the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fault Detection in Wind Turbines Using Health Index Monitoring with Variational Autoencoders
Abstract. As wind energy capacity expands globally, ensuring the operational reliability and economic viability of wind turbines has become a critical industrial challenge. Effective fault detection systems are essential for minimizing high maintenance costs and preventing catastrophic failures. To address this need, this paper presents a semi-supervised framework designed to identify anomalies in wind turbines using only healthy operational data. The methodology begins by extracting a comprehensive set of features from the time and frequency domains of raw vibration signals to capture a rich representation of the dynamics of wind turbines. A variational autoencoder, a deep generative model, is then trained exclusively on these features from healthy operational periods to learn a robust model of normal behavior and generate reconstruction errors as health indicators with exponentially weighted moving average smoothing to enhance robustness and reduce false alarms. The framework is evaluated using public data from the Aventa AV-7 ETH Zurich Research Wind Turbine, which includes multiple failure events. Experimental results demonstrate effective and early detection of pitch faults, as well as accurate detection of icing events and aerodynamic imbalances. The proposed approach therefore offers a robust and practical solution to improving operational safety and enabling proactive maintenance of wind turbines.
Competing interests: Yolanda Vidal is a member of the editorial board of Wind Energy Science.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(5899 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 26 Sep 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-123', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-123', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Thank you for writing this paper, which I've found interesting and well written. You will find several comments in the attached pdf, and I report hereafter the main ones.
- The features that you have selected are completely general and have nothing specific of wind turbines. You should acknowledge that there are other studies that focused on correlating damages with wind turbine-specific features, such as: 1P, 3P, modes frequency, damping and mode shapes.
- All the models presented in this paper are trained on 1 wind turbine during 1 measurement champaign. Therefore, they will not perform as well on other copies of the same turbine, or even after a few years.
- The threshold for detecting failures is not only a function of the turbine and features, but also of the machine learning model (see Fig. 10). Therefore, it lacks generality and might require expert tuning.
- Stemming from the previous point, I'm getting the impression that you have conveniently selected the training time and threshold to detect the failures that you knew were there.
- Please specify how you have computed the frequency domain features.
- I agree with the other reviewers that little can be done by detecting problems 2.5 hours in advance. This is not necessarily an issue of your framework, because maybe the failure was simply not there before.
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2025-123', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Sep 2025
reply
Thanks to the authors for a very clear and well-written paper. I enjoyed reading it. I only have a few minor comments related to the method:
1. It would be useful to clearly explain in the overview the motivation for using a probabilistic model for this application and not a deterministic approach, which is often simpler. It is briefly mentioned in Sec. 3.3, but could appear earlier in the text. You could highlight some other benefits, such as better generalization, being less prone to overfitting, dealing with noise in the data, etc.
In relation to that, could you comment in the result section on what it is about VAE that makes it a robust tool and performs better than the other methods you have compared it to?
2. Some more details on the feature extraction process would be appreciated, especially for the frequency domain terms.
3. It would be good to differentiate between the vector and scalar notations by using bold for vectors, for example. Introduce the feature, output, and the latent space with mathematically rigorous notations (For example, instead of x, it is more complete to introduce it as \boldsymbol x \in \mathbb R^N). Similarly, \boldsymbol z \in \mathbb R^M, where M<N.
4. Line 146: Reference variational inference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-123-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
323 | 31 | 10 | 364 | 9 | 16 |
- HTML: 323
- PDF: 31
- XML: 10
- Total: 364
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper entitled “Fault Detection in Wind Turbines Using Health Index Monitoring with Variational Autoencoders” deals with an interesting and timely topic, which is definitely adequate for the scientific objectives of the journal.
The quality of the presentation is in general high. Indeed, the rationale for the proposed methods is clearly explained. The test case is well discussed. The method is rigorously applied and the obtained results are convincing and sound. I have particularly appreciated the discussion of the icing vs. pitch imbalance case.
Despite the overall high quality of the paper, there are minor issues which in my opinion could be addressed in order to further improve the quality of the paper.