MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603907621 · doi:10.1002/we.1614

Global sensitivity analysis of wind turbine power output

2013· article· en· W1603907621 on OpenAlexafffund
Phillip McKay, Rupp Carriveau, David S.‐K. Ting, Jennifer Johrendt

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Energy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWind Energy Institute of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbineWind powerSensitivity (control systems)Control theory (sociology)AmplitudeRotor (electric)Wind speedPosition (finance)Range (aeronautics)Blade pitchComputer scienceMarine engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAerospace engineeringPhysicsElectronic engineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The dynamics of wind turbine behavior are complex and a critical area of study for the wind industry. Identification of factors that cause changes in turbine performance can sometimes prove to be challenging, whereas other times, it can be intuitive. The quantification of the effect that these factors have is valuable for making improvements to both power performance and turbine health. In commercial farms, large quantities of meteorological and performance data are commonly collected to monitor daily operations. These data can also be used to analyze the relationship between each parameter in order to better understand the interactions that occur and the information contained within these signals. In this global sensitivity analysis, a neural network is used to model select wind turbine supervisory control and data acquisition system parameters for an array of turbines from a commercial wind farm that exhibit signs of wake interaction. An extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test is then performed for 2 years of 10‐min averaged data. The study examines the primary and combined sensitivities of power output to each selected parameter for two turbines in the array. The primary sensitivities correspond to single parameter interactions, whereas combined sensitivities account for interactions between multiple parameters simultaneously. Highly influential parameters such as wind speed and rotor rotation frequency produce expected results; the extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test method proved effective at quantifying the sensitivity of a wide range of more subtle inputs. These include blade pitch, yaw position, main bearing and ambient temperatures as well as wind speed and yaw position standard deviation. The technique holds promise for application in full‐scale wake studies where it might be used to determine the benefits of emerging power optimization strategies such as active wake management. The field of structural health monitoring can also benefit from this method. Copyright © 2013 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWind EnergySame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207