ArticleScientific reports2025
Wind turbine blade damage detection based on acoustic signals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resonance peak extraction method based on human ear model and its application in bearing fault diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Radar-Based Damage Detection in a Wind Turbine Blade Using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Proof-of-Concept Under Fatigue Loading.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the size of wind turbine blades has increased, underscoring the critical importance of monitoring their structural health. This study explores the use of noise emitted during wind turbine operation for the assessment of blade structural integrity. During sound acquisition, the wind sound, pneumatic sound and mechanical sound are recorded together to form the wind turbine sound signal. Considering the computational challenges of spectral subtraction under extreme noise intensities, a pretrained sound source separation neural network was used to distinguish between random wind noise and mechanical noise in wind turbine sound signals. In this paper, the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) time-frequency diagrams of signals processed using the spectral subtraction method are compared with those processed by combining the source separation model and spectral subtraction. The results reveal that the combined approach provides a more detailed representation in the time-frequency diagrams. Additionally, the mel-scale frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) algorithm is utilized for feature extraction in the experimental dataset, forming training and test sets for the normal and abnormal datasets. To carry out damage detection, the ResNet50 deep residual neural network model is employed. The training results of the same network model were evaluated using the datasets obtained from the four different denoising schemes in the experiments and a 95% confidence level assessment metric. The analysis of the 95% confidence intervals reveals that the proposed sound source separation model combined with the traditional spectral subtraction denoising algorithm is effective in reducing the noise of wind turbine sound signals and performs well in identifying the anomalous sound generated by blade damage. Under this approach, the 95% confidence intervals of the model training set accuracies range from 0.926 to 0.965, while the confidence intervals of the test set accuracies range from 0.869 to 0.931.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.