The effects of upstream flexible barrier on the debris flow entrainment and impact dynamics on a terminal barrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The destructive nature of debris flows is mainly caused by flow bulking from entrainment of an erodible channel bed. To arrest these flows, multiple flexible barriers are commonly installed along the predicted flow path. Despite the importance of an erodible bed, its effects are generally ignored when designing barriers. In this study, three unique experiments were carried out in a 28 m long flume to investigate the impact of a debris flow on both single and dual flexible barriers installed in a channel with a 6 m long erodible soil bed. Initial debris volumes of 2.5 and 6 m 3 were modelled. For the test setting adopted, a small upstream flexible barrier before the erodible bed separates the flow into several surges via overflow. The smaller surges reduce bed entrainment by 70% and impact force on the terminal barrier by 94% compared to the case without an upstream flexible barrier. However, debris overflowing the deformed flexible upstream barrier induces a centrifugal force that results in a dynamic pressure coefficient that is up to 2.2 times higher than those recommended in guidelines. This suggests that although compact upstream flexible barriers can be effective for controlling bed entrainment, they should be carefully designed to withstand higher impact forces.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".