Articles | Volume 9, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-883-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-883-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article
| 
12 Apr 2024
Review article |
| 12 Apr 2024
| 12 Apr 2024
Knowledge engineering for wind energy
Yuriy Marykovskiy
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Institute for Energy Technology, Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences (OST), Oberseestrasse 10, 8640 Rapperswil, Switzerland
Thomas Clark
Octue Ltd, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, CB3 0ET Cambridge, UK
Justin Day
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA
Marcus Wiens
Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy Systems IWES, Am Luneort 100, 27572 Bremerhaven, Germany
Charles Henderson
Stacker Group, 708 Altavista Ave., Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA
Julian Quick
Department of Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Risø Campus Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Imad Abdallah
Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Anna Maria Sempreviva
Department of Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Risø Campus Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Jean-Paul Calbimonte
Institute of Informatics, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Technopôle 3, 3960 Sierre, Switzerland
Eleni Chatzi
Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Sarah Barber
Institute for Energy Technology, Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences (OST), Oberseestrasse 10, 8640 Rapperswil, Switzerland
Related authors
Sarah Barber, Julien Deparday, Yuriy Marykovskiy, Eleni Chatzi, Imad Abdallah, Gregory Duthé, Michele Magno, Tommaso Polonelli, Raphael Fischer, and Hanna Müller
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1383–1398, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1383-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1383-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerodynamic and acoustic field measurements on operating large-scale wind turbines are key for the further reduction in the costs of wind energy. In this work, a novel cost-effective MEMS (micro-electromechanical systems)-based aerodynamic and acoustic wireless measurement system that is thin, non-intrusive, easy to install, low power and self-sustaining is designed and tested.
Thuy-Hai Nguyen, Julian Quick, Pierre-Elouan Réthoré, Jean-François Toubeau, Emmanuel De Jaeger, and François Vallée
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-131, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-131, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Current offshore wind farms have been designed to maximize their production of electricity at all times, and not to keep some reserve power in case of unexpected events on the grid. We present a new formulation for designing wind farms to maximize revenues from both energy and reserve markets. It is applied on a real-life wind farm. We show that profits are expected to increase in a significant way for wind farms designed and operated for reserve, with less energy supplied.
Charbel Assaad, Juan Pablo Murcia Leon, Julian Quick, Tuhfe Göçmen, Sami Ghazouani, and Kaushik Das
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-96, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-96, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This research develops a new method for assessing Hybrid Power Plants (HPPs) profitability, combining wind and battery systems. It addresses the need for an efficient, accurate, and comprehensive operational model by approximating a state-of-the-art Energy Management System (EMS) for spot market power bidding using machine learning. The approach significantly reduces computational demands while maintaining high accuracy. It thus opens new possibilities in terms of optimizing the design of HPPs.
Javier Criado Risco, Rafael Valotta Rodrigues, Mikkel Friis-Møller, Julian Quick, Mads Mølgaard Pedersen, and Pierre-Elouan Réthoré
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 585–600, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Wind energy developers frequently have to face some spatial restrictions at the time of designing a new wind farm due to different reasons, such as the existence of protected natural areas around the wind farm location, fishing routes, and the presence of buildings. Wind farm design has to account for these restricted areas, but sometimes this is not straightforward to achieve. We have developed a methodology that allows for different inclusion and exclusion areas in the optimization framework.
Maren Böse, Laurentiu Danciu, Athanasios Papadopoulos, John Clinton, Carlo Cauzzi, Irina Dallo, Leila Mizrahi, Tobias Diehl, Paolo Bergamo, Yves Reuland, Andreas Fichtner, Philippe Roth, Florian Haslinger, Frédérick Massin, Nadja Valenzuela, Nikola Blagojević, Lukas Bodenmann, Eleni Chatzi, Donat Fäh, Franziska Glueer, Marta Han, Lukas Heiniger, Paulina Janusz, Dario Jozinović, Philipp Kästli, Federica Lanza, Timothy Lee, Panagiotis Martakis, Michèle Marti, Men-Andrin Meier, Banu Mena Cabrera, Maria Mesimeri, Anne Obermann, Pilar Sanchez-Pastor, Luca Scarabello, Nicolas Schmid, Anastasiia Shynkarenko, Bozidar Stojadinović, Domenico Giardini, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 583–607, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seismic hazard and risk are time dependent as seismicity is clustered and exposure can change rapidly. We are developing an interdisciplinary dynamic earthquake risk framework for advancing earthquake risk mitigation in Switzerland. This includes various earthquake risk products and services, such as operational earthquake forecasting and early warning. Standardisation and harmonisation into seamless solutions that access the same databases, workflows, and software are a crucial component.
Rafael Valotta Rodrigues, Mads Mølgaard Pedersen, Jens Peter Schøler, Julian Quick, and Pierre-Elouan Réthoré
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 321–341, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The use of wind energy has been growing over the last few decades, and further increase is predicted. As the wind energy industry is starting to consider larger wind farms, the existing numerical methods for analysis of small and medium wind farms need to be improved. In this article, we have explored different strategies to tackle the problem in a feasible and timely way. The final product is a set of recommendations when carrying out trade-off analysis on large wind farms.
Andrea Gamberini and Imad Abdallah
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 181–201, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Active trailing edge flaps can potentially reduce wind turbine (WT) loads. To monitor their performance, we present two methods based on machine learning that identify flap health states, including degraded performance, in normal power production and idling condition. Both methods rely only on sensors commonly available on WTs. One approach properly detects all the flap states if a fault occurs on only one blade. The other approach can identify two specific flap states in all fault scenarios.
Julian Quick, Pierre-Elouan Rethore, Mads Mølgaard Pedersen, Rafael Valotta Rodrigues, and Mikkel Friis-Møller
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1235–1250, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1235-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1235-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbine positions are often optimized to avoid wake losses. These losses depend on atmospheric conditions, such as the wind speed and direction. The typical optimization scheme involves discretizing the atmospheric inputs, then considering every possible set of these discretized inputs in every optimization iteration. This work presents stochastic gradient descent (SGD) as an alternative, which randomly samples the atmospheric conditions during every optimization iteration.
