Sluice Gate Design and Calibration: Simplified Models to Distinguish Flow Conditions and Estimate Discharge Coefficient and Flow Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sluice gates are common hydraulic structures for controlling and regulating flow in open channels. This study investigates five models’ performance in distinguishing conditions of flow regimes, estimating the discharge coefficient (Cd) and flow rate. Experiments were conducted for different gate openings, flow rates, upstream and downstream conditions. New equation forms and methods are proposed to determine Cd for energy–momentum considering losses (EML) and HEC-RAS models. For distinguishing the flow regimes, results indicated a reasonable performance for energy–momentum (EM), EML, and Swamee’s models. For flow rate and discharge coefficient performance of EM, EML, and Henry’s models in free flow and for EM and EML in submerged flow were reasonable. The effects of physical scale on models were investigated. There were concerns about the generality and accuracy of Swamee’s model. Scaling effects were observed on loss factor k in EML. A new equation and method were proposed to calibrate k that improved the EML model’s accuracy. This study facilitates the application and analysis of the studied models for the design or calibration of sluice gates and where the flow in open channels needs to be controlled or measured using sluice gates such as irrigation channels or water delivery channels of small run-of-river hydropower plants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".