Life-Cycle Energy Analysis of a Water Distribution System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a life-cycle energy analysis (LCEA) to quantify energy expenditures in the fabrication, use, and end-of-life stages of the pipes of a water distribution system. The methodology incorporates the capabilities of environmental input-output life-cycle analysis to quantify the energy required to fabricate pipes. The EPANET2 hydraulic model is applied in conjunction with a pipe-aging model to calculate the theoretical energy recovery in the use stage. An exponential pipe-break model is applied to quantify the energy required to repair pipe breaks during the use stage of a system. Simple formulations are developed to estimate the energy required to dispose of and recycle pipes once their service period has expired. The LCEA methodology is then applied to the New York City (NYC) water supply tunnels example to quantify energy expenditures in four planning scenarios with 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year pipe replacement frequencies. The results of the NYC example highlight the tension between the energy costs incurred in the fabrication and end-of-life stages of a system and those incurred in the use stage. A pipe-replacement period roughly equal to 50 years yielded the lowest overall energy expenditure in the three life stages. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the influence of uncertain system parameters on energy expenditure estimates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it