SIEMENS - HACH Conference, January 19th 2017 - Ljubljana, Slovenia

Water 4.0. - From Integrated Engineering to Integrated Operations

Water Loss Management Strategy Guidelines

EU Reference Document Recommendations
and
Future of Measurements and Remote Monitoring - SMART WATER

Jurica Kovac
Consultant for Water Loss Management
Secretary IWA Water Loss Specialist Group
IWA Fellow 2014

Managing Director, AQUA LIBERA Ltd., Zagreb, Croatia 1

Photo: © T. Tkaczick, 2003
 Figure 2.1 Global distribution of physical and economic water scarcity [86]

Guidelines for water loss reduction

A focus on pressure management

Source:
Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Little or no water scarcity Economic water scarcity

Approaching physical water scarcity Not estimated
Physical water scarcity
 Proportion of water utilities

29/100

24/100
19/100
17/100

8/100
3/100

< 10%
10-20%

20-30%
Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management
30-40%

40-50%

Source: > 50%

Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Range of NRW level source: IBNET World Bank

Figure 2.3 Leak flow rate from a single 6 mm hole and the equivalent volume of water

equivalent equivalent

6 mm 317
2,500 m3
Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Source:
Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Hole ø = 6 mm Olympic size swimming pool Per capita consumptions = 136 l/cap/d
Pressure = 50 m V = 2,500 m3 Q = 317 x 136 l/cap/d = 43.2 m3/d
» Leakage = 43.2 m3/d » filled in less than 2 months » Water for 317 persons
Figure 3.2 Relationship between leakage rate (Q) and runtime (t) of leaks [22] [77]

Background leakage Unreported leakage Reported leakage

Reported leakage
3
Q
Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Source:
Unreported leakage Guidelines for water loss reduction
A focus on pressure management

Background leakage
Q

t0 t t0 t0 t

Awareness Location Repair t0 = occurrence of leakage

 EU Reference document Good
Practices on Leakage Management
(WFD CIS WG PoM)
Jurica Kovac, AQUA LIBERA d.o.o. (ltd.), Croatia,
jurica.kovac@mail.com
Marco Fantozzi, Studio Marco Fantozzi, Italy, marco.fantozzi@email.it
Allan Lambert, ILMSS Ltd, United Kingdom www.leakssuite.com
Cor Merks, Witteveen+Bos, The Netherlands,
cor.merks@witteveenbos.com
Stuart Trow, Invenio Systems Ltd, UK, stuarttrow@hotmail.co.uk
Good Practices on Leakage
Management
• Joint effort by EU Member States and
stakeholders
• An approach for all of Europe:
• To improve efficient use of water
resources
• Seeks to provide consistent guidance on
leakage management to achieve WFD
objectives
• Policy document

EU Reference document Good Practices on

10
Leakage Management
Background of the project
• EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000
• A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources 2012
• CIS Work Programme 2013-2015
• EC Final REE Report – October 2013
• CIS Working Group Program of Measures 2014
(Adopted by EU in Jan. 2015)

EU Reference document Good Practices on

11
Leakage Management
 Scope and purpose of the
project
o Leakage in drinking water distribution systems

o Raise attention and increase knowledge

o Recognize there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution
o Allow Member States to identify whether action is
needed, and if so, provide guidance in effectively
doing so

EU Reference document Good Practices on

12 Leakage Management
 Acknowledgements
± 2.000 voluntary man hours Drafting Group members
± € 20.000 COMM-Consultant
2 WG PoM leaders

