MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation and Optimization of Blade Tip Winglets Using an Implicit Free Wake Vortex Method

2014· article· en· W2032613837 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Lawton, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrustWingtip deviceWakeAerodynamicsVortexAeroelasticityAerospace engineeringTip clearanceMechanicsStructural engineeringRotor (electric)Turbine bladeComputer scienceTurbineEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel outer-blade geometries such as tip winglets can increase the aerodynamic power that can be extracted from the wind by tailoring the relative position and strengths of trailed vorticity. This design space is explored using both parameter studies and gradient-based optimization, with the aerodynamic analysis carried out using LibAero, a free wake vortex-based code introduced in previous work. The starting design is the NREL 5MW reference turbine, which allows comparison of the aerodynamic simulation for the unmodified blade with other codes. The code uses a Prandtl-Weissinger lifting line model to represent the blade, and vortex filaments as the flow elements. A fast multipole method is implemented to accelerate the influence calculations and reduce the computational cost. This results in higher fidelity aerodynamic simulations that can capture the effects of novel geometries while maintaining sufficiently fast run-times (on the order of an hour) to allow the use of optimization. Gradients of the objective function with respect to design variables are calculated using the complex step method which is accurate and efficient. Since the vortex structure behind the rotor is being resolved in detail, insight is also gained into the mechanisms by which these new blade designs affect performance. It is found that adding winglets can increase the power extracted from the wind by around 2%, with a similar increase in thrust. It is also possible to create a winglet that slightly lowers the thrust while maintaining very similar power compared to the standard straight blade.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207