DOI: 10.31274/etd-180810-4828
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surrogate-based design optimization of dual-rotor wind turbines using steady RANS equations

Abstract: Case I using objective function 2 (Sec. 5.1.2) (stopping criteria: H (i) − H (i−1) < 0.01 or N f > 40). N c and N f are the number of low-and high-fidelity function calls, while N f eq is the number of equivalent high-fidelity function calls (in terms of computation time

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(167 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A universal Kriging model from the Surfpack library [22,38] was selected to develop the surrogate function. Kriging models are well-suited for low-dimensionality problems (fewer than 15 variables) [37] and have been used previously for the optimization of wind and marine turbines [24,25].…”
Section: Surrogate Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A universal Kriging model from the Surfpack library [22,38] was selected to develop the surrogate function. Kriging models are well-suited for low-dimensionality problems (fewer than 15 variables) [37] and have been used previously for the optimization of wind and marine turbines [24,25].…”
Section: Surrogate Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SBO has been used in the optimization of horizontal axis wind turbines [24] and marine turbines [25][26][27]. In general, previous research focuses on maximizing the power output of the turbine by varying a series of geometric parameters [25][26][27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This configuration, illustrated in Figure 1, is known as a dual-rotor wind turbine (DRWT). Notes: D m and D s are main and secondary rotor diameters while h is the height of the supporting tower [Thelen, 2016] Variable fidelity shape optimization mapping (SM) (Koziel et al, 2008;, adaptive response correction (ARC) , adaptive response prediction (ARP) , shape-preserving response prediction (SPRP) ) and multilevel optimization Tesfahunegn et al, 2015). These physics-based SBO methods are typically not as versatile as their data-driven alternatives, but can potentially offer equivalent optimization results at a fraction of the computational expense.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The optimization approach is demonstrated in three design spaces having two, three and eleven design variables. The overall performance, in terms of computational expense and quality of optimum, is compared to that of alternative surrogate-based approaches (kriging and SAO (Thelen, 2016;Thelen et al, 2016;Thelen et al, 2018)). Finally, two parametric studies are carried out with the 11-parameter case.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%