The Analysis of Water Supply Operating Conditions Systems by Means of Empirical Exponents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Monitoring of Hydraulic Parameters and Study Area
2.2. Modification of the FAVAD Method
- L1
- leak flow rate at adjusted pressure P1, m3/h;
- L0
- initial leak flow rate at pressure P0, m3/h;
- P1
- adjusted average zone pressure at leak flow rate L1, Pa;
- P0
- initial average zone pressure at leak flow rate L0, Pa;
- α*
- leakage exponent, -.
- average flow rate in the k-th phase of the experiment, m3/s;
- average flow rate in the n-th phase of the experiment, m3/s;
- average pressure at k-th phase of the experiment, Pa;
- average pressure in the n-th phase of the experiment, Pa;
- empirical exponent binding the average values of pressure and average values of flow rate in the k and n phases of the experiment, -.
2.3. Database
- x,y
- vectors of values of properties of compared objects in space;
- n
- number of variables.
3. Results and Discussion.
3.1. Tests on the Value of Empirical Exponents for Pressure Reduction and Increase
3.2. Classification of Operating Conditions of the Water Supply System with the Use of Unsupervised Learning
3.3. Classification of Operating Conditions of a Water Supply System Using Supervised Learning Systems
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kowalski, D.; Kowalska, B.; Bławucki, T.; Suchorab, P.; Gaska, K. Impact Assessment of Distribution Network Layout on the Reliability of Water Delivery. Water 2019, 11, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, N.A.; Farewell, T.S.; Hallett, S.H.; Acland, T.F. Improving pipe failure predictions: Factors effecting pipe failure in drinking water networks. Water Res. 2019, 114926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lousada, S.A.N. Hydraulics: Theory—Volume I; Universidade da Madeira: Funchal, Portugal, 2018; p. 348. ISBN 978-989-8805-48-5. [Google Scholar]
- Kowalski, D.; Miszta-Kruk, K. Failure of water supply networks in selected Polish towns based on the field reliability tests. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 35, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezai, A.; Keshavarzi, P.; Moravej, Z. Key management issue in SCADA networks: A review. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolzon, G.; Talassi, M. Toward a non-destructive diagnostic analysis tool of exercises pipelines: Models and experiences. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2018, 13, 648–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, R.J.; Frank, P.M.; Clark, R.N. Issues of Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2013; ISBN 1-4471-3644-6. [Google Scholar]
- Heracleous, C.; Miciolino, E.E.; Setola, R.; Pascucci, F.; Eliades, D.G.; Ellinas, G.; Panayiotou, C.G.; Polycarpou, M.M. Critical Infrastructure Online Fault Detection: Application in Water Supply Systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Critical Information Infrastructures Security, CRITIS 2014, Limassol, Cyprus, 13–15 October 2014; pp. 94–106. [Google Scholar]
- Fellini, S.; Vesipa, R.; Boano, F.; Ridolfi, L. Real-time measurement fault detection and remote-control in a mountain water supply system. EPiC Ser. Eng. 2018, 3, 698–705. [Google Scholar]
