Development of a hydro kinetic river turbine with simulation and operational measurement results in comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of a hydro-kinetic prototype was shown including the compound structure, guide vanes, runner blades and a draft tube section with a steeply sloping, short spoiler. The design process of the hydrodynamic layout was split into three major steps. First the compound and the draft tube section was designed and the best operating point was identified using porous media as replacement for the guide vane and runner section (step one). The best operating point and the volume flux as well as the pressure drop was identified and used for the design of the guide vane section and the runner section. Both were designed and simulated independently (step two). In step three, all parts were merged in stationary simulation runs detecting peak power and operational bandwidth. In addition, the full scale demonstrator was installed in August 2010 and measured in the St. Lawrence River in Quebec supporting the average inflow velocity using ADCP (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) and the generator power output over the variable rotational speed. Simulation data and measurements are in good agreement. Thus, the presented approach is a suitable way in designing a hydro kinetic turbine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".