Atmospheric Drivers of Wind Turbine Blade Leading Edge Erosion: Review and Recommendations for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leading edge erosion (LEE) of wind turbine blades causes decreased aerodynamic performance leading to lower power production and revenue and increased operations and maintenance costs. LEE is caused primarily by materials stresses when hydrometeors (rain and hail) impact on rotating blades. The kinetic energy transferred by these impacts is a function of the precipitation intensity, droplet size distributions (DSD), hydrometeor phase and the wind turbine rotational speed which in turn depends on the wind speed at hub-height. Hence, there is a need to better understand the hydrometeor properties and the joint probability distributions of precipitation and wind speeds at prospective and operating wind farms in order to quantify the potential for LEE and the financial efficacy of LEE mitigation measures. However, there are relatively few observational datasets of hydrometeor DSD available for such locations. Here, we analyze six observational datasets from spatially dispersed locations and compare them with existing literature and assumed DSD used in laboratory experiments of material fatigue. We show that the so-called Best DSD being recommended for use in whirling arm experiments does not represent the observational data. Neither does the Marshall Palmer approximation. We also use these data to derive and compare joint probability distributions of drivers of LEE; precipitation intensity (and phase) and wind speed. We further review and summarize observational metrologies for hydrometeor DSD, provide information regarding measurement uncertainty in the parameters of critical importance to kinetic energy transfer and closure of data sets from different instruments. A series of recommendations are made about research needed to evolve towards the required fidelity for a priori estimates of LEE potential.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".