See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305000849

The Effects of Yaw Error on Reliability of Wind Turbine Blades

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/ES2016-59151

CITATIONS READS
15 1,014

2 authors:

Roozbeh Bakhshi Peter Sandborn

University of Maryland, College Park University of Maryland, College Park
17 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    284 PUBLICATIONS   3,446 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Servitization; manufacturing focused work View project

Dynamic Performance Model for a Closed-loop Supply Chain System with Uncertain Demand and Returns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roozbeh Bakhshi on 07 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Power and Energy Conference
PowerEnergy2016
June 26-30, 2016, Charlotte, North Carolina

PowerEnergy2016-59151

THE EFFECT OF YAW ERROR ON THE RELIABILITY OF WIND TURBINE BLADES

Roozbeh Bakhshi Peter Sandborn

University of Maryland-College Park University of Maryland-College Park
College Park, Maryland, USA College Park, Maryland, USA

ABSTRACT P Power production

The rise of energy prices, concerns over climate change and
geopolitical issues have brought special attention to renewable
sources of energy and wind energy in particular. Based on NREL
projections, the United States has more than 32,000 TWh of
onshore and 17,000 TWh of offshore potential for wind power
generation, which is far beyond its 11,000 TWh of current annual
electricity consumption. However, there are a number of
efficiency challenges that must be overcome in order to turn this
potential into actual production. One area that can potentially
improve the energy production of wind turbines is the correction
of yaw error. Yaw error (also referred to as yaw angle or yaw
misalignment) is the angle between the turbine`s rotor and the
wind direction. A yaw error reduces turbine`s power production
at wind speeds below the rated speed.
Besides impacting the power producing ability of a turbine,
yaw error also affects the reliability of critical subsystems in
wind turbines. Variation in yaw error (at any wind speed and not
only below the rated speed) affects the loads on the components
and the subsequent mechanical stresses. These mechanical
stresses change the damage accumulation for components and
sub-assemblies, which ultimately affects their reliability. About
17 to 28% of wind project costs attribute to O&M costs, which
are directly affected by the reliability.
In this study, we investigate the effects of yaw error on the
reliability of blades by performing load and stress analysis for
various yaw errors. We then use the results of these analyses to
adjust the Weibull parameters used for predicting the failure time
of blades. Finally, we will use a stochastic cost model to show
how correcting the yaw error can avoid maintenance costs in
wind farms.
NOMENCLATURE
A Sweeping area of rotor
B Coefficient depending on material properties
m Exponent depending on material properties
N Number of cycles to failure
r Reliability improvement relative to 0 degrees (fraction)
T Failure time
V Wind speed
α Yaw error
β Weibull shape parameter
𝜂 Weibull scale parameter
γ Weibull location parameter
ρ Air density
σ Equivalent stress
INTRODUCTION
With concerns over climate change and geopolitical
conflicts, countries have been shifting toward renewable energy
sources to address the emission of carbon dioxide, and at the
same time secure stable sources of energy. Wind energy, both
onshore and offshore, have been a central focus in renewable
energy strategies. US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)
projects the US potential wind energy electricity production as
32,000 TWh for onshore and 17,000 TWh for offshore, which is
far beyond the current annual US electricity consumption of
11,000 TWh [1].
Energy production from a wind turbine is a function of many
parameters such as wind speed, the distribution of wind speeds,
uptime (the number of hours the turbine is operational), etc. One
parameter that affects the energy production of a wind turbine is
the yaw error (also referred to as yaw angle or yaw
misalignment). Yaw error is the angle between wind direction
and rotor`s central axis line (defined in the horizontal plane).
Yaw error reduces the power production at wind speeds less than
the rated speed. The relation between the yaw error and power
production is:
1
𝑃 = 𝜌𝐴𝑉 3 𝑐𝑜𝑠 3 (𝛼) (1)
2
where:
P: power production
ρ: air density

