Enhancing the Efficiency of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines Through Optimization of Blade Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, we delve into the promising potential of horizontal axis wind turbines to effectively meet the electricity needs of developing countries. By addressing the challenges posed by low Reynolds number airflow characteristics, we focus on specific airfoils—E471, S2055, and RG15—tailored for horizontal axis wind turbine blade optimization. Utilizing QBLADE software, we evaluate the lift coefficient, stall angle of attack, and lift‐to‐drag ratio coefficient efficiency of these airfoils across various thickness‐to‐camber ratios. The aerodynamic efficiency of the altered airfoils is assessed in terms of lift coefficient, drag coefficient, lift‐to‐drag ratio coefficient, and stall angle of attack at Reynolds number ranging from 50,000 to 500,000. The findings reveal that the optimized thickness‐to‐camber ratio results in peak lift‐to‐drag ratio coefficient values surpassing the reference airfoils across the Re range. These lift‐to‐drag ratio coefficient enhancements vary among airfoils and Re values. Furthermore, modifications to the E471, S2055, and RG15 airfoils increase the peak lift coefficient and stall angle of attack values across all Re ranges examined. The validation of results is achieved through comparison with experimental testing, solidifying the reliability of QBLADE software in predicting aerodynamic performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".