Next Article in Journal
Mercury Accumulation and Elimination in Different Tissues of Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Exposed to a Mercury-Supplemented Diet
Previous Article in Journal
Chained Data Acquisition and Transmission System Protype for Cabled Seafloor Earthquake Observatory
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on Operation Safety of Offshore Wind Farms

1
School of Navigation, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, China
2
Hubei Key Laboratory of Inland Shipping Technology, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(8), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080881
Submission received: 10 July 2021 / Revised: 12 August 2021 / Accepted: 14 August 2021 / Published: 15 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)

Abstract

:
The operation of offshore wind farms is characterized by a complicated operational environment, long project cycle, and complex vessel traffic, which lead to safety hazards. To identify the key factors affecting the operational safety of offshore wind farms, the risk characteristics of offshore wind farm operations are analyzed based on comprehensive identification of hazards and risk assessment theory. A systematic fault tree analysis of the offshore wind farm operation is established. The assessment shows that the key risk factors that induce offshore wind power collapse, corrosion, fire, lightning strikes, blade failure, personal injury, ship collision, and submarine cable damage accidents are gale, untimely overhauling, improper fire stopping methods, high average number of thunderstorm days, the loose internal structure of fan, working at height, collision avoidance failure, and insufficient buried depth of cables.

1. Introduction

Globally, the use of wind energy for power generation gains importance due to environmental benefits and the possible contribution to a safe energy provision [1]. The operation of offshore wind farms is characterized by a complicated operational environment, long project cycle, and complex vessel traffic, which lead to safety hazards. In 2019, 865 accidents occurred in offshore wind farms, which increased by 22.3% compared with 707 accidents in 2018 [2]. Therefore, it is essential to identify the risks and hidden dangers of offshore wind power to water traffic and personnel safety.
At present, most studies on risk assessment for offshore wind farms start from a single object, such as infrastructure [3,4,5,6], offshore wind power equipment and personnel safety [7,8,9,10], and navigation waters of offshore wind farms [11,12,13]. For infrastructure risks, the majority of coating damages on offshore wind power platforms can be attributed to unsuitable constructive design and mechanical loading [3]. Seawater is corrosive compared to drinking water and temperature affects corrosion processes [4]. Price and Figueira [5] found that corrosion has different types. In addition, waves and wind can initiate stress corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue. For offshore wind power equipment and personnel risks, literature [6] pointed out that strong wind and fractured bolts during construction may affect the offshore wind turbine’s life. Fire is also the main accident of focus. An electrical fire prevention system for an offshore wind turbine in [7] was implemented according to the risk characteristics of the fire accident. A method to evaluate the lightning strike rate of the entire offshore wind farms was proposed in [8]. Literature [9] pointed out that people working in offshore wind farms encountered sleep quality problems. Chao et al. [10] established a time-varying analytical model for the WT failure rate affected by wind speed and lightning. For navigation waters of offshore wind farms’ risks, collision is a common event in the navigation risks of offshore wind farms. The Automatic Identification System is used to analyze the risk of ship collision with offshore platforms in [11]. Literature [12] described the impact of the operation and maintenance ship on the fan at different speeds in detail. The submarine power cable of the offshore wind farm, used for connecting power generation devices to onshore equipment, may have a significant impact on navigation safety [13]. Both qualitative and quantitative technologies have been used to measure the risk of wind farm operations. Representative qualitative analysis methods are Fault Mode Analysis Method [14], Tree Chart Analysis [15], SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) [16]. Representative quantitative methods are Bayesian method [17,18,19], Monte Carlo Analysis [20], and reliability-based design optimization tools [21,22]. However, the operation of the offshore wind farm is systematic. All the components and factors are closely connected. Focusing on a certain object may lead to underestimation of the risk of the whole system.
Therefore, in this paper, we carry out a systematic analysis on the operation safety of offshore wind farms from the perspectives of infrastructure, offshore wind power equipment and personnel safety, and navigation waters. To identify the key factors affecting operational safety, the risk characteristics of offshore wind farm operations are analyzed based on comprehensive identification of hazards and risk assessment theory. The fault tree analysis of the offshore wind farm operation is established. Qualitative and quantitative analyses on the operation risk are carried out according to questionnaires and expert judgment. Instead of the probability of occurrence of the basic event, a risk index is proposed to illustrate the contribution of each basic event to the top event. The risk index is a quantitative assessment of the opinions of the experts according to the questionnaires responded by 50 experts who have worked in offshore wind farms for more than 2 years. Finally, the risk of infrastructure, offshore wind power equipment, and personnel safety, as well as navigation waters to the operation of offshore wind farms are obtained.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 provides the mythology of this article. Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 provides the risk analysis for offshore wind farm infrastructure risks, equipment and personnel risks, and navigation risks, respectively. In Section 6, we discuss the main findings and measures to improve the safety of the operation of offshore wind farms. Section 7 concludes the article and provides future research directions.

