本研究針對海上風機（Offshore Wind Turbine, OWT）基樁-土壤相互作用、基礎的沉陷行為，以及不同基礎型式在海洋環境中的適用性進行深入探討。研究中改進具有扭轉與剪切行為的 Q-z 與 t-z 非線性彈簧模型，並依據不同土壤類型進行參數修正，使模型可應用於傳統單樁、套架基礎與吸力基樁系統，更精確模擬基樁與土壤之間的非線性互動機制。對此，針對風機運轉期間可能出現的動態扭轉行為，本研究提出改良之數值分析方法，有效預防結構共振，進而提升風機的運行安全與結構耐久性。隨著風能技術快速演進，風機容量已由 5 MW 躍升至 10 MW、15 MW，甚至邁向 20 MW，導致在深水區遭遇水文、地質、抗震、土壤液化等複雜條件，對支撐結構剛性與穩定性提出更高要求，由於傳統單樁基礎與套架基礎在深水區的設計施工上面臨挑戰與工期壓力，進而影響經濟效益。因為吸力基樁具備低安裝噪音、環境衝擊小、可重複使用與成本效益高等優勢，逐漸成為具潛力的替代方案。因此，本研究聚焦吸力基樁於深水區的應用潛力，並與套架基礎進行比較分析，驗證其替代之可行性。再者，在研究中，基於 Mac-Camy 與 Fuchs 繞射理論修正 Morison 方程，以提升大直徑結構（λ/D < 5）波浪載重預測精度，並透過在台南成功大學水工試驗所，採用實尺寸實驗證明此公式之正確性。在使用有限元素模擬 22 MW 半潛式浮動風機時顯示，使用此修正公式有其必要性。最後，鑑於台灣海峽地處多地震與颱風影響區域，本研究整合在地環境數據，系統性評估極端氣候條件對風機結構之潛在風險，深入探討地震、土壤液化與颱風荷載對於離岸風機之影響程度，並提出因地制宜的設計準則與改善建議。綜合上述成果，本研究建立一套涵蓋靜態與動態響應、環境載荷模擬、土壤互動機制與地區風險整合的完整分析架構，可作為台灣離岸風場的規劃與設計提供理論依據，有助於提升風機之經濟效益、安全性與環境永續發展。

This study investigates the interactions between the foundation piles and soil of Offshore Wind Turbines (OWT), foundation settlement behavior, and the suitability of different foundation types in marine environments. It improves the Q-z and t-z nonlinear spring models, which exhibit torsional and shear behaviors, and modifies the parameters based on different soil types to apply the model to traditional monopile, jacket-type, and suction pile systems, thereby enabling more accurate simulation of the nonlinear interaction mechanisms between piles and soil. Additionally, the study proposes an improved numerical analysis method to address the dynamic torsional behavior that may occur during turbine operation, preventing structural resonance and enhancing operational safety and durability. As wind turbine capacities rapidly increase from 5 MW to 20 MW, higher demands for the rigidity and stability of supporting structures in deep-water regions arise, where conditions such as hydrodynamics, geology, seismic activity, and soil liquefaction complicate design and construction. Traditional monopile and jacket foundations face challenges in deep-water installations, affecting economic efficiency. Suction piles, with low installation noise, minimal environmental impact, reusability, and cost-effectiveness, are emerging as a promising alternative. The study focuses on evaluating the potential of suction piles for deep-water applications and compares suction piles with jacket foundations to validate feasibility.
Moreover, the study modifies Morison’s equation using Mac-Camy and Fuchs diffraction theories to enhance the accuracy of wave load predictions for large-diameter structures. Full-scale experiments at Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory, National Cheng Kung University validate the correctness of this formula, which is shown to be necessary in simulations of a 22 MW semi-submersible floating wind turbine. Given Taiwan Strait’s vulnerability to earthquakes and typhoons, the study integrates local environmental data to assess the risks posed by extreme weather conditions on wind turbine structures. It investigates the effects of earthquakes, soil liquefaction, and typhoon loads, offering region-specific design guidelines and improvement recommendations. Ultimately, the study develops a comprehensive analytical framework incorporating static and dynamic responses, environmental load simulations, soil interaction mechanisms, and regional risk assessments, providing a theoretical foundation for the planning and design of offshore wind farms in Taiwan and contributing to the enhancement of turbine efficiency, safety, and environmental sustainability.

