MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758379463 · doi:10.1115/1.4037974

Vortex Dynamics in the Wake of Three Generic Types of Freestream Turbines

2017· article· en· W2758379463 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthieu Boudreau, Guy Dumas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFreestreamWakeTurbineVortexMechanicsAerospace engineeringPhysicsReynolds numberDetached eddy simulationVortex sheddingLarge eddy simulationFlow (mathematics)Computational fluid dynamicsTurbulenceEngineeringReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of the vortex dynamics in the wake of three different freestream turbine concepts is conducted to gain a better understanding of the main processes affecting the energy recovery in their wakes. The turbine technologies considered are the axial-flow turbine (AFT), the crossflow turbine (CFT), also known as the H-Darrieus turbine, and the oscillating-foil turbine (OFT). The analysis is performed on single turbines facing a uniform oncoming flow and operating near their optimal efficiency conditions at a Reynolds number of 107. Three-dimensional (3D) delayed detached-eddy simulations (DDES) are carried out using a commercial finite volume Navier–Stokes solver. It is found that the wake dynamics of the AFT is significantly affected by the triggering of an instability, while that of the CFT and the OFT are mainly governed by the mean flow field stemming from the tip vortices' induction.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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