the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gaussian Mixture autoencoder for uncertainty-aware damage identification in a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
Abstract. This work proposes an uncertainty-aware approach to the inverse problem of damage identification in a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT). We design an autoencoder architecture, where the latent space represents the features of the target damaged condition. The inverse operator (encoder) is a Deep Neural Network that maps the measurable response to the parameters (means, variances, and weights) of a multivariate Gaussian Mixture model. The Gaussian Mixture model provides a convenient distributional description that is flexible enough to accommodate complex solution spaces. The decoder receives samples from the Gaussian Mixture and maps the damaged condition (states) to the system’s measurable response. In such a problem, and depending on the quantities being observed (sensor positioning), it is possible that multiple damaged states may correspond to similar measurement records. In this context, the main contribution of this work lies in the development of a method to quantify the uncertainty within the context of a possibly ill-posed damage identification problem. We employ the Gaussian Mixture to express the multimodal solution space and explain the uncertainty in the damaged condition estimates. We design and validate the methodology using synthetic data from a FOWT in the commonly adopted OpenFAST software, and consider two damage types frequently occurring in mooring lines: biofouling and anchor displacement. The method allows for estimating the damaged state while capturing the uncertainty in the estimations and the multimodality of the solution under the availability of a limited number of response measurements.
- Preprint
(8280 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-160', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Dec 2024
Scientific comments
- In many machine-learning contexts (e.g., VAEs or standard autoencoders), the forward (decoder) and inverse (encoder) are trained jointly with a single objective. Clarify why two-step training is chosen over a single integrated approach, and discuss potential pros/cons.
- In the proposed method, the training of the forward operator is deterministic. Have you considered a probabilistic (or noisy) surrogate as well?
- Equation 9 needs to be clarified. What are the assumptions for the prior p(z)?
- “Substituting Eq 9 in Eq 12 gives Eq 13”. This part needs more detailed explanation or derivation steps for better comprehension.
- What are the features used for the measurements? Statistics of the time series, properties of the PSD?
- What are the architecture and training parameters of the deterministic counterpart?
- Does the provided uncertainty represent aleatory, epistemic components or mixed? In the latter case, how to decompose it?
- The study focuses on two specific damage types within a single mooring line. This constraint simplifies the problem but may not represent the diversity of real-world conditions, where multiple damage types may occur at various locations.
- Damage data and measurement data will be needed to train the forward operator in a supervised manner. Similar to the above comment, it works in the case study because the same damage mode is simulated for both training and testing. But in reality, it wil not be the case. In this context, how would you address the following barriers for practical application:
- Damage data can be rarely collected from the real structure and therefore, simulations will be required to train the model. The difference between the simulated response and the real turbine response will affect the model robustness.
- The simulated dataset will not cover all possible damage scenarios.
Technical comments
Literature review should be more structured.
Citation style should be proper and consistent throughout the manuscript. Cite in parentheses wherever is relevant.
The manuscript still needs careful and thorough proof-reading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-160-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ana Fernandez Navamuel, 02 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-160/wes-2024-160-CC1-supplement.pdfDisclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-160', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jan 2025
1. The authors combine a GMM with Autoencoders (using a deterministic encoder) to leverage the strengths of both methods, particularly for capturing multimodal latent representations. However, the paper should include a comparison between the proposed GMM-AE approach and a standard Variational Autoencoder for at least one case scenario. This would allow for evaluating reconstruction accuracy, clustering performance, and trade-offs such as increased model complexity while exploring whether the VAE's inherent stochasticity in the encoder provides comparable benefits.
2. The number of Gaussian components in a GMM is typically a hyperparameter that must be set before training. The authors set it equal to 5; why? there is no comment about this. Choosing the wrong number of components can lead to underfitting or overfitting.
3. The authors need to properly discuss the limitations of using GMM.
- GMM suffers in the context of high-dimensional data. In this case, the damaged feature space is pretty small, which is convenient. How would this scale up?
GMM assumes that the data can be modeled as a combination of Gaussians. What if this assumption is not met?
- the EM algorithm behind GMM is sensitive to initialization - how is it initialized here?4. The authors also use the operational loading conditions as input. You are never specific about which one you are using. You mention wave height, wind speed, and peak period for the simulations. Are those the input as well? How sensitive is your solution to having/not having those inputs to the encoder and then back to the decoder?
5. They should consider extending their analysis to scenarios involving simultaneous damage to two mooring lines. This will allow them to test the methodology's capability to capture the coupled dynamics between the lines and their impact on the floating platform's overall response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-160-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-160', Nikolay Dimitrov, 09 Jan 2025
Many thanks to the authors and reviewers for their efforts. A few additional comments:
1) If I understand correctly, the authors consider mainly a case where each of their damage estimations is based on a single realization of the environmental conditions and the system response (which is itself based on time series aggregated over a period of time, say 10 minutes). This is also the logical approach with numerical simulations where realizations are statistically independent from each other. In real systems, the different variable categories (environmental conditions, response and damage variables, and noise/errors) will have varying degrees of autocorrelation. This property may be exploitable by doing further data aggregation, to increase the confidence in the results. Could the authors please comment/consider this possibility?
2) I could imagine this methodology being applicable to a broader range of problems. Do the authors agree, and do they see any particular challenges / limitations?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-160-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
174 | 55 | 8 | 237 | 3 | 5 |
- HTML: 174
- PDF: 55
- XML: 8
- Total: 237
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1