MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308507728 · doi:10.3390/en15228325

Turbulence Modeling of Iced Wind Turbine Airfoils

2022· article· en· W4308507728 on OpenAlexaff
Fahed Martini, Hussein Ibrahim, Leidy Tatiana Contreras Montoya, Patrick Rizk, Adrian Ilinca

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept IlesUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsIcing conditionsTurbulenceIcingTurbineComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringMeteorologyAerospace engineeringTurbulence modelingEnvironmental scienceMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Icing is a severe problem faced by wind turbines operating in cold climates. It is affected by various fluctuating parameters. Due to ice accretion, a significant drop in the aerodynamic performance of the blades’ airfoils leads to productivity loss in wind turbines. When ice accretes on airfoils, it leads to a geometry deformation that seriously increases turbulence, particularly on the airfoil suction side at high angles of attack. Modeling and simulation are indispensable tools to estimate the effect of icing on the operation of wind turbines and gain a better understanding of the phenomenon. This paper presents a numerical study to assess the effect of surface roughness distribution, along with the effect of two turbulence models on estimating wind turbine airfoils’ aerodynamic performance losses in the presence of ice. Aerodynamic parameter estimation was performed using ANSYS FLUENT, while ice accretion was simulated using ANSYS FENSAP-ICE. The results using the adopted modeling approaches and the simulation tools were compared with another numerical study and validated against experimental data. The validation process demonstrated the model’s accuracy when considering roughness distribution via the beading model available in ANSYS FENSAP-ICE. The two turbulence models examined (Spalart–Allmaras and k-ω SST) gave comparable results except for the drag at high angles of attack. The k-ω SST model was more efficient in replicating turbulence at high angles of attack, leading to higher accuracy in aerodynamic loss estimation.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207