Comparison of Potential Flow Wake Models for Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine Rotors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potential ow (PF) methods are a promising alternative to mainstream wind turbine aerodynamics tools such as blade element momentum (BEM) methods and mesh-based computational uid dynamics (CFD) approaches. PF is relatively easy to setup and robust with respect to geometry. The advent of the fast multipole method (FMM) brings computational speed to PF methods. These attributes make PF suitable for integration with multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) tools. A C++ library employing a Weissinger lifting-line model and several PF wake models has been developed. The library utilizes FMM to accelerate the N-body computation of PF element interactions. This paper compares the numerical accuracy and computational speed of PF wake models according to their compositions of vortex particles, laments, and sheets. A standard three-bladed horizontal-axis wind turbine (HAWT) wind rotor under steady tower-free operation and prescribed elliptic circulation is presented. The e ects of numerical artefacts such as wake discretization, truncation, and FMM tuning parameters are explored. Finally, computational speed enhancement is con rmed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".