MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive Hybrid Transient Formulation for Simulating Incompressible Pipe Network Hydraulics

2016· article· en· W2473924155 on OpenAlexaff
J. D. Nault, Bryan Karney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulicsTransient flowTransient (computer programming)CompressibilityPipe network analysisUnsteady flowMechanicsEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceGeologyPhysicsSurgeAerospace engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have aimed to characterize pressurized transient hydraulics. However, it remains difficult to assess the importance of dynamic effects in a robust manner, and modeling is further complicated by the tension between computational efficiency and physical accuracy. To address such challenges for incompressible flows, this article presents an adaptive modeling approach that combines a novel hybrid formulation, termed the hybrid global gradient algorithm (HGGA), with a variable time step (VTS). The HGGA combines the generalized and rigid water column global gradient algorithms, so it can adapt to inertially-dominated flows and those without such effects. Computational efficiency and physical accuracy are balanced by adjusting the formulation according to the simulated hydraulics. Three physically-based indicators are then introduced to characterize unsteady flow: these actively inform the HGGA of how to model a system. Two pipe networks are used to demonstrate the current work. The first illustrates the utility of the inertial indicators, and the second comprises an extended period simulation with the VTS scheme. Although more computationally intensive than conventional modeling, the methodology is shown to provide a better representation of dynamic hydraulics.

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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207