Three-Dimensional Simulation Parameters for 90° Open Channel Bend Flows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharp open channel bend flows are highly three-dimensional because of the combined effects of secondary flow, large free-surface variations, and flow separation along the inner bend wall. A comprehensive analysis was performed to determine the best modeling parameters to study the open channel sharp bend flow. Comparisons of the simulation results were made from two commercial codes, three turbulence models [k-ε renormalization group (RNG), Reynolds stress model (RSM), and large eddy simulation (LES)], two flow domain representations [Cartesian and body-fitted coordinate (BFC) grids], and three water surface treatments [rigid lid, porosity, and volume of fluid (VOF)]. Based on a comparison with experimental data, the best results were obtained with software using the RSM and VOF approach. Adequate representation of counter-rotating secondary flow cells in the channel downstream of the bend requires both the appropriate treatment of the channel free surface and a turbulence model that can resolve the anisotropy of turbulence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it