Using system identification in modeling the yaw response of tail fins for small wind turbines with bearing friction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe three main developments of our previous study of the nonlinear yaw dynamics of the tail fins for small wind turbines [Khedr et al., J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 16, 053305 (2024)]. First, the model constants derived from archived computational and experimental studies are adjusted by employing system identification (SI) to maximize the model's agreement with wind tunnel tests. This adjustment was done for high wind speeds, where yaw bearing friction can be ignored. When starting a turbine at low wind speed, however, friction can become important. Our second development is to implement a model for the frictional resistive torque and use SI to maximize its accuracy. These developments used wind tunnel experiments on generic delta, elliptical, and rectangular planforms that were described by Khedr et al. [J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 16, 053305 (2024)]. Since the aerodynamic and friction models employ a large number of constants, we describe ways to constrain the values using linearized solutions of the response equations for small and large yaw angles. Third, we test the generality of the aerodynamic and friction modeling using the complex planform from a commercial small turbine, for which limited theoretical and computational guidance is available in selecting the model constants. The model implemented with SI is shown to provide an accurate description of the yaw response of the complex planform. Guidelines are given for the use of wind tunnel tests to determine the model constants for tail fins of any planform.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".