Numerical Study of Alternate Bars in Alluvial Channels With Nonuniform Sediment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rivers typically present heterogeneous bed material, but the effects of sediment nonuniformity on river bar characteristics are still unclear. This work investigates the impact of sediment size heterogeneity on alternate bars with a morphodynamic numerical model. The model is first used to reproduce a laboratory experiment showing alternate bar formation with nonuniform bed material. Subsequently, the influence of sediment size heterogeneity on alternate bars is investigated distinguishing hybrid from free bars, definition based on the presence/absence of morphodynamic forcing, considering the results of nine scenarios. In four of them, a transverse obstacle is used to generate forcing. The computations are carried out with the Telemac‐Mascaret system solving the two‐dimensional shallow‐water equations with a finite element approach, accounting for horizontal and vertical sediment sorting processes. The results show that sediment heterogeneity affects free migrating and hybrid bars in a different way. The difference lies in the presence/absence of a migration front, so that distinct relations between bed topography, bed shear stress, and sediment sorting are obtained. Sediment sorting and associated planform redistribution of bed roughness only slightly modify free migrating bar morphodynamics, whereas hybrid bars are greatly impacted, with decreased amplitude and increased wavelength. Increased sediment size heterogeneity increases the degree of sediment sorting, while the sorting pattern remains the same for both free and hybrid bars. Moreover, it produces averagely higher, longer, and faster free bars, while in the case of hybrid bars their wavelength is increased but no general trend can be determined for their amplitude.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".