1. Jonkman, J., et al., Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. 2009, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
2. Bak, C., et al. The DTU 10-MW reference wind turbine. in Danish wind power research 2013. 2013.
3. Gaertner, E., et al., Definition of the IEA 15-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine. 2020.
4. Ju, S.-H., Y.-C. Huang, and Y.-Y. Huang, Study of optimal large-scale offshore wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 2020. 154: p. 161-174.
5. Hearn, E. and L. Edgers, Finite element analysis of an offshore wind turbine monopile, in GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design. 2010. p. 1857-1865.
6. Bhattacharya, S., Challenges in design of foundations for offshore wind turbines. Engineering & Technology Reference, 2014(2014).
7. Lee, Y.-S., et al., Reliability-based design optimization of monopile transition piece for offshore wind turbine system. Renewable Energy, 2014. 71: p. 729-741.
8. Myers, A., et al., Strength, stiffness, resonance and the design of offshore wind turbine monopiles. Engineering structures, 2015. 100: p. 332-341.
9. Carswell, W., et al., Foundation damping and the dynamics of offshore wind turbine monopiles. Renewable energy, 2015. 80: p. 724-736.
10. Burd, H.J., et al. Design aspects for monopile foundations. in Proceedings of TC209 workshop on foundation design for offshore wind structures, 19th ICSMGE, Seoul, South Korea. 2017.
11. Frick, D. and M. Achmus, An experimental study on the parameters affecting the cyclic lateral response of monopiles for offshore wind turbines in sand. Soils and Foundations, 2020. 60(6): p. 1570-1587.
12. Sunday, K. and F. Brennan, A review of offshore wind monopiles structural design achievements and challenges. Ocean Engineering, 2021. 235: p. 109409.
13. Okenyi, V., et al., A review of challenges and framework development for corrosion fatigue life assessment of monopile-supported horizontal-axis offshore wind turbines. Ships and Offshore Structures, 2024. 19(1): p. 1-15.
14. Tang, Z.-h., et al., Countermeasures for local scour at offshore wind turbine monopile foundations: A review. Water Science and Engineering, 2022. 15(1): p. 15-28.
15. Sánchez, S., et al., Foundations in offshore wind farms: Evolution, characteristics and range of use. Analysis of main dimensional parameters in monopile foundations. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2019. 7(12): p. 441.
16. Wei, K., et al., Toward performance-based evaluation for offshore wind turbine jacket support structures. Renewable Energy, 2016. 97: p. 709-721.
17. Chen, I.-W., et al., Design and analysis of jacket substructures for offshore wind turbines. Energies, 2016. 9(4): p. 264.
18. Tran, T.-T. and D. Lee, Development of jacket substructure systems supporting 3MW offshore wind turbine for deep water sites in South Korea. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2022. 14: p. 100451.
19. Lai, W.-J., et al., Dynamic analysis of Jacket Substructure for offshore wind turbine generators under extreme environmental conditions. Applied Sciences, 2016. 6(10): p. 307.
20. Chen, H.-H., R.-Y. Yang, and H.-H. Hwung, Study of hard and soft countermeasures for scour protection of the jacket-type offshore wind turbine foundation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2014. 2(3): p. 551-567.
21. Jalbi, S., et al., Dynamic design considerations for offshore wind turbine jackets supported on multiple foundations. Marine structures, 2019. 67: p. 102631.
22. Ju, S.H., et al., Ultimate load design of jacket‐type offshore wind turbines under tropical cyclones. Wind Energy, 2019. 22(5): p. 685-697.
23. Shittu, A.A., et al., Comparative study of structural reliability assessment methods for offshore wind turbine jacket support structures. Applied Sciences, 2020. 10(3): p. 860.
24. Ju, S.-H. and C.-H. Hsieh, Optimal wind turbine jacket structural design under ultimate loads using Powell's method. Ocean Engineering, 2022. 262: p. 112271.
25. Kim, Y.J., et al., Foundation types of fixed offshore wind turbine. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, 2024. 38(2): p. 74-85.
26. Park, J.-S., S.-H. Kim, and J.K. Seo, Initial structural design approach for jacket-type substructure in 12 MW class offshore wind turbines considering soil stiffness. Journal of Advanced Marine Engineering and Technology (JAMET), 2023. 47(5): p. 252-260.