- Fayaz, M.; Ahmad, S.; Hang, L.; Kim, D. Water Supply Pipeline Risk Index Assessment Based on Cohesive Hierarchical Fuzzy Inference System. Processes 2019, 7, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datta, S.; Sarkar, S. A review on different pipeline fault detection methods. J. Loss Prevent Proc. Ind. 2016, 41, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latchoomun, L.; King, R.A.; Busawon, K. A new approach to model development of water distribution networks with high leakage and burst rates. Procedia Eng. 2015, 119, 690–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ociepa, E.; Mrowiec, M.; Deska, I. Analysis of Water Losses and Assessment of Initiatives Aimed at their Reduction in Selected Water Supply Systems. Water 2019, 11, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, M.A.; Amado, C.; Loureiro, D. Propagation of uncertainty in the water balance calculation in urban water supply systems—A new approach based on high-density regions. Measurement 2018, 126, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zyoud, S.H.; Kaufmann, L.G.; Shaheen, H.; Samhan, S.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D. A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 61, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patelis, M.; Kanakoudis, V.; Gonelas, K. Pressure management and energy recovery capabilities using PATs. Procedia Eng. 2016, 162, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, A.O. International report: Water losses management and techniques. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2002, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puust, R.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D.; Koppel, T. A review of methods for leakage management in pipe networks. Urban Water J. 2010, 7, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostapkowicz, P. Leak detection in liquid transmission pipelines using simplified pressure analysis techniques employing a minimum of standard and non-standard measuring devices. Eng. Struct. 2016, 113, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, J. A Novel Hybrid Technique for Leak Detection and Location in Straight Pipelines. J. Loss Prevent Proc. Ind. 2015, 35, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, S.; Akram, U.; Khan, S.A. WML: Wireless Sensor Network Based Machine Learning for Leakage Detection and Size Estimation. Procedia Comp. Sci. 2015, 63, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Song, Y.; Zhou, G. Leak detection of water distribution pipeline subject to failure of socket joint based on acoustic emission and pattern recognition. Measurement 2018, 115, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winkler, D.; Haltmeier, M.; Kleidorfer, M.; Rauch, W.; Tscheikner-Gratl, F. Pipe Failure Modelling for Water Distribution Networks Using Boosted Decision Trees. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 14, 1402–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knobloch, A.; Guth, N.; Klingel, P. Automated Water Balance Calculation for Water Distribution Systems. Procedia Eng. 2014, 89, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombo, A.F.; Lee, P.; Karney, B.W. A Selective Literature Review of Transient-Based Leak Detection Methods. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2009, 2, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Mansour, R.; Habib, M.A.; Khalifa, A.; Youcef-Toumi, K.; Chatzigeorgiou, D. Computational fluid dynamic simulation of small leaks in water pipelines for direct leak pressure transduction. Comput. Fluids 2012, 57, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornton, J.; Lambert, A. Progress in practical prediction of pressure: Leakage, pressure: Burst frequency and pressure: Consumption relationships. In Proceedings of the IWA Special Conference ‘Leakage 2005’, Halifax, NS, Canada, 12–14 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cheung, P.B.; Girol, G.V.; Abe, N.; Propato, M. Night flow analysis and modeling for leakage estimation in a water distribution system. In Integrating Water Systems; Boxall, J., Maksimovic, Č., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; pp. 509–513. [Google Scholar]