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

A: sweeping area of rotor
V: wind speed
α: yaw error
The traditional way to measure and correct the yaw error is
through a vane mounted on the nacelle of the turbine. This
method always results in some remainder yaw error. The average
reported yaw error for a wind turbine using vanes is about 7
degrees [2] and some studies report it as high as 10 degrees [3].
There have been several technological improvements to address
this issue. For example, light detection and ranging (LIDAR)
uses laser beams and their reflection from particles in the wind
flow to measure wind speed and direction in front of the turbine.
Using LIDAR, yaw error can be reduced to as low as 1 degree.
Several studies have focused on the benefits of yaw error
reduction to the revenue generation of a wind turbine. For
example, a 7 to 1 degree reduction results in an extra 2% power
generation [4]. The important aspect of using LIDAR systems in
wind farms is how often the yaw correction is made. Ideally, each
turbine in a farm would have its own dedicated LIDAR, which
keeps the yaw error at a minimum at all times, however this
approach can be expensive. Another approach is to move a single
or multiple LIDAR units between all the wind turbines in a farm.
In this approach, the LIDAR stays on a particular turbine for a
specific period of time, corrects the yaw error then moves to the
next turbine. The corrected yaw error (to about 1 degree)
gradually regresses back to its original uncorrected state until the
LIDAR comes back to that particular turbine.
The studies referenced above [2-3] only consider power
generation efficiency improvements and neglect the effects of
yaw error on the reliability of wind turbines. The misalignment
between the wind direction and rotor puts extra cyclic loads on
some critical components such as the blades and gearbox. These
elevated loads produce elevated stresses on the components.
These stresses cause additional cyclic damager to accumulate
and eventually results in a shorter useful life and a subsequent
failure of turbine components. Load alleviation through yaw
error reduction has been shown to improve the reliability of sub-
assemblies [5]. As a result, not only the cost of maintenance is
reduced but also, the uptime (operation time) of the wind turbine
increases, which results in extra revenue. In this paper, we focus
on the effects of yaw error improvements on turbine blades,
quantify the reliability improvement as a function of yaw error
reduction and investigate the cost benefits of yaw error
reduction.
LOAD ANALYSIS
Load analysis in wind turbines, includes forces and
moments applied to components and sub-assemblies. These
loads are either extreme loads or cyclic loads. Extreme loads are
due to extreme conditions such as high or unusual winds speeds.
Cyclic loads come from attributes such as the rotation of the
rotor, yaw movement, uneven wind profiles on the rotor (shear
wind), etc. Extreme loads result in overstress failure mechanisms
whereas cyclic loads result in wearout failure mechanisms [6].
For example, a single occurrence of an extreme load at a very
high wind speed may result in an instantaneous failure whereas
occurrences of lower wind speeds do not result in instantaneous
failures but they introduce damage to the component and over
time, this damage accumulates and results in a failure. Cyclic
loads are the primary cause of fatigue (which is a wearout failure
mechanism) in turbine sub-assemblies, [7-8]; wearout is the
focus of this paper. In order to study cyclic loads, we have to
understand which wind speeds are experienced most frequently.
In this work, we focus on four main cyclic loads and how
they yaw error affects them. These loads are edgewise shear
force, flapwise shear force, edgewise bending moment and
flapwise bending moment. These loads are a result of shear wind,
where the wind speed at the top of the rotor is different from
wind speed at the bottom of it.
We study the variation of these four loads at constant wind
speeds for different yaw errors. These speeds are the most
probable wind speeds that a wind turbine will experience
throughout its life. For example, wind speed probability density
function (pdf) in the Delaware Bay [9] is shown in Figure 1. The
most probable wind speed is 8 m/s. Here, we focus on wind
speeds of 6, 7 and 8 m/s.
Figure 1- Wind speed pdf for year 2011 at Delaware Bay, using data
from [9]
Load analysis can be done on any location on the blades;
however, the most susceptible site for failure is the blade root,
where the blade is attached to rotor. Research shows that most
