MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417429104 · doi:10.1049/pbpo267e_ch7

Modelling of small turbine tail fin dynamics

2025· book-chapter· en· W4417429104 on OpenAlexaff
Amr Khedr, Mohamed M. Hammam, Abhineet Gupta, Francesco Castellani, David Wood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNacelleFinAerodynamicsTurbineAeroelasticityWind tunnelRotor (electric)Wind power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many small horizontal-axis turbines use a tail fin to point the blades into the wind. This 'passive' yaw response avoids the complexity and cost of 'active' yaw controls used in large turbines, but can lead to high yaw rates and high gyroscopic loads on key turbine components as well as reduced power output. This chapter reviews the basic aerodynamics of tail fins and describes the development of the yaw response equation for a new tail fin module for the well-known and freely available OpenFAST aeroelastic code for turbine design, analysis and certification. Wind tunnel measurements of the yaw response of tail fins without a rotor and nacelle were used to determine the model constants, starting with generic shapes such as a delta wing whose aerodynamic performance is well known. Some results from a detailed wind tunnel investigation of generic shapes with a range of aspect ratios and a model of a complex tail fin from a commercial turbine are presented and analysed. In addition, we describe tests of a model turbine with the rotor starting as it yaws into the wind at low wind speed. This aspect of tail fin operation is characterised by low response frequency and often large yaw angles. Since the tail fin is essential for starting the turbine, the new tail fin module incorporates the important nonlinearities in yaw response, caused by large angles, aspect ratios and significant yaw bearing friction. New experiments on very high yaw angles and varying tail boom lengths are presented and analysed. We finish by discussing the methodology of tail fin design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207