Stepped chutes lined with wedge-shaped concrete blocks: hydrodynamic pressures on blocks and stability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of wedge-shaped concrete block overlays to protect embankments subject to flows with relatively high velocities is an idea dating from the late 1960s. Subsequent studies addressed the block stability and design, with or without drainage layer underneath, and the flow characteristics. One aspect still lacking systematic research is the block stability considering the influence of the drainage layer and of the uplift pressure beneath the blocks. The stability of blocks located in the training walls of a trapezoidal cross section has never been investigated, although this type of section is expected when installing a concrete block overlay over embankments. The present study addresses this aspect, using a relatively large facility where the blocks are laid on a drainage layer over an embankment artificially saturated, thus intending to simulate a concrete block spillway installed over a compacted homogeneous earth dam. Data collected both in a trapezoidal flume and in a rectangular flume are is analyzed, together with other authors’ data for this type of stepped overlay. The inherent hydrodynamic stability is verified. Experiments with hydraulic jump formation over the blocks at the end of the flume also showed block stability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".