MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A stochastic aerodynamic model for stationary blades in unsteady 3D wind fields

2016· article· en· W2526508986 on OpenAlexafffund
Manuel Fluck, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsAerodynamicsTurbineStochastic optimizationAerodynamic forceTurbine bladeComputer scienceStochastic modellingTerm (time)Stochastic processControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic loads play an important roll in the design of wind turbines, but establishing the life-time aerodynamic loads (e.g. extreme and fatigue loads) is a computationally expensive task. Conventional (deterministic) methods to analyze long term loads, which rely on the repeated analysis of multiple different wind samples, are usually too expensive to be included in optimization routines. We present a new stochastic approach, which solves the aerodynamic system equations (Lagrangian vortex model) in the stochastic space, and thus arrive directly at a stochastic description of the coupled loads along a turbine blade. This new approach removes the requirement of analyzing multiple different realizations. Instead, long term loads can be extracted from a single stochastic solution, a procedure that is obviously significantly faster. Despite the reduced analysis time, results obtained from the stochastic approach match deterministic result well for a simple test-case (a stationary blade). In future work, the stochastic method will be extended to rotating blades, thus opening up new avenues to include long term loads into turbine optimization.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207