MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991843193

Influência do coeficiente de rugosidade de manning no estudo de ruptura de barragens : estudo de caso da Barragem do Salto

2023· other· pt· W6991843193 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) · 2023
Typeother
Languagept
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Noise (video)Line (geometry)Tilt (camera)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brazil, Federal Law 14.066/2020 consolidated the mandatory Emergency Action Plan preparation criteria for a greater number of dams than Law 12.334/2010.To determine the risk classification associated with the dam and to delimit the map of the Self-Saving Zone, dam breach studies are required to estimate the extent of damage that a possible breach can cause downstream of the dam.Such studies need some input parameters, among them the specification of the roughness coefficient, being common the use of the Manning's coefficient.In this article, we sought to evaluate the influence of Manning's roughness coefficient in a case study with the hypothetical failure of the Salto dam.For this purpose, three different values for the roughness coefficient were used: 0.035, 0.06, and 0.11 sm -1/3 , and the respective rupture wave propagation results obtained using the hydrodynamic modeling software HEC-RAS version 6.1 in the two-dimensional module were compared.The results indicate that, in the range of values considered for the Manning roughness coefficient, the differences in the respectively obtained inundation areas are not very relevant.The analysis of other parameters characterizes the flood wave, meaning the maximum flow rates and depths of the runoff, also did not show significant differences among the three simulations.However, it is noted that changes in Manning's coefficients impact more significantly the maximum velocities of the flood wave and peak wave's arrival time.Resumo: No Brasil, a Lei Federal 14.066/2020 consolidou os critérios de obrigatoriedade da elaboração do Plano de Ação de Emergência para um número maior de barragens em relação à Lei 12.334/2010.Para determinar a classificação do risco associado à barragem e delimitar o mapa da Zona de Autossalvamento são necessários estudos de rompimento de barragens que estimem a extensão do dano que uma possível ruptura pode causar a jusante do barramento.Tais estudos necessitam de alguns parâmetros de entrada, dentre eles a determinação do coeficiente de rugosidade, sendo comum a consideração do coeficiente de Manning.Neste artigo, buscou-se avaliar a influência do coeficiente de rugosidade de Manning em um estudo de caso com a ruptura hipotética da barragem

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)French-language works237,207