20-03-2020

WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING

Dr. MANOJ K TIWARI
SCHOOL OF WATER RESOURCES, IIT KHARAGPUR

Module 09: Water Losses and Control

Lecture 46: Water Losses in Water Distribution System

 Water Losses in Water Supply Systems

 Water Loss in Global and Indian Water Utilities
 Reasons and Sources for Water Losses
 Types of Water Losses (Apparent and Real Losses)
 Impact of Water Losses

1
 20-03-2020

Water Losses in Water Supply System

 Water supply systems intend to supply treated
water to consumers through a piped network.
However, often all of the water that is pumped to
the supply network does not reach to target end-
consumers as some water is lost with-in the supply
system, mostly through leaks originating from
cracks, pipe burst and overflows, or at times, thefts.

 Water loss is the water that is produced but did not

reach to the target customers.

 Water loss is a global problem and there is no water

distribution system with absolutely no water losses.
Image Sources: [Link]
income-countries/; [Link]
[Link]
[Link] atti/[Link]

The Extent of Water Losses

 Water loss occurs in all distribution systems - only the volume of loss varies. The water losses
across different countries range from less than 10 % to as high as 60%.

 A survey by the International Water Services Association (IWSA) in 1991, observed range of
water losses as:

o Developed countries: 8-24 %

o Newly-industrialized countries: 15-24 %
o Developing countries: 25-45 %

 As per United States Agency for International Developing (USAID) 2008 assessment, the
global average water loss was estimated around 35 % accounting for 48.6 Billion Cubic Meter
(BCM) per year.

Image Source: Farley M, Wyeth G, Ghazali Z, Istandar A, Singh S (2008) The manager’s non-revenue water handbook:
a guide to understanding water losses. [Link]

2
 20-03-2020

Water Loss: Global Statistics

Image Source: [Link] [Link]

cities_9789264251090-en#page121; [Link]

Water Loss in Indian Cities: Statistics

Image Source: Singh, M.R., Mittal, A.K., Upadhyay, V. (2011) Benchmarking of North Indian urban water utilities, Benchmarking An International Journal 18(1):86-106
Bassi N. and Kumar M. D. (2012) Addressing the Civic Challenges: Perspective on Institutional Change for Sustainable Urban Water Management in India, Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 3(1) 165–183

3
 20-03-2020

Reasons for Water Losses

Losses due to “poor” infrastructure:
 Poor network design, construction, and quality control
 Aging pipe network
 Leakage at connections, joints, valves, and fittings, and from broken mains.
 Overflow or leakage from storage and service reservoirs

Losses due to “miss-management”:

 Unregistered use by customers for irrigation, commercial purposes, vehicle washing
 Theft and illegal connections
 Customer household level wastage due to lack of metering and charging
 Customer wastage from public pavement tanks
 Excessive customer use, compared with per capita consumption norms
 Poor revenue collection policy (refusal to pay, little enforcement, corruption)
 Lack or effective water regulations and lack of business ethos.
Image Source: [Link]

Sources for Water Losses

Image Source: Selek et al (2018). Management of Water Losses in Water Supply and Distribution Networks in Turkey. Environmental Science

4
 20-03-2020

Water Loss Categories: Real and Apparent Water Losses

Real Losses (or) Physical Losses:
 Amount of water actually lost through physical means
 Loss happens through leakage and overflow in system
components, i.e. burst pipes; leaking joints, fittings, service
pipes, and connections; seepage through reservoir walls or
overflow due to float-valves failure.

Apparent Losses (or) Non-physical Losses (or)

Management Losses (or) Commercial Losses:
 Water is not lost physically but recorded as loss in utility records
 These are mainly due to recording or data handling errors,
metering inaccuracies, theft of water or unauthorized
consumptions)
Image Source: [Link]

Factors Influencing Real Water Losses

For each system there are several decisive local influences on real water losses, such as:

 The percentage of time per year during which the network is pressurized.

