Numerical Analysis of the Influence of Geometry on a Large Scale Onshore Oscillating Water Column Device with Associated Seabed Ramp
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aims to perform a geometrical investigation of an onshore Oscillating Water Column (OWC) on a large scale. The Constructal Design method is employed, aiming to maximize its available power. The OWC is subjected to two constraints (areas of the chamber and ramp below the chamber); and three degrees of freedom: height/length ratio of the chamber (H1/L1), height/length ratio of the ramp (H2/L2), and submersion of the frontal wall of the chamber (H3). A laminar, unsteady, incompressible, and two-phase flow was adopted, solving conservation equations of mass, momentum, and transport of water-air volume fraction using Finite Volume Method (FVM) and Volume of Fluid (VOF) model. The global optimal geometry led to a twice maximized available power 37.3% higher than the best case without the seabed ramp below the chamber and seven times better than the worst case. Concerning the sensibility of geometry, results indicated that the chamber geometry, given by ratio H1/L1, over the available power (P) was strongly affected by the ramp ratio H2/L2. Moreover, the behavior of the effect of H2/L2 over the once maximized available power (Pm) and corresponding optimal shape of the chamber, (H1/L1)o, changed dramatically for two different magnitudes of H3 investigated.
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.
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 it