Selection of Airfoils for Straight-Bladed Vertical Axis Wind Turbines Based on Desirable Aerodynamic Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection of the airfoil is crucial for better aerodynamic performance and dimensions of a smaller-capacity SB-VAWT which can compete with conventional energy sources in niche markets like urban areas and off-grid remote applications for diversified applications. Airfoil related design changes also have the potential for increasing the cost effectiveness of VAWTs. Recently, Islam et. al [1] have identified the desirable features of an ideal airfoil for smaller capacity SB-VAWT to improve its starting characteristics and overall performance. They have shortlisted several aerodynamic characteristics of the desirable airfoil. Based on these desirable aerodynamic characteristics, an attempt has been made in this paper to shortlist ten prospective candidate airfoils for smaller-capacity SB-VAWT. This is done using both experimental and analytical characteristics. Nine performance indices have been defined in this paper in light of desirable aerodynamic characteristics to select best performing airfoil. These performance indices are utilized for considering the following desirable aerodynamic characteristics: (i) stall angle at low Reynolds number, (ii) width of the drag bucket, (iii) zero-lift-drag coefficient, (iv) Cl/Cd ratio, (v) maximum lift-coefficient, (vi) deep-stall angle, (vii) roughness sensitivity, (viii) trailing edge noise generation, and (ix) pitching moment. Here, Cl and Cd are coefficients of lift and drag respectively. After determining the value of the performance indices and rating of the candidate airfoils, the most promising airfoil is selected. Among the ten candidate airfoils, overall rating of NASA LS(1)-0417 has been found to be the best.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".