Determining the Relevance of Commonly Used Hydraulic Parameters for Representing the Water Erosive Force in Rock Mass Erosion within Dam Spillways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spillways are essential control structures in hydroelectric dams for evacuating excess water during periods of high-water flow. These structures are generally excavated within a rock mass, without lining, and they take the form of a flow channel or a plunge pool. Rock mass erosion is an important issue facing engineers when designing unlined spillways. Methods commonly used to analyze this phenomenon are based on the threshold line concept, i.e., the correlation between rock mass resistance and its destruction against the erosive force of water. Multiple indices have been proposed for both rock mass quality and water energy (or erosive force) to assess rock mass erosion. The selection of appropriate indices is critical when evaluating hydraulic erosion. The erosive force of water is often represented by energy dissipation; however, other parameters, including average flow velocity and shear stress at the bottom of the flow channel, may also be relevant. Thus, a critical question is framed: which index best represents the erosive force of water? Here, we develop an approach to assess the applicability of the various indices used to represent the erosive force of water by relying on erosional events at more than 100 study sites. We determine that the most relevant parameters are linked to water pressure, as pressure head and flow velocity better explain the erosive force of the water than shear stress and water dissipation energy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".