3D physical modelling of wind and wave overtopping at the Billy Bishop Airport revetment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a planned development for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, new land reclamation and related marine works are required to extend both ends of the main runway into Lake Ontario. Wave conditions at the eastern end of the runway are relatively mild, as the site is sheltered inside Toronto Harbour. However, an extension at the western end of the runway will be directly exposed to strong winds, energetic wave conditions, high water levels, and winter ice conditions. An engineered revetment is required to prevent erosion, preserve stability, and protect the exposed western reclamation from attack by waves and ice. The design challenge was compounded by the requirement to minimize the frequency and extent of wave run-up and overtopping during storms as much as possible in order to avoid frequent inundation of the runway. At the same time, the crest elevation of the perimeter revetment was limited by the elevation of the existing runway and various other requirements for safe operations at the airport. A large-scale 3D physical modelling study was undertaken which played a crucial role in developing, testing, and optimizing the design of the perimeter revetment and for costing the marine works. In order to accommodate the stringent design requirements, several innovative revetment design concepts (featuring lower crest elevations, milder slopes, thicker filter layers, and thicker armour layers than normally seen in conventional designs) were tested in a wide range of harsh wave, wind, and water level conditions. With regards to wave overtopping of the perimeter revetment, specifically at the location of the navigational antenna array and jet blast deflector near the end of the runway, this study collected valuable quantitative measurements and qualitative observations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".