Effect of Roof Slope on a Building-Mounted Wind Turbine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of the wind climate above peaked roofs is necessary to determine whether instal ling small wind turbines on low -rise peaked roof buildings is feasible. There is little published data available documenting how wind speeds above peaked roofs vary relative to a reference open field condition. The wind characteristics at a representative peaked roof barn in southern Ontario, Canada were investigated to help address this need. The barn was simulated using a boundary layer wind tunnel, and the commercial code Fluent. Field measurements at the barn were collected using sonic anemometers and c ompared to the simulation results. Wind speed amplification was confined to a region immediately above the roof and was relatively low for wind energy purposes. It was found that with Fluent, renormalization group (RNG) k -epsilon turbulence closure predict ed winds above the roof peak better than standard k -epsilon. Simulation of buildings with a range of roof slopes found that moderately sloped roofs appear to offer a better combination of wind speed amplification and low turbulence levels at the roof peak, compared to either flat or very steep roofs. Considering only wind -related factors, the placing of very small micro -wind turbines on roof peaks may be warranted. However, if sufficient space is available, placing small turbines on a tower, rather than on the peaked roof of a low -rise building, will usually be the best approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".