MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computational Assessment of a Modular Composite Wind Turbine Blade Joint

2016· article· en· W2547719219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norimichi Nanami, Ozden O. Ochoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable Energy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designBlade (archaeology)TurbineJoint (building)Composite numberWind powerTurbine bladeComputer scienceStructural engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind energy is one of the most promising and mature alternatives to satisfy the global demand for energy as the world population and the economic activity surge. The wind energy market has grown rapidly in the last couple of decades, boosting up the size of wind turbines to generate higher power output. Typically, the larger/longer blade designs rely on hybrid material systems such as carbon and/or glass fiber (CF/GF) reinforced polymers to improve specific stiffness/strength and damage tolerance. Herein, we propose a computational design concept for a modular hybrid composite wind turbine blade that maintains its structural integrity and serviceability requirements. The modular configuration will simplify manufacturing-assembly processes and reduce expenses both in transportation and facilities requirements. The 80 m blade in this study is composed of two sections that are joined together with an innovative compression joint. Our results when compared to a single continuous blade, showed no significant alterations to its structural response. It is concluded that the proposed computational design concept that allow two modular blades to create full-length blade with robust joints is achievable. This modular concept can be easily extended for further multi-section modular blade configurations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable EnergySame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207