 The average operating pressure, when the network is pressurized.

 The number of service connections and the location of customer meters (weak points).

 Number of joints, valves, gauges etc.

 The length of mains.

 Infrastructure condition - materials, age, frequency of leaks and bursts.

 Type of soil and ground conditions.

Image Source: [Link]

10

5
 20-03-2020

Impact of Water Losses

 Cause considerable water wastage

 Direct and indirect financial loss (cost of pumping, treating, storage and loss of revenue on water supplied)

 Consumer gets less quantity of water then intended

 Alleviate pressure on water resources

 Put additional financial burden on utility (maintenance)

 Affects the technical stability of the water supply system

 Affects the operational age of the network

 Creates risk of water quality deterioration

 Affects reputation of utility and reduces consumer’s trust on utility

Image Source: [Link]

11

12

6
 20-03-2020

WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING

Dr. MANOJ K TIWARI
SCHOOL OF WATER RESOURCES, IIT KHARAGPUR

Module 09: Water Losses and Control

Lecture 47: Water Balance for Water Loss Assessment and Performance Indicators

13

 Estimation of Water Losses

 Water Auditing and Water Balance in Water Supply Systems
 IWA and AWWA Water Balance Template
 Water Loss Performance Indicators
 NRW and UFW; CARL, UARL and ILI

14

7
 20-03-2020

Water Audit (Water Balance) for Estimation of Water Losses

 Water audit identifies and quantifies the water
uses and losses from a water system, through the
water balance approach.
 The water balance is usually based on
measurements and assessments of components of
water produced, supplied, billed, consumed or
lost, and thus forms the basis for the analysis of
water losses arising from various sources with in a
water supply system.
 The water balance relates to a clearly defined
water distribution system over a clearly defined
period of time, generally one year in order to
integrate seasonal variations.
Image Source: Guidance Notes on Apparent Losses and Water Loss Reduction Planning (2016);
[Link]

15

Major Components of Water Balance Calculation

 System Input Volume: The annual volume input to a transmission and / or a distribution
system, including water supplied to the customers and water exported to other supply systems.
 Authorized Consumption: The annual volume of metered and unmetered water by authorized
customers. It includes exported water and items such as fire-fighting, mains and sewer
flushing, watering of public gardens, public fountains, etc.
 Water Losses (Unaccounted for Water): The difference between “system input volume” and
“authorized consumption” water losses consists in real and apparent losses.
 Real Losses: are the physical losses of leaks, bursts and overflows up to the point of
customer metering.
 Apparent Losses: consist in all types of inaccuracies (input, output, customer meters), and
unauthorized consumption (theft, illegal use).
 Non-revenue Water: is the annual volume of total losses and unbilled authorized consumption.
Source: [Link]

16

8
 20-03-2020

Water Losses and Non-Revenue Water (NRW)

Image Source: [Link]

17

IWA Standard Water Balance Template

First Edition (2000)

Source: Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services, IWA Manual Best Practice, first edition, IWA Publishing, London, 2000

18

9
 20-03-2020

IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance Template

IWA Second Edition (2006) & AWWA Fourth Edition (2016)

Source: Performance Indicators for Water

Supply Services, IWA Manual Best Practice,
second edition, IWA Publishing, London, 2006;
AWWA M36 Water Audit Manual (2016)

19

Unbilled Authorized Consumptions

 This may include metered or
unmetered items such as firefighting,
flushing of mains and sewers, street
cleaning, watering of municipal
gardens, public fountains, frost
protection, building water, etc.
 It may also sometimes include
gratuities to some categories of
consumers: municipal or utility staff,
utility premises etc., which are unbilled
and may be metered or unmetered
according to local practices.
 The corresponding volumes are not
part of water losses, but they are part
of non-revenue water.
Source: Guidance Notes on Apparent Losses and Water Loss Reduction Planning (2016)

