Effect of Upstream Side Flow of Wind Turbine on Aerodynamic Noise: Simulation Using Open-Loop Vibration in the Rod in Rod-Airfoil Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive and flexible control techniques have recently been examined as methods of controlling flow and reducing the potential noise in vertical axis wind turbines. Two-Dimensional (2D) fluid flow simulation around rod-airfoil is addressed in this study as a simple component of the wind turbine by using Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) equations for prediction of noise using Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) analogy. To control the flow and reduce noise, the active controlling vibration rod method is utilized with a maximum displacement ranging from 0.01 C to 1 C (C: airfoil chord). Acoustic assessment indicates that the leading edge of the blade produces noise, that by applying vibration in cylinder, blade noise in 0.1 C and 1 C decreases by 22 dB and 35 dB, respectively. Applying vibration is aerodynamically helpful since it reduces the fluctuations in the airfoil lift force by approximately 48% and those in the rod by about 46%. Strouhal assessment (frequency) shows that application of control is accompanied by 20% increase. Applying vibration in the rod reduces the flow fluctuations around the blade, thus reduces the wind turbine blade noise. This idea, as a simple example, can be used to study the incoming flow to turbines and their blades that are affected by the upstream flow.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".