Channel Bed Deformation around Double Piers in Tandem Arrangement in an S-Shaped Channel under Ice Cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow structure and channel bed deformation caused by double piers in a tandem arrangement under ice-covered flow conditions in a bent channel is more complicated than those around a single pier in a straight channel. Based on experiments in an S-shaped flume, the scouring phenomenon at double piers in a tandem arrangement under an ice cover has been conducted by varying pier spacing distance, bend apex cross section (BACS), and hydraulic parameters. Results show that, under identical hydraulic conditions, the variation trend of the scour depth in the vicinity of double piers in a tandem arrangement in a bent channel is similar to that in a straight channel. The deepest depth of scour holes at the upstream BACS is more than that at piers at the downstream BACS. At each BACS, the effect resulting from the interaction of double piers gradually decreases with the pier spacing distance. Different from the characteristics of local scour at double piers in a tandem arrangement in the straight flume, when the ratio of pier spacing distance to pier diameter (L/D) is more than 15, the horseshoe vortex generated by the front pier has negligible impact on the rear pier, and the maximum depth of scour hole at the rear pier scour hole is about 90% that of the front pier. Also, when L/D is higher than 15, the influence of the rear pier on the front one is negligible, and the scour hole depth at the front pier remains the same. However, this phenomenon occurs when the straight flume’s L/D is greater than 17.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".