Simulation of Oxygen Transfer Rates in Circular Aeration Tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experiments were conducted to study the performance of circular and square tank surface aerators on the oxygen transfer coefficient and to a limited extent on power requirements. All the tanks are geometrically similar except for their shapes. They consist of a rotor of diameter, D, fixed with six flat blades rotating with a speed, N, in pure waters of viscosity, υ, at room temperature. A simulation equation to predict the oxygen transfer coefficient, k = KLa20(υ/g2)1/3 for any given dynamic parameter governing the theoretical power per unit volume, X = N3D2/(g4/3υ1/3) was developed for circular tank aerators. The data on square tank aerators support another such simulation equation developed earlier for square tanks. A comparison of results, while re-aerating the same volume of water in both the shapes of tanks, leads to the interesting conclusion that for a given rotor speed the oxygen transfer rate is substantially more in square tanks than in circular tanks; whereas for a given effective input power to the rotor the oxygen transfer rate is more in circular tanks than in square tanks. This suggests that square tanks are preferred to circular tanks to raise the oxygen concentrations at a faster rate, whereas the circular tanks are advantageous as far as power requirements are concerned.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".