Lessons learned from 10 years of wind tunnel tests on small wind turbines designed by students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses results from an international contest, open for university student teams (bachelor and master), involving the design, construction, and testing of small wind turbines in a large wind tunnel. The wind tunnel has an outlet of 2.85 x 2.85 m allowing a maximum rotor swept area of 2 m 2 without significant tunnel effects. Both horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines are part of the competition. The turbines are evaluated by an external jury of industry experts based on criteria such as Annual Energy Production, cut-in wind speed, innovations, design, and sustainability. Although the contest has been initiated in 2013 with an educational focus, it has also evolved into a valuable database for scientific purposes by providing a decade worth of performance measurements for roughly 9-10 various turbine concepts each year. The collected data may serve as a unique validation resource for assessing the accuracy of design codes in modelling diverse turbine concepts thanks to detailed design reports with model descriptions accompanying each turbine (such turbine descriptions are often considered confidential for field measurements). The paper aims to explore the scientific value of this database by comparing calculations with measurements, offering explanations where possible, and reporting intriguing findings on unconventional concepts’ performance. Even though not all observations could be explained fully they provide food for thought. Recommendations are provided for both students to enhance their designs and for contest organizers to elevate the scientific value of the measurements in future contests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".