Modeling the Motion and Spread of Air Pockets within Stormwater Sewers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are important adverse effects linked to the presence of entrapped air pockets in stormwater systems.These effects include loss of conveyance, surging caused by air compression, loss of storage, and geysering.The capability to monitor the formation and motion of entrapped air pockets is highly desirable when modeling extreme rain events in stormwater systems.Experimental investigations conducted at Auburn University have led to a better understanding of important flow features related to the motion of entrapped air in closed conduit flows.Results from these studies, which are summarized in this work, have supported the development of an innovative approach to perform simulations of the air pocket motion based on Benjamin's (1968) work on air cavity motion.The proposed model accounts for surface tension in a similar manner to Wilkinson (1982) but incorporates background flows and circular cross-sections.Air motion is described with a non-Boussinesq integral gravity current model approach, assuming a steady state flow for the water.Measured and predicted values for the air pocket leading edge coordinate and celerity are compared.Results indicate that the proposed model is fairly accurate and may constitute an efficient model to describe entrapped air pocket kinematics in closed conduit flows.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".