fatigue related failure of turbine blades occur at the junction
where blade attaches to the rotor [10].
In our investigation, we use the load analysis data provided
by [11]. The analysis was done on a generic 2MW wind turbine
with hub height of 65 meters, cut-in wind speed of 4 m/s, cut out
of 25 m/s and rated wind speed of 12.8 m/s.
Variation of the four main loads, flapwise bending moment
(Flap BM), edgewise bending moment (Edge BM), flapwise
shear force (Flap SF) and edgewise shear force (Edge SF) as a
function of yaw error are plotted in Figures 2-4. Assuming a yaw
error of 0 degrees as a point of reference, vertical axis shows how
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
much loads at each yaw error change relative to the loads at 0
degrees. These plots represent loads at the blade root.
Figure 2-Variation of loads with yaw error at blade root for wind
speeds of 8 m/s, using data from [11]
Figure 3- Variation of loads with yaw error at blade root for wind
speeds of 7 m/s, using data from [11]
Figure 4-Variation of loads with yaw error at blade root for wind
speeds of 6 m/s, using data from [11]
In all the scenarios shown in Figures 2-4, the changes in
edgewise bending moment and edgewise shear force have a
direct reverse relation with changes in yaw error, i.e., they
decline as the yaw increases and they never reach a minimum.
The flapwise bending moment and shear force show a
different behavior. They have a deflection point where the load
reaches a minimum. The deflation point is different at different
wind speeds. For the flapwise bending moment, the minimum
occurs at 0 degrees of yaw error for wind speeds of 7 and 8 m/s,
whereas at 6 m/s it doesn`t reach the minimum until a much
larger yaw error.
Another important observation is the sensitivity of loads to
yaw error variations. The most sensitive load is flapwise bending
moment where a drop of 8% to 11% at different wind speeds is
observed when yaw error changes from -20 to 0 degrees.
STRESS ANALYSIS
Cyclic loads create damage that accumulates over time. The
accumulated damage results in a fatigue failure mechanism. This
damage accumulation can be modeled using several methods.
Miner`s rule is the most common model for damage equivalent
stress. Through the use of S-N curves, the equivalent stress can
be transformed to the number of cycles to failure. S-N curves
depend on the components` material properties. Equation (2)
shows the mathematical form of an S-N curve.
𝑁 = 𝐵𝜎 𝑚 (2)
where:
N: number of cycles to failure
B: coefficient depending of material properties
m: exponent depending on material properties
σ: equivalent stress
The number of cycles to failure calculated through this
method corresponds to the point where 63.2% of the population
have failed. Equation (2) can also be written as a ratio like
Equation (3) in order to compare the number of cycles to failure
for cases where stress changes.
𝑁2 𝜎
= ( 2 )𝑚 (3)
𝑁1 𝜎1
The equivalent stress (σ) in Equation (3) is the stress at a
specific point on a structure caused by all the loads at that
particular point. However, if there is a dominant load, which
contributes the most to the variation of stress, it can replace the
stress in Equation (3). In our study, flapwise bending moment, as
discussed in the previous section, is the load that reacts the most
to variations of yaw error and therefore can replace the stress.
We assume that there is a linear relation between load and stress.
Huang et al. [11] investigates the loads at yaw errors
between -20 to 20 degrees in 8-degree step intervals. In order to
see the effects of yaw error on the number of cycles to failure,
we take the loads at 0 and 8 degrees yaw errors and calculate the
ratio in Equation (3). Table 1 shows the loads for different wind
speeds.
Table 1- Flapwise bending moment (units in kNm), data from [11]
8 m/s 7 m/s 6 m/s
Flap BM (Yaw=8 degrees) 2024.39 1876.34 1706.44
Flap BM (Yaw=0 degrees) 2074.26 1892.9 1687.22
Calculating the change in N for a blade made out of
composites with a material property exponent m = -10, and at the
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
wind speed of 8 m/s, which is the most probable wind speed
based on Figure 2, we obtain:
𝑁2 𝜎2 𝑚 𝑙2 𝑚 𝐹𝑙𝑎𝑝 𝐵𝑀 𝑁2 2024.39 −10
=( ) ≅( ) → =( ) (4)
𝑁1 𝜎1 𝑙1 𝑁1 2074.26
= 0.9759 −10
= 1.2762
This implies that for an 8 degree correction of yaw error, the
number of cycles to failure improves by 27%.
Using the data in [11] for yaw errors ranging from 0 to 20
degrees and performing a similar analysis, we developed a third
degree polynomial function that shows the relation between
reliability and yaw error change:
𝑟 = 0.000139(𝛼)3 − 0.001553(𝛼)2 + 0.037151(𝛼) +
