MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330164569 · doi:10.1061/40976(316)669

Influence of Flow Development Time on the Residence Time Distribution and Flow Pattern in a Scale Model of a Water Treatment Plant Clearwell

2008· article· en· W2330164569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xiaoli Yu, Kerry A. Mazurek, Gordon Putz, Cory Albers

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFroude numberBaffleTRACERResidence time distributionFlow (mathematics)Dispersion (optics)Residence time (fluid dynamics)MechanicsFlow visualizationEnvironmental sciencePlug flowWeirFlow measurementScale (ratio)Volumetric flow rateHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringGeographyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results of scale model testing of. the Glenmore Water Treatment Plant NE Clearwell in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This clearwell has a perforated baffle wall at its inlet, a 4-pass serpentine system, and a weir at the outlet. The model was operated based on Froude similarity and had a scale of 1:19. Tracer studies and flow visualization were carried out for three flow rates. From the residence time distribution developed from the tracer tests, it was seen the baffle factor and Morril Dispersion index were affected by the time between when the flow in the model and tracer test was initiated. It took approximately 10 h of flow development time for the results to reach steady-state values for the minimum flow rate. At higher flows, the baffle factor was not as strongly affected by flow development time, however the Morril Dispersion index better matched prototype values at longer times.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.146
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008Same topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207