Joerg Koelbl (Austria), Gisèle Peleman and Maarten Torbeyns (Belgium), Petia
Hristova (Bulgaria), Jurica Kovač (Croatia), Bambos Charalambous (Cyprus),
Christian Hald-Mortensen, Erling Nissen and Steen Jakobsen (Denmark),
Dominique Gatel, Nicolas Rondard, Marion Clauzier, Angelica Centanaro and
Jan-Jacques Marsaly (France), Thomas Prein, Thomas Borchers and Axel
Borchmann (Germany), Marios Vafeiadis (Greece), Francesco Calza and Marco
Fantozzi (Italy), Stephen Galea St John, Stefan Riolo, Manuel Sapiano and
Michael Schembri (Malta), Dick Schipper, Adriana Hulsmann, Peter van Thienen
and Ilse Pieterse-Quirijns (Netherlands), Andrew Donnelly and Joaquim Pocas
Martins (Portugal), Katarína Tóthová (Slovakia), Dean Russel, Adam Kingdon,
Bill Brydon and Sean McCarty (UK), Allan Lambert, Stuart Trow, Cor Merks,
Guido Schmidt, Robert Schröder, Joaquim Capitao, Henriette Faergemann and
EU Reference document Good Practices on
13 Leakage Management
 Project deliverables
• Good Practices on Leakage Management (main report) :
http://bit.ly/16dzx9f
• Case Study document : http://bit.ly/1K6K8BK
• Dissemination plan : http://bit.ly/1x4nO2P

Main report – Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Policy recommendations
3. Holistic approach to leakage management
4. Understanding leakage and leakage management
5. Good practices on leakage management by utilities
6. Methodologies for getting started
A. PESTLE Consideration
B. Tools, techniques and methodologies
C. Author Profiles
D. List of references
EU Reference document Good Practices on
14
Leakage Management
 Evidence-based policy recommendations
• Recommendations for all key stakeholder
groups
• Recommendations for policy makers and
regulators
• Recommendations for Water Utilities on
es
ctic
Pra G PoM
ood W

The recommendations are advices of experts

ent G FD CIS
um W
doc ment
nce ge
ere Mana
Ref
EU akage
Le

and backed by case studies, but are not binding.

EU Reference document Good Practices on

15
Leakage Management
 Recommendations – All stakeholders (1/2)

• Leakage targets
• Leakage expressed as a % of SIV is
simple and easy to calculate.
However, it has several limitations
in interpretation which have led
some Member States to stop or
reduce the use of % as a leakage
performance indicator.
• Substantial underestimates of true
achievements
• % of SIV is a ‘Zero-sum’ calculation

EU Reference document Good Practices on

16 Leakage Management
 Recommendations – All stakeholders (1/2)
INHABITANTS Year 0

Leakage targets
MAINS
• 20.000 80 KM

• Leakage expressed as a % of SIV is

simple and easy to calculate.
However, it has several limitations
in interpretation which have led INPUT VOLUME BILLED VOLUME NRW NRW %
some Member States to stop or 2.000.000 MC 1.500.000 MC 500.000 MC 25 %
reduce the use of % as a leakage
performance indicator.
• Substantial underestimates of true
achievements
• % of SIV is a ‘Zero-sum’ calculation

EU Reference document Good Practices on

16 Leakage Management
 Recommendations – All stakeholders (1/2)
INHABITANTS Year 0

Leakage targets
MAINS
• 20.000 80 KM

• Leakage expressed as a % of SIV is

simple and easy to calculate.
However, it has several limitations
in interpretation which have led INPUT VOLUME BILLED VOLUME NRW NRW %
some Member States to stop or 2.000.000 MC 1.500.000 MC 500.000 MC 25 %
reduce the use of % as a leakage INHABITANTS MAINS 80 KM
performance indicator. 20.000
Year 1

• Substantial underestimates of true

achievements
• % of SIV is a ‘Zero-sum’ calculation INPUT VOLUME BILLED VOLUME NRW NRW %
1.400.000 MC 1.000.000 MC 400.000 MC 28,6 %

EU Reference document Good Practices on

16 Leakage Management
 Recommendations – All stakeholders (1/2)
INHABITANTS Year 0

Leakage targets
MAINS
• 20.000 80 KM

• Leakage expressed as a % of SIV is

simple and easy to calculate.
However, it has several limitations
in interpretation which have led INPUT VOLUME BILLED VOLUME NRW NRW %
some Member States to stop or 2.000.000 MC 1.500.000 MC 500.000 MC 25 %
reduce the use of % as a leakage INHABITANTS MAINS 80 KM
performance indicator. 20.000
Year 1

• Substantial underestimates of true

achievements
• % of SIV is a ‘Zero-sum’ calculation INPUT VOLUME BILLED VOLUME NRW NRW %
1.400.000 MC 1.000.000 MC 400.000 MC 28,6 %

