MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315985130 · doi:10.1061/9780784413548.039

Challenges and Opportunities in Hydraulic Modeling during Business Transformation

2014· article· en· W2315985130 on OpenAlexaff
Jinghua Xiao, Steve Seidl

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsAmerican Water (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSCADAComputer scienceAsset managementGeographic information systemEngineeringBusinessGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pennsylvania-American Water, a subsidiary of American Water, provides water and wastewater service to approximately 2.2 million people throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Hydraulic models were built for all of Pennsylvania-American Water's major systems and widely used in asset management and system planning in the past decades. As American Water is now in the process of business transformation to promote operating excellence and efficiency, challenges and opportunities have been noticed in hydraulic modeling. Geographic information dystem (GIS) was selected to map all company assets, enterprise asset management (EAM) system is to record nongeographic characteristics of the assets, and customer information system (CIS) is to manage all customer-related data. A large amount of information stored in GIS, EAM, and CIS, along with data recorded in supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, serves as the foundation of the next generation of hydraulic models. This paper introduces how to build a model from GIS, assign demands using CIS billing data, and determine hydraulic gradients using EAM data. Two methods of performing hydrant flow tests are also discussed. At the end, this paper briefly lists typical model applications widely used in Pennsylvania-American Water planning activities and some potential uses in the near future.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207