Andrew Clifton, Sarah Barber, Andrew Bray, Peter Enevoldsen, Jason Fields, Anna Maria Sempreviva, Lindy Williams, Julian Quick, Mike Purdue, Philip Totaro, and Yu Ding
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 947–974, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-947-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-947-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Wind energy creates huge amounts of data, which can be used to improve plant design, raise efficiency, reduce operating costs, and ease integration. These all contribute to cheaper and more predictable energy from wind. But realising the value of data requires a digital transformation that brings
grand challengesaround data, culture, and coopetition. This paper describes how the wind energy industry could work with R&D organisations, funding agencies, and others to overcome them.
Florian Hammer, Sarah Barber, Sebastian Remmler, Federico Bernardoni, Kartik Venkatraman, Gustavo A. Díez Sánchez, Alain Schubiger, Trond-Ola Hågbo, Sophia Buckingham, and Knut Erik Giljarhus
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-114, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-114, 2023
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We further enhanced a knowledge base for choosing the most optimal wind resource assessment tool. For this, we compared different simulation tools for the Perdigão site in Portugal, in terms of accuracy and costs. In total five different simulation tools were compared. We found that with a high degree of automatisation and a high experience level of the modeller a cost effective and accurate prediction based on RANS could be achieved. LES simulations are still mainly reserved for academia.
Andrew Clifton, Sarah Barber, Alexander Stökl, Helmut Frank, and Timo Karlsson
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2231–2254, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2231-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2231-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The transition to low-carbon sources of energy means that wind turbines will need to be built in hilly or mountainous regions or in places affected by icing. These locations are called
complexand are hard to develop. This paper sets out the research and development (R&D) needed to make it easier and cheaper to harness wind energy there. This includes collaborative R&D facilities, improved wind and weather models, frameworks for sharing data, and a clear definition of site complexity.
Gianluca De Fezza and Sarah Barber
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1627–1640, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1627-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1627-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
As part of a master's thesis, this study analysed the aerodynamic performance of a multi-element airfoil using numerical flow simulations. The results show that these types of airfoil are very suitable for an upcoming wind energy generation concept. The parametric study of the wing led to a significant improvement of up to 46.6 % compared to the baseline design. The increased power output of the energy generation concept contributes substantially to today's energy transition.
Sarah Barber, Alain Schubiger, Sara Koller, Dominik Eggli, Alexander Radi, Andreas Rumpf, and Hermann Knaus
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1503–1525, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, a range of simulations are carried out with seven different wind modelling tools at five different complex terrain sites and the results compared to wind speed measurements at validation locations. This is then extended to annual energy production (AEP) estimations (without wake effects), showing that wind profile prediction accuracy does not translate directly or linearly to AEP accuracy. It is therefore vital to consider overall AEP when evaluating simulation accuracies.
Sarah Barber, Julien Deparday, Yuriy Marykovskiy, Eleni Chatzi, Imad Abdallah, Gregory Duthé, Michele Magno, Tommaso Polonelli, Raphael Fischer, and Hanna Müller
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1383–1398, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1383-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1383-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerodynamic and acoustic field measurements on operating large-scale wind turbines are key for the further reduction in the costs of wind energy. In this work, a novel cost-effective MEMS (micro-electromechanical systems)-based aerodynamic and acoustic wireless measurement system that is thin, non-intrusive, easy to install, low power and self-sustaining is designed and tested.
Alain Schubiger, Sarah Barber, and Henrik Nordborg
Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 1507–1519, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1507-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1507-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A large-eddy simulation using the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) Palabos framework was implemented to calculate the wind field over the complex terrain of Bolund Hill. The results were compared to Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes and detached-eddy simulation (DES) using Ansys Fluent and field measurements. A comparison of the three methods' computational costs has shown that the LBM, even though not yet fully optimised, can perform 5 times faster than DES and lead to reasonably accurate results.
Sarah Barber, Alain Schubiger, Natalie Wagenbrenner, Nicolas Fatras, and Henrik Nordborg
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2019-95, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2019-95, 2020
Publication in WES not foreseen
Short summary
Short summary
A new method for helping wind modellers choose the most cost-effective model for a given project is developed by applying six different Computational Fluid Dynamics tools to simulate the Bolund Hill experiment and studying appropriate comparison metrics in detail. The results show that this new method is successful, and that it is generally possible to apply it in order to choose the most appropriate model for a given project in advance.
Sarah Barber, Simon Boller, and Henrik Nordborg
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2019-97, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2019-97, 2019
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The growing worldwide level of renewable power generation requires innovative solutions to maintain grid reliability and stability. In this work, twelve sites in Switzerland are chosen for a 100 % renewable energy microgrid feasibility study. For all of these sites, a combination of wind and PV performs consistently better than wind only and PV only. Five of the sites are found to be potentially economically viable, if investors would be prepared to make extra investments of 0.05–0.2 $/kWh.
Bjarke T. Olsen, Andrea N. Hahmann, Anna Maria Sempreviva, Jake Badger, and Hans E. Jørgensen
Wind Energ. Sci., 2, 211–228, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2-211-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2-211-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding uncertainties in wind resource assessment associated with the use of the output from numerical weather prediction (NWP) models is important for wind energy applications. A better understanding of the sources of error reduces risk and lowers costs. Here, an intercomparison of the output from 25 NWP models is presented. The study shows that model errors are larger and agreement between models smaller at inland sites and near the surface.
L. Tiriolo, R. C. Torcasio, S. Montesanti, A. M. Sempreviva, C. R. Calidonna, C. Transerici, and S. Federico
Adv. Sci. Res., 12, 37–44, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-12-37-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-12-37-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We show a study of the prediction of power production of a wind farm located in Central Italy using RAMS model for wind speed forecast.