2. Methodology

Fault tree analysis (FTA) is applied to carry out a top-down, deductive failure analysis for the offshore wind farm operation. The undesired state of the wind farm and related events are identified and connected using Boolean logic to understand how systems can fail, and how to reduce the risk. The methodology of this paper is shown in Figure 1.
First, the operation data of offshore wind farms are collected by literature reading and field research. The data are analyzed to find out the characteristics of wind farm accidents and the causes of risks. An overview of accidents and risk factors in related research is provided in Appendix A. According to the natural environment and navigation environment, the risks are divided into three categories: offshore wind power infrastructure risks, including collapse, corrosion, and other risks; wind power and electrical equipment risks, including fire, lightning, blade failure, personnel injury, and other accidents, and navigable waters risks, including collision, and cable accidents.
Secondly, based on the Fault Tree Analysis, the logical analysis of the risk causes is carried out to determine the top events, intermediate events, and basic events based on the collected data. After the basic events are identified, the risk source questionnaire of the offshore wind farm is carried out, and the questionnaire is distributed to the people who have worked in offshore wind farms for more than 2 years. The questionnaire is provided in the Appendix B; 60 questionnaires are collected and 50 are valid. The respondents are the staff of the offshore wind farms located in Hangzhou Bay. The wind farms are about 20 km from shore, and the water depth is 8–12 m. A risk index which is the mean value of the answers is used to represent the contribution of each basic event to the top event. The risk of the top events, i.e., infrastructure, offshore wind power equipment, and personnel safety, and navigation waters during the operation of offshore wind farms are then obtained.
Thirdly, the risk of the wind farm operation is assessed using the Isograph Reliability Workbench (x64, 13.013.0). The minimum cut set, structural important degree, and probability importance degree are provided. Identification of minimal cut sets is one of the most important qualitative analyses of a fault tree. The top event occurs if one or more of the minimal cut sets occur. The structural importance degree analyzes the importance of each basic event from the structure of the fault tree. Quantitative analysis of the probability importance degree of the basic events, which analyzes the impact of changes in the probability of basic events on top events. The Fussell–Vesely importance degree [23] is applied in this manuscript. The Fussell–Vesely importance is the probability, given that a critical failure has occurred, that at least one minimal cut set containing a particular element contributed to that failure, which can be approximated by
I F V ( i | t ) 1 j = 1 m i ( 1 ( Q ˇ j i ( t ) ) Q 0 ( t ) j = 1 m i Q ˇ j i ( t ) Q 0 ( t )  
where Q ˇ j i ( t ) denotes the probability that minimal cut set j among those containing component i is failed at time t.
In the end, the important influencing factors that affect offshore wind power operation are identified. Accordingly, safety management measures for each typical event are formulated.

3. Infrastructure Risks

3.1. Fault Tree for Infrastructure Risk

This section describes the fault tree analysis of collapse (see Figure 2) and corrosion (see Figure 3). The use of the logic gate, i.e., AND gate and OR gate, is based on existing related research and expert judgment. For example, ‘Poor foundation stability’ and ‘External force’ are connected by an AND gate in Figure 2. Theoretically, a significant earthquake should be able to cause the collapse of a wind turbine no matter if the foundation stability is good or poor. However, on the one hand, in reality, the offshore wind turbine is usually established more than 20 km away from the shore and as well as avoiding choosing the water area with the most possible significant earthquakes. On the other hand, the influence of earthquakes cannot be underestimated. Accordingly, ‘Poor foundation stability’ and ‘External force’ are connected by an AND gate.

3.2. Risk Index of the Basic Events

According to the questionnaires, the risk index of the basic events in the fault tree for collapse and corrosion are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

3.3. Risk Assessment

(1) Risk assessment of collapse
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the collapse accidents are analyzed as follows.
There are 42 minimum cut sets of collapse accidents:
  • Second-order minimum cut sets: {cA11, cA17}, {cA10, cA17}, {cA8, cA17}, {cA15, cA17}, {cA6, cA17}, {cA13, cA17}, {cA7, cA17}, {cA9, cA17}, {cA1, cA17}, {cA3, cA17}, {cA11, cA18}, {cA2, cA17}, {cA14, cA17}, {cA12, cA17}, {cA10, cA18}, {cA8, cA18}, {cA15, cA18}, {cA6, cA18}, {cA13, cA18}, {cA7, cA18}, {cA9, cA18}, {cA1, cA18}, {cA3, cA18}, {cA2, cA18}, {cA14, cA18}, {cA12, cA18}, {cA11, cA16}, {cA10, cA16}, {cA8, cA16}, {cA15, cA16}, {cA6, cA16}, {cA13, cA16}, {cA7, cA16}, {cA9, cA16}, {cA1, cA16}, {cA3, cA16}, {cA2, cA16}, {cA14, cA16}, {cA12, cA16};
  • Third-order minimum cut sets: {cA4, cA5, cA17}, {cA4, cA5, cA18}, {cA4, cA5, cA16}.
The structural importance degree of collapse accidents is as follows:
I(cA18) = I(cA17) = I(cA16) > I(cA15) = I(cA14) = I(cA13) = I(cA12) = I(cA11) = I(cA10) = I(cA9) = I(cA8) = I(cA7) = I(cA6) = I(cA3) = I(cA2) = I(cA1) > I(cA5) = I(cA4).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic events of wind turbine collapse in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 4. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Gale(cA17) > Earthquake(cA18) > Tide(cA16) > Insufficient bearing capacity of the foundation(cA11) > Insufficient bolt strength(cA10) > Unreasonable structural design(cA8) > No corrosion prevention methods for the infrastructure(cA15) > Inappropriate parameter settings for anti-lift of pile foundation(cA6) > Inaccurate geological survey(cA13) > Inappropriate parameter settings for anti-overturning(cA7) > Loose bolts(cA9) > tight deadlines(cA1) > Imperfect maintenance(cA3) > Unsafe construction(cA2) > Inappropriate corrosion prevention methods(cA14) > Inaccurate hydrographic survey(cA12) > Ships anchored near the wind turbine(cA5) > Ships that lose stability(cA4).
(2) Risk assessment of corrosion
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the corrosion accidents are as follows.
There are 6 minimum cut sets of corrosion accidents:
  • Third-order minimum cut sets: {cB1, cB2, cB4}, {cB1, cB2, cB8}, {cB1, cB2, cB3}, {cB1, cB2, cB7}, {cB1, cB2, cB6}, {cB1, cB2, cB5}.
The structural importance degree of corrosion accidents is as follows:
I(cB2) = I(cB1) > I(cB8) = I(cB7) = I(cB6) = I(cB5) = I(cB4) = I(cB3).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic events of wind turbine corrosion in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 5. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Untimely overhauling(cB1) > Improper anti-corrosion measures(cB2) > Salt spray(cB4) > Metal structure of steel(cB8) > Improper equipment selection(cB3) > Scouring(cB7) > Marine organisms attached to the equipment structure(cB6) > Tide(cB5).

