MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217039085 · doi:10.1177/01445987211056989

A new three-dimensional wake model for the real wind farm layout optimization

2021· article· en· W3217039085 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Exploration & Exploitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersPostdoctoral Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWakeWind powerTurbineWind speedMeteorologyComputer scienceSimulationMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utilization of wind energy has attracted extensive attentions in the last few decades around the world, providing a sustainable and clean source to generate electricity. It is a common phenomenon of wake interference among wind turbines and hence the optimization of wind farm layout is of great importance to improve the wind turbine yields. More specifically, the accuracy of the three-dimensional wake model is critical to the optiamal design of a real wind farm layout considering the combinatorial effect of wind turbine interaction and topography. In this paper, a novel learning-based three-dimensional wake model is proposed and subsequently validated by comparison to the high-fidelity wake simulation results. Moreover, due to the fact that the inevitable deviation of actual wind scenario from the anticipated one can greatly jeopardize the wind farm optimization outcome, the inaccuracy of wind condition prediction using the existing meteorologic data with limited-time measurement is incorporated into the optimization study. Different scenarios including short-, medium-, and long-term wind data are studied specifically with the wind speed/direction prediction errors of [Formula: see text] 0.25 m/s, [Formula: see text] 5.62 [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] 0.08 m/s, [Formula: see text] 1.75 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] 0.025 m/s, [Formula: see text] 0.56 [Formula: see text], respectively. An advanced objective function which simultaneously maximizes the power output and minimizes the power variance is employed for the optimization study. Through comparison, it is found that the optimized wind farm layout yields over 210 kW more total power output on average than the existed wind farm layout, which verifies the effectiveness of the wind farm layout optimization tool. The results show that as the measurement time for predicting the wind condition gets longer, the total wind farm power output average increases while the error of power output prediction decreases. For the wind farm with 20 wind turbines installed, the individual power output is above 500 kW with an error of 90 kW under the short-term wind [Formula: see text] 0.25 m/s, [Formula: see text] 5.62 [Formula: see text], while it is above 530 kW with an error of 10 kW under the long-term wind [Formula: see text] 0.025 m/s, [Formula: see text] 0.56 [Formula: see text].

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.206 · 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