Experimental Study of a Moored Floating Oscillating Water Column Wave-Energy Converter and of a Moored Cubic Box
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes experimental research on a floating moored Oscillating Water Column (OWC)-type Wave-Energy Converter (WEC) carried out in the wave flume of the Coastal Engineering Research Group of Ghent University. This research has been introduced to cover the existing data scarcity and knowledge gaps regarding response of moored floating OWC WECs. The obtained data will be available in the future for the validation of nonlinear numerical models. The experiment focuses on the assessment of the nonlinear motion and mooring-line response of a 1:25 floating moored OWC WEC model to regular waves. The OWC WEC model motion has 6 degrees of freedom and is limited by a symmetrical 4-point mooring system. The model is composed of a chamber with an orifice on top of it to simulate the power-take-off (PTO) system and the associated damping of the motion of the OWC WEC model. In the first place, the motion response in waves of the moored floating OWC WEC model is investigated and the water surface elevation in the OWC WEC chamber is measured. Secondly, two different mooring-line materials (iron chains and nylon ropes) are tested and the corresponding OWC WEC model motions and mooring-line tensions are measured. The performance of these two materials is similar in small-amplitude waves but different in large wave-amplitude conditions. Thirdly, the influence of different PTO conditions is investigated by varying the diameter of the top orifice of the OWC WEC model. The results show that the PTO damping does not affect the OWC WEC motion but has an impact on the water surface elevation inside the OWC chamber. In addition, an unbalanced mooring configuration is discussed. Finally, the obtained data for a moored cubic model in waves are presented, which is a benchmarking case for future validation purposes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".