Automated UAV-based Wind Turbine Blade Inspection: Blade Stop Angle Estimation and Blade Detail Prioritized Exposure Adjustment

Hao Liu; Haowen Yu; Haowen Zheng; Jie Li; Minmin Ma; Xianqi Liang; Ximin Lyu; Yichuan Shi

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Automated UAV-based Wind Turbine Blade Inspection: Blade Stop Angle Estimation and Blade Detail Prioritized Exposure Adjustment

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Fermat point computed from LiDAR blade intersections recovers a wind turbine's stopped blade angle with 1.15-degree mean error and 98.3 percent success in operational wind farms.

desk verdict Real geometric idea, impressive field campaign, but the headline error numbers are unfalsifiable until ground truth is specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04922 v2 pith:TE5SCKLZ submitted 2025-07-07 cs.RO

Yichuan Shi , Hao Liu , Haowen Zheng , Haowen Yu , Xianqi Liang , Jie Li , Minmin Ma , Ximin Lyu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords UAVinspectionwindturbinebladestopangleestimationFermatpointLiDARcloudexposureadjustmentfieldvalidation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that automated drone inspection of wind-turbine blades can be made more dependable by replacing vision-based blade-stop-angle estimation with a geometry-only method based on the Fermat point of a triangle. The method derives the blade stop angle from LiDAR points alone, without relying on background appearance, by finding a triangle whose vertices lie on the three blades and whose Fermat point coincides with the hub center. In field tests across over 120 flights on 10 turbine models in 5 wind farms, the estimated blade angle had a mean error of 1.15 degrees and a success rate of 98.3 percent, against 2.14 degrees and 69.2 percent for an adapted vision-based Hough-transform method. The paper also argues that exposure must be adjusted at capture time, and presents a LiDAR-guided exposure loop that keeps blade-region brightness in a target range so details are not lost before post-processing. A sympathetic reading of the results is that the proposed pipeline moves wind-turbine inspection closer to full autonomy in real operating conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing geometric object is the Fermat point of the blade-ring intersection (BRI) triangle. A ring lying in a plane parallel to the blade rotation plane cuts each blade in a short arc; the centers of these three arcs are the BRI points, and they form a triangle whose interior angles are all below 120 degrees because the blades are spaced 120 degrees apart. For such a triangle the Fermat point is the unique point from which the three vertices are seen under 120-degree angles, so it coincides with the hub center. The pipeline carrying the argument is: RANSAC plane fitting on the LiDAR point cloud extracts the rotation plane and its normal; ring region searching on a probabilistic grid map finds the blade-ring intersection regions; DBSCAN clustering groups them into three BRI points; and Fermat point optimization recovers the hub center and the blade direction vectors, from which the blade stop angle follows. The exposure method uses the same point cloud to compute the perpendicular foot from the drone position onto the blade center line, projects that foot into the image, and adjusts exposure so the mean grayscale in a circular reference region stays inside the target interval.

What would settle it

Deliberately perturb the initial hub estimate p0_h in increments of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 meters across trials with surveyed ground-truth hub positions, and record whether the ring search still yields three clusters and the angle error against a surveyed stop angle; the claimed success rate is falsified if the method fails at offsets smaller than the prior estimate errors the paper's own setup admits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a stopped wind-turbine rotor carries its own angular reference in its geometry: because the three blades are spaced by 120 degrees, the Fermat point of the triangle formed by three blade-ring intersection points coincides exactly with the hub center. The authors turn this into a LiDAR-only estimator that extracts the blade rotation plane, searches rings parallel to it, clusters the three blade-ring intersection regions, and computes the Fermat point to recover hub center and blade direction vectors; the blade stop angle follows directly. In field use, they report a mean angle error of 1.15 degrees and a success rate of 98.3 percent over 120 flights, compared with 2.14 degrees and 69.2 percent for an adapted vision-based Hough-transform baseline. The second contribution is a real-time exposure loop that projects the LiDAR-derived inspection point onto the image and adjusts exposure to keep the blade region's mean grayscale in a target range, which they show preserves details that post-capture enhancement cannot restore.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the initial hub-position estimate and the fitted rotation-plane normal are accurate enough for the ring search to intersect all three blades; if either is wrong, the blade-ring intersection regions are never found and the Fermat point step never runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Inspection path planning can be started from LiDAR geometry alone, without waiting for a particular stop angle or relying on visual background features for orientation.
The exposure loop keeps blade-region brightness inside the target range during capture, and the paper measures corresponding gains in detail-richness metrics (standard deviation and entropy) for both underexposed and overexposed conditions.
The platform's endurance, wind resistance, and 70 m perception range are sufficient for large turbines, so the full pipeline can run in operational wind farms rather than only in simulation or on scaled models.
The comparison numbers imply that the LiDAR-geometry method reduces the need for manual re-flights caused by failed angle estimation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 120-degree Fermat-point construction is not tied to any particular turbine size, so it should transfer to other three-bladed rotors as long as the LiDAR point cloud contains three blade arcs; this is an inference, since the paper only validates on the turbines it lists.
The method's independence from visual background suggests extension to low-light or cluttered scenes where vision-based methods fail, but the paper's own fog failure shows the limit is LiDAR range quality rather than background appearance.
The exposure adjustment principle could apply to any elongated structure whose center line is detectable in LiDAR (power lines, bridge cables, pipe inspections) by projecting the perpendicular foot onto the image; this is not tested in the paper.
A natural benchmark is the trade-off between the convergence threshold epsilon_a and the number of LiDAR frames needed; the paper reports accuracy but not per-frame latency, so a timing-accuracy profile is a testable next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my take. The one thing you should know: this is an honest engineering paper with a real geometric contribution, but its central accuracy claim is currently unverifiable because the paper never states what the ground-truth stop angle was measured against.

