Choking conditions inside plunging flow dropshafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe rain events can subject our existing drainage systems to capacity. While the conveyance capacity of sewers can be increased by temporarily tolerating a full pipe flow condition, the complex dynamics of water–air mixture occurring in vertical dropshafts can largely restrict the overall conveyance capacity of drainage systems. In this study, the hydraulic performance of plunging flow dropshafts is investigated experimentally with respect to their conveyance capacity. The model dropshaft consisted of an upstream horizontal inflow pipe, a vertical circular shaft, and an outflow pipe discharging to the atmosphere. Five setups were built with Ds/Difrom 1.0 to 3.0 for the range of drop heights H/Ds= 3.0 to 21.0, where Diis the inlet pipe diameter, Dsthe shaft diameter, and H the drop height. A wide range of discharges up to Q* = 25 was tested, where Q* = Q/(gDi5)(1/2). Flow patterns recognized within the shaft (free flow, surface roller, plug flow, slug flow, and full pipe flow) help to assess the two stages of choking: the incipient and fully choked state. Criteria to predict choking occurrences were developed experimentally. The flow is considered to reach its conveyance capacity when an incipient choking state is visible. For a typical dropshaft with Ds/Di= 2, Q* was found to be approximately 5.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".