MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324123361 · doi:10.23977/jemm.2023.080101

Wind turbine blades load matching method under biaxial fatigue test

2023· article· en· W4324123361 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dewang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics and Machinery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringTurbine bladeParticle swarm optimizationBending momentTurbineMoment (physics)BendingPosition (finance)Computer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to improve the fatigue test accuracy and efficiency of full-scale structure of wind turbine blades, an effective load matching method for full-scale structure fatigue test of wind turbine blades under biaxial loading is proposed. The blade biaxial loading fatigue test scheme is designed. The transfer matrix method is used to calculate the test bending moment under biaxial loading. The particle swarm optimization algorithm is designed to optimize the position and mass of the excitation device in the flap-wise and edgewise directions and the position, mass and quantity of the fixed counterweight. Based on this, the calculation model of the test bending moment and the data of the target bending moment are integrated into the particle swarm optimization algorithm to achieve the optimal matching of the biaxial loading fatigue test load, Finally, a numerical example is given to verify it. The results show that this method can make the test load closer to the target load, further accelerate the popularization of biaxial loading fatigue test, and provide a certain theoretical reference and application value for engineering practice.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Mechanics and MachinerySame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207