What's actually new: the Fermat-point construction, recovering the hub from three blade-plane intersection points, is not something I've seen in the LiDAR or vision angle-estimation literature. The ring-region search and the use of the geometric median to enforce the 120-degree blade spacing is a neat, self-contained idea. The exposed-plane reasoning in Section III-B is correct. The platform and the field campaign are also impressive in scale: 120 flights across 10 turbine models in 5 wind farms, with honest descriptions of the two failure modes. The exposure controller, while a straightforward region-of-interest auto-exposure loop, is a reasonable adaptation to this domain and the authors correctly note the lack of prior real-time work.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The biggest one, as the stress-test note says, is the absent ground-truth definition for the 1.15-degree mean error. Without knowing whether the reference was a rotor encoder, a total station survey, or manual annotation of the same images the vision baseline sees, the comparison is not independently checkable. Also, the paper gives no per-trial residuals or error bars, and the vision baseline adaptation is underspecified, so the 69.2% success rate could be an artifact of a weak adaptation. The exposure evaluation is partly tautological: the controller's goal is to keep the blade grayscale inside [mu_min, mu_max], and the reported mu improvement is just the controller doing its job. The paper would be stronger with a direct test of whether the adjusted images actually improve downstream defect detection, even a simple detector.

These are addressable issues. The geometric method is likely sound, and the field results are plausible, but the paper as submitted cannot be used to judge the magnitude of the improvement. I'd send it to peer review with requests for the ground-truth protocol, per-trial data, and the missing parameters. A serious referee could get it into shape.

Who is this for? People working on automated wind turbine inspection or field robotics evaluation. It's a useful data point, not a paradigm change. I wouldn't cite it in my own work until the numbers are pinned down, but I'd bring it to a reading group to discuss evaluation practices.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a UAV-based wind turbine blade inspection system with three contributions: (i) a DJI M300-based platform with LiDAR, gimbal camera, and onboard computer; (ii) a Fermat-point-based blade stop angle estimator that searches ring regions in the blade rotation plane, clusters Blade-Ring Intersection (BRI) regions, forms a triangle, and uses its Fermat point as the hub center; and (iii) a real-time exposure adjustment algorithm that projects the blade inspection point into the image and adjusts camera exposure to keep the mean grayscale in a reference region within a target band. Field experiments cover 120 flights across 10 wind turbine models in 5 operational wind farms. The headline results are a mean angle error of 1.15 degrees and a success rate of 98.3% for the proposed method, versus 2.14 degrees and 69.2% for an adapted vision-based baseline, and exposure adjustment that moves mean blade grayscale from 25.48 to 133.27 in underexposure and from 245.64 to 150.85 in overexposure while increasing standard deviation and entropy.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is trustworthy, the Fermat-point method is a meaningful advance: it removes dependence on visual background cues and estimates the blade stop angle from LiDAR geometry alone, and the 120-flight field corpus is considerably larger than typical related-work evaluations. The real-time exposure adjustment addresses a genuine gap, since post-hoc enhancement cannot recover details lost at capture time. The geometric reasoning in Section III-B is sound, and the paper clearly identifies two failure modes. However, the missing ground-truth protocol for the angle error, the underspecified adaptation of the vision baseline, and the unreported algorithm parameters currently prevent an independent check of the central quantitative claims. The significance is therefore conditional on the authors supplying this missing information.