27. Lombardi, D., J.A. Cox, and S. Bhattacharya, Long-term performance of offshore wind turbines supported on monopiles and suction caissons. Struct. Eng., 2011. 89: p. 12-13.
28. Shonberg, A., et al. Suction bucket jackets for offshore wind turbines: applications from in situ observations. in Proc. TC209 Workshop, 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, South Korea. 2017.
29. Farahani, S. and A. Barari, A simplified procedure for the prediction of liquefaction‐induced settlement of offshore wind turbines supported by suction caisson foundation based on effective stress analyses and an ML‐based group method of data handling. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2023. 52(15): p. 5072-5098.
30. Wang, X., X. Yang, and X. Zeng, Seismic centrifuge modelling of suction bucket foundation for offshore wind turbine. Renewable energy, 2017. 114: p. 1013-1022.
31. Bagheri, P., S.W. Son, and J.M. Kim, Investigation of the load-bearing capacity of suction caissons used for offshore wind turbines. Applied Ocean Research, 2017. 67: p. 148-161.
32. Vernardos, S.M., et al., Experimental and numerical investigation of steel-grout-steel sandwich shells for wind turbine towers. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2021. 184: p. 106815.
33. Álamo, G.M., J.D. Bordón, and J.J. Aznárez, On the application of the beam model for linear dynamic analysis of pile and suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines. Computers and Geotechnics, 2021. 134: p. 104107.
34. He, R. and A.M. Kaynia, Dynamic impedances and load carrying mechanism for skirted foundations. Marine Structures, 2021. 79: p. 103023.
35. Plodpradit, P., et al., Suction bucket pile–soil–structure interactions of offshore wind turbine jacket foundations using coupled dynamic analysis. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2020. 8(6): p. 416.
36. Penner, N., T. Grießmann, and R. Rolfes, Monitoring of suction bucket jackets for offshore wind turbines: Dynamic load bearing behaviour and modelling. Marine Structures, 2020. 72: p. 102745.
37. Ju, S.-H., C.-S. Chiu, and Y.-C. Huang, Comparing traditional and suction piles in steel design of wind turbine structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2025. 224: p. 109169.
38. Jonkman, J.M. and D. Matha, Dynamics of offshore floating wind turbines—analysis of three concepts. Wind Energy, 2011. 14(4): p. 557-569.
39. Liu, Y., et al., Establishing a fully coupled CFD analysis tool for floating offshore wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 2017. 112: p. 280-301.
40. Pustina, L., et al., Control of power generated by a floating offshore wind turbine perturbed by sea waves. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020. 132: p. 109984.
41. López-Queija, J., et al., Review of control technologies for floating offshore wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022. 167: p. 112787.
42. Otter, A., et al., A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy, 2022. 25(5): p. 831-857.
43. Ju, S.-H., Studying the mode shape participation factor of wave loads for offshore wind turbine structures. Engineering Structures, 2024. 310: p. 118067.
44. Ciuriuc, A., et al., Digital tools for floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT): A state of the art. Energy Reports, 2022. 8: p. 1207-1228.
45. JU, S.-H. and C.-H. Li, A Control System of Mooring Lines for Floating Wind Turbine Platforms. Available at SSRN 4966356.
46. Zhang, W., et al., Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) applications in floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) dynamics: A review. Applied Ocean Research, 2024. 150: p. 104075.
47. Ju, S.-H. and Y.-C. Huang, Study on Large-Scale Floating Wind Turbine Platforms Under Severe Loads. Available at SSRN 5055171.
48. Rodriguez-Galvan, E., et al., Influence of seabed profile on the seismic response of monopile-supported offshore wind turbines including dynamic soil-structure interaction. Marine Structures, 2023. 92: p. 103500.
49. Cui, L., et al., Soil–structure interactions for the stability of offshore wind foundations under varying weather conditions. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2023. 11(6): p. 1222.
50. Romero-Sánchez, C., J.D. Bordón, and L.A. Padrón, Influence of Foundation–Soil–Foundation Interaction on the Dynamic Response of Offshore Wind Turbine Jackets Founded on Buckets. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2024. 12(11): p. 2089.
51. Damgaard, M., et al., Effects of soil–structure interaction on real time dynamic response of offshore wind turbines on monopiles. Engineering Structures, 2014. 75: p. 388-401.