Ex.: Volume of NRW is reduced by 100.000 mc/year (-20%) but,

due to decrease of consumption, NRW in percentage increases !!
EU Reference document Good Practices on
16 Leakage Management
 Recommendations – All stakeholders (2/2)

• Performance indicators
• Use m3/km mains/day, l/
connection/day or l/billed
property/day for tracking
progress in individual systems
and sub-systems
• Use ILI (always with some
measure of pressure) for making
technical comparisons between
systems and sub-systems
• “% of SIV are not considered as a
proper indicator” therefore use a
volumetric parameter for
tracking progress.
EU Reference document Good Practices on
17 Leakage Management
Which Leakage KPI should I use?
Evidence-based conclusions from 16 Case Studies

Table 8 : Fit for Purpose Performance Indicators for Real Losses

Source: Allan Lambert, October 22, 2014
EU Reference
After ILIs have been calculated, they can be assigned document
to Leakage GoodCategories
Performance Practices A
onto D, first
introduced by Liemberger (2005) and since split into A1 and A2, B1 Leakage Management
18
and B2 etc. as shown in Table 9.
Recommendations – Water Utilities (1/4)

• Pressure management
• Pressures to be measured and monitored
• Excess pressures and pressure transients
to be managed and reduced wherever
feasible
• Standards for pressure should be flexible
• Sequence of activities is fundamental
• Incorporate value (€/m3)
of leakage and energy
used
• Reduced costs of bursts
and deferred investments

19
 Recommendations – Water Utilities (2/4)

• Leak run time

• Attention for leakage from service connections

• Asset renewal
• Asset replacement is an expensive option for
reducing leakage compared to pressure
management and ALC
• Include an allowance for selectively replacing mains

EU Reference document Good Practices on

20 Leakage Management
 Recommendations – Water Utilities (3/4)

• System design
• Sectorization (reconfiguration - DMA zones) of
existing distribution systems greatly assists in
identification of new leaks; prioritizing ALC;
identifying areas for further pressure
management
• New distribution systems and extensions to
distribution systems should be based on
sectorised designs to operate at relatively low
pressure

EU Reference document Good Practices on

21 Leakage Management
Recommendations – Water Utilities (4/4)

• Long term view

• Leakage management is an essential long-term and
ongoing activity
• Consider to apply (new) tools and methodologies

EU Reference document Good Practices on

22 Leakage Management
 Case Study document Lisbon (Portugal)
Lemesos (Cyprus)
• 16 case study accounts Salzburg (Austria)
• Huge variation in size and number of Reggio Emilia (Italy)
utilities WSC Malta
• Huge variation in maturity of European De Watergroep (Belgium)
Scottish Water (Scotland)
countries with respect to leakage Pula (Croatia)
management Odense (DK)
• Annual water balance increasingly used Anglian Water (UK)
• Summary of key learnings from each case Munich (Germany)
Bordeaux (France)
study Bulgaria
• Summary tables for almost all case studies

EU Reference document Good Practices on

23 Leakage Management
 NRW in volume reduced by 49%
Case Study document (since2004)

Water utility PULA, Croatia

Dedicated investments and organizational changes

Implementation of DMAs (systems 100% covered with DMAs - 157 zones

Understanding influence of pressure (30% of the network pressure controlled)

Understanding apparent losses issue and implementation of corrective actions

Use of adequate IT solutions (applied and customized GIS applications)

Recognized importance of own workforce education

EU Reference document Good Practices on

24 Leakage Management
Key learning
Whilst water loss management is often pictured as the
implementation of technological solutions to a hidden
problem, this is really only part of the real solution, which is
all about managing utility people to perform.
It is about empowering them with the responsibility, training,
practical tools and proven techniques, motivating them to
perform, and inspiring them to believe that they can make a
difference.
Statement from: Introduction of the Main Report “EU Reference
document Good Practices on Leakage Management WFD CIS WG PoM”

