MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033449906 · doi:10.1029/2019jc015873

Simulations of Landslide Wave Generation and Propagation Using the Particle Finite Element Method

2020· article· en· W3033449906 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan P. Mulligan, Alessandro Franci, Miguel Ángel Celigueta, W. Andy Take

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAXA Research FundCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMechanicsLandslideGeologyFinite element methodWave flumeParticle velocityFree surfaceWave propagationImpulse (physics)Breaking waveAcousticsGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsOpticsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, the impulse waves generated by highly mobile slides in large‐scale flume experiments are reproduced numerically with the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM). The numerical technique combines a Lagrangian finite element solution with an efficient remeshing algorithm and is capable of accurately tracking the evolving fluid free‐surface and velocity distribution in highly unsteady flows. The slide material is water, which represents an avalanche or debris flow with high mobility, and the reservoir depth is varied, thereby achieving a range of different near‐field wave conditions from breaking waves to near‐solitary waves. In situ experimental observations of fluid velocity and water surface levels are obtained using high‐speed digital cameras, acoustic sensors, and capacitance wave probes, and the data are used to analyze the accuracy of the PFEM predictions. The two‐dimensional numerical model shows the capability of holistically reproducing the entire problem from landslide motion, to impact with water, to wave generation, propagation, and runup. Very good agreement with the experimental observations are obtained, in terms of landslide velocity and thickness, wave time series, maximum wave amplitude, wave speed, and wave shape. In a broad perspective, the results demonstrate the potential of this numerical method for predicting outcomes of interacting multi‐hazard scenarios, such as landslides triggered by loss of slope stability and the generation of tsunami.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207