MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391463970 · doi:10.1177/10775463241230573

A study on coupled edgewise and flapwise vibration modes of wind turbine blade

2024· article· en· W4391463970 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Usman Saram, Jianming Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)VibrationStructural engineeringTurbine bladeTurbinePhysicsEngineeringAcousticsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coupled flapwise and edgewise vibrations of a horizontal axis wind turbine blade (HAWT) are discussed in this paper. Kinetic and potential energies of the blade are evaluated with consideration of the effects of gravity and aerodynamic forces. Hamilton’s principle is employed to develop the nonlinear coupled modal equations of the blade. The coupling between the first order edgewise and the first two order of flapwise modes is considered. This leads to three equations with nonlinear terms. Multiple-scales perturbation method is employed to solve these equations. Furthermore, the numerical values of structural specifications of National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5-MW reference wind turbine blade are used, for example. It is shown that first edgewise and first flapwise vibrations are dominant, while second flapwise mode of vibration is less significant in the case of transient responses. Energy transfer between resonant modes is observed in both internal and combination resonances. The amplitude–frequency curves and phase diagrams during primary and combination resonances are obtained for the steady-state responses. Combination and primary resonances are further examined by considering various factors such as geometric nonlinearity and aerodynamic force.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vibration and ControlSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207