Analysis of leading edge protection application on wind turbine performance through energy and power decomposition approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wind power production is driven by, and varies with, the stochastic yet uncontrollable wind and environmental inputs. To compare a wind turbine's performance, a direct comparison on power outputs is always confounded by the stochastic effect of weather inputs. It is therefore crucial to control for the weather and environmental influence. Toward that objective, our study proposes an energy decomposition approach. We start with comparing the change in the total energy production and refer to the change in total energy as delta energy. On this delta energy, we apply our decomposition method, which is to separate the portion of energy change due to weather effects from that due to the turbine itself. We derive a set of mathematical relationships allowing us to perform this decomposition and examine the credibility and robustness of the proposed decomposition approach through extensive cross‐validation and case studies. We then apply the decomposition approach to Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition data associated with several wind turbines to which leading‐edge protection was carried out. Our study shows that the leading‐edge protection applied on blades may cause a small decline to the power production efficiency in the short term, although we expect the leading‐edge protection to benefit the blade's reliability in the long term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".