Experimental Investigation of Evaporation and Drainage in Wettable and Water-Repellent Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents experimental results on evaporation and drainage in both wettable and water-repellent sands whose surface wettability was artificially modified by silanization. The 2D optical and 3D X-ray computed tomographic imaging was performed during evaporation and the water retention during cyclic drainage and infiltration was measured to assess effects of wettability and initial wetting conditions. The evaporation gradually induces its front at the early stage advance regardless of the wettability and sand types, while its rate becomes higher in water-repellent Ottawa sand than the wettable one. Jumunjin sand which has a smaller particle size and irregular particle shape than Ottawa sand exhibits a similar evaporation rate independent of wettability. Water-repellent sand can facilitate the evaporation when both wettable and water-repellent sands are naturally in contact with each other. The 3D X-ray imaging reveals that the hydraulically connected water films in wettable sands facilitate the propagation of the evaporation front into the soil such that the drying front deeply advances into the soil. For cyclic drainage-infiltration testing, the evolution of water retention is similar in both wettable and water-repellent sands when both are initially wet. However, when conditions are initially dry, water-repellent sands exhibit low residual saturation values. The experimental observations made from this study propose that the surface wettability may not be a sole factor while the degree of water-repellency, type of sands, and initial wetting condition are predominant when assessing evaporation and drainage behaviors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".