© IWA Publishing 2018 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1

96 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

Leakage estimation in developing country water networks based on

water balance, minimum night flow and component analysis methods

P. K. Amoateya,*, R. Minkeb and H. Steinmetzc

a
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Ghana, Legon. P. O. Box LG 77, Legon Accra, Ghana

b
University of Stuttgart, Institute for Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality and Solid Waste Management (ISWA), Bandtäle 2,
Stuttgart 70569, Germany

c
Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Fachgebiet Ressourceneffiziente, Abwasserbehandlung, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße,
Gebäude 14/313, Kaiserslautern, Germany

*Corresponding author. E-mail: peacekorsh@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract

Estimating leakage in developing countries’ water networks is challenging as accurate records are needed. Three
leakage estimation methods were compared to ascertain which was most suitable for such networks. The fac-
tors accounting for the differences in application of these methods to water networks were also ascertained. The
water balance and component analysis methods were compared with the modified minimum night flow (MNF)
method. The MNF method was modified to make it suitable for networks in developing countries. In the compari-
son, leakage was estimated at 10 and 18%, respectively, against 11% for the modified MNF. The latter is
considered the most suitable for developing countries as all parameters are determined or estimated from
field measurements. It was realized that burst flow rates and the infrastructure condition factor used in the
water balance and component analysis methods affect the accuracy of leakage estimates. This has implications
for further research, as well as policy and practice for developing countries’ water utilities.

Key words: Baifikrom, burst flow rates, customer night use, developing countries’ water networks, Ghana

INTRODUCTION

In many countries significant amounts of drinking water are lost in the water supply system. To reduce
such losses, water utilities should first identify how much is lost, where and why the losses are occur-
ring, and how they can be reduced (Knobloch & Klingel 2013). Three main methods are used to
determine how much water is being lost: the water balance – or top-down – method (Knobloch
et al. 2014), the minimum night flow (MNF) or bottom-up method (García et al. 2006; Tabesh
et al. 2009; Xin et al. 2014), and component analysis, also known as the Burst and Background Esti-
mates (BABE) method (Lambert & Morrison 1996; McKenzie 2003; McKenzie & Seago 2005;
Fanner & Thornton 2005; Lambert 2009).
Several studies have been conducted to determine water losses (WL), set water loss reduction tar-
gets and determine key performance indicators. In a study to develop a method for estimating the
components of apparent losses (AL), Xin et al. (2014) used MNF so as to be able to investigate the
total AL. Vučijak et al. (2013) studied WL in five water utilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and found
leakage of between 25% and 60% of system input volume (SIV), using the water balance method.
In Pirot, Serbia, leakages make up 80% of non-revenue water (NRW), using the water balance
method (Radivojević et al. 2008).
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
97 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