0.004266 (5)
where:
r: reliability improvement relative to yaw = 0 degrees (fraction)
α: yaw error
The formula calculates the reliability when the corrected yaw is
0 degrees. In order to use it for corrected yaw values other than
0 degrees, a ∆r value has to be calculated where r1 and r2
represent the yaw errors before and after correction.
RELIABILITY OF BLADES
Reliability of wind turbine and its sub-assemblies can be
modeled using a two or three parameter Weibull distribution.
Equation (6) shows the probability density function (pdf) of 3-
parameter Weibull distribution.
𝑇−𝛾
𝛽 𝑇−𝛾 𝛽−1 −( 𝜂 )𝛽
𝑓(𝑇) = ( ) 𝑒 (6)
𝜂 𝜂
where:
T: failure time
β: shape parameter
𝜂: scale parameter
γ: location parameter
The location parameter refers to failure free time. In many cases,
γ is assumed to be zero and Equation (6) turns into what is known
as a 2-parameter Weibull distribution.
Studies such as [12-14] studied field failure data for turbines
in Britain and Sweden while [15] performed reliability analysis
to generate to 2-parameter Weibull distributions for wind
turbines in Germany. The investigation in [15] was for the cases
that a failure of a blade occurred and the subsequent maintenance
was a blade replacement. The data provided in [15] does not
specify the yaw errors, however, since the population is large (on
the order of 1000s of turbines), and the data goes back as far as
1994 where LIDAR yaw correction was not common, it is
assumed that the yaw error was the common 7 degrees
mentioned in [2]. Here we use Weibull parameters calculated by
[15] in which blades follow a 2-parameter Weibull distribution
with scale parameter (η)=10.323 years and shape parameter
(β)=1.042. In a Weibull distribution, the scale parameter
represent 63.2% unreliability, which is the same concept as the
number of cycle to failure from an S-N curve. By using Equation
(5), for a 7 to 1 degree yaw improvement, the reliability of blades
improves 19.8%. The subsequent improved Weibull scale
parameter will be 12.366 years. These parameters (shape and the
new scale) form a new Weibull distribution, which represent the
time to failure of blades in the case where the yaw error is 1
degree. Figure 5 shows the Weibull distribution for blade time to
failure before and after the yaw error correction for a total
support time of 20 years.
Figure 5-Weibull distribution for blades failure before and after yaw
error correction
COST MODEL
Yaw error reduction has multiple benefits: extra energy
production due to higher efficiency (Equation (1)), and fewer
maintenance events due to improved reliability. In this section
we focus on cost benefits due to fewer maintenance events, i.e.,
cost avoidances and the extra revenue generated due to
performance improvements.
Each failure costs money. Maintenance could be corrective
(break-fix) or preventive (replace before failure). In either case,
an improved reliability extends the life of a component and
results in fewer maintenance events over the total life cycle of
the wind farm (nominally 20 years). Component replacement is
only one of the contributors to the maintenance cost. Other costs
include transportation cost, labor cost, inventory management
cost, power loss, etc.
Our approach is to model the maintenance cost in a
stochastic discrete-event simulator [17-19]. The analysis is
stochastic because the failures follow a probability distribution
and do not occur on pre-determined dates. The system
considered is a wind farm consisting of individual wind turbines
where the state of each turbine (which is ‘functional’ or
‘stopped’) only changes at discrete points in time. Failures and
their subsequent maintenance are events that change the state of
the system.
We focus only cost avoidance due to fewer replacements
(component costs) and do not include other maintenance costs
(labor, transportation, power loss, etc.). The average cost of a
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
single blade is assumed to be $200,000 [20], and we assume that
every maintenance event we generate through our discrete-event
simulator results in a blade replacement since the inputs to the
model were calculated based on blade field failure data.
Maintenance events that result in blade repair (as opposed to
blade replacement) are not included since we don`t have enough
data to investigate them. For a wind farm with 30 turbines and a
LIDAR device on each turbine, the total cost of maintenance due
only to blade replacement with yaw errors of 7 and 1 degrees for
20 years of operation are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 7-Cumulative revenue for a 30-turbine wind farm over 20 years

