Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Developing a framework for leakage target setting

in water distribution networks from an economic
perspective

Iman Moslehi, Mohammadreza Jalili-Ghazizadeh & Ehsan Yousefi-Khoshqalb

To cite this article: Iman Moslehi, Mohammadreza Jalili-Ghazizadeh & Ehsan Yousefi-Khoshqalb
(2021) Developing a framework for leakage target setting in water distribution networks from
an economic perspective, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 17:6, 821-837, DOI:
10.1080/15732479.2020.1777568

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1777568

Published online: 11 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 17, NO. 6, 821–837
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1777568

Developing a framework for leakage target setting in water distribution

networks from an economic perspective
Iman Moslehi, Mohammadreza Jalili-Ghazizadeh and Ehsan Yousefi-Khoshqalb
Department of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Leakage is one of the main sources of water loss in Water Distribution Networks (WDNs). Although a Received 18 May 2019
water utility intends to reduce the leakage to the minimum possible level, considering the high leak- Revised 15 January 2020
age reduction costs, an economic perspective of leakage control should be taken into account. In this Accepted 13 February 2020
paper, a field-data based methodology for estimating the Short-Run Economic Level of Leakage (SR-
KEYWORDS
ELL) with respect to Active Leakage Control (ALC) activities is proposed. This methodology uses meas- Active leakage control;
ured pressure and flows data for the estimation of different leakage levels and relevant performance economic level of leakage;
indicators. The objective is to identify the target level of leakage in terms of the SR-ELL, using a mar- infrastructure condition;
ginal cost approach. Results of the sensitivity analysis are also presented to investigate the factors operating pressure; water
influencing SRELL. The methodology is applied to a large zone of WDN in the city of Mashhad, Iran. distribution networks
For this WDN, based on the current ALC policy and operating pressure, SRELL is estimated to be
27 m3/service connection/year. The results reveal that the SRELL is significantly affected by the operat-
ing pressure and infrastructure condition. The proposed methodology can be used by water utilities
for having a clear strategy on their leakage control policies.

1. Introduction Leakage management may be defined as collective activ-

Leakage in water distribution networks (WDNs) remains a
serious concern for water utilities worldwide, as a significant
amount of treated and transferred water in WDNs is lost
due to leakage. The volume of leakage varies widely from 3-
7% of supplied water in well-maintained networks in devel-
oped countries to more than 50% in developing countries
(Gupta & Kulat, 2018; Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli, 2010;
Kanakoudis, Tsitsifli, & Demetriou, 2016; Kanakoudis,
Tsitsifli, Samaras, & Zouboulis, 2013; Puust, Kapelan, Savic,
& Koppel, 2010). Asian Development Bank (2010) reported
that in Asian countries, more than 21 billion cubic metres
of treated water is lost through water leakage in WDNs,
costing water utilities $6.5 billion US (Frauendorfer and
Liemberger, 2010).
Saving half of this amount provides enough water for at
least 150 million people. In Iran, water leakage from urban
WDNs has been reported to be as high as 27% (National
Water and Wastewater Engineering Company (NWWEC),
2018). In addition to financial losses, leakage may cause
energy losses, service interruption, and water contamination
by the intrusion of polluted water (Mutikanga, Sharma, &
Vairavamoorthy, 2013; Puust et al., 2010; Tsitsifli &
Kanakoudis, 2018). Therefore, leakage has become a crucial
issue to be encountered by water utilities due to adverse and
costly consequences. For all these reasons, one of the main
responsibilities of the water utilities is to efficiently control
and reduce leakage in WDNs.
ities and techniques, performed by water utilities to minim-
ize real losses economically; it generally involves assessment,
detection, and control of system leakage (American Water
Works Association [AWWA], 2016; Kanakoudis, Tsitsifli,
Cerk, et al., 2015; Kanakoudis, Tsitsifli, & Zouboulis, 2015).
Leakage management practices and techniques can be cate-
gorized into three main repetitive stages: (1) leakage moni-
toring and assessment methods, (2) leakage detection,
localization and pinpointing and (3) leakage control strat-
egies and methods (Gupta & Kulat, 2018; Kanakoudis &
Muhammetoglu, 2014; Puust et al., 2010; Tsitsifli et al.,
2017). Leakage monitoring and assessment methods involve
quantifying the volume of water lost in a distribu-
tion network.
There are three primary assessment methods: (1) top-
down water balance, (2) component analysis based on the
concept of burst and background estimates (BABE) and (3)
Bottom-up approach using minimum night flow (MNF)
analysis (AL-Washali, Sharma, & Kennedy, 2016;
Kanakoudis, Tsitsifli, Kouziakis, & Lappos, 2015; Thornton,
Sturm, & Kunkel, 2008). MNF analysis is a powerful tool
and the most widely used method in practice for leakage
assessment (Amoatey, Minke, & Steinmetz, 2018; Gupta &
Kulat, 2018; Mazzolani et al., 2017). Moreover, it is a field-
based method which is performed through measuring flow
and often pressure in individual zones or district metered
areas (DMAs) (AL-Washali et al., 2016; Mutikanga et al.,

