MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W566747533 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r223-03

A Lifecycle Cost Based Design Optimization Model for Stormwater Management Systems

2005· article· en· W566747533 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jinhui Jeanne Huang‬‬‬‬, William James, Rob James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormwater managementSystem lifecycleApplication lifecycle managementComputer scienceStormwaterSystems engineeringEngineeringSurface runoff

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents a novel approach to optimizing the design of stormwater management systems based on lifecycle cost.A new mathematical model coupled with PCSWMM, and Genetic Algorithms are employed to search for a global optimal design solution for a new stormwater management system.The model also ensures that the global optimization meets a set of design constraints including design guidelines and objectives.With the implementation and integration of graph theory and search algorithms in the advanced optimization model, this mathematical model can not only identify the best mix of pipe sizes for a given layout of pipes, but can also configure and size new stormwater management network components in a formal way rather than in an intuitive fashion.A deterministic method that can construct a multi-root shortest-path tree is developed for a network configuration.The method is based on a modified form of Dijkstra's algorithm.A layered assignment method is also developed for pipe sizing and pipe slope determination.Lifecycle cost is used as the evaluation function for design optimization.An environmental cost, viz.flood damage lifecycle cost, is evaluated in the design optimization process as well.A detailed design configuration and a unit cost database are used instead of an empirical cost estimation function to conduct the cost estimation.The approach implemented in this study makes the cost consideration more comprehensive and the result more accurate than the traditional approach.The model thus improves the design quality significantly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207