Comparative CFD study of the effect of the presence of downstream turbines on upstream ones using a rotational speed control system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of a downstream turbine on the production of a turbine located upstream of the latter is studied in this work. This is done through the use of two CFD simulation codes, namely OpenFOAM and EllipSys3D, which solve the Navier-Stokes equations in their incompressible form using a finite volume approach. In both EllipSys3D and OpenFoam, the LES (Large Eddy Simulation) technique is used for modelling turbulence. The wind turbine rotors are modelled as actuator disks whose loading is determined through the use of tabulated airfoil data by applying the blade-element method. A generator torque controller is used in both simulation methods to ensure that the simulated turbines adapt, in terms of rotational velocity, to the inflow conditions they are submited to. Results from both simulation codes, although they differ slightly, show that the downstream turbine affects the upstream one when the spacing between the turbines is small. This is also suggested to be the case looking at measurements performed at the Lillgrund offshore wind farm, whose turbines are located unusually close to each other. However, for distances used in today's typical wind farms, this effect is shown by our calculations not to be significant.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".