with Special Reference to China. In Wind Energy Engineering; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 243–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bhattacharya, S.; Carrington, T.; Aldridge, T. Observed increases in offshore pile driving resistance. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Geotech. Eng. 2009, 162, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Salem, M.; Elmamlouk, H.; Agaiby, S. Static and cyclic behavior of North Coast calcareous sand in Egypt. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 55, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Ma, L.; Li, Z. Experimental study on the cyclic response of Nanhai Sea calcareous sand in China. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sandoval, E.A.; Pando, M.A. Experimental assessment of the liquefaction resistance of calcareous biogenous sands. Earth Sci. Res. J. 2012, 16, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guangbiao, S.; Qimin, F. Review of studies on earthquake liquefaction failure of submarine soil layer. J. Nat. Disasters 2007, 16, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fleischer, P.; Orsi, T.H.; Richardson, M.D.; Anderson, A.L. Distribution of free gas in marine sediments: A global overview. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2001, 21, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sills, G.C.; Wheeler, S.J. The significance of gas for offshore operations. Continent. Shelf Res. 1992, 12, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sobkowicz, J.C.; Morgenstern, N.R. The Undrained Equilibrium Behavior of Gassy Sediments. Can. Geotech. J. 1984, 21, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sumer, B.M.; Truelsen, C.; Fredsoe, J. Liquefaction around pipelines under waves. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2006, 132, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sumer, B.M. Introduction and Physics of Liquefaction. In Liquefaction Around Marine Structures; Liu, P.L.-F., Ed.; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2014; Volume 39, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Max, M.D.; Clifford, S.M. The state, potential distribution, and biological implications of methane in the Martian crust. J. Geophys. Res.-Planets 2000, 105, 4165–4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. van Paassen, L.A.; Vinh, P.; Mahabadi, N.; Hall, C.; Stallings, E.; Kavazanjian, E., Jr. Desaturation via Biogenic Gas Formation as a Ground Improvement Technique. In Panam Unsaturated Soils 2017: Plenary Papers, 2nd Pan-American Conference on Unsaturated Soils ((PanAm-UNSAT), Dallas, USA, 12-15 November 2017; Hoyos, L.R., McCartney, J.S., Houston, S.L., Likos, W.J., Eds.; AMER Soc Civil Engineers United Engineering Center: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 244–256. [Google Scholar]
  61. Xu, M.; Song, E.; Jiang, H.; Hong, J. DEM simulation of the undrained shear behavior of sand containing dissociated gas hydrate. Granul. Matter 2016, 18, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ren, C.; Li, Z. Research of Anti-liquefaction of buried pipelines by experimentation. In Proceedings of the 2007 Ocean Engineering Conference, Guiyang, China, 1 November 2007; Wu, Y., Ed.; Shipbuilding of China: Shanghai, China, 2007; pp. 622–627. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang, Y. Submarine Pipeline Buckling on Uneven Seabed and the Stability of the Submarine Pipeline in Liquefied Soil. Master’s Thesis, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  64. Li, H.; Liu, H.; Liu, S. Dynamic analysis of umbrella suction anchor foundation embedded in seabed for offshore wind turbines. Geomech. Energy Environ. 2017, 10, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Katsanos, E.I.; Thons, S.; Georgakis, C.T. Wind turbines and seismic hazard: A state-of-the-art review. Wind Energy 2016, 19, 2113–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Walsh, C. Offshore Wind in Europe–Key Trends and Statistics 2019; Wind Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kaynia, A.M. Seismic considerations in design of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 124, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, H.; Li, H. A New Suction Anchor Foundation of the Yellow River Delta Offshore Wind Power. Period. Ocean Univ. China 2014, 44, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  69. Oh, K.-Y.; Nam, W.; Ryu, M.S.; Kim, J.-Y.; Epureanu, B.I. A review of foundations of offshore wind energy convertors: Current status and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 16–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Perez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Zhang, P.; Han, Y.; Ding, H.; Zhang, S. Field experiments on wet tows of an integrated transportation and installation vessel with two bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines. Ocean Eng. 2015, 108, 769–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sturm, H. Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines. Geotechnik 2011, 34, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, X.; Zeng, X.; Li, X.; Li, J. Liquefaction characteristics of offshore wind turbine with hybrid monopile foundation via centrifuge modelling. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 2358–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, X.; Zeng, X.; Yang, X.; Li, J. Seismic response of offshore wind turbine with hybrid monopile foundation based on centrifuge modelling. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 1335–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hao, Y.; Zeng, X.; Wang, X. Seismic centrifuge modelling of offshore wind turbine with tripod foundation. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Energytech, Cleveland, OH, USA, 21–23 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang, P.; Ding, H.; Le, C. Seismic response of large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 013127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhang, P.; Xiong, K.; Ding, H.; Le, C. Anti-liquefaction characteristics of composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 053102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, D.-J.; Choo, Y.W.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.-S. Investigation of Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Tripod Suction Bucket Foundations for Offshore Wind Towers Using Centrifuge Modeling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2014, 140, 04014008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, D.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, L.; Gao, Y. Capacity of modified suction caissons in marine sand under static horizontal loading. Ocean Eng. 2015, 102, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, D.; Feng, L.; Zhang, Y. Model tests of modified suction caissons in marine sand under monotonic lateral combined loading. Appl. Ocean Rese. 2014, 48, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Zeng, X. Seismic centrifuge modelling of suction bucket foundation for offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 1013–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ju, S.-H.; Huang, Y.-C. Analyses of offshore wind turbine structures with soil-structure interaction under earthquakes. Ocean Eng. 2019, 187, 106190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ji, J.; Sun, L.; Zhang, J. Bearing Capacity and Technical Advantages of Composite, Bucket Foundation of Offshore Wind Turbines. Trans. Tianjin Univ. 2011, 17, 132–137. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zhang, P.; Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Ding, H. Experimental study on installation of hybrid bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines in silty clay. Ocean Eng. 2016, 114, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kuo, Y.-S.; Lin, C.-S.; Chai, J.-F.; Chang, Y.-W.; Tseng, Y.-H. Case study of the ground motion analyses and seabed soil liquefaction potential of Changbin offshore wind farm. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.-Taiwan 2019, 27, 448–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mardfekri, M.; Gardoni, P. Multi-hazard reliability assessment of offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy 2015, 18, 1433–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Martin del Campo, J.O.; Pozos-Estrada, A. Multi-hazard fragility analysis for a wind turbine support structure: An application to the Southwest of Mexico. Eng. Struct. 2020, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 08 00310 g001 550
Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve boundaries for the possibility of liquefaction: (a) soil with low coefficient of uniformity; (b) soil with high coefficient of uniformity (modified from [20]).
Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve boundaries for the possibility of liquefaction: (a) soil with low coefficient of uniformity; (b) soil with high coefficient of uniformity (modified from [20]).
Jmse 08 00310 g001
Jmse 08 00310 g002 550
Figure 2. Typical ground profiles in Chinese waters: (a) Taiwan Strait; (b) East China Sea; (c) Bohai Sea; (d) Yellow Sea (modified from [48]).
Figure 2. Typical ground profiles in Chinese waters: (a) Taiwan Strait; (b) East China Sea; (c) Bohai Sea; (d) Yellow Sea (modified from [48]).
Jmse 08 00310 g002
Jmse 08 00310 g003 550
Figure 3. Typical pore pressure distributions in saturated and unsaturated soils during the passage of a wave trough (modified from [58]).
Figure 3. Typical pore pressure distributions in saturated and unsaturated soils during the passage of a wave trough (modified from [58]).
Jmse 08 00310 g003
Jmse 08 00310 g004 550
Figure 4. Average distance to shore of offshore wind turbine (OWTs) in Europe (modified from [66]).
Figure 4. Average distance to shore of offshore wind turbine (OWTs) in Europe (modified from [66]).
Jmse 08 00310 g004
Jmse 08 00310 g005 550
Figure 5. Major foundation types used in OWT design: (a) gravity foundation; (b) mono-pile; (c) jacket foundation piles; (d) suction bucket (mono-pod); (e) floating wind turbine with anchors (modified from [67]).
Figure 5. Major foundation types used in OWT design: (a) gravity foundation; (b) mono-pile; (c) jacket foundation piles; (d) suction bucket (mono-pod); (e) floating wind turbine with anchors (modified from [67]).
Jmse 08 00310 g005
Jmse 08 00310 g006 550
Figure 6. New structures of monopile foundation to increase liquefaction resistance: (a). hybrid monopile; (b). tripod foundation (based on [74,75]).
Figure 6. New structures of monopile foundation to increase liquefaction resistance: (a). hybrid monopile; (b). tripod foundation (based on [74,75]).
Jmse 08 00310 g006
Jmse 08 00310 g007 550
Figure 7. New structures of suction bucket foundations with increased liquefaction resistance: (a) modified suction buckets with honeycomb compartment; (b) modified suction caisson with external skirt; (c) umbrella suction anchor foundation (based on [64,79,81]).