CONTACT Mohammadreza Jalili-Ghazizadeh m_jalili@sbu.ac.ir Department of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University,
Tehran 5357116589, Iran
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
822 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
2013). MNF is the measured flow supplied to a discrete
zone during the night period with minimum demand, usu-
ally occurring between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m. Water flow during
this time of the day is at a minimum because consumption
is generally at its lowest, and therefore, leakage forms the
largest share of the total flow (Amoatey, Minke, &
Steinmetz, 2014; Thornton et al., 2008).
Leakage management strategies and intervention methods
focus on effective controlling and reducing leakage to as
great an extent as possible (AWWA, 2016; Gupta & Kulat,
2018; Puust et al., 2010). These strategies include active
leakage control (ALC), pressure management (PM), passive
leakage control (PLC), sectorization and asset management
(Farley & Liemberger, 2005; Haider et al., 2019; Kanakoudis
& Gonelas, 2016). The final choice among different leakage
reduction strategies or a combination of activities should be
selected depending on economic consideration and the char-
acteristics of the system. In practice, water utilities aim at
developing a leakage management strategy to establish the
economic balance among all intervention methods that offer
the most cost-effective way of reducing water losses (Fanner
et al., 2007; Kanakoudis & Gonelas, 2015; Lambert, Merks,
& Trow, 2015; Pearson & Trow, 2005). Additionally, leakage
target setting in terms of economic level of leakage (ELL) is
the most important aspect of any leakage management strat-
egy (Islam & Babel, 2013; Trow & Farley, 2004).
ELL is defined as the optimal level of leakage at which
the cost of reducing leakage equals the benefit gained from
further leakage reductions. At this leakage level, the mar-
ginal cost of leakage reduction is equal to the marginal cost
of water saved (Fanner et al., 2007; Gonelas & Kanakoudis,
2016; Pearson & Trow, 2005; Tripartite Group, 2002). There
are two time periods for ELL calculations, which differ
mainly from the time required to perform interventions,
namely short-run and long-run with different marginal costs
(Fanner et al., 2007; Kanakoudis & Gonelas, 2016). The
short-run marginal cost (SRMC) is defined when only oper-
ating costs are included in the ELL calculations. Based on
this definition, the short-run economic level of leakage (SR-
ELL) can be determined by comparing the marginal cost of
short-run leakage control measures such as ALC, PLC, and
some PM schemes with the short-run marginal cost of water
(SR-MCW) (i.e., only production and distribution operating
costs such as power and chemicals).
The long-run marginal cost (LRMC) comprises both
operating and capital costs in ELL calculations (Pearson &
Trow, 2005; Julian Thornton et al., 2008). There are some
leakage control activities involving capital expenditure on
infrastructures like network rehabilitation, additional PM
and sectorization (Chisakuta et al., 2011; Lambert &
McKenzie, 2002; Trow & Farley, 2004). In these cases, the
long-run economic level of leakage (LR-ELL) is required,
which evaluates the investment decisions within the full life-
cycle assessment. The net present value (NPV) analysis can
be used to calculate the costs and savings of each leakage
reduction option. The option having the lowest NPV is the
least cost strategy, and the corresponding leakage defines
the LR-ELL (Creaco & Walski, 2017; Fanner et al., 2007;
Gonelas & Kanakoudis, 2015). Moreover, the sustainable
economic level of leakage (SELL) can be estimated by add-
ing social and environmental costs and benefits (external-
ities) to the internal costs of the utility (Ashton & Hope,
2001; Howarth, 1998; Lambert et al., 2015; Smout, Kayaga,
& Munoz-Trochez, 2010).
ALC is an effective proactive policy that a water utility
implements for reducing unreported leakage subject to avail-
able operating budget (AWWA, 2016). The SR-ELL for an
ALC activity has been reached when the SRMC of water
exceeds the marginal cost of ALC work. There are two dif-
ferent ways for determining SR-ELL of ALC activity. The
IWA Water Loss Task Force developed a simple and prac-
tical methodology in terms of the natural rate of rise (NRR)
of unreported leakage to calculate the economic intervention
frequency (EIF), and the SR-ELL of an ALC policy which
referred to as rate of rise (RR) method (Lambert &
Fantozzi, 2005; Lambert & Lalonde, 2005). EIF can be calcu-
lated using three system-specific parameters including the
marginal cost of water, rate of rise of unreported leakage
and intervention cost (Alkasseh, Adlan, Abustan, & Hanif,
2015; Kanakoudis & Gonelas, 2016; Lambert & Fantozzi,
2005; Lambert & Lalonde, 2005; Munoz-Trochez, Smout, &
Kayaga, 2011).
This method is only suitable for utilities that have not
been operating under steady-state conditions. This means
that the water utility has been undertaking little or no ALC
effort, and therefore, there is a backlog of unreported leaks
in the network (Fanner et al., 2007). Moreover, the RR
method estimates only the economic unreported leakage
corresponding to the estimated EIF. Therefore, to calculate
SR-ELL, other components of leakage (i.e., reported leaks
and background leakage (BL)) need to be predicted based
on BABE component analysis. Furthermore, predictions and
calculations of SR-ELL using the RR method are subject to
considerable uncertainty, specifically associated with the
NRR estimation of unreported leakages. The value of NRR
is remarkably system-specific depending on operating pres-
sures, seasonality, infrastructure condition, and operational
procedures (Bettin, Rogers, & Serrani, 2014; Thornton et al.,
2008). Hence, an approximate assessment of the NRR of
unreported leakages is often used to estimate the EIF, which
can be introduced as an element of uncertainty into the
RR method.
The second methodology is the marginal cost approach
on the basis of the total annual cost of ALC intervention
and water lost due to leakage (Lim, Savic, & Kapelan, 2015;
Tripartite Group, 2002). In this method, the total cost curve
can be derived by adding the ALC costs to the cost of water
lost. The SR-ELL occurs at the minimum point of this
curve. This method provides reliable results when the net-
work is in a steady-state condition. The water utility is not
projected to have a supply-demand deficit over the plan-
ning horizon.
There have been a few studies to determine SR-ELL for
ALC activity using the marginal cost approach (Islam &
Babel, 2013; Lim, Savic, & Kapelan, 2015). This approach is
data-intensive and comparatively complex, requiring a