major comments (5)

[Section IV-A, Table I, Fig. 6(c)] The paper never defines how the ground-truth blade stop angle was obtained for the 120 trials. Fig. 6(c) states only that 'white lines represent the ground truth' without saying whether the reference came from a rotor-angle encoder, a total station survey, manual annotation of the same images, or another source. Without this definition, the reported 1.15 degree mean error and 98.3% success rate cannot be independently verified. Please specify the measurement protocol, report per-trial residuals, and state whether the error statistics are computed over all trials or only successful trials for each method.
[Section IV-A] The comparison baseline is described only as the method of Stokkeland et al. [9] 'adapted to suit our estimation distance while preserving its crucial voting algorithm.' The adaptation details, Hough and voting parameters, and how the blade angle was computed from detected lines are not given. It is also unclear whether the baseline was run on the same 120 flights and whether its failures are included in the error statistics. Please provide a complete baseline specification and a per-trial paired comparison.
[Section III-B2, Algorithms 1 and 2] All key algorithm parameters are left unspecified: epsilon_a, Delta_d, Delta_l, r_s, r_f, k_mu, [mu_min, mu_max], grid map resolution, RANSAC thresholds, DBSCAN eps/min_samples, and the search counts N and M. The quantitative claims in Tables I and II depend on these values, and without them the experiments are not reproducible. Please add a parameter table and, where feasible, a sensitivity analysis for the most critical parameters.
[Section III-B3 and Algorithm 1] The geometric identity that the Fermat point of the BRI triangle is the hub center relies on the triangle being equilateral, or at least having all interior angles below 120 degrees. This is guaranteed only when the ring search is centered on the true hub axis. The manuscript does not analyze how errors in p0_h or in the fitted plane normal vn distort the triangle, nor does it prove convergence of the iterative loop. Since Section IV-A attributes one of the two failures to large errors in p0_h, the robustness of the Fermat-point step to this input needs a quantitative treatment, for example a simulation with perturbed p0_h and vn.
[Section IV-B, Algorithm 2, Table II] The brightness improvement is essentially a control outcome: Algorithm 2 is defined to drive the mean grayscale µg into [mu_min, mu_max], so the reported changes in µ are expected. The detail-preservation claims rest on the standard deviation and entropy within the blade region, but no downstream damage-detection evaluation is provided, and the target range [mu_min, mu_max] is never specified or justified. Please state the target range, report how often µg was outside the band during the trials, and evaluate whether the adjusted images improve an actual defect-detection task or a perceptual quality metric.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and figure captions] The text contains inconsistent spacing 'UA V' instead of 'UAV' in several places, including the abstract and Figures 1 and 2; please correct these globally.
[Section II-A] There is a typo: 'carriy out' should be 'carry out.'
[Section I-B] The blade stop angle is defined as 'the angle between the turbine tower and the first blade to its right,' but the manuscript does not state in which plane this angle is measured or how 'to its right' is determined; please clarify the definition.
[Section III-B3] Definition 1 and Proposition 1 are used without formal proof; since Proposition 1 is a standard property of the Fermat point, a citation or a one-sentence proof would help the reader.
[Equation (4)] Equation (4) uses cpf and zc before fully introducing the camera-frame transformation and the projection model; please define all symbols explicitly.
[Table II] The percentage improvements of sigma and H are reported without baseline variability; please report absolute changes and trial-to-trial variability, since the baseline values are small.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fermat-point angle estimator is a geometric construction validated against an external vision baseline, and the exposure controller's sigma and entropy gains are not guaranteed by the control law.

