MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Evaluation of Evaporative Compressor Inlet Air Cooling System in a Gas Turbine-Based Cogeneration Plant

2012· article· en· W2094394171 on OpenAlexafffund
Farshid Zabihian, Alan S. Fung, Fabio Schuler

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 5: Fusion Engineering; Student Paper Competition; Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Events; Simple and Combined Cycles · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermodynamic and Exergetic Analyses of Power and Cooling Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFoggingCogenerationGas compressorEvaporative coolerInletPower stationEnvironmental scienceTurbineNuclear engineeringWater coolingGas turbinesAir coolingActive coolingPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringElectricity generationEngineeringMaterials scienceThermodynamicsElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas turbine-based power plants are very sensitive to ambient conditions and their output power and efficiency can be decreased significantly with increase in the ambient temperature. Various compressor inlet air cooling systems have been proposed and utilized to reduce inlet air temperature to the system, including evaporative systems e.g. media and fogging, and mechanical cooling systems. In this work, different techniques for compressor inlet air cooling are briefly reviewed. Then, the fogging system employed in the Whitby cogeneration power plant is explained with particular attention to the location of the system installation. A model of the gas turbine-based cogeneration plant is also developed to simulate the Whitby cogeneration power plant. The effects of fogging compressor inlet air cooling system on the performance of the plant are investigated. The results indicate that at an ambient temperature of 30°C and relative humidity of 40% the inlet cooling of as high as 8.4°C is possible which can increase output power to more than 50 MW. Also, it is found that the model can predict the gas turbine exhaust temperature and the plant’s power production with the error level of lower than 0.5% and 3%, respectively.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 5: Fusion Engineering; Student Paper Competition; Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Events; Simple and Combined CyclesSame topicThermodynamic and Exergetic Analyses of Power and Cooling SystemsFrench-language works237,207