Energy dissipation by vertically placed screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screens can be utilized efficiently for dissipating energy of water. In this study, water flowing beneath a gate is used to simulate the flow downstream of a small hydraulic structure, and vertically placed screens are used as an alternative tool for energy dissipation. Investigations are conducted using a series of experiments. The porosity, thickness, and location of the screens are the major parameters together with the Froude number of the upstream flow. The experiments cover a range of supercritical Froude numbers between 5.0 and 18.0, porosities between 20% and 60%, and screen locations up to 100 times the undisturbed upstream flow depth. The thicknesses of the screens used are in the order of the undisturbed upstream flow depth. The results show the importance of each parameter in the energy-dissipating performance of the screens and the system. It is observed that screens dissipate significantly more energy than a conventional hydraulic jump within the large range of Froude numbers covered in the study. The results are also in agreement with the results of an earlier similar study.Key words: screen, energy dissipation, hydraulic jump, porosity, supercritical flow.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".