MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742889689 · doi:10.1115/1.4037490

Development of the Dual Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

2017· article· en· W2742889689 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Naccache, Marius Paraschivoiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVertical axis wind turbineTurbineChord (peer-to-peer)Wind powerComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringTip-speed ratioVertical axisPower (physics)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are good candidates to extract energy from wind in urban areas because they are easy to install, service, and do not generate much noise; however, the efficiency of small turbines is low. Here-in a new turbine, with high efficiency, is proposed. The novel design is based on the classical H-Darrieus VAWT. VAWTs produce the highest power when the blade chord is perpendicular to the incoming wind direction. The basic idea behind the proposed turbine is to extend that said region of maximum power by having the blades continue straight instead of following a circular path. This motion can be performed if the blades turn along two axes; hence, it was named dual vertical axis wind turbine (D-VAWT). The analysis of this new turbine is done through the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) simulations. While 2D is used to validate the methodology, 3D is used to get an accurate estimate of the turbine performance. The analysis of a single blade is performed and the turbine shows that a power coefficient of 0.4 can be achieved, reaching performance levels high enough to compete with the most efficient VAWTs. The D-VAWT is still far from full optimization, but the analysis presented here shows the hidden potential and serves as proof of concept.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207