MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313704979 · doi:10.1061/40792(173)57

Water Distribution System Reliability Under a Fire Flow Condition: A Probabilistic Approach

2005· article· en· W2313704979 on OpenAlexaff
Júlio Gomes, Bryan Karney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Probabilistic logicFlow (mathematics)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceProbability distributionReliability engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the technical literature concerned with the design of water distribution systems (WDS), the term `fire flow' is often associated with three distinct challenges: to estimate the actual fire flow needed to fight a fire; to estimate the availability of fire flow in a specific WDS; or, to evaluate the potential impacts of fire flow on WDS reliability. The first two challenges are generally addressed from a deterministic perspective, and, although some probabilistic approaches exist for solving the latter one, they seldom address fire flows explicitly. In general, fire flows are considered as part of a unique nodal flow probability distribution for reliability analysis purposes. Yet one significant question remains consistently unanswered: what is the WDS reliability given that a fire situation occurs? The objective of this study is to present a methodology which can be used to evaluate the WDS reliability under a fire condition. To this end, two different probability distributions are assessed for the nodal flows: one representing the base demands and the other representing the fire flow demands. A Monte Carlo method is used to generate the flows, and steady-state hydraulic, simulations are performed to derive both nodal and system reliability indexes for a WDS under a fire condition.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207