Vibration response of a 2.3 MW wind turbine to yaw motion and shut down events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Structural health monitoring (SHM) is a process of implementing a damage detection strategy for a mechanical system. Wind turbine machinery stands to benefit from SHM significantly as the ability to detect early stages of damage before significant malfunction or structural failure occurs would reduce costs of wind power projects by reducing maintenance costs. Vibration analysis of dynamic structural response is an approach to SHM that has been successfully applied to mechanical and civil systems and shows some promise for wind turbine application. Traditionally, a setback to turbine vibration‐based SHM techniques has been the unavailability of turbine vibration response data. This study begins to address this issue by presenting vibration response for a commercial 2.3 MW turbine to a limited number of operating conditions. A database of acquired vibration response signals detailing turbine response to yaw motion, start‐up, operation and shutdown has been assembled. A Daubechies sixth‐order wavelet was used to perform an eight‐level discrete wavelet decomposition such that general trends and patterns within the signals could be identified. With further development, the presented analysis of vibration response may be integrated into routines to reduce downtime and failure frequency of utility scale wind turbines. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".