20

10
 20-03-2020

Apparent Losses

Source: Guidance Notes on Apparent Losses and Water Loss Reduction Planning (2016)

21

Apparent Losses

Source: Guidance Notes on Apparent Losses and Water Loss Reduction Planning (2016)

22

11
 20-03-2020

Apparent Losses

Source: Guidance Notes on Apparent Losses and Water Loss Reduction Planning (2016)

23

Traditional Water Loss Performance Indicators (PIs): UFW and NRW

 Unaccounted for Water (UFW):
Represents the difference between net production (system input volume) and
legitimate consumption, whether metered or not (consumption that can be
accounted for). Thus, UFW is essentially an estimate of total (real plus apparent)
water losses.

UFW = System Input Volume – Authorized Consumption

 Non-Revenue Water:
Represents the volume of water for which no revenue is generated. Thus it is taken as
the difference of volume of water delivered into a network (system input volume)
and billed authorized consumption, whether metered of not.

NRW = System Input Volume – Billed Authorized Consumption

24

12
 20-03-2020

Water Loss PIs: Mathematical Relations

 UFW = SIV – BAC – UAC
Where,
= RL + AL SIV = System Input Volume
UFW (%) = (SIV – BAC – UAC)*100/SIV BAC = Billed Authorized Consumption
UAC = Unbilled Authorized Consumption
RL = Real Losses
AL = Apparent Losses
 NRW = SIV - BAC UFW = Unaccounted for Water
NRW = Non-Revenue Water
= UFW + UAC
= RL + AL + UAC
NRW (%) = (SIV – BAC)*100/SIV

25

Other Performance Indicators: CARL, UARL and ILI

 Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): Estimate of the real losses in the system.

 Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): It’s consider almost impossible to

eliminate all real losses as some losses are considered unavoidable or uneconomic to
repair (usually very small leakages). It usually depends on network components and
operating condition, and is typically given by:
UARL (litres/day) = (18 x Lm + 0.8 x Ns + 25 x Lp) x P
or UARL (m3/year) = (6.57 x Lm + 0.292 x Ns + 9.132 x Lp) x P
Where, Lm = mains length (km); Ns = number of service connections (main to property line);
Lp = total length of underground pipes, property line to meter (km); and P = average pressure (metres)

 Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI): It is the ratio of CARL to UARL, and considered
to represent the quality of the infrastructure management in terms of leakage control.
ILI = CARL/UARL (Ideal value is one)

26

13
 20-03-2020

27

WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING

Dr. MANOJ K TIWARI
SCHOOL OF WATER RESOURCES, IIT KHARAGPUR

Module 09: Water Losses and Control

Lecture 48: Water Loss Detection and Control

28

14
 20-03-2020

 Water Leak Detection

 Leak Analysis Features
 Acoustic Methods of Leak Detection
 Minimum Night Flow Analysis and Step Testing
 Tracer Gas Injection for Leak Detection
 Leak Detection Devices
 Leak Management and Water Loss Control

29

Water Loss Detection

 Water Audits can help in quantifying water losses based on
the flow data, however, detection of losses (both, real and
apparent) is a big challenge for network operators and
managers.
 Apparent losses can be detected and controlled by strict
supervision and efficient management. But, the most critical
route for losses are physical leaks, which are considered to
contribute approximately 70% of water loss in most of the
water transmission systems (even higher in undermanaged
networks).
 Detecting real losses (physical leaks) is difficult, especially for
underground pipes.

Image Source: [Link]

30

15
 20-03-2020

Water Leak Analysis Features

From the point of view of physical leak analysis, the features associated with a leak are:
 Leak Detection - presence of one or more leaks
 Leak Quantification - assessment of severity of the leak magnitude
 Leak Localization - pinpointing the exact location of a leak

Image Source: [Link]

31

Water Leak Detection Systems

Static Leak Detection Systems:
These rely on sensors and data collectors, placed within the water network, capable of
transmitting periodical data to the network management office. The data can be used to
identify and quantify leaks as soon as a leak occurs. However, leak pin-pointing is difficult, as
the system will provide a location within a certain area, and may give false alarm at times.
Dynamic Leak Detection Systems:
These rely on suspicion of an existing leak, and use moving leak detection devices to suspected
leakage area to perform an investigation to confirm the existence of leaks and localize it. Some
utilities perform regular surveys around cities to identify leaks as soon as possible. These
systems are helpful to pinpoint the exact location of a leak.