52. Lombardi, D., S. Bhattacharya, and D.M. Wood, Dynamic soil–structure interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive soil. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 2013. 49: p. 165-180.
53. Shi, W., et al., Soil-structure interaction on the response of jacket-type offshore wind turbine. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2015. 2(2): p. 139-148.
54. Krathe, V. and A.M. Kaynia, Implementation of a non‐linear foundation model for soil‐structure interaction analysis of offshore wind turbines in FAST. Wind Energy, 2017. 20(4): p. 695-712.
55. Plodpradit, P., V.N. Dinh, and K.-D. Kim, Tripod-supported offshore wind turbines: modal and coupled analysis and a parametric study using X-SEA and FAST. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2019. 7(6): p. 181.
56. Ju, S.-H. and Y.-C. Huang, Analyses of offshore wind turbine structures with soil-structure interaction under earthquakes. Ocean Engineering, 2019. 187: p. 106190.
57. Bhattacharya, S. and S. Adhikari, Experimental validation of soil–structure interaction of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011. 31(5-6): p. 805-816.
58. Ju, S.-H. and Y.-C. Mao, Research on offshore wind turbine support structures under seismic soil liquefaction. Ocean Engineering, 2024. 304: p. 117750.
59. Dong, W., T. Moan, and Z. Gao, Fatigue reliability analysis of the jacket support structure for offshore wind turbine considering the effect of corrosion and inspection. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012. 106: p. 11-27.
60. Dong, W., T. Moan, and Z. Gao, Long-term fatigue analysis of multi-planar tubular joints for jacket-type offshore wind turbine in time domain. Engineering Structures, 2011. 33(6): p. 2002-2014.
61. Zwick, D. and M. Muskulus, Simplified fatigue load assessment in offshore wind turbine structural analysis. Wind Energy, 2016. 19(2): p. 265-278.
62. Cheng, Z., et al., A comparison of extreme structural responses and fatigue damage of semi-submersible type floating horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 2017. 108: p. 207-219.
63. Løken, I.B. and A.M. Kaynia, Effect of foundation type and modelling on dynamic response and fatigue of offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy, 2019. 22(12): p. 1667-1683.
64. Nejad, A.R., Z. Gao, and T. Moan, On long-term fatigue damage and reliability analysis of gears under wind loads in offshore wind turbine drivetrains. International Journal of Fatigue, 2014. 61: p. 116-128.
65. Ju, S.-H., et al., Fatigue design of offshore wind turbine jacket-type structures using a parallel scheme. Renewable Energy, 2019. 136: p. 69-78.
66. Sun, C. and V. Jahangiri, Fatigue damage mitigation of offshore wind turbines under real wind and wave conditions. Engineering Structures, 2019. 178: p. 472-483.
67. Ju, S.-H., Increasing the fatigue life of offshore wind turbine jacket structures using yaw stiffness and damping. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022. 162: p. 112458.
68. Ivanhoe, R., L. Wang, and A. Kolios, Generic framework for reliability assessment of offshore wind turbine jacket support structures under stochastic and time dependent variables. Ocean Engineering, 2020. 216: p. 107691.
69. Shamir, M., J. Braithwaite, and A. Mehmanparast, Fatigue life assessment of offshore wind support structures in the presence of corrosion pits. Marine Structures, 2023. 92: p. 103505.
70. Oyegbile, A.D. and M. Muskulus, Enhancing fatigue reliability prediction of offshore wind turbine jacket joints through individual uncertainties for each degree of freedom of stress concentration factor. Marine Structures, 2024. 96: p. 103634.
71. Fan, T.-Y., et al., Time-domain fatigue analysis of multi-planar tubular joints for a jacket-type substructure of offshore wind turbines. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 2020. 30(01): p. 112-119.
72. Li, X. and W. Zhang, Long-term fatigue damage assessment for a floating offshore wind turbine under realistic environmental conditions. Renewable Energy, 2020. 159: p. 570-584.
73. Sørum, S.H., et al., Fatigue design sensitivities of large monopile offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy, 2022. 25(10): p. 1684-1709.
74. Ngo, D.-V. and D.-H. Kim, Seismic responses of different types of offshore wind turbine support structures. Ocean Engineering, 2024. 297: p. 117108.