collection of sufficient-field data, which is a challenging task
to accomplish for water utilities (Fanner & Lambert, 2009).
The SR-ELL is also affected by several influential factors,
including PLC and ALC policies adopted by the utility, net-
work operating pressures, marginal cost of water, marginal
cost of ALC, and infrastructure condition. Previous studies
focused primarily on the ELL estimation, and a few have
investigated the influential factors on the SR-ELL. Fantozzi
and Lambert (2007) developed a practical way to include
PM’s effects in calculations of SR-ELL using the RR method.
They concluded that the influences of pressure on all three
components of leakage, on frequencies of pipe breaks and
economic ALC, should be taken into account in SR-ELL
calculations.
Fanner and Lambert (2009) also presented a step-by-step
approach to incorporate confidence limits for assessing SR-ELL
by means of RR method with PM, ALC, and leak run-time
options. Islam and Babel (2013) investigated two influential fac-
tors, including operating pressure and the marginal cost of
water on estimating SR-ELL. They also developed two nomo-
graphs on the basis of leakage volume and the two influencing
factors for quick estimation of SR-ELL. However, other
essential factors like the marginal cost of ALC and the infra-
structure condition are not considered in their study.
The main objective of this study is to propose a method-
ology for leakage target setting in terms of the economic level
of leakage regarding the ALC policy in WDNs. Different leak-
age levels and leakage performance indicators are estimated
using collected field data in the proposed methodology. The
need for identifying adequate points for collecting sufficient
pressure and flow data is also highlighted. The current level of
leakage is calculated by conducting night flow analysis and
assessing appropriate night-day factors (NDF). A practical pro-
cedure is developed to estimate minimum achievable leakage
level with unlimited ALC resources using infrastructure condi-
tion of the network and different considerations of the water
utility. The methodology uses estimated leakage levels and cost
data to develop the ALC cost curve and identifies SR-ELL.
Moreover, the influence of different variables on SR-ELL is
investigated by conducting sensitivity analysis. This method is
also applied to a large zone of WDN of Mashhad city in Iran
to evaluate its practical application.
2. Methodology
The present methodology uses various field data and net-
work characteristics for estimating SR-ELL based on the
marginal cost approach concerning ALC policy in WDNs.
This methodology comprises the following main steps: (1)
determination of appropriate measurement points, (2) col-
lection of required field data, (3) calculation of different
leakage levels, (4) estimation of SR-ELL, and (5) sensitivity
analysis (Moslehi, 2020).
Figure 1 depicts the flowchart of the proposed methodology.
Firstly, the average zone point (AZP) for measuring instantan-
eous pressure values is identified using a geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) tools and network characteristics.
Simultaneously, instant flow rates are measured at the inlet
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 823
points of the zone. Next, recorded high-frequency flow and
pressure data (usually every 15 min), network characteristics
(e.g., pipe diameter, pipe length, number of connections), cost
data related to ALC activity, and the marginal cost of water are
collected. In the third step, the current level of leakage is esti-
mated using MNF analysis, which is based on night flow meas-
urements and leakage-pressure relationships (AL-Washali et al.,
2016). In this step, the unavoidable annual real losses (UARL),
as well as the actual or target background leakage (TBL), are
calculated. Then, SR-ELL, one of the main components of a
successful leakage management policy, is estimated. Eventually,
sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate how the inde-
pendent variables may affect the SR-ELL.
2.1. Data collection
Sufficient and reliable field data measurements, including
pressure and flow, are essential for calculating the current
leakage levels and leakage performance indicators (i.e., ILI
and ICF). For each zone or sector, pressure should be meas-
ured at the AZP. This is a physical location where the pres-
