MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163090313 · doi:10.1177/0957650914538631

Straight-bladed vertical axis wind turbine rotor design guide based on aerodynamic performance and loading analysis

2014· article· en· W2163090313 on OpenAlexaff
Mojtaba Ahmadi-Baloutaki, Rupp Carriveau, David S.‐K. Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and Energy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsTurbineSolidityRotor (electric)EngineeringWind powerStructural engineeringRange (aeronautics)Turbine bladeMechanical engineeringMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical axis wind turbines with straight blades are attractive for their relatively simple structure and aerodynamic performance. An efficient design methodology is required to enhance this resurging renewable energy technology. This paper aims to provide a robust design procedure built on an existing analytical approach to determine the optimum range of the design parameters for prototype construction. Identifying the proper range of design parameters can save significant time and resources in the initial turbine development stages. Here the double-multiple streamtube method has been utilized to analyze turbine aerodynamic performance. A parametric optimization has been performed for several design factors to maximize the turbine power coefficient and its operational range. The results show that the optimum value of the rotor solidity factor, blade aspect ratio, and rotor aspect ratio are in the range of 0.2 < σ < 0.6, 10 < μ < 20, and 0.5 < H/ D < 2, respectively. Aerodynamic loading analysis has also been carried out, and the most severe stresses acting on the blades and supporting arms were determined. The most favorable bending stress distribution along the blade occurred when two supporting arms per blade were used at intermediate locations of 21% and 79% along the blade length. A comparative study of different supporting arm shapes demonstrated that utilizing aerodynamic profiles for turbine arms created the most acceptable aerodynamic response. A summary of design aspects addressed in this paper is presented in a useful summary flowchart.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and EnergySame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207