In Blantyre, Malawi, Chiipanthenga (2008) found that 72% of the total losses were leakage, using
the water balance method. Akita (2009) showed that 44% of NRW in Kampala, Uganda was from
bursts and leaks, using both water balance and MNF methods. Fanner & Thornton (2005) compared
the water balance and BABE methods in a network in a city (Salt Lake) in Utah State, USA. They
realized that the amount of leakage is sensitive to the infrastructure condition factor (ICF) and empha-
sized that ICF must be below 2.0 if the best estimate of real losses from the water balance is used.
While some of these studies were carried out in developing countries, none compared all three
methods, so they could not point out the challenges of measuring water loss components. Neither
did these studies investigate the suitability of the methods for estimating leakage in water networks
in developing countries. The estimates discussed above were all aimed at determining leakage as a
first step to finding the major components of NRW. The influence on the procedure of some of the
parameters used was not reported. For instance, meter inaccuracies due to overhead tanks in high-
rise buildings would affect the water balance method, as would customer night use QCNU in MNF,
or burst flow rates and ICF in the component analysis.
Factors affecting the accurate estimation of leakage in water networks have been investigated in a
few studies (Fanner & Thornton 2005; García et al. 2006). Fanner & Thornton (2005) found that the
estimated volume of real losses in component analysis is sensitive to the ICF value used. Therefore,
the authors recommend that ICF should be determined for every network for accurate leakage esti-
mation. They also showed that the infrastructure leakage index (ILI) could be used in the absence
of an ICF factor. Thus, assuming an ICF value, customer night use, QCNU , recommended or deter-
mined for other networks does not depict the actual situation. ICF has not been investigated nor
ILI accurately estimated for networks in most developing countries.
García et al. (2006) revisited the MNF method and investigated the sensitivity of leakage estimates
to the average zone pressure, the leakage exponent and the MNF hour, to ascertain the uncertainty
associated with the method. Some uncertainties were found and this led to investigation of the
QCNU parameter in MNF in developing country water networks (Amoatey et al. 2013). QCNU was
identified as crucial to accurate leakage estimation, leading to its modification to make it suitable
for a water network in Ghana. This was first piloted (Amoatey et al. 2013) and further applied to
the entire network (Amoatey et al. 2017).
Some studies combining leakage estimation methods as a basis for understanding local situations
have also led to development of location-specific software (McKenzie & Seago 2005; Tabesh et al.
2009; Tsitsifli & Kanakoudis 2010; Knobloch et al. 2014). To determine the water loss components,
Knobloch et al. (2014) developed software based on automated zonal water balance for a network in
Pforzheim, Germany. Tabesh et al. (2009), and Tabesh & Asadiani Yekta (2005) developed integrated
software using water balance and MNF concepts, together with Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) modeling, based on their Iranian water network situation.
The concepts behind the water balance, MNF and BABE methods, have been used to develop var-
ious software tools by several institutions for determining water balances and computing performance
indicators (McKenzie & Seago 2005; Tsitsifli & Kanakoudis 2010). These include BENCHLOSS,
BENCHLEAK, FASTCALC, and AQUALIBRE, among others. Such tools and software have been
helpful for water networks where accurate data are well documented. Use of them is cumbersome,
however, for water networks in developing countries where few data are available or various par-
ameters have not been established. Often, the results of using these tools to estimate leakage may
not be a true reflection of the situation in the network.
The data-intensive nature of using any of the three methods cannot be over-emphasized. The water
balance method requires accurate documentation of SIV, authorized consumption (billed and
unbilled), field investigations of customer accounts (active and inactive), and billed records, as well
as meter readers’ records, to establish AL components (Tabesh & Asadiani Yekta 2005;
Chiipanthenga 2008; Farley et al. 2008; Radivojević et al. 2008). Real Losses (RL) are estimated by
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
98 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

multiplying the number of leaks by their duration and burst flow rates (McKenzie 2003; McKenzie &
Seago 2005; Lambert 2009; Tabesh et al. 2009). For networks in most developing countries, burst flow
rates have not been established and so the International Water Association (IWA) recommended rates
are used, which can influence the accuracy of the leakage estimates significantly.
MNF involves measuring night flows and subtracting customer night use QCNU to obtain actual
night leakage. The latter is then multiplied by the hour-day factor (HDF) computed for the network
from pressure measurements. MNF is described in Equations (1) and (2) (García et al. 2006;
Tabesh et al. 2009):

QL ¼ QDMA  QCNU (1)

where
QL is night leakage rate [m3/hr]
QDMA is flow rate into a District Metered Area [m3/hr]
QCNU is customer night use [m3/hr]

VL ¼ QL HDF (2)

where
VL is average daily leakage rate [m3/day]
QL is night leakage rate [m3/hr]
HDF is the hour-day factor [ - ]
The challenge with applying MNF to developing country networks is determining QCNU . It is
usually estimated as the volume of water used by a proportion of customers believed to be active at
night to initiate a toilet flush or other wastewater discharges. In most developing countries, however,
even in urban areas, not all customers use toilet flushing sanitation systems and estimating QCNU using
the standard method will lead to underestimation of leakage. For this reason, Amoatey et al. (2017)
modified the method by splitting QCNU into two components, for toilet flushing and non-toilet flushing
customers, respectively, before leakage is estimated. This gives a better representation of the local situ-
ation.
 
QL ¼ QDMA  QCNUtoilet flushing þ QCNUnontoilet flushing (3)

where
QCNUtoilet flushing is night use for customers who use WC [m3/h]
QCNUnontoilet flushing is night use for customers who do not use WC [m3/h]
In this study, the results of the modified MNF procedure are compared with those from the water
balance and component analysis methods.
Finally, component analysis (BABE) splits total leakage into bursts and background leakage. It
models leakage volumes based on the nature of leak occurrences and durations (Lambert & Morrison
1996; Lambert 2009). The burst element is the product of the number of bursts or leaks on each pipe
category (transmission, distribution mains, and service connections), the burst flow rates for each pipe
category and the burst durations. Background losses are estimated by computing the unavoidable
background leakage and multiplying by the ICF (Lambert & Morrison 1996; Fanner & Thornton
2005; Lambert 2009).
BABE requires an inventory of bursts on different pipes, average burst flow rates for different cat-
egories of pipes, numbers of bursts, and burst durations. Equally critical are the average network
pressure and ICF, as well as infrastructure data such as length of mains and service connections.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
99 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

As these factors have not been established for the case study network, IWA standard rates were used,
which can give a poor reflection of actual leakage in the network. Equations (4)–(8) explain BABE
(Lambert and Morrison, 1996; Lambert 2009).

