Effects of basal clearance on the impact dynamics of dry granular flow against dual rigid barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A basal clearance is usually designed beneath barriers to enable sufficient discharge to minimise the maintenance work over service life. Current design guidelines for multiple barriers usually neglect the influence of basal clearance, resulting in either an overconservative or a nonconservative design impact force acting on the subsequent barriers. In this study, physical model tests were carried out to investigate the effects of basal clearance height (Hc) beneath first barrier on the interaction between dry granular flow and dual rigid barriers. A new approach based on the hydrodynamic equation is proposed to estimate the impact force on the second barrier exerted by the basal discharge and overflow from the first barrier. The basal discharge can attenuate the impact force exerted on the second barrier by dissipating the kinetic energy of landing flow and apportioning the load contributions from basal discharge and overflow. For the first barrier with a barrier height HB1 that was twice the flow depth h0, the impact force on the second barrier was governed by overflow when Hc/h0 ≤ 0.6 and was dominated by basal discharge when Hc/h0 ≥ 0.8. These two criteria provide a basis for optimising the impact forces for multiple-barrier systems with basal clearances.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".