Effects of splitter plate on reducing local scour around bridge pier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Local scour around bridge piers has been shown to be the most common reason for bridge failures. The use of splitter plates to modify the flow field around the pier has the potential to reduce the maximum scour depth. To test the effect of the splitter plate, the present study was conducted by using plates of various lengths (1 ≤ L/D ≤ 2). Here, D is the diameter of the pier, and L is the length of the splitter plate. The splitter plate was located both in the front and at the rear of the pier. The results show that for a constant splitter plate height, the plate with a length of 1.33D located in front of the pier has the greatest impact in reducing maximum scour. Results also showed that with increasing height of the splitter plate located in front of the pier, the maximum scour depth as well as the scoured area decreased correspondingly. In the range of test variables used in this study, the back splitter plate located with or without a gap between the pier and the plate showed limited impact on reducing the maximum scour around the pier. However, a significant change of dune height was observed in the back of the pier.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".