I. M. Mazzitelli, M. Cassol, M. M. Miglietta, U. Rizza, A. M. Sempreviva, and A. S. Lanotte
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 21, 489–501, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-21-489-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-21-489-2014, 2014
Related subject area
Thematic area: Wind technologies | Topic: Systems engineering
Aerodynamic effects of leading-edge erosion in wind farm flow modeling
Control co-design optimization of floating offshore wind turbines with tuned liquid multi-column dampers
Designing wind turbines for profitability in the day-ahead markets
HyDesign: a tool for sizing optimization of grid-connected hybrid power plants including wind, solar photovoltaic, and lithium-ion batteries
Drivers for optimum sizing of wind turbines for offshore wind farms
The eco-conscious wind turbine: design beyond purely economic metrics
A comparison of eight optimization methods applied to a wind farm layout optimization problem
Optimization of wind farm operation with a noise constraint
Flutter behavior of highly flexible blades for two- and three-bladed wind turbines
Jens Visbech, Tuhfe Göçmen, Özge Sinem Özçakmak, Alexander Meyer Forsting, Ásta Hannesdóttir, and Pierre-Elouan Réthoré
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1811–1826, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1811-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1811-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Leading-edge erosion (LEE) can impact wind turbine aerodynamics and wind farm efficiency. This study couples LEE prediction, aerodynamic loss modeling, and wind farm flow modeling to show that LEE's effects on wake dynamics can affect overall energy production. Without preventive initiatives, the effects of LEE increase over time, resulting in significant annual energy production (AEP) loss.
Wei Yu, Sheng Tao Zhou, Frank Lemmer, and Po Wen Cheng
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1053–1068, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1053-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1053-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Integrating a tuned liquid multi-column damping (TLMCD) into a floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) is challenging. The synergy between the TLMCD, the turbine controller, and substructure dynamics affects the FOWT's performance and cost. A control co-design optimization framework is developed to optimize the substructure, the TLMCD, and the blade pitch controller simultaneously. The results show that the optimization can significantly enhance FOWT system performance.
Mihir Kishore Mehta, Michiel Zaaijer, and Dominic von Terzi
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-43, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-43, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
In a subsidy-free era, there is a need to optimize turbines to maximize the revenue of the farm instead of minimizing the LCoE. A wind farm-level modeling framework with a simplified market model to optimize the size of wind turbines to maximize revenue-based metrics like IRR/NPV. The results show that the optimum turbine size is driven mainly by the choice of the economic metric and the market price scenario, with an LCoE-optimized design already performing well w.r.t. metrics like IRR.
Juan Pablo Murcia Leon, Hajar Habbou, Mikkel Friis-Møller, Megha Gupta, Rujie Zhu, and Kaushik Das
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 759–776, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A methodology for an early design of hybrid power plants (wind, solar, PV, and Li-ion battery storage) consisting of a nested optimization that sizes the components and internal operation optimization. Traditional designs that minimize the levelized cost of energy give worse business cases and do not include storage. Optimal operation balances the increasing revenues and faster battery degradation. Battery degradation and replacement costs are needed to estimate the viability of hybrid projects.
Mihir Mehta, Michiel Zaaijer, and Dominic von Terzi
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 141–163, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Turbines are becoming larger. However, it is important to understand the key drivers of turbine design and explore the possibility of a global optimum, beyond which further upscaling might not reduce the cost of energy. This study explores, for a typical farm, the entire turbine design space with respect to rated power and rotor diameter. The results show a global optimum that is subject to various modeling uncertainties, farm design conditions, and policies with respect to wind farm tendering.
Helena Canet, Adrien Guilloré, and Carlo L. Bottasso
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1029–1047, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1029-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1029-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a new approach to design that aims at optimal trade-offs between economic and environmental goals. New environmental metrics are defined, which quantify impacts in terms of CO2-equivalent emissions produced by the turbine over its entire life cycle. For some typical onshore installations in Germany, results indicate that a 1 % increase in the cost of energy can buy about a 5 % decrease in environmental impacts: a small loss for the individual can lead to larger gains for society.
Jared J. Thomas, Nicholas F. Baker, Paul Malisani, Erik Quaeghebeur, Sebastian Sanchez Perez-Moreno, John Jasa, Christopher Bay, Federico Tilli, David Bieniek, Nick Robinson, Andrew P. J. Stanley, Wesley Holt, and Andrew Ning
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 865–891, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-865-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-865-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This work compares eight optimization algorithms (including gradient-based, gradient-free, and hybrid) on a wind farm optimization problem with 4 discrete regions, concave boundaries, and 81 wind turbines. Algorithms were each run by researchers experienced with that algorithm. Optimized layouts were unique but with similar annual energy production. Common characteristics included tightly-spaced turbines on the outer perimeter and turbines loosely spaced and roughly on a grid in the interior.
Camilla Marie Nyborg, Andreas Fischer, Pierre-Elouan Réthoré, and Ju Feng
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 255–276, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-255-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-255-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Our article presents a way of optimizing the wind farm operation by keeping the emitted noise level below a defined limit while maximizing the power output. This is done by switching between noise reducing operational modes. The method has been developed by using two different noise models, one more advanced than the other, to study the advantages of each model. Furthermore, the optimization method is applied to different wind farm cases.
Mayank Chetan, Shulong Yao, and D. Todd Griffith
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1731–1751, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1731-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1731-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Though large wind turbines are appealing to reduce costs, larger blades are prone to aero-elastic instabilities due to their long, slender, highly flexible nature. New rotor concepts are emerging including two-bladed rotors and downwind configurations. We introduce a comprehensive evaluation of flutter behavior including classical flutter and edgewise vibration for large-scale two-bladed rotors. The study aims to provide designers with insights to mitigate flutter in future designs.
