Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Mesoscale simulations are increasingly used to estimate wake effects within and between large wind farms, despite limited validation for large-scale wake effects. This study evaluates the capabilities and limitations of mesoscale simulations in capturing wake-induced impacts on wind turbine power production through a direct comparison with large-domain large-eddy simulations (LES) for three planned offshore wind farms under realistic atmospheric conditions and a range of atmospheric stabilities. We assess mesoscale performance in replicating wake characteristics behind single and multiple turbine clusters and quantify the resulting variability in mean turbine power. Results show that mesoscale Weather Research and Forecasting simulations with the Fitch wind farm parameterization capture key features of the velocity deficit downstream of both single and multiple wind farms, with mean root-mean-square errors near 5 % and good agreement with stability-driven wake behavior. However, in these simulations, the mesoscale Fitch parameterization underestimates power losses from internal wake effects, particularly when turbines align with the prevailing wind direction or under stable stratification. In these conditions, individual wakes persist and dominate downstream power deficits. The coarse resolution of the mesoscale simulations limits their ability to resolve individual wind turbine wakes that drive power fluctuations within wind farms. Nonetheless, mesoscale simulations can yield accurate estimates of combined wake losses from internal and cluster effects across some wind direction sectors, where errors in wake representation may cancel out. These findings underscore the strengths of mesoscale simulations for capturing broader wake patterns, while highlighting their limitations for modeling turbine-level power losses. Future work should explore hybrid modeling approaches to capture both long-range cluster wake propagation and localized internal wake dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.443 | 0.313 |
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".