75. Khalil, Z., P.J. Stafford, and A.Y. Elghazouli, Risk‐Based Structural Seismic Response Assessment of Large‐Scale Jacket‐Supported Offshore Wind Turbines. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2025. 54(8): p. 2044-2061.
76. Yu, H., et al., Centrifuge modeling of offshore wind foundations under earthquake loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015. 77: p. 402-415.
77. Anastasopoulos, I. and M. Theofilou, Hybrid foundation for offshore wind turbines: Environmental and seismic loading. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 2016. 80: p. 192-209.
78. Kaynia, A.M., Seismic considerations in design of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019. 124: p. 399-407.
79. Kourkoulis, R., et al., Suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines subjected to wave and earthquake loading: effect of soil–foundation interface. Géotechnique, 2014. 64(3): p. 171-185.
80. Barari, A., et al., Tripod suction caisson foundations for offshore wind energy and their monotonic and cyclic responses in silty sand: Numerical predictions for centrifuge model tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021. 149: p. 106813.
81. Yin, Z.-Y., et al., Modelling of suction bucket foundation in clay: From finite element analyses to macro-elements. Ocean Engineering, 2020. 210: p. 107577.
82. Nimbalkar, S.S., et al., Piles subjected to torsional cyclic load: numerical analysis. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2019. 5: p. 24.
83. Cerfontaine, B., F. Collin, and R. Charlier, Numerical modelling of transient cyclic vertical loading of suction caissons in sand. Géotechnique, 2016. 66(2): p. 121-136.
84. Mehra, S. and A. Trivedi, Pile groups subjected to axial and torsional loads in flow-controlled geomaterial. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2021. 21(3): p. 04021002.
85. Mohiuddin, M., et al., Soil failure mechanisms during installation and inclined pullout of stiffened suction caisson in calcareous silt. Applied Ocean Research, 2022. 125: p. 103249.
86. Eslami, A. and A. Ghorbani, Seismic response of offshore wind turbines supported on Monopiles and Suction Buckets: Numerical modelling and soft computing study. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022. 159: p. 107284.
87. Bolton Seed, H., et al., Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 1985. 111(12): p. 1425-1445.
88. Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations division, 1971. 97(9): p. 1249-1273.
89. Andrus, R.D. and K.H. Stokoe II, Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2000. 126(11): p. 1015-1025.
90. Youd, T.L. and I.M. Idriss, Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2001. 127(4): p. 297-313.
91. Tokimatsu, K. and Y. Yoshimi, Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils and foundations, 1983. 23(4): p. 56-74.
92. Robertson, P.K. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. in 2nd International symposium on cone penetration testing. 2010. Cone Penetration Testing Organizing Committee Huntington Beach.
93. Olsen, R.S., Prediction of Liquefaction Resistance Using a Combination of CPT Cone and Sleeve Resistances-It’s really a Contour Surface. 2015.
94. Juang, C.H., T. Jiang, and R.D. Andrus, Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2002. 128(7): p. 580-589.
95. 黃俊鴻 and 陳正興, 土壤液化評估規範之回顧與前瞻. 地工技術, 1998: p. 23-44.
96. Youd, T. and I. Idriss. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng. in ASCE. 2001.
97. 日本建築学会, 建築基礎構造設計指針. (No Title), 2001.
98. 日本道路協会, V. 耐震設計編. 道路橋仕方書, 1996: p. 91-95.
99. Geng, F., et al., Study for predicting the earthquake-induced liquefaction around the monopile foundation of offshore wind turbines. Ocean Engineering, 2023. 268: p. 113421.
100. Garrison, C., Water impact loads on circular structural members. Applied ocean research, 1996. 18(1): p. 45-54.
101. Li, Y.S., S. Zhan, and S. Lau, In-line response of a horizontal cylinder in regular and random waves. Journal of fluids and structures, 1997. 11(1): p. 73-87.
102. Burrows, R., et al., Morison wave force coefficients for application to random seas. Applied Ocean Research, 1997. 19(3-4): p. 183-199.
103. Vengatesan, V., K. Varyani, and N. Barltrop, An experimental investigation of hydrodynamic coefficients for a vertical truncated rectangular cylinder due to regular and random waves. Ocean Engineering, 2000. 27(3): p. 291-313.
104. Wienke, J. and H. Oumeraci, Breaking wave impact force on a vertical and inclined slender pile—theoretical and large-scale model investigations. Coastal engineering, 2005. 52(5): p. 435-462.