Cited articles
AIAA and AIA: Digital Twin: Definition & Value – An AIAA and AIA Position Paper, https://www.aiaa.org/advocacy/Policy-Papers/Institute-Position-Papers (last access: 1 October 2023), 2020. a
Akerkar, R. and Sajja, P.: Knowledge-based systems, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, ISBN: 9780763776473, 2009. a
Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K.: Pragmatics of society, Vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214420, 2011. a
Andriotis, C. P., Papakonstantinou, K. G., and Chatzi, E. N.: Value of structural health information in partially observable stochastic environments, Struct. Saf., 93, 102072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2020.102072, 2021. a
Angele, K. and Angele, J.: JSON towards a simple Ontology and Rule Language, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Rule Challenge, 7th Industry Track, and 5th Doctoral Consortium @ RuleML+RR 2021, edited by: Soylu, A., Nezhad, A. T., Nikolov, N., Toma, I., Fensel, A., and Vennekens, J., Vol. 2956 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR, Leuven, Belgium, 8–15 September 2021, virtual, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2956/#paper8 (last access: 25 March 2024), 2021. a
Arista, R., Zheng, X., Lu, J., and Mas, F.: An Ontology-based Engineering system to support aircraft manufacturing system design, J. Manuf. Syst., 68, 270–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2023.02.012, 2023. a
Artigao, E., Martín-Martínez, S., Honrubia-Escribano, A., and Gómez-Lázaro, E.: Wind turbine reliability: A comprehensive review towards effective condition monitoring development, Appl. Energ., 228, 1569–1583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.037, 2018. a, b, c
Aschenbrenner, M. and Winder, G. M.: Planning for a sustainable marine future? Marine spatial planning in the German exclusive economic zone of the North Sea, Appl. Geogr., 110, 102050, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102050, 2019. a
Barber, S., Lima, L. A. M., Sakagami, Y., Quick, J., Latiffianti, E., Liu, Y., Ferrari, R., Letzgus, S., Zhang, X., and Hammer, F.: Enabling Co-Innovation for a Successful Digital Transformation in Wind Energy Using a New Digital Ecosystem and a Fault Detection Case Study, Energies, 15, 5638, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155638, 2022. a
Barber, S., Hammer, F., and Henderson, C.: Can data sharing really provide added value? Practical data sharing recommendations for the wind energy sector, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2507, 012003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2507/1/012003, 2023a. a
Barber, S., Izagirre, U., Serradilla, O., Olaizola, J., Zugasti, E., Aizpurua, J. I., Milani, A. E., Sehnke, F., Sakagami, Y., and Henderson, C.: Best Practice Data Sharing Guidelines for Wind Turbine Fault Detection Model Evaluation, Energies, 16, 3567, https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083567, 2023b. a
Barber, S., Sempreviva, A. M., Sheng, S., Farren, D., and Zappalá, D.: A use-case-driven approach for demonstrating the added value of digitalisation in wind energy, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2507, 012002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2507/1/012002, 2023c. a, b, c
Besta, M., Gerstenberger, R., Peter, E., Fischer, M., Podstawski, M., Barthels, C., Alonso, G., and Hoefler, T.: Demystifying Graph Databases: Analysis and Taxonomy of Data Organization, System Designs, and Graph Queries, ACM Comput. Surv., 56, 31, https://doi.org/10.1145/3604932, 2023. a
Booshehri, M., Emele, L., Flügel, S., Förster, H., Frey, J., Frey, U., Glauer, M., Hastings, J., Hofmann, C., Hoyer-Klick, C., Hülk, L., Kleinau, A., Knosala, K., Kotzur, L., Kuckertz, P., Mossakowski, T., Muschner, C., Neuhaus, F., Pehl, M., Robinius, M., Sehn, V., and Stappel, M.: Introducing the Open Energy Ontology: Enhancing data interpretation and interfacing in energy systems analysis, Energy and AI, 5, 100074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2021.100074, 2021. a, b
Bortolotti, P., Bay, C., Barter, G., Gaertner, E., Dykes, K., McWilliam, M., Friis-Moller, M., Molgaard Pedersen, M., and Zahle, F.: System Modeling Frameworks for Wind Turbines and Plants: Review and Requirements Specifications, Tech. rep. no. NREL/TP-5000-82621, Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), https://doi.org/10.2172/1868328, 2022. a
Bremere, I. and Indriksone, D.: Regional stakeholder maps and analyses of decision flows, WP3.1, Baltic Energy Areas – A Planning Perspective (BEA-APP) project, https://www.balticenergyareas.eu/images/achievements/wp3.1_regional_stakeholder_maps_and_ananalyses_of_decision_flows.pdf (last access: 15 July 2023), 2017. a, b
Bunte, A., Li, P., and Niggemann, O.: Mapping Data Sets to Concepts using Machine Learning and a Knowledge based Approach, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 16–18 January 2018, SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, 2, 430–437, https://doi.org/10.5220/0006590204300437, 2018. a
Cann, R., Kempson, R., and Gregoromichelaki, E.: Semantics: An Introduction to Meaning in Language, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 9780521525664, 2009. a
Chah, N.: OK Google, What Is Your Ontology? Or: Exploring Freebase Classification to Understand Google's Knowledge Graph, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.03885, 22 May 2018. a
Chatterjee, J. and Dethlefs, N.: Temporal Causal Inference in Wind Turbine SCADA Data Using Deep Learning for Explainable AI, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1618, 022022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1618/2/022022, 2020. a
Chavero-Navarrete, E., Trejo-Perea, M., Jáuregui-Correa, J. C., Carrillo-Serrano, R. V., and Ríos-Moreno, J. G.: Expert Control Systems for Maximum Power Point Tracking in a Wind Turbine with PMSG: State of the Art, Appl. Sci.-Basel, 9, 2469, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9122469, 2019. a
Chun, S., Jung, J., Jin, X., Seo, S., and Lee, K.-H.: Designing an integrated knowledge graph for smart energy services, J. Supercomput., 76, 8058–8085, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2672-3, 2018. a
Clark, T.: How to communicate and collaborate on data: easy-to-use tools and techniques for eliminating overwhelm, confusion and ambiguity, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7928816, 2022. a
Clark, T.: Powerful Power Curves: A production-proven, open-source schema for wind turbine power curves, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7940068, 2023. a
Clifton, A., Barber, S., Bray, A., Enevoldsen, P., Fields, J., Sempreviva, A. M., Williams, L., Quick, J., Purdue, M., Totaro, P., and Ding, Y.: Grand challenges in the digitalisation of wind energy, Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 947–974, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-947-2023, 2023. a, b, c, d