- Debón, A.; Carrión, A.; Cabrera, E.; Solano, H. Comparing risk of failure models in water supply networks using ROC curves. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajowniczek, K.; Ząbkowski, T.; Szupiluk, R. Estimating the ROC curve and its significance for classification models’assessment. Metody Ilościowe w Badaniach Ekonomicznych 2014, 15, 382–391. [Google Scholar]
- Soldevila, A.; Fernandez-Canti, R.M.; Blesa, J.; Tornil-Sin, S.; Puig, V. Leak localization in water distribution networks using Bayesian classifiers. J. Process. Control. 2017, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Event Number | Start Time | End Time | Event Number | Start Time | End Time | Event Number | Start Time | End Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 9 May 2017 | 10 May 2017 | 11 | 14 August 2017 | 15 August 2017 | 21 | 1 December 2017 | 2 December 2017 |
2 | 20 May 2017 | 21 May 2017 | 12 | 30 August 2017 | 31 August 2017 | 22 | 14 December 2017 | 15 December 2017 |
3 | 23 May 2017 | 24 May 2017 | 13 | 8 September 2017 | 9 September 2017 | 23 | 25 December 2017 | 26 December 2017 |
4 | 2 June 2017 | 3 June 2017 | 14 | 16 September 2017 | 17 September 2017 | 24 | 31 December 2017 | 1 January 2018 |
5 | 22 June 2017 | 23 June 2017 | 15 | 22 September 2017 | 23 September 2017 | 25 | 7 January 2017 | 8 January 2018 |
6 | 28 June 2017 | 29 June 2017 | 16 | 3 October 2017 | 04 October 2017 | 26 | 10 January 2018 | 11 January 2018 |
7 | 3 July 2017 | 4 July 2017 | 17 | 18 October 2017 | 19 October 2017 | 27 | 13 January 2018 | 14 January 2018 |
8 | 14 July 2017 | 15 July 2017 | 18 | 2 November 2017 | 3 November 2017 | 28 | 26 April 2017 | 27 April 2017 |
9 | 23 July 2017 | 24 July 2017 | 19 | 15 November 2017 | 16 November 2017 | 29 | 5 May 2017 | 6 May 2017 |
10 | 8 August 2017 | 9 August 2017 | 20 | 27 November 2017 | 28 November 2017 | 30 | 7 May 2017 | 8 May 2017 |
Event Number | Start Time | End Time | Pressure Reduction | Pressure Increase | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
αII−I | αIII−I | αIII−II | αIV−III | αV−III | αV−IV | |||
1 | 9 May 2017 | 10 May 2017 | 19.25 | 6.05 | 3.35 | 4.99 | 5.58 | 7.96 |
2 | 20 May 2017 | 21 May 2017 | 12.64 | 5.88 | 4.35 | 2.32 | 6.35 | 23.11 |
3 | 23 May 2017 | 24 May 2017 | 22.31 | 6.17 | 2.74 | 5.72 | 6.12 | 7.71 |
4 | 2 June 2017 | 3 June 2017 | 10.44 | 5.18 | 3.62 | 2.87 | 6.33 | 17.54 |
5 | 22 June 2017 | 23 June 2017 | 17.31 | 5.69 | 3.18 | 4.80 | 5.96 | 11.16 |
6 | 28 June 2017 | 29 June 2017 | 18.22 | 5.68 | 2.96 | 4.54 | 5.46 | 9.28 |
7 | 3 July 2017 | 4 July 17 | 17.74 | 5.37 | 2.70 | 4.06 | 5.09 | 9.18 |
8 | 14 July 2017 | 15 July 17 | 17.39 | 5.51 | 3.08 | 2.24 | 6.04 | 21.15 |
9 | 23 July 2017 | 24 July 17 | 16.15 | 6.30 | 3.74 | 1.36 | 5.65 | 23.30 |
10 | 8 August 2017 | 9 August 17 | 20.12 | 6.82 | 3.96 | 1.66 | 5.73 | 20.46 |
11 | 14 August 2017 | 15 August 2017 | 13.48 | 5.53 | 3.47 | −0.20 | 5.27 | 26.55 |
12 | 30 August 2017 | 31 August 2017 | 21.12 | 6.13 | 2.88 | 1.88 | 5.75 | 20.89 |
13 | 8 September 2017 | 09 September 2017 | 16.16 | 5.52 | 3.08 | 1.81 | 6.30 | 25.18 |
14 | 16 September 2017 | 17 September 2017 | 15.49 | 5.69 | 3.44 | 1.34 | 6.60 | 28.75 |
15 | 22 September 2017 | 23 September 2017 | 15.99 | 5.62 | 3.32 | 2.43 | 6.68 | 25.71 |
