MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082574517 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1063

Composite Lay-up Optimization\\for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Blades

2013· article· en· W2082574517 on OpenAlexaff
Michael McWilliam, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

Venue51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbine bladeCoupling (piping)Span (engineering)Blade (archaeology)Scheme (mathematics)Structural engineeringComputer scienceBendingComposite numberEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionTurbineMechanical engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has shown that design concepts based on advanced lay-ups can improve wind turbine blades. Adding carbon fiber reinforcement at outboard sections can make blades lighter reducing edge-wise bending loads. Adding biased fibers can introduce bend-twist coupling reducing the fatigue damage. Optimizations is a powerful tool that can be used to solve the best configuration. To successfully explore these concepts through optimization this paper introduces a parameterization scheme that reflects the layered nature of these designs. The scheme incorporates span-wise variation of material to accurately model the affect of span-wise transition. This parameterization scheme will be compared with other schemes typically seen in literature. Application of this scheme will be demonstrated by developing an optimal glass/carbon blade and an optimal blade with bend-twist coupling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace ExpositionSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207