MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086739916 · doi:10.2202/1934-2659.1119

Comparing Pressure Flow Solvers for Dynamic Process Simulation

2008· article· en· W2086739916 on OpenAlexaff
Mahyar Mohajer, Brent R. Young, William Y. Svrcek

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Product and Process Modeling · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Newton's methodNonlinear systemFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceDynamic simulationFidelityProcess (computing)Process simulationMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsControl theory (sociology)SimulationMathematicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calculation of the pressure and flow profiles of a simulation has a major effect on the fidelity, reliability, robustness and performance of the dynamic simulator. A pressure-flow (P-F) network consists of several unit operations, connected by streams, where pressure and flow relations must be calculated. The resistance and volume balance equations produce these P-F relations within the flowsheet.This study compared two different solution methods for solving the resultant nonlinear simultaneous P-F equations, namely the Referred Derivatives method introduced by Thomas in 1997 and the Newton-Raphson method. In this comparison the advantages and disadvantages of the Referred Derivative method are provided. This paper also discusses the use of the Referred Derivatives method in solving flowsheets that include unit operations with holdup.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Product and Process ModelingSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207