full rationale

The paper's central contributions are self-contained rather than circular. The blade stop angle estimator uses RANSAC plane fitting, ring-region searching, DBSCAN clustering, and the Fermat point of the BRI triangle; Proposition 1 is an external geometric fact from Kimberling's work, and the 120-degree blade spacing is a physical design property of wind turbines, not an output fitted from the data. The comparison to the adapted vision-based method in Table I is an external benchmark, and the reported mean angle error is a measured quantity, not a quantity constructed from the algorithm's own convergence criterion. The main experimental-reporting gap is that the paper never defines the ground-truth blade stop angle source, but this is an issue of verifiability and experimental protocol, not a circular derivation. For the exposure adjustment approach, the controller does drive the mean grayscale toward the interval [mu_min, mu_max] that it itself defines, so reporting that mu moved into that interval is only weak evidence of success; however, the reported improvements in standard deviation and entropy are not commanded by Algorithm 2 and therefore provide independent, non-circular support. The paper also discloses concrete failure modes, including heavy fog and large errors in the prior hub position estimate, which indicates that the empirical tests are not rigged to confirm a predetermined result. No load-bearing self-citation appears in the derivation chain. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a handful of tuning constants that are not disclosed, a classical geometric fact, and several domain assumptions about LiDAR reliability and the equivalence of mean grayscale with exposure quality. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

epsilon_a (convergence threshold)
Algorithm 1 terminates when successive blade stop angle estimates differ by less than epsilon_a; the value is not specified but controls the reported accuracy and iteration count.
Delta_d (ring search step along rotation-plane normal)
Step size when searching planes along the normal vn (Eq. 1); affects whether the ring intersects all three blades, value not given.
Delta_l (ring search step along the ring)
Step size for points on each search ring (Eq. 2); trades resolution against query count, value not given.
r_s (ring radius)
Radius of the search ring that intersects the blades; must exceed hub size and lie on the blade span, value not given.
r_f (exposure reference region radius)
Radius of the circular image region around the projected inspection point used to compute mean grayscale (Eq. 5); value not given.
k_mu (exposure adjustment step factor)
Fixed increment/decrement applied to the exposure parameter in Algorithm 2; controls response speed and overshoot, value not given.
[mu_min, mu_max] (target grayscale range)
Target brightness band for the blade region; derived from 'requirements of subsequent damage detection tasks' but no values or derivation are given.

assumptions (5)

standard math The Fermat point of a triangle with all interior angles below 120 degrees is the point whose connecting segments to the vertices meet at 120 degrees (Proposition 1).
Classical geometric fact, cited to Kimberling [19]; used to identify the hub center as the Fermat point of the BRI triangle.
domain assumption The three BRI points lie on one circle centered on the rotor axis and are spaced 120 degrees apart, so their Fermat point is the hub center.
Requires rigid blades, exact 120-degree spacing, and a search ring correctly placed in the blade rotation plane; if the ring is misaligned or the blade geometry is not symmetric, the Fermat point will not coincide with the hub center.
domain assumption RANSAC plane fitting on the LiDAR point cloud returns the blade rotation plane and a reliable normal vn.
The whole search corridor is built along vn from the drone position; fog, low-density clouds, or occlusion can violate this, and the paper admits fog caused one failure.
ad hoc to paper The mean grayscale within the reference circle is a valid proxy for blade-region exposure, and the target band [mu_min, mu_max] is appropriate for downstream damage detection.
The target range is asserted without values or a derivation from damage-detection requirements; the exposure claim rests on this proxy.
standard math The pinhole camera model with known intrinsics and extrinsics correctly projects the inspection point into the image (Eq. 4).
Standard projective geometry; relies on calibrated gimbal camera and accurate LiDAR-camera extrinsics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated UAV-based Wind Turbine Blade Inspection: Blade Stop Angle Estimation and Blade Detail Prioritized Exposure Adjustment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TE5SCKLZ

@misc{pith2026250704922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated UAV-based Wind Turbine Blade Inspection: Blade Stop Angle Estimation and Blade Detail Prioritized Exposure Adjustment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TE5SCKLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04922}
}

read the original abstract

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are critical in the automated inspection of wind turbine blades. Nevertheless, several issues persist in this domain. Firstly, existing inspection platforms encounter challenges in meeting the demands of automated inspection tasks and scenarios. Moreover, current blade stop angle estimation methods are vulnerable to environmental factors, restricting their robustness. Additionally, there is an absence of real-time blade detail prioritized exposure adjustment during capture, where lost details cannot be restored through post-optimization. To address these challenges, we introduce a platform and two approaches. Initially, a UAV inspection platform is presented to meet the automated inspection requirements. Subsequently, a Fermat point based blade stop angle estimation approach is introduced, achieving higher precision and success rates. Finally, we propose a blade detail prioritized exposure adjustment approach to ensure appropriate brightness and preserve details during image capture. Extensive tests, comprising over 120 flights across 10 wind turbine models in 5 operational wind farms, validate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in enhancing inspection autonomy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04922 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The geometric characteristics of the wind turbine used for blade stop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) The proposed platform and coordinate system: The drone is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Flowchart of the Fermat point based blade stop angle estimation. (b) The blade rotation plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Blade detail prioritized exposure adjustment. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Results of the blade stop angle estimation. (a) The result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results of the blade exposure adjustment algorithm, showing two scenarios: (i) underexposure and (ii) overexposure. For both scenarios, columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[9]

