A Modelling Analysis of Urban Stormwater Flow Regimes and their Implication for Stream Erosion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stream erosion is a major issue in stormwater management. The objectives of this research are to investigate by means of computer modelling: (a) the flow-duration characteristics of a receiving stream before and after urbanization; (b) the implication of flow regime changes on stream erosion potential with and without control measures (e.g., extended detention basins and source control); and (c) the maximum degree of urbanization, for which stream erosion may be unavoidable regardless of the stormwater control measures applied. The U.S. EPA Stormwater Management Model was used in the analysis of flowduration characteristics of a small northern Ontario watershed. It was found that flow-duration characteristics of the stream could change significantly after urbanization. Although no stream erosion was modelled in this investigation, the change in flow regimes after urbanization may indicate potential stream bed and/or channel erosion. Extended detention basins with short detention times (24-h) could control flow-duration characteristics at low flow rates better than those with long detention times (48-h). Both extended detention basins and source control measures should be applied in order to bring the flow duration curve after urbanization back to its original position. If the watershed were to be urbanized beyond 40% of imperviousness, it may not be possible to bring the flow duration curve back to its original position in spite of the various source control measures and detention basins used. The optimal location of detention ponds for erosion control depends upon the range of flows, which control the stability of the stream.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".