MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408373012 · doi:10.1002/tal.70010

Innovative Large‐Scale Prefabricated Onshore Lattice Wind Turbine Support Structures: Multiparameter Collaborative Optimization and Design Guidelines

2025· article· en· W4408373012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTurbineMarine engineeringScale (ratio)Sea breezeEngineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringComputer scienceIndustrial engineeringMechanical engineeringMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Innovative large‐scale lattice wind turbine support structures can effectively utilize wind resources in low wind speed areas, promoting sustainable energy development. In the design of large‐scale lattice support structures, the structural layout and geometric parameters of the lattice segment significantly impact structural efficiency. This study proposes innovative upright and conical lattice wind turbine support structures based on a wind power project. A comprehensive and in‐depth exploration of multidisciplinary multiparameter collaborative optimization for proposed structures was conducted, integrating machine learning, numerical simulation, and secondary finite element development. Additionally, a practical design guideline was established. Utilizing multiphysical field coupled load simulation, integrated fatigue assessment methods, and multiparameter collaborative optimization techniques, finite element analysis models were established for 6452 different design parameters. Design constraints included strength, stiffness, stability, eigenfrequency, and fatigue damage, while decision variables were made based on parameters such as web bar layout, top–bottom diameter ratio, bottom outer diameter, edge number, and number of segments. The optimization objective focused on minimizing steel usage. Feature importance analysis based on machine learning indicated that the bottom outer diameter, number of segments, and top–bottom diameter ratio are the design parameters with the greatest impact on steel usage. Parameter sensitivity analysis examined the influence of different design variables on the steel usage of the proposed support structure. The analysis results revealed the optimal structural configuration strategy and key mechanisms, providing a reference basis for the optimization design of such structures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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