Experiment investigation on the local scour around circular and square piles in open wharf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open wharves often rely on pile structures for stability, but these can cause local scouring, risking structural integrity and safety. Understanding scour mechanisms induced by propeller jet flow is crucial for effective scour protection, yet research on square piles and double piles is limited. This study presents a series of flume tests to investigate the local scour mechanisms around square piles and circular piles under propeller jet flow. The experiments consist of seven different configurations, including single square piles, double square piles, single circular piles, double circular piles, and a control case without any piles. The main focus of this research is to understand the development and variations of scour depth and scour pit dimensions induced by propeller jet flow. Additionally, the scour mechanisms of square piles are compared with those of circular piles, and the influence of double piles and pile spacing is examined. It can be found that substituting circular piles with square piles in practical engineering will generally lead to an increase in the overall scouring range of the foundation. The horizontal scouring range of double piles is significantly influenced by the pile spacing, resulting in a larger range with increased spacing. However, the variation in pile spacing has minimal impact on the vertical scouring range of the double piles. The shape of piles significantly impacts scour depth in both single and double-pile setups, with square piles resulting in deeper scour. Furthermore, increased pile numbers and narrower spacing contribute to higher scour depths. The results of this study enhance understanding of scour characteristics and offer valuable insights for designing and maintaining pile-supported open wharves, ensuring the safety and durability of waterfront structures through effective scour protection measures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".