A Comparative Study between Sand- and Gravel-Bed Open Channel Flows in the Wake Region of a Bed-Mounted Horizontal Cylinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In nature, environmental and geophysical flows frequently encounter submerged cylindrical bodies on a rough bed. The flows around the cylindrical bodies on the rough bed are very complicated as the flow field in these cases will be a function of bed roughness apart from the diameter of the cylinder and the flow velocity. In addition, the sand-bed roughness has different effects on the flow compared to the gravel-bed roughness due to differences in the roughness heights. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to compare the mean velocities and turbulent flow properties in the wake region of a horizontal bed-mounted cylinder over the sand-bed with that over the gravel-bed. Three experimental runs, two for the sand-bed and one for the gravel-bed with similar physical and hydraulic conditions, were recorded to fulfil this purpose. The Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry (ADV) probe was used for measuring the three-dimensional (3D) instantaneous velocity data. This comparative study shows that the magnitude of mean streamwise flow velocity, streamwise Reynolds normal stress, and Reynolds shear stress are reduced on the gravel-bed compared to the sand-bed. Conversely, the vertical velocities and vertical Reynolds normal stress are higher on the gravel-bed than the sand-bed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".