Wake impacts on downstream wind turbine performance and yaw alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aerodynamic wake interaction between commercial scale wind turbines can be a significant source of power losses and increased fatigue loads across a wind farm. Significant research has been dedicated to the study of wind turbine wakes and wake model development. This paper profiles influential wake regions for an onshore wind farm using 6 months of recorded SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) data. An average wind velocity deficit of over 30% was observed corresponding to power coefficient losses of 0.2 in the wake region. Wind speed fluctuations are also quantified for an array of turbines, inferring an increase in turbulence within the wake region. A study of yaw data within the array showed turbine nacelle misalignment under a range of downstream wake angles, indicating a characteristic of wind turbine behaviour not generally considered in wake studies. The turbines yaw independently in order to capture the increased wind speeds present due to the lateral influx of turbulent wind, contrary to many experimental and simulation methods found in the literature. Improvements are suggested for wind farm control strategies that may improve farm‐wide power output. Additionally, possible causes for wind farm wake model overestimation of wake losses are proposed.Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".