Simulation of the Hydraulic Performance of Parallel Pivot Weirs with Different Angles

Pivot weirs are one of the most important structures for regulating the water level in rivers and canals. These weirs are constructed with one or more gates in a row in the waterways. Changing the angle of each gate is done individually with an independent system. Based on available information, the hydraulic performance of this type of weirs (especially in several gates and different angles) in different operational conditions has not been investigated. In present study, pivot weirs with two gates are simulated using Ansys CFX software with the angles of 27.8 to 90 degree and the discharges between 40 to 130 L/s. Further, the importance of the open space between the two adjacent weirs with different angles (lack of retail wall) and its hydraulic behavior have been studied. The model was calibrated based on valid laboratory data and using the K-ϵ turbulence model.  Therefore, the weirs with equal angles were studied in the first step. In this case, the effective discharge angle coefficient was studied and its maximum value compared to the vertical angle was obtained 1.076 for the angle of 52°. Furthermore, relationships for discharge coefficient versus upstream water depth were developed. In the next step, the effective length of the crest was found to be increases by 30% under unequal angles operation and the discharge coefficient raised by 1.3 to 2.4 times. Also, it was recognized that, in case of two weirs with unequal angles, about 26% to 69% of the flow passes through the distance between the two weirs. Therefore, the performance of unequal angles operation seems to be more effective in controlling the water level and discharge in different conditions and especially in flood events

Retraction: Calculation and modeling of the energy released in result of water freezing process (WFP)

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal).After a thorough investigation, the Editors have concluded that the acceptance of this article was based upon the positive advice of at least one illegitimate reviewer report. The report was submitted from an email account which was provided to the journal as a suggested reviewer during the submission of the article. Although purportedly a real reviewer account, the Editors have concluded that this was not of an appropriate, independent reviewer.This manipulation of the peer-review process represents a clear violation of the fundamentals of peer review, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards. Apologies are offered to the reviewers whose identities were assumed and to the readers of the journal that this deception was not detected during the submission process.Further, no reason has been provided for the addition of the author names M. Ghodsi Hassanabad and A. Dehghani Mehrbadi to the authorship of the revised article