An Integrated Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling Approach for Roadside Bio-Retention Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roadside bio-retention (RBR) facilities are low impact development practices, which control urban runoff primarily from road pavements. Using hydrologic models, such as the US EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), RBR are typically designed with some fundamental assumptions, including where runoff completely enters the facilities and fully utilizes the whole surface area for percolation, detention, filtration, and infiltration to the surrounding soils. This paper highlights the importance of inlet hydraulics and the spatial distribution of inflow along a RBR, and proposes an integrated hydraulic and hydrologic modelling approach to simulate its overall runoff control performance. The integrated hydraulic/hydrologic modelling approach consists of three components: (1) A dual drainage hydrologic model to simulate runoff generation, runoff hydrographs entering and bypassing a storm inlet, and the outflow hydrograph from a fully utilized RBR; (2) a computational fluid dynamic model to determine the inflow distribution along a RBR; and (3) an overall runoff control performance analysis of RBR by considering the inlet efficiency, and the partially and fully utilized RBR during a storm event. A case study of an underground RBR in the City of Toronto was used to demonstrate the integrated modelling approach. It is concluded that; (1) inlet efficiency of a RBR will determine the overall runoff control performance; and (2) the inflow distribution will dictate the effective length of a RBR, which may affect the overall runoff control performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".