MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226019854 · doi:10.23977/jemm.2022.070103

Load Distribution Optimization Method for Fatigue Test of Full-scale Structure of Biaxial Resonant Wind Turbine Blade

2022· article· en· W4226019854 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lifang Zhang, Qiang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics and Machinery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringTurbine bladeTurbineFinite element methodParticle swarm optimizationWind powerPosition (finance)ExciterComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)EngineeringMechanical engineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind turbine blade is the key component of wind turbine to realize wind energy capture, so it is necessary to verify the rationality of blade structure design through full-scale structural fatigue test. In order to improve the test accuracy and efficiency, this paper proposes to establish the dynamic analysis model of the multi-degree of freedom system of the tested blade by using the finite beam element to realize the calculation method of the load amplitude of the biaxial fatigue test and integrate the dynamic analysis model and the target load calculation method into the particle swarm optimization algorithm to realize the optimization of the load distribution of the biaxial resonant full-size structure fatigue test. Through the design of a biaxial resonant loading scheme of 2.5MW-52.5m wind turbine blades, the results show that this method can quickly and accurately adjust the optimization parameters such as the position of the exciter and the motion quality of the exciter in the flapwise and edgewise on the premise that the fatigue cumulative damage caused by the test load is not less than the cumulative damage of the target load.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Mechanics and MachinerySame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207