Codd, E. F.: The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA, ISBN 0201141922, 1990. a
Davis, R.: Knowledge-based systems, Science, 231, 957–963, 1986. a
De Baas, A., Nostro, P. D., Friis, J., Ghedini, E., Goldbeck, G., Paponetti, I. M., Pozzi, A., Sarkar, A., Yang, L., Zaccarini, F. A., and Toti, D.: Review and Alignment of Domain-Level Ontologies for Materials Science, IEEE Access, 11, 120372–120401, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3327725, 2023. a
De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., and Rosati, R.: Using Ontologies for Semantic Data Integration, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 187–202, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61893-7_11, ISBN 978-3-319-61893-7, 2018. a
De Nicola, A., Missikoff, M., and Navigli, R.: A Proposal for a Unified Process for Ontology Building: UPON, in: Database and Expert Systems Applications, edited by: Andersen, K. V., Debenham, J., and Wagner, R., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 655–664, ISBN 978-3-540-31729-6, 2005. a
de Vivero, J. L. S.: An exercise in Stakeholder Analysis for a hypothetical offshore wind farm in the Gulf of Cadix, Tech. rep. no. 00000909, University of Seville, https://spicosa-inline.databases.eucc-d.de/files/documents/00000908_Stakeholder%20Exercise_28%20ene%2008.pdf (last access: 25 March 2024), 2023. a
Ding, Y.: Data Science for Wind Energy, Chapman and Hall/CRC, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429490972, 2019. a
Dourgnon-Hanoune, A., Dang, T., Salaun, P., and Bouthors, V.: An ontology for I&C knowledge using trees of porphyry, in: 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Osaka University Nakanoshima Center Osaka, Japan, 13–16 July 2010, IEEE, 86–92, https://doi.org/10.1109/indin.2010.5549458, 2010. a
Duer, S., Wrzesień, P., and Duer, R.: Creating of structure of facts for the knowledge base of an expert system for wind power plant’s equipment diagnosis, E3S Web Conf., 19, 01038, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20171901038, 2017. a
FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group: FAIR Data Maturity Model: specification and guidelines, Version 1.0, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00050, 2020. a
Graybeal, J., Jonquet, C., Fiore, N., and Musen, M. A.: Adoption of BioPortal's Ontology Registry Software: The Emerging OntoPortal Community, 13th Research Data Alliance Plenary Meeting (RDA P13), Philadelphia, United States, April 2019, poster session, https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-02360625 (last access: 25 March 2024), 2019. a
Grieves, M.: SME Management Forum Completing the Cycle: Using PLM Information in the Sales and Service Functions, SME Management Forum, Troy, MI, 31 Octrober 2002, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356192963_SME_Management_Forum_Completing_the_Cycle_Using_PLM_Information_in_the_Sales_and_Service_Functions (last access: 25 March 2024), 2002. a
Grieves, M.: Intelligent digital twins and the development and management of complex systems, Digital Twin, 2, 8, https://doi.org/10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1, 2022. a
Groarke, L.: Informal Logic, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by: Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2022 edn., ISSN 1095-5054, 2022. a
Group, W. S. W.: SPARQL 1.1 overview, W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/ (last access: 25 March 2024), 2013. a
Gruber, T. R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications, Knowl. Acquis., 5, 199–220, https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008, 1993. a
Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference, Trento, Italy, 6–8 June 1998, IOS Press, NLD, 1st edn., ISBN 9051993994, 1998. a
Haerder, T. and Reuter, A.: Principles of Transaction-Oriented Database Recovery, ACM Comput. Surv., 15, 287–317, https://doi.org/10.1145/289.291, 1983. a
Hamilton, J. and Liming, D.: Careers in Wind Energy: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/ (last access: 15 July 2023), 2012. a
Heath, T. and Bizer, C.: Linked Data, Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79432-2, 2011. a
Heidenreich, M. and Mattes, J.: Knowledge generation and diffusion in the German wind energy industry, Ind. Corp. Change, 31, 1285–1306, https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac022, 2022. a
Heist, N., Hertling, S., Ringler, D., and Paulheim, H.: Knowledge Graphs on the Web – an Overview, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.00719, 12 March 2020. a
Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and Rudolph, S.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, 2nd edn., W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 11 December 2012, https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ (last access: 25 March 2024), 2009. a
Hlaing, N., Morato, P. G., Nielsen, J. S., Amirafshari, P., Kolios, A., and Rigo, P.: Inspection and maintenance planning for offshore wind structural components: integrating fatigue failure criteria with Bayesian networks and Markov decision processes, Struct. Infrastruct. E., 18, 983–1001, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2022.2037667, 2022. a
Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., Melo, G. D., Gutierrez, C., Kirrane, S., Gayo, J. E. L., Navigli, R., Neumaier, S., Rula, A., Sequeda, J., Zimmermann, A., Hogan, A., Gutierrez, C., Cochez, M., de Melo, G., Kirrane, S., Polleres, A., Navigli, R., Ngomo, A.-C. N., Rashid, S. M., Schmelzeisen, L., Staab, S., Blomqvist, E., d’Amato, C., Gayo, J. E. L., Neumaier, S., Rula, A., Sequeda, J., and Zimmermann, A.: Knowledge graphs, ACM Comput. Surv., 54, 1–37, 2021. a
Huesca-Pérez, M. E., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., and Köppel, J.: Social implications of siting wind energy in a disadvantaged region – The case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 58, 952–965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.310, 2016. a
Jaz Myers, D.: Double Categories of Open Dynamical Systems (Extended Abstract), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 333, 154–167, https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.333.11, 2021. a
Johnson, M., Rosebrugh, R., and Wood, R. J.: Lenses, fibrations and universal translations, Math. Struct. Comp. Sci., 22, 25–42, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129511000442, 2012. a
Johnson, R. and Blair, J.: Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic, in: Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference, edited by: Gabbay, D. M., Johnson, R. H., Ohlbach, H. J., and Woods, J., Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, Elsevier, 1, 339–396, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-2464(02)80010-6, 2002. a
