Numerical Modeling of Venturi Flume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to measure flow rate in open channels, including irrigation channels, hydraulic structures are used with a relatively high degree of reliance. Venturi flumes are among the most common and efficient type, and they can measure discharge using only the water level at a specific point within the converging section and an empirical discharge relationship. There have been a limited number of attempts to simulate a venturi flume using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools to improve the accuracy of the readings and empirical formula. In this study, simulations on different flumes were carried out using a total of seven different models, including the standard k–ε, RNG k–ε, realizable k–ε, k–ω, and k–ω SST models. Furthermore, large-eddy simulation (LES) and detached eddy simulation (DES) were performed. Comparison of the simulated results with physical test data shows that among the turbulence models, the k–ε model provides the most accurate results, followed by the dynamic k LES model when compared to the physical experimental data. The overall margin of error was around 2–3%, meaning that the simulation model can be reliably used to estimate the discharge in the channel. In different cross-sections within the flume, the k–ε model provides the lowest percentage of error, i.e., 1.93%. This shows that the water surface data are well calculated by the model, as the water surface profiles also follow the same vertical curvilinear path as the experimental data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".