MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hydraulic Jumps on Corrugated Beds

2002· article· en· W2122734678 on OpenAlexaff
S. A. Ead, N. Rajaratnam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsFroude numberHydraulic jumpMechanicsSupercritical flowJet (fluid)DissipationGeologyJumpGeotechnical engineeringGeometryFlow (mathematics)MathematicsPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of a laboratory study of hydraulic jumps on corrugated beds are presented. Experiments were performed for a range of Froude numbers from 4 to 10. Three values of the relative roughness t/y1 of 0.50, 0.43, and 0.25 were studied. It was found that the tailwater depth required to form a jump was appreciably smaller than that for the corresponding jumps on smooth beds. Further, the length of the jumps was about half of those on smooth beds. The integrated bed shear stress on the corrugated bed was about 10 times that on smooth beds. The axial velocity profiles at different sections in the jump were found to be similar, with some differences from the profile of the simple plane wall jet. The maximum velocity um at any section in terms of the velocity U1 of the supercritical stream was correlated with the longitudinal distance x in terms of L, which is the distance where um=0.5U1, and this relation was the same as that for jumps on smooth beds with the difference that L/y1 was much smaller for jumps on corrugated beds. The normalized boundary layer thickness δ/b, where b is the length scale of the velocity profile, was equal to 0.45 for jumps on corrugated beds compared to 0.16 for the simple wall jet. The results of this study show the attractiveness of corrugated beds for energy dissipation below hydraulic structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations195
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic EngineeringSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207