Étude quantitative de l'érosion en aval des dissipateurs d'énergie type auge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scour tests on downstream roller bucket energy dissipators have shown that, at the equilibrium, bed characteristics are mainly influenced by the discharge and by the height of the bucket lip. The discharge affects scour characteristics, without however modifying the shape of the bed. On the other hand, the height of the bucket lip simultaneously affects scour characteristics and the shape of the bed mainly in the vicinity of the structure. In the latter area, for larger values of the height of the bucket lip, one observes a deposition with a small depression on the top and, on the contrary, when the height of the bucket lip is small, one observes an erosion. Both the depth of scour and the thickness of the deposit increase proportionally to the height of the bucket lip. Values of the other bed characteristics decrease slightly with the height of the bucket lip to reach a minimum, then they increase for higher values of the height of the bucket lip. Comparison of bed characteristics at the equilibrium with the literature shows that theory overestimates the depth of the scour measured in the laboratory by an average of 68% for the three values of discharge, underestimates the impact distance by about 6% for low discharges, and overestimates it by 10% for the highest discharge.Key words: hydraulic energy dissipation, roller bucket, scour mecanism, scour, small-scale model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".