Improving incomplete mixing modeling for junctions of water distribution networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most of the existing water quality models for water distribution networks assume complete mixing at junctions. Albeit few models offer the possibility to consider incomplete mixing (IM) at junctions, most of them were developed under laboratory conditions and for equal pipe size junctions. In real-world distribution networks, however, cross junctions of 150 × 100 × 150 × 100 mm or 100 × 150 × 150 × 150 mm are common, yet no model has been developed for these configurations. This paper presents a new equation to compute concentrations in cross junction outlets while considering IM for six cross junction configurations, including unequal pipe sizes and 150 mm pipes. For each cross junction configuration, mixing was studied under 25 flow scenarios in the laboratory and 40 simulated flow scenarios using OpenFOAM software. Two new flow rate ratios were selected as independent variables to compute different outlet concentrations. For two specific cross junctions with equal pipe sizes, the root-mean-squared error between the observed and simulated concentrations of the newly developed model was 0.02, while it was 0.05 and 0.07, respectively, for the AZRED IM model and the Shao et al. IM model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".