Debris flow sediment control using multiple herringbone water-sediment separation structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Single herringbone water-sediment separation structures (HWSS) have limited sediment control effectiveness in debris flows. A series of such structures in a debris flow channel to form a multiple structure system (M-HWSS system) should be more effective in debris flow mitigation. Hydraulic model tests reveal that a M-HWSS system does perform better in coarse sediment separation and has better stability in differing debris flow situations. The mean particle size of discharged sediment is gradually and significantly decreased down channel by M-HWSS system. The separated sediments are moderately sorted and this can be improved by optimizing the structure design parameters and increasing structure numbers. The fraction separation ratio (λi), coarse separation ratio (λc) and total sediment separation rate (Pt) are suggested parameters to express the sediment control effectiveness. All are closely related to the herringbone opening width and the input sediment grain size distribution. The quantitative relationships among them are proposed. On the basis of the tests, conclusions and guidelines for effective M-HWSS design include: (1) three structures in the M-HWSS located in succession upstream, midstream and downstream, each with substantially different in sediment control functions, (2) a structure's performance is strongly influenced by that of the preceding one so that every structure is designed to fully implement the sediment control function, especially for those in the upstream and midstream, (3)the suggested herringbone opening width in a structure should be set at the percentile of d50 ~ d84 of the input sediment grain size distribution so that 20 ~ 60 % of the effective separation rate can be achieved.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".