Air-Water Interactions that Generate Large Water Lift through Vertical Shafts in Stormwater Conduits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storm and combined sewer collection systems can fill rapidly during large precipitation events leading to a dynamic condition referred to as geysering in which an intense upward movement of a mixture of air and liquid rises through a vertical shaft well above the grade elevation.In some instances, the untreated liquid mixture jets tens of meters above the ground surface posing safety risks and flooding hazards.To date, most discussions of the rapid filling of stormwater systems present analyses of inertia-induced surges in the system.Numerical modeling such as that presented by Cardle and Song (1988) and Guo and Song (1991) have only considered single phase (water) flow phenomena to simulate the occurrence of geysers.Lewis et al. (2011) andWright et al. (2011) present pressure data for a geyser event in a stormwater tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota that indicates the geyser could not have been produced by an inertial surge since the hydraulic grade line remained more than 20 m below grade during a series of geysers that jetted 15 m to 20 m into the air.Laboratory studies conducted by the authors and others (Wright et al., 2003; Vasconcelos and Wright, 2005a;Wright et al., 2007) pointed to the role of discrete pockets of entrapped air in geyser formation.During the course of the study by Vasconcelos and Wright (2005b), observations were made of the interaction of a large trapped pocket of pressurized air migrating along the 9.4 cm diameter pipe crown with a 2.5 cm diameter ventilation shaft approximately 50 cm high and surcharged to an initial water depth of about 25 cm.Two distinct jets of water were observed, first as the front of the air pocket arriving at the shaft forced water out the top of the shaft ahead of it and then as the trailing end of the air pocket left the pipe and water refilled the ventilation
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".