Comparison of Internal and Surface Erosion Using Flow Pump Tests on a Sand-Kaolinite Mixture
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the difference between surface and internal erosion processes using results from flow pump tests. Samples of 70% Ottawa sand + 30% kaolinite mixture were used with distilled water and NaCl solutions as permeants. Two kinds of tests were conducted, a surface erosion test where the permeant was pumped through a cylindrical hole of 7-mm diameter and an internal erosion test where the permeant was pumped through intact compacted samples in compaction permeameters. A simple capillary tube model was used to estimate the critical shear stresses needed to cause erosion in surface erosion experiments. It was found that although surface erosion critical shear stresses were exceeded in the intact soil samples, particle clogging in the pores and redeposition of eroded particles prevented mobilization of particles into the effluent stream. Erosion rates estimated using surface erosion parameters were significantly greater than those observed in internal erosion experiments. The results suggest that the fate of eroded particles, including particle redeposition and pore clogging, may govern the internal erosion process far more than the surface erodibility of the soil.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it