Figure 7. New structures of suction bucket foundations with increased liquefaction resistance: (a) modified suction buckets with honeycomb compartment; (b) modified suction caisson with external skirt; (c) umbrella suction anchor foundation (based on [64,79,81]).
Jmse 08 00310 g007
Table
Table 1. Major historical cases of seismic liquefaction in marine engineering.
Table 1. Major historical cases of seismic liquefaction in marine engineering.
DateEarthquakesMagnitudeDetailsReferences
17 October 19891989 Loma Prieta Earthquake6.9Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute’s pier subsided approximately 30 cm led by liquefaction, evidence of seabed liquefaction extending seaward over 600 m, a large number of pipelines failed, some fuel tanks tilted at the dock[30,31]
17 January 19951995 Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake7.2All 240 berths in Kobe Port suffered at least some damages, quay walls moved laterally seaward[32]
17 August 1999/12 November 19991999 Kocaeli, earthquake/Duzce earthquake7.4/7.1Almost all the backfill and sheet-piled structures were liquefied behind dock walls, some structures were displaced seaward, seabed settled and some marine structures collapsed[20,33]
26 January 20012001 Bhuj Earthquake7.7Dams built on alluavia badly damaged, intake tower titled induced by liquefaction, differential settlement and lateral spreading occurred[34]
26 December 20042004 Great Sumatra Earthquake9.0+Liquefaction-induced coastal structures and embankment failures occurred[35]
12 January 20102010 Haiti Earthquake7.0A piece of coastal land disappeared, large delta area liquefied[36]
27 February 20102010 Chile Earthquake8.8Liquefied zone covered an area with a length of almost 1000km in the north-south direction, several piles-supported facilities were damaged because of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, some tanks at gas facility titled[37,38]
11 March 20112011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake9.0Liquefaction occurred in the river delta area, offshore ground failed, uplift of pipelines and fuel tanks occurred, sand boiled on quay wall, dike collapsed for liquefaction at the bottom, a wind turbine tilted[39]
4 September 2010
(start on)		2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES)7.1
(mainshock)		Severe seismic liquefaction damage to infrastructures happened, recurrent and large-area liquefaction in offshore area[40,41]
6 February 20122012 Negros Earthquake6.7Columns titled and spans of bridge dismembered, induced by liquefaction, large area settlement of coastal roadbed[42]
14 November 20162016 Kaikōura Earthquake7.8Gravel and sand ejected near the entrance to the harbor, the pier settled below the surface of water, foundation connection failed and wharves damaged[43,44]
28 September 20182018 Indonesia Sulawesi Earthquake7.5Extensive liquefaction happened in offshore areas, floatation of pipelines was observed, a piece of coastal land disappeared, devastating tsunami took place caused by liquefaction[45]
Table
Table 2. Main OWT foundation types and novel liquefaction-resistant structure improvements (based on [2,26,68,69,70,71]).
Table 2. Main OWT foundation types and novel liquefaction-resistant structure improvements (based on [2,26,68,69,70,71]).
Foundation TypeApplication ScapeDescriptionsNovel Anti-Liquefaction Structure Improvements
GravityShallow water (0~10 m)Simple structure, long construction period and low cost, compaction effect on soil bodyCross-shaped structure [72]
MonopileShallow water
(0~30 m)		Industrialization, large disturbance to soil, high cost, scour effect, poor resistance to liquefactionHybrid monopile foundation [73,74], tripod foundation [75]
JacketIntermediate water
(10~50 m)		Applicable to various geological conditions, difficult installation and high cost—
Suction BucketIntermediate water
(5~60 m)		Fast construction, reusable, most applicable for soft clay, low cost, good resistance to liquefactionUmbrella suction anchor foundation [64,68], large-scale prestressed concrete bucket foundation [76,77], tripod suction bucket foundations [78], modified suction caisson with external skirt [79,80], modified suction buckets with honeycomb compartment [81]
FloatingDeep water
(>50 m)		Flexible installation, unstable foundation and a little high costAnchor piles and suction anchors [24]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, Y.; Han, X. Features of Earthquake-Induced Seabed Liquefaction and Mitigation Strategies of Novel Marine Structures. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050310

AMA Style

Huang Y, Han X. Features of Earthquake-Induced Seabed Liquefaction and Mitigation Strategies of Novel Marine Structures. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2020; 8(5):310. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050310

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Yu, and Xu Han. 2020. "Features of Earthquake-Induced Seabed Liquefaction and Mitigation Strategies of Novel Marine Structures" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, no. 5: 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050310

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop