Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A review on recent risk assessment methodologies of offshore wind

turbine foundations
Ge Hou a, b, Kui Xu a, b, *, Jijian Lian a, b, c, **
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
c
Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, 300384, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent years, the offshore wind power industry has developed rapidly all over the world in response to the
Offshore wind turbine gradual depletion of fossil fuel energy sources and concerns over environmental issues. This rapid development is
Suction bucket foundation accompanied by high risks. Accidents involving offshore wind turbines (OWTs) are on the rise, and research on
Risk assessment
their risks has attracted increased attention. The supporting foundation plays a critical role in ensuring the
Foundation
Risk analysis
stability and operational safety of OWTs; however, the risks of OWT foundations have not been taken seriously.
Therefore, this paper reviews the main risks of various types of OWT foundations, with special attention to a
promising new type of foundation, i.e. the suction bucket foundation. This paper also classifies and reviews the
risk assessment methodologies of OWTs and analyses the characteristics and applicability of these methods.
Finally, the challenges and future development trends in the risk analysis of OWT foundations are discussed. This
paper aims to inform scholars and experts about the current status of OWT foundations and their corresponding
risks, and to provide references for the risk management of OWT foundations.

1. Introduction
The rapid development of the world economy has led to the annual
increase in energy consumption, resulting in the shortage of fossil fuels
and environmental pollution (Martinez and Iglesias, 2021; Zhang et al.,
2021a). The world’s energy consumption is expected to reach 678
quadrillion Btu by 2030. The burning of fossil fuels will increase
greenhouse gas emissions and worsen the problem of global warming. In
2018, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion reached 33,513
Mt (Community, 2020). Thus, there is an urgent need for alternative
energy sources to meet the growing energy demand and reduce carbon
emissions (Lian et al., 2019a). Renewable energy is an alternative to
fossil fuels owing to its large reserves, cleanliness, and recyclability (Yu
et al., 2020a). Many countries have offered incentives to promote the
development of renewable energy (Song et al., 2021). By the end of
2019, 27% of the world’s electricity was supplied by renewable energy,
which will continue to grow in the future (GWEC, 2020).
Wind energy has attracted much attention because of its wide
availability and cleanliness. The global wind power industry has
exhibited a trend towards large-scale development. The cumulative
installed capacity and annual additions of global wind power from 2011
to 2020 are shown in Fig. 1 (GWEC, 2020). At the end of 2020, the
cumulative installed capacity of global wind power reached 743 GW, an
increase of 14.3% from 2019. The Global Wind Energy Council predicts
that the global cumulative wind power installed capacity will exceed
840 GW by 2022 (Tao et al., 2020).
Wind power is generated both onshore and offshore. Offshore wind
power has the following advantages over onshore wind power. First,
offshore wind energy resources are abundant. The offshore wind speed is
approximately 20% higher than the land wind speed; hence, offshore
wind power generation is approximately 70% higher than onshore wind
power generation (Li et al., 2020a). Second, offshore wind farms are
located far away from populated areas to avoid being a visual or noise
annoyance to people (Johnston et al., 2020). Finally, offshore wind
power does not occupy valuable land, avoiding related conflicts (Ashuri
et al., 2016). Offshore wind power is an important boost to the devel­
opment of a global low-carbon economy. By the end of 2020, the total
installed capacity of global offshore wind power reached 35.3 GW, as
shown in Fig. 2(a). The UK ranks first in the world with a total installed
capacity of 10.2 GW followed by China with 9.9 GW (GWEC, 2020). The

** Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
E-mail addresses: kui.xu@tju.edu.cn (K. Xu), jjlian@tju.edu.cn (J. Lian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112469
Received 26 November 2021; Received in revised form 4 March 2022; Accepted 1 September 2022
Available online 20 September 2022
0029-8018/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Hou et al.
Fig. 1. Wind power global capacity and annual additions from 2011 to 2020
(GWEC, 2020).
new installed capacity of global offshore wind power reached 6.1 GW in
2020, as shown in Fig. 2(b). China’s new installed capacity exceeds 3
GW, accounting for over 50% of the global new installed capacity. This
is the third consecutive year that China ranked first in the world in terms
of the annual new installed capacity of offshore wind power.
However, offshore wind power also has some limitations. The
development of offshore wind power faces greater challenges because of
the harsh marine environment (Carroll et al., 2016). Special equipment
and instruments are required to evaluate wind resources and explore
geological conditions before the construction of offshore wind power
projects. The construction stage of offshore wind power projects is
greatly affected by the marine environment, and special construction
equipment is required for the assembly, transportation, and installation
of offshore wind turbines (OWTs). A health monitoring system is also
required to monitor the status of OWTs during their service life (Lian
et al., 2019b). Therefore, the development cost of offshore wind power is
relatively high, approximately 1.5–2 times that of onshore wind power
(Liu et al., 2020). Fig. 3 shows the costs of offshore wind power projects
at different water depths (Oh et al., 2018). The increase in water depth
gradually increases the proportion of OWT foundations in the total cost
of offshore wind power projects by up to 36%. An economical and
reliable OWT foundation is crucial for the development of offshore wind
power (Wang et al., 2018a).
The supporting foundation plays an important role in ensuring the
stability and operational safety of OWTs. However, the marine envi­
ronment is complex and changeable, and severe sea conditions, such as
typhoons and huge waves, occur frequently. OWT foundations face more
risks during the construction and service periods, which may lead to
serious economic losses, casualties, and marine pollution (Trojnar,
2021). Research by Carroll et al. (2016) found that the average failure
rate of OWTs is approximately 10 failures per year during the third
Fig. 2. Global offshore wind power in 2020, (a) Cumulative installations, (b) Annual installations (GWEC, 2020).
2
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
Fig. 3. Costs of offshore wind power projects at different water depths (Oh
et al., 2018).
operating year of a wind farm. To ensure the safety of OWTs, risk
assessment research on OWT foundations is essential. With the devel­
opment trend in OWTs towards deeper waters and larger capacities, the
supporting foundation will encounter greater challenges, increasing the
importance of the risk assessment of OWT foundations. This paper re­
views the risk indicators of different OWT foundations (i.e. monopile,
gravity, tripod, jacket, and floating foundations), focusing on the suction
bucket foundation. Then, the risk assessment methodologies for OWTs
are systematically classified and reviewed. This paper aims to provide a
reference for the risk management of OWT foundations throughout their
life cycle.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 in­
troduces the risk indicators of various types of OWT foundations. Section
3 summarises the risk assessment methods for OWTs. The key challenges
and findings are discussed in Section 4. Finally, the conclusions are
presented in Section 5.
2. Risk indicators of different offshore wind foundations
The supporting foundation is a key component of OWTs, which af­
fects the safety and construction costs of offshore wind power projects
(Wang et al., 2018b). Therefore, the selection of an economical and
reliable foundation is essential for the high-efficiency and low-cost
development of offshore wind energy in the future. The main types of
OWT foundations include monopile, gravity, tripod, jacket, floating, and
suction bucket foundations, as shown in Fig. 4. Among them, the
monopile, gravity, tripod, and jacket foundations are fixed foundations
that are often used in shallow waters with depths of less than 50 m. With
the development trend in OWTs toward deeper waters and larger ca­
pacities, floating or novel fixed foundations are more practical (Sang
G. Hou et al. Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469

Fig. 4. Different types of offshore wind turbine foundations.

et al., 2021). The applicable conditions, advantages, and limitations of
each type of OWT foundation are listed in Table 1. This section sum­
marises the risks and corresponding risk indicators of different types of
OWT foundations during the construction and service periods.
2.1. Risk indicators of monopile foundation
The monopile foundation (Fig. 4(a)) consists of steel pipe piles with a
diameter of 3.5–6 m and a length of 30–40 m (Zhang et al., 2021b). It is
the most widely used foundation type in offshore wind farms and has the
advantages of a simple structure and low cost (Ganesh and Kumar,
2021). However, the monopile foundation is a high-rise structure that
requires a strong anti-overturning ability. Therefore, it must have suf­
ficient stiffness to ensure the stability of OWTs. With the increase in
water depth and wind turbine capacity, the diameter and penetration
depth of monopile foundations will increase sharply, which significantly
increases the difficulty and construction risk of offshore piling (Zou
et al., 2021). Monopile foundations have been successfully applied in
many large offshore wind farms in Denmark, Britain, Germany, and
other countries (Lodon, 2013; Vattenfall, 2010; DanTysk Offshore Wind
GmbH, 2012; DON Genergy, 2013; Dongenergy, 2015).
transportation, and offshore assembly and installation, as shown in
Fig. 5. Since the first two steps are mainly carried out on land or dock,
they are less affected by complex sea conditions and less risky. The key
construction process for monopile foundations is marine transportation
and installation (Patra and Haldar, 2021). The risks faced by monopile
foundations during the construction period include pile sliding, hammer
refusal, and crane damage.
Pile sliding is the phenomenon in which the pile sinks quickly and
uncontrollably upon penetrating the soft soil layer during the sinking
process. Pile sliding may lead to serious consequences such as wire rope
fracture, pile hammer damage, and pile foundation damage. The main
reasons for pile sliding are as follows (Basu et al., 2014): 1) poor
geological conditions, such as a thick silty soil layer or high water
content in clay; 2) improper selection of pile hammer; 3) improper
control of the pile-driving force during the pile sinking process; and 4)
other non-technical reasons. Among these, poor geological conditions
are the most critical. The pile sliding phenomenon is difficult to avoid.
The risk indicator for judging the pile sliding of monopile foundations is
that the weight of pile and hammer is greater than the pile-sinking
resistance, as shown in Eq. (1) (Doherty and Gavin, 2011).
F > Qd (1)

2.1.1. Monopile foundation during the construction period F = Wp + Wh (2)

The construction process of monopile foundations mainly includes
four phases: onshore manufacturing, loading at the dock, marine Qd = Qf + Qp (3)

where F is the total weight of pile and hammer; Qd is the pile-sinking

Table 1
resistance; Wp is the pile weight; Wh is the hammer weight; Qf is the
Advantages and limitations of offshore wind turbine foundations.
pile side friction; Qp is the bearing capacity of pile end foundation.
Foundation Water Advantages Limitations
Hammer refusal is one of the major risks during the construction of
depth
(m) monopile foundations. In the process of pile driving, owing to severe sea
conditions, ship schedules, etc., the pile cannot be continuously driven
Monopile 0–30 Simple structure; Higher requirements for
manufacturing piling equipment and
to the designated depth, which is known as hammer refusal. When the
convenience; low cost geological conditions piling process is interrupted, the excess pore water that accumulates in
Gravity 0–30 Easy installation Large size; heavy weight; the soil around the pile will dissipate, resulting in the difficulty of pile
seabed preparation is penetration and the occurrence of hammer refusal (Abu-Farsakh et al.,
needed
2015). The occurrence of hammer refusal leads to problems such as
Tripod 20–50 Larger bearing capacity; Complex structure; higher
no seabed preparation cost increased project costs and construction delays. According to API RP 2A
Jacket 10–60 Good stability More difficult installation; specification (American Petroleum Institute, 2000), the risk judgment
higher cost criteria of hammer refusal include two aspects: 1) In the case of
Floating >50 Adaptable to large water Higher cost; large motion continuous 5-foot pile driving, the blow counts required per 1-foot
depth response
Suction 5–60 Easy installation; Less engineering
penetration exceeds 300.2) The blow counts required to penetrate 1
Bucket recyclable; low cost applications foot over 800.

3
G. Hou et al. Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469

Fig. 6. Crane accident of offshore installation vessel (Yang et al., 2011).

stability of OWTs (Tang and Zhao, 2021). Moreover, the scour range
increases with the increase in service time, thus increasing the scour risk
of monopile foundations. Dai et al. (2021) proposed a calculation model
of the equilibrium scour depth for monopile foundations based on the
energy balance concept. Yang et al. (2021) used a tidal current turbine to
reduce the scour around monopile foundations. The scour risk of a
monopile foundation is usually evaluated by the equilibrium scour
depth, as shown in Eq. (4) (Offshore standard, 2014).
S / D = 1.3*[1 − exp[ − 0.03 * [(umax ⋅ T) / D − 6]]] (4)

where S is the equilibrium scour depth; D is the pile diameter; T is the

wave period; umax is the maximum velocity.
Corrosion damage is another major risk of monopile foundations.
Seawater is rich in chlorides and sulphates and has high conductivity,
while surface seawater is saturated with dissolved oxygen. The corrosion
of a monopile foundation affects its service life and safety. The anti-
corrosion maintenance of monopile foundations is difficult and costly.
Adedipe et al. (2017) studied the corrosion-fatigue crack growth
mechanism of monopile foundations. The corrosion risk of a monopile
foundation is usually evaluated by the corrosion thickness and corrosion
rate. Considering the joint action of the anti-corrosion system and
environmental loads, the corrosion thickness and corrosion rate of a
monopile foundation are shown in Eqs. (5) and (6) (Maher and Swain,
2018).
Fig. 5. Construction process of monopile foundations. ⎧
0 0 ≤ t ≤ Tst
⎪
⎨ [ [ ( )β ]]
d(t) = t − Tst (5)
Crane accidents may occur during the construction of monopile ⎪
⎩ d∞ 1 − exp − Tst ≤ t ≤ TL
foundations, which may cause huge economic losses and even casu­ η
alties. In May 2020, the heavy lift crane of Orion 1 — the world’s largest ⎧
offshore installation vessel in Rostock, Germany — was severely ⎪
⎨
0 0 ≤ t ≤ Tst
[ )β ]
damaged during the overload test, as shown in Fig. 6. The accident V(t) =
(
β t − Tst
)β− 1 (
t − Tst (6)
caused many injuries and economic losses of at least 100 million euros ⎪
⎩ d∞
η η
exp −
η
Tst ≤ t ≤ TL
(Yang et al., 2011).
where d(t) is the corrosion thickness; V(t) is the corrosion rate; d∞ is the
2.1.2. Monopile foundation during the service period ultimate corrosion thickness; Tst is the corrosion start time; TL is the
The monopile foundation not only bears the load transferred by the service time of a monopile foundation; β and η are undetermined co­
superstructure but also resists long-term cyclic loads from wind, waves, efficients, and their values are determined according to the specific
and currents. It also faces the risk of accidental loads during the service project.
period. Under the action of various loads, the monopile foundation is Monopile foundations are subjected to long-term dynamic cyclic
prone to failure, causing accidents and serious economic losses. The risks loads such as wind, waves, and currents during the service period, and
faced by monopile foundations during the service period include the uncertainties of these loads are large (Raed et al., 2020). The cyclic
scouring, corrosion, fatigue failure, and ship collision. stress of the welds and geometric mutation area is high. If the cyclic
The scour problem of monopile foundations was first discovered at stress value is larger than the fatigue limit of the structure, then fatigue
the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands in 2010 (Larsen et al., damage occurs. Katsikogiannis et al. (2021) conducted a fatigue risk
2013). Owing to the action of environmental loads such as waves and assessment of large-diameter monopile foundations based on
currents, scour pits form around monopile foundations, which affect the

4
G. Hou et al.
time-domain and frequency-domain methods. Biswal et al. (2021)
investigated the fatigue damage of monopile foundations under service
loading conditions. The fatigue risk of a monopile foundation is usually
evaluated by the cumulative fatigue damage. The Palmgren-Miner cri­
terion is the most widely used method for fatigue damage calculation of
steel structures, and the cumulative fatigue damage of monopile foun­
dations should be smaller than the allowable fatigue damage, as shown
in Eq. (7) (Rezaei et al., 2018).
∑ ni
D= ≤ Δd (7)
Ni
Where D is the cumulative fatigue damage; Ni is the number of loading
cycles for structural failure; ni is the number of loading cycles in the
stress range; Δd is the allowable fatigue damage.
As most offshore wind farms are located close to shipping routes,
ship collisions may occur during the service period of monopile foun­
dations, resulting in the rupture of structural members. Bela et al. (2017)
analysed the dynamic responses of monopile foundations when struck
by ships at different speeds. Yu et al. (2020b) evaluated the ship collision
risk of monopile foundations based on Bayesian networks and evidential
reasoning methods. Dai et al. (2013) established a risk assessment
framework for ship collisions and investigated the key factors influ­
encing ship collision risk. The ship collision risk of a monopile founda­
tion can be evaluated by the rupture threshold of steel, as shown in Eq.
(8) (Lehmann and Peschmann, 2002).
t
εf = εg + εe
le
Where εf is the failure strain; t is the wall thickness of the monopile
foundation; le is the pile length; εg is the uniform strain; εe is the necking
strain.
2.2. Risk indicators of gravity foundation
The gravity foundation (Fig. 4(b)) is the earliest type of foundation
used in offshore wind farms. It is generally made of reinforced concrete
and is suitable for the geological conditions of shallow overburden and
rock. Gravity foundations maintain the stability of OWTs by self-weight.
Their advantages include easy installation and no need for offshore
piling (Wang et al., 2018a). However, gravity foundations have a large
weight and volume, and their size and cost increase exponentially with
increasing water depth. Gravity foundations are mainly installed in
offshore wind farms in Nordic countries, such as the Vindeby wind farm
in Denmark, Breitling wind farm in Germany, and Lillgrund wind farm
in Sweden (Esteban et al., 2015a).
2.2.1. Gravity foundation during the construction period
The construction of gravity foundations includes five phases: seabed
preparation, onshore manufacturing, loading at the dock, marine
transportation, and offshore assembly and installation (Esteban et al.,
2015a). Gravity foundations are usually manufactured in dry docks or
onshore, and then transported to the final location for installation.
Gravity foundations are not suitable for muddy seabeds and require
seabed preparation. The risks faced by gravity foundations during the
construction period include uneven seabed, poor floating stability, and
overturning during sinking.
In the seabed preparation stage, one of the major risks is an uneven
seabed. Soils with low bearing capacity on the seabed surface must be
removed. Then, the seabed surface must be flattened to ensure that its
bearing capacity and flatness meet the requirements (Esteban et al.,
2015b). The seabed surface should be almost perfectly horizontal with
an inclination angle less than 0.5◦ (Esteban et al., 2015a). In the trans­
portation stage, one of the major risks is poor floating stability. The
marine transportation mode of gravity foundations is divided into dry
towing and wet towing. The first method is recommended if the water
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
depth of the sea area cannot meet the floating draft of gravity founda­
tions. The second method requires the good floating stability of gravity
foundations, which is dependent on sea conditions. Therefore, it is
necessary to make reasonable transportation plans by considering the
effects of sea conditions. The floating risk of gravity foundations can be
evaluated by the initial stability height (i.e. the distance between
metacenter (M) and the center of gravity (G)) (Escobar et al., 2018).
When the initial stability height is greater than 0, the gravity foundation
is in a stable floating state, as shown in Fig. 7(a). When the initial sta­
bility height is less than 0, the gravity foundation is in an instable
floating state, as shown in Fig. 7(b). The sinking process of gravity
foundations is affected by environmental loads such as wind, waves, and
currents; there is also a risk of overturning. It is recommended that the
significant wave height of gravity foundation sinking should not exceed
1.5 m, and the construction window period should be calculated accu­
rately (Esteban et al., 2015a).
2.2.2. Gravity foundation during the service period
Scour is one of the main risks during the service period of gravity
foundations, which significantly influences the stability of OWTs and
may cause scour damage-related accidents. Therefore, anti-scour pro­
tection measures must be taken to ensure the safety of gravity founda­
tions. Whitehouse et al. (2011a) proposed a life-cycle scour management
plan for gravity foundations. Whitehouse et al. (2011b) analysed the
scour data of offshore foundations and provided a basis for the scour risk
management of gravity foundations. The scour risk of a gravity foun­
(8) dation is usually evaluated by the scour depth, as shown in Eq. (9).
/ ( )( )1.43 [ ]N
0.5αc U hc (0.5αc U)2
S Dc = 8.96 2 ⋅ − 1 (9)
Ucr Dc gh
where S is the scour depth under the action of currents; U is the velocity;
Dc is the diameter of the gravity foundation; αc is the structural shape
factor; Ucr is the depth-averaged velocity; h is the water depth; hc is the
height of the gravity foundation; N = 0.83(hc /Dc )0.34 .
2.3. Risk indicators of tripod foundation
The tripod foundation (Fig. 4(c)) consists of three steel pipe piles
anchored into the seabed and the upper tripod structure. Compared with
monopile foundations, tripod foundations have greater overturning
resistance and improved stiffness and stability (Jeong et al., 2021a).
However, the cost of tripod foundations is high, their installation process
is more complex than that of monopile foundations, and the marine
transportation process is challenging (Jeong et al., 2019). Tripod
Fig. 7. Floating state of gravity foundations, (a) Stable floating, (c) Insta­
bility floating.
5
G. Hou et al.
foundations are currently installed at the Trianel Windpark Borkum
wind farm, Global Tech I wind farm, and Alpha Ventus wind farm.
At present, scholars have focused on the service process of tripod
foundations; hence, this section considers the risks of tripod foundations
during the service period, including cumulative deformation under cy­
clic loading, wave run-up, scour, fatigue failure, and ship collision.
Under the action of cyclic loads, the soil stiffness of tripod foundations
may degrade, resulting in cumulative deformation, which affects the
bearing capacity and safety of OWTs (Jeong et al., 2021a). Jeong et al.
(2021b) evaluated the displacement and cyclic stiffness, while Kim et al.
(2014) studied the cumulative deformation behaviour of tripod foun­
dations under cyclic loads. The cumulative deformation risk of a tripod
foundation can be evaluated in terms of a dimensionless ratio, as shown
in Eq. (10) (Veritas and Norske, 2010).
θN − θ0
rθ = (10)
θ0
where N is the number of loading cycles; θN is the rotation angle of the N-
th loading cycles; θ0 is the initial rotation angle.
The occurrence of wave run-ups may damage tripod foundations.
With the development of offshore foundations for deeper waters with a
more complex marine environment, the consequences of wave run-ups
are more severe. The service platform of an OWT at the Denmark
Horns Reef 1 wind farm was damaged by wave run-ups (Li et al., 2021).
Li et al. (2021) studied wave run-ups on tripod foundations by labora­
tory model tests. Lin et al. (2019) investigated the influence of bichro­
matic wave instability on the wave run-up heights of offshore
foundations by numerical simulation. The wave run-up risk of a tripod
foundation can be evaluated by Eq. (11).
Ru,max = ηmax + m
u2max
(11)
2g
where ηmax is the incident wave crest; umax is the flow velocity; m is the
run-up coefficient.
Scour is another risk during the service period of tripod foundations.
Under the action of waves and currents, tripod foundations are prone to
scour damage, which decreases the foundation bearing capacity. Liang
et al. (2020) discussed the pile tension capacity of scoured tripod
foundations by numerical simulation. Yuan et al. (2017) studied the
scour problem of tripod foundations under steady flow via experiments,
and proposed a calculation formula for the equilibrium scour depth of
tripod foundations. The scour risk of a tripod foundation is usually
evaluated by the equilibrium scour depth, as shown in Eq. (12).
/ foundations must be controlled within a reasonable range. Generally,
S D = KI Ky Kd Kσ Kα (12)
where S is the equilibrium scour depth of a tripod foundation under
steady flow; D is the diameter of tripod’s legs; KI is the flow intensity
expression; Ky is the flow depth expression; Kd is the sediment size
expression; Kσ is the sediment gradation expression; Kα is the orientation
expression.
The cyclic stress at the joints of different components of tripod
foundations is large and prone to fatigue failure. Yeter et al. (2016)
predicted the fatigue damage of a tripod foundation and estimated the
power spectral density of the hotspot stress. Yeter et al. (2015) evaluated
the fatigue damage of tripod foundations under the combined action of
waves and wind loads. The fatigue risk of a tripod foundation is usually
evaluated by cumulative fatigue damage. The cumulative fatigue dam­
age of tripod foundations can be calculated based on the
Palmgren-Miner criterion, as shown in Eq. (7). Fatigue damage occurs
when the cumulative fatigue damage exceeds the allowable fatigue
damage.
Ship collision accidents may occur during the service period of tripod
foundations. The tripod foundation is a steel structure, which may cause
large deformation or even local rupture during the process of ship
6
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
collision. The ship collision risk of tripod foundations can be evaluated
by Eq. (8). Lee (2013) studied the collision risk between a tripod foun­
dation and a boat. Their results showed that a rubber material could
reduce the collision effect on tripod foundations. Han et al. (2019) dis­
cussed the anti-collision performance of the fender during a ship-tripod
collision. Their results showed that the aluminium foam fender has good
anti-collision performance.
2.4. Risk indicators of jacket foundation
The jacket foundation (Fig. 4(d)) is a steel spatial truss structure
whose load is borne by the pile installed in the seabed. The jacket
foundation has high strength for increased bearing capacity and over­
turning resistance. However, the fabrication of jacket foundations is
complex, and the construction costs are high. Wind farms that have
installed jacket foundations include the Ormonde (Vattenfall, 2012),
Beatrice (2016), and Thornton Bank phase (Thornton Bank, 2013a, b).
2.4.1. Jacket foundation during the construction period
The construction process of jacket foundations includes onshore
fabrication, loading at the dock, marine transportation, positioning and
installation, and grouting construction. The jacket foundation is manu­
factured onshore, so its onshore fabrication is less affected by sea con­
ditions and less risky, the marine transportation, installation, and
grouting of jacket foundations have a high risk due to the influence of
complex sea conditions. The risks faced by jacket foundations during the
construction period include uncontrolled floating, hoisting, installation,
and grouting construction risks.
Uncontrolled floating may occur during the offshore transportation
of jacket foundations owing to harsh sea conditions, barge failure, etc. In
serious cases, jacket foundations may fall into the sea, resulting in
serious economic losses (De Vries et al., 2011). The floating trans­
portation risk of jacket foundations can be evaluated by the roll and
pitch angles. If the roll and pitch angles exceed the threshold, the jacket
foundation is in an instable floating state, and the threshold is deter­
mined according to DNV-OS-C301 (Det NorskeVeritas, 2013). Hoisting
is another risk during the construction period of jacket foundations. In
the offshore hoisting process, if the hoisting points are set inaccurately,
the jacket foundation may move laterally and cause the wire rope to
break, resulting in a serious accident (De Vries et al., 2011). In addition,
the jacket foundation has a higher probability of tilting during the
construction period. For example, if the jacket foundation fails to insert
piles in time after successfully entering the water, it may tilt. Tilting also
occurs during the pile driving process. The level of installation of jacket
the allowable deviation of plane and elevation of foundation installation
is less than 50 mm, and the inclination deviation of the longitudinal axis
is less than 0.5% (Wang et al., 2022). Grouting construction is another
major risk during the construction period of jacket foundations. The
jacket riser and steel pipe piles are connected by a high-strength
grouting material. After the jacket foundation is installed, the grouting
operation must begin immediately. If the pipeline is blocked or broken
during the grouting process, the grouting progress is affected. The causes
of grouting risk include mud leakage and grouting equipment damage.
2.4.2. Jacket foundation during the service period
Based on previous research, the risks faced by jacket foundations in
service include fatigue failure, ship collision, corrosion failure, and
scour.
Jacket foundations are prone to fatigue failure under the long-term
action of dynamic cyclic loads. Cracks occur and expand at some weak
positions, such as the weld toe and joint intersections; the bearing ca­
pacity of joints decrease, which can cause the fracture and collapse of
OWTs. Dong et al. (2011) carried out a long-term fatigue analysis of four
different types of pipe joints of jacket foundations and evaluated the
fatigue reliability of jacket foundations based on the crack growth rate.
G. Hou et al.
Han et al. (2021) conducted a multiaxial fatigue assessment of jacket
foundations under multiple random correlated loads. The fatigue risk of
a jacket foundation is usually evaluated by cumulative fatigue damage,
which can be calculated by Eq. (7). The cumulative fatigue damage of
jacket foundations should be smaller than the allowable fatigue damage.
Ship collisions may occur during the service period of jacket founda­
tions. The jacket foundation is a steel spatial truss structure, and the
threshold of ship collision failure can be calculated by Eq. (8). Mujee­
b-Ahmed and Paik (2019) evaluated the collision risk between offshore
supply vessels and jacket foundations, and provided a new probabilistic
method to determine the collision design loads.
Jacket foundations are prone to corrosion damage during the service
period because of the harsh marine environment. Bai et al. (2016)
evaluated the corrosion risk of jacket foundations. Dong et al. (2012)
analysed the corrosion reliability of jacket foundations. The corrosion
risk of a jacket foundation is usually evaluated by the corrosion thick­
ness, as shown in Eq. (13) (Moan, 2005).
( )
Wa (t) = Rcorr α t − tpt (13)
where Rcorr is the annual corrosion rate; tpt is the coating protection time;
t is the service time of a jacket foundation; α is the corrosion coefficient.
Finally, scour damage may occur under the action of waves and
currents during the service period of jacket foundations. Welzel et al.
(2019) studied the scour development around a jacket foundation by
physical model tests, and compared the results with those of monopile
foundations. Ahmad et al. (2020) conducted numerical simulation
research on the local scour of jacket foundations. Chen (2019) investi­
gated the maximum scour depth around monopile and jacket founda­
tions at different flow velocities, water depths, and pile diameters using
hydraulic model experiments. The scour risk of a jacket foundation
under the action of waves and currents is usually evaluated by the scour
depth, as shown in Eq. (14) (Welzel et al., 2019).
/ ( (
S D = 0.7 + exp − 6.5Uc2.5
))− 1.5
ω − A + 0.17
Afront = 1.66KC0.34 − 4.5 (14)
Arear = 1.30KC0.40 − 4.6
where S is the scour depth; D is the diameter of main struts; Ucω is the
wave-current velocity ratio; KC is the Keulegan-Carpenter number.
2.5. Risk indicators of floating foundation
The floating foundation consists of a floating platform and mooring
system, and is mainly used in sea areas with a water depth of over 50 m.
The floating foundation has the advantages of good flexibility, easy
disassembly, and recycling. There are three main types of floating
foundations: spar floater (Fig. 4(e)), semi-submersible, and tension leg
platform (Liu et al., 2016). Hywind Scotland Pilot Park offshore wind
farm, the world’s first floating offshore wind farm in Scotland, was
completed and put into operation in 2017 (Hywind, 2016).
2.5.1. Floating foundation during the construction period
The construction process of floating foundations includes onshore
fabrication, marine transportation, and offshore installation. The
floating OWT is fabricated and assembled on land, then transported to
the installation site, and finally connected to the mooring system (Ren
et al., 2020). Bai et al. (2012) identified the main risks during the con­
struction period of floating foundations, which include hoisting and
transportation stability risks, and proposed some operation and man­
agement measures. The floating transportation risk of floating founda­
tions can be evaluated by the roll and pitch angles. To meet the towing
stability of floating foundations, the maximum roll and pitch angles
should not exceed 5◦ (Le et al., 2021).
7
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
2.5.2. Floating foundation during the service period
The risks faced by floating foundations during the service period
include fatigue failure, corrosion of the mooring system, collision with
ships or falling objects, and mooring system failure under extreme ma­
rine conditions.
Floating foundations may suffer from fatigue failure in harsh marine
environments. Kvittem and Moan (2015) used a fully coupled
time-domain analysis method to evaluate the fatigue damage of a
semi-submersible OWT. Cheng et al. (2017) compared and analysed the
fatigue damage of floating horizontal and vertical axis OWTs. The fa­
tigue risk of a floating foundation is usually evaluated by cumulative
fatigue damage, which can be calculated by Eq. (7). The mooring system
may suffer from corrosion damage due to the high chloride and sulphate
in seawater, which reduces its service life. Most corrosion models for
mooring systems are usually based on a constant corrosion rate, and a
corrosion allowance of 0.4 mm/year in chain diameter is considered.
Gao et al. (2005) studied the time-varying reliability of a mooring sys­
tem under the effect of corrosion degradation, and calculated the annual
failure probability of a semi-submersible foundation mooring line. Their
results showed that the annual failure probability of the mooring line
was increased significantly by corrosion. Collisions with ships or falling
objects may cause deformation and damage to floating foundations. Li
et al. (2020b) showed that more than 89% of damage to floating foun­
dations was caused by collisions with falling objects carried by typhoons
or storms. The floating foundation is positioned by mooring lines. Kang
et al. (2017) showed that under extreme marine conditions such as ty­
phoons or storms, the stability of floating foundations decreased and
mooring lines may break. Ha et al. (2020) reviewed the control tech­
nologies of floating OWTs to provide guidance for reducing the failure
risk in harsh marine environments.
2.6. Risk indicators of suction bucket foundation
The suction bucket foundation (Fig. 4(f)) is an inverted bucket with a
closed top and open bottom, which is mainly installed via the principle
of negative pressure penetration (Liu et al., 2020). The suction bucket
foundation was initially used as a negative pressure anchor for mooring,
and then gradually applied as platform and OWT foundations. The
suction bucket foundation has the advantages of easy installation, zero
noise pollution, strong anti-overturning ability, low cost, and recycla­
bility (Ding et al., 2020). OWTs supported by suction bucket foundations
were installed at the Frederikshavn wind farm in Denmark in 2002 and
Wilhelmshaven wind farm in Germany in 2005. Anemometer towers
with suction bucket foundations were installed at the Horns Rev2 wind
farm in Denmark in 2009 and the Dogger Bank wind farm in the UK in
2013 (Wang et al., 2018a). In 2014, two suction bucket foundations
were installed in the North Sea in the UK (Nielsen, 2013). Tianjin Uni­
versity and the Daoda Company combined the advantages of the tradi­
tional bucket foundation and gravity foundation to develop a new type
of foundation called the composite bucket foundation (CBF) (Ding et al.,
2020). The CBF is divided into seven independent compartments by
bulkheads, as shown in Fig. 8. In 2010, the first test CBF was installed in
Qidong City, China. In 2017, two CBFs were installed at the Xiangshui
wind farm in China. In 2019, 13 CBFs were installed at the Dafeng Wind
Farm, China (Lian et al., 2019c).
2.6.1. Suction bucket foundation during the construction period
Taking the CBF as an example, the risks during the construction
period are summarised. The construction and installation of CBFs has
three main steps: onshore fabrication, towing transportation, and one-
step integrated installation. The construction procedure is shown in
Fig. 9 (Lian et al., 2019c). The CBF is divided into the upper reinforced
concrete structure and the lower steel bucket. The upper and lower parts
were prefabricated and then assembled. After the CBF passes the
airtightness inspection, it is hoisted into the water followed by the tower
and hub blades, and the entire OWT is debugged in the wharf basin.
G. Hou et al.
Fig. 8. Composite bucket foundation (Ding et al., 2020).
When the entire OWT reaches the designated installation location, the
anchor is first positioned and then seabed is levelled and dredged. The
CBF is separated from the installation ship and begins to sink. The
sinking process includes self-weight sinking and negative pressure
sinking. After sinking is completed, the CBF is finally protected against
scouring. The CBF is manufactured onshore, so its onshore fabrication is
less affected by sea conditions and less risky. The risks faced by CBFs
during the construction period include vessel-bucket separation, air leak
in the bucket, buckling failure, and seepage failure.
Vessel-bucket separation is one of the main risks of suction bucket
foundations. During the transportation of suction bucket foundations,
the installation vessel provides the towing stability for the entire OWT.
The jacking force between the suction bucket foundation and vessel is
provided by injecting high-pressure gas into the suction bucket
Fig. 9. Construction procedure of the composite bucket foundation (Lian et al., 2019c).
8
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
foundation. The jacking force and binding measures make the suction
bucket foundation and installation vessel move synchronously and in
coordination. In the process of towing and transportation, the oscillation
frequency of the installation vessel may be incompatible with the suc­
tion bucket foundation, resulting in vessel-bucket separation under the
action of specific wind and waves, as shown in Fig. 10. The vessel-bucket
separation risk of a CBF is usually evaluated by the redundant buoyancy.
When the redundant buoyancy exceeds 400 t, the vessel-bucket sepa­
ration can be effectively prevented (Guo et al., 2022). Zhang et al.
(2019) analysed the towing stability of CBFs, and showed that
increasing the draft and reducing the wind speed and wave height can
improve the towing stability and prevent vessel-bucket separation.
Excessive tilting of the suction bucket foundation during towing
causes air leakage from the bucket foundation and the loss of buoyancy,
which is called damage instability (Fig. 11). Zhang et al. (2013) showed
that the air cushion is a key parameter to prevent the damage instability
of suction bucket foundations during towing. Ding et al. (2019) used
numerical analysis methods to determine the towing stability formula
and investigated the influence of different waves on the towing motion
characteristics of CBFs. The air leakage risk of CBFs can be evaluated by
the roll and pitch angles. To meet the overall towing stability of CBFs,
the maximum roll and pitch angles should be less than 5◦ , and the water
seal height should be greater than 1.5 m.
Buckling failure is another risk faced by suction bucket foundations
during the sinking process. The bucket foundation is sunk into the soil by
pumping water into the bucket to create an internal and external pres­
sure difference. When the internal and external pressure differences are
too large, buckling failure may occur. In 2005, a suction bucket foun­
dation with a diameter of 16 m and skirt height of 15 m at the Wil­
helmshaven wind farm in Germany buckled when it penetrated 6.8 m.
G. Hou et al.
Fig. 10. Vessel-bucket separation.
Fig. 11. Damage instability.
Madsen et al. (2013) investigated the risk of structural buckling during
the installation of large-diameter suction bucket foundations by nu­
merical method. The buckling risk of suction bucket foundations can be
evaluated by the axial and circumferential stresses, as shown in Eqs. (15)
and (16) (API-BULL-2U, 2004). Buckling failure will occur when the
axial and circumferential stresses of the bucket wall are greater than the
allowable buckling stress during the sinking of suction bucket
foundations.
pR
fθ = (15)
t
P fatigue damage, which can be calculated by Eq. (7). Fatigue damage
fa = (16)
2πRt
where fθ is the circumferential stress of bucket wall; fa is the axial stress
of bucket wall; p is the internal and external pressure difference of the
bucket; R is the radius of the bucket; t is the thickness of the bucket wall;
P is the total axial load acting on the bucket.
Excessive negative pressure causes soil seepage failure during the
sinking of suction bucket foundations. Feld (2001) used a numerical
9
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
model to analyse the conditions that cause seepage failure and derived a
critical negative pressure formula with the outlet hydraulic gradient as
the control condition, which is widely used in the design of suction
bucket foundations. Chen et al. (2021) investigated the seepage char­
acteristics of suction bucket foundations under eccentric load. The
seepage failure risk of suction bucket foundations can be evaluated by
the critical negative pressure, as shown in Eq. (17) (Feld, 2001).
/ ′
Scri (γ D) = 1.32(l/D)0.75 (17)
where Scri is the critical negative pressure; γ is the buoyancy unit
′
weight; D is the diameter; l is the penetrated depth.
2.6.2. Suction bucket foundation during the service period
Based on previous research, the risks faced by suction bucket foun­
dations in service include scouring, soil liquefaction, deformation
accumulation, ship collision, and fatigue failure.
Scour occurs around suction bucket foundations under the action of
waves and currents. With the increase in service period, the scope of the
scour continuously expands. The closer to the centre of the suction
bucket foundation, the larger the scouring pit. Compared with pile
foundations, suction bucket foundations have higher risk of scour. Yu
et al. (2019) investigated the local scour of suction bucket foundations
under the combined action of waves and currents by physical model
tests. Zhao et al. (2020) studied the failure modes of suction bucket
foundations under different scour conditions by numerical simulation.
The scour risk of suction bucket foundations can be evaluated by the
equilibrium scour depth, as shown in Eq. (18) (Yu et al., 2016).
/
hb h = 15.6(B/h)− 0.796 θ1.484 (d50 /h)1.796 (18)
where hb is the current-induced scour depth around composite bucket
foundation in silty sand; h is the water depth; B is the bucket diameter;
d50 is the median diameters of soil; θ is the Shields parameter.
Soil liquefaction may occur under the long-term action of dynamic
cyclic loads, which reduces the foundation bearing capacity and may
cause the entire OWT to overturn. Zhang et al. (2014) studied the
anti-liquefaction characteristics of suction bucket foundations during
earthquakes. In addition, the long-term effects of cyclic loads will cause
soil fatigue around suction bucket foundations. In particular, the
strength of the clay layer may decrease, resulting in the cumulative
deformation of the foundation. Wang et al. (2017) studied the effect of
cumulative deformation on the safety of suction bucket foundations by
cyclic loading model tests. The cumulative deformation risk of suction
bucket foundations can be evaluated in terms of a dimensionless ratio, as
shown in Eq. (10). As most offshore wind farms are close to trading
routes, ship collisions may occur due to human error, an out-of-control
navigation system, and other reasons. Ding et al. (2014) investigated the
dynamic process of ship collisions by numerical simulation. Their results
showed that the arc transition structure of bucket foundations is
damaged by ship collisions. The ship collision risk of all-steel suction
bucket foundations can be calculated by Eq. (8). Fatigue failure is
another risk of suction bucket foundations. The suction bucket founda­
tion is subjected to various cyclic loads such as wind, waves, and cur­
rents during the service period, which generate high cyclic stress in the
geometric mutation or welding connection areas. The fatigue risk of
all-steel suction bucket foundations is usually evaluated by cumulative
occurs if the cyclic stress value is larger than the fatigue limit of the
suction bucket foundations (Horn and Leira, 2019).
2.7. Development trend and critical risks of offshore wind foundations
The determination of crucial risk factors is very important in the risk
management and optimisation design of OWT foundations. The
following insights were gained from Section 2.1 to Section 2.6:
G. Hou et al.
(1) With the development trend in OWTs towards deeper waters and
larger capacities, floating foundations and new types of suction
bucket foundations have broad potential applications and are
expected to become key research and development objects in the
future.
(2) Different types of OWT foundations have different risks during
the construction period; hence, the appropriate risk prevention
and control measures should be implemented. Because monopile
foundations are the most widely used type of foundation, special
attention should be paid to the risk of pile sliding during the
construction period.
(3) The risks faced by OWT foundations during the service period
include scouring, fatigue damage, ship collisions, and corrosion
damage. Most scholars have focused on the scour and fatigue
risks of different foundation types. Gravity and suction bucket
foundations are more sensitive to scour compared with other
types of foundation. Therefore, attention should be paid to the
scour problem during their service life.
3. Risk assessment methodologies of offshore wind turbines
The risk assessment methods of OWTs include qualitative, semi-
quantitative, and quantitative methods (Jamshidi et al., 2019). This
section analyses the applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of
these risk analysis methods and proposes improvements for their
application in the development and construction of future offshore wind
power projects.
3.1. Qualitative methods
Qualitative methods evaluate the risk occurrence probability and
consequences of risk events based on the experience and opinions of
experts in related fields. Qualitative methods include hazard and oper­
ability analysis (HAZOP), fuzzy cognitive map (FCM), failure modes and
effects analysis (FMEA), and their improvements.
3.1.1. Hazard and operability analysis method
The HAZOP method, developed by the Imperial Chemical Industry
Company of the UK, is a qualitative method used to analyse the hazards
and operability problems caused by design defects or process deviations
(Dunjo et al., 2010). This method has two parts: 1) identifying the sys­
tem deviations that may have serious consequences; and 2) determining
measures to reduce the frequency and consequences of such deviations.
The HAZOP method is mainly used for structural and technical risk
identification of OWTs. This method can comprehensively identify risks,
but it is highly dependent on the knowledge of experts and is only
suitable for the analysis of process risks (Hyatt, 2018). Eriksson and
Kullander (2013) identified the technical risks associated with the
design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and decom­
missioning of a floating OWT by the HAZOP method. Chien et al. (2013)
used the HAZOP method to identify technical risk factors of offshore
wind farm construction and made construction risk management plans
to ensure the construction safety and schedule of offshore wind farm
projects.
3.1.2. Fuzzy cognitive map method
The FCM method, developed by Kosko based on fuzzy logic in 1986,
is an effective decision-making tool for system risk analysis and man­
agement (Lazzerini and Mkrtchyan, 2011). It identifies the potential
faults of the system in the form of graphs or maps based on the causal
relationship between risk factors. The method has high computational
efficiency and can model the complex fault behaviour of OWTs with
limited and missing data. The FCM method can be applied for optimal
risk-based maintenance strategies of OWTs. It provides effective
risk-based maintenance strategies to improve performance and reduce
the maintenance cost of OWTs (Bakhtavar et al., 2021). However, the
10
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
risk assessment results of FCM are dependent on the opinions of experts.
Jamshidi et al. (2017) used the method to model the complex fault
behaviour of OWTs considering the uncertainty of expert opinions, and
predicted the impact of faults on structural performance.
3.1.3. Failure modes and effects analysis and its improvement method
FMEA is a qualitative analysis method developed by the American
aerospace industry in the 1960s (Xiao et al., 2011). This method aims to
identify the potential failure modes and their impact on the entire sys­
tem (Jamshidi et al., 2019). It uses the risk priority number (RPN) to
quantify the degree of risk of different failure modes. The RPN is ob­
tained from the product of three risk coefficients: occurrence, severity,
and detection. The higher the RPN value, the more dangerous the failure
mode. Arabian-Hoseynabadi et al. (2010) used the FMEA method to
analyse the risk of wind turbines, and compared the analysis results with
the measured data to verify the effectiveness of the method. However,
the FMEA method ignores the correlation between events and relies on
expert experience (Kang et al., 2017). To solve the above problems,
researchers have proposed improved FMEA methods such as failure
mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), risk-based FMEA, fuzzy
FMEA, modified FMEA, and correlation FMEA. The application of the
improved FMEA methods in the risk assessment of wind turbines is
presented in Table 2.
3.2. Semi-quantitative methods
Semi-quantitative methods calculate the risk occurrence probability
of events, and have a higher level of evaluation compared with other
qualitative methods. Commonly used semi-quantitative methods
include fault tree analysis (FTA), event tree analysis (ETA), bowtie
method (BT), and Bayesian network (BN).
3.2.1. Fault tree analysis
FTA is a logical deductive tool first proposed by Watson in 1961
(Mentes and Helvacioglu, 2011). It examines the causes of system failure
from top to bottom, and connects all events according to causality by
logic gates. FTA is mainly used for the overall risk probability analysis of
OWTs. It consists of two parts: qualitative analysis and quantitative
analysis (Ruijters and Stoelinga, 2015). Qualitative analysis aims to find
the minimum cut sets of the fault tree by Boolean operations. Quanti­
tative analysis involves calculating the failure probability of the top
events. The FTA method is simple in principle and convenient in terms of
calculation; hence, it is widely used in the field of risk analysis (Yazdi,
2017). However, when the available information is lacking or insuffi­
cient, its calculation accuracy decreases (Shi et al., 2014). Bai et al.
(2012) combined the FTA and FMEA methods to investigate the hoisting
and transportation risks of floating OWTs, and proposed some risk
management measures. Kang et al. (2019) used the FTA method to
analyse the risk of semi-submersible floating OWTs. Their results
showed that salt spray and high wind speeds are the major factors
affecting the performance of floating OWTs.
3.2.2. Event tree analysis
ETA is a temporal logic analysis method that originated from deci­
sion tree analysis, and is used to identify and quantify the potential
consequences of risk events (Mineo et al., 2017). A tree diagram is used
to represent various potential consequences, with each event tree branch
representing an accident development process. ETA is a dynamic risk
analysis method that can accurately predict accidents and risk factors in
advance, and reflects the relationship between the initial event and
safety protection function. ETA is ideal for analysing situations in which
the initial event may yield multiple outcomes (Chen et al., 2020).
However, ETA assumes that all events are independent; hence, it is
difficult to deal with accidents with domino effects (Abad and Naeni,
2020). Michos et al. (2002) used ETA to identify all potential unsafe
events during the operation of wind turbines and determined the
G. Hou et al. Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469

Table 2
Summary of improved FMEA methods for risk assessment of wind turbines.
Reference Year Country of the first Methods Improvement Conclusions and/or findings
author’s
organisation

Sinha and Steel, 2015 UK FMECA FMECA adds criticality analysis to FMEA. FMECA can identify critical failure modes and offers
(2015) many advantages over other failure analysis methods.
Kahrobaee and 2011 America Risk-basedFMEA Risk-based FMEA is an extension to Risk-based FMEA method determines the failure mode
Asgarpoor, (2011) FMEA, which incorporates the costs priorities based on their contribution to the total failure
associated with each failure mode. cost of the system, which is more practical than the
common FMEA method.
Bakhat and Rajaa, 2020 Morocco FMECA Criticality analysis is used to FMECA is adequate for enhancing other complex system
2020 quantitatively rank the potential failure design, especially in the developing world where funds
modes in terms of their criticality in the and resources are scarce.
entire system.
Kang et al., (2017) 2017 China CorrelationFMEA The connection between failure modes The correlation FMEA method provides suggestions for
and its effect on the failure probability of optimising the design process of floating OWTs and
the entire system are studied. reducing repair costs.
Dinmohammadi and 2013 UK Fuzzy FMEA Fuzzy theory is introduced into the FMEA The result of fuzzy FMEA is more accurate than that of
Shafiee, (2013) model to reduce the influence of the traditional FMEA.
subjective factors.
Shafiee and 2014 UK Modified FMEA Integrating the traditional FMEA and the The modified FMEA provides an organised framework
Dinmohammadi cost consequence of each failure mode. to combine qualitative and quantitative knowledge.
(2014)

probability of occurrence of dangerous accidents. consequences of events (Leimeister and Kolios, 2018). In the quantita­
tive risk assessment, risk is expressed by the occurrence probability and
3.2.3. Bowtie method consequences of the event (Jin et al., 2016a).
The BT method, first proposed by the University of Queensland in )
∑
1979, was named after its overall structure resembling a bow tie R= (Pi × Ci (19)
(Khakzad et al., 2012). The method describes the causes and conse­ i
quences of accidents in the form of a graph by combining the FTA and
ETA methods. The middle of the BT model represents the top event; the where Pi and Ci represent the occurrence probability and consequences
left side is the FTA, which is used to analyse the causes of accidents and of the i-th risk event, respectively.
identify the hazard factors; and the right side is the ETA, which is used to The quantitative risk assessment process is shown in Fig. 12. The
analyse the consequences of accidents and provide risk mitigation results of quantitative risk assessment are intuitive, reliable, and
measures. The BT method can visualise the entire accident process with persuasive, but large amounts of data are required (Jin et al., 2016b).
graphics to help safety managers analyse and manage the risks of OWTs The sources of basic data for quantitative risk assessment include da­
(Ruijter and Guldenmund, 2016). However, the BT model is a static tabases, numerical simulations, and condition monitoring.
structure that cannot be used for dynamic risk analysis. Khakzad et al.
(2012) used the BT method to estimate the failure probability of OWTs 3.3.1. Databases
and updated BT using Bayes’ theorem to estimate the posterior proba­ The prediction of risk occurrence frequency based on historical ac­
bility of the consequences. cident databases is a relatively simple and widely used method, which is
mainly suitable for the situation where the research object information
3.2.4. Bayesian network is lacking or insufficient (Sorensen, 2009). The failure frequency is
The BN is a probability-based uncertainty reasoning method pro­ measured by the ratio of the number of accidents and the exposure
posed by Pearl in 1988 (Yazdi and Kabir, 2017), which takes into ac­
count environmental, organizational, human, and technical factors. The
BN is a directed acyclic graph consisting of nodes and directed lines. The
nodes represent random variables, while the directed lines represent the
causal relationships between nodes. The BN can learn and reason under
the conditions of limited, incomplete, and uncertain information. It has
great advantages in solving the fault problems caused by the uncertainty
and correlations of the complex system, and has been widely used in
many fields (Jäger et al., 2018). However, BN requires a lot of infor­
mation about prior and conditional probabilities. Ashrafi et al. (2015)
performed a risk assessment of wind turbines based on the BN, and
verified the reliability of the BN for risk analysis. Nielsen and Sørensen
(2011) applied the BN to the risk-based operation and maintenance of
OWTs. Yu et al., (2020b) combined the BN with an evidential reasoning
method to establish a semi-qualitative ship collision risk model. In
addition, the Bayesian belief network, Bayesian decision theory,
Bayesian reasoning approach, and Bayesian updating are also used for
the risk assessment of OWTs (Yu et al., 2018; Ung, 2018).

3.3. Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods quantify the risk occurrence probability and Fig. 12. Flowchart of quantitative risk assessment.

11
G. Hou et al. Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469

density of OWTs. The databases available for the risk assessment of

OWTs are listed in Table 3 (Leimeister and Kolios, 2018). Carroll et al.
(2016) collected and analysed the failure rate, repair time, and opera­
tion and maintenance data of approximately 350 OWTs in Europe.
Hameed et al. (2011) established an offshore reliability, availability,
maintainability, and safety database. However, this method must
consider the application scope of databases and make corresponding
changes according to specific conditions. Many existing databases are
inaccurate and incomplete. There are errors in the risk assessment of
different OWTs when historical databases are used.

3.3.2. Numerical simulation methods

Different OWTs are subjected to different loads; hence, their struc­
tural performance and risks also vary. The numerical simulation method
is a powerful tool to simulate the performance and risk of OWTs in a
specific working environment (Lee et al., 2014). Numerical simulation
methods use software tools such as ANSYS, ABAQUS, LS-DYNA, MOSES,
and FLOW-3D to evaluate the risk of OWTs by considering the influence
of various random factors. The risk analysis accuracy of numerical
simulation methods is higher than that of databases. Taflanidis et al.,
(2013) established a simulation-based risk assessment framework for Fig. 13. Risk assessment framework (Taflanidis et al., 2013).
OWTs under extreme environmental conditions, as shown in Fig. 13.
Ding et al. (2014) employed LS-DYNA to investigate the ship collision improvement.
risk by a numerical simulation method.
However, the numerical simulation method is computationally (1) Qualitative methods have the advantages of simple principle,
intensive and time-consuming (Müller and Cheng, 2018). Therefore, the convenient calculation, and low requirements for data; however,
Monte Carlo and stochastic response surface methods are used to deal they rely on expert experience and the results are subjective.
with the time-consuming and low computational efficiency of numerical Qualitative methods can be used for preliminary risk assessments
simulation methods. Taflanidis et al. (2013) introduced the moving of small-scale and less dangerous projects.
least-squares response surface method to improve the computational (2) Semi-quantitative methods are higher-level risk assessment
efficiency of numerical simulations. Oh and Nam (2021) proposed a fast methods that can quantify the failure probability of risk events.
Monte Carlo method to predict the failure probability of OWTs caused However, they cannot quantify the consequences of risk events.
by stochastic variations in soil. The calculation results show that the fast (3) Quantitative methods have high calculation accuracy and can
Monte Carlo method is 5.8 times faster than the traditional method with reveal the mechanism of risk accidents and the role of protective
an accuracy as high as 99.41%. measures. However, they require large amounts of data, and the
calculation process is complex.
3.3.3. Condition monitoring
Condition monitoring is an effective way to obtain real-time data on 4. Challenges and findings
OWTs. Compared with databases and numerical simulation methods,
condition monitoring accurately reflects the operating conditions of The present research showed that significant advances have been
OWTs (Tchakoua et al., 2014). However, a health monitoring system is made in the field of risk analysis of OWT foundations; however, many
required to collect large amounts of data, and the cost is high. Super­ challenges remain.
visory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and condition monitoring
system (CMS) are the two commonly used health monitoring systems for (1) With the development trend in OWTs towards deeper waters and
OWTs (Lin et al., 2019). Yang et al. (2013) quantitatively evaluated the larger capacities, floating foundations and suction bucket foun­
health status of OWTs under different working conditions based on dations have broad potential applications. However, OWTs with
SCADA data. suction bucket foundations have yet to be commercialised, and
more large-scale field tests and engineering applications are
needed. The high cost of floating OWTs restricts their large-scale
3.4. Improvements on risk assessment methodologies of offshore wind
application and require further optimisation in terms of tech­
turbines
nology and cost.
(2) The marine environment is complex and changeable, and many
The review of the risk assessment methodologies of OWTs summar­
risk factors affect the failure of OWT foundations. All risk factors
ised their characteristics. However, these methods still have room for
are discrete and uncertain, resulting in the diversified failure
modes of OWTs. Insufficient understanding of the failure mech­
Table 3
anism leads to increased uncertainty in the risk assessment of
Wind turbine databases (Leimeister and Kolios, 2018).
OWT foundations. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the risks
Name Country Period associated with OWT foundations.
WMEP Germany 1989–2006 (3) The failure risk of OWT foundations in extreme marine environ­
LWK Germany 1993–2006 ments, such as tsunamis and typhoons, will increase significantly.
WindStats Germany 1995–2004
Therefore, research should focus on the risk of OWTs in such
WSD Germany 1995–2004
WindStats Denmark 1994–2003 environments.
WSDK Denmark 1994–2003 (4) Qualitative methods are based on the experience of experts in
Elforsk Sweden 1997–2004 relevant fields to qualitatively judge the risk occurrence proba­
VTT Finland 2000–2004 bility and consequences of risk events. However, because of
ReliaWind Europe 2004–2010
different educational backgrounds and positions, the opinions of

12
G. Hou et al.
experts are uncertain. To improve the accuracy of risk assess­
ment, the uncertainty and diversity of evaluation opinions should
be considered.
(5) Missing, insufficient, and fuzzy data are major problems in the
risk assessment of OWTs. Many existing databases are inaccurate
and incomplete. Although databases can be used for risk predic­
tion, their calculation accuracy must be improved. It is suggested
that machine learning or deep learning algorithms be used to
develop advanced data analysis models for the risk assessment of
OWT foundations.
(6) When using numerical simulation methods for quantitative risk
assessment, the calculation accuracy decreases owing to the
simplification of the models. Software tools must be developed
and improved to increase the accuracy of calculations.
5. Conclusions
This paper reviews the research progress in the risk assessment of
OWT foundations. First, the risks and corresponding risk indicators of
different types of OWT foundations during the construction and service
periods were summarised. The risks of different types of OWT founda­
tions varied greatly during the construction period. The risks faced by
OWT foundations during the service period include scouring, fatigue
damage, ship collision, and corrosion damage; most researchers have
focused on the scour and fatigue risks of OWT foundations. The failure
risk of OWT foundations in extreme marine environments will signifi­
cantly increase. Therefore, research on the risks of OWT foundations in
harsh environments should be strengthened, and effective risk preven­
tion and control measures should be taken. Second, this paper reviewed
various risk assessment methodologies, such as qualitative, semi-
quantitative, and quantitative methods. The qualitative method has
simple calculations and is less dependent on data; however, its evalua­
tion level is the lowest. The quantitative method has high calculation
accuracy, but requires a large amount of data and calculations. The
evaluation level of semi-quantitative methods is between that of the
quantitative and qualitative methods. At present, FMEA and its
improved methods are the most widely used in the risk analysis of
OWTs. It is essential to optimise databases and software tools to meet
higher computing requirements. This review offers important guidance
on risk management and the formulation of risk prevention and control
measures for OWT foundations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ge Hou: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Kui Xu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing -
review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Jijian Lian:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Supervi­
sion, Funding acquisition, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Foundation for Innovative Research
Groups of the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [grant
number E2020402074], Southern Offshore Wind Power Joint Devel­
opment Co., Ltd. [grant number FDGC20200301GR02], Tianjin Natural
Science Foundation [grant number 20JCQNJC01540], the Science Fund
for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China [grant number 51621092], the Program of Introducing
13
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
Talents of Discipline to Universities [grant number B14012]. The au­
thors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments and suggestions to improve the presentation of this
paper.
References
Abad, F., Naeni, L.M., 2020. A hybrid framework to assess the risk of change in
construction projects using fuzzy fault tree and fuzzy event tree analysis. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 1–13.
Abu-Farsakh, M., Rosti, F., Souri, A., 2015. Evaluating pile installation and subsequent
thixotropic and consolidation effects on setup by numerical simulation for full-scale
pile load tests. Can. Geotech. J. 52 (11), 1734–1746.
Adedipe, O., Brennan, F., Mehmanparast, A., Kolios, A., Tavares, I., 2017. Corrosion
fatigue crack growth mechanisms in offshore monopile steel weldments. Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 40 (11), 1868–1881.
Ahmad, N., Kamath, A., Bihs, H., 2020. 3D numerical modelling of scour around a jacket
structure with dynamic free surface capturing. Ocean Eng 200, 107104.
American Petroleum Institute, 2000. API RP 2A WSD Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working Stress
Design. American Petroleum Institute, USA.
Api-BULL-2U, 2004. Bulletin on Stability Design of Cylindrical Shells.
Arabian-Hoseynabadi, H., Oraee, H., Tavner, P.J., 2010. Failure modes and effects
analysis (FMEA) for wind turbines. Int. J. Elec. Power 32 (7), 817–824.
Ashrafi, M., Davoudpour, H., Khodakarami, V., 2015. Risk assessment of wind turbines:
transition from pure mechanistic paradigm to modern complexity paradigm. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 347–355.
Ashuri, T., Zaaijer, M.B., Martins, J.R.R.A., Zhang, J., 2016. Multidisciplinary design
optimization of large wind turbines-Technical, economic, and design challenges.
Energy Convers. Manage. 123, 56–70.
Bai, X., Sun, L., Sun, H., 2012. Risk assessment of hoisting aboard and installation for
offshore wind turbine. In: ASME International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, pp. 107–114.
Bai, Y., Kim, Y., Yan, H., Song, X., Jiang, H., 2016. Reassessment of the jacket structure
due to uniform corrosion damage. Ships Offshore Struct 11 (1), 105–112.
Bakhat, R., Rajaa, M., 2020. Risk assessment of a wind turbine using an AHP-MABAC
approach with grey system theory: a case study of Morocco. Math. Probl. Eng. 1–22.
Bakhtavar, E., Valipour, M., Yousefi, S., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2021. Fuzzy cognitive
maps in systems risk analysis: a comprehensive review. Complex Intell. Syst. 7 (2),
621–637.
Basu, P., Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., Chakraborty, T., 2014. Shaft resistance and setup factors
for piles jacked in clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (3), 04013026.
Beatrice, 2016. Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm.
Bela, A., Le Sourne, H., Buldgen, L., Rigo, P., 2017. Ship collision analysis on offshore
wind turbine monopile foundations. Mar. Struct. 51, 220–241.
Biswal, R., Al Mamun, A., Mehmanparast, A., 2021. On the performance of monopile
weldments under service loading conditions and fatigue damage prediction. Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 44 (6), 1469–1483.
Carroll, J., McDonald, A., McMillan, D., 2016. Failure rate, repair time and unscheduled
O&M cost analysis of offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy 19 (6), 1107–1119.
Chen, H.H., 2019. Experimental study of scour around monopile and jacket-type offshore
wind turbine foundations. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 27 (2), 91–100.
Chen, F., Wang, C., Wang, J., Zhi, Y., Wang, Z., 2020. Risk assessment of chemical
process considering dynamic probability of near misses based on Bayesian theory
and event tree analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 68, 104280.
Chen, Q., Zhang, P., Ding, H., Le, C., Xu, Y., 2021. Study on seepage characteristics of
composite bucket foundation under eccentric load. China Ocean Eng 35 (1),
123–134.
Cheng, Z., Madsen, H.A., Chai, W., Gao, Z., Moan, T., 2017. A comparison of extreme
structural responses and fatigue damage of semi-submersible type floating horizontal
and vertical axis wind turbines. Renew. Energy 108, 207–219.
Chien, L.K., Chiu, S.Y., Tseng, W.C., Chen, K.H., 2013. Risk assessment of offshore wind-
farm construction. In: The Twenty-Third International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, ISOPE-I-13-022.
Community, R., 2020. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report.
Dai, L., Ehlers, S., Rausand, M., Utne, I.B., 2013. Risk of collision between service vessels
and offshore wind turbines. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 109, 18–31.
Dai, G., Gao, L., Chen, X., Wan, Z., Zhu, M., Du, S., 2021. A calculation model of the
equilibrium scour depth for monopile foundations under waves and currents. Arab.
J. Sci. Eng. 46 (5), 5023–5029.
DanTysk Offshore Wind GmbH, 2012. DanTysk Offshore Wind Farm: Harnessing the
Power of the North Seawind, Germany.
De Vries, W., Vemula, N.K., Passon, P., 2011. Final Report WP 4.2: Support Structure
Concepts for Deep Water Sites: Deliverable D4. 2.8 (WP4: Offshore Foundations and
Support Structures).
Ding, H., Zhu, Q., Zhang, P., 2014. Dynamic simulation on collision between ship and
offshore wind turbine. Transactions of Tianjin University 20 (1), 1–6.
Ding, H., Zhao, X., Le, C., Zhang, P., Min, Q., 2019. Towing motion characteristics of
composite bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines. Energies 12 (19), 3767.
Ding, H., Hu, R., Zhang, P., Le, C., 2020. Load bearing behaviors of composite bucket
foundations for offshore wind turbines on layered soil under combined loading.
Ocean Eng 198, 106997.
Dinmohammadi, F., Shafiee, M., 2013. A fuzzy-FMEA risk assessment approach for
offshore wind turbines. Int. J. Progn. Health Manag. 4, 59–68.
G. Hou et al.
Doherty, P., Gavin, K., 2011. Shaft capacity of open-ended piles in clay. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (11), 1090–1102.
DON Genergy, 2013. Anholt Offshore Wind Farm, Denmark.
Dong, W., Moan, T., Gao, Z., 2011. Long-term fatigue analysis of multi-planar tubular
joints for jacket-type offshore wind turbine in time domain. Eng. Struct. 33 (6),
2002–2014.
Dong, W., Moan, T., Gao, Z., 2012. Fatigue reliability analysis of the jacket support
structure for offshore wind turbine considering the effect of corrosion and
inspection. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 106, 11–27.
Dongenergy, 2015. Horns Rev2: One of the World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farms.
Denmark.
Dunjo, J., Fthenakis, V., Vilchez, J.A., Arnaldos, J., 2010. Hazard and operability
(HAZOP) analysis. A literature review. J. Hazard Mater. 173 (1–3), 19–32.
Eriksson, H., Kullander, T., 2013. Assessing Important Technical Risks from Use of a
Floating Wind Turbine Unit Equipped with Pumps for Oxygenation of the
Deepwater. BOX-WIN Technical Report No. 5 C99, pp. 1–18.
Escobar, A., López-Gutiérrez, J.S., Esteban, M.D., Negro, V., 2018. A modified method for
assessing hydrodynamic loads in the design of gravity-based structures for offshore
wind energy. J. Coastal Res. 85 (sp1), 931–935.
Esteban, M.D., Couñago, B., López-Gutiérrez, J.S., Negro, V., Vellisco, F., 2015a. Gravity
based support structures for offshore wind turbine generators: review of the
installation process. Ocean Eng 110, 281–291.
Esteban, M.D., López-Gutiérrez, J.S., Negro, V., Matutano, C., García-Flores, F.M.,
Millán, M.Á., 2015b. Offshore wind foundation design: some key issues. J. Energy
Resour. Technol-Trans. ASME 137 (5), 051211.
Feld, T., 2001. Suction Buckets: a New Innovation Foundation Concept, Applied to
Offshore Wind Turbines. Aalborg: Department of Civil Engineering Geotechnical
Engineering, Aalborg University.
Ganesh, R., Kumar, J., 2021. Ultimate bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
using power type yield criterion using the method of stress characteristics. Comput.
Geotech. 133, 104066.
Gao, Z., Moan, T., Heggelund, S.E., 2005. Time variant reliability of mooring system
considering corrosion deterioration. In: International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, pp. 203–210.
Guo, Y., Wang, H., Lian, J., 2022. Review of integrated installation technologies for
offshore wind turbines: current progress and future development trends. Energy
Convers. Manage. 255, 115319.
GWEC, 2020. GWEC Annual Global Wind Report.
Ha, K., Truong, H.V.A., Dang, T.D., Ahn, K.K., 2020. Recent control technologies for
floating offshore wind energy system: a review. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf-Green.
Technol. 8, 281–301.
Hameed, Z., Vatn, J., Heggset, J., 2011. Challenges in the reliability and maintainability
data collection for offshore wind turbines. Renew. Energy 36 (8), 2154–2165.
Han, Z., Li, C., Deng, Y., Liu, J., 2019. The analysis of anti-collision performance of the
fender with offshore wind turbine tripod impacted by ship and the coefficient of
restitution. Ocean Eng 194, 106614.
Han, C., Liu, K., Ma, Y., Qin, P., Zou, T., 2021. Multiaxial fatigue assessment of jacket-
supported offshore wind turbines considering multiple random correlated loads.
Renew. Energy 169, 1252–1264.
Horn, J., Leira, B.J., 2019. Fatigue reliability assessment of offshore wind turbines with
stochastic availability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 191, 106550.
Hyatt, N., 2018. Guidelines for Process Hazards Analysis (PHA, HAZOP), Hazards
Identification, and Risk Analysis. CRC press.
Hywind, 2016. Hywind Scotland Pilot Park Offshore Wind Farm.
Jäger, W.S., Christie, E.K., Hanea, A.M., den Heijer, C., Spencer, T., 2018. A Bayesian
network approach for coastal risk analysis and decision making. Coast Eng 134,
48–61.
Jamshidi, A., Ait-kadi, D., Ramudhin, A., 2017. Prediction of complex failures’ effects in
offshore wind turbines using fuzzy cognitive maps. In: 8th International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM), Saarbrücken, Germany.
Jamshidi, A., Jamshidi, F., Ait-Kadi, D., Ramudhin, A., 2019. Applied risk analysis
approaches for maintenance of offshore wind turbines; A Literature Review. IFAC-
PapersOnLine 52 (13), 1075–1078.
Jeong, Y.H., Kim, J.H., Park, H.J., Kim, D.S., 2019. Cyclic behavior of unit bucket for
tripod foundation system supporting offshore wind turbine via model tests. Wind
Energy 22 (2), 257–268.
Jeong, Y., Kim, J., Ko, K., Park, H., 2021a. Simplified estimation of rotational stiffness of
tripod foundation for offshore wind turbine under cyclic loadings. Appl. Ocean Res.
112, 102697.
Jeong, Y., Lee, S., Kim, J., 2021b. Centrifuge modeling for the evaluation of the cyclic
behavior of offshore wind turbine with tripod foundation. Appl. Sci. 11 (4), 1718.
Jin, X., Gan, Y., Ju, W., Yang, X., Han, H., 2016a. Research on wind turbine safety
analysis: failure analysis, reliability analysis, and risk assessment. Environ. Prog.
Sustain. Energy 35 (6), 1848–1861.
Jin, X., Ju, W., Zhang, Z., Guo, L., Yang, X., 2016b. System safety analysis of large wind
turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 1293–1307.
Johnston, B., Foley, A., Doran, J., Littler, T., 2020. Levelised cost of energy, A challenge
for offshore wind. Renew. Energy 160, 876–885.
Kahrobaee, S., Asgarpoor, S., 2011. Risk-based failure mode and effect analysis for wind
turbines (RB-FMEA). In: North American Power Symposium. IEEE, pp. 1–7.
Kang, J., Sun, L., Sun, H., Wu, C., 2017. Risk assessment of floating offshore wind turbine
based on correlation-FMEA. Ocean Eng 129, 382–388.
Kang, J., Sun, L., Soares, C.G., 2019. Fault tree analysis of floating offshore wind
turbines. Renew. Energy 133, 1455–1467.
14
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
Katsikogiannis, G., Sørum, S.H., Bachynski, E.E., Amdahl, J., 2021. Environmental
lumping for efficient fatigue assessment of large-diameter monopile wind turbines.
Mar. Struct. 77, 102939.
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., 2012. Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach.
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 104, 36–44.
Kim, D.J., Choo, Y.W., Kim, J.H., Kim, S., Kim, D.S., 2014. Investigation of monotonic
and cyclic behavior of tripod suction bucket foundations for offshore wind towers
using centrifuge modeling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (5), 04014008.
Kvittem, M.I., Moan, T., 2015. Time domain analysis procedures for fatigue assessment
of a semi-submersible wind turbine. Mar. Struct. 40, 38–59.
Larsen, T.J., Madsen, H.A., Larsen, G.C., Hansen, K.S., 2013. Validation of the dynamic
wake meander model for loads and power production in the Egmond aan Zee wind
farm. Wind Energy 16 (4), 605–624.
Lazzerini, B., Mkrtchyan, L., 2011. Analyzing risk impact factors using extended fuzzy
cognitive maps. IEEE Syst. J. 5 (2), 288–297.
Le, C., Ren, J., Wang, K., Zhang, P., Ding, H., 2021. Towing performance of the
submerged floating offshore wind turbine under different wave conditions. J. Mar.
Sci. Eng. 9 (6), 633.
Lee, K., 2013. Effects on the various rubber fenders of a tripod offshore wind turbine
substructure collision strength due to boat. Ocean Eng 72, 188–194.
Lee, Y., Choi, B., Lee, J.H., Kim, S.Y., Han, S., 2014. Reliability-based design optimization
of monopile transition piece for offshore wind turbine system. Renew. Energy 71,
729–741.
Lehmann, E., Peschmann, J., 2002. Energy absorption by the steel structure of ships in
the event of collisions. Mar. Struct. 15 (4), 429–441.
Leimeister, M., Kolios, A., 2018. A review of reliability-based methods for risk analysis
and their application in the offshore wind industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91,
1065–1076.
Li, J., Wang, G., Li, Z., Yang, S., Chong, W.T., Xiang, X., 2020a. A review on development
of offshore wind energy conversion system. Int. J. Energy Res. 44 (12), 9283–9297.
Li, H., Soares, C.G., Huang, H.Z., 2020b. Reliability analysis of a floating offshore wind
turbine using Bayesian Networks. Ocean Eng 217, 107827.
Li, W., Li, B.H., Zheng, X.Y., Rong, W.D., 2021. Experimental study of wave run-up on
tripod offshore wind-turbine foundations. J. Waterw. Port Coast. 147 (2), 04020052.
Lian, J., Zhang, Y., Ma, C., Yang, Y., Chaima, E., 2019a. A review on recent sizing
methodologies of hybrid renewable energy systems. Energy Convers. Manage. 199,
112027.
Lian, J., Cai, O., Dong, X., Jiang, Q., Zhao, Y., 2019b. Health monitoring and safety
evaluation of the offshore wind turbine structure: a review and discussion of future
development. Sustainability 11 (2), 494.
Lian, J., Wang, P., Le, C., Dong, X., Yang, X., Jiang, Q., Jiang, J., 2019c. Reliability
analysis on one-step overall transportation of composite bucket foundation for
offshore wind turbine. Energies 13 (1), 23.
Liang, F., Zheng, H., Zhang, H., 2020. On the pile tension capacity of scoured tripod
foundation supporting offshore wind turbines. Appl. Ocean Res. 102, 102323.
Lin, Y., Lu, P., Lin, C., 2019. Numerical simulation of maximum wave loads and run-up
heights on offshore wind turbine foundations influenced by the instability of
bichromatic wave groups. Mar. Struct. 67, 102648.
Liu, Y., Li, S., Yi, Q., Chen, D., 2016. Developments in semi-submersible floating
foundations supporting wind turbines: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 60, 433–449.
Liu, B., Zhang, Y., Ma, Z., Andersen, K.H., Jostad, H.P., Liu, D., Pei, A., 2020. Design
considerations of suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines in Southern
China. Appl. Ocean Res. 104, 102358.
Lodon, 2013. Lodon Array Offshore Wind Farm.
Madsen, S., Andersen, L.V., Ibsen, L.B., 2013. Numerical buckling analysis of large
suction caissons for wind turbines on deep water. Eng. Struct. 57, 443–452.
Maher, M.M., Swain, G., 2018. The corrosion and biofouling characteristics of sealed vs.
perforated offshore monopile interiors experiment design comparing corrosion and
environment inside steel pipe. In: OCEANS 2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston IEEE,
pp. 1–4.
Martinez, A., Iglesias, G., 2021. Wind resource evolution in Europe under different
scenarios of climate change characterised by the novel Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways. Energy Convers. Manage. 234, 113961.
Mentes, A., Helvacioglu, I.H., 2011. An application of fuzzy fault tree analysis for spread
mooring systems. Ocean Eng 38 (2), 285–294.
Michos, D., Dialynas, E., Vionis, P., 2002. Reliability and safety assessment of wind
turbines control and protection systems. Wind Eng 26 (6), 359–369.
Mineo, S., Pappalardo, G., D’Urso, A., Calcaterra, D., 2017. Event tree analysis for
rockfall risk assessment along a strategic mountainous transportation route. Environ.
Earth. Sci. 76 (17), 1–21.
Moan, T., 2005. Reliability-based management of inspection, maintenance and repair of
offshore structures. Struct. Infrastruct. E. 1 (1), 33–62.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M.P., Paik, J.K., 2019. A probabilistic approach to determine design
loads for collision between an offshore supply vessel and offshore installations.
Ocean Eng 173, 358–374.
Müller, K., Cheng, P.W., 2018. Application of a Monte Carlo procedure for probabilistic
fatigue design of floating offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy Sci 3 (1), 149–162.
Nielsen, H.L., 2013. Universal Foundation Suction Bucket: a Solution in Support for
Offshore Wind.
Nielsen, J.J., Sørensen, J.D., 2011. Risk-based operation and maintenance of offshore
wind turbines using Bayesian networks. In: 11th International Conference on
Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP), Applications
of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, pp. 311–317.
NorskeVeritas, Det, 2013. DNV-OS-C301: Stability and Watertight Integrity.
G. Hou et al.
Offshore standard, 2014. Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures DNV-OS-101. Det
Noske Veritas.
Oh, K., Nam, W., 2021. A fast Monte-Carlo method to predict failure probability of
offshore wind turbine caused by stochastic variations in soil. Ocean Eng 223,
108635.
Oh, K., Nam, W., Ryu, M.S., Kim, J., Epureanu, B.I., 2018. A review of foundations of
offshore wind energy convertors: current status and future perspectives. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 88, 16–36.
Patra, S.K., Haldar, S., 2021. Seismic response of monopile supported offshore wind
turbine in liquefiable soil. Structures 31, 248–265.
Raed, K., Teixeira, A.P., Guedes Soares, C., 2020. Uncertainty assessment for the extreme
hydrodynamic responses of a wind turbine semi-submersible platform using different
environmental contour approaches. Ocean Eng 195, 106719.
Ren, N., Ma, Z., Shan, B., Ning, D., Ou, J., 2020. Experimental and numerical study of
dynamic responses of a new combined TLP type floating wind turbine and a wave
energy converter under operational conditions. Renew. Energy 151, 966–974.
Rezaei, R., Fromme, P., Duffour, P., 2018. Fatigue life sensitivity of monopile-supported
offshore wind turbines to damping. Renew. Energy 123, 450–459.
Ruijter, D.A., Guldenmund, F., 2016. The bowtie method: a review. Safety Sci 88,
211–218.
Ruijters, E., Stoelinga, M., 2015. Fault tree analysis: a survey of the state-of-the-art in
modeling, analysis and tools. Comput. Sci. Rev. 16, 29–62.
Sang, L.Q., Li, Q.A., Cai, C., Maeda, T., Kamada, Y., Wang, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, F., 2021.
Wind tunnel and numerical study of a floating offshore wind turbine based on the
cyclic pitch control. Renew. Energy 172, 453–464.
Shafiee, M., Dinmohammadi, F., 2014. An FMEA-Based risk assessment approach for
wind turbine systems: A comparative study of onshore and offshore. Energies 7 (2),
619–642.
Shi, L., Shuai, J., Xu, K., 2014. Fuzzy fault tree assessment based on improved AHP for
fire and explosion accidents for steel oil storage tanks. J. Hazard Mater. 278,
529–538.
Sinha, Y., Steel, J.A., 2015. A progressive study into offshore wind farm maintenance
optimisation using risk based failure analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42,
735–742.
Song, Y., Liu, J., Wei, Y., Zhang, M., 2021. Study on the direct and indirect effectiveness
of wind power policy: empirical evidence from 30 provinces in China. Renew.
Energy 170, 749–763.
Sorensen, J.D., 2009. Framework for Risk-based planning of operation and maintenance
for offshore wind turbines. Wind energy 12 (5), 493–506.
Taflanidis, A.A., Loukogeorgaki, E., Angelides, D.C., 2013. Offshore wind turbine risk
quantification/evaluation under extreme environmental conditions. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Safe 115, 19–32.
Tang, D., Zhao, M., 2021. Real-time monitoring system for scour around monopile
foundation of offshore wind turbine. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 11 (3), 645–660.
Tao, S., Xu, Q., Feijóo, A., Zheng, G., Zhou, J., 2020. Nonuniform wind farm layout
optimization: a state-of-the-art review. Energy 209, 118339.
Tchakoua, P., Wamkeue, R., Ouhrouche, M., Slaoui-Hasnaoui, F., Tameghe, T.A.,
Ekemb, G., 2014. Wind turbine condition monitoring: state-of-the-art review, new
trends, and future challenges. Energies 7 (4), 2595–2630.
Thornton Bank, 2013a. Phase II Offshore Wind Farm.
Thornton Bank, 2013b. Phase III Offshore Wind Farm.
Trojnar, K., 2021. Simplified design of new hybrid monopile foundations for offshore
wind turbines. Ocean Eng 219, 108046.
Ung, S., 2018. Development of a weighted probabilistic risk assessment method for
offshore engineering systems using fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach.
Ocean Eng 147, 268–276.
Vattenfall, 2010. Horns Rev1 Offshore Wind Farm.
Vattenfall, 2012. Ormonde Offshore Wind Farm: MediaPack.Stockholm, Sweden.
Veritas, D.N.V.D.N., Norske, D., 2010. DNV-OS-J101 Offshore Standard. Design of
Offshore Wind Turbine Structures.
Wang, X., Zhang, P., Ding, H., Liu, R., 2017. Experimental study of the accumulative
deformation effect on wide-shallow composite bucket foundation for offshore wind
turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 9 (6), 63306.
Wang, X., Zeng, X., Li, J., Yang, X., Wang, H., 2018a. A review on recent advancements of
substructures for offshore wind turbines. Energy Convers. Manage. 158, 103–119.
Wang, X., Zeng, X., Yang, X., Li, J., 2018b. Feasibility study of offshore wind turbines
with hybrid monopile foundation based on centrifuge modeling. Appl. Energy 209,
127–139.
15
Ocean Engineering 264 (2022) 112469
Wang, H., Yan, C., Guo, Y., Yang, X., Lian, J., Weng, P., 2022. Research on sinking and
leveling control technology of tripod bucket foundation in sand. Appl. Ocean Res.
118, 103013.
Welzel, M., Schendel, A., Hildebrandt, A., Schlurmann, T., 2019. Scour development
around a jacket structure in combined waves and current conditions compared to
monopile foundations. Coast. Eng. 152, 103515.
Whitehouse, R.J., Sutherland, J., Harris, J.M., 2011a. Evaluating scour at marine gravity
foundations. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Maritime
Engineering, pp. 143–157.
Whitehouse, R.J., Harris, J.M., Sutherland, J., Rees, J., 2011b. The nature of scour
development and scour protection at offshore windfarm foundations. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 62 (1), 73–88.
Xiao, N., Huang, H., Li, Y., He, L., Jin, T., 2011. Multiple failure modes analysis and
weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (4),
1162–1170.
Yang, M.L., Xu, G.N., Chang, Z.Y., 2011. Accident reconstruction of lifting crane based on
FEA. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans. Tech. Publications Ltd,
pp. 1315–1317.
Yang, W., Court, R., Jiang, J., 2013. Wind turbine condition monitoring by the approach
of SCADA data analysis. Renew. Energy 53, 365–376.
Yang, B., Wei, K., Yang, W., Li, T., Qin, B., 2021. A feasibility study of reducing scour
around monopile foundation using a tidal current turbine. Ocean Eng 220, 108396.
Yazdi, M., 2017. Hybrid probabilistic risk assessment using fuzzy FTA and fuzzy AHP in a
process industry. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 17 (4), 756–764.
Yazdi, M., Kabir, S., 2017. A fuzzy Bayesian network approach for risk analysis in process
industries. Process Saf. Environ. Protect 111, 507–519.
Yeter, B., Garbatov, Y., Soares, C.G., 2015. Fatigue damage assessment of fixed offshore
wind turbine tripod support structures. Eng. Struct. 101, 518–528.
Yeter, B., Garbatov, Y., Soares, C.G., 2016. Evaluation of fatigue damage model
predictions for fixed offshore wind turbine support structures. Int. J. Fatigue 87,
71–80.
Yu, T., Lian, J., Shi, Z., Wang, H., 2016. Experimental investigation of current-induced
local scour around composite bucket foundation in silty sand. Ocean Eng 117,
311–320.
Yu, Q., Xin, X., Liu, K., Zhang, J., 2018. Risk analysis of ships & offshore wind turbines
collision: risk evaluation and case study. In: 4th International Conference on
Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH), Progress in Maritime
Technology and Engineering, pp. 484–490.
Yu, T., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Shi, Z., Chen, X., Xu, Y., Tang, Y., 2019. Experimental study
on scour around a composite bucket foundation due to waves and current. Ocean
Eng 189, 106302.
Yu, M., Zhang, Z., Li, X., Yu, J., Gao, J., Liu, Z., Yu, R., 2020a. Superposition graph neural
network for offshore wind power prediction. Futur. Gener. Comp. Syst. 113,
145–157.
Yu, Q., Liu, K., Chang, C.H., Yang, Z., 2020b. Realising advanced risk assessment of
vessel traffic flows near offshore wind farms. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 203, 107086.
Yuan, C., Melville, B.W., Adams, K.N., 2017. Scour at wind turbine tripod foundation
under steady flow. Ocean Eng 141, 277–282.
Zhang, P., Ding, H., Le, C., Huang, X., 2013. Motion analysis on integrated transportation
technique for offshore wind turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 5 (5), 53117.
Zhang, P., Xiong, K., Ding, H., Le, C., 2014. Anti-liquefaction characteristics of composite
bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 6 (5),
53102.
Zhang, P., Liang, D., Ding, H., Le, C., Zhao, X., 2019. Floating state of a one-step
integrated transportation vessel with two composite bucket foundations and offshore
wind turbines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7 (8), 263.
Zhang, Y., Han, J., Pan, G., Xu, Y., Wang, F., 2021a. A multi-stage predicting
methodology based on data decomposition and error correction for ultra-short-term
wind energy prediction. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 125981.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Lin, H., Feng, L., 2021b. Numerical investigation on bearing
capacity of OWT foundation with large diameter monopile under Seismic load. Appl.
Ocean Res. 108, 102518.
Zhao, X., Zhang, P., Lv, Y., Ding, H., 2020. Scour effects on bearing capacity of composite
bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines. Mar. Geores. Geotechnol. 38 (2),
223–237.
Zou, X., Cao, X., Zhou, C., Zhou, M., Zhang, X., 2021. Experimental study on the bearing
capacity of large-diameter monopile in sand under water flow condition. Ocean Eng
224, 108708.