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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

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