Hydrodynamic processes and sediment erosion mechanisms in an open channel bend of strong curvature with deformed bathymetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most rivers exhibit regions of strong channel curvature that are characterized by more complex and variable flow and erosion patterns, compared to regions of lower curvature. Studies investigating high‐curvature bends using eddy‐resolving techniques have been limited, and the effect of bend angle on flow and erosion has rarely been investigated. This study investigates flow in a 135° nonerodible bank open channel bend of high curvature: ratio of radius of curvature, R, to channel width, B, is 1.5. The bathymetry is obtained during the final stages of a clear water scour experiment. Large Eddy Simulation is used to investigate the effect of secondary flow on the redistribution of streamwise momentum, the details of coherent structures, and mechanisms leading to erosion within the bend. Results are compared with those from a similar numerical study of a 193° sharply curved open channel bend with R/B = 1.35. The angle of the 135° bend is representative of typical regular meander geometry, while the larger angle of the 193° bend is representative of a tortuous meander geometry. The different bathymetries induced important quantitative and qualitative differences in the vortical and turbulence structure within the open channel for the two cases. Inner bank streamwise‐oriented vortical (SOV) cells formed in both cases, but the position and extent of shear layers forming between regions of fast and slow moving fluid differed, and flow did not separate at the inner bank in the 135° bend. An outer‐bank cell was observed in the 135° bend, but not in the 193° bend. Distributions of predicted boundary shear stresses indicated the capacity of the flow to erode the outer bank of a sharply curved bend under two representative regimes found in the field.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".