Hybrid Systems:
These uses a combination of both, static and dynamic leak detections systems. A static leak
detection system may be used to detect leaks while a dynamic leak detection system to
pinpoint leak locations.

32

16
 20-03-2020

Network Divisioning for Leak Detection

District Metered Area (DMA)
Leak analysis is difficult, especially in large looped networks, and static methods often fail to
indicate leak region. Therefore, for leak analysis, many network designers/operators hydraulically
isolated part of the network calling them District Metered Area (DMA), which is typically marked as
a discrete zone with a permanent boundary defined by flow meters and/or closed, and
encompasses between 500 and 3000 customer service connections (American Water Works
Association, AWWA 2009). If DMAs are not established at design stage, temporal DMAs may be
established to undertake leak detection.
Sub-division of DMAs by internal valving/metering
For a DMA with increased leakage, internal valving/metering may be carried out to temporarily
subdivide the DMA into smaller areas. Each sub-area may be monitored by installing flow data
loggers at required locations. Such sub-divisions are usually tested with step tests or night flow
analysis for leak detection (as daytime closure of the valves likely to causes supply problems).

33

Minimum Night Flow (MNF) Analysis

 The Minimum Night Flow is the lowest flow into a DMA over a 24-h period normally occurring
between 02:00 to 04:00 AM when most users don’t use water. Therefore, water flow during this
time of the day is considered predominantly leaks and helps in estimating real losses.
 Estimation of leakage (at night) can be obtained by subtracting Legitimate Night Flow (LNF) from
measured Minimum Night Flow (MNF). LNF should be estimated case by case, but roughly
calculated assuming 6 % population using 10 L water for toilet flush.
Real Losses (at night) = MNF − LNF
 Real losses estimate through MNF analysis are usually not valid (overestimate) for the day time, as
average operating pressure during the day is less (due to higher flows). As leak magnitudes depend
on pressure, the leaks in the DMA changes over a 24-h period depending on the pressure pattern of
the supply system (American Water Works Association, AWWA 2009).
 Lambert (2001) suggested pressure-leak relationship as: L1/L0=(P1/P0)N
Where, L is Leakage, P is pressure, and N in leakage exponent which varies from 0.5–1.5;
N is close to 0.5 with fixed area leakage path and 1.5 with variable leakage path.

34

17
 20-03-2020

Step-Testing
 This technique is based on systematically reducing the size of the network by closing
valves one by one on pre-selected sections of pipe, and monitoring flow changes. A large
drop in flow rate indicates a leak in the section of pipe which has just been closed.
 It is designed by identifying the test area and sections of pipe network and valves, and
installing flowmeters (if not there) on the input main to each area.
 Traditional approach of step testing is to progressively shut valves, working back towards
the meter, and then returning to open valves when the test is over. This technique is less
popular now because of interruptions to supply.
 The recent and popular technique is to use a series of short steps, isolating sections of the
DMA for a short time only. It requires a remote meter reading device (radio or mobile
phone), positioned at the meter, for transmitting flow rates to the site operators, who can
immediately see the results of the valve closure, speed up the operation, and reduce the
time the valves are left open.

