Checking the Accuracy of Selected Formulae for both Clear Water and Live Bed Bridge Scour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to severe scouring, many bridges failed worldwide. Therefore, the safety of the existing bridge (after contrition) mainly depends on the continuous monitoring of local scour at the substructure. However, the bridge's safety before construction mainly depends on the consideration of local scour estimation at the bridge substructure. Estimating the local scour at the bridge piers is usually done using the available formulae. Almost all the formulae used in estimating local scour at the bridge piers were derived from laboratory data. It is essential to test the performance of proposed local scour formulae using field data. In this study, the performance of selected bridge scours estimation formulae was validated and statistically tested using field data for existing bridges in Canada, Iraq (Kufa, Najaf), Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. The validated formulae were HEC-18, Forehlich, and Johnson. The validation was conducted by comparing the predicted local scour depths obtained from applying the above selected formulae with the local scour depths obtained from the field data. The comparison between them was presented using a scattergram. However, statistical tests were used to present the accuracy of the local scour predictions. The tests were conducted using three statistical indices, namely, Theil’s coefficient (U), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). Among the tested formulae, the Jonson formula gave satisfactory performance since the values of U, MAE, and RMSE were found to be 0.112, 1.351, and 1.650, respectively.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".