A Review of the Effects of Key Parameters on the Performance of Horizontal and Vertical Axis Wind Turbines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind energy has emerged as one of the fastest-growing renewable energy sources, with horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs) predominantly deployed in large-scale applications.However, their effectiveness in urban environments is limited due to fluctuating wind patterns and space constraints.In contrast, vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) offer advantages such as compact design, low noise levels, and stable performance under low-speed and turbulent wind conditions, making them more suitable for urban settings.This review examines the performance characteristics of key VAWT configurations, including lift-based Darrieus turbines, drag-based Savonius turbines, and hybrid designs.Typical power coefficients (Cp) for these designs are approximately 0.4 for Darrieus, 0.15-0.2for Savonius, and 0.3-0.35 for hybrid models.Optimal operation is generally achieved at a tip speed ratio (TSR) of 0.45, corresponding to a maximum Cp of around 0.306 and a torque coefficient of 0.68.The review also identifies critical design and operational parameters influencing turbine performance.Finally, it highlights the need for continued research to enhance efficiency, reliability, and integration of VAWTs into future urban energy systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".