Jonquet, C., Toulet, A., Arnaud, E., Aubin, S., Dzalé Yeumo, E., Emonet, V., Graybeal, J., Laporte, M.-A., Musen, M. A., Pesce, V., and Larmande, P.: AgroPortal: A vocabulary and ontology repository for agronomy, Comput. Electron. Agr., 144, 126–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.10.012, 2018. a
Jonquet, C., Graybeal, J., Bouazzouni, S., Dorf, M., Fiore, N., Kechagioglou, X., Redmond, T., Rosati, I., Skrenchuk, A., Vendetti, J. L., and Musen, M.: Ontology Repositories and Semantic Artefact Catalogues with the OntoPortal Technology, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Nature Switzerland, 38–58, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47243-5_3, 2023. a
Kechagioglou, X., Vaira, L., Tomassino, P., Fiore, N., Basset, A., and Rosati, I.: EcoPortal: An Environment for FAIR Semantic Resources in the Ecological Domain, in: Joint Ontology Workshops, Bolzano, Italy, 11–18 September 2021, Vol. 2969, ISSN 1613-0073, https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2969/paper6-s4biodiv.pdf (last access: 25 March 2025), 2021. a
Keil, J. M. and Schindler, S.: Comparison and evaluation of ontologies for units of measurement, Semant. Web, 10, 33–51, https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180310, 2019. a
Kirkegaard, J. K., Rudolph, D. P., Nyborg, S., Solman, H., Gill, E., Cronin, T., and Hallisey, M.: Tackling grand challenges in wind energy through a socio-technical perspective, Nature Energy, 8, 655–664, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01266-z, 2023. a
Klonari, V., Papachristos, G., and Fraile, D.: Wind energy digitalisation towards 2030, https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-digitalisation-towards-2030/ (last access: 1 October 2023), 2021. a
Komisar, A. and Fox, M. S.: An Energy Ontology for Global City Indicators (ISO 37120), arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.04070, 19 July 2020. a
Küçük, D. and Küçük, D.: OntoWind: An Improved and Extended Wind Energy Ontology, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.02808, 7 March 2018. a
Lamanna, D. D. and Maccioni, A.: Renewable Energy Data Sources in the Semantic Web with OpenWatt, in: Proceedings of the Workshops of the EDBT/ICDT 2014 Joint Conference (EDBT/ICDT 2014), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Athens, Greece, 28 March 2014, edited by: Candan, K. S., Amer-Yahia, S., Schweikardt, N., Christophides, V., and Leroy, V., CEUR-WS.org, 1133, 128–133, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1133/paper-20.pdf (last access: 25 March 2025), 2014. a
Lassila, O. and McGuinness, D. L.: The Role of Frame-Based Representation on the Semantic Web, Tech. Rep. KSL-01-02, Stanford University, Stanford, http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/epa/ej/etai/2001/018/01018-etaibody.pdf (last access: 25 March 2025), 2001. a
Lavore, E. D., Leal, W., and de Paiva, V.: Dialectica Petri nets, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2105.12801, 14 February 2024. a
Le Franc, Y., Parland-von Essen, J., Bonino, L., Lehväslaiho, H., Coen, G., and Staiger, C.: D2.2 FAIR Semantics: First recommendations, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3707985, 2020. a
Leahy, K., Gallagher, C., O’Donovan, P., and O’Sullivan, D. T.: Issues with data quality for wind turbine condition monitoring and reliability analyses, Energies, 12, 201, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020201, 2019. a
Li, F., Li, L., and Peng, Y.: Research on Digital Twin and Collaborative Cloud and Edge Computing Applied in Operations and Maintenance in Wind Turbines of Wind Power Farm, in: Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, IOS Press, https://doi.org/10.3233/atde210263, 2021. a
Liang, Y., Sun, L., and Zhao, X.: Reinforcement Learning-Based Inertia and Droop Control for Wind Farm Frequency Regulation, in: 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Denver, CO, USA, 17–21 July 2022, IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/pesgm48719.2022.9917075, 2022. a
Lourenço, J. R., Abramova, V., Vieira, M., Cabral, B., and Bernardino, J.: NoSQL Databases: A Software Engineering Perspective, in: New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies, edited by: Rocha, A., Correia, A. M., Costanzo, S., and Reis, L. P., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 741–750, ISBN 978-3-319-16486-1, 2015. a
Lungu, I., Velicanu, A., Bâra, L. A., Botha, I., Mocanu, A.-M., and Tudor, A.: Spatial databases for wind parks, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cyb., Vol. 6, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290734023_Spatial_databases_for_wind_parks (last access: 25 March 2024), 2012. a
Magee, L.: 8 – Contemporary dilemmas: tables versus webs, in: Towards a Semantic Web, edited by: Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., and Magee, L., Chandos Publishing, 215–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-601-2.50008-8, ISBN 978-1-84334-601-2, 2011. a
Markovska, N., Krkoleva, A., Taseska, V., Borozan, V., and Pop-Jordanov, J.: Enabling an environment for solar and wind energy deployment in the Macedonian agricultural sector, J. Renew. Sustain. Ener., 5, 041804, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812996, 2013. a
Marykovskiy, Y., Abdallah, I., Barber, S., and Chatzi, E.: Extended Taxonomy of Digital Twins, Version v2, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8021787, 2023. a
Michiorri, A., Sempreviva, A. M., Philipp, S., Perez-Lopez, P., Ferriere, A., and Moser, D.: Topic Taxonomy and Metadata to Support Renewable Energy Digitalisation, Energies, 15, 9531, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249531, 2022. a
Morato, P., Papakonstantinou, K., Andriotis, C., Nielsen, J., and Rigo, P.: Optimal inspection and maintenance planning for deteriorating structural components through dynamic Bayesian networks and Markov decision processes, Struct. Saf., 94, 102140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102140, 2022. a
Naghib, A., Jafari Navimipour, N., Hosseinzadeh, M., and Sharifi, A.: A comprehensive and systematic literature review on the big data management techniques in the internet of things, Wirel. Netw., 29, 1085–1144, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-022-03177-5, 2022. a
Nguyen, T. H., Dunlap, R., Mark, L., Prinz, A., Østgren, B. M., and Friisø, T.: Offshore Wind Metadata Management, International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies, 9, 333–349, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMSO.2014.065445, 2014. a, b
Nowack, B.: The Semantic Web – Not a piece of cake..., http://web.archive.org/web/20220628120341/http://bnode.org/blog/2009/07/08/the-semantic-Web-not-a-piece-of-cake (last access: 15 July 2023), 2009. a
Noy, N., Gao, Y., Jain, A., Narayanan, A., Patterson, A., and Taylor, J.: Industry-Scale Knowledge Graphs: Lessons and Challenges, Commun. ACM, 62, 36–43, https://doi.org/10.1145/3331166, 2019. a
