the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deep mining of megawatt large wind turbine actual operating data: exploration of accurate modeling & performance optimization
Abstract. The real-time operation data analysis and condition monitoring of large wind turbines are crucial for ensuring the efficient and safe operation of wind farms. In response to this, this paper proposes a precise prediction model architecture based on the multivariate linear regression algorithm to gain a deeper understanding of the actual operation of large wind turbines. By comparing different prediction variable combinations, we confirmed that the average wind direction and average wind speed play a core role in predicting active power, and found that their combined effect can capture more than 70 % of power changes. Furthermore, this paper innovatively introduces Bayesian algorithm for parameter fusion, effectively improving the model's goodness of fit. However, the complexity of the data in actual applications poses a challenge to the effectiveness of the Bayesian fusion algorithm, suggesting that further optimization of the algorithm is needed to cope with the complex and variable real data environment. This study provides scientific evidence for the efficient operation, precise maintenance, and environmentally friendly design of wind turbines, promoting the continuous progress and development of wind power generation technology.
- Preprint
(2117 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Dec 2024
reply
Real-time operation data analysis and condition monitoring of large wind turbines can provide a scientific basis for efficient operation, accurate maintenance and environmental protection design of wind turbines.Â
1. Especially the basic test data of wind turbine operation, please present the supporting data in an intuitive way, which will make it easier for readers to understand the content of this research.
2. Please explain why only a few months of monitoring data are used for a shorter period of time.
3. The innovation of this research in terms of different data fusion processing methods needs further explanation.
4. The paper writing needs to be improved and polished. There are some sentences that are grammatically incorrect and too long to comprehend. The authors should ask a native English spoken person to proof read the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-163-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Dec 2024
reply
1. Please explain the advantages of the Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) method, specifically as embodied in this study.
2. Can the prediction results of this study be compared in more two-dimensional forms to give readers a more concrete understanding? At the same time, discuss possible deviations and limitations.
3. Is there potential for further improving prediction accuracy? Can some thoughts and ideas be provided?Â
4. Consider adding annotations or explanations to the charts to improve their informativeness.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-163-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Dec 2024
reply
Research on wind turbine operational data holds considerable reference value, offering vital insights and practical guidance for the optimization of wind energy systems. Nevertheless, some revisions should be performed before acception for publication.
- Please provide detailed explanations of the root mean square error (RMSE) and F-statistic value to help readers understand the deviations.
- Please offer insights on improvements in wind turbine control based on the current research findings.
- Explain the role of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) so that readers can better understand the improved algorithm.
- Will the improved algorithm in this study significantly increase the computational load? Please provide a logical explanation.
- Check and update the reference list to ensure that the cited literature is up-to-date, authoritative, and meets the requirements of the target journal.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-163-RC3 -
RC4: 'Comment on wes-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #4, 12 Dec 2024
reply
Dear authors,
I carefully read the manuscript and stated my comments below.
In my opinion, there is an issue with the training/testing data which is the main comment I have about the manuscript. I hope that the comments and questions below help improve the manuscript.Â
1- According to the authors, the study aims to fill a knowledge gap "by innovatively constructing a comprehensive data model". Although this is a strong statement, the presented data seems not to be representative of properly test the developed model and confirms this statement. As understood from the manuscript, the data obtained is for the same time period and location for all turbines. This period of 4 months cannot present e.g., the yearly variations on the given site. Furthermore, as also mentioned by the authors in the last paragraphs of section 4, "although the wind turbines selected for comparison and optimization have shown a high degree of similarity in their working environment and conditions, which is an ideal basis for model comparison and optimization, ..." yet the developed model does not perform as intended.Â
1a) The reasons listed in the same paragraphs might be valid reasons, but what is the expectation when this model is applied to a test case on completely different environmental conditions?Â
1b) Could you please explain what the general strategy will be? How/if this model has to be trained for each specific test case?Â
2- On page 9, line 206: a value for coefficient of determination (R^2) is given as above 0.71, but this value is not mentioned in the text when the model is improved further. Although it is possible to read these values from the figures (if zoomed in properly), it would be good to discuss these values in the text as well since one of the major goals is to increase these values.
3- On page 9, lines 202-204: the statement reads: "... a deeper analysis reveals that the average pitch angle is the most sensitive predictor variable, with minor adjustments having a significant impact on output power. This finding not only aligns with the practical experience of frontline technicians, but also provides scientific evidence for optimizing wind turbine operation and maintenance strategies."
This statement suggests that the significant impact of pitch angle on the power output is new information. Isn't this a known fact? Could you please elaborate on this if something else is meant by this statement?
4- Presented figures are difficult to interpret. It would be helpful if supporting figures in other forms were presented.
5- Texts inside the figures are difficult to read.
6- Each sub-figure of a main figure (e.g.: figures 4a-4c) has the same caption and does not provide any additional information. Please consider improving these captions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-163-RC4 -
RC5: 'Comment on wes-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #5, 13 Dec 2024
reply
The paper presents a study using the multivariate linear regression algorithm to predict the active power of wind turbine. The model was then improved by using Bayesian algorithm-based parameter fusion. As stated in the manuscript, the real-time operation data analysis and condition monitoring of large wind turbines are crucial for ensuring the efficient and safe operation of wind farms. However, this manuscript needs improvement in writing and organization in the following aspects.
General comments:
- The manuscript doesn’t clearly describe the work and result in the abstract.
- The manuscript doesn’t present a strong connection between the performed work with the industrial needs and/or research fields.
- The research works using similar methodologies are not clearly listed and compared.
- The input and output data of the model is not well presented. Putting them into a table might be a good solution.
- In the conclusion, the model performance as well as the improvement brought by parameter fusion are not well listed and analyzed.
Â
Specific comments:
- All Figure 1, 2, and 3 are lacking information and misleading. The caption is too short and doesn’t provide enough descriptive information of the figures. For example, what does the lines in red mean in Figure 2?
- All Figure 4, 5, and 6 are having too small ticks and legends, making it hard to read.
- Also, the plot of points in Figure 4, 5, and 6 is not delivering a better information than the metrics like R-squared, F score, and RMSE. Maybe the authors can try with an error distribution on each dimension.
- The full name of AIC in line 214 is incorrect.
To sum up, I still thank the authors for putting efforts and contributing their research works to the field, but I would like to see an improvement in writing and analysis of the manuscript before considering publishing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-163-RC5
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
91 | 29 | 7 | 127 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 91
- PDF: 29
- XML: 7
- Total: 127
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1