MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389541076 · doi:10.17118/11143/20858

CFD modeling of movement of geobag for riverbank erosion protectionstructures

2023· article· en· W4389541076 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Shabani, Yuntong She, Carlos F. Lange

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErosionMovement (music)Computational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringGeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceAerospace engineeringEngineeringGeomorphologyPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many rivers suffer from riverbank erosion, which can lead to loss of soil properties, lands and infrastructure damage. Riverbank erosion can be avoided with erosion control structures. Since the 1970s, geobags (geotextile bags filled with sand) have been used as a fundamental element of revetment structures. The design of revetment structures needs a deep understanding of the hydraulic stability of geobags. Most research is focused on coastal applications characterized by wave loading. In contrast, current loading determines the geobag stability along riverbanks, which indicates a gap in knowledge of the stability of geobag in river studies, especially focusing on two failure modes, namely sliding and overturning. In addition, there are no CFD studies that considered the movement of the geobags. The aim of this study is to enhance the fundamental understanding of geobag stability using CFD modeling for river applications, which is accomplished by examining the movement of one submerged geobag. Studying the movement of geobag requires consideration of the shape of the bag since it affects its stability. Therefore, images of the submerged geobags are used for image processing. The edges and borders of one submerged geobag are determined, and the geometry is created by Ansys Space Claim. One sample bag is examined using the overset grid method and solved in Ansys Fluent. Six degrees of freedom (6DOF) solver is used to simulate the movement of geobag at the bottom of the channel. The 6DOF solver works with the forces and moments on the object to determine the translational and angular motion of the gravitational center of the object. Drag, inertia, buoyancy, lift and friction forces are the hydrodynamic forces acting on the submerged geobag, which affect the movement of the geobag. The numerical simulation result was validated with experimental observations. The experiments were conducted using a single submerged geobag at the bottom of the channel, with the flow being increased incrementally until the incipient motion was observed. The CFD results indicate that the overset mesh was able to model the movement of geobag at the bottom of the channel. Additionally, the forces and moments affecting the geobag are determined during its movement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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 topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207