the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Interannual variability in fatigue damage estimation from short-term strain monitoring of offshore wind turbines
Abstract. Extending the service life of offshore wind turbines demands fatigue assessments that reflect site-specific loading rather than conservative design assumptions. Structural health monitoring can provide strain-based damage estimates, but such monitoring campaigns are typically short. Consequently, long-term damage is often estimated from short-term strain data conditioned on available environmental and operational condition (EOC) records. Despite widespread use of such estimation approaches, the representativeness of a one-year strain window remains insufficiently quantified. In particular, it is unclear whether estimation errors are primarily driven by within-year statistical uncertainty or by interannual variability in the conditional damage–EOC mapping. This distinction is difficult to assess in practice due to the scarcity of long-term paired strain–EOC datasets. In this work, an eight-year strain-EOC dataset from an in-service offshore wind turbine is used to quantify damage estimation error by systematically shifting a one-year strain monitoring window across years. A hierarchy of damage-mapping strategies is evaluated, from unconditional extrapolation to EOC-conditioned estimators based on binned damage models. Unconditional extrapolation yields substantial window-dependent errors, with deviations up to 30 % in the estimated long-term mean 10-minute damage, and exhibits pronounced interannual variability. Conditioning on informative EOCs generally reduces errors to around 10 % and decreases sensitivity to the considered monitored year. However, these improvements are not monotonic with the dimensionality of the EOC-conditioned model. Bootstrap-based estimates of within-year statistical uncertainty are consistently small (<1 %), indicating that estimation error is dominated by interannual variability. Longer strain monitoring periods reduce window-to-window variability, but do not eliminate damage estimation error under non-stationary conditions, where the EOC–damage mapping changes over time. These results show that long-horizon damage estimates remain sensitive to both the timing and duration of the strain-monitoring window. This sensitivity highlights the need to verify that the considered EOCs are representative of long-term conditions and that the damage–EOC mapping remains stable over time.
- Preprint
(4352 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 May 2026
The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of the effect of training data selection for long-term fatigue damage estimation from short-term strain monitoring based on a binning approach. The investigated parameters are mainly the effects of different training data lengths and binning approach settings.
The paper is well-written, good to understand, and is interesting for the readers of WES. However, some aspects could improve the study:
- The introduction and Section 2 are well-written but contain some repetitions (e.g. 55-60 and 140-145).
- It is unclear whether the conditional binning model is novel or derived from prior work. If it is indeed new, the paper should address the effects of dimensionality filling and the order of binning. Otherwise, please cite the corresponding study.
- The explanation of the interannual variability of the DEL estimation mentions a non-stationary system or neglected EOCs. It would be useful to determine whether a statistical test can confirm non-stationarity. What could be the causes (such as structural aging or scour, etc.)? Which neglected EOCs could be the reason? Discussing potential future research directions for handle these effects would enhance the study.
- Consider merging Section 4.3 and Section 5 to improve coherence, possibly including a table summarizing the studies.
- Section 5.1 should include a table illustrating bin filling rates per model, indicating how the different dimensional models vary in terms of empty bins.
- Clarify the rationale behind the choice of specific models (e.g., sensor heading, binning dimension) for respective studies.
- For Figure 14, it's unclear why only 0D and 1D-WS models are shown. They have been shown to not the best choice to capture the interannual variability. It would be beneficial to include results for all applied model dimensions. Why are the results of only one and two years window length shown and not the three years window?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-65-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Negin Sadeghi, 31 Jul 2026
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 May 2026
The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of the effect of training data selection for long-term fatigue damage estimation from short-term strain monitoring based on a binning approach. The investigated parameters are mainly the effects of different training data lengths and binning approach settings.
The paper is well-written, good to understand, and is interesting for the readers of WES. However, some aspects could improve the study:
- The introduction and Section 2 are well-written but contain some repetitions (e.g. 55-60 and 140-145).
- It is unclear whether the conditional binning model is novel or derived from prior work. If it is indeed new, the paper should address the effects of dimensionality filling and the order of binning. Otherwise, please cite the corresponding study.
- The explanation of the interannual variability of the DEL estimation mentions a non-stationary system or neglected EOCs. It would be useful to determine whether a statistical test can confirm non-stationarity. What could be the causes (such as structural aging or scour, etc.)? Which neglected EOCs could be the reason? Discussing potential future research directions for handle these effects would enhance the study.
- Consider merging Section 4.3 and Section 5 to improve coherence, possibly including a table summarizing the studies.
- Section 5.1 should include a table illustrating bin filling rates per model, indicating how the different dimensional models vary in terms of empty bins.
- Clarify the rationale behind the choice of specific models (e.g., sensor heading, binning dimension) for respective studies.
- For Figure 14, it's unclear why only 0D and 1D-WS models are shown. They have been shown to not the best choice to capture the interannual variability. It would be beneficial to include results for all applied model dimensions. Why are the results of only one and two years window length shown and not the three years window?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-65-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-65', Negin Sadeghi, 31 Jul 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 410 | 125 | 81 | 616 | 76 | 82 |
- HTML: 410
- PDF: 125
- XML: 81
- Total: 616
- BibTeX: 76
- EndNote: 82
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please, find my comments attached.