MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391876367 · doi:10.1063/5.0168973

Predicting wind farm wake losses with deep convolutional hierarchical encoder–decoder neural networks

2024· article· en· W4391876367 on OpenAlexafffund
David A. Romero, Saeede Hasanpoor, Enrico G. A. Antonini, Cristina H. Amon

Bibliographic record

VenueAPL Machine Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWakeConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceEncoderEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind turbine wakes are the most significant factor affecting wind farm performance, decreasing energy production and increasing fatigue loads in downstream turbines. Wind farm turbine layouts are designed to minimize wake interactions using a suite of predictive models, including analytical wake models and computational fluid dynamics simulations (CFD). CFD simulations of wind farms are time-consuming and computationally expensive, which hinder their use in optimization studies that require hundreds of simulations to converge to an optimal turbine layout. In this work, we propose DeepWFLO, a deep convolutional hierarchical encoder–decoder neural network architecture, as an image-to-image surrogate model for predicting the wind velocity field for Wind Farm Layout Optimization (WFLO). We generate a dataset composed of image representations of the turbine layout and undisturbed flow field in the wind farm, as well as images of the corresponding wind velocity field, including wake effects generated with both analytical models and CFD simulations. The proposed DeepWFLO architecture is then trained and optimized through supervised learning with an application-tailored loss function that considers prediction errors in both wind velocity and energy production. Results on a commonly used test case show median velocity errors of 1.0%–8.0% for DeepWFLO networks trained with analytical and CFD data, respectively. We also propose a model-fusion strategy that uses analytical wake models to generate an additional input channel for the network, resulting in median velocity errors below 1.8%. Spearman rank correlations between predictions and data, which evidence the suitability of DeepWFLO for optimization purposes, range between 92.3% and 99.9%.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAPL Machine LearningSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207