MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012283109 · doi:10.1115/omae2004-51073

The Wave Focusing Effect of a Parabolic Wall

2004· article· en· W2012283109 on OpenAlexafffund
Joyce Wang, Sander M. Çalışal, J. Mikkelsen, S. Zealand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsDimensionless quantityWave heightParabolic reflectorMechanicsPhysicsOpticsStokes waveSurface waveEnergy (signal processing)Wave propagationBreaking waveThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The energy generation efficiency of a wave energy conversion system is in general proportional to the capacity of wave energy capture of the system. In various wave energy conversion systems, a configuration with parabolic shape has shown advantages in wave capture dynamics. This paper presents an experimental investigation into the wave focusing and elevation in a parabolic wall area with a Laser Wave Height Measurement equipment named as IVP Ranger SC386. In the experiment, the tested waves were described by a dimensionless factor WF which consists of wave parameters and the parabolic wall size. The WF increases with wave relative size to the model. The tested wave obliquities to the parabolic wall were 10 and 20 degrees in addition to the normal incident waves. A tube with an inner diameter 7.5cm, representing a chamber for oscillatory water columns compressing air, was mounted at the focus area. The elevations of wave height inside the tube with a sealed and an open top, as two different cases, were also measured. Furthermore the wave forces acting on the parabolic wall were measured using load cells. The analysis of the experimental results revealed that the parabolic wall was able to significantly elevate wave heights by up to 2.5 times. Within 10 degrees the wave obliquity effect can be neglected for both forces acting on the parabolic wall and wave height elevated by the parabolic wall. A prediction equation for focusing wave height was developed from the experimental results and the parabolic focusing principle.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWave and Wind Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207