Wind Turbine Performance Predictions Using a Differential Actuator-Lifting Disk Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method based on the imposition of velocity discontinuities to model flow perturbation due to the existence of vortical structures. The proposed method uses actuator-disk and lifting line concepts in order to provide a framework of analysis that respects conservation laws for momentum, energy, and vorticity, which is not always the case for engineering methods used in the wind industry. The flow field is described by the Euler equations. In the proposed mathematical model, the attitude toward flow determination is entirely linked to the vorticity structure of the flow, which is modeled by velocity discontinuities. The numerical method has been applied to four wind turbines: NREL phases II, IV, and VI rotors, as well as to the Tjaereborg rotor, and has shown satisfactory predictions compared to measurements up to peak power. Comparisons have also been undertaken with the results of a previous method, developed by the same authors, where the velocity field is not allowed to be discontinuous and the actuator disk is analyzed as a source of external forces only. In the stall regime of the turbine, the relative differences in power output between the two methods have been evaluated at 5% on the average.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".