4. Equipment and Personnel Risk

4.1. Fault Tree for the Equipment Failure and Personnel Injury

This section describes the fault tree analysis of fire (see Figure 6), a lightning strike (see Figure 7), blade failure (see Figure 8), and personnel injury (see Figure 9).

4.2. Risk Index of the Basic Events

According to the questionnaires, the risk index of the basic events in the fault tree for fire, lightning, blade failure, and personnel injury are provided in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.

4.3. Risk Assessment

(1) Risk assessment of fire
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the fire accidents are presented underneath.
There are 28 minimum cut sets of fire accidents:
  • Third-order minimum cut sets: {f1, f8, f17}, {f1, f6, f17}, {f1, f8, f18}, {f1, f2, f17}, {f1, f9, f17}, {f1, f10, f17}, {f1, f13, f17}, {f1, f6, f18}, {f1, f2, f18}, {f1, f14,f17}, {f1, f9, f18}, {f1, f5, f17}, {f1, f10, f18}, {f1, f13, f18}, {f1, f7, f17}, {f1, f3, f17}, {f1, f14, f18}, {f1, f5, f18}, {f1, f15, f17}, {f1, f4, f17}, {f1, f7, f18}, {f1, f3, f18}, {f1, f15, f18}, {f1, f4, f18}, {f1, f16, f17}, {f1, f16, f18};
  • Fourth-order minimum cut sets: {f1, f11, f12, f17}, {f1, f11, f12, f18}.
The structural importance degree of fire accidents is as follows:
I(f1) > I(f18) = I(f17) > I(f16) = I(f15) = I(f14) = I(f13) = I(f10) = I(f9) = If8) = I(f7) = I(f6) = I(f5) = I(f4) = I(f3) = I(f2) > I(f12) = I(f11).
The Fussell-Vesely Importance of the basic events of wind turbine fire in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 10. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Improper fire stopping methods(f1) > Oil leakage(f17) > Oily cotton and other materials(f18) > Violation of safety regulations(f8) > Overload(f6) > Lightning strike(f2) > Improper selection and installation of electrical devices(f9) > Irrational design of electrical circuit(f10) > Overspeed(f13) > Mechanical friction(f14) > Salt spray corrosion(f5) > Vulnerabilities in device’s manufacturing(f7) > Improper electrical operation(f3) > Increases Electrical contact resistance(f15) > Mechanical damage to electrical devices(f4) > Poor ventilation(f16) > Small space(f12) > Welding(f11).
(2) Risk assessment of lightning
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the lightning accidents are presented underneath.
There are 45 minimum cut sets of lightning accidents:
  • Second-order minimum cut sets: {l1, l13}, {l1, l7}, {l2, l13}, {l2, l7}, {l1, l12}, {l2, l12}, {l1, l8}, {l2, l8}, {l1, l9}, {l2, l9}, {l4, l13}, {l4, l7}, {l1, l14}, {l2, l14}, {l1, l6}, {l4, l12}, {l2, l6}, {l5, l13}, {l4, l8}, {l1, l11}, {l5, l7}, {l2, l11}, {l4, l9}, {l1, l10}, {l5, l12}, {l2, l10}, {l5, l8}, {l3, l13}, {l3, l7}, {l4, l14}, {l5, l9}, {l3, l12}, {l4, l6}, {l3, l8}, {l4, l11}, {l5, l14}, {l3, l9}, {l5, l6}, {l4, l10}, {l5, l11}, {l3, l14}, {l5, l10}, {l3, l6}, {l3, l11}, {l3, l10}.
The structural importance degree of lightning accidents is as follows:
I(l5) = I(l4) = I(l3) = I(l2) = I(l1) > I(l14) = I(l13) = I(l12) = I(l11) = I(l10) = I(l9) = I(l8) = I(l7) = I(l6).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic events of wind turbine lightning in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 11. The order of probability importance is as follows:
High average number of thunderstorm days(l1) > Poor contact between the flange of the tower and the electrode point(l2) > salt spray(l4) > Widespread use and exposure of composite materials(l5) > Large device sizes(l3) > Wrong location of the lightning rod(l13) > Unreliable conductive pathway(l7) > Poor design of lightning rod(l12) > Unqualified grounding resistance(l8) > Limited thermal capacity of the grounding devices(l9) > Errors in design of equalizing network(l14) > No regular inspection of lightning protection facilities(l6) > Local corrosion of grounding devices(l11) > Problems in grounding grid construction(l10).
(3) Risk assessment of blade failure
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the blade failure accidents are presented underneath.
There are 24 minimum cut sets of blade failure accidents:
  • First-order minimum cut sets are as follows: {b10}, {b24}, {b9}, {b6}, {b7}, {b8}, {b23}, {b5}, {b2}, {b19}, {b1}, {b18}, {b4}, {b3}, {b25}, {b26}, {b27};
  • Second-order minimum cut sets are {b12, b26}, {b12, b25}, {b22, b20}, {b12, b27}, {b13, b14}, {b11, b20}, {b13, b17}, {b21, b20}, {b13, b15}, {b13, b16}.
The structural importance degree of blade failure accidents is as follows:
I(b24) = I(b23) = I(b22) = I(b21) = I(b20) = I(b19) = I(b18) = I(b11) = I(b10) = I(b9) = I(b8) = I(b7) = I(b6) = I(b5) = I(b4) = I(b3) = I(b2) = I(b1) > I(b13) > I(b12) > I(b27) = I(b26) = I(b25) > I(b17) = I(b16) = I(b15) = I(b14).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic events of wind turbine blade failure in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 12. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Lightning(b13) > Loose internal structure of fan(b10) > Brake failure(b24) > Imbalance impeller(b9) > No timely repair(b12) > Defects in blade design(b6) > Immature manufacturing processes(b7) > Inexperienced manufacturers(b8) > Over-power operation(b23) > Corrosion by salt spray(b5) > Effect of chemical medium(b2) > Erosion by water vapor(b19) > Invasion of impurities such as particulate matter(b20) > Hyperthermic environment(b1) > Erosion by particles(b18) > Erosion by atmospheric particles(b4) > Ultraviolet irradiation(b3) > Crack(b26) > Oil spilling(b25) > Long service time of fan(b22).
(4) Risk assessment of personnel injury
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the personnel injury accidents are presented underneath.
There are 17 minimum cut sets of personnel injury accidents:
  • First-order minimum cut set is as follows: {p1};
  • Second-order minimum cut sets are as follows: {p12, p2}, {p15, p2}, {p5, p8}, {p12, p9}, {p14, p2}, {p13, p2}, {p5, p7}, {p11, p9}, {p6, p8}, {p12, p10}, {p4, p8}, {p6, p7}, {p11, p10}, {p4, p7}, {p3, p17}, {p3, p18}.
The structural importance degree of personnel injury accidents is as follows:
I(p1) > I(p2) > I(p8) = I(p7) = I(p3) > I(p12) > I(p11) > I(p10) = I(p9) > I(p17) = I(p16) = I(p6) = I(p5) = I(p4) > I(p15) = I(p14) = I(p13).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic event of wind turbine personnel injury in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 13. Thus, the order of probability importance is as follows:
Working at height(p2) > Violation of the operation procedure(p12) > Misoperation(p8) > Live inspection(p7) > Noise(p1) > Wrong operation of power switch(p14) > Poor mechanical parts assembly(p9) > Improper personnel protection equipment(p11) > Lightning strike(p6) > Mechanical equipment(p10) > Residual charge inline(p4) > Landing and leaving the fan(p3) > Improper use of protection devices(p15) > Wrong fixed position of safety ropes(p14) > Fracture of protection safety rod(p13) > No professional operation and maintenance ships(p16) > Maneuvering error(p17).

5. Navigation Risks of Wind Farm Waters

5.1. Fault Tree for Navigation Risk

This section describes the fault tree analysis of collision (see Figure 14) and submarine cable (see Figure 15).

5.2. Risk Index of the Basic Events

According to the questionnaires, the risk index of the basic events in the fault tree for collision and submarine cable are provided in Table 7 and Table 8.

5.3. Risk Assessment

(1) Risk assessment of collision
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the collision accidents are presented underneath.
There are 40 minimum cut sets of collision accidents:
  • Third-order minimum cut sets: { cC1, cC3, cC14}, { cC1, cC3, cC15}, { cC7, cC9, cC14}, { cC7, cC9, cC15}, { cC7, cC8, cC14}, { cC7, cC8, cC15}, { cC1, cC3, cC11}, { cC1, cC2, cC14}, { cC7, cC9, cC11}, { cC1, cC2, cC15}, { cC1, cC3, cC12}, { cC7, cC9, cC12}, { cC1, cC4, cC14}, { cC1, cC6, cC14}, { cC1, cC4, cC15}, { cC7, cC10, cC14}, { cC1, cC6, cC15}, { cC7, cC8, cC11}, {cC7, cC10, cC15}, {cC7, cC8, cC12}, {cC1, cC2, cC11}, {cC1, cC2, cC12}, {cC1, cC4, cC11}, { cC1, cC6, cC11}, {cC7, cC10, cC11}, {cC1, cC4, cC12}, {cC1, cC6, cC12}, {cC7, cC10, cC12}, {cC1, cC3, cC13}, { cC7, cC9, cC13}, {cC7, cC8, cC13}, {cC1, cC5, cC14}, {cC1, cC5, cC15}, {cC1, cC2, cC13}, {cC1, cC4, cC13}, {cC1, cC6, cC13}, {cC7, cC10, cC13}, {cC1, cC5, cC11}, {cC1, cC5, cC12}, {cC1, cC5, cC13}.
The structural importance degree of collision accidents is as follows:
I(cC1) > I(cC7) > I(cC10) = I(cC9) = I(cC8) > I(cC15) = I(cC14) = I(cC13) = I(cC12) = I(cC11) > I(cC6) = I(cC5) = I(cC4) = I(cC3) = I(cC2).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic event of wind turbine collision in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 16. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Collision avoidance failure(cC1) > Bad weather(cC7) > Customary routes in the wind farm(cC14) > Equipment near the waterways(cC15) > Improper anti-collision facilities of fan foundation (cC11)> No effective reminder in the late period of collision avoidance process(cC12) > Failure in remote monitoring(cC13) > Low visibility(cC3) > Steering failure(cC9) > Mooring system failure(cC8) > Lack of lookout(cC2) > Operation error(cC4) > Failure of navigation equipment(cC6) > Propeller failure(cC10) > Electromagnetic interference from wind farms(cC5).
(2) Risk assessment of submarine cable
With the help of Isograph Reliability Workbench, the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of the submarine cable accidents are presented underneath.
There are 18 minimum cut sets of submarine cable accidents:
  • Second-order minimum cut sets: {s3, s7}, {s2, s7}, {s6, s7}, {s5, s7}, {s4, s7}, {s1, s7};
  • Third-order minimum cut sets: {s3, s8, s9}, {s2, s8, s9}, {s6, s8, s9}, {s5, s8, s9}, {s4, s8, s9}, {s3, s8, s10}, {s2, s8, s10}, {s1, s8, s9}, {s6, s8, s10}, {s5, s8, s10}, {s4, s8, s10}, {s1, s8, s10}.
The structural importance degree of submarine cable accidents is as follows:
I(s7) > I(s8) > I(s10) = I(s9) > I(s6) = I(s5) = I(s4) = I(s3) = I(s2) = I(s1).
The Fussell–Vesely Importance of the basic event of submarine cable in offshore wind farms is shown in Figure 17. The order of probability importance is listed as follows:
Insufficient buried depth of cables(s7) > No timely maintenance(s8) > Wave wash(s9) > No protection for submarine cables(s10) > No warning sign in the submarine cable laying area(s3) > No filed information about the submarine cable(s2) > Cable near the waterways(s6) > Fishing in submarine cable laying area(s5) > Ship equipment failure(s4) > Bad weather(s1).

6. Discussion

According to the previous Fault Tree Analysis, during the operation period, the risks of offshore wind power are infrastructure, equipment and personnel, and navigation. The results show that:
(1)
Collapse and corrosion are the main focuses of infrastructure risks of the offshore wind farm operation.
(a)
The top three risks for infrastructure collapse are gale, earthquake, and tide.
(b)
The top three risks for infrastructure corrosion are untimely overhauling, improper anti-corrosion measures, and salt spray.
(2)
Fire, lightning, blade failure, and personnel injury are the main events of equipment and personnel safety accidents.
(a)
The main causes of equipment fire are improper fire stopping methods, oil leakage, oily cotton, and other materials.
(b)
The main risks of lightning strikes are the high average number of thunderstorm days, poor contact between the flange of the tower and the electrode, and salt spray.
(c)
The main causes of turbine blade failure are the loose internal structure of the fan, brake failure, and imbalance impeller.
(d)
The main causes of personnel injury are working at height, misoperation, and live inspection.
(3)
Ship collisions and submarine cable accidents are the main navigation risks of offshore wind farms.
(a)
The risks of ship collisions are collision avoidance failure, bad weather, and customary routes in the wind farm.
(b)
The risks of submarine cable accidents are insufficient buried depth of cables, no timely maintenance, and wave wash.
The following measures are proposed to improve the safety of the operation of offshore wind farms.
(1)
Measures for infrastructure safety:
(a)
To reduce the risk of collapse, firstly, the design of the wind turbines should be well considered. Secondly, the manufacturing processes need to be improved. Thirdly, the qualified connection between the components should be guaranteed. Besides, periodic inspection and maintenance are indispensable.
(b)
To reduce the risk of corrosion, proper anti-corrosion measures for different parts of the turbines in different environments are needed. Moreover, corrosion monitoring and periodic maintenance should be well carried out.
(2)
Measures for equipment safety:
(a)
For fire prevention, fully functioning, maintenance, and inspection of the Fire Protection Systems are the keys. Refinements of related management regulations are also needed.
(b)
For lighting strikes, qualified and complete lighting protection devices are essential.
(c)
For blade failure, using proper blade design according to the wind farm location and environment is important. Keeping the smoothness of the surface of the blames is necessary to avoid flutter. Regular wind turbine inspections should be carefully conducted.
(3)
Measures for personal safety:
(a)
Improvement of the safety management systems and training to strengthen personnel safety awareness are needed.
(b)
Professional operation and maintenance ships should be equipped, and early warning systems and First Aid Center are also needed.
(4)
Measures for navigation safety:
(a)
Optimizing the planning and design before constructing the offshore wind farms is an efficient way to avoid significant impacts on existing navigation routes. Besides, competent traffic management is needed for efficient and safe navigation in and near wind farms.
(b)
The precautionary zones should be set where submarine cables lay. The placement of the submarine cables should be fielded in time. Besides, timely repairments are needed once any small faults occur.

7. Conclusions

In this paper, the risk characteristics of offshore wind farm operations are analyzed based on the identification of hazards and risk assessment theory. A systematic fault tree analysis of the offshore wind farm operation is carried out. Based on the experience of offshore wind power operation and accident data statistics, and combined with the fault tree analysis method, this paper proposed a top-down system risk modeling method for offshore wind farm operation safety from the perspectives of infrastructure, offshore wind power equipment, and personnel safety, and navigation waters. Based on the risk index of each basic event that is calculated according to experts’ judgment, quantitative and qualitative analysis, including the minimum cut set, structural importance degree, and probability importance degree of each risk, are carried out. Consequently, the key factors and importance of offshore wind farm operations are analyzed.
According to the analysis, the main risks to offshore wind farms are collapse, corrosion, fire, lightning strikes, blade failure, personal injury, ship collision, and submarine cable damage accidents. The main causes are gale, untimely overhauling, improper fire stopping methods, and high average number of thunderstorm days, the loose internal structure of fan, working at height, collision avoidance failure, and insufficient buried depth of cables. Moreover, suggestions to reduce the operation risk of offshore wind farms are proposed.
The results presented in this manuscript are based on 50 questionnaires, and the risk index for each basic event is the mean value of the answers. For future research, weighting factors to include the impact of the job position and work seniority can be taken into account. Moreover, various data resources can be combined to identify the risk, such as operation data, and AIS data of nearby ships are needed. Besides, validation is important for risk assessment research which should be considered in the next step. Furthermore, other data mining techniques and risk measures can be applied for comparison.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.J. and J.M.; methodology, X.J. and L.C.; formal analysis, X.J. and P.C.; investigation, X.J. and L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, X.J.; writing—review and editing, L.C., J.M. and P.C.; supervision, L.C., J.M. and P.C.; project administration, J.M.; funding acquisition, J.M. and L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WUT: 2021IVA051).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions of privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. An overview of accidents and risk factors in related research.
Table A1. An overview of accidents and risk factors in related research.
EventRisk FactorsRef.
Infrastructure risksThe failure of a primary steel member[5]
Exposed to harsh and complex stresses (corrosion, physical loads, biological attack, and mechanical damage)
Environment (violent winds, large waves, temperature changes, infrared radiation, and ice and snow loads)
CollapseFractured bolts[6]
Human factors (including both “ethical” failures and accidents)
Design flaws (many of which are often the result of unethical practices)
Material failures
Extreme conditions or environments
Collisions between vessels and offshore wind turbines[19]
Scouring[20]
CorrosionUnsuitable constructive design[3]
Coating failure (coating deterioration) and corrosion (metal loss)
Mechanical loading
Stability and function of the steel structures of offshore wind constructions
The mechanical variables include: loading frequency, stress intensity factor, loading waveform, load interaction effects (variable amplitude loading), residual/mean stresses, material type and geometry[4]
The metallurgical variables are microstructure and material composition, mechanical properties, heat treatment, etc.
The environmental variables include: temperature, pH, level of cathodic protection, coating type, oxygen concentration, etc.
Oxygen and humidity[5]
Site-specific factors (water temperature, salinity, chlorinity, water depth, and current speed)
The structures have long-term exposure to humidity with high salinity
Intensive influence of UV light
Wave action
Bird droppings
Mechanical load (e.g., ice drifts or floating objects)
Irregular inspection intervals
Maintenance and repair costs
Design life
Chemical attack
Abrasive action of waves and other substances in suspension (ice drift or floating objects)
The attack of microorganisms
FireEquipment and ignition source concentration[7]
All offshore wind turbines are unattended
Wind turbine electrical equipment failure
Overload
Short circuit
Grounding fault
Technical defects
Improper selection of electrical and electronic components
Bolt loosening leads to high contact resistance
Excessive exposure to humidity, salt fog, and other environmental conditions
Limited operating experience
LightningThunderstorm activity[8]
The topographical conditions
The height of the wind turbines
The number of tall structures around
Blade failureLightning[4]
Lightning strikes[8]
Strong winds
Large waves
Maintenance crew and spare parts cannot reach the wind farm immediately
Lightning
Fatigue cracks[10]
Environmental condition such as the free corrosion conditions
Loading conditions
Microstructure
Welding procedure
Residual stresses
Personnel injuryNoise[9]
Sleeping troubles and poorer sleep quality
Poor air quality
CollisionExternal environment (wind, wave, tide, current, foggy)[11]
Navigational failure (watchkeeping, radar, voyage planning, mechanical, breakdown, etc.)
Ship (traffic, size and type, mode of operation, etc.)
Collision mitigation measures (ARPA, SBV, RACON, rotation of platform, tug boat assistance, anchoring failure, etc.)
Offshore platform (geographical location, type, size, age, etc.)
Offshore wind farm is close to the traffic lanes for commercial and passenger ships[12]
Maneuvering and drifting collisions
Ship categories[14]
Minimum passing distance
Season and day/night time
Courses
Submarine cableCaused by fishing or emergency anchoring by ships[13]
Ships that are in an emergency may take immediate anchoring
Shipping activities in water depths lower than 200 m
Seawater corrosion
Seafloor sediment
Failure in wind turbine systemsHigh/low wind[14]
Installation defects
Calibration error
Aging
Environmental shocks
Manufacturing and material defect
Connection fault
Corrosion
Icing
Maintenance errors
Overload
Fatigue
Lightning strike
Mechanical overload
Insulation failure
Insufficient lubrication
Software failure

Appendix B

The questionnaire of identification of risk factors of operation of offshore wind farms are as follows. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required fields and must be filled.
Jmse 09 00881 i001Jmse 09 00881 i002Jmse 09 00881 i003Jmse 09 00881 i004Jmse 09 00881 i005Jmse 09 00881 i006

References

  1. Reimers, B.; Özdirik, B.; Kaltschmitt, M. Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generated by offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 2014, 72, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. G+ Global Offshore Wind Health and Safety Organisation. Available online: https://www.gplusoffshorewind.com/ (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  3. Momber, A. Quantitative performance assessment of corrosion protection systems for offshore wind power transmission platforms. Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 314–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adedipe, O.; Brennan, F.; Kolios, A. Review of corrosion fatigue in offshore structures: Present status and challenges in the offshore wind sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Price, S.J.; Figueira, R.B. Corrosion Protection Systems and Fatigue Corrosion in Offshore Wind Structures: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Coatings 2017, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chou, J.-S.; Tu, W.-T. Failure analysis and risk management of a collapsed large wind turbine tower. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xing, H.; Liu, Q.-A.; Zheng, Q.-G.; Wang, Y.-X. Study on risk analysis and protection of electrical fire for offshore wind turbines. Renew. Energy Resour. 2013, 109–113. [Google Scholar]
  8. Becerra, M.; Long, M.; Schulz, W.; Thottappillil, R. On the estimation of the lightning incidence to offshore wind farms. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2018, 157, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garrido, M.V.; Mette, J.; Mache, S.; Harth, V.; Preisser, A.M. Sleep quality of offshore wind farm workers in the German exclusive economic zone: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e024006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Chao, H.; Hu, B.; Xie, K.; Tai, H.-M.; Yan, J.; Li, Y. A Sequential MCMC Model for Reliability Evaluation of Offshore Wind Farms Considering Severe Weather Conditions. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 132552–132562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mujeeb-Ahmed, M.; Seo, J.K.; Paik, J.K. Probabilistic approach for collision risk analysis of powered vessel with offshore platforms. Ocean Eng. 2018, 151, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bela, A.; Le Sourne, H.; Buldgen, L.; Rigo, P. Ship collision analysis on offshore wind turbine monopile foundations. Mar. Struct. 2017, 51, 220–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jiang, D.; Wu, B.; Yang, X.; van Gelder, P. A fuzzy evidential reasoning based approach for submarine power cable routing selection for offshore wind farms. Ocean Eng. 2019, 193, 106616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shafiee, M.; Dinmohammadi, F. An FMEA-Based Risk Assessment Approach for Wind Turbine Systems: A Comparative Study of Onshore and Offshore. Energies 2014, 7, 619–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Marugán, A.P.; Márquez, F.P.G.; Pérez, J.M.P. Optimal Maintenance Management of Offshore Wind Farms. Energies 2016, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Chen, W.-M.; Kim, H.; Yamaguchi, H. Renewable energy in eastern Asia: Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Energy Policy 2014, 74, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sinha, Y.; Steel, J.A. Failure Prognostic Schemes and Database Design of a Software Tool for Efficient Management of Wind Turbine Maintenance. Wind. Eng. 2015, 39, 453–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wu, W.-S.; Yang, C.-F.; Chang, J.-C.; Château, P.-A.; Chang, Y.-C. Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 142, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, Q.; Liu, K.; Chang, C.-H.; Yang, Z. Realising advanced risk assessment of vessel traffic flows near offshore wind farms. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 203, 107086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fazeres-Ferradosa, T.; Taveira-Pinto, F.; Romão, X.; Vanem, E.; Reis, M.; Das Neves, L. Probabilistic design and reliability analysis of scour protections for offshore windfarms. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2018, 91, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, Y.-S.; Choi, B.-L.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, S.Y.; Han, S. Reliability-based design optimization of monopile transition piece for offshore wind turbine system. Renew. Energy 2014, 71, 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, Q.; Zhang, J. Dynamic reliability based design optimization of the tripod sub-structure of offshore wind turbines. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elsayed, A.E. Reliability Engineering, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Methodology.
Figure 1. Methodology.
Jmse 09 00881 g001
Figure 2. Fault tree analysis model for collapse risk of the offshore wind farm (‘FR’ refers to the risk index of the basic events to the top event. ’Q’ refers to the risk index of the top event to the offshore wind farm during operation).
Figure 2. Fault tree analysis model for collapse risk of the offshore wind farm (‘FR’ refers to the risk index of the basic events to the top event. ’Q’ refers to the risk index of the top event to the offshore wind farm during operation).
Jmse 09 00881 g002
Figure 3. Fault tree analysis model for corrosion risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 3. Fault tree analysis model for corrosion risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g003
Figure 4. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of collapse accident.
Figure 4. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of collapse accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g004
Figure 5. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of corrosion accident.
Figure 5. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of corrosion accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g005
Figure 6. Fault tree analysis model for fire risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 6. Fault tree analysis model for fire risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g006
Figure 7. Fault tree analysis model for lightning strike risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 7. Fault tree analysis model for lightning strike risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g007
Figure 8. Fault tree analysis model for blade failure risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 8. Fault tree analysis model for blade failure risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g008
Figure 9. Fault tree analysis model for personnel injury risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 9. Fault tree analysis model for personnel injury risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g009
Figure 10. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of the fire accident.
Figure 10. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of the fire accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g010
Figure 11. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of a lightning accident.
Figure 11. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of a lightning accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g011
Figure 12. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of blade failure accident (The event whose Fussell–Vesely importance degree is less than 0.01867 is ignored).
Figure 12. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of blade failure accident (The event whose Fussell–Vesely importance degree is less than 0.01867 is ignored).
Jmse 09 00881 g012
Figure 13. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of personnel injury accident.
Figure 13. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of personnel injury accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g013
Figure 14. Fault tree analysis model for collision risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 14. Fault tree analysis model for collision risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g014
Figure 15. Fault tree analysis model for submarine cable risk of the offshore wind farm.
Figure 15. Fault tree analysis model for submarine cable risk of the offshore wind farm.
Jmse 09 00881 g015
Figure 16. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of a collision accident.
Figure 16. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of a collision accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g016
Figure 17. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of submarine cable accident.
Figure 17. Fussell–Vesely Importance of each basic event of submarine cable accident.
Jmse 09 00881 g017
Table 1. Collapse risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 1. Collapse risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
cA1Tight deadlines0.5104
cA2Unsafe construction0.491
cA3Imperfect maintenance0.5004
cA4Ship that lose stability0.523
cA5Ship that is anchored near the wind turbine 0.423
cA6Inappropriate parameter settings for anti-lift of pile foundation0.529
cA7Inappropriate parameter settings for anti-overturning0.5278
cA8Unreasonable structure design0.5416
cA9Loose bolts0.5184
cA10Insufficient bolt strength0.548
cA11Insufficient load bearing capacity of the foundation0.5926
cA12Inaccurate hydrographic survey0.4682
cA13Inaccurate geological survey0.528
cA14Inappropriate corrosion prevention methods0.4756
cA15No corrosion prevention methods for the infrastructure0.5408
cA16Tide0.3402
cA17Gale0.5312
cA18Earthquake0.4462
Table 2. Corrosion risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 2. Corrosion risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
cB1Untimely overhauling0.5146
cB2Improper anti-corrosion measures0.539
cB3Improper equipment selection0.423
cB4Salt spray0.5384
cB5Tide0.3702
cB6Marine organisms attached to the equipment structure0.39
cB7Scouring0.4012
cB8Metal structure of steel0.4416
Table 3. Fire risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 3. Fire risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
f1Improper fire stopping methods0.4756
f2Lightning strike0.5272
f3Improper electrical operation0.4698
f4Mechanical damage to electrical devices0.457
f5Salt spray corrosion0.484
f6Overload0.5292
f7Vulnerabilities in device’s manufacturing0.4728
f8Violation of safety regulations0.5586
f9Improper selection and installation of electrical devices0.5166
f10Irrational design of electrical circuit0.5066
f11Welding0.475
f12Small space0.5052
f13Overspeed0.5052
f14Mechanical friction0.4904
f15Increases in Electrical Contact Resistance0.4572
f16Poor ventilation0.4074
f17Oil leakage0.483
f18Oily cotton and other materials0.4582
Table 4. Lightning strike risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 4. Lightning strike risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
l1High average number of thunderstorm days0.4704
l2Poor contact between the flange of the tower and the electrode0.4658
l3Large device sizes0.3926
l4Salt spray0.4276
l5Widespread use and exposure of composite materials0.4106
l6No regular inspection of lightning protection facilities0.4898
l7Unreliable conductive pathway0.5494
l8Unqualified grounding resistance0.527
l9Limited thermal capacity of the grounding devices0.5182
l10Problems in grounding grid construction0.4678
l11Local corrosion of grounding devices0.4768
l12Poor design of lightning rod0.5388
l13Wrong location of the lightning rod0.5526
l14Errors in design of equalizing network0.4966
Table 5. Blade failure risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 5. Blade failure risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
b1Hyperthermic environment0.446
b2Effect of chemical medium0.4826
b3Ultraviolet irradiation0.3534
b4Erosion by atmospheric particles0.4448
b5Corrosion by salt spray0.4866
b6Defects in blade design0.538
b7Immature manufacturing processes0.5206
b8Inexperienced manufacturers0.5194
b9Imbalance impeller 0.5578
b10Loose internal structure of fan0.6132
b11Gale0.506
b12No timely repair0.5778
b13Lightning0.4728
b14Unqualified grounding resistance0.4774
b15High humidity blade surface0.4326
b16Decrease in blade insulation0.425
b17Cracks in the connection between lightning attractor and blade0.4718
b18Erosion by particles0.4458
b19Erosion by water vapor0.4792
b20Invasion of impurities such as particulate matter0.4458
b21Fatigue0.4798
b22Long service time of fan0.5264
b23Over-power operation0.5052
b24Brake failure0.5758
b25Oil spilling0.4686
b26Crack0.541
b27Fouling on the surface of blades0.4006
Table 6. Personnel injury risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 6. Personnel injury risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
p1Noise0.404
p2Working at height0.5532
p3Landing and leaving the fan0.4786
p4Residual charge inline0.486
p5Wrong operation of the power switch0.5514
p6Lightning strike0.4948
p7Live inspection0.5352
p8Misoperation0.5694
p9Poor mechanical parts assembly0.5414
p10Mechanical equipment0.4886
p11Improper personnel protection equipment0.5344
p12Violation of the operation procedure0.5744
p13Fracture of protection safety rod0.5472
p14Wrong fixed position of safety ropes0.5582
p15Improper use of protection devices0.5708
p16No professional operation and maintenance ships0.5286
p17Maneuvering error0.4866
Table 7. Collision risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 7. Collision risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
cC1Collision avoidance failure0.5044
cC2Lack of lookout0.5308
cC3Low visibility0.568
cC4Operation error0.5174
cC5Electromagnetic interference from wind farms0.4544
cC6Failure of navigation equipment0.5156
cC7Bad weather0.5448
cC8Mooring system failure0.5028
cC9Steering failure0.5186
cC10Propeller failure0.4774
cC11Improper anti-collision facilities of fan foundation0.5456
cC12No effective reminder in the late period of the collision avoidance process0.5366
cC13Failure in remote monitoring0.4828
cC14Customary routes in the wind farm0.5774
cC15Equipment near the waterways0.5748
Table 8. Submarine cables’ risk factors of offshore wind farms.
Table 8. Submarine cables’ risk factors of offshore wind farms.
NumberRisk FactorRisk Index
s1Bad weather0.4928
s2No filed information about the submarine cable0.5388
s3No warning sign in the submarine cable laying area0.5446
s4Ship equipment failure0.5092
s5Fishing in submarine cable laying area0.5106
s6Cable near the waterways0.5178
s7Insufficient buried depth of cables0.5626
s8No timely maintenance0.4914
s9Wave wash0.5276
s10No protection for submarine cables0.4126
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mou, J.; Jia, X.; Chen, P.; Chen, L. Research on Operation Safety of Offshore Wind Farms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080881

AMA Style

Mou J, Jia X, Chen P, Chen L. Research on Operation Safety of Offshore Wind Farms. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2021; 9(8):881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080881

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mou, Junmin, Xuefei Jia, Pengfei Chen, and Linying Chen. 2021. "Research on Operation Safety of Offshore Wind Farms" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9, no. 8: 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080881

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