MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399157590 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110522

Comparing the 3D Flow Behavior Around Different Bridge Pier Shapes Using CFD-Fluent: Implications for Reducing Local Scour

2024· article· en· W4399157590 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPierComputational fluid dynamicsFluentFlow (mathematics)Structural engineeringGeologyMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanicsPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study deals with simulation of 3D-flow around three different types of bridge pier shapes on a flatbed surface.The main objective of this article is to explore how water flows around various types of bridge piers.In this article, the CFD-Fluent (k-epsilon) turbulence model was used to simulate the flow turbulence around untraditional piers named upstream facing aero-foiled shaped pier (US-FASP) and downstream facing aero-foiled shaped pier (DS-FASP) and were compared with the circular pier, Results from the experiments were compared to the expected flow velocity (m/s), turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), and other variables.The results of the threedimensional simulation of the water flow behavior and turbulent kinetic energy around the three various designs of bridge piers support that.The findings suggest that (DS-FASP) is the most effective sort of form to employ since it allows water to flow around it extremely smoothly, resulting in minimal obstruction of the water flow in addition to the lowest TKE.In this investigation, root mean errors were used.mean squared errors (MSE), mean absolute errors (MAE), and both the correlation coefficient (R) and the root mean square error (RMSE).The findings also demonstrated that the type of form (DS-FASP) outperformed pavements with other diverse shapes in terms of performance.From this, it was found that the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and longitudinal velocity (u) had mean least square errors (MSE) of 1.5E-0 and 7.6E-08, respectively, and coefficients (R 2 ) of 0.92 and 0.98.The shape of a wake vortex in a wake region is captured by the (k-epsilon) model.The k-epsilon turbulence model showed good similarities with the experimental results.The study's findings suggest that local cleaning in the vicinity of bridge piers can be scaled back in the future.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.203 · 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