Evaluation on the performance of a swirling-type hydrodynamic separator using physical and numerical models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hydrodynamic separators are commonly used to control the total suspended solid concentration in stormwater before being discharged to natural water bodies. The separator studied in this paper, featuring a swirling flow generated by tangential inlet and outlet connections, was analyzed for its sediment removal efficiency in relation to sediment and flow rates. For the separator studied in this paper, the numerical model showed that the flow field was favorable for the sediments to gather at the center and settle. A higher flow rate or a smaller sediment diameter corresponded to a lower removal rate and vice versa. The dimension improvement for increasing the sediment removal rate was also studied. It was found that increasing the diameter of the separator showed a higher sediment removal rate compared with corresponding increase in the height of the separator. A dimensionless parameter J was proposed to assess the sediment removal rate of a separator, which may be used for designing and optimizing such a device. The removal rate is positively correlated with the J value. When the J value reaches 0.5 or above, the sediment removal rate exceeds 80%, which is a good initial target value for designing this type of separator.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it