MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767109210 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2017-69424

Computational Assessment of Double-Inlet Collector in Solar Chimney Power Plant Systems

2017· article· en· W2767109210 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Fathi, Seyed Sobhan Aleyasin, Patrick Wayne, Peter Vorobieff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSolar Energy Systems and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolar chimneyComputational fluid dynamicsTurbineInletMass flow rateChimney (locomotive)Power stationNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMechanicsAerospace engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar chimney power plant systems (SCPPS) offer a simple and reliable way to generate electricity using solar radiation to drive a flow of buoyant air. A typical SCPP setup includes a collector, a tower, and a turbine or several turbines. Current SCPP designs have low thermal efficiency: only between 0.5% and 5% of the incident solar energy is converted into electricity. Inefficiencies result partially from limited mass flow rates through the tower. It is therefore desirable to provide a new design for the collector to increase the inlet air mass flow rate. In this paper, we present a double-inlet collector concept and results of numerical analysis to evaluate this design in terms of flow rate improvement. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was utilized to perform the numerical modeling and simulation (M&S) by using a finite volume method package. The Manzanares prototype (the only operational solar tower power plant with available published reports) is selected to implement the double-inlet collector design and study its effect on the power plant. Beside this case, we fabricated a 1/1000 scale model of the Manzanares prototype which enables us to measure the filed variables experimentally. Validation analysis was performed to quantify the reliability of our numerical model with respect to the available experimental data. We obtained a significant increase (14%) in the available output power by using the double-inlet collector.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar Energy Systems and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207