MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362575255 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15391

Wind Tunnel Testing to Evaluate Noise Emissions from a Small Wind Turbine

2023· dissertation· en· W4362575255 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Asi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind tunnelTurbineWind powerAerodynamicsMarine engineeringNoise (video)AeroacousticsHypersonic wind tunnelEngineeringQUIETWind speedAerospace engineeringEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyElectrical engineeringComputer scienceSound pressurePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wind power industry has experienced fast and tremendous growth, globally, in recent years.Consequently, there is a growing interest in investigating aerodynamics and aeroacoustics characteristics of wind turbines and developing environmental standards aimed at decreasing noise levels in the design and manufacture of these machines.This study was carried out in the Carleton University Wind Induced Dynamic Laboratory (WInDLab) that was designed to evaluate and quantify noise levels emitted by a small horizontal axis wind turbine.This investigation provided the firstever set of measurements carried out in the WInDLab following the successful installation of the wind turbine.To achieve the objective of this project, first, the characterization of the wind tunnel had to be carried out.The wind velocity profile of the wind tunnel was characterized and results indicated that its profile is not perfectly symmetrical with respect to the tunnel centreline.The background noise levels of the WInDLab wind tunnel for different fan RPMs were recorded with a Brüel & Kjær (B&K) Prepolarized Free-field Type 4189, ½" (1.27 cm) microphone, which was located at six positions in line with IEC61400-11 regulations.The noise measurements obtained were post-processed using the MATLAB software application.Plots for the sound pressure level (SPL) vs frequency of the wind turbine noise spectra, as well as the background noise level at 500 RPM, 575 RPM and 650 RPM of the wind tunnel fans were derived.iii The background acoustic data obtained for the wind tunnel showed that the wind tunnel is not quiet enough for measurements of the type undertaken.The wind tunnel would need to be silenced and acoustically treated to capture noise with low frequencies, so as to attain a signal ratio of at least 10 dB between the measured signal and the background noise of the wind tunnel across all frequencies.Recommendations for further work have been provided.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207