Two channels meeting at a right angle
Does the model get water levels right where two channels join?
Weber (2001)
Version 0.1.0
- Right answer
- Laboratory or field measurements · Weber (2001)
- Results
- No model run yet · see them ↓
- Must
- match the measured depths at the junction
What happens
A side channel joins a main channel at 90° in a laboratory flume; depths and velocities were measured around the junction.
Why it matters
Confluences in rivers and sewers create backwater and losses that 1D models have to represent with simple rules.
A good model must
- match the measured depths at the junction
- get the peak depth within 5 %
How models did
No model has been scored on this test yet.
Status of this test
Draft. To become candidate it needs: data licence verified; all inputs available; reference (truth) available.
Technical details for reviewers Checks, reference, inputs, sources
What this test still needs
- inputs/flume.json: Flume geometry and inflows from Weber, Schumate & Mawer (2001); measured depth/velocity fields need redistribution terms from the authors / IIHR. Source: IIHR – Hydroscience & Engineering, University of Iowa (authors of Weber et al. 2001)
- Reference data: request from authors.
Checks and why each limit was chosen
| Check | Difference measured as a percentage of | Latest | Difference | Why this check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| depth_NSE NSE of h · skill score, beside the score | not a percentage: reported as the NSE (1 is perfect) | – | NSE on junction depths ≥ 0.7 within measurement uncertainty. | |
| peak_depth peak_error of h · in the score | already a percentage | – | Peak depth within 5% of laboratory peak. |
Reference
Measured data at reference/measurements.parquet; availability: request from authors.
Promotion checklist
Only frozen tests have fixed inputs and answers. This list is computed from the manifest and the published score cards; the rules are in the method.
- ✗Data licence verifiedfor candidatelicence not yet confirmed by the rights holder
- ✗All inputs availablefor candidatepending: inputs/flume.json
- ✗Reference (truth) availablefor candidatemeasured data not yet obtained (request from authors)
- ✓Every tolerance justifiedfor candidateeach gating criterion has a rationale
- ✗A published run passesfor frozenno passing score card published yet
- ✓Order of accuracy shownfor frozennot a verification case
- ✗Two independent codes passfor frozenpassing codes: none — needs a second, independently written solver or engine
- ✗Maintainer review recordedfor frozenno maintainer review recorded
Inputs
| File | Role | Format | SHA-256 | Get it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
inputs/flume.json | geometry | json | pending Flume geometry and inflows from Weber, Schumate & Mawer (2001); measured depth/velocity fields need redistribution terms from the authors / IIHR. |
About this test
Physics
Combining open-channel flow at a 90° junction. Separation zones and contraction affect depths and velocities in the junction region.
Citation
Weber, L. J., Schumate, E. D., and Mawer, N. (2001). "Experiments on flow at a 90° open-channel junction." J. Hydraul. Eng., 127(5), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:5(340)
Sources
- Weber, L. J., Schumate, E. D., Mawer, N. (2001). Experiments on flow at a 90° open-channel junction. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:5(340)
Test A1F-030_weber_90deg_junction · version 0.1.0 · data licence TBD-confirm