MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In-blade Load Sensing on 3D Printed Wind Turbine Blades Using Trailing Edge Flaps

2018· article· en· W2809636832 on OpenAlexaff
Farid Samara, David A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrailing edgeBlade (archaeology)Turbine bladeTurbineMarine engineeringGeologyAcousticsMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As wind turbines become larger the loading on the blades also increases. Controlling a section of the trailing edge of the turbine airfoil is found to reduce load fluctuations on wind turbine blades. Here a detailed experimental setup is described showing the development of a compact airfoil section capable of measuring the surface pressure, root bending moment, and controlling a TEF simultaneously and in time resolved fashion to quantity the influence of a TEF on a wind turbine. This experimental work includes a trailing edge flap that covers 20% of an S833 airfoil with a chord of 178 mm. Surface pressure and blade root strain are measured for varying angles of attack and flap angle. Coefficient of lift and moment are obtained from the 54 pressure taps. The lift and drag forces are also obtained from the strain gages at the root of the blade. A 3D printed blade section is designed and built to house the actuation and sensing on the airfoil. The trailing edge flap was tested inside a 0.61 m wind tunnel as a baseline case and the results showed how the lift, drag, and root moment on the airfoil can change for different flap angles. The coefficient of lift changed by 30% for flap angle of 20°. The entire blade with the flap will also be installed on a 3.4 diameter wind turbine to study the influence of a flap on load variation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207