MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152764743 · doi:10.2166/wst.2021.139

Uncertainty analysis of rising sewer models with respect to input parameters and model structure using Monte Carlo simulations and computational fluid dynamics

2021· article· en· W3152764743 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Elsawy Khalil, Domenico Santoro, Damien J. Batstone, Christopher T. DeGroot

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSanitary sewerSensitivity (control systems)Computational fluid dynamicsMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceMathematicsMechanicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling conversion processes in sewers can help minimize odour and pipe corrosion issues, but model uncertainties and errors must be understood. In this study, the Wastewater Aerobic/Anaerobic Transformation in Sewers (WATS) model is implemented in two different frameworks; 1-D (CSTR-in-series) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to study the uncertainties due to model parameters and its mathematical form. The 1-D model is used to conduct uncertainty/sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. Time-averaged outputs were represented using a general linearized model to quantify the importance of specific parameters. The sulfide formation rate per unit area of the biofilm is the most influential parameter. Parameters controlling anaerobic hydrolysis and fermentation are also significant. Uncertainty due to model structure is studied using CFD to explore the influences of non-homogeneous surface reactions and solids settling. These showed that the 1-D model provides a reasonable characterisation of the process for simple flows in pressure mains.

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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207