MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025004352 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.36.4.389

An Evaluation Testbed for Wind Turbine Blade Tip Designs — Winglet Results

2012· article· en· W2025004352 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingtip deviceRotor (electric)TurbineWind powerMarine engineeringAirfoilWind speedPower (physics)Turbine bladeMaximum power principleTip-speed ratioStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceAerodynamicsAerospace engineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 3.3 m diameter variable speed wind turbine and rotor has been designed, fabricated and tested with exchangeable blade tip capability. This rotor was custom designed utilizing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's S83X series airfoils for the University of Waterloo Wind Energy research facility with blades that allow the outer 10% of the blade to be exchanged. Turbine power production measurements were completed in the controlled wind facility covering a range of mean wind speeds, 3.6 m/s to 11 m/s, and turbine rotor shaft rotational rates, 100 rpm to 240 rpm. Power produced by the blades was determined as a function of input wind speed. The coefficient of power, C P , was determined as a function of the tip speed ratio λ and peak C P was found to approach 0.42 at the design λ of 6.7. At the design shaft speed of 200 rpm, the maximum power produced was 1.45 kW at 11 m/s. Prior winglet designs are discussed and two winglet designs are evaluated. The effects of two different winglets, the Maniaci and Gertz designs, were evaluated with surface oil flow visualization and quantified by repeating the test that was executed with the standard tip for each winglet. Both winglets were found to have a bell-shaped power augmentation profile, with a broad peak between 6.5 m/s and 9.5 m/s where power was increased by 5% to 7%. These power augmentation figures matched closely with the findings in the literature that suggested increases of 2% to 8% are possible. It is noted, however, that these designs are certainly not optimal and it is possible that an optimized winglet design through further modeling and testing could be attained.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.225 · 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