Discrete-element investigation of influence of granular debris flow baffles on rigid barrier impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granular debris flow baffles are commonly installed in front of rigid barriers to dissipate flow energy and reduce the required barrier impact capacity. Despite the engineering value of baffles, their influence on rigid barrier impact is still not well understood. A previously calibrated discrete element method (DEM) model using a series of flume experiments was adopted to study the effectiveness of installing baffles in front of a rigid barrier. Froude scaling was used to characterize the flow front. Different baffle configurations were examined, namely number of rows, spacing between successive rows (L), and baffle height. Results reveal an optimum row spacing of L/D = 3 (D is the slit size). Row spacing less than L/D = 3 leads to increased peak dynamic force from overflow impacting the barrier, whereas row spacing greater than L/D = 3 results in increased peak dynamic force from the granular debris flow front. Increasing spacing greater than L/D = 3 allows the dispersion of debris between rows and decreases the effectiveness of the second row. Adopting baffle heights greater than 1.5 times the approach flow depth (h) reveals little influence on the peak impact force induced on the barrier.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".