Local Scour around Tandem Double Piers under an Ice Cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to the scour around a single pier, the local scour process around tandem double piers is much more complicated. Based on laboratory experiments in a flume, we conducted the scour process around tandem double piers under an ice-covered flow condition. The results showed that when the pier spacing ratio L/D = 2 (where L = the pier spacing distance, and D = the pier diameter), the rear pier (the downstream one) will intensify the horseshoe vortex process behind the front pier, and the scour depth around the front pier will increase by about 10%. As the pier spacing ratio L/D increases, the scour depth around the front pier will gradually decrease. When the pier spacing ratio L/D = 5, sediment scoured around the front pier begins to deposit between these two piers. To initiate a deposition dune between piers, the pier spacing distance under an ice-covered condition is about 20% more than that under an open flow condition. The results also showed that the existence of the rear pier will lead to an increase in the length of the scour hole but a decrease in the depth of the scour hole around the front pier. The local scour around the front pier interacts with the local scour of the rear pier. The maximum scour depth of the scour hole around the rear pier increases first, then decreases and increases again afterward. When the pier spacing ratio L/D = 9, the scour depth around the rear pier is the least. With an increase in the pier spacing ratio, the influence of the local scour around the front pier on the local scour around the rear pier gradually decreases. When the pier spacing ratio L/D is more than 17, the scour around the front pier has hardly any influence on that around the rear pier. The scour depth around the rear pier is about 90% of that around the front pier.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".