Experimental Modeling of Extreme Hydrodynamic Forces on Structural Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive experimental program focused on the impact of extreme hydrodynamic forces on structural models generated by a turbulent hydraulic bore. The parameters investigated include: (1) bore depth-time history; (2) initial flume-bed conditions (dry bed versus wet); and (3) damping effect of mitigation walls on the hydrodynamic forces. At impact, the maximum inundation (bore) depths varied between 250 mm and 450 mm and the bore front velocity ranged from 2.6 m/s to 5.0 m/s. High-speed video recordings of the bore-structural model interaction were captured simultaneously with the base shear force-, pressure-, base overturning moment-, and top lateral displacement-time histories experienced by the structural models. Three force components were identified in the bore-induced force-time histories: impulsive, run-up (transient hydrodynamic force), and quasi-steady hydrodynamic. The impulsive or run-up force was the maximum force component experienced by the structural models under initial dry-bed flume conditions; while for the initial wet-bed flume condition, the run-up force component was the maximum force. The effect of 100 mm and 150 mm low-height mitigation walls inclined at angles of 45° or 90°, which were installed at distances of 305 mm or 915 mm upstream from the structural model, was also investigated. The angle of inclination of the mitigation walls, its location relative to the structural model, and its cross-sectional shape all influence the base shear force- and base overturning moment-time histories. The base shear forces in the direction of the flow measured during experimental testing were greater than those estimated using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document P646, while the Structural Design Method of Buildings for Tsunami Resistance (SMBTR) overestimated the base shear forces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".