MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942802226 · doi:10.3390/w11050896

Temporal Evolution of Seabed Scour Induced by Darrieus-Type Tidal Current Turbine

2019· article· en· W2942802226 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chong Sun, Wei-Haur Lam, Su Shiung Lam, Yong Dai, Gerard Hamill

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaTianjin UniversityUniversiti MalayaQueen's UniversityDalian University of TechnologyNatural Science Foundation of Tianjin CityQueen's University BelfastUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsFlumeSeabedTurbineGeotechnical engineeringCurrent (fluid)Foundation (evidence)GeologyTidal currentRADIUSMarine engineeringEngineeringOceanographyMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The temporal evolution of seabed scour was investigated to prevent damage around a monopile foundation for Darrieus-type tidal current turbine. Temporal scour depths and profiles at various turbine radius and tip clearances were studied by using the experimental measurements. Experiments were carried out in a purpose-built recirculating water flume associated with 3D printed turbines. The scour hole was developed rapidly in the initial process and grew gradually. The ultimate equilibrium of scour hole was reached after 180 min. The scour speed increased with the existence of a rotating turbine on top of the monopile. The findings suggested that monopile foundation and the rotating turbine are two significant considerations for the temporal evolution of scour. The scour depth is inversely correlated to the tip-bed clearance between the turbine and seabed. Empirical equations were proposed to predict the temporal scour depth around turbine. These equations were in good agreement with the experimental data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207