Autonomous visual navigation of unmanned aerial vehicle for wind turbine inspection,

M. Stokkeland, K. Klausen, and T. A. Johansen, “Autonomous visual navigation of unmanned aerial vehicle for wind turbine inspection,” in 2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2015, pp. 998–1007

work page 2015
[1]

(2024) Gwec global wind report 2024

GWEC. (2024) Gwec global wind report 2024. Global Wind Energy Council. Brussels, Belgium. [Online]. Available: https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2024

work page 2024
[2]

Wind farm location and environmental impact,

A. Clarke, “Wind farm location and environmental impact,” Interna- tional journal of ambient energy , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 129–144, 1989

work page 1989
[3]

A comprehensive analysis of wind turbine blade damage,

D. A. Katsaprakakis, N. Papadakis, and I. Ntintakis, “A comprehensive analysis of wind turbine blade damage,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 5974, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Progress and trends in nondestructive testing and evaluation for wind turbine composite blade,

R. Yang, Y . He, and H. Zhang, “Progress and trends in nondestructive testing and evaluation for wind turbine composite blade,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 60, pp. 1225–1250, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

A survey on non-destructive smart inspection of wind turbine blades based on industry 4.0 strategy,

M. Dimitrova, A. Aminzadeh, M. S. Meiabadi, S. Sattarpanah Kar- ganroudi, H. Taheri, and H. Ibrahim, “A survey on non-destructive smart inspection of wind turbine blades based on industry 4.0 strategy,” Applied Mechanics , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1299–1326, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Unmanned aerial drones for inspection of offshore wind turbines: A mission-critical failure analysis,

M. Shafiee, Z. Zhou, L. Mei, F. Dinmohammadi, J. Karama, and D. Flynn, “Unmanned aerial drones for inspection of offshore wind turbines: A mission-critical failure analysis,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 26, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,

B. E. Sch ¨afer, D. Picchi, T. Engelhardt, and D. Abel, “Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,” in 2016 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED). IEEE, 2016, pp. 244–249

work page 2016

Show all 26 references

[8]

Vision-based autonomous navigation for wind turbine inspection using an unmanned aerial vehicle,

R. Parlange, J. Martinez-Carranza, L. Sucar, B. Ren, and S. Watkins, “Vision-based autonomous navigation for wind turbine inspection using an unmanned aerial vehicle,” in Proceedings of the 10th Inter- national Micro-Air V ehicles Conference, Melbourne, Australia , 2018, pp. 22–23

2018
[10]

Detecting and positioning of wind turbine blade tips for uav-based automatic inspection,

H. Guo, Q. Cui, J. Wang, X. Fang, W. Yang, and Z. Li, “Detecting and positioning of wind turbine blade tips for uav-based automatic inspection,” in IGARSS 2019-2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1374–1377

2019
[11]

Autonomous wind-turbine blade inspection using lidar-equipped un- manned aerial vehicle,

M. Car, L. Markovic, A. Ivanovic, M. Orsag, and S. Bogdan, “Autonomous wind-turbine blade inspection using lidar-equipped un- manned aerial vehicle,” IEEE access , vol. 8, pp. 131 380–131 387, 2020

2020
[12]

Lidar-based automated uav in- spection of wind turbine rotor blades,

C. Castelar Wembers, J. Pflughaupt, L. Moshagen, M. Kurenkov, T. Lewejohann, and G. Schildbach, “Lidar-based automated uav in- spection of wind turbine rotor blades,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1116–1132, 2024

2024
[13]

Bladeview: Toward automatic wind turbine inspection with unmanned aerial vehicle,

C. Yang, H. Zhou, X. Liu, Y . Ke, B. Gao, M. Grzegorzek, Z. Boukhers, T. Chen, and J. See, “Bladeview: Toward automatic wind turbine inspection with unmanned aerial vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2024

2024
[14]

Fault detection and diagnosis within a wind turbine mechanical braking system using condition monitoring,

