MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400287297 · doi:10.1121/10.0027713

Leak detection in an operational underground water distribution network using active acoustics

2024· article· en· W4400287297 on OpenAlexaff
Pranav Agrawal, Stan Fong, Dirk Friesen, Sriram Narasimhan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNorthern Digital (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeak detectionAcousticsLeakComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPhysicsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaks present in the water distribution networks (WDNs) lead to an enormous loss of a valuable resource, not only affecting the economic efficiency of water utilities but also posing significant potential safety hazards, and an increased burden on infrastructure maintenance. In the past, several studies have focused on passive acoustic-based leak detection by primarily sensing and analyzing the acoustic signals emitted from the leak source. In this study, we installed a low-frequency transducer in the water column of an operational WDN near Los Angeles, California, and excited the system using steady-state sinusoidal and sine burst signals. The acoustic pressure signals inside the pipe network were measured at multiple locations using state-of-the-art hydrophone-enabled devices retrofitted to fire hydrants. The experiments were conducted in the presence of a simulated leak in the network. The leak acts as an impedance discontinuity for the acoustic wave propagation, and therefore, the excited signals undergo partial reflection at the leak location. Based on signal processing techniques, we attempt to detect and localize the leaks in the WDN. The goal of using the active acoustics is to detect small leaks and increase the range of sensing.

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 score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207