MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042537380 · doi:10.1177/0309524x20938858

Deep dynamic stall and active aerodynamic modification on a S833 airfoil using pitching trailing edge flap

2020· article· en· W3042537380 on OpenAlexaff
Farid Samara, David A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStall (fluid mechanics)Trailing edgeAirfoilPitching momentAerodynamicsTurbineTurbine bladeLeading edgeWingLift coefficientStructural engineeringMechanicsAngle of attackWind powerEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the dynamic nature of the wind resource, wind turbine blades are subjected to significant variation in flow parameters, such as the angle of attack ([Formula: see text]). In some cases, the occurrence of dynamic stall on wind turbine blades causes load fluctuation which leads to material fatigue that tends to decrease the life span of the blades. In this study, the influence of a trailing edge flap on dynamic stall effects is investigated at high [Formula: see text] typical of wind turbines but atypical elsewhere. Pitching of the trailing edge flap was found to have a significant impact on the dynamic stall hysteresis loops responsible for the load fluctuation. Frequency analysis showed that the trailing edge flap was capable of reducing the cyclic fluctuation in the coefficient of lift and root bending moment by at least 26% and 24%, respectively. These results are a significant contribution toward understanding the advantages of using trailing edge flaps and how implementing them will reduce wind turbine blade load fluctuations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWind EngineeringSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207