Dam Break Flow Benchmarks: Quo Vadis?

1. Research content

This deposit contains the version copy-edited before the conference of the paper presented at, and included in the proceedings of, the 16th International Workshop of SPHERIC, the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Research and Engineering International Community, held in Catania, Italy on 7-9 June 2022. The high-resolution figures are also distributed as individual files; their full list is tabulated below. All files are open-access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Moreover, Section 2 contains retrospective notes on the composition of the paper and Section 3 lists the versions of this deposit. The DOI 10.5281/zenodo.6391457 always resolves to the latest version of the deposit.

The table of contents of the paper is:

• Abstract
• I. A Benchmark for Sudden Water Arrivals
• II. Simulation Workflow
• III. Selected Simulation Results
  • A. Flow Fields
    • Boundary layer separations
    • Approaching the viscous sublayer
    • Chaotic motion
    • Notes on direct turbulence modelling
  • B. Pressure Measurements at the Wall
    • Signals in the time domain
    • Spectra in the frequency domain
    • Notes on pressure spectra as a diagnostic tool for simulations
• IV. Forward-Looking Remarks
• Acknowledgements
• References

2. Document composition

2.1 Document composition: content assemblage

After having had one-page summaries reviewed and ranked by anonymous peers, the organisers asked the speakers to submit a paper of maximum 8 pages, providing a two-column template for IEEE Conference Proceedings. The paper in this record has been created typesetting a LaTeX source code.

Not unusually for conferences, the deadlines catalysed advancement with respect to the proposed summary. A few findings worth of emphasis were identified while drafting the manuscript. Likewise, composing the text stimulated fresh interpretations, which required additional triaging before being promoted to highlights/insights worth proposing.

Therefore, in order to accommodate for rapid cycles of hypothesis (re)formulation, analysis, (re-)evaluation and incorporation, the first draft was arranged into the canonical sectioning for journal articles in science and technology: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. These sections provided convenient bins where candidate content of varying persistence was routed into based on it anticipated valence. This first round of composition resulted into a 12-page first draft.

2.2 Document composition: shortening

The manuscript has then been shrunk to 8 pages interleaving several passes of a three-pronged strategy, aiming at coherence and clarity (in the content) and a compact management of the page space (in the container).

At the level of sections and paragraphs, coherence was enhanced upon grouping consistent information into single paragraphs and signalling the internal logic with transition words. These passes also invited reshuffling the canonical sectioning, for example upon splitting the content of the Discussion into subsections of the Results. While a new structure developed organically, the section titles were renamed altogether to guide the reader directly into restricted topics, as shown in the final table of contents. All these operations made the article immediately more succinct and reduced the space taken without sacrificing the content.

At the level of sentences, clarity was firstly enhanced by simply removing text, images and table parts, whether because of their apparent redundancy or in a kill-your-darlings mode. Making use of the LaTeX way of composing documents, the old text could merely be commented out, conveniently storing old ideas for later re-use. Secondly, tightening up phrases and expressions as well as using keywords from speciality fields in lieu of paraphrases gave additional clarity and conciseness.

Finally, unnecessary empty space was removed upon arranging smaller images in panels and sharing the original-size figures separately as supplementary material; presenting the axis quantities in the figure captions rather than in their labels; and moving supplementary information from the text body to the footnotes. This required some passes of editing and typesetting in order to make sure that the built-in whitespace administration of LaTeX actually produced a visually compact document.

2.3 Document composition: release

At the end of this work, the 8-page release candidate underwent a round of final checks of the co-authors', in case linguistic editing had introduced uncertain or unclear statements. This resulted into version 1.1, as published in both the proceedings and Zotero. Residual fixes and improvements --- identified with a fresh pair of eyes after several days of detachment from the document --- eventually led to a version 1.2. Both versions, each with its own DOI, were uploaded ahead of the conference and embargoed until its start date. Conveniently, Zenodo also generates a special DOI that always points to the latest version of the record.

The DOI of this record was reserved upon creating an unpublished Zenodo entry while drafting the manuscript. The DOI is mentioned in the Acknowledgements in the paper to inform the viewers of the possibility to download the paper and its figures after the conference. The record's publication date is the start date of the conference.

3. Versions of this deposit

The latest version of this record can be retrieved from the DOI 10.5281/zenodo.6391457.

_{Description authored by Giordano Lipari}