16 | 3 October 2017 | 4 October 2017 | 20.05 | 6.63 | 3.87 | 1.80 | 6.05 | 23.73 |
17 | 18 October 2017 | 19 October 2017 | 20.75 | 7.01 | 3.88 | 2.00 | 5.86 | 20.85 |
18 | 2 November 2017 | 3 November 2017 | 20.05 | 6.20 | 3.11 | 1.56 | 6.05 | 24.90 |
19 | 15 November 2017 | 16 November 2017 | 19.9 | 6.53 | 3.60 | 1.55 | 5.62 | 22.80 |
20 | 27 November 2017 | 28 November 2017 | 20.77 | 6.36 | 3.32 | 2.08 | 5.95 | 21.61 |
21 | 1 December 2017 | 2 December 2017 | 17.05 | 5.51 | 3.11 | 1.30 | 6.05 | 27.33 |
22 | 14 December 2017 | 15 December 2017 | 16.79 | 6.04 | 3.51 | 1.98 | 6.31 | 23.66 |
23 | 25 December 2017 | 26 December 2017 | 8.62 | 4.75 | 3.74 | −1.82 | 3.77 | 25.75 |
24 | 31 December 2017 | 1 January 2018 | 9.32 | 3.13 | 1.66 | −2.38 | 1.50 | 17.04 |
25 | 07 January 2017 | 8 January 2018 | 19.84 | 6.43 | 3.47 | 1.75 | 5.79 | 21.50 |
26 | 10 January 2018 | 11 January 2018 | 18.17 | 6.56 | 3.87 | 1.29 | 5.50 | 22.48 |
27 | 13 January 2018 | 14 January 2018 | 12.33 | 5.12 | 3.30 | 0.14 | 5.14 | 25.62 |
28 | 26 April 2017 | 27 April 2017 | 27.40 | 6.77 | 2.99 | 6.16 | 6.58 | 8.12 |
29 | 5 May 2017 | 6 May 2017 | 15.31 | 6.60 | 4.67 | 2.00 | 6.61 | 26.32 |
30 | 7 May 2017 | 8 May 2017 | −1.59 | −4.30 | 2.76 | 5.57 | 6.25 | 9.36 |
Statistics | Minimum | −1.59 | −4.30 | 1.66 | −2.38 | 1.50 | 7.71 | |
Maximum | 27.40 | 7.01 | 4.67 | 6.16 | 6.68 | 28.75 | ||
Average | 16.62 | 5.55 | 3.36 | 2.23 | 5.73 | 19.97 | ||
Median | 17.35 | 5.96 | 3.34 | 1.93 | 5.96 | 22.05 |
Phase of the Experiment | Classification Method | Accuracy of the Classifier (%) |
---|---|---|
II–I | Quadratic discriminant | 90.0 |
Naive Bayes Classifier | 90.0 | |
Support Vector Machine | 86.7 | |
III–I | Support Vector Machine | 76.7 |
Naive Bayes Classifier | 76.7 | |
Quadratic discriminant | 76.7 | |
III–II | Quadratic discriminant | 73.3 |
Support Vector Machine | 70.0 | |
k-Nearest Neighbors algorithm | 70.0 | |
IV–III | Support Vector Machine | 83.3 |
Naive Bayes Classifier | 80.0 | |
Quadratic discriminant | 76.7 | |
V–III | Linear discriminant | 76.7 |
Ensemble Classifier | 76.7 | |
Support Vector Machine | 70.0 | |
V–IV | Support Vector Machine | 70.0 |
k-Nearest Neighbors algorithm | 70.0 | |
Ensemble Classifier | 70.0 |
Phase of the Experiment | Classification Method | Accuracy of the Classification (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-Failure and Failure Condition | Working Days | Holidays | ||
II–I | Quadratic discriminant | 67 | 95 | 83 |
III–I | Support Vector Machine | 0 | 100 | 33 |
III–II | Quadratic discriminant | 0 | 100 | 17 |
IV–III | Support Vector Machine | 0 | 100 | 67 |
V–III | Linear discriminant | 0 | 100 | 33 |
V–IV | Support Vector Machine | 0 | 100 | 0 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stańczyk, J.; Burszta-Adamiak, E. The Analysis of Water Supply Operating Conditions Systems by Means of Empirical Exponents. Water 2019, 11, 2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122452
Stańczyk J, Burszta-Adamiak E. The Analysis of Water Supply Operating Conditions Systems by Means of Empirical Exponents. Water. 2019; 11(12):2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122452
Chicago/Turabian StyleStańczyk, Justyna, and Ewa Burszta-Adamiak. 2019. "The Analysis of Water Supply Operating Conditions Systems by Means of Empirical Exponents" Water 11, no. 12: 2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122452
APA StyleStańczyk, J., & Burszta-Adamiak, E. (2019). The Analysis of Water Supply Operating Conditions Systems by Means of Empirical Exponents. Water, 11(12), 2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122452