Source: [Link]

35

Acoustic Leak Detection

 Water leaks in underground, pressurized pipes may make many different sounds:
 “Hiss” or “Whoosh” from pipe vibration and orifice pressure reduction
 “Splashing” or “Babbling Brook” sounds from water flowing around the pipe
 “Beating/thumping” sounds from water spray striking the wall of the soil cavity
 Small “clinking” sounds of stones and pebbles bouncing off the pipe
 The loudness and the frequency of the sounds made by water leaks depends on pressure in the
pipe, pipe material and dia, soil type and surface cover, compaction level, and depth of pipe
from the surface.
 The sound is transmitted through the pipe as well as ground (soil), and thus could be detected
using acoustic sensors places either on network components (valves and hydrants) or on the
surface above the pipe. Since the sounds travel on the pipe walls better than through the soil,
sensors at the hydrants, valves, and meters are considered first choice, and then ground sensors
may be used to pinpointing leaks.
Source: [Link] [Link]

36

18
 20-03-2020

Acoustic Leak Detection

 The acoustic sensors may be used either in contact mode or survey mode, or both. The contact mode
is for sounding on fittings, while survey mode is for search of leaks on pipeline between fittings.

Image Source: [Link]

37

Noise Logging for Leak Detection

 Leak Noise loggers, microphones incorporating a logger, are
installed on a group of adjacent fittings (usually valves or
hydrants) as a permanent or semi-permanent monitoring system.
Noise Loggers identify any consistent anomaly at one or more of
the fittings, requiring closer inspection in the vicinity of that
hydrant. Proximity to a leak is typically represented by a high
decibel level and narrow noise spread. The readings are analyzed
by comparison of sound levels and sound spreads recorded at
each logger. Some manufacturers supply a hydrophone version of
the logger, to give better sensitivity in the trunk mains.
 These can identifying leaks immediately as they occur, but does
not identify the exact leak location without the use of correlators.
 Noise loggers high initial cost for a real-time monitoring system,
but have low maintenance cost for long-term use.
Image Source: El-Abbasy et. al. (2016). Locating Leaks in Water Mains Using Noise Loggers; Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(3).

38

19
 20-03-2020

Sounding Surveys
 Listening electrical and mechanical devices are used to listen for leak noises on valves, hydrants, stop-
taps or at the ground surface above the line of the pipe. These devices are generally accurate and
highly sensitive to the leak noises.
 A sounding survey can be carried out either as the follow-up stage to a leak detection exercise, or as a
blanket survey of the whole DMA.
 Sounding surveys are carried out using various types of
equipment, such as:
 A simple acoustic listening stick
 An electronic listening stick (amplified)
 A ground microphone
 A leak noise correlator

Source: [Link] Image Source: [Link]

39

Leak Noise Correlator

 The leak noise correlator is a portable and
sophisticated acoustic leak location instruments,
relying on the velocity of sound made by the leak
as it travels along the pipe wall towards a pair of
microphones placed on conveniently spaced
fittings (maximum 500 m apart).
 The latest versions of the correlator can
accurately locate a leak (to within 1.0 metre) in
most sizes of pipe. However, leaks in low
pressure, large diameter, and non-metallic pipes
are relatively difficult to locate.
 The correlator can be used as a survey tool to
detect leaks in sections of the pipeline, or as a
location tool to identify the leak position. Image Source: Brennan et. Al (2017) On the role of vibro-acoustics in leak detection for plastic
water distribution pipes, Procedia Engineering 199:1350-1355
[Link]

40

20
 20-03-2020

Leak Positioning
 For a leak between the two points with
measured leak signals, the cross-correlation
function in leak noise correlator will have a
distinct peak and the corresponding time shift
(Δt) will correspond to the difference in arrival
times between measured leak signals.
 The time lag depends on the propagation
velocity of sound (c) in the water pipe, and may
be given by:
Δt = (L2-L1)/c = (D-L1-L1)/c = (D-2L1)/c
 Thus, the leak location from the sensor:

L1 = (D - c.Δt)/2

Image Source: [Link]

