Numerical Analysis of the Influence of Geometry on a Large Scale Onshore Oscillating Water Column Device with Associated Seabed Ramp
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".