MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292148337 · doi:10.1115/imece2014-39073

A Novel Wake Interaction Model for Wind Farm Layout Optimization

2014· article· en· W2292148337 on OpenAlexafffund
Jim Kuo, David A. Romero, Cristina H. Amon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWakeTurbineWind powerComputer scienceLinear programmingWork (physics)Mathematical optimizationPower (physics)SimulationEngineeringAlgorithmMathematicsAerospace engineeringElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing the turbine layout in a wind farm is crucial to minimize wake interactions between turbines, which can lead to a significant reduction in power generation. This work is motivated by the need to develop wake interaction models that can accurately capture the wake losses in an array of wind turbines, while remaining computationally tractable for layout optimization studies. Among existing wake interaction models, the sum of squares (SS) model has been reported to be the most accurate. However, the SS model is unsuitable for wind farm layout optimization using mathematical programming methods, as it leads to non-linear objective functions. Hence, previous work has relied on approximated power calculations for optimization studies. In this work, we propose a mechanistic linear model for wake interactions based on energy balance, with coefficients determined based on publicly available data from the Horns Rev wind farm. A series of numerical tests was conducted using test cases from the wind farm layout optimization literature. Results show that the proposed model is solvable using standard mathematical programming methods, and resulted in turbine layouts with higher efficiency than those found by previous work.

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 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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207