Aerodynamic Performance and Wake Flow of Crosswind Kite Power Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents some results from a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of a multi-megawatt crosswind kite spinning on a circular path in a straight downwind configuration. The unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations closed by the k−ω SST turbulence model are solved in the three-dimensional space using ANSYS Fluent. The flow behaviour is examined at the rotation plane, and the overall (or global) induction factor is obtained by getting the weighted average of induction factors on multiple annuli over the swept area. The wake flow behaviour is also discussed in some details using velocity and pressure contour plots. In addition to the CFD model, an analytical model for calculating the average flow velocity and radii of the annular wake downstream of the kite is developed. The model is formulated based on the widely-used Jensen’s model which was developed for conventional wind turbines, and thus has a simple form. Expressions for the dimensionless wake flow velocity and wake radii are obtained by assuming self-similarity of flow velocity and linear wake expansion. Comparisons are made between numerical results from the analytical model and those from the CFD simulation. The level of agreement was found to be reasonably good. Such computational and analytical models are indispensable for kite farm layout design and optimization, where aerodynamic interactions between kites should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".