MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000548656 · doi:10.1061/9780784413692.088

A Quasi-Two-Phase Flow Model for Calculating Filling in Pipelines

2014· article· en· W2000548656 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Malekpour, Bryan Karney

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater hammerMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Two-phase flowTransient (computer programming)Transient flowPipe flowAirflowMaterials sciencePipeline transportEngineeringEnvironmental scienceSurgeMechanical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsElectrical engineeringTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a quasi-two-phase flow model for simulating filling in water pipe systems. The model employs a shock-fitting algorithm for tracing the water column advancement during filling. The method of characteristics (MOC) along with discreet gas cavity model (DCGM) is utilized to capture the possible water column separation and induced water hammer pressures during filling. The state-of-the-art air valve boundary condition is improved to account for the two-phase flow usually established in the pipe on the downstream side of the air valve. The results show that the proposed model can (1) replicate the negative pressure and consequent water column separation; (2) reproduce the secondary transient pressure following the releasing of the air at air valve locations; (3) simulate controlled air release, a strategy usually employed for alleviating the severity of secondary transient events; (4) capture the final steady state flow condition even when the pipe system maintains both open channel and pressurized flow simultaneously; and (5) reproduce air binding and consequent flow reduction in the case that an air valve fails to release the air from the system.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2014Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207