the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Kriging meta-models for damage equivalent load assessment of idling offshore wind turbines
Abstract. Lifetime reassessments of offshore wind turbines are very time consuming due to the large number of required simulations. As a result, the use of meta-models as surrogate models of the aeroelastic simulation model could offer a suitable alternative to simulations in the time domain (e.g., Kriging, artificial neural networks, or polynomial chaos expansion). Meta-models for the approximation of fatigue loads, i.e., damage equivalent loads, of wind turbines in normal operation have been researched comprehensively in recent years. Especially for offshore wind turbines, however, the downtimes, i.e, the times when the wind turbine is idling, also have a significant impact on the lifetime. For this reason, the creation of meta-models, more precisely Kriging meta-models, for an idling offshore wind turbine is investigated comprehensively in this paper. To ensure that the fatigue loads for the training and test data are not influenced by the initial transients at the start of the simulation, the run-in times are determined first. The subsequent investigation of meta-modelling shows that for the approximation of the rotor blade root bending moments, two additional input parameters have to be considered in addition to the input parameters that are used for the creation of a meta-model for the same offshore wind turbine in normal operation. The comprehensive investigation of the Kriging meta-models shows that the meta-models trained with 2000 data points represent the simulation model with an acceptable approximation quality when choosing suitable Kriging settings.
Competing interests: R. Rolfes is a member of the editorial board of the journal.
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
(2172 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Sep 2025
- RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Sep 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Franziska Schmidt, 10 Oct 2025
We want to thank both reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our article and their constructive feedback that helped us to improve the quality of our paper.
In the attached pdf document, you can find our answers to the comments. Here, the line numbers in the reviewers’ comments refer to the first preprint version (initial submission) whereas the line numbers in our answers refer to the revised version of the paper. The edits in the manuscript are highlighted in magenta for reviewer 1 and in blue for reviewer 2. Adjustments made based on the comments from both reviewers are marked in cyan.
For your information, in relation to comment 2 from reviewer 2, we made some adjustments in Section 3.4 to 3.6 as we noticed a small mix-up regarding the initial rotor position as input parameter for the rotor blade meta-models. Instead of the initial rotor position (azimuth angle) of the 10-minute period used to calculate the DELs, we used the initial rotor position at the beginning of the aeroelastic simulation (i.e., before the run-in time) as input parameters for the meta-models. We corrected this during the revision, which has improved the meta-models. In the course of this, we revised the calculation method regarding the seed-to-seed uncertainty in Section 3.6. Based on these adjustments, the recommendations for the meta-model settings and the required training sample size were updated.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Sep 2025
Dear authors, thank you for your submission entitled "Kriging meta-models for damage equivalent load assessment of idling offshore wind turbines". Your publication is well written and presents relevant work. I believe it should be published in this journal, and I only have minor suggestions that can hopefully improve the readability of your manuscript:
1. Abstract: I would have appreciated a slightly less technical abstract, where the reader gets a higher level overview of what your article is about. Also, some terms generated some confusion even in a technical expert like me. I later understood what they refer to, but I had to google to confirm what "lifetime reassessments" and "run-in times" referred to. I was more familiar with wording like "lifetime extension potential" and "initial transients". I would strongly recommend clearing these possible sources of confusion, especially from the abstract that will hopefully be read by many people.
2. Line 20: The load cases are lumped here. "here" where?
3. Line 42: lower occurring loads. Fatigue or peak loads?
4. Lines 42-47: a citation seems missing
5. Line 49: "of of", typo
6. Line 65: "known" typo
7. Line 71: I am more familiar with the wording "initial transients" rather than "run-in times"
8. Line 95: There is no action item here, but please note that FASTv8 is 10+ years old. I'd strongly recommend upgrading to the latest releases of OpenFAST to make your work more impactful
9. Line 255: I'd recommend referencing Table 1 here, it took me a while to understand what those forces and moments were
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-83-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Sep 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-83', Franziska Schmidt, 10 Oct 2025
We want to thank both reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our article and their constructive feedback that helped us to improve the quality of our paper.
In the attached pdf document, you can find our answers to the comments. Here, the line numbers in the reviewers’ comments refer to the first preprint version (initial submission) whereas the line numbers in our answers refer to the revised version of the paper. The edits in the manuscript are highlighted in magenta for reviewer 1 and in blue for reviewer 2. Adjustments made based on the comments from both reviewers are marked in cyan.
For your information, in relation to comment 2 from reviewer 2, we made some adjustments in Section 3.4 to 3.6 as we noticed a small mix-up regarding the initial rotor position as input parameter for the rotor blade meta-models. Instead of the initial rotor position (azimuth angle) of the 10-minute period used to calculate the DELs, we used the initial rotor position at the beginning of the aeroelastic simulation (i.e., before the run-in time) as input parameters for the meta-models. We corrected this during the revision, which has improved the meta-models. In the course of this, we revised the calculation method regarding the seed-to-seed uncertainty in Section 3.6. Based on these adjustments, the recommendations for the meta-model settings and the required training sample size were updated.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 596 | 47 | 35 | 678 | 42 | 44 |
- HTML: 596
- PDF: 47
- XML: 35
- Total: 678
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 44
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors, thank you for your submission entitled "Kriging meta-models for damage equivalent load assessment of idling offshore wind turbines". Your publication is well written and presents relevant work. I believe it should be published in this journal, and I only have minor suggestions that can hopefully improve the readability of your manuscript:
1. Abstract: I would have appreciated a slightly less technical abstract, where the reader gets a higher level overview of what your article is about. Also, some terms generated some confusion even in a technical expert like me. I later understood what they refer to, but I had to google to confirm what "lifetime reassessments" and "run-in times" referred to. I was more familiar with wording like "lifetime extension potential" and "initial transients". I would strongly recommend clearing these possible sources of confusion, especially from the abstract that will hopefully be read by many people.
2. Line 20: The load cases are lumped here. "here" where?
3. Line 42: lower occurring loads. Fatigue or peak loads?
4. Lines 42-47: a citation seems missing
5. Line 49: "of of", typo
6. Line 65: "known" typo
7. Line 71: I am more familiar with the wording "initial transients" rather than "run-in times"
8. Line 95: There is no action item here, but please note that FASTv8 is 10+ years old. I'd strongly recommend upgrading to the latest releases of OpenFAST to make your work more impactful
9. Line 255: I'd recommend referencing Table 1 here, it took me a while to understand what those forces and moments were