(discount rate = 0)

Summing the cumulative blade replacement cost avoidance

(Figure 6) and cumulative revenue increase (Figure 7) we get $4
million (referred to as the Total Cost Benefits), which still falls
short of the LIDAR purchase and maintenance cost over 20 years
($7.2 million from Table 2). Figures 6 and 7 are the results for a
single run of the stochastic model. Figure 8 shows the results of
using Monte Carlo analysis (100 runs).

Figure 6- Cumulative cost of maintenance for a 30-turbine wind farm

over 20 years, steps indicate blade replacement maintenance events
(discount rate = 0)

The cost avoidance due to correction of yaw error is about 2

million dollars for the wind farm (the difference between the two
lines in Figure 6 at 20 years). Each LIDAR device costs
$120,000 and maintaining the LIDAR is 10% of the cost of the
LIDAR device every 2 years [2]. Table 2 shows the total cost of
LIDAR ownership for a 30-turbine farm.
Table 2- LIDAR cost of ownership for a 30-turbine farm over 20 years
(discount rate = 0)

Total Cost of
Purchase Cost ($) Maintenance Cost ($)
Ownership ($)
Figure 8-Histogram of cost benefits due to correction of yaw error
3,600,000 3,600,000 7,200,000 after 20 years

Considering only the cost avoidances due to blade
replacement ($2 million from Figure 6), implementation of
LIDAR on every single turbine in a wind farm ($7.2 million from
Table 2) is not financially justified; however, LIDAR has other
cost benefits. There is the extra revenue generation because of
performance improvements. As Equation (1) shows, the energy
production of a turbine has a direct relation with the yaw error of
the turbine. Figure 7 shows the revenue generated by a wind farm
over 20 years consisting of 30 turbines with a rated power of 6
MW per turbine assuming the cost of electricity is $0.144 per
kWh of energy.
In the best case scenario, the maximum cost benefit is about
$5 million, which is less than the $7.2 million cost of ownership
of the 30 LIDARs on 30 turbines for the whole operation period
of the farm.
Considering all cost benefits and the best-case scenario,
implementing LIDAR on every single turbine to avoid
maintenance costs due to blade replacements does not have a
financial justification. However, it is important to note that
LIDAR does not just affect the reliability of blades. It also
concurrently affects the reliability of other critical and expensive
components such as the gearbox and generator (component costs

