The Effect of Aerodynamic Evaluators on the Multi-Objective Optimization of Flatback Airfoils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the long lengths of today's wind turbine rotor blades, there is a need to reduce the mass, thereby requiring stiffer airfoils, while maintaining the aerodynamic efficiency of the airfoils, particularly in the inboard region of the blade where structural demands are highest. Using a genetic algorithm, the multi-objective aero-structural optimization of 30% thick flatback airfoils was systematically performed for a variety of aerodynamic evaluators such as lift-to-drag ratio ( Cl/Cd ), torque ( Ct ), and torque-to-thrust ratio ( Ct/Cn ) to determine their influence on airfoil shape and performance. The airfoil optimized for Ct possessed a 4.8% thick trailing-edge, and a rather blunt leading-edge region which creates high levels of lift and correspondingly, drag. It's ability to maintain similar levels of lift and drag under forced transition conditions proved it's insensitivity to roughness. The airfoil optimized for Cl/Cd displayed relatively poor insensitivity to roughness due to the rather aft-located free transition points. The Ct/Cn optimized airfoil was found to have a very similar shape to that of the Cl/Cd airfoil, with a slightly more blunt leading-edge which aided in providing higher levels of lift and moderate insensitivity to roughness. The influence of the chosen aerodynamic evaluator under the specified conditions and constraints in the optimization of wind turbine airfoils is shown to have a direct impact on the airfoil shape and performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".