2016
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000619
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing Contamination Source Identification Methods for Water Distribution Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, a single injection is assumed, and it is noted that multiple contaminant sources should be considered in future work where the likelihood evaluation needs to be adjusted. Seth et al [12] investigated the efficiency of three different methods for source detection; Bayesian probability-based method, backtracking method (using contaminant status algorithm), and optimizationbased method where accuracy in case of multiple injection locations was investigated for two and three contamination injection locations. It was noted that the Bayesian method is designed only for a single contamination location while the contaminant status algorithm used in De Sanctis et al [13] provides a list of possible solutions that narrow down search space for the optimization method; however, it also does not identify the possible number of injection locations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a single injection is assumed, and it is noted that multiple contaminant sources should be considered in future work where the likelihood evaluation needs to be adjusted. Seth et al [12] investigated the efficiency of three different methods for source detection; Bayesian probability-based method, backtracking method (using contaminant status algorithm), and optimizationbased method where accuracy in case of multiple injection locations was investigated for two and three contamination injection locations. It was noted that the Bayesian method is designed only for a single contamination location while the contaminant status algorithm used in De Sanctis et al [13] provides a list of possible solutions that narrow down search space for the optimization method; however, it also does not identify the possible number of injection locations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In agriculture studies, WSN has been used for monitoring environmental conditions; scheduling irrigation based on real-time network data; controlling environmental conditions and parameters to improve cropping processes, and improving production quantity and quality [ 23 , 24 ]. A water quality simulation program using WSN data, however, can also be a useful tool to effectively predict point source pollution in irrigation channels since the location, time, and source (i.e., source tracing) of water quality contamination can be determined using sensor data [ 6 , 25 , 26 ]. Furthermore, a water quality sensor network with WSN can collect application-oriented data, and provide real-time information for agricultural and environmental monitoring [ 6 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most widely used simulation software is EPANET developed by the Environmental Protection Agency [1] which provides quick results of hydraulic and water-quality analysis of complex networks. EPANET can be used in investigation of algorithms and methods for optimal sensor placement [2,3], contaminant source detection [4][5][6] or contaminant characterization [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%