EU Reference document Good Practices on

25 Leakage Management
 Approximately 2 years later …
• Dissemination actions by IWA WLSG experts: IWA Conferences in Bologna, Italy (2014),
Cincinnati, USA (2015), Bucharest, Romania (2015), Atlanta, USA (NAWL 2015) and now in
Bangalore, India (2016)
• EWB&PICalcs free software for utilities
• 2,100 page views of http://www.leakssuite.com/eu-good-practice-on-leakage-
management/
• Influential on policy decisions in several countries
• AquaFlanders (Belgium): regulator now supports calculations of ILI
• Bulgarian Ordinance ceases to require %s by volume
• Denmark: DANVA now includes ILIs in annual report
• Germany: DVGW Guideline W392, ILI to be ‘decisive’ indicator
• Italy: AEEGSI (Italian Regulator) now requires calculation of ILIs
• EU Report translated to Croatian language for use in SE Europe
• Pressure management workshops at e.g. Jersey and Portugal, and UK Utilities
• UK CIWEM Policy Position Statement on Leakage reviewed, supports EU approach
• Active Water Loss Control – latest publication in the EPAL Technical Editions (March 2015)
• Forthcoming M36 (AWWA) has many similarities with EU Approach and specifically:
-- Uses IWA/AWWA water and water balance
-- Uses/promotes leakage component analysis of annual real losses and night flows
-- Promotes the benefits
26
of pressure management and offers case study accounts
EU Reference document Good Practices on Leakage Management
 Future of Measurements and
Remote Monitoring - SMART WATER

Utilities will be reinvented to become big-data related service providers leveraging

on the Open Data paradigm. They will have high-quality forecasting capabilities,
using new mathematical modelling systems and visualisation applications, and
unforeseen levels of real-time knowledge and decision support.
WssTP Water Vision 2030 report, 2016
Smart Water Networks

28
29
ing DMAs, as illustrated in Figure 6.2:

DMA:Typical
District
Figure 6.2
Measuring Zones
layout of DMAs, based on [22]

Source
bulk
meter

Distribution main

Single inlet DMA Boundary DMA bulk meter 30

Multiple inlet DMA Distribution pipe
Cascading DMA Closed boundary valve
Example:

31
DMA: Measuring and Remote
monitoring (flow and pressure)

32
DMA analysis:
Figure 6.3 understanding
Relationship between the leakage
flow rate, pressure and leakage components, based on [58]

80 40
Pressure

70
35

60
30

50
Customer
Flow rate (m³/h)

use 25

Pressure (m)
40

20
30

15
20
Minimum night flow

Minimum night consumption

Burst leakage 10
10
Background leakage

0 5
1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 33
Time (days)
Leak Detection: noise measuring
and monitoring

34
Systems integration

35
38

Source: WssTP
Leak detection Customer
and localization interaction
4 programs

ICT
Data
Future: Smart Utilities

39

Real time WQ Energy reduction

Essential: Knowledge Management
increasing number of countries and water utilities around the world has since recognised

Thank you.
and adopted this water balance. Water utilities are advised to follow the IWA terminology,
particularly with regard to national and international benchmarking.
Jurica Kovac
The components of the standard water balance are illustrated in Table 3.1. The com-
ponents of the water balance should always be calculated and expressed as volumes (usually
jurica.kovac@mail.com
in m3) over a given period of time (usually per year). In a second step, they can be converted
into performance indicators (see Chapter 4.3.6).
Phone: +385.99.45.55.443
Table 3.1 Standard terminology for the water balance according to the IWA [48]
An SWN is a critical
component of a smart water Billed water exported
grid, enabling operators
to continuously monitor
Billed authorised
Billed metered consumption Revenue water
system integrity, confirm consumption QBA
Authorised
normal system performance,
Billed unmetered consumption
consumption
optimize QA
emergency
response, and establish
Unbilled metered consumption
an accurate baseline for Unbilled authorised
measuring and improving consumption QUA
operational efficiency. Unbilled unmetered consumption
System
Unauthorised consumption
input
volume QI Apparent losses Q AL
Customer meter inaccuracies and
data handling errors Non-revenue
Leakage on transmission and water
Water losses QL distribution mains

Leakage and overflows at

Real losses QRL
storage tanks

Leakage on service connections

up to point of customer meter