M. Entezami, S. Hillmansen, P. Weston, and M. P. Papaelias, “Fault detection and diagnosis within a wind turbine mechanical braking system using condition monitoring,” Renewable energy , vol. 47, pp. 175–182, 2012

2012
[15]

Towards accurate image stitching for drone-based wind turbine blade inspection,

C. Yang, X. Liu, H. Zhou, Y . Ke, and J. See, “Towards accurate image stitching for drone-based wind turbine blade inspection,” Renewable Energy, vol. 203, pp. 267–279, 2023

2023
[16]

Defect detection of large wind turbine blades based on image stitching and improved unet network,

W. Li, Z. Pan, N. Hong, and Y . Du, “Defect detection of large wind turbine blades based on image stitching and improved unet network,” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy , vol. 15, no. 1, 2023

2023
[17]

Non-uniform illumination image enhancement for surface damage detection of wind turbine blades,

Y . Peng, W. Wang, Z. Tang, G. Cao, and S. Zhou, “Non-uniform illumination image enhancement for surface damage detection of wind turbine blades,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing , vol. 170, p. 108797, 2022

2022
[18]

Research on surface defect detection tech- nology of wind turbine blade based on uav image,

X. Tan and G. Zhang, “Research on surface defect detection tech- nology of wind turbine blade based on uav image,” Instrumentation, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022

2022
[19]

Central points and central lines in the plane of a triangle,

C. Kimberling, “Central points and central lines in the plane of a triangle,” Mathematics Magazine , vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 163–187, 1994

1994
[20]

3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),

R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2011, pp. 1–4

2011
[21]

Probabilistic robotics,

S. Thrun, “Probabilistic robotics,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 52–57, 2002

2002
[22]

A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al. , “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in kdd, vol. 96, no. 34, 1996, pp. 226–231

1996
[23]

Faugeras, Three-dimensional computer vision: a geometric view- point

O. Faugeras, Three-dimensional computer vision: a geometric view- point. MIT press, 1993

1993
[24]

Use of the hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures,

R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, “Use of the hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11–15, 1972

1972
[25]

An optimal measure for camera focus and ex- posure,

M. V . Shirvaikar, “An optimal measure for camera focus and ex- posure,” in Thirty-Sixth Southeastern Symposium on System Theory,
[2004]

IEEE, 2004, pp

Proceedings of the . IEEE, 2004, pp. 472–475

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [9]

Autonomous visual navigation of unmanned aerial vehicle for wind turbine inspection,

M. Stokkeland, K. Klausen, and T. A. Johansen, “Autonomous visual navigation of unmanned aerial vehicle for wind turbine inspection,” in 2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2015, pp. 998–1007

work page 2015

[2] [1]

(2024) Gwec global wind report 2024

GWEC. (2024) Gwec global wind report 2024. Global Wind Energy Council. Brussels, Belgium. [Online]. Available: https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2024

work page 2024

[3] [2]

Wind farm location and environmental impact,

A. Clarke, “Wind farm location and environmental impact,” Interna- tional journal of ambient energy , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 129–144, 1989

work page 1989

[4] [3]

A comprehensive analysis of wind turbine blade damage,

D. A. Katsaprakakis, N. Papadakis, and I. Ntintakis, “A comprehensive analysis of wind turbine blade damage,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 5974, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [4]

Progress and trends in nondestructive testing and evaluation for wind turbine composite blade,

R. Yang, Y . He, and H. Zhang, “Progress and trends in nondestructive testing and evaluation for wind turbine composite blade,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 60, pp. 1225–1250, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [5]

A survey on non-destructive smart inspection of wind turbine blades based on industry 4.0 strategy,

M. Dimitrova, A. Aminzadeh, M. S. Meiabadi, S. Sattarpanah Kar- ganroudi, H. Taheri, and H. Ibrahim, “A survey on non-destructive smart inspection of wind turbine blades based on industry 4.0 strategy,” Applied Mechanics , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1299–1326, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [6]

Unmanned aerial drones for inspection of offshore wind turbines: A mission-critical failure analysis,

M. Shafiee, Z. Zhou, L. Mei, F. Dinmohammadi, J. Karama, and D. Flynn, “Unmanned aerial drones for inspection of offshore wind turbines: A mission-critical failure analysis,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 26, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [7]

Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,

B. E. Sch ¨afer, D. Picchi, T. Engelhardt, and D. Abel, “Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,” in 2016 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED). IEEE, 2016, pp. 244–249

work page 2016