Optimal Octagonal Hooked Collar Countermeasure to Reduce Scour Around a Single Bridge Pier
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pier modification countermeasures are essential as they play a vital role in protecting pier against local scour action. Current study investigates experimentally the scour around vertical pier of octagonal cross section with pier modification such as newly proposed octagonal hooked collar is explored, in steady uniform state, under clear water condition. The results of pier scour without any modification were used as a reference to compute the efficiency of hooked collar provision around octagonal pier. The results show that by increasing the hooked collar width up to 2.5 Wp reduced maximum scour depth significantly. However, the experimental investigation revealed that the best combination to be with a hooked collar width of 2.5 Wp, having sidewall height 0.45 Wp. The best combination minimized around 73.3 % of scour hole depth, compared to octagonal pier without any modification. Using experimental results, a new equation is proposed to predict the scour depth around a bridge pier fitted with hooked collar. Moreover, a relation was developed for maximum scour depth and scour hole volume. Results indicate that the scour hole volume around a bridge pier increases quadratically with maximum scour depth.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it