Experimental and Numerical Modeling of a Tidal Energy Channeling Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tidal power, or the use of tides for electricity production, exists in many forms including tidal barrages, which exploit tidal head differentials, and turbines placed directly in regions with large tidal current velocities. The latter is actively being investigated in many countries around the world as a means of providing renewable and wholly predictable electricity (cf. wind, solar and wave power). The expansion of the in-stream tidal industry is hindered however by several factors including: turbine durability, deployment and maintenance costs, and the lack of abundant locations which meet the necessary current velocities for turbine start-up and economic power production. A new novel type of augmentation device, entitled the ‘Tidal Acceleration Structure’ or TAS (Canadian patent pending 2644792), has been proposed as a solution to the limited number of coastal regions which exhibit fast tidal currents. In preliminary investigations, the TAS, a simple Venturi section consisting of walls extending from the seafloor to above the high water mark in an hourglass shape, was found as able to more than double current velocities entering the device. The results indicated a significant advantage over other current channeling technologies and thus the need for more in-depth investigations. The main objective of the present study was to optimise the design of the TAS and to predict the power that a turbine placed within it could extract from flow. To do this, two principal methods were employed. Firstly, a 1:50 scale model of the TAS was tested and its shape optimised in a 1.5 m wide flume. Secondly, a 3D numerical model (ANSYS Fluent) was used for comparison with the experimental results. During the tests, a TAS configuration was found that could accelerate upstream velocities by a factor of 2.12. In separate tests, turbines were simulated using Actuator Disc Theory and porous plates. The TAS-plate combination was found to be able to extract up to 4.2 times more power from flow than the stand-alone plate, demonstrating that the TAS could provide turbines with a significant advantage in slower currents. Though further research is needed, including the testing of a larger TAS model in conjunction with a small in-stream turbine, the results of this thesis clearly demonstrate the potential of the TAS concept to unlock vast new areas for tidal energy development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".