MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366588262 · doi:10.1680/jwama.22.00002

Optimised multi-objective design of weir structures

2023· article· en· W4366588262 on OpenAlexaff
Robel Geressu, Tesfaye Haimanot Tarekegn, Ermias Alemu Demissie

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsWater Security Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeirPipingStability (learning theory)Hydraulic structureComputer scienceCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversion head works, also called weirs or barrages, are structures constructed across rivers or canals to store water or raise the water level. The design of diversion weir structures involves calculating the depth, length and thickness of the horizontal and sloping aprons and sheet pile cut-offs. The design parameters of a diversion weir structure, which have complex non-linear relationships, are traditionally determined using empirically derived recommendations and iterations to achieve structural stability against failures due to scour, uplift, sliding, piping and overturning. However, current design approaches do not explicitly explore the trade-offs between the many relevant design objectives and thus fail to reveal possibly superior designs. A multi-objective optimisation design approach for a diversion weir structure is proposed in this article. A free and open-source code that can be used as a design tool is also provided. The method is demonstrated on a stylised design problem. The results show that the method reveals solutions with diverse balances of stability metrics and cost, with the optimal relationships of parameter values of components also varying based on the relative cost of the construction materials for sheet piles and aprons.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water ManagementSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207