MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computational aeroacoustic prediction of trailing edge noise for small wind turbines

2020· article· en· W3088642828 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Zilstra, David A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroacousticsAcousticsTrailing edgeTurbulenceNoise (video)Boundary layerComputational fluid dynamicsTurbineInletComputational aeroacousticsLaminar flowAerospace engineeringEngineeringMechanicsStructural engineeringComputer scienceSound pressureMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study of aeroacoustic noise generated by small wind turbines is important to increase acceptance and implementation of the technology. Small wind turbines have unique challenges due to the low Reynolds number (Re) flow the blades experience, which introduces a potential for tonal noise. Computational aeroacoustics can be applied during the design stage of the turbine blades to improve acoustic performance. This work aims to validate a fully analytical aeroacoustic model by analyzing a SD 7037 blade segment at static angles of attack, with comparison to experimental flow and acoustic data. The Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) acoustic model is used in combination with Large Eddy Simulation (LES). The following simulation parameters were examined: mesh quality, mesh density, inlet turbulence and spanwise boundary condition. These parameters change the boundary layer (BL) transition process and the formation of the laminar separation bubble on the suction side of the blade segment, both of which impact the aeroacoustic noise prediction. It was found that improvement in mesh quality and density on the surface of the blade segment resulted in improved BL simulation and tonal noise prediction. Alteration of the inlet turbulence and spanwise boundary condition did not have as large of an effect.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207