Minimum Pressure Criterion in Water Distribution Systems: Challenges and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criteria which stipulate the minimum pressure at which water is to be delivered to customers from a water distribution system (WDS) differ around the world. Thus, interestingly, the pressure delivered to a customer might be judged high enough to meet standards in some countries, while water delivered under the same pressure in other countries is considered unacceptable. This paper provides a description of consequences and implications of changes in the minimum pressure criterion (MPC) to WDS design. Reducing the MPC may cause a decrease in pressure-based demands such as faucet, showers, and lawn watering and also improve system performance through reduced energy use, leakage, and the frequency of pipe breaks. However, lowering this criterion may make the system more susceptible to low pressure failures, either hydraulic (e.g., an inability to supply the required flow) or safety related (e.g., increasing the risk of an intrusion event associated with hydraulic transients). Therefore, there should be a clear understanding of the consequences and challenges prior to changes the MPC. Moreover, policies to control and avoid low pressure events are seldom fully linked to the value of the minimum pressure standard and the issue how the MPC is enforced/ensured in WDSs. The inter-related issues associated with MPC are raised here as important but neglected issues.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".