Development of an Empirical Obstacle Wake Model for Small Wind Turbine Micrositing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way in which wind flows around and downstream of buildings in the atmospheric boundary layer is of great interest in wind engineering. Building wakes are characterized by a large reduction in downstream flow velocity and increased levels of downstream turbulence, both of which are detrimental to the power output of a small wind turbine. This paper describes the development of a new empirical model that predicts flow properties in the wake of a building for the purpose of small wind turbine micrositing. The new model has been developed in the form of a feedforward, backpropogation artificial neural network ($$). All training data was obtained from wind tunnel measurements taken in the wakes of model obstacles submersed in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. To validate the wind tunnel simulation, a field experiment was carried out in which the flow was measured in the wake of an obstacle situated on an open field. The mean difference between the field data and wind tunnel data (from a geometrically similar test) was 3.7% for wind speed and 13.0% for the turbulence intensity. Overall, wind tunnel data was determined to be acceptable for use to develop a new model. The new model has mean errors of 0.6% and 4.4%, when predicting the velocity and root mean squared velocity, respectively (the mean error of the model is defined as the difference between the $$ predictions and the wind tunnel data). Currently, the model is somewhat limited in scope; wake properties can be predicted for solid ‘block’ obstacles, with varying height, width and depth, but only with flat roofs. Future work includes improving the model’s generality (the ability to predict wake properties when presented with inputs not used during training), training the model to predict the effect of roof shape, and investigating how to combine the wake effects of multiple obstacles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".