MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114325884 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r225-20

Investigation of Rapid Filling of Empty Pipes

2006· article· en· W2114325884 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsPipeline (software)Mains electricityForensic engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyEngineeringElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water mains are periodically subjected to maintenance, in which drain and refill of pipeline sections is a required practice. There is the possibility of damage to the water main during such operations, even when air relief valves and vacuum breakers are properly placed or the drain and refill are conducted slowly. Current research on this and related applications has resulted in different numerical models to simulate the rapid filling process (Liou and Hunt, 1996; Izquierdo et al. 1999) based on the assumption that a vertical interface can represent the water inflow front. Models to simulate the rapid filling of stormwater sewers have also used this assumption, as exemplified by Zhou et al. (2002). Research on the rapid filling of initially empty pipes was conducted at the National School of Engineering of Tunis (Tunisia) and the University of Michigan. This research was conducted to gain a better understanding of the filling process in closed pipes and thus try to optimize the filling operations and minimize the risk of damages. An experimental investigation was performed to characterize the inflow front and assess the validity of the vertical front assumption. In these experiments, the upstream reservoir head and the pipe slope were varied, and the inflow front was measured and characterized with the aid of digital camcorders. A piezo-resistive pressure transducer was also used to record the pressure during the filling process. Among other findings, this investigation demonstrated that inflow fronts do not always close the pipe cross-section, invalidating the vertical interface assumption even when proposed criteria for this assumption to be applicable have been satisfied. Two different numerical models, based on the rigid column analysis proposed by Liou and Hunt (1996) and the shock-capturing technique developed by Vasconcelos et al. (2006) were used in this investigation to assess their predictive abilities in simulating the rapid filling of empty pipes. This assessment showed that while the rigid column model reproduces certain aspects of the observed flow, the shock-capturing model was capable of resolving more of the essential features of the flow.

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 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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.166 · 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