MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mode classification for vortex shedding from an oscillating wind turbine using machine learning

2021· article· en· W4200549893 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Cann, Ryley McConkey, Fue‐Sang Lien, William Melek, Eugene Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortex sheddingWakeRobustness (evolution)Support vector machineTurbineWind speedVortexFeature extractionRandom forestArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAcousticsEngineeringPhysicsMechanicsTurbulenceAerospace engineeringMeteorologyReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents an effective strategy that applies machine learning methods to classify vortex shedding modes produced by the oscillating cylinder of a bladeless wind turbine. A 2-dimensional computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation using OpenFOAMv2006 was developed to simulate a bladeless wind turbines vortex shedding behavior. The simulations were conducted at two wake modes (2S, 2P) and a transition mode (2PO). The local flow measurements were recorded using four sensors: vorticity, flow speed, stream-wise and transverse stream-wise velocity components. The time-series data was transformed into the frequency domain to generate a reduced feature vector. A variety of supervised machine learning models were quantitatively compared based on classification accuracy. The best performing models were then reevaluated based on the effects of artificial noisy experimental data on the models’ performance. The velocity sensors orientated transverse to the pre-dominant flow ( u y ) achieved improved testing accuracy of 15% compared to the next best sensor. The random forest and k -nearest neighbor models, using u y , achieved 99.3% and 99.8% classification accuracy, respectively. The feature noise analysis conducted reduced classification accuracy by 11.7% and 21.2% at the highest noise level for the respective models. The random forest algorithm trained using the transverse stream-wise component of the velocity vector provided the best balance of testing accuracy and robustness to data corruption. The results highlight the proposed methods’ ability to accurately identify vortex structures in the wake of an oscillating cylinder using feature extraction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207