Three-dimensional flow in a barb field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barbs (or submerged groynes) are low-profile linear rock structures that are primarily used to prevent the erosion of stream banks. They are a variation of a groyne, similar to spur dikes and bendway weirs. Barbs are typically anchored, in series, to the outside bank in stream bends and extend in an upstream direction from the bank into the flow. This configuration redirects flow away from the outer stream bank and disrupts the velocity gradient close to the outer bank, encouraging sediment deposition adjacent to the barb. These interactions between the flow pattern and the sediment transport around the barb prevent erosion of the bank. Furthermore, vortices generated by the barb create local scour holes that can enhance aquatic habitat. A three-dimensional numerical model, Sediment Simulation in Intakes with Multiblock option (SSIIM), was used to examine the turbulent flow field and associated scour and depositional patterns due to a series of barbs in a mobile-bed channel bend. Previous physical model observations were used for model calibration and verification. Barb design was optimized to minimize scour. The parameters considered in the optimization were channel bend angle, barb alignment angle, and barb spacing. In this paper the spatial distribution of the three-dimensional flow field through a series of barbs in a 90 channel bend are mapped and the impact on the flow field of subtle differences in barb geometry are examined. Special emphasis is placed on the influence of barb design on secondary currents in the meander bend and the generation of three-dimensional vortices, and the consequent impact on scour.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".