the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Probabilistic forecasting of wind turbine remaining useful life using conformalised quantile regression
Abstract. In recent years, numerous machine learning methods have been developed to predict the remaining useful life (RUL) of wind turbine components. However, uncertainties in modelling the future progression of degradation often preclude accurate point forecasts of failure times. Quantifying this uncertainty is therefore crucial to ensuring reliable predictions as it empowers operators to make risk-informed maintenance decisions. This work proposes a probabilistic RUL forecasting framework that leverages a convolutional autoencoder (CAE) to extract health indicators (HIs) from supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) signals, accurately capturing component degradation over time. To facilitate HI extraction, a Convolutional Neural Network-based normal behaviour modelling framework is employed as a feature extractor, and residuals of component temperature signals, rather than the raw signals, are supplied to the CAE. These HIs are then fed into a Long Short-Term Memory-based conformalised quantile regression framework to probabilistically predict RUL, calibrating confidence intervals to reliably represent uncertainty. This proposed approach effectively models degradation while alleviating the impact of high noise in field data. Its application to two case studies demonstrates that, while achieving similar performance to existing approaches using the simulated Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation (CMAPSS) dataset, the proposed approach significantly outperforms when using a real SCADA dataset with gearbox failures, reducing point prediction errors by approximately 67 %. Furthermore, the generated prediction intervals are better calibrated and, on average, 42 % shorter, providing more informative and reliable uncertainty estimates.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors 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
(8426 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-36', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-36/wes-2026-36-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2026-36-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-36', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Oct 2026
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the interesting paper in a topic that today is highly relevant. The concept of uncertainty assesment is needed in decision making for predictive maintenance. SCADA data is used as input, which is a widely available data type. CNNs extract health indicators from the data and are modeled using CAE. Conformal regression is explored to asses RUL uncertainty, whereas more classical Monte Carlo methods are mentioned in the state of the art. Data from run to failure is at the basis. Both use cases have a clear role: generic one and a targeted one on SCADA data.
The paper can be accepted with minor revisions. My detailed remarks are below.
Remarks:
- To deal with SCADA noise you first extract HIs to capture degradation related features. You mention that at least one year of SCADA data is necessary for seasonality. Is this always the case? Can’t you CNN capture the seasonal effects already from shorter periods of data if you include SCADA measurements of the environment?
- The HI calculation uses in the CAE the z-scores and the remaining SCADA signals to model a target HI. The Z-scores are also determined based on the SCADA signals. Doesn’t this make your HIs dependent of oneanother when you bring HIs together later on?
- You mention that you use trial and error for the creation of the CNN architecture. Did you explore hyperparameter tuning as well? The same for the architecture of the QR model.
- For case 1:
- Line 280. You mention the minimal HI=-0.22 in the training data is seen as start of healthy data. Further on you mention that in a fleet of units you use the lowest initial degradation as healthy. This means that the training set specifics have a big impact. How big is this sensitivity? Â Â
- For case 2:
- You exclude nacelle temperatures and gearbox oil temperature from the dataset. The model implicitly learns the HI based on the SCADA parameters. Wouldn’t these influences be modelled out anyhow?
- You mention: “This error is likely attributable to the high degree of heterogeneity in fault progression and significant sensor noise, which can mask the degradation patterns and force the model to maintain conservative uncertainty bounds to ensure validity” How would you improve this towards the future? Would other HIs offer potential here?
- In the comparison between the DCNN-CQR and your method there are differences in performance. Â Aren't these mostly due to the part of the pipeline linked to HI creation and modeling of RUL. Â You have both methods implemented. Can you see this also in the intermediate results?Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-36-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 606 | 261 | 131 | 998 | 153 | 124 |
- HTML: 606
- PDF: 261
- XML: 131
- Total: 998
- BibTeX: 153
- EndNote: 124
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1