Rough Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers in Shallow Open Channel Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was undertaken to investigate the effects of roughness on the structure of turbulent boundary layers in open channels. The study was carried out using a laser Doppler anemometer in shallow flows for three different types of rough surface, as well as a hydraulically smooth surface. The flow Reynolds number based on the boundary layer momentum thickness ranged from 1400 to 4000. The boundary layer thickness was comparable with the depth of flow and the turbulence intensity in the channel flow varied from 2 to 4 percent. The defect profile was correlated using an approach which allowed both the skin friction and wake strength to vary. The wake parameter was observed to vary significantly with the type of surface roughness in contradiction to the “wall similarity” hypothesis. Wall roughness also led to higher turbulence levels in the outer region of the boundary layer. The profound effect of surface roughness on the outer region as well as the effect of channel turbulence on the main flow indicates a strong interaction, which must be accounted for in turbulence models. [S0098-2202(00)00803-8]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".