MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096930149 · doi:10.1002/we.2588

A simple method for modelling fatigue spectra of small wind turbine blades

2020· article· en· W3096930149 on OpenAlexaff
S.P. Evans, Scott Dana, Philip Clausen, David Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Energy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersOffice of Energy EfficiencyWind Energy Technologies OfficeOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAeroelasticityWind powerTurbineTurbine bladeRotor (electric)Structural engineeringSmall wind turbineEngineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringAerodynamicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small‐scale wind turbines have market opportunities in distributed energy generation applications but face future challenges in remaining cost competitive compared with solar photovoltaic systems. High unit costs can be attributed to design conservatism when calculating fatigue loads of key structural components such as the blades. In this study, we use the aeroelastic software FAST to highlight limitations of the International Electrotechnical Commission 61400‐2:2013 small wind turbine design standard for calculating fatigue life using the simplified load model. We present a modified method for calculating the fatigue spectra of small wind turbine blades. An advantage of this method is that it does not require complex aeroelastic simulations or field measurements. This modified method is intended to be implemented early in the blade design stage, such as during rotor optimization simulations, allowing for multiple rotor configurations to be rapidly compared.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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