 
AZNP N1
QUBL ¼ (20Lm þ 1:25Ns þ 0:5Lp ) (4)
P

QBL ¼ ICFQUBL (5)

Qburst (main) ¼ No: of leaks mains Qleak LRTaverage (6)

Qburst (serv:conn:) ¼ No: of leaks serv:conn Qleak LRTaverage (7)

Qburst (reported) ¼ Qburst (mains) þ Qburst (serv:conn) (8)

where
QUBL is unavoidable background leakage [m3/h]
Qburst is reported bursts [m3/h]
LRTaverage is average leak runtime [h]
QBL is background leakage [m3/h]
N1 is leakage exponent [ - ]
AZNP is length of mains [km]
ICF is infrastructure condition factor [ - ]
Lm is length of mains in [km]
Nc is number of service connections [no.]
Lp is length of private pipes [km]
P is operating pressure [m]
While the three methods can be used to complement or verify each other, no study has compared
all three, although some have compared two – e.g., Akita (2009), Fanner & Thornton (2005), Tabesh
& Asadiani Yekta (2005). Comparison is necessary to ascertain the methods’ suitability for networks
in developing countries where very few data exist, and factors such as burst flow rates, ICF, and/or
customer night use have not been established. Where these factors have been established – e.g., in
developed countries – their use is helpful. In developing countries, however, they might not give a
true reflection of the situation in the water networks. A further aim of a three-way comparison is to
identify the factors influencing the differences in the methods when applied to networks in developing
countries.

METHODOLOGY

Water balance method

The components of losses in the IWA standard water balance were computed using the volumes of
water supplied to the network and sold, giving the NRW. In Baifikrom, Ghana – the case study net-
work – billed metered consumption (BMC) is 85% of billed authorized consumption (BAC), with the
other 15% being billed unmetered consumption (BUC).
Unbilled Authorized Consumption (UAC) is provided as the volume of water used in treatment
plant processes like backwashing, and water for firefighting. UAC has two components unbilled
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
100 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

metered (UMC) and unbilled unmetered Consumption (UUC). UAC is equal to UUC. The real loss
component is calculated as the product of the number of bursts, burst durations and burst flow rates.

Modified MNF

The modified MNF method (Amoatey et al. 2017) accommodates customers who do not use toilet
flushing sanitation facilities. The estimated QCNU values for the two customer categories were com-
puted from standard water consumption rates in Ghana (Adombire 2007), and sanitation facilities
records were obtained for the case study network. The night leakage QL was measured and the
HDF was estimated from pressure measurements. These measured and estimated parameters were
used in Equations (1)–(3) to obtain leakage values.

BABE

Finally, Equations (4)–(8), which describe the BABE concept, were used to estimate leakage. IWA
standard burst flow rates and a recommended ICF were used, as local rates have not yet been estab-
lished (Akita 2009; Lambert 2009). The number of bursts recorded monthly per pipe category (mains
and service connections), and the burst durations were used to estimate background leakage and
bursts.

APPLICATION TO CASE STUDY

The case study used the Baifikrom Water Supply Network in the central region of Ghana (Figure 1).
The network supplies an approximately 250 km2 rural-urban area with a population of about 122,000
in about 10,000 households (AVRL 2008). The pipes are made of asbestos cement (AC), high density
polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride, with a total length of about 150 km. Pipe sizes range from 75 to

Figure 1 | Baifikrom Water Network.

