Robust Booster Disinfection Scheduling Using Incomplete Mixing Water Quality Model (EPANET-IMX)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the realm of practical water distribution systems (WDS), uncertainties in hydraulic and water quality modeling affect the management of WDS making it a multifaceted challenge. Furthermore, the incorporation of water quality considerations into WDS design and management has become paramount, necessitating the use of precise water quality models. The conventional water quality models employed in drinking WDS have faced inaccuracy due to their underlying assumption of instantaneous and complete mixing at junctions. To address this limitation, recent models such as EPANET-IMX (Incomplete Mixing Extension), EPANET-BAM, and AZRED have emerged, incorporating empirical equations to model the nuances of incomplete mixing. These advancements offer improved accuracy for water quality analysis within WDS. However, the presence of uncertainty in disinfectant reaction rates also presents an obstacle to achieving optimal water quality management. Within such systems, determining the scheduling of booster disinfectant dosages is a challenge. In response, this study seeks to determine the optimal dosage schedule for booster disinfectants while accounting for fluctuations in bulk reaction rate coefficients and acknowledging incomplete mixing at junctions. To tackle this uncertain optimization problem, robust optimization principles are employed. The study applies these principles to a small-scale network as an illustrative example, showcasing robust optimal schedules. Two water quality models, namely EPANET and EPANET-IMX, are utilized for water quality simulations. The resulting optimal schedules are compared and analyzed across all three models. It was observed that considering the incomplete mixing varied the optimal booster dosage by about 10%. The findings emphasized the importance of considering incomplete mixing in both water quality analysis and optimization endeavors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".