MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069482161 · doi:10.1139/l10-082

A global modeling approach to the hydraulic performance evaluation of a sewer network

2010· article· en· W2069482161 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yves Dion, Saâd Bennis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHôpital Notre-DameEspace pour la vie
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHydrographFlow routingRouting (electronic design automation)Surface runoffNonlinear systemNode (physics)Flow (mathematics)InflowComputer scienceHydrology (agriculture)Civil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an objective methodology for evaluating hydraulic sewer networks performance. Two methods of computing hydraulic performance index are presented. One method uses the nonlinear reservoir model to generate runoff hydrograph at outlets of each of the drainage basins at street section scale level. Dynamic wave equations are used for routing these hydrographs through the drainage network to obtain flow depth and level within pipes and manholes. The second method computes this index using a generalized rational hydrograph model applied to the entire upstream basin, aggregated as a single node. The hydraulic model uses a simple energy balance equation applied to each evaluated individual sewer. The case study compares these approaches by applying the methodology to small hypothetical and real networks. Slightly better results were obtained with the generalized rational method than with the nonlinear reservoir method. The generalized rational method was able to forecast measured discharges at the outlet of subcatchments with a level of accuracy acceptable to sewer network management and evaluation needs.

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)0.001
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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207