 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
101 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

500 mm (AVRL 2008). There are about 5,700 registered customers, of whom 85% were metered and
billed monthly in 2013. Some areas are served by public standpipes, which are also metered. Per
capita consumption varies between 30 and 75 L/day (Adombire 2007), and the total daily supply is
about 5,400 m3.
The proportion of the daily supply volume lost as leakage was determined using the three methods.
For the water balance method, monthly records of SIV and water volumes billed were evaluated. For
MNF, flow meters and data loggers were installed in the network, and both flow and pressure were
logged at 15-minute intervals over 4 months. The MNF rate was calculated from the 15-minute
averages over the entire measurement period. In addition, standard average consumption figures
for toilet flush, shower and faucet use in Ghana were used to compute QCNU (Adombire 2007).
In applying BABE, the numbers of leaks and bursts recorded were obtained from the water utility.
In the absence of established burst flow rates, the IWA recommended standard leak flow rates of 6
and 12 m3/h were used respectively for bursts occurring on distribution mains and service connec-
tions to estimate annual leakage losses (Fanner & Thornton 2005; Lambert 2009; Melato et al.
2009). An ICF of 1.5 was chosen based on Akita’s recommendations (2009). As a matter of policy,
burst duration in the case study network is 48 hours, so burst losses were estimated the average
number of bursts, the standard burst flow rates and burst durations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the water balance and modified MNF were similar, while BABE yielded higher values.
As most of the parameters used in the modified MNF method were measured or estimated based on
field data, it is considered the most suitable for developing country networks, provided that flow and
pressure can be logged in the network.

Water balance method (top-down method)

The amount of water produced and amount of water sold (authorized consumption) was used to
determine NRW. As noted above, 85% of BAC gave the BMC. The utility’s burst records were used
to determine the value of RL as no data exist on invisible or background leakage. The details of
the computed components of the water balance, with the data available, are presented in Table 1.
RL, mainly visible leaks repaired by water utility staff, make up 10% of the SIV. As there is no active
leakage control to identify and locate undetectable leaks, background leakage is not accounted for in
the standard water balance table above – i.e., for this study. This implies that leakage may be under-
estimated.

MNF (bottom-up method)

Night leakage QL was obtained from measured night flows (Figure 2). HDF was estimated from net-
work pressure readings, while QCNU was estimated for the two night user categories identified. The
MNF for the measurement period is 40 m3/hr and occurs between 03:00 and 04:00. The area
under the curve is approximately 5,400 m3 and represents the average total daily flow volume. The
estimated QCNU values for the two categories and the total leakage – approximately 30.2 m3/hr –
are shown (solid red lines) in Figure 2.
The MNF results are summarized in Table 2. Leakage is estimated to be about 11% of the daily
input volume. The method accounts for background losses as well as bursts as the minimum night
measurement should capture all leaks running in the network. Comparing the MNF and water bal-
ance results, it can be seen that background losses are 1% of the SIV. These relatively low losses
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
102 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

Table 1 | Top-Down water balance for 2013

Source: Water Balance Table based on data for 2013 (GWCL 2014) (*volumes provided in m3) all other values computed.

Figure 2 | Breakdown of leakage for network flows and pressure.

suggest that the network is in quite good condition. Whether this is realistic for water networks in
developing countries is a subject for further investigation – e.g., a similar comparison in a network
with similar characteristics, so that background losses are not underestimated.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
103 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

Table 2 | MNF analysis

Network parameters Units Value Remarks

Minimum Night Flow (QDMA) L/h 40,000 Obtained MNF logging

Daily volume supplied (Vday) m3/day 5,400 Measured MNF curve
HDF – 20 Measured and estimated parameters
Population (pop) No. 122,000
Customer night use (WC users) QCNUWC (10% of pop) L/person/h 0.38 Estimated for network
Customer night use (Non-WC users) QCNUNonWC L/person/h 0.05 Estimated for network
(90% of pop)
Total customer night use (QCNUtotal ) L/h 9,845 Measured and estimated parameters
Leakage rate (QL) L/h 30,155 Measured and Estimated parameters
Leakage volume (VL) L/day 603,000 Measured and estimated parameters
Leakage volume (VL) m3/day 603.000 Measured and estimated parameters
Total leakage (TL) % 11.00 Measured and estimated parameters

BABE analysis

The method used to compute bursts for the BABE method is described above. Unavoidable back-
ground leakage was estimated and multiplied by the ICF (1.5). The leakage estimate is presented in
Table 3 and suggests that approximately 18% of SIV is leakage (Table 3). This is considerably
higher, 7 or 8%, than estimated by the other two methods, and further studies are needed to
ensure that it is not an overestimate.

