MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283268805 · doi:10.3390/fluids7070213

Tsunami-Induced Bore Propagating over a Canal—Part 1: Laboratory Experiments and Numerical Validation

2022· article· en· W4283268805 on OpenAlexaff
Nuri Elsheikh, Ioan Nistor, Amir H. Azimi, Abdolmajid Mohammadian

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEarthquake and Tsunami Effects
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceGeologyDissipationComputer simulationMechanicsMean squared errorJet (fluid)Geotechnical engineeringPhysicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This companion paper investigates the hydrodynamics of turbulent bores that propagate on a horizontal plane and have a striking resemblance to dam break waves and tsunami-like hydraulic bores. The focus of this paper is on the propagation of a turbulent bore over a mitigation canal using both laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. In the first part of this paper, the effects of canal depth on the time histories of wave height and velocity were experimentally investigated, and the experimental results were used for the validation of the numerical model. The rapid release of water from an impoundment reservoir at depths of do = 0.30 m and 0.40 m generated bores analogous to tsunami-induced inundations. The time histories of the wave heights and velocities were measured at 0.2 m upstream and at 0.2 m and 0.58 m downstream of the canal to study the energy dissipation effect of the mitigation canal. The recorded time series of the water surface levels and velocities were compared with simulation outputs, and good agreement was found between the experimental and numerical water surface profiles, with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of less than 6.7% and a relative error of less than 8.4%. Three turbulence models, including the standard k-ε, Realizable k-ε, and RNG k-ε, were tested, and it was found that all these models performed well, with the standard k-ε model providing the highest accuracy. The velocity contour plots of the mitigation canal with different depths showed jet streams of different sizes in the shallow, medium-depth, and deep canals. The energy dissipation and air bubble entrainment of the bore as it plunged downward into the canal increased as the canal depth increased, and the jet stream of the maximum bore velocity decreased as the canal depth increased. It was found that the eye of the vortex created by the bore in the canal moved in the downstream direction and plunged downward in the middle of the canal, where it then began to separate into two smaller vortices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluidsSame topicEarthquake and Tsunami EffectsFrench-language works237,207