the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Performance of Multi-Band MDE-Based Virtual Sensing for Estimating Lifetime Fatigue Damage Equivalent Loads for the IEA 15 MW Reference Wind Turbine
Abstract. Growing Offshore Wind Turbines (OWTs) are increasingly vulnerable to fatigue damage, motivating stress monitoring at critical, often inaccessible locations, for asset integrity management and life-extension. Virtual sensing methodologies, such as multi-band Modal Decomposition and Expansion (MDE), offer a solution by extrapolating measurements from sensors at accessible locations. However, existing MDE studies often model the Rotor-Nacelle-Assembly (RNA) as a lumped mass inertia, thereby ignoring blade flexibility and rotor operation. This leads to errors in estimated strains or stresses, particularly close to the tower top, where blade vibrations significantly influence the structural response. Moreover, neglecting blade flexibility can also lead to inaccurate tower mode shapes, causing errors not limited to the tower top.
The present paper investigates the errors of multi-band MDE estimates resulting from modelling the RNA as a lumped inertia. To this end, a dataset of HAWC2 simulations covering the Fatigue Limit State (FLS) design life of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine with a monopile foundation (IEA 15-MW RWT) is considered. Utilizing this dataset, multi-band MDE is used to estimate section moments along the entire supporting structure of the IEA 15-MW RWT. These estimates are compared against the true response extracted from the dataset in terms of Damage Equivalent Loads (DELs) and Damage Equivalent Stresses (DESs) combined for the individual Design Load Cases (DLCs). Additionally, the error of the MDE estimates is assessed for individual 10-minute time series from the same dataset. Based on the combined DELs and DESs, it is concluded that the MDE used in the present work performs well for long-term estimates, except in the area around the tower top, where blade vibrations and 3P effects significantly impact the quality of the estimates. It is shown that the MDE errors for the individual 10-minute time series are generally in the range of. However, the error is as high as in the tower top, where the impact from the lumped inertia RNA model is large. Finally, the error of the MDE estimates exhibits wind speed dependency. This underlines the inherent limitation in the MDE, which assumes a linear and time-invariant response and thus cannot capture the temporal variability of the dynamic model due to changing operational and environmental conditions. In conclusion, multi-band MDE provides accurate estimates of section moments across most of the IEA 15-MW RWT supporting structure, though without capturing the effects of operational and environmental variability. Furthermore, improvements are necessary to effectively capture the effects of blade flexibility, particularly near the tower top.
- Preprint
(4834 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-89', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-89/wes-2025-89-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-89', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2025
This work is a well-written and understandable read with precise figures. The reviewer congratulates the authors for its high level.
The only major point of critics concerns the motivation and relevance of the overall concept. The authors argue MDE is applied at positions not accessible for sensor application and than later show the significant errors to be close to the tower top. This position, however, seems rather easy to access and equip with sensors (as also mentioned by the authors and displayed in Figure 11). This contradiction seems unresolved to the reviewer and I ask the authors to comment on this.
Another aspect which might merit some additional explanation in writing: According to my understanding, DLC4.1 as per IEC61400 does not include turbulence. It's frequency in the standard also is significantly lower than its practical occurrence, mostly due to curtailment of power output as a function of energy trading. Recent presentations on the WESC 25 mentioned up to 50 turbine stops per day and also claimed this to be critical as they happen also under unfavorable operating conditions. I fully understand this cannot be covered with the present work, but I think a word or two in the conclusions to mention the possibility of DLC4.1 playing a much more significant role in real-world turbines would add value to it.
One last thing that escaped my understanding and where I merely ask for a layman's explanation is the seemingly contradiction of the tower top sensor being there and the huge error of MDE at tower top (also pointed to in a dedicated comment).
