Experimental Hydraulic Investigation of Various Geometric Labyrinth Side Weirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient management of excess water in confined channels is a critical challenge, especially under potential flood conditions caused by climate change.This paper presents an experimental investigation comparing the hydraulic characteristics of several labyrinth side weirs.Physical models were constructed using dimensional analysis to determine the parameters that affect the discharge coefficient (Cd) across different geometries.Using these models, tests were conducted on four labyrinth side weir configurations: trapezoidal ( = 0) and arced-trapezoidal ( = 20), each with sidewall angles = 6 and 12 (5 cycles).The study aims to develop analytical equations to estimate the discharge coefficient of various labyrinth-side weirs under subcritical flow conditions.The results indicate that the arced-trapezoidal model with a 6 sidewall angle shows the highest discharge efficiency.A lower sidewall angle enhances the flow rate by effectively increasing the crest length.Four empirical equations were derived by nonlinear regression analysis.Their accuracy was confirmed using root mean square error (RMSE), average percentage error (APE), and coefficient of determination (R ).The obtained values of 5%, 2%, and 0.99%, respectively, indicate strong agreement with the experimental results of this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".