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

of around $300,000 and $150,000 [20]). We have not
investigated the reliability improvements of other components.
We are also ignoring the cost avoidances due to maintenance
events that do not necessarily result in a component replacement
but require only a repair. A comprehensive cost model, which
included repair and replacement of all critical components, will
give a more thorough understanding of true cost benefits of
LIDAR systems.
DISCUSSION
In this paper, we showed that correction of yaw error
reduces the stress, improves the fatigue life and subsequently
leads to a better reliability. However, it`s important to point out
the simplifying assumptions in this work. The first assumption
to address is how load calculations are done. The loads are
investigated at only three wind speeds with 8-degree yaw errors
steps. In order to get better results, loads calculations should be
in smaller intervals of yaw errors at a broader range of wind
speeds.
Another assumption is in the calculation of stress. In reality,
stress is not a function of only one load and it may or may not
have a linear relation with load(s). A finite element analysis
(FEA) model investigates the effects of multiple loads on
stresses in a more detailed way. After calculating equivalent
stresses, in order to transform these stresses into fatigue life, one
would have to choose a specific or reference wind turbine with
known material properties such as mass and stiffness.
The maintenance cost model used in this paper is very
simple - corrective maintenance that considers the cost of spares
as the sole contributor to maintenance cost. More sophisticated
maintenance models could be used [21-23]. Here we are
assuming that every turbine in the farm has a dedicated LIDAR
installed on it, and every maintenance event results in a blade
replacement. Basically it`s a comparison between two cases
where the turbines operate at a constant 7-degree yaw error for
20 years versus a case where turbines always operate at 1-degree
over the life of the wind farm.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that correction of yaw error has benefits beyond the
extra revenue. Lower stresses and subsequent improved fatigue
life leads to an increased reliability. The improvements reduce
the number of failures and essentially maintenance events. With
high costs of components, cost avoidance from improved
reliability is on the order of millions of dollars.
We performed the analysis only on blades. Extra loading due
to yaw error concurrently affects other components in a wind
turbine such as gearbox, generator and rotor. A thorough analysis
of all the components affected by yaw error would demonstrate
the true cost avoidances of yaw error correction. Just considering
cost avoidances due to only blade replacements does not make a
business case for implementation of LIDAR. In future studies,
development of a comprehensive model will demonstrate how
yaw error correction affects the reliability of all components,
which experience extra loading due to yaw error. The model has
to incorporate both component replacement and repair.
Lastly, the policy of installing a LIDAR device permanently
on every single wind turbine in a wind farm may not be the
optimal solution. In future studies, we will investigate other
policies where one or multiple LIDAR devices circulate in the
wind farm. In these scenarios, the LIDAR capital and operation
costs reduce significantly. It`s also important to point out that the
cost of LIDAR is in a downtrend and in 10 years, the prices might
be a fraction of what they are today. In addition, the cost of the
components relative to the cost of the LIDAR is a significant
driver. Cost of blades and other major components for large
offshore turbines vary depending on the size of the turbine,
which may change the business case for putting a LIDAR on
every turbine.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this work was provided by Exelon for the
advancement of Maryland's offshore wind energy and jointly
administered by MEA and MHEC, as part of “Maryland
Offshore Wind Farm Integrated Research (MOWFIR): Wind
Resources, Turbine Aeromechanics, Prognostics and
Sustainability”.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Lopez, B. Roberts, D. Heimiller, N. Blair, and G. Porro,
“U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based
Analysis.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 2012.
[2] E. Marin and H. Pedersen, “Pointing to the Right Direction,”