Table 3 | BABE analysis

Network parameters Units Value Remarks

Unavoidable Background Losses L/h 10,765 Measured and estimated parameters

(QUBL ¼ 20Lm þ 1:25Ns þ 0:5Lp )(AZNP=P)N1
Background Losses QBL ¼ QUBL ICF L/h 16,148 Measured and estimated parameters
Background Losses QBL ¼ QUBL ICF m3/yr 141,455 Measured and estimated parameters
Bursts (Qbursts ¼ Qmains þ Qserv: conn ) m3/yr 210,816 Measured and estimated parameters
Bursts (Qbursts ¼ Qmains þ Qserv: conn ) L/h 24,066 Measured and estimated parameters
Total leakage (Qtotal ¼ Qbursts þ QBL ) L/h 40,214 Measured and estimated parameters
Daily supplied (input) volume m3/day 5,362 Obtained from records
Qtotal (% of daily input) % 17.9 Measured and estimated parameters

The BABE method is expected to be quite accurate as it relies on network parameters such as num-
bers of customers, main and private pipe lengths, ICF, burst flow rate and the system pressure in the
network. This implies that inadequate or inaccurate network parameter records influence the leakage
estimate, so accurate records must be kept if leakage reduction targets are to be set (Fanner &
Thornton 2005; Melato et al. 2009). The relatively high levels of background loss may arise because
parameters such as burst flow rates and ICF were not determined for the case study network but
assumed from IWA recommended ranges.
However, since burst flow rates were also used in the water balance method and the difference in
the leakage estimate compared to that from the modified MNF method was quite small, ICF is likely
to be the most sensitive parameter in the BABE methodology. Equally, as the Equations (4)–(8) for
estimating unavoidable background leakage and subsequently background leakage were developed
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
104 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

empirically from well-maintained water networks in developed countries with different network oper-
ating conditions and usually higher operating pressures (Mutikanga 2012), the equations may need
calibration to improve their accuracy and applicability to water networks in developing countries.
While the objective of this paper is to compare leakage estimates, it is clear that AL is relatively high
in the case study network and this requires urgent attention to save water for areas not served. High
AL in developing countries’ water networks have also been reported by Mutikanga et al. (2010).

CONCLUSIONS

The study was an investigation of how well three leakage estimation methods – water balance, modi-
fied MNF and BABE – compute RL in water networks, especially in developing countries. Since all
parameters used in the modified MNF method are measured and estimated, it should yield the most
representative estimate for the case study network. This must be repeated for similar water networks
in Ghana to establish whether the water balance method is reasonably accurate and whether, in all
cases, the percentage difference when compared with the MNF will be as low. On the other hand,
the difference between the water balance and modified MNF methods as against the BABE
method is significantly higher and this can be ascertained when further studies from similar water net-
works is carried out.
Burst flow rates and ICF have been identified as the factors accounting for the difference when the
methods are compared. The extent to which burst flow rates and ICF influence the amount of leakage
estimated in the case study network will be studied further. As BABE is based on empirical equations,
it is suggested that the equations should be calibrated using local data. This is likely to improve the
accuracy of the leakage estimate.
It can be concluded from this study that the modified MNF method is suitable for developing
country networks. In networks where flows and pressures cannot be logged, the water balance
method can be used. Network-specific burst flow rates and ICFs should be established for developing
country water networks where it is intended to use BABE, and the equations used should be
calibrated.
The findings of this study have implications for further research, as well as for water utility policy
and practice. For research, the sensitivities of all factors should be investigated, to support water utility
policies. Similar comparative studies should be carried out in similar networks, to establish the back-
ground loss behavior in the three estimation methods and determine their suitability for water
networks in developing countries.
With respect to water utility policy and practice, proper documentation of network details as well as
investment in the establishment of local burst flow rates should be encouraged. Burst duration should
be reduced to minimize leakage. Moreover, improvement in metering and billing policy is required to
reduce the high levels of AL.