105. Paulsen, B.T., et al., Forcing of a bottom-mounted circular cylinder by steep regular water waves at finite depth. Journal of fluid mechanics, 2014. 755: p. 1-34.
106. Santo, H., et al., Current blockage in a numerical wave tank: 3D simulations of regular waves and current through a porous tower. Computers & Fluids, 2015. 115: p. 256-269.
107. MacCamy, R.C.a.R.A.F., Wave_Forces_on_Piles,1954. 1954.
108. Zhu, S. and G. Moule, Numerical calculation of forces induced by short-crested waves on a vertical cylinder of arbitrary cross-section. Ocean Engineering, 1994. 21(7): p. 645-662.
109. Høeg, C.E. and Z. Zhang, A semi-analytical hydrodynamic model for floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT) with application to a FOWT heave plate tuned mass damper. Ocean Engineering, 2023. 287: p. 115756.
110. Saincher, S., et al., Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic loading induced by regular, steep non-breaking and breaking focused waves on a fixed and moving cylinder. European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids, 2022. 93: p. 42-64.
111. Aristodemo, F., et al., An experimental and numerical study on solitary wave loads at cylinders near the bed. Ocean Engineering, 2020. 195: p. 106747.
112. Zan, X., Z. Lin, and Y. Gou, The force exerted by surface wave on cylinder and its parameterization: morison equation revisited. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2022. 10(5): p. 702.
113. Jin, C., et al., Dynamic behavior assessment of OC4 semi-submersible FOWT platform through Morison equation. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, 2023. 37(6): p. 238-246.
114. Fadaei, S., F.F. Afagh, and R.G. Langlois, A survey of numerical simulation tools for offshore wind turbine systems. Wind, 2024. 4(1): p. 1-24.
115. Shirzadeh, R., et al., Experimental and computational damping estimation of an offshore wind turbine on a monopile foundation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2013. 120: p. 96-106.
116. Goupee, A.J., et al., Experimental comparison of three floating wind turbine concepts. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2014. 136(2): p. 020906.
117. Bhattacharya, S., et al., Observed dynamic soil–structure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013. 54: p. 47-60.
118. Stewart, G. and M. Muskulus, A review and comparison of floating offshore wind turbine model experiments. Energy Procedia, 2016. 94: p. 227-231.
119. Schulz, C.W., et al., Wind turbine rotors in surge motion: new insights into unsteady aerodynamics of floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) from experiments and simulations. Wind energy science, 2024. 9(3): p. 665-695.
120. Oguz, E., et al., Experimental and numerical analysis of a TLP floating offshore wind turbine. Ocean Engineering, 2018. 147: p. 591-605.
121. Turbines, W., Part 1: Design requirements, iec 61400-1. International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
122. Commission, I., IEC 61400-3: 2009 Wind Turbines–Part 3: Design Requirements for Offshore Wind Turbines. 2009, Geneva.
123. DNV-RP-C205:Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads,2017.
124. DNV, A., Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures (DNV-OS-J101)-Standard. Det Norske Veritas AS, Norway, 2014.
125. IEC 61400-3-1: Design requirements for fixed offshore wind turbines, 2019. 2019.
126. Ju, S.-H., Y.-C. Huang, and H.-H. Hsu, Parallel analysis of offshore wind turbine structures under ultimate loads. Applied Sciences, 2019. 9(21): p. 4708.
127. Sharma, J. and R. Dean, Second-order directional seas and associated wave forces. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 1981. 21(01): p. 129-140.
128. Huang, M.-C., Stream function wave theory with a coflowing uniform current. Applied ocean research, 1992. 14(3): p. 159-164.
129. JU, S.-H. and Y.-C. Huang, An Efficient Time-Domain Irregular Wave Model for Floating Wind Turbine Support Structures. Available at SSRN 4804890.
130. Sobey, R.J., et al., Application of Stokes, Cnoidal, and Fourier wave theories. Journal of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering, 1987. 113(6): p. 565-587.
131. Zahle, F., et al., Definition of the IEA wind 22-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine. 2024.
132. Boulanger, R.W., et al., Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 1999. 125(9): p. 750-759.
133. Gasparini, D. and E.H. Vanmarcke, SIMQKE: A program for artificial motion generation. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1976. 2139.
