MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289260817 · doi:10.2166/wst.2022.235

Evaluation of using a porous medium approach to simulate flat-sheet membrane bioreactors

2022· article· en· W4289260817 on OpenAlexaff
Danmei Chen, B. Lakghomi, Yuri Lawryshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityCalibrationPorous mediumTurbulenceFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMaterials scienceComputational fluid dynamicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The porous medium approach has been applied by others to study the global hydrodynamics in hollow-fiber (HF) membrane bioreactors (MBR). This study explores the usability of the porous medium approach for flat-sheet (FS) MBR and introduces a CFD-based numerical calibration of the porous parameters. Two key modeling strategies are suggested to ensure the pressure prediction accuracy: (1) use SST k - ω turbulence model incorporated with an intermittency transition model (SSIT); (2) considerate two-phase flow during the calibration. The results showed that SSIT significantly improved the pressure prediction of the flow between two sheets. Also, unlike HF MBR, the gas phase was observed to be non-negligible during the calibration for FS MBR. The numerically calibrated porous parameters were then applied in a three-dimensional simplified model (SPM), where multiple membrane sheets were treated as one porous zone. The SPM was compared with a realistic model (RM), where all membrane sheets were simulated directly. A similar pressure distribution was observed in both models; however, local flow characteristics (i.e., the acceleration of the flow entering the module zone) were not reflected in the SPM. Hence, it is recommended to use the porous medium approach for global hydrodynamics investigation when the local flow characteristics are not of interest.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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