Benchmarking leakage from water reticulation systems in South Africa

Seago, Caryn; Bhagwan, Jay; McKenzie, Ronnie

doi:10.4314/wsa.v30i5.5162

Cited by 22 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current ILI is 9 and the leakage represents approximately 20 % of the drinking water produced. The ILI of 9 is defined as 'very bad' according to the World Bank Institute Banding system (Seago et al 2005). Gothenburg spent around 0.6 million € per year on leak detection in 2007-2012, corresponding to 7 % of the operation and maintenance costs for distributing drinking water, including pumping costs.…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Uncertainty Analysis of Water Loss Reduction Measures: Case Study of the Gothenburg Drinking Water Distribution System

Malm

Moberg

Rosén

et al. 2015

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods for controlling leakage from water distribution systems vary with respect to cost and personnel requirements. The benefits of leakage reduction should be compared to the cost of alternative management options to determine which is the most cost effective. This study presents a new method for evaluating leakage from water distribution systems via combined cost benefit analysis (CBA) and uncertainty analysis. The case study considers four alternatives for leakage control. The results show that the inclusion of uncertainty analysis represents an improvement over traditional CBA where there is a high degree of uncertainty in the input data. Moreover, a clearer understanding of the available alternatives is obtained in situations where multiple alternatives show similar performances and there is no clear best choice. It was determined that in the case study distribution system, it is significantly more cost-effective to reduce leakage volumes by reactively repair broken pipes than to proactively replace them, despite large leakage losses. Abbreviations CARLCurrent annual real losses; leakage on transmission and/or distribution mains, at utility storage tanks and on service connections up to point of costumer metering CBA Cost benefit analysis DFM District flow meters for flow measurement on the distribution network DMA District-metered areas, a sectioned zone of a WDS where the flow can be univocally measured ILI Infrastructure leakage index, representing the ratio of CARL and UARL (Lambert et al. 1999) NPVNet present value is defined as the sum of the present values of cash flows over a period of time SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition, a communication system WDS Water distribution system UARL Unavoidable annual real losses is the lowest technically achievable real losses and depend on service connection density, system pressure and the average length of the service connection pipes between the water mains and the consumer's water meters.

show abstract

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Uncertainty Analysis of Water Loss Reduction Measures: Case Study of the Gothenburg Drinking Water Distribution System

Malm

Moberg

Rosén

et al. 2015

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Water pressure notably affects water loss, but also influences the actual demand of users. Water loss from leaks and bursts can be calculated using software, such as PrimeWorks software (Alkasseh et al, 2015) and the locally developed Benchleak and Presmac software suites (Seago et al, 2004;McKenzie, 2001;McKenzie et al, 2002). Software tools typically rely on accurate input data, which may not necessarily be available.…”

Section: Water Consumption and Savings Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Baseline adjustment methodology in a shared water savings contract under serious drought conditions

Jacobs

Plessis

Nel

et al. 2020

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baselines are often employed in shared water saving contracts for estimating water savings after some type of intervention by the water service company. An adjustment to the baseline may become necessary under certain conditions. Earlier work has described a number of relatively complex methods for baseline determination and adjustment, but application in regions faced with relatively limited data becomes problematic. If the adjustment were determined before finalising the contractual matters, it would be possible to gather the required data in order to determine the adjustment. However, in cases where no adjustment was fixed prior to the contract, a method is required to determine an adjustment mid-contract based on whatever data are available at the time. This paper presents a methodology for baseline adjustment in an existing shared water savings contract and explains how adjustment could be determined mid-contract, under conditions of limited data. The adjustment compensates for expected reduced water consumption due to external influences induced by serious water restrictions, typically introduced during periods of drought. The fundamental principle underpinning the baseline adjustment methodology presented in this paper involved segregating real water losses from the actual consumption of end-users, preferably by analysing the minimum night flow. In the absence of recorded night flows, an alternative procedure involving the minimum monthly consumption pre- and post-baseline was employed. The baseline adjustment method was subsequently applied in a South African case study, reported on separately. This technique is helpful because adjustments could be determined without adding unnecessary complexity or cost, and provides a means to resolve disputes in cases where unexpected savings occur mid-contract.

show abstract

“…Water losses, estimated by using the BABE concept, are underestimated and should be used as a supplementary tool to breakdown the volume of real losses (Methods of assessment of customer meter inaccuracies and other components of apparent losses are presented in [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]). The third concept, the Top-Down Water Balance, is a cost-effective assessment but lack an objective methodology for estimating unauthorized consumption.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Economic Level of Losses in Shadow: Identification of Parameters and Optimization Framework

Banovec

Domadenik

2018

EWaS3 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water losses are in focus of water supply management in last decades. Basic and widely accepted indicator is ILI Index, but is insufficient, when water resources are abundant, treatment costs low and energy consumption miniscule due to gravity. In such situation several authors introduced more detailed analysis defining "Economic Level of Leakage" (ELL) in short run. This analysis provides an insight into shadow market of leakages that is defined by marginal cost of water supplied on supply side and by marginal cost of repairs to mitigate water loss on demand side and provide empirical example based on real water supply system (WSS) data.

show abstract

Benchmarking leakage from water reticulation systems in South Africa

Cited by 22 publications

References 1 publication

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Uncertainty Analysis of Water Loss Reduction Measures: Case Study of the Gothenburg Drinking Water Distribution System

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Uncertainty Analysis of Water Loss Reduction Measures: Case Study of the Gothenburg Drinking Water Distribution System

Baseline adjustment methodology in a shared water savings contract under serious drought conditions

Defining Economic Level of Losses in Shadow: Identification of Parameters and Optimization Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About