Active Cluster Wake Mixing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, the relevance of the interaction between neighboring wind farms has grown steadily. As one farm extracts energy from the wind, a downstream one can systematically experience lower wind speeds which threatens the economic viability of the farm. Significant progress has been made in understanding these farm-farm wake interactions, but we still lack methodologies to mitigate their undesired effects. In this study, we introduce Active Cluster Wake Mixing (ACWM). This novel method aims to accelerate the recovery of the cluster wake using dynamic control actions: By exciting the thrust of the individual turbines depending on their relative location, we generate non-uniform patterns of energy extraction. Phase offsets between the individual excitation signals propagate these regions through the wind farm. This results in large-scale velocity gradients inside the farm, which also affect the flow in the cluster wake region. An in-depth exploration and optimization of ACWM requires significant computational effort. Therefore, we compare three different wind farm modeling approaches in Large Eddy Simulations (LES) that differ in their computational costs regarding their suitability for further exploration of ACWM. For this purpose, we use an unoptimized ACWM scheme with two different excitation frequencies. For the first time ever we successfully show that ACWM manipulates the flow inside the wind farm with favorable effects on the wake velocity. We also demonstrate that the modeling of cluster wakes is challenging and has a significant effect on the potential gain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".