Condition Monitoring of Wind Turbine Blades Using Active and Passive Thermography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The failure of wind turbine blades is a major concern in the wind power industry due to the resulting high cost. It is, therefore, crucial to develop methods to monitor the integrity of wind turbine blades. Different methods are available to detect subsurface damage but most require close proximity between the sensor and the blade. Thermography, as a non-contact method, may avoid this problem. Both passive and active pulsed and step heating and cooling thermography techniques were investigated for different purposes. A section of a severely damaged blade and a small “plate” cut from the undamaged laminate section of the blade with holes of varying diameter and depth drilled from the rear to provide “known” defects were monitored. The raw thermal images captured by both active and passive thermography demonstrated that image processing was required to improve the quality of the thermal data. Different image processing algorithms were used to increase the thermal contrasts of subsurface defects in thermal images obtained by active thermography. A method called “Step Phase and Amplitude Thermography”, which applies a transform-based algorithm to step heating and cooling data was used. This method was also applied, for the first time, to the passive thermography results. The outcomes of the image processing on both active and passive thermography indicated that the techniques employed could considerably increase the quality of the images and the visibility of internal defects. The signal-to-noise ratio of raw and processed images was calculated to quantitatively show that image processing methods considerably improve the ratios.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".