Velocity Field and Turbulence Structure around Spur Dikes with Different Angles of Orientation under Ice Covered Flow Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spur dikes are well-known structures that are widely used in rivers and coastal regions. Depending on their types, sizes, and orientation angles, spur dikes can substantially change flow characteristics. Results of previous studies indicate that the presence of an ice cover in rivers can cause complicated flow structures. The present experimental study investigates velocity fields and turbulence structures in the vicinity of spur dikes under ice cover with different roughness coefficients. The spur dikes were set up at the following three angles of orientation, 90°, 60°, and 45°. Our results show that the strongest velocity fluctuation occurs immediately above the scour hole surface and very close to the dike tip. The increase in the dike angle toward upstream, the velocity component values increase, leads to a larger scour hole. Results show that an increase in dike angle of each 10° (from 45° to 90°) increases the scour depth between 5% and 10%, depending on flow conditions. Furthermore, the increase in the cover roughness coefficient and the blockage ratio of a spur dike leads to a further increase in turbulence kinetic energy and 3D velocity components values. The findings of this study imply that the appearance of an ice cover can increase turbulence intensities up to nearly 30%.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".