Stormwater Sediment Filtration Using Sand versus Synthetic Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ottawa sand and a synthetic fiber were tested for filtration of stormwater sediments. Laboratory column tests were performed using water spiked with Bentonite clay as a surrogate for sediment. Filter media column height was varied from 20 to 90 cm. 10 to 20 pore volumes of Bentonite spiked water was permeated through each filter medium. Influent turbidity and effluent turbidity were monitored. Ratios of effluent turbidity to influent turbidity and hydraulic conductivity as a function of pore volumes of flow were evaluated for each filter medium as an indicator of hydraulic efficiency. Hydraulic conductivity of Ottawa sand and Synthetic Fiber was 0.08 and 0.20 cm/s, respectively. Increase in filter column height of Ottawa sand increased the filtration efficiency as quantified by lower turbidity effluent versus pore volume. However, hydraulic conductivity decreased with increasing filtration efficiency for Ottawa sand due to clogging. Compared to Ottawa sand, filtration efficiency and hydraulic conductivity of synthetic fibers was higher throughout the experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 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".