Influence of debris flow solid fraction on rigid barrier impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamics of debris flows are fundamentally governed by the interaction between the solid and fluid phases. However, current approaches used to estimate impact load treat debris flow as an equivalent fluid without considering solid–fluid interaction separately from other factors. In this study, a series of centrifuge tests was carried out to investigate the influence of interaction between solid and fluid phases on single-surge debris flow impact on a rigid barrier. The effect of solid–fluid interaction was studied by varying the solid fraction of the flows. A model rigid barrier was instrumented to capture induced bending moment and impact pressure. Test results demonstrate that the transition from a pile-up mechanism to a run-up mechanism is governed by the solid fraction and thus the grain contact stresses. The rigid barrier design for the impact with a pile-up mechanism is mainly dominated by the static load. Contrary to the hydrodynamic approach, which assumes that the frontal impact is the most critical, the frontal impact of a run-up mechanism contributes less than 25% of the total force impulse. The consideration of static loading leads to the development of a new impact model with a triangular distribution of the impact pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".