Concentrated solar towers are commonly designed as high-rise hybrid structures, which exhibit properties of non-uniform mass and rigidity along the height of the tower, and consequently are vulnerable to strong seismic ground motions. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the seismic performance of a hybrid solar tower, which is one of the tallest hybrid solar towers in the world. The hybrid solar tower includes a reinforced concrete tube at the bottom and a steel-truss tube at the top and is subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motions. A simulation technique that utilizes the stochastic point-source model and a velocity pulse model was introduced to generate stochastic pulse-like ground motions. The stochastic response of the hybrid solar tower to near-fault pulse-like ground motions was computed to estimate the tower’s reliability. To enhance the efficiency of reliability estimation, an algorithm combining the Kriging surrogate and subset simulation (K-SS) was presented. The aggregate response of the tower was found to be significantly more damaging over the border of the reinforced concrete tube and the steel-truss tube than below the border. The study found that the hybrid solar tower has a reliability of 90.53% when subjected to stochastic near-fault pulse-like ground motions with a peak ground acceleration of 0.62 g. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the seismic performance of high-rise hybrid solar towers under near-fault pulse-like ground motions.
AlaviBKrawinklerH (2001) Effects of Near-Fault Ground Motions on Frame Structures. Stanford: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center.
2.
AtkinsonGMBooreDM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(1): 17–30.
3.
AtkinsonGMSilvaW (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90(2): 255–274.
4.
AuSKBeckJL (2001) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics16(4): 263–277.
5.
BaiGHaoB (2019a) A shaking table test on steel-reinforced concrete composite tower. Journal of Building Structures40(12): 32–40. (in Chinese).
6.
BaiGHaoB (2019b) Seismic performance study on steel-reinforced concrete composite tower under vertical earthquake excitation. China Civil Engineering Journal52(3): 12–19. (in Chinese).
7.
BaiGHaoB (2019c) Strong earthquake response analysis of steel-reinforced concrete composite solar power tower. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica40(6): 1503–1510. (in Chinese).
8.
BooreDM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics160(3): 635–676.
9.
ChenJLiJWangD, et al. (2022) Seismic response analysis of steel–concrete hybrid wind turbine tower. Journal of Vibration and Control28(17–18): 2240–2253.
10.
DickinsonBWGavinHP (2011) Parametric statistical generalization of uniform-hazard earthquake ground motions. Journal of Structural Engineering137(3): 410–422.
11.
GaborD (1946) Theory of communication. Part 1: the analysis of information. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers - Part III: Radio and Communication Engineering93(26): 429–441.
12.
GB 50010-2010 (2015) Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Beijing: China Architecture Publishing and Media Co., Ltd. (in Chinese).
13.
GB 50011-2010 (2016) Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Beijing: China Architecture Publishing and Media Co., Ltd. (in Chinese).
14.
GB 50017-2017 (2018) Code for Design of Steel Structures. Beijing: China Planning Press. (in Chinese).
15.
GB 50051-2013 (2018) Code for Design of Chimneys. Beijing: China Planning Press. (in Chinese).
16.
HeGZhouYLiJ (2009) Seismic analysis of wind turbine system. Engineering Mechanics26(7): 72–77. (in Chinese).
17.
HeWLAgrawalAK (2008) Analytical model of ground motion pulses for the design and assessment of seismic protective systems. Journal of Structural Engineering134(7): 1177–1188.
18.
HuangXLiBZhouX, et al. (2022) Computational study of steel–concrete hybrid wind turbine tower seismic performance. Journal of Earthquake Engineering: 1–22.
19.
KhansefidABakhshiA (2022) New model for simulating random synthetic stochastic earthquake scenarios. Journal of Earthquake Engineering26(2): 1072–1089.
20.
LuoQDaiFLiuY, et al. (2020) Simulating the near-field pulse-like ground motions of the Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering138: 106347.
21.
MavroeidisGPPapageorgiouAS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(3): 1099–1131.
22.
MenunCFuQ (2002) An analytical model for near-fault ground motions and the response of SDOF systems. In: 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, USA, 21-25 July 2002. Oakland: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
23.
MinghiniFMilaniGTralliA (2014) Seismic risk assessment of a 50 m high masonry chimney using advanced analysis techniques. Engineering Structures69: 255–270.
24.
MorletJArensGFourgeauE, et al. (1982a) Wave propagation and sampling theory—Part I: complex signal and scattering in multilayered media. Geophysics47(2): 203–221.
25.
MorletJArensGFourgeauE, et al. (1982b) Wave propagation and sampling theory—Part II: sampling theory and complex waves. Geophysics47(2): 222–236.
26.
MurdockHEGibbDAndreT, et al. (2021) Renewables 2021 - Global Status Report (INIS-FR--21-0788). France. International Atomic Energy Agency.
27.
PallarésFJAgüeroAIvorraS (2009) A comparison of different failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment of an industrial brickwork chimney. Materials and Structures42(2): 213–226.
28.
RenQXuYZhangH, et al. (2021) Shaking table test on seismic responses of a wind turbine tower subjected to pulse-type near-field ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering142: 106557.
29.
SadowskiAJCamaraAMálaga‐ChuquitaypeC, et al. (2017) Seismic analysis of a tall metal wind turbine support tower with realistic geometric imperfections. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46(2): 201–219.
30.
SantnerTJWilliamsBJNotzWI, et al. (2003) The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. New York: Springer.
SawinJLSverrissonFSeybothK, et al. (2017). Renewables 2017 Global Status Report (INIS-FR--17-0569). France. International Atomic Energy Agency.
33.
SigurðssonGÖRupakhetyRRahimiSE, et al. (2020) Effect of pulse-like near-fault ground motions on utility-scale land-based wind turbines. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering18(3): 953–968.
34.
StamatopoulosGN (2013) Response of a wind turbine subjected to near-fault excitation and comparison with the Greek Aseismic Code provisions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering46: 77–84.
35.
SunWD’AyalaDFuJ, et al. (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a high-rise molten-salt solar tower based on incremental dynamic analysis. In: E3S Web of Conferences, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7-8 September 2020. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.
WaeziZBalzadehS (2022) Simulation of near-field pulse-like ground motions using a correlated bimodal fractional stochastic model. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering161: 107434.
38.
XuYRenQZhangH, et al. (2021) Collapse analysis of a wind turbine tower with initial-imperfection subjected to near-field ground motions. Structures29: 373–382.
39.
YuanCChenJLiJ, et al. (2017) Fragility analysis of large-scale wind turbines under the combination of seismic and aerodynamic loads. Renewable Energy113: 1122–1134.
40.
ZhaoMGaoZWangP, et al. (2020) Response spectrum method for seismic analysis of monopile offshore wind turbine. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering136: 106212.
41.
ZhaoZWangMYJilaihawiH (2018) Imaging evaluation for the Detection of Leaflet Thrombosis after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Interventional cardiology clinics7(S1): 293–299. (in Chinese).
42.
ZhouCZengXPanQ, et al. (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of a tall reinforced concrete chimney. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings24(6): 440–460.