Noy, N. F. and Mcguinness, D. L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology, Stanford, http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology-tutorial-noy-mcguinness.pdf (last access: 10 March 2023), 2001. a
Noy, N. F., Shah, N. H., Whetzel, P. L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D. L., Storey, M.-A., Chute, C. G., and Musen, M. A.: BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse, Nucleic Acids Res., 37, W170–W173, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp440, 2009. a
Papadopoulos, P. and Cipcigan, L.: Wind turbines' condition monitoring: an ontology model, in: 2009 International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply, Nanjing, China, 6–7 April 2009, IEEE, 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/SUPERGEN.2009.5430854, ISSN 2156-969X, 2009. a, b
Papakonstantinou, K. and Shinozuka, M.: Planning structural inspection and maintenance policies via dynamic programming and Markov processes. Part I: Theory, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 130, 202–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.005, 2014. a
Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., Cook, A., Sullivan, J., and West, M.: A Survey of Top-Level Ontologies – to inform the ontological choices for a Foundation Data Model, CDBB, https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.58311, 2020. a
Pease, S. G., Sharpe, R., van Lopik, K., Tsalapati, E., Goodall, P., Young, B., Conway, P., and West, A.: An interoperable semantic service toolset with domain ontology for automated decision support in the end-of-life domain, Future Gener. Comp. Sy., 112, 848–858, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.06.008, 2020. a
Premkumar, V., Krishnamurty, S., Wileden, J. C., and Grosse, I. R.: A semantic knowledge management system for laminated composites, Adv. Eng. Inform., 28, 91–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.12.004, 2014. a
Pronost, G., Mayer, F., Marche, B., Camargo, M., and Dupont, L.: Towards a Framework for the Classification of Digital Twins and their Applications, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Cardiff, United Kingdom, 21–23 June 2021, IEEE, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC52061.2021.9570114, 2021. a
Qi, Q., Terkaj, W., Urgo, M., Jiang, X., and Scott, P. J.: A mathematical foundation to support bidirectional mappings between digital models: an application of multi-scale modelling in manufacturing, P. Roy. Soc. A-Math. Phy., 478, 20220156, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2022.0156, 2022. a
Quaeghebeur, E., Sanchez Perez-Moreno, S., and Zaaijer, M. B.: WESgraph: a graph database for the wind farm domain, Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 259–284, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-259-2020, 2020. a
Reder, M. D., Gonzalez, E., and Melero, J. J.: Wind Turbine Failures – Tackling current Problems in Failure Data Analysis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 753, 072027, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/753/7/072027, 2016. a
Rogushina, J. V. and Gladun, A. Y.: Semantic Processing of Metadata for Big Data: Standards, Ontologies and Typical Information Objects, in: Information Technologies and Security (ITS), Kyiv, Ukraine, 10 December 2020, 114–128, ISSN 1613-0073, https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2859/paper10.pdf (last access: 25 March 2024), 2020. a
Rosenberg, S.: PSEG and the promise of wind power, The CASE Journal, 16, 51–74, https://doi.org/10.1108/tcj-03-2019-0024, 2019. a
Sanchez-Fernandez, A. J., González-Sánchez, J.-L., Luna Rodríguez, I., Rodríguez, F. R., and Sanchez-Rivero, J.: Reliability of onshore wind turbines based on linking power curves to failure and maintenance records: A case study in central Spain, Wind Energy, 26, 349–364, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2793, 2023. a
Schreiber, G. and Raimond, Y.: RDF 1.1 Primer, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/ (last access: 25 March 2024), 2014. a
Sempreviva, A. M., Vesth, A., Bak, C., Verelst, D. R., Giebel, G., Danielsen, H. K., Mikkelsen, L. P., Andersson, M., Vasiljevic, N., Barth, S., Sanz, R. J., Gancarski, P., Reigstad, T. I., Bolstad, H. C., Wagenaar, J. W., and Hermans Koen, W.: Taxonomy And Metadata For Wind Energy Research & Development, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1199489, 2017. a
Seyr, H. and Muskulus, M.: Decision Support Models for Operations and Maintenance for Offshore Wind Farms: A Review, Applied Sciences, 9, 278, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9020278, 2019. a
Shapiro, B. T. and Spivak, D. I.: Dynamic Operads, Dynamic Categories: From Deep Learning to Prediction Markets, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 380, 183–202, https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.380.11, 2023. a
Soussi, N. and Bahaj, M.: Exploiting NoSQL Document Oriented Data Using Semantic Web Tools, in: Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development (AI2SD'2018), edited by: Ezziyyani, M., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 110–117, ISBN 978-3-030-11928-7, 2019. a
Spivak, D. I.: Functorial data migration, Inform. Comput., 217, 31–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2012.05.001, 2012. a
Spivak, D. I.: Poly: An abundant categorical setting for mode-dependent dynamics, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.01894, 11 June 2020. a
Spivak, D. I. and Kent, R. E.: Ologs: A Categorical Framework for Knowledge Representation, PLoS ONE, 7, e24274, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024274, 2012. a
Spyns, P., Meersman, R., and Jarrar, M.: Data Modelling versus Ontology Engineering, SIGMOD Rec., 31, 12–17, https://doi.org/10.1145/637411.637413, 2002. a
St. Clere Smithe, T.: Open Dynamical Systems as Coalgebras for Polynomial Functors, with Application to Predictive Processing, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 380, 307–330, https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.380.18, 2023. a
Strack, B., Lenart, M., Frank, J., and Kramer, N.: Ontology for maintenance of onshore wind turbines, Forsch. Ingenieurwes., 85, 265–272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10010-021-00466-x, 2021. a
Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., and Fensel, D.: Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods, Data Knowl. Eng., 25, 161–197, 1998. a
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica: Formal system | Logic, Symbols & Axioms, https://www.britannica.com/topic/formal-system (last access: 1 October 2023), 2012. a
Tsalapati, E., Jackson, T., Johnson, W., Jackson, L. M., Vasilyev, A., West, A. A., Mao, L., and Davies, B.: The Role of Semantic Technologies in Diagnostic and Decision Support for Service Systems, in: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 3–6 January 2018, https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.196, 2018. a
