MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405564602 · doi:10.15473/2481243

In-Situ Blade Strain Measurements of a Crossflow Turbine Operating in a Tidal Flow

2022· article· en· W4405564602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aidan Bharath, Mason Bichanich, Patrick O’Byrne, Michael J. Monahan, Martin Wosnik, Casey Nichols, Robert Raye, Andrew Simms, Charles Candon, Hannah Ross, J. N. Hunt, Mark Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)Flow (mathematics)TurbineMarine engineeringMechanicsTurbine bladeGeologyEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This data was collected between October 25 and December 12 of 2022 at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and Atlantic Marine Energy Center (AMEC) turbine deployment platform (TDP). The goal was to collect blade strain data from a crossflow turbine operating in a tidal flow. A table in ('Deployment Schedule.PNG') outlines the various dates when each instrument was operational, and more details can be found via literature listed in 'Related Publications'.txt. This dataset includes zipped folders for each instrument containing data in .csv files for the relevant duration specific to each instrument, along with separate README file for each measurement. Some instrument files are quite large and can pose a challenge for a visual spreadsheet editor to open. A processing software like MATLAB or Python is recommended. All data contained in this submission is unfiltered/unprocessed data unless otherwise noted in the README file. Blade strain was measured using 8 foil-based strain gauges along the span of a single turbine blade. Water currents were measured using Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP's) and Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV's) both upstream and downstream of the turbine for inflow, wake and turbulence measurements. Electrical power output was measured using the Voltsys rectifier. Shaft speed was calculated based on the Voltsys measurements of the permanent magnet three phase generator AC generation frequency, coupled directly to the cross flow turbine under test (i.e., no gear box). Platform motions were captured using a Yost IMU (inertial measurement unit). Turbine thrust loading was measured using a reaction arm about the turbine deployment platform spanning beam, where two bi-directional load cells were connected to the system via a pinned connection. The TDP is a floating structure moored on the Portsmouth facing side of Memorial Bridge pier #2, which spans the Piscataqua River between Portsmouth, NH and Kittery, ME. The Piscataqua River connects the Great Bay Estuary to the Gulf of Maine and the river currents are dominated by tidal flow with water velocities exceeding 2.5 m/s during spring ebb tides at this site which were previously characterized by Chancey 2019. The turbine under test was a modified New Energy Corporation (Calgary, CA) model EVG-025 4-blade H-Darrius type vertical axis cross flow turbine that rotates in the clockwise direction with a rotor diameter of 3.2m and blade length of 1.7m. The hydro-foil profile was a NACA 0021 with a 10 inch chord length and a blade preset pitch angle of +4deg with a positive angle corresponding with the toe in direction. The standard EVG-025 has a rotor diameter of 3.4m and its rated power output is 25kW at 3 m/s. The rotor diameter was reduced to accommodate the size of the existing TDP moon-pool. A single blade of this turbine was further modified to accommodate 8 full-bridge strain gauges (Bharath et al 2023, Bichanich et al 2024). For power performance and other relevant details on the turbine and its characteristics, see O'Byrne 2022.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicCavitation Phenomena in PumpsFrench-language works237,207