Design Guideline for Hydropower Plants Using One or Multiple Archimedes Screws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Archimedes/Archimedean screw generator (ASG) is a fish-friendly hydropower technology that could operate under a wide range of flow heads and flow rates and generate power from almost any flow, even wastewater. The simplicity and low maintenance requirements and costs make ASGs suitable even for remote or developing areas. However, there are no general and easy-to-use guidelines for designing Archimedes screw power plants. Therefore, this study addresses this important concern by offering a simple method for quick rough estimations of the number and geometry of Archimedes screws in considering the installation site properties, river flow characteristics, and technical considerations. Moreover, it updates the newest analytical method of designing ASGs by introducing an easier graphical approach that not only covers standard designs but also simplifies custom designs. Besides, a list of currently installed and operating industrial multi-Archimedes screw hydropower plants are provided to review and explore the common design properties between different manufacturers. On top of that, this study helps to improve one of the biggest burdens of small projects, the unscalable initial investigation costs, by enabling everyone to evaluate the possibilities of a green and renewable Archimedes screw hydropower generation where a flow is available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.011 |
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".