Numerical Investigations of Nacelle Anemometry for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a numerical method for investigating nacelle anemometry of an horizontal axis wind turbine. The flowfield around the turbine and nacelle is described by the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations. The k–ε model has been chosen for the closure of time-averaged turbulent flow equations. The turbine is modeled using the actuator disk concept. Most of the nacelle region is represented by it real geometrical shape as wall boundary, except for the cooling system (radiator) of the electric generator which is modeled as a permeable surface with some prescribed pressure jump. The main purpose of this paper is to establish the relationship between the nacelle wind speed and free stream wind speed for an isolated turbine, in order to assess the impacts of the variation of some operational parameters (e.g. blade pitch angle changes), as well as atmospheric turbulence, on this relationship. The simulation results have been compared with the experimental data (from a typical stall-controlled wind turbine rated more than 600kW and comercially available). In general, good qualitative agreements have been found proving the validity of the proposed method. However, the level of accuracy is still insufficient for use in power performance testing. On the other hand, the numerical method might be a useful tool for locating nacelle anemometers.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".