Three-Dimensional Effects on an Oscillating-Foil Hydrokinetic Turbine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional hydrodynamic losses are assessed in this investigation for a foil oscillating sinusoidally in a combined heave and pitch motion with large amplitudes. Simulations are performed using a unsteady Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (URANS) solver on an oscillating foil in a power-extraction mode; thus acting as a hydrokinetic turbine at high Reynolds number. Foils of various aspect ratios (span to chord length ratio) are considered, both with and without endplates for one representative operation point. Hydrodynamic forces and extracted power are compared with results from the equivalent two-dimensional (2D) computations. It is found that the relative drop of performance (cycle-averaged power extracted) due to 3D hydrodynamic losses can be limited to 10% of the 2D prediction when endplates are used on a foil of aspect ratio greater than ten. The practical consideration of an oscillating-foil hydrokinetic turbine operating in an imperfectly-aligned upstream water flow is also addressed with simulations considering an upstream flow at a yaw angle up to 30° with respect to the foil chord line. Effects on performance are found to be proportional to the projected kinetic energy flux.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".