4.8 Article

Using complex network analysis for water quality assessment in large water distribution systems

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117359

关键词

Edge betweenness centrality; mathematical graphs; network dispersion

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 31104-N29]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel complex network analysis-based approach for high-computational efficiency water quality assessment in a water distribution system is developed and successfully applied in a design study. The proposed model can identify design solutions exceeding water quality thresholds with a computational efficiency significantly better than state-of-the-art models.
Assessing and modelling the water quality in a water distribution system (WDS) are highly important to ensure a reliable supply with sufficient water quality. Owing to the high computational burden of such an analysis, frequently, simplifications are required or surrogate models are used (e.g., reducing the level of detail of the network model), neglecting significant aspects. For large (currently all-pipe) models and/or recurrent simulations (e.g., integrated studies, sensitivity analysis, deep uncertainty analysis, design, and optimization), the computational burden further increases. In this study, a novel complex network analysis-based approach for high-computational efficiency water quality assessment in a WDS is developed and comprehensively tested (R2 values in comparison with state-of-the-art nodal water qualities in median of 0.95 are achieved). The proposed model is successfully utilized in a design study to identify the design solutions exceeding water quality thresholds with a correct identification rate between 96% and 100%. The computational efficiency is determined to be a factor 4.2e-06 less than that of state-of-the-art models. Therefore, the proposed model significantly improves the water quality assessment for such tasks in large WDSs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据