Experimental modelling of debris flow behaviour using a geotechnical centrifuge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical modelling of debris flows has been carried out in the geotechnical drum centrifuge at ETH Zürich. A new apparatus to model debris flows in the centrifuge is described. The apparatus permits the final reach of a typical debris flow to be modelled within the centrifuge, with unconsolidated material flowing down a slope to deposit as a fan around the drum. Experiments are described for both fixed base conditions and erodible bases. Tests to examine the verification (modelling) of models show that debris flow behaviour is governed mainly by friction and consolidation processes, although some resolution is required between flow behaviour downslope and flow arrest during runout. The results are compared with bulk parameters determined for field-scale debris flows. It is found that some important flow mechanisms, such as contact-dominated behaviour and high pore pressures, are developed that are closer to those developed at field-scale than tests conducted at 1g. Velocity profiles for erodible beds are compared with a semi-empirical expression derived for experimental debris flows at 1g. Normalized velocity profiles are found to be in agreement; however, absolute velocities differ from those predicted. Scaling, the limitations of the apparatus, and potential for future work are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".