41

Tracer Gas Injection for Leak Detection

 Acoustic techniques are successful for leak detection in most cases,
however for the difficult leaks like those in low-pressure, non-metallic
mains, tracer gas injection is used.
 It relies on injecting an inert, nontoxic and insoluble gas into the network
via a hydrant upstream of the suspected leak. As the gasses are lighter
than air, they will tend to go out through leaks and then seep out
through the soil or pavements. The gas coming out at leak points is
traced and detected, generally, using microelectronic sensors capable of
detecting the seepage of tracer gasses.
 The gas injection approach is reliable in detecting leaks in all types of
pipe materials (independent of material type). However, these are not
conventionally used in larger pipelines due to high cost.
 The main application of tracer gas injection include finding multiple small
background leaks in a single section of pipe, or finding leaks in service Image Source: [Link]

pipes relatively close to the surface, and with complex loops and bends.

42

21
 20-03-2020

Tracer Gas Choices for Leak Detection

 The most common tracer gases include sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
helium, and industrial hydrogen (95% hydrogen, 5% nitrogen).

 SF6 is very effective but costliest, thus less used.

 Helium is safe and fast for leak detection, but its sticky molecules
spread out under the asphalt or concrete once they rise to the surface
coming out of the ground in natural gas wells. Therefore, it may
become difficult to narrow down the leak location. Also, helium is
costlier than hydrogen.

 Hydrogen mixture moves easily through the layers between the leak
and the surface, and is usually detected within 3 ft of the leak location.
This along with the low price of hydrogen, make it the most used tracer
gas for leak detection. Image Source: [Link]
leak-detection/

43

Some Other Advanced Methods for Leak Detection and Quantification

 Infrared Thermography: Using Infrared (IR) images capturing the emitted infrared radiation and
detecting the thermal contrasts on pavement surface due to water leaks.
 Ground Penetrating Radar: The Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology utilizes electromagnetic
waves (between 125 Mhz and 370 MHz) and transmits them into the ground to identify leak location
via imaging the sub-terrain including the pipe and the leak.
 Leak Detecting Robots (e.g. Smart-Ball): Uses wireless or corded robotic devices to perform in pipe
inspection and determine leak locations. Some leak detection robots can also perform leak repair
tasks. Smart-Ball, a foam ball with an aluminum alloy core having a highly sensitive detection
equipment, is an example of such robots. Smart-balls swim freely in the water pipe but does not
create any noise when passing through the pipeline. Therefore, it can detect tiny leaks.
 Wireless Micro-electro-mechanical Devices: These include sophisticated electromechanical devices
such as micro-Sensors and micro-actuators for leak detection and repairs.
 Data Sensing and Analysis Based Software: Various software developed based on data analysis
ranging from statistical approaches to artificial-intelligence based approaches.

44

22
 20-03-2020

Comprehensive Summery of Leak Detection Methods

Image Source: Zaman et. al. (2020). A review of leakage detection strategies for pressurised pipeline in steady-state, Engineering Failure Analysis, 109, 104264

45

Equipment for Leak Detection and Localization

Image Source:
[Link]
anitation_health/leakage/[Link]#b3-
9.3%20Equipment%20for%20leak%20de
tection%20and%20location

46

23
 20-03-2020

Leak Management Approaches

Image Source: Zaman et. al. (2020). A review of leakage detection strategies for pressurised pipeline in steady-state, Engineering Failure Analysis, 109, 104264

47

Water Loss Control Measures

 Water metering, data collection and accounting

 Effective monitoring and management

 Physical maintenance and upgradation of distribution network

 Pressure management in the distribution network

 Effective leak detection and repair system

 Manpower training and skill development

 Regular water auditing

 Stakeholders awareness programmes

 Policy and regulatory measures

 Fee and penalty (financial measures)

48

24
 20-03-2020

49

WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING

Dr. MANOJ K TIWARI
SCHOOL OF WATER RESOURCES, IIT KHARAGPUR

Module 09: Water Losses and Control

Lecture 49: Practice Problems on Water Audit and Water Loss Estimation

50

25
 20-03-2020

 Worked Examples on Water Audit, Leak Detection and Estimation

51

Practice Problem 1: Water Auditing

The water utility of a City having population of 15 lakhs, withdraw 400 MLD water and supplies to 4 lakhs household
connections, 400 industrial connection, 2500 connections to public sector/government organizations, 5000
connections to other commercial units, and 8000 connections to public stand-posts. The utility decides to take Water
Auditing and the following data were collected/monitored.

