MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974953796 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.38.4.359

Design Procedure for Tubular Lattice Towers for Small Wind Turbines

2014· article· en· W1974953796 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeflection (physics)TurbineTowerStructural engineeringWind powerBucklingWind speedEngineeringMarine engineeringMeteorologyAerospace engineeringPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite having been used for a long time, tubular lattice towers with three or four legs have not been systematically analysed for use with small wind turbines. We present a design procedure based on modelling the towers as either tripods or quadrapods to allow analytic approximations to the tower stresses. Following the IEC standard for small wind turbine design, the critical load occurs at the 50-year extreme wind speed acting on a stationary turbine and tower. To avoid buckling in the downwind leg, three separate methods of estimating the critical buckling resistance are shown to give very similar results. The analytic models also allow the tower-top deflection to be simply approximated. We use an arbitrary limit on deflection as 5% of the tower height, to ensure linear, static behaviour for extreme wind loads. Two example tower designs are considered: an 18 m tower for a 5 kW turbine and a 12 m tower for a 500 W turbine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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