Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the physics of scour hole in a mixed sand–clay bed downstream of an apron is studied experimentally. Seven combinations of sand–clay mixtures including clay contents, Cc, ranging from 0 to 0.4 were used. The results show that Cc = 0.4 can reduce the maximum scour depth, εm, up to about 80% for all the densimetric Froude numbers in the range of the present study. An empirical equation has been proposed for calculation of εm in sand–clay mixtures with the mean error of 0.12. The removal mechanism of sediments from the bed was different based on the Cc. For low clay contents, i.e., Cc ≤ 15%, individual particles were detached from the bed. At higher Cc, clusters of particles were separated and moved downstream with the flow. A new equation has been proposed to predict the dimensionless scour hole profile in mixed sand–clay sediments. Dimensionless graphs have been presented for incorporating the effect of tailwater depth and sediment grain size on the main characteristics lengths in sand–clay mixtures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".