All comments including above statement are in the attached pdf.-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-89/wes-2025-89-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-89', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jul 2025
The manuscript “Performance of Multi-Band MDE-Based Virtual Sensing for Estimating Lifetime Fatigue Damage Equivalent Loads for the IEA 15 MW Reference Wind Turbine” investigate the well-known multi-band Modal Decomposition and Expansion virtual sensing approach on simulation data of the IEA 15-MW Offshore Reference Wind Turbine to estimate section moments and compare them with simulated responses. The results show errors near the tower top and close to the water level. This study provides a comprehensive overview and literature application of multi-band MDE for virtual sensing in wind turbines, but it’s novelty in methodology is unclear. Although the paper mentions the issue of modelling RNA as a lumped mass, it only demonstrates the presence of errors without thoroughly investigating their root causes. Only a detailed investigation of the cause, such as the use of the virtual sensing approach with an RNA-based lumped mass model and the complete modelling of the blades, would allow a credible statement about the error due to blade modelling.
- Clarify the novelty of your approach compared to existing studies, highlighting specific contributions and advances.
- Consider shortening the Data section, moving detailed information to an appendix to maintain focus on virtual sensing
- Provide a rationale for the multi-band approach boundaries in Table 6, indicating if they are standard or proposed by the authors.
- Consider conducting a direct comparison between models with and without accurately modelled RNA, including rotor blades, to isolate error sources.
- Offer a sample time series of strain data and analyse where discrepancies originate, enhancing the understanding of the study's context.
- Investigate errors in the frequency domain to offer deeper insights into their origins and behaviour.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-89-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-89/wes-2025-89-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-89', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2025
This work is a well-written and understandable read with precise figures. The reviewer congratulates the authors for its high level.
The only major point of critics concerns the motivation and relevance of the overall concept. The authors argue MDE is applied at positions not accessible for sensor application and than later show the significant errors to be close to the tower top. This position, however, seems rather easy to access and equip with sensors (as also mentioned by the authors and displayed in Figure 11). This contradiction seems unresolved to the reviewer and I ask the authors to comment on this.
Another aspect which might merit some additional explanation in writing: According to my understanding, DLC4.1 as per IEC61400 does not include turbulence. It's frequency in the standard also is significantly lower than its practical occurrence, mostly due to curtailment of power output as a function of energy trading. Recent presentations on the WESC 25 mentioned up to 50 turbine stops per day and also claimed this to be critical as they happen also under unfavorable operating conditions. I fully understand this cannot be covered with the present work, but I think a word or two in the conclusions to mention the possibility of DLC4.1 playing a much more significant role in real-world turbines would add value to it.
One last thing that escaped my understanding and where I merely ask for a layman's explanation is the seemingly contradiction of the tower top sensor being there and the huge error of MDE at tower top (also pointed to in a dedicated comment).
All comments including above statement are in the attached pdf.-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-89/wes-2025-89-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mads Greve Pedersen, 30 Sep 2025
Data sets
IEA-15MW-RWT-Monopile HAWC2 Response Database Mads Greve Pedersen, Jennifer Rinker, Jan Becker Høgsberg, Isaac Farreras Alcover https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.24460090.v3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 835 | 195 | 48 | 1,078 | 49 | 106 |
- HTML: 835
- PDF: 195
- XML: 48
- Total: 1,078
- BibTeX: 49
- EndNote: 106
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript “Performance of Multi-Band MDE-Based Virtual Sensing for Estimating Lifetime Fatigue Damage Equivalent Loads for the IEA 15 MW Reference Wind Turbine” investigate the well-known multi-band Modal Decomposition and Expansion virtual sensing approach on simulation data of the IEA 15-MW Offshore Reference Wind Turbine to estimate section moments and compare them with simulated responses. The results show errors near the tower top and close to the water level. This study provides a comprehensive overview and literature application of multi-band MDE for virtual sensing in wind turbines, but it’s novelty in methodology is unclear. Although the paper mentions the issue of modelling RNA as a lumped mass, it only demonstrates the presence of errors without thoroughly investigating their root causes. Only a detailed investigation of the cause, such as the use of the virtual sensing approach with an RNA-based lumped mass model and the complete modelling of the blades, would allow a credible statement about the error due to blade modelling.