presented at the EWEA, Malmo, Sweden, December 2014.
[3] K. A. Kragh, M. H. Hansen, and T. Mikkelsen, “Precision
and Shortcomings of Yaw Error Estimation Using Spinner-Based
Light Detection and Ranging,” Wind Energy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
353–366, April 2013.
[4] F. Rebeyrat, “Turbine-Mounted Lidar for Performance
Optimization,” Wind Energy Update: 6th International Wind
O&M Forum, Hamburg, Germany, January 2014.
[5] K. A. Kragh and M. H. Hansen, “Load Alleviation of Wind
Turbines by Yaw Misalignment,” Wind Energy, vol. 17, no. 7,
pp. 971–982, July 2014.
[6] R. Bakhshi, S. Kunche, and M. Pecht, “Intermittent Failures
in Hardware and Software,” Journal of Electronics Packaging,
vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 011014–011014, February 2014.
[7] H. Li, Z. Hu, K. Chandrashekhara, X. Du, and R. Mishra,
“Reliability-Based Fatigue Life Investigation for a Medium-
Scale Composite Hydrokinetic Turbine Blade,” Ocean
Engineering, vol. 89, pp. 230–242, October 2014.
[8] C. Kong, T. Kim, D. Han, and Y. Sugiyama, “Investigation of
Fatigue Life for a Medium Scale Composite Wind Turbine
Blade,” International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 28, no. 10, pp.
1382–1388, October 2006.
[9] National Data Buoy Center, “Station 44009 (LLNR 168) -
DELAWARE BAY 26 NM Southeast of Cape May, NJ.”
[Online].Available:http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php
?station=44009. [Accessed: November 2014].
[10] C. C. Ciang, J. R. Lee, and H. J. Bang, “Structural Health
Monitoring for a Wind Turbine System: a Review of Damage
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Detection Methods,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol.
19, no. 12, p. 122001, 2008.
[11] L. Huang, A. Cordle, and G. McCann, “Fatigue Load
Calculations for ROMO Wind to Assess Sensitivity to Changes
in 10-min Mean Yaw Error.” GL-Garrad Hassan, 2012.
[12] J. Carroll, A. McDonald, and D. McMillan, “Failure rate,
repair time and unscheduled O&M cost analysis of offshore wind
turbines,” Wind Energy, January 2015.
[13] J. Carroll, A. McDonald, O. Barrera Martin, D. McMillan,
and R. Bakhshi, “Offshore wind turbine sub-assembly failure
rates through time,” in Scientific Proceedings of EWEA Annual
Conference and Exhibition 2015, Paris, France, 2015, pp. 112–
116.
[14] J. Ribrant and L. M. Bertling, “Survey of Failures in Wind
Power Systems With Focus on Swedish Wind Power Plants
During 1997-2005,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 167–173, March 2007.
[15] F. Spinato, P. J. Tavner, G. J. W. van Bussel, and E.
Koutoulakos, “Reliability of Wind Turbine Subassemblies,” IET
Renewable. Power Generation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 387–401,
December 2009.
[16] P. J. Tavner, J. Xiang, and F. Spinato, “Reliability Analysis
for Wind Turbines,” Wind Energy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–18,
January 2007.
[17] R. Bakhshi, P. Sandborn, X. Lei, and A. Kashani-Pour,
“Return on Investment Modeling to Support Cost Avoidance
Business Cases for Wind Farm O&M,” Proceedings of the
EWEA Offshore, Denmark, 2015.
[18] T. Jazouli, P. Sandborn, and A. Kashani-Pour, “A Direct
Method for Determining Design and Support Parameters to Meet
an Availability Requirement,” International Journal of
Performability Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 211, March 2014.
[19] P. Sandborn, Q. Cui, X. Zhu, and A. R. Kashani-Pour, “A
New ‘Availability-Payment’ Model for Pricing Performance-
Based Logistics Contracts,” NPS Report, June 2014.
[20] J. Nilsson and L. Bertling, “Maintenance Management of
Wind Power Systems Using Condition Monitoring Systems -
Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Two Case Studies,” IEEE
Transaction on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 223–229,
March 2007.
[21] X. Lei, P. Sandborn, R. Bakhshi, A. Kashani-Pour, and N.
Goudarzi, “PHM Based Predictive Maintenance Optimization
for Offshore Wind Farms,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), pp. 1–8, 2015.
[22] X. Lei, P. Sandborn, R. Bakhshi, and A. Kashani-Pour,
“Development of a Maintenance Option Model to Optimize
Offshore Wind Farm O&M,” Proceedings of the EWEA
Offshore, Denmark, 2015.
[23] F. Besnard, M. Patrikssont, A.-B. Strombergt, A.
Wojciechowski, and L. Bertling, “An Optimization Framework
for Opportunistic Maintenance of Offshore Wind Power
System,” in PowerTech, 2009 IEEE Bucharest, pp. 1–7, 2009.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

View publication stats