MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964199026 · doi:10.1139/l03-071

Comparison of computed water hammer pressures with test results for the Çatalan power plant in Turkey

2004· article· en· W1964199026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bülent Selek, M. Salih Kırkgöz, Zeliha Selek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenstockWater hammerTransient (computer programming)Closure (psychology)TurbinePower stationEngineeringFlow (mathematics)Momentum (technical analysis)Load rejectionMechanicsTest dataMarine engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The closure of a flow control mechanism at the end of a penstock may cause significant transient pressures. The governing equations of this unsteady flow phenomenon, the conservation of mass and conservation of momentum, are solved by the method of characteristics using various computational schemes. A study was carried out to compare the computational results of the transient pressures with measured prototype data for the Çatalan Power Plant in Turkey. Prototype data were collected during the closure of the wicket gates of a Francis turbine from the test procedures of "load rejection", "emergency shut down", and "quick stop". The numerical results for the transient pressures just upstream of the turbine are compared with the measured data. The general agreement between the theoretical and experimental results is found to be quite reasonable.Key words: transient pressure, water hammer, power plant, Francis turbine, penstock, method of characteristics.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207