Coupled CFD–DEM modeling of surface erosion in granular soils: simulation of erosion function apparatus experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a numerical modeling approach that couples the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with the discrete element method (DEM) to simulate grain-scale soil erosion processes induced by water flows. In this modeling framework, CFD simulates fluid flows by solving the volume-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, and uses the k–ω turbulent model for turbulent flows. Simultaneously, DEM computes the displacement of solid particles by incorporating the fluid–particle interactions driven by fluid flows while adhering to Newton’s laws of motion. These interactions encompass drag force, buoyancy force, pressure-gradient force, and viscous force exerted by fluid flows and acting on the particles. The coupled CFD–DEM modeling adeptly replicates soil erosion processes, demonstrating good alignment with results obtained from laboratory erosion function apparatus tests. In particular, the DEM facilitates the estimation of shear stress acting on the soil surface based on fluid–particle interaction forces, which has been roughly approximated by empirical or semi-empirical models. This study underscores the capability of coupled CFD–DEM in providing valuable insights into the grain-scale behavior of soil particles subjected to fluid flows, with the potential for extension to address soil erosion and fines migration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".