134. Idriss, I.M. and J.I. Sun, User’s Manual for SHAKE91. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1992.
135. Schnabel, P.B., SHAKE, a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report No. EERC 72-12, University of California, Berkeley, 1972.
136. Skempton, A., The bearing capacity of clays. Selected papers on soil mechanics, 1951: p. 50-59.
137. Hirai, H., A Winkler model approach for vertically and laterally loaded piles in nonhomogeneous soil. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2012. 36(17): p. 1869-1897.
138. Reese, L.C., W.R. Cox, and F.D. Koop. Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand. in Offshore technology conference. 1974. OTC.
139. Murchison, J.M. and M. O’Neill, An evaluation of p-y relationships in sands. 1983, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Cullen College of Engineering.University of ….
140. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design.
141. DNVGL-ST-0145:Offshore substations. 2020.
142. Matlock, H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. in Offshore technology conference. 1970. OTC.
143. Zhang, Q., et al., Numerical investigation on bearing capacity of OWT foundation with large diameter monopile under Seismic load. Applied Ocean Research, 2021. 108: p. 102518.
144. Simon, J. Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear py method. in Proceedings of the Second Conference of Junior Researchers of Civil Engineering, Budapest, Hungary. 2013.
145. Jonkman, B., Turbsim user’s guide v2. 00.00. Natl. Renew. Energy Lab, 2014.
146. Jonkman, J.M. and M.L. Buhl Jr, Fast user's guide-updated august 2005. 2005, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
147. AS, D.N.V., Buckling strength of shells. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C202, 2013.
148. Ju, S.-H., C.-S. Chiu, and H.-H. Hsu, Studying the settlement of OWT monopile foundations using a TZ spring with the torsional effect. Processes, 2023. 11(2): p. 490.
149. Institute, A.P., Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design. API RP 2A-LRFD. . 2019, American Petroleum Institute Washington: .
150. Veritas, D.N., Fatigue design of offshore steel structures. DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C203, 2010: p. 37-41.
151. Xiong, C., et al., Integrated fatigue assessment method considering average stress effects of large-scale lattice wind turbine support structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2024. 214: p. 108492.
152. Ju, S.-H. and Y.-C. Huang, MTMD to increase fatigue life for OWT jacket structures using Powell's method. Marine Structures, 2020. 71: p. 102726.
153. Jonkman, B.J., TurbSim user's guide. 2006, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
154. Buhl, M., et al., FAST user’s guide. NREL, Golden, Colorado, USA, 2002.
155. Fenton, J., A high-order cnoidal wave theory. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1979. 94(1): p. 129-161.
156. Harte, M., B. Basu, and S.R. Nielsen, Dynamic analysis of wind turbines including soil-structure interaction. Engineering structures, 2012. 45: p. 509-518.
157. Ku, C.-Y. and L.-K. Chien, Modeling of load bearing characteristics of jacket foundation piles for offshore wind turbines in Taiwan. Energies, 2016. 9(8): p. 625.
158. Santangelo, F., et al., Time-domain uncoupled analyses for seismic assessment of land-based wind turbines. Engineering Structures, 2016. 123: p. 275-299.
159. Hacıefendioğlu, K., Stochastic seismic response analysis of offshore wind turbine including fluid‐structure‐soil interaction. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2012. 21(12): p. 867-878.
160. Austin, S. and S. Jerath, Effect of soil-foundation-structure interaction on the seismic response of wind turbines. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 2017. 8(3): p. 323-331.
161. Wang, W., et al., Model test and numerical analysis of a multi-pile offshore wind turbine under seismic, wind, wave, and current loads. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2017. 139(3): p. 031901.
162. Asareh, M.-A., W. Schonberg, and J. Volz, Fragility analysis of a 5-MW NREL wind turbine considering aero-elastic and seismic interaction using finite element method. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2016. 120: p. 57-67.
163. Zhang, P., et al., Anti-liquefaction characteristics of composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2014. 6(5).
164. Simqke, I., A program for artificial motion generation. Civil Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT], Available in the NISEE (“National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering”), Software Library CDROM, 1976.
165. Jonkman, B. and L. Kilcher, TurbSim user’s guide: version 1.06. 00. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2012.
166. Jonkman, B. and J. Jonkman, FAST v8. 16.00 a-bjj. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2016. 1355.