MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094915360 · doi:10.1111/1467-9590.00154

Modeling Sediment Deposition Patterns Arising From Suddenly Released Fixed‐Volume Turbulent Suspensions

2000· article· en· W2094915360 on OpenAlexaff
T. B. Moodie, J. P. Pascal, John C. Bowman

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Applied Mathematics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsSettlingSuspension (topology)Volume (thermodynamics)Entrainment (biomusicology)Deposition (geology)Particle (ecology)EddyVolume of fluid methodGeologyChemistryMaterials sciencePhysicsSedimentThermodynamicsFlow (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models presented in several recent papers [1–3] dealing with particle transport by, and deposition from, bottom gravity currents produced by the sudden release of dilute, well‐mixed fixed‐volume suspensions have been relatively successful in duplicating the experimentally observed long‐time, distal, areal density of the deposit on a rigid horizontal bottom. These models, however, fail in their ability to capture the experimentally observed proximal pattern of the areal density with its pronounced dip in the region initially occupied by the well‐mixed suspension and its equally pronounced local maximum at roughly the one‐third point of the total reach of the deposit. The central feature of the models employed in [1–3] is that the particles are always assumed to be vertically well‐mixed by fluid turbulence and to settle out through the bottom viscous sublayer with the Stokes settling velocity for a fluid at rest with no re‐entrainment of particles from the floor of the tank. Because this process is assumed from the outset in the models of [1–3], the numerical simulations for a fixed‐volume release will not take into account the actual experimental conditions that prevail at the time of release of a well‐mixed fixed‐volume suspension. That is, owing to the vigorous stirring that produces the well‐mixed suspension, the release volume will initially possess greater turbulent energy than does an unstirred release volume, which may only acquire turbulent energy as a result of its motion after release through various instability mechanisms. The eddy motion in the imposed fluid turbulence reduces the particle settling rates from the values that would be observed in an unstirred release volume possessing zero initial turbulent energy. We here develop a model for particle bearing gravity flows initiated by the sudden release of a fixed‐volume suspension that takes into account the initial turbulent energy of mixing in the release volume by means of a modified settling velocity that, over a time scale characteristic of turbulent energy decay, approaches the full Stokes settling velocity. Thereafter, in the flow regime, we assume that the turbulence persists and, in accord with current understanding concerning the mechanics of dense underflows, that this turbulence is most intense in the wall region at the bottom of the flow and relatively coarse and on the verge of collapse (see [22]) at the top of the flow where the density contrast is compositionally maintained. We capture this behavior by specifying a “shape function” that is based upon experimental observations and provides for vertical structure in the volume fraction of particles present in the flow. The assumption of vertically well‐mixed particle suspensions employed in [1–5] corresponds to a constant shape function equal to unity. Combining these two refinements concerning the settling velocity and vertical structure of the volume fraction of particles into the conservation law for particles and coupling this with the fluid equations for a two‐layer system, we find that our results for areal density of deposits from sudden releases of fixed‐volume suspensions are in excellent qualitative agreement with the experimentally determined areal densities of deposit as reported in [1, 3, 6]. In particular, our model does what none of the other models do in that it captures and explains the proximal depression in the areal density of deposit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Applied MathematicsSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207