MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416970857 · doi:10.1177/0309524x251405726

A review of aeroelastic instabilities and resonance effects in wind turbine blade dynamics

2025· review· en· W4416970857 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAeroelasticityFlutterTimoshenko beam theoryBeam (structure)AerodynamicsTurbine bladeVibrationTurbineStiffnessComputational fluid dynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the years, wind turbine blades have become increasingly larger and more flexible to achieve higher efficiency and lower energy costs, which brings more issues related to forced resonance and aeroelastic instabilities because of higher dynamic loads and complex inflow conditions. The manuscript systematically reviews the literature, covering experimental versus computational studies, reduced-order models (ROM), machine learning (MI) based aeroelastic models, Euler-Bernoulli beam models, Timoshenko beam models, geometrically exact beam formulations, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models coupled with structural dynamics models to investigate primary and internal resonances and dynamic stalls for National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5-MW and International Energy Agency (IEA) 15-MW wind turbines. The article also addresses vibration mitigation techniques, including passive, active, and semi-active control, to resolve aeroelastic instabilities. Most studies have assumed linear aeroelastic models and isotropic blade material for initial structural dynamics analysis. The higher mode frequencies computed using the Euler-Bernoulli model differ by approximately 5.23%, those using the Timoshenko model by 3.13%, and those through the Rayleigh model by 3.4% from the geometrically exact formulations employed. Euler-Bernoulli models significantly overestimated flutter speeds compared to the geometrically exact beam model for the NREL 5-MW blades. A key takeaway is that modern, prolonged, flexible blades are sensitive to flutter instabilities, where aerodynamic damping can drop significantly at certain operational speeds. The Euler-Bernoulli beam model proved to be a valuable tool at the initial design stage due to its simplicity and computational efficiency. Future research on managing forced resonance and dynamic stalls in ultra-large blades should focus on integrating nonlinear modeling, cutting-edge materials and structures, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered digital twins, and exploring targeted active control techniques.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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