Average daily consumption at household connections = 600 L/connection.

Average daily consumption at public stand-posts = 1,500 L/connection.
Average daily consumption at industries = 12,000 L/connection
Average daily consumption at public sector/government connections = 5,000 L/connection
Average daily consumption at commercial connections = 1,000 L/connection

All of the stand post connections and connections to public sector/government organizations are unbilled, while all
other connections are charged for water bills. It was observed that on an average of 0.44 m3/s water is lost through the
leakage on transmission and distribution mains, while 0.15 m3/s is lost through the leakage on service connections. In
addition, approximately 16 MLD water is lost through leakage and overflow from storage tanks. Further, a rough
estimate suggested that nearly 30 MLD water is being utilized as unauthorized consumption.

Using the IWA/AWWA water audit pro-forma, estimate the apparent, real and total losses and NRW for the utility.
Assume no error in data handling. If unavoidable annual real losses are 4% of total volume pumped, determine the
Infrastructure leakage Index (ILI) for the utility.

52

26
 20-03-2020

Practice Problem 1: Water Auditing

Solution: Compilation of the uses data based on connection types.
No. of Consumption per Total daily Billed or Billed Water Unbilled
connections connection (L) consumption (L) Unbilled (L) Water (L)
Households 400000 600 240000000 Billed 240000000
Stand-posts 8000 1500 12000000 Unbilled 12000000
Industrial 400 12000 4800000 Billed 4800000
Government 2500 5000 12500000 Unbilled 12500000
Commercial 5000 1000 5000000 Billed 5000000
274300000 249800000 24500000
Sum
274.3 MLD 249.8 MLD 24.5 MLD
The total water losses = Water Withdrawal – Recorded Consumption = 400-274.3 = 125.7 MLD
Water lost through the leakage on transmission and distribution mains = 0.44 m3/s = 38 MLD
[0.44 m3/s = 440 L/s = 440x60x60x24 L/d = 38.01x106 L/d = 38 MLD]
Water lost through the leakage on the service connections = 0.15 m3/s = 13 MLD
Water lost through the leakage and overflow from storage tanks = 16 MLD
Unauthorized consumption (approx.) = 30 MLD
Loss through data handling error = Nil

53

Practice Problem 1: Water Auditing

Solution (Cont.):
NA
NA NA
249.8 MLD
249.8 MLD 0 MLD 249.8 MLD

274.3 MLD 24.5 MLD

24.5 MLD 0 MLD
NA 28.7 MLD
30 MLD
NA 58.7 MLD
(14.7 %) 0 MLD
400 MLD
38 MLD 150.2 MLD
125.7 MLD (37.6 %)
(31.4 %) 16 MLD
67 MLD
(16.8 %)
NA 13 MLD
Considering unavoidable annual real losses (UARL) = 4% of total volume pumped,
Infrastructure leakage Index (ILI) for the utility = CARL/UARL = 16.8/4 = 4.2

