Physical and numerical modelling of dry granular flows under Coriolis conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, quantitative observations of dry granular flows subject to varying magnitude and direction of Coriolis acceleration are presented in order to assess the robustness of the Savage–Hutter shallow water approximation of granular flow for modelling landslides. Nine tests carried out at 70° and 45° slope inclinations are described for cases where no Coriolis acceleration was applied (i.e. tests performed at 1g), and where the Coriolis acceleration acted into or out of the slope (centrifuge tests). Given that the magnitude of the Coriolis term is velocity dependent, each point within a model landslide on the centrifuge experienced a unique time and space-varying magnitude of Coriolis acceleration, altering the flow displacement with time and final deposit characteristics. The resultant behaviour is compared to a depth-averaged flow model based on a frictional rheology. A single set of model parameters was found to be appropriate for all test conditions and directions/magnitudes of Coriolis acceleration, illustrating the robustness of the frictional depth-averaged approach to capture the mobility of dry granular flows, albeit as a ‘Class C' type of prediction. It is noted that the empirically derived basal interface friction was found to be lower than the static interface friction determined by conventional testing, suggesting that new methods are needed for the a priori determination of suitable rheological parameters for high-speed flows.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".