Effects of submergence and test startup conditions on local scour by plane turbulent wall jets.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were carried out to study the interaction of plane turbulent wall jets with cohesionless soils during scour. The jet of water having a constant mean velocity of 1.16 m/s and thickness of 25.4 mm at the nozzle exit was set to initially flow tangentially along the sand bed with a median grain size of 2.15 mm. Both scour profile measurements and velocity measurements were obtained for a range of submergences, defined by the ratio of the tailwater depth to the nozzle opening. The results confirm the presence of two distinct types of flow fields, one that occurs at lower submergences and the other at higher submergences of the jet. At low submergences, laser Doppler anemometer measurements indicate that the jet flow is initially close to the bed and then flicks towards the water surface, whereas at the higher submergences, no such flicking movement was noticed. At higher submergences, however, the jet impingement point on the sand bed was highly unsteady. Low pass filtering of the velocity data give further details of these processes. It is seen that the movement of the impingement point for high submergences is more rapid with decreasing submergence. Furthermore, variations in scour and velocity profiles were noted in the mound region across the flume cross-section, and were found to be dependent on the level of submergence. In an effort to clarify some of the differences noted in the scour characteristics in earlier studies, the test startup conditions were varied. This includes an instantaneous, a gradual and a stepwise startup condition. The velocity measurements indicate that the flow gradually evolves to a state that is independent of the startup conditions. However, the scour profiles appear to be dependent on the startup conditions for a longer period of time.Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .D47. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-03, page: 0915. Advisers: Ram Balachandar; K. Mazurek. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".