MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396701178 · doi:10.11159/iceptp24.141

CFD Simulation of Savonius Cross-flow Hydrokinetic Turbine Using Various URANS Turbulence Models

2024· article· en· W4396701178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Heydari, Amirhossein Mohammadi, Ahmad Nabhani, Amirmasoud Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsTurbulenceTurbineMarine engineeringFlow (mathematics)Environmental scienceMechanicsComputer scienceAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utilization of hydrokinetic turbine technology is an innovative and sustainable method of generating electricity through the power of flowing water. The distinct advantage of this technology over traditional hydropower plants is its ability to operate without the need for the construction of dams or large water reservoirs, which can pose significant risks to local ecosystems and communities. Instead, hydrokinetic turbines can be directly installed in waterways, allowing for a more efficient and eco-friendly use of natural resources. This technology can provide clean, reliable electricity to millions of people globally, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. The present study presents two-dimensional computational fluid dynamics simulation of a cross-flow hydrokinetic turbine model. The simulation is performed by various Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged-NavierStokes models and then the results are compared to previous experimental and mathematical models. The flow field patterns and performance parameters of different models are presented and compared to compare the validity of different turbulence models available. © 2024, World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering. All rights reserved.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207