ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of bed roughness configurations on flow dynamics and hydraulic resistance in open-channel flows.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spacing effects of discrete bed roughness on sequent depth, jump length, and energy loss in hydraulic jumps.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bed roughness significantly influences open-channel flow dynamics, affecting velocity profiles, energy distribution, and hydraulic resistance in natural and engineered rivers. This study investigates the effects of four bed roughness configurations, smooth forward (S-FW), offset roughness (R-OFF), and forward-oriented roughness at 60° (R-FW60) and 90° (R-FW90), on flow characteristics in an experimental flume. Velocity measurements, energy calculations, spectral analysis, and statistical tests (ANOVA) were employed to quantify the impact of roughness on mean flow velocity, Chezy coefficient (C), energy dissipation, and turbulence. Results reveal that S-FW yields the highest mean velocity (1.1587 m/s) and C (51.62), indicating minimal resistance, while R-FW90 produces the lowest mean velocity (0.4422 m/s) and C (18.51), reflecting significant drag and turbulence. Energy profiles show pronounced dissipation near rougher beds, with R-FW90 exhibiting the lowest near-bed energy due to vortex shedding. Spectral analysis highlights amplified low-frequency velocity fluctuations in rougher configurations, particularly R-FW90. Linear mixed-effects modeling and post-hoc tests confirms significant velocity differences across configurations (p < 0.05). These findings offer insights for optimizing channel design, managing erosion, and enhancing flow efficiency in hydraulic engineering applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.