Posters

Abstract

Wind asset owners and OEMs need maintenance decisions across the full lifecycle — from warranty-phase support to long-term operation and life extension. In practice, many decisions are still calendar-driven even when a verified finite element analysis (FEA) baseline exists and inspection campaigns deliver measurable condition information. The result is predictable: some inspections and interventions are triggered “just in case,” while the truly governing zones and degradation drivers remain under-identified or inconsistently tracked.  This work presents a practical workflow that re-uses existing FEA verification results and links them to inspection evidence to support repeatable maintenance decisions. The core idea is simple: structural checks produce utilization factors and highlight zones where utilization exceeds an acceptance threshold (e.g., >1). These critical zones are then mapped to an asset/component breakdown structure, tracked with traceable IDs, and used to drive inspection and follow-up actions. Inspection findings update the condition state of the same zones, and reassessment is performed when as-found data changes capacity assumptions.  The workflow includes:  Baseline verification: engineers run structural checks on the FEA model to obtain utilization factors and identify critical zones requiring inspection attention.  Component and zone structuring: importing selected model components and their verification outputs into an asset/component structure, so each critical zone remains traceable to a physical location and a specific verification scope.  Inspection evidence linking: attaching inspection observations (measured thickness, corrosion mapping, crack indications and sizing, weld condition notes) to the corresponding zones and maintaining an integrity state over time.  Reassessment when needed: updating assumptions and recalculating utilisation / remaining life indicators for zones affected by measured changes or confirmed defects, with sensitivity checks to separate true risk drivers from uncertainty.  Decision output: generating prioritised inspection targets and maintenance actions (repair, monitoring, re-inspection interval change) with an evidence trail that connects FEA results and inspection findings to the decision.  A case study on an operating wind asset (foundation/tower details with repeated inspections) shows that adding real inspection data to the previously identified critical zones can change priorities compared to design assumptions. Some zones became less critical once the actual condition was confirmed, while a smaller set became clearly dominant for remaining-life uncertainty. This led to a tighter inspection scope and clearer repair-versus-monitor decisions, reducing late-cycle surprises.  The contribution is a repeatable way to turn existing FEA verification outputs and inspection deliverables into practical maintenance decisions.