Experimental survey of static pressure in stepped chutes with inclined and horizontal steps equipped with end sills in nappe and skimming flow regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spillway is one of the most important parts of a dam for controlling floods. Among different types of spillways, stepped spillways are one of the best energy dissipaters. Due to technological advances and the satisfaction of two elements for safe and low-cost construction, the use of stepped spillways has increased widely. Due to this, more studies are focused on stepped spillways. Researchers have made some efforts and proposed different methods to improve structural efficiency to dissipate energy. Modifications on step geometry, regarding flow regime type, are one of these efforts. Flow pressure and its fluctuations on the steps of the stepped spillways is one of the main factors affecting structural design and safety. In this experimental research, reverse inclined steps combined with the end sills have been applied in four degrees [0o (horizontal), 5o, 8o, and 11o] to obtain static pressure in both the nappe flow and skimming flow regimes of stepped spillways. Static pressure obtained from reverse inclined steps with end sills have been compared to the amount in the horizontal step. Results indicate a slight increase in the energy loss rate when reverse inclined steps have been applied in the nappe flow regime of stepped spillways.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".