Tsialiamanis, G. P., Wagg, D. J., Antoniadou, I., and Worden, K.: An Ontological Approach to Structural Health Monitoring, in: Topics in Modal Analysis & Testing, edited by: Dilworth, B. and Mains, M., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 8, 51–59, ISBN 978-3-030-47717-2, 2021. a
Uhlenkamp, J.-F., Hauge, J. B., Broda, E., Lütjen, M., Freitag, M., and Thoben, K.-D.: Digital Twins: A Maturity Model for Their Classification and Evaluation, IEEE Access, 10, 69605–69635, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3186353, 2022. a
van der Valk, H., Haße, H., Möller, F., and Otto, B.: Archetypes of Digital Twins, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., 64, 375–391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00727-7, 2021. a
Veers, P., Dykes, K., Lantz, E., Barth, S., Bottasso, C. L., Carlson, O., Clifton, A., Green, J., Green, P., Holttinen, H., Laird, D., Lehtomäki, V., Lundquist, J. K., Manwell, J., Marquis, M., Meneveau, C., Moriarty, P., Munduate, X., Muskulus, M., Naughton, J., Pao, L., Paquette, J., Peinke, J., Robertson, A., Sanz Rodrigo, J., Sempreviva, A. M., Smith, J. C., Tuohy, A., and Wiser, R.: Grand challenges in the science of wind energy, Science, 366, eaau2027, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2, 2019. a, b
Vicuña, D. M. and Pérez, J. E.: Wind energy policy and its effects on local development. An analysis from the stakeholder system (Loja, Ecuador), Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense, 40, 73–95, https://doi.org/10.5209/aguc.69333, 2020. a
Villegas, M., Melero, M., and Bel, N.: Metadata as Linked Open Data: mapping disparate XML metadata registries into one RDF/OWL registry, in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), Reykjavik, Iceland, 26–31 May 2014, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 393–400, ISBN 978-2-9517408-8-4, http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/664_Paper.pdf (last access: 25 March 2024), 2014. a
Vrandečić, D.: Ontology Evaluation, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 293–313, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_13, ISBN 978-3-540-92673-3, 2009. a
W3C: Linked Data, https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data, last access: 10 March 2023. a
Wagg, D. J., Worden, K., Barthorpe, R. J., and Gardner, P.: Digital Twins: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions for Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Dynamics Applications, ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B, 6, 030901, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046739, 030901, 2020. a, b, c
Weber, J. and Köppel, J.: Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany, Energies, 15, 7654, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207654, 2022. a
Wever, L., Krause, G., and Buck, B. H.: Lessons from stakeholder dialogues on marine aquaculture in offshore wind farms: Perceived potentials, constraints and research gaps, Mar. Policy, 51, 251–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.015, 2015. a
Wiens, M., Meyer, T., and Thomas, P.: The Potential of FMI for the Development of Digital Twins for Large Modular Multi-Domain Systems, in: Proceedings of 14th Modelica Conference 2021, Modelica 2021, Linköping, Sweden, 20–24 September 2021, Linköping University Electronic Press, 235–240, https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp21181235, ISSN 1650-3686, 2021. a
Wierling, A., Schwanitz, V. J., Altinci, S., Bałazińska, M., Barber, M. J., Biresselioglu, M. E., Burger-Scheidlin, C., Celino, M., Demir, M. H., Dennis, R., Dintzner, N., el Gammal, A., Fernández-Peruchena, C. M., Gilcrease, W., Gładysz, P., Hoyer-Klick, C., Joshi, K., Kruczek, M., Lacroix, D., Markowska, M., Mayo-García, R., Morrison, R., Paier, M., Peronato, G., Ramakrishnan, M., Reid, J., Sciullo, A., Solak, B., Suna, D., Süß, W., Unger, A., Fernandez Vanoni, M. L., and Vasiljevic, N.: FAIR Metadata Standards for Low Carbon Energy Research – A Review of Practices and How to Advance, Energies, 14, 6692, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206692, 2021. a
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Gray, A. J., Groth, P., Goble, C., Grethe, J. S., Heringa, J., 't Hoen, P. A., Hooft, R., Kuhn, T., Kok, R., Kok, J., Lusher, S. J., Martone, M. E., Mons, A., Packer, A. L., Persson, B., Rocca-Serra, P., Roos, M., van Schaik, R., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Sengstag, T., Slater, T., Strawn, G., Swertz, M. A., Thompson, M., van der Lei, J., van Mulligen, E., Velterop, J., Waagmeester, A., Wittenburg, P., Wolstencroft, K., Zhao, J., and Mons, B.: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship, Scientific Data, 3, 160018, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18, 2016. a, b
Wu, M., Juty, N., WG, R. R. M. S., Collins, J., Duerr, R., Ridsdale, C., Shepherd, A., Verhey, C., and Castro, L. J.: Guidelines for publishing structured metadata on the web, Version 3.1, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00066, 2021. a
Zardini, G., Milojevic, D., Censi, A., and Frazzoli, E.: Co-design of Embodied Intelligence: A Structured Approach, in: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Prague, Czech Republic, 27 September 2021–1 October 2021, 7536–7543, https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636513, 2021. a
Zheng, X., Lu, J., and Kiritsis, D.: The emergence of cognitive digital twin: vision, challenges and opportunities, Int. J. Prod. Res., 60, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.2014591, 2021. a, b
Zhou, A., Yu, D., and Zhang, W.: A research on intelligent fault diagnosis of wind turbines based on ontology and FMECA, Adv. Eng. Inform., 29, 115–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2014.10.001, 2015. a, b
Zhu, Y.-L., Wang, X.-Y., and Cheng, D.-L.: Ontology-Based Research on Wind Power Plant Information Interaction, in: First International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (WKDD 2008), Adelaide, SA, Australia, 23–24 January 2008, IEEE, 169–172, https://doi.org/10.1109/WKDD.2008.88, 2008. a, b
Short summary
This paper delves into the crucial task of transforming raw data into actionable knowledge which can be used by advanced artificial intelligence systems – a challenge that spans various domains, industries, and scientific fields amid their digital transformation journey. This article underscores the significance of cross-industry collaboration and learning, drawing insights from sectors leading in digitalisation, and provides strategic guidance for further development in this area.
This paper delves into the crucial task of transforming raw data into actionable knowledge which...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint