MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385970756 · doi:10.1155/2023/8164273

Comparative Study of the Blade Number and Airfoil Profile Impacts on the Twist/Chord Distribution of a Small Wind Turbine Blade

2023· article· en· W4385970756 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid Akbari, Mohammad Naghashzadegan, R. Kouhikamali, Wahiba Yaïci

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilChord (peer-to-peer)Blade (archaeology)Turbine bladeAerodynamicsMathematicsTurbineStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blade number and airfoil profile effects on the blade shape of a small horizontal-axis wind turbine (SHWT) were investigated. For this purpose, the NACA4412, SG6042, and SG6043 airfoils, as well as 2, 3, and 4 blades, were considered. Then, two optimization processes were used: first, the blades were designed to maximize the power coefficient ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:msub> <a:mrow> <a:mi>C</a:mi> </a:mrow> <a:mrow> <a:mi>p</a:mi> </a:mrow> </a:msub> </a:math> ), and then a multiobjective optimization that included both maximizing <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:msub> <c:mrow> <c:mi>C</c:mi> </c:mrow> <c:mrow> <c:mi>p</c:mi> </c:mrow> </c:msub> </c:math> and maximizing the starting torque ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:msub> <e:mrow> <e:mi>Q</e:mi> </e:mrow> <e:mrow> <e:mi>s</e:mi> </e:mrow> </e:msub> </e:math> ) was employed. The differential evolution (DE) algorithm was employed to perform the optimization, and the blade element momentum aerodynamic approach was used to conduct the relevant computations. Also, to ensure the performance of the optimal blades, the computational fluid dynamics method was employed as well. The findings revealed that regardless of the number of blades and the type of airfoil, raising the twist angle ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:msub> <g:mrow> <g:mi>θ</g:mi> </g:mrow> <g:mrow> <g:mi>p</g:mi> </g:mrow> </g:msub> </g:math> ) and chord length ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>c</i:mi> </i:math> ) along the radial direction of the blade, especially at the root part, helps increase the <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:msub> <k:mrow> <k:mi>Q</k:mi> </k:mrow> <k:mrow> <k:mi>s</k:mi> </k:mrow> </k:msub> </k:math> . It was observed that increasing the number of blades does not have a significant effect on the <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi>θ</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>p</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msub> </m:math> distribution of the selected airfoils, but the <o:math xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"> <o:mi>c</o:mi> </o:math> of the blades fitted with all three airfoils decreases. Regardless of the number of blades, while the geometry of blades utilizing the NACA4412 and SG6042 airfoils are close to each other, the blade with the SG6043 airfoil has the shortest <q:math xmlns:q="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M9"> <q:mi>c</q:mi> </q:math> , which reduces the generated <s:math xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M10"> <s:msub> <s:mrow> <s:mi>Q</s:mi> </s:mrow> <s:mrow> <s:mi>s</s:mi> </s:mrow> </s:msub> </s:math> of blades fitted with this airfoil. The results also establish that by increasing the number of blades from 2 to 3, the power coefficient ( <u:math xmlns:u="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M11"> <u:msub> <u:mrow> <u:mi>C</u:mi> </u:mrow> <u:mrow> <u:mi>p</u:mi> </u:mrow> </u:msub> </u:math> ) of the blades fitted with all three airfoils increases, but by further increasing the number of blades from 3 to 4, the change in <w:math xmlns:w="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M12"> <w:msub> <w:mrow> <w:mi>C</w:mi> </w:mrow> <w:mrow> <w:mi>p</w:mi> </w:mrow> </w:msub> </w:math> completely depends on the airfoil profile.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Energy ResearchSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207