Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of optimally increasing the size of existing wind farms has not been investigated in the literature. In this paper, a proposed wind farm layout upgrade by adding different (in type and/or hub height) commercial turbines to an existing farm is introduced and optimized. Three proposed upgraded layouts are considered: internal grid, external grid, and external unstructured. The manufacturer’s power curve and a general representation for thrust coefficient are used in power and wake calculations, respectively. A simple field-based model is implemented and both offshore and onshore conditions are considered. A genetic algorithm is used for the optimization. The trade-off range between energy production and cost of energy is investigated by considering three objective functions, individually: (1) annual energy production; (2) cost of added energy; and (3) cost of total energy. The proposed upgraded layouts are determined for the Horns Rev 1 offshore wind farm. The results showed a wide range of suitable upgrade scenarios depending on the upgraded layout and the optimization objective. The farm energy production is increased by 190–336% with a corresponding increase in the total cost by 147–720%. The external upgrade offers more energy production but with much more cost. The unstructured layouts showed clear superiority over the grid ones by providing much lower cost of energy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".