Investigating incomplete mixing models in cross junctions under real-world conditions of water distribution networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Questions have been raised about the correctness of water quality models with complete mixing assumptions in cross junctions of water distribution systems. Recent developments in the mixing phenomenon within cross junctions of water distribution networks (WDNs) have heightened the need for evaluating the existing incomplete mixing models under real-world conditions. Therefore, in this study, two cross junctions with pipe diameters of 100 × 100 × 100 × 100 mm and 150 × 150 × 150 × 150 mm were employed in laboratory experiments to evaluate six existing incomplete mixing models for 25 flow rate scenarios ranging between 1.5 and 3.0 L/s. It was observed that within the same flow rate scenario, the degree of mixing in a cross junction with a pipe relative roughness of 6.00 × 10−5 (pipe diameter of 25 mm) was higher than that in a cross junction with a pipe relative roughness of 3.00 × 10−5 (pipe diameter of 50 mm) and smaller. Considering the real-world size of pipes in evaluating the incomplete mixing models showed that two incomplete mixing models, AZRED and the one by Shao et al., had the best accordance with the results of the laboratory experiments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".