Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098308›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

A natural coastal blowhole as a novel wave energy extraction mechanism; experimental, cfd, and probabilistic evaluation.

Taha Rezaei, Akbar Javadi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Taha RezaeiDepartment of Engineering, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK. taha.rezaei86@gmail.com.
Akbar JavadiDepartment of Engineering, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural coastal blowholes are rare geomorphological features in which incident waves induce oscillatory motion within coastal cavities, compressing and venting air through a surface outlet and forming a naturally integrated analogue of an oscillating water column. This study evaluates natural blowholes as a nature-based solution for low-impact wave-energy extraction using a combined experimental-numerical-probabilistic framework, with Chabahar Bay in the Oman Sea as a case study. A laboratory flume model was constructed to reproduce blowhole airflow dynamics, and outlet air velocity measurements were used to compute mass flow rate and validate a CFD model under consistent boundary conditions. The validated CFD framework was then extended to the field geometry to estimate pneumatic kinetic power, yielding a peak outlet velocity of approximately 21.6 m s⁻¹, a mass flow rate of approximately 13.0 kg s⁻¹, and an associated kinetic power of about 3 kW per vent. To represent variability in ocean forcing, a Monte Carlo framework comprising 5,000 realizations was parameterized using regional wave-climate statistics and propagated through the deep-water wave-power formulation to quantify uncertainty in wave-power flux. The mean wave-power flux is 8.7 kW m⁻¹ with a 95% confidence interval of 1.6-22.5 kW m⁻¹, and pronounced seasonal variability is observed, with mean flux ranging from approximately 4.5 kW m⁻¹ in winter to 13.2 kW m⁻¹ in summer. These results demonstrate that natural blowholes can provide measurable, site-specific energy yield while minimizing additional coastal infrastructure, and that probabilistic assessment is essential for quantifying uncertainty and seasonality governing long-term reliability.

Indexed as

ChabaharMonte Carlo frameworkNatural blowholesNature-based solutions modelWave energy

Identifiers

PMID42098308
PMCPMC13338011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.