MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061766016 · doi:10.2166/wst.2012.106

Experimental and CFD simulation studies of wall shear stress for different impeller configurations and MBR activated sludge

2012· article· en· W2061766016 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Ratkovich, C.C.V. Chan, Thomas Ruby Bentzen, Michael R. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsShear stressImpellerMembrane foulingMembraneMaterials scienceFoulingMembrane bioreactorFiltration (mathematics)MechanicsMechanical engineeringProcess engineeringEngineeringChemistryComposite materialMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have been used successfully in biological wastewater treatment for effective solids-liquid separation. However, a common problem encountered with MBR systems is fouling of the membrane resulting in frequent membrane cleaning and replacement which makes the system less appealing for full-scale applications. It has been widely demonstrated that the filtration performances in MBRs can be improved by understanding the shear stress over the membrane surface. Modern tools such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can be used to diagnose and understand the shear stress in an MBR. Nevertheless, proper experimental validation is required to validate CFD simulation. In this work experimental measurements of shear stress induced by impellers at a membrane surface were made with an electrochemical approach and the results were used to validate CFD simulations. As good results were obtained with the CFD model (<9% error), it was extrapolated to include the non-Newtonian behaviour of activated sludge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207