REFERENCES

Adombire, A. M. 2007 Water Supply for the Consumer: A Concise Practical Guide. CSIR-INSTI Science Press, Accra, Ghana.
Akita, C. S. 2009 Water Distribution Network Modeling for Leakage Management and Control in Kampala City, Uganda.
MSc Thesis, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands.
Amoatey, K. P., Minke, R. & Steinmetz, H. 2013 Leakage estimation in water networks based on Two categories of night-time
users. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 14(2), 329–336. doi:10.2166/ws.2013.201.
Amoatey, K. P., Minke, R. & Steinmetz, H. 2017 Minimum night flow method for leakage estimation in developing country
water networks. GWF Water Solutions WS2, 52–57. ISSN 0016-3651.
AVRL- Aqua Vitens Rand Limited 2008 ‘Network Design Report’ AVRL Report, pp. 1–44.
Chiipanthenga, M. M. 2008 Investigating the Suitability of Simple and Rapid Techniques for Leakage Management in Water
Distribution Systems: A Case of Blantyre Water Supply Area. MSC Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Malawi.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 13 No 1
105 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2018.005

Fanner, P. & Thornton, J. 2005 The importance of real loss component analysis for determining the correct intervention
strategy. In Paper to the IWA Conference ‘Leakage 2005’ Halifax, Canada.
Farley, M., Wyeth, G., Ghazali, Z. B., Istandar, A. & Singh, S. 2008 The Manager’s Non-Revenue Water Handbook A Guide to
Understanding Water Losses. Ranhill Utilities Berhad and USAID Publication, pp. 1–110.
García, V. J., Cabrera, E. & Cabrera Jr., E. 2006 The minimum night flow method revisited. Paper presented at the 8th Annual
Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium, 8, VA, USA, pp. 1–18.
Ghana Water Company Limited 2014 Production and Sales Records 2013. GWCL 2013 Regional Report.
Knobloch, A. & Klingel, P. 2013 Wassermengenbilanzierung als basis für das wasser verlustmanagement. stand der technik und
gegenwärtige Praxis. (Water balance auditing as basis for water loss management. state-of-the-art and current practices).
Fachberichte Wasserverlustmanagement gwf-Wasser Abwasser 1226–11233.
Knobloch, A., Guth, N. & Klingel, P. 2014 Automated water balance calculation for water distribution systems. Procedia
Engineering 89, 428–436.
Lambert, A. O. 2009 Ten years’ experience in using the UARL formula to calculate infrastructure leakage index. In: Paper
Presented at the IWA Water Loss Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Lambert, A. & Morrison, J. A. E. 1996 Recent developments in application of ‘Bursts and background estimates’ concepts for
leakage management. Water & Environmental Management Journal 10(2), 100–104.
McKenzie, R. 2003 Component based analysis for management of leakage in potable water supply systems. In: Paper Presented
at the Water Association Annual Conference, Perth, Australia.
McKenzie, R. & Seago, C. 2005 Assessment of real losses in potable water distribution systems: some recent developments.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 5(1), 33–40. IWA Publishing.
Melato, D. S., Carvalho, G. A. & Thornton, J. 2009 Using component analysis and infrastructure condition factor (ICF): field
tests to prioritize service connection replacement and reduce real loss in a sustainable manner. In: Proceedings of the 5th
IWA Water Loss Reduction Specialist Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Mutikanga, H. E. 2012 Water Loss Management Tools and Methods for Developing Countries. PhD Thesis, UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, Netherlands.
Mutikanga, H. E., Sharma, S. K. & Vairavamoorthy, K. 2010 Assessment of apparent water losses in urban water systems. Water
and Environment Journal 25, 327–335.
Radivojević, D., Milićević, D. & Blagojević, B. 2008 IWA best practice and performance indicators for water utilities in Serbia –
case study pirot. Acta Universitatis Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering 6(1), 37.
Tabesh, M. & Asadiani Yekta, A. H. 2005 A software tool for non-revenue water calculations in urban water systems in
conjunction with hydraulic and GIS models. In: Proceedings of the IWA Leakage 2005 International Conference, Halifax,
Canada, pp. 212–222.
Tabesh, M., Asadiani Yekta, A. H. & Burrows, R. 2009 An integrated model to evaluate losses in water distribution systems.
Water Resources Management 23, 477–492.
Tsitsifli, S. & Kanakoudis, V. 2010 Presenting a new user friendly tool to assess the performance level & calculate the water
balance of water networks. In: Conference Proceedings International Conference. ‘Protection and Restoration of the
Environment X’, Corfu, Greece.
Vučijak, B., C´erić, A. & Koldžo, D. 2013 Key operational performance indicators for water losses in water utilities Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Reporting for Sustainability 185–189.
Xin, K., Tao, T., Lu, Y., Xiong, X. & Li, F. 2014 Apparent losses analysis in district metered areas of water distribution systems.
Water Resources Management 28, 683–696.