Comparing methods for coupling wake models to an atmospheric perturbation model in WAYVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As offshore wind farms grow in size, the blockage effect associated with the atmospheric gravity waves they trigger is expected to become more important. To model this, recent research has produced an Atmospheric Perturbation Model (APM), which simulates the mesoscale flow in the atmospheric boundary layer at a low computational cost compared to traditional methods. However, as a simplified reduced-order model, it can not resolve individual turbine wakes, and has to be coupled to an engineering wake model to predict farm power output. Over the years, three coupling methods have been developed, and been combined into the open-source framework WAYVE. This paper compares them, discussing both their theoretical validity and their performance. For the latter, we validate the velocities and power outputs predicted by WAYVE against 27 LES simulations. We find that the velocity matching (VM) and the pressure-based (PB) methods perform the best. Of these two, the VM method is more consistent with the APM output, while the PB method has a significantly lower computational cost.
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".