Enhancement in Hydrodynamic Performance of a Quarter-Circular Breakwater Using a Porous Shield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study evaluates the hydrodynamic performance of quarter-circular breakwater (QCB) with various types of porous shields (say retrofits) under incident waves. The QCB with (i) vertical shield, (ii) seaside quarter-circular retrofit (QCR), (iii) shoreside QCR, and (iv) partial rectangular retrofit (PRR) are proposed to enhance the performance of QCB. The effect of porous shields is analyzed using the quadratic pressure drop condition and dual boundary element method (DBEM) under the framework of linearized potential flow theory. Study results are validated with the available results reported by the authors after some numerical modifications. The effect of shield porosity, and wave height on the reflection, transmission, energy loss, and vertical and horizontal forces on QCB and shield are reported as a function of relative water depth. A comparative study is performed among all the proposed breakwaters to identify an effective configuration against the incident waves. Around 39%, 30%, 31%, and 56% reduction of wave transmission is obtained for QCB with vertical shield, seaside, shoreside QCR, and PRR, respectively, when compared with QCB alone for kh=1. The wave transmission KT=0.16 and energy loss KL=0.95 are obtained when kh=2 with the addition of the PRR for a QCB, which is observed as an effective porous shield against the incident waves when compared with the other types of shields. The 10–20% retrofit porosity is recommended with clear spacing b/h=0.9 and the QCB radius of R2/h=0.7 for the effective distribution of the scattering coefficients against the incident waves.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".