the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A machine learning based approach for better prediction of fatigue life of offshore wind turbine foundations using smaller datasizes
Abstract. As offshore wind turbine (OWT) foundations approach the end of their design life, the industry is increasingly focused on strategies for lifetime extension. As fatigue is the design driver for foundations of OWTs, reliable fatigue damage predictions are essential to support informed decisions for lifetime extensions. While simulation-based fatigue life reassessments are common, data-driven approaches using measured strain data have emerged as an alternative that can reduce modeling uncertainties. But, data-driven approaches face challenge as having access to strain data over the entire past lifetime is not an industry-standard. Often measurement campaigns are only kicked off when a lifetime extension is considered, thus limiting the availability of strain data. However, environmental and operational conditions (EOCs) of the wind turbines are usually recorded during the whole operational period. Using limited strain measurements and long term EOCs to estimate fatigue damage in unmonitored periods during the lifetime of the turbine requires temporal extrapolation techniques. Existing work on this topic presents several extrapolation methods, including linear time-based extrapolation, binning based on correlations between EOCs and average damage, and machine learning (ML) models. The accuracy of these methods depends on factors such as the selected EOC parameters, the duration and starting point of available strain data, the power rating and type of the wind turbine, as well as the type and architecture of the extrapolation model used. This study presents a novel machine learning based extrapolation model using random forest (RF) for temporal extrapolation of strain measurements. A comparative analysis of novel RF model with previously identified binning models is presented. The extrapolation performance is validated using five years of measured strain, SCADA, and wave data from a 3 Mega Watt (MW) and a 9MW OWT installed on monopile foundations in the Belgian North Sea. Using a sliding window approach on the available monitoring data, we estimate and compare the statistical uncertainty in fatigue life predictions of various extrapolation models. The results indicate that wave parameters play a more significant role in fatigue prediction for larger turbine of 9MW compared to smaller one of 3MW power rating. For limited data sizes, less than 12 months, the proposed RF model demonstrates superior performance, offering more reliable fatigue life predictions with reduced statistical uncertainty. However, for longer datasets, greater than 12 months, the performance advantage of RF model over binning methods becomes less pronounced.
- Preprint
(1574 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-173', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-173/wes-2025-173-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-173', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2025
The topic of the paper is very relevant, and the approach followed—anchored in two large datasets of experimental data collected from two operating wind turbines and exploring many alternative models—is quite valuable.
The objectives of the paper are clearly stated and pertinent. As the authors state at the end of the paper, some of the conclusions might depend on the site and turbine model, but still, the in-depth analysis and the results obtained for two significantly different offshore models represent an important contribution to the current state of the art.The following points could be improved:
- Section 3.1 – In the strain data processing, it is relevant to mention that before converting strains to stresses, it is crucial to remove the effects of temperature (this is not mentioned in the paper, but there is probably a temperature sensor next to each strain gauge) and any potential strain drift over time (these are more critical in electrical strain gauges; the paper does not specify whether the strain gauges are electrical or fiber-optic sensors).
- Figure 3 – In the strain pre-processing, it would be preferable to convert measured stresses to bending moments (this needs to be explained, since with the use of six measuring points, a fitting procedure should be devised). These could then be oriented in the compass direction or in the FA/SS direction, and from these, the stresses at any point of the cross-section could be obtained. The naming “stresses in FA and SS direction” is misleading—the stresses under analysis are vertical!
- Equation (1) – In design codes, the fatigue of steel elements is calculated using a bi-linear S-N curve with m equal to 3 and 5. This should be commented on.
- Section 3.2 – The following sentence is unclear: “Invalid operational states refer to intervals lacking valid SCADA-derived statistics, typically involving transient events such as rotor start-up or shutdown.” Transient events are not considered in fatigue accumulation? Please clarify this point.
- Section 5, Table 3 – Some candidates for selected variables present strong correlations. Please clarify how this correlation may have influenced the selection of the features.
- Section 5.1 – The most standard variables used for fatigue estimation with SCADA data are wind velocity and turbulence. It would be useful to compare a model just based on these variables with all the others that have been tested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-173-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-173/wes-2025-173-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-173', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-173/wes-2025-173-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-173', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2025
The topic of the paper is very relevant, and the approach followed—anchored in two large datasets of experimental data collected from two operating wind turbines and exploring many alternative models—is quite valuable.
The objectives of the paper are clearly stated and pertinent. As the authors state at the end of the paper, some of the conclusions might depend on the site and turbine model, but still, the in-depth analysis and the results obtained for two significantly different offshore models represent an important contribution to the current state of the art.The following points could be improved:
- Section 3.1 – In the strain data processing, it is relevant to mention that before converting strains to stresses, it is crucial to remove the effects of temperature (this is not mentioned in the paper, but there is probably a temperature sensor next to each strain gauge) and any potential strain drift over time (these are more critical in electrical strain gauges; the paper does not specify whether the strain gauges are electrical or fiber-optic sensors).
- Figure 3 – In the strain pre-processing, it would be preferable to convert measured stresses to bending moments (this needs to be explained, since with the use of six measuring points, a fitting procedure should be devised). These could then be oriented in the compass direction or in the FA/SS direction, and from these, the stresses at any point of the cross-section could be obtained. The naming “stresses in FA and SS direction” is misleading—the stresses under analysis are vertical!
- Equation (1) – In design codes, the fatigue of steel elements is calculated using a bi-linear S-N curve with m equal to 3 and 5. This should be commented on.
- Section 3.2 – The following sentence is unclear: “Invalid operational states refer to intervals lacking valid SCADA-derived statistics, typically involving transient events such as rotor start-up or shutdown.” Transient events are not considered in fatigue accumulation? Please clarify this point.
- Section 5, Table 3 – Some candidates for selected variables present strong correlations. Please clarify how this correlation may have influenced the selection of the features.
- Section 5.1 – The most standard variables used for fatigue estimation with SCADA data are wind velocity and turbulence. It would be useful to compare a model just based on these variables with all the others that have been tested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-173-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ahmed Mujtaba, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-173/wes-2025-173-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 587 | 176 | 33 | 796 | 35 | 42 |
- HTML: 587
- PDF: 176
- XML: 33
- Total: 796
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please, see supplement