Numerical solution of Lock-exchange flow in a curved channel with an obstacle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravity currents modify their flow characteristics in the presence of an obstacle. Also, the flow path to the dam reservoirs is not always direct. Since no studies have addressed the feedback between the hydrodynamics of a gravity current in a curved channel and the location effects of the obstacle, in this research, a Lock-exchange density current flows in a 120[Formula: see text] bending channel. The numerical simulation has been performed using OpenFOAM software. The models include no-obstacle curved channel and a curved channel with an obstacle in different positions concerning the increased radius of the curved channel. Results indicated that the obstacle directed the concentration towards the banks, with its maximum value tending from the outer to the inner bank, especially in the tail. The tail longitudinal velocity maximized near the channel bed in areas far from the obstacle, and in the outer bank in areas near it. The secondary flow reduces its lowest and most different pattern observed around the obstacle. In displacing the latter, if the front has at a certain distance, the secondary flow does not change much, but if it has at the channel end, the post-obstacle secondary flow would increase as the obstacle neared the Lock.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".