Explicit Solutions for Simple Models of Wind Turbine Interference
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind turbine interference - the reduction in output power of a turbine downwind of any others - is a major problem for wind farm optimization and control. With interference, it is well-known for specific cases that co-operative optimization of power output yields more power than does the selfish optimization of individual turbines. This paper develops explicit solutions for simple models of interference for the general case of any number of turbines in line with the wind. For the simplest case of no wake recovery, analytical solutions for co-operative and selfish optimization are derived. They show that co-operative optimization nearly always yields more power and never yields less. Adding a simple form of wake recovery for equally spaced turbines precludes analytical solutions, but numerical solutions are developed to find the power to any required level of accuracy. Again, co-operative optimization is superior in nearly all cases. These simple solutions should be useful for demonstrating the importance of interference and for testing methods for optimizing wind farm layout and operation. It is shown that the maximum benefit from co-operative operation occurs at turbine spacing comparable to that commonly used in wind farms. The analysis is then extended to include topographical effects modeled as changes in wind speed along the line. Explicit solutions are obtained for two turbines in line. Co-operative optimization remains the best strategy. In particular, when the wind speed increases, it quickly becomes optimal to shut down the first turbine.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it