54

27
 20-03-2020

Practice Problem 2: Water Loss and Its Monetary Values

A water meter installed at mains of a village water supply network shows a total consumption of 50 MLD for
domestic uses. However, the meter at the mains is wrongly calibrated which reads 0.8 kL for every kL of water
flow. In addition, the pipeline feeding water to the village has a leakage at a rate 0.5 m3/s (occurring before the
meter). If the rate of supply water is Rs 2.5/kL, compute the following:
a) The total water loss is _______ MLD
b) The total Non-Revenue Water is _______ MLD
c) The total water losses are _______ % of supply
d) The total monetary value of apparent losses is Rs _____ lakhs/day
e) The total monetary value of real losses is Rs _____ lakhs/day
Solution:
0.8 kL display in the meter corresponds to actual flow of 1 kL
Therefore, 1 kL display in the meter will correspond to actual flow = 1/0.8 kL
Hence, 50 MLD display in the meter will correspond to actual flow = (1/0.8) * 50 MLD = 62.5 MLD
Apparent losses (water losses incurring due to error in meter reading) = Actual flow – meter display
= 62.5 MLD – 50 MLD = 12.5 MLD
Real losses = Losses incurred due to leakage from pipeline before entering the meter in a day
= 0.5 m3/s x 3600 x 24 = 43,200 m3/d = 43.2 MLD

55

Practice Problem 2: Water Loss and Its Monetary Values

A water meter installed at mains of a village water supply network shows a total consumption of 50 MLD for
domestic uses. However, the meter at the mains is wrongly calibrated which reads 0.8 kL for every kL of water
flow. In addition, the pipeline feeding water to the village has a leakage at a rate 0.5 m3/s (occurring before the
meter). If the rate of supply water is Rs 2.5/kL, compute the following:
a) The total water loss is _______ MLD
b) The total Non-Revenue Water is _______ MLD
c) The total water losses are _______ % of supply
d) The total monetary value of apparent losses is Rs _____ lakhs/day
e) The total monetary value of real losses is Rs _____ lakhs/day
Solution (Cont.):
a) Total water losses (UFW) = Real losses + apparent losses = 43.2 MLD + 12.5 MLD = 55.7 MLD
b) Since there is no unbilled connection, UFW will be equal to NRW. Thus, NRW = 55.7 MLD
c) Total water supply in the system = Total metered supply+water losses = 50 + 55.7 = 105.7 MLD
Total water losses % = (Total water loss/Total supply in the system)*100 = 55.7*100/105.7 = 52.7 %
d) Total monetary value of apparent losses = total apparent loss * price of water
= 12,500 kLD * Rs 2.5/kL = Rs 0.31 Lakhs/d
e) Total monetary value of real losses = total real loss * price of water
= 43200 kLD * Rs 2.5/kL = Rs 1.08 Lakhs/d

56

28
 20-03-2020

Practice Problem 3: Minimum Night Flow Analysis

A utility carries Minimum Night Flow (MNF) analysis to quantify leak volume in a DMA, from 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM.
The minimum flow recorded during this period was 600 L/s, at average pressure of 23 m. Assuming legitimate
night demand as 80 L/s , estimate the average daily real losses for the DMA, if the 24-h average pressure in the
DMA is 16 m. Assume pressure-leakage exponent as 0.8 for the network.

Solution:
MNF = 600 L/s
Legitimate Night Flow (LNF) = 80 L/s
Losses at night (at 23 m pressure) = MNF-LNF = 600-80 = 520 L/s

Average real losses (at average pressure of 16 m): L1 = L0*(P1/P0)N

= 520*(16/23)0.8
= 389 L/s
Average daily real losses = 389*3600*24
= 33.6 x 106 L/D = 33.6 MLD

57

Practice Problem 4: Leak Positioning

For the purpose of pipe leak detection, two acoustic sensors installed at hydrants located 400 m apart. The left
sensor receives a sound peak 0.05 seconds after that of right sensor. Assuming velocity of sound through pipe
material as 5200 m/s, determine the location of leak from the left hydrants.
Solution:
Δt = 0.05 sec.
C = 5200 m/s
Leak location from the end/start = (D - c.Δt)/2
= (400 – 5200*0.05)/2
= (400 – 260)/2 = 70 m
Leak location from right hydrant = 70 m
Leak location from Left hydrant = 400 – 70 = 330 m

Image Source: [Link]

58

29
 20-03-2020

59

30