MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010177699 · doi:10.1139/s05-023

Computational fluid dynamics application in modeling and improving the performance of a storage reservoir used as a contact chamber for microorganism inactivation

2006· article· en· W2010177699 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mahad Baawain, Mohamed Gamal El‐Din, Daniel Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaffleComputational fluid dynamicsInletTRACERStorage tankMechanicsHydraulicsEnvironmental scienceFluid dynamicsMarine engineeringPetroleum engineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling approach to simulate two tracer studies conducted, in scaled-down physical models of an existing storage tank, to investigate the effect of tank configuration on the effective contact time (t 10 ). One of the scaled-down physical models, of the storage tank, was equipped with one baffle wall at the middle length and the other was equipped with nine baffle walls distributed evenly along the reservoir length. A comparison between the experimental and modeled tracer concentration profiles showed an excellent agreement. The developed CFD model was then applied to different reservoir configurations for further investigation towards achieving t 10 improvement. The use of seven small inlets and nine baffle walls resulted in extending the t 10 from about 8 min to about 30 min (for a theoretical detention time, τ , of 32 min). Furthermore, using fewer baffle walls with different inlet arrangements enhanced the t 10 . Key words: microorganism inactivation, disinfection, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), modeling, effective contact time, storage reservoir hydraulics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207