sure variations are considered to be representative of the
average pressure (Pav) in the zone (ILMSS Ltd, 2013;
Renaud et al., 2015). The average zone night pressure
(AZNP) can also be measured, which is the average pressure
at the AZP during MNF (Fanner et al., 2007). In this paper,
a systematic approach developed by International Leakage
Management Support Services (ILMSS), is applied to deter-
mine the AZP in an individual zone for night flow analysis
(ILMSS Ltd, 2013).
This approach comprises the following steps: First, the
weighted average ground level (WAGL) is calculated using
GIS tools for an appropriate infrastructure parameter (i.e.,
mains length, service connections, and hydrants). Second, a
convenient measurement point is selected near the centre of
the zone with the ground level close to the WAGL, prefer-
ably on mid-sized mains. Finally, the instantaneous pressure
values are measured continuously with a regular time step
(usually every 15 min).
For estimate the leakage using the MNF analysis, flow
rates should be measured at main points of the zone (i.e., at
the inlet and outlet points as well as the large consumers if
present) with a regular time step, usually shorter than
15 minutes (Alkasseh, Adlan, Abustan, Aziz, & Hanif, 2013;
Farley & Trow, 2007). The collected flow data need to be
validated, cleansed, and normalized to a regular time step.
Data validation and cleaning entail outlier detection and
identification of missing or corrupt data, which occur due
to metering and telemetry problems. In the data normaliza-
tion process, the desired time step is defined to obtain data
with a regular time step (Loureiro et al., 2016).
The concept of Fixed and Variable Area Discharge
(FAVAD) explains that the leak flow rate varies with pres-
sure changes to the N1 exponent (Lambert, 2001; Thornton
& Lambert, 2005; Thornton et al., 2008). The values of N1
exponent can be assessed from three different sources of
data: 1) field tests on WDNs and empirical predictive equa-
tions, 2) laboratory tests and 3) theoretical modelling
824 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the proposed methodology for determining SR-ELL in WDNs.
(Lambert, Fantozzi, & Shepherd, 2017; Thornton &
Lambert, 2005; van Zyl, Lambert, & Collins, 2017). Field
tests are conducted by a pressure step test or N1 step test
that is an important part of leakage assessment methods
(Fanner et al., 2007). The test is conducted by regulating
inlet pressures on an existing pressure reducing valve (PRV)
in a series of steps during the night-time period.
Subsequently, the pressure drop at the AZP and the reduc-
tion inflow into the zone are recorded at the start of the test
and each reduction step (AWWA, 2016; Thornton
et al., 2008).
2.2. Cost data
The first requirement in the marginal cost approach is to
estimate the current steady-state ALC costs for modeling
ALC cost curve. The costs are required to maintain leakage
at a given steady-state level and increase at lower leakage
levels (Pearson & Trow, 2005). It is widely agreed that the
shape of the ALC cost curve is a hyperbola that is asymp-
totic to a minimum leakage level (Fanner et al., 2007;
Pearson & Trow, 2005; Tripartite Group, 2002).
For modelling the steady-state ALC costs for different
leakage levels, it is crucial to split the current costs into the
fixed and variable parts. Leakage monitoring costs are
counted as a part of the fixed cost, as they do not vary with
the leakage level. However, leakage detection and repair
costs can be considered variable cost elements because they
depend on the amount of ALC effort (UK Water Industry
Research (UKWIR), 2011). These costs would increase for a
lower level of leakage as the company intensifies ALC activ-
ities and vice versa. It should be noted that leakage repair

costs consist of PLC and ALC repairs. Obviously, only the
costs which are entirely attributable to ALC repairs are
needed for modelling ALC cost curve.
Best practice guidance recommends that the current
steady-state leakage level and the associated ALC costs
should be defined for a recent period with no demand
restrictions and no changes in leakage control policy
(UKWIR, 2011). The fixed and variable costs of the steady-
state ALC can be estimated as follows:
CCAL ¼ CCALFix þ CCALVar (1)
CCALVar ¼ NLD
 ½ðCLm  Lm þ CNC  NC Þ
þ ðCBp þ CRp ÞðNumM þ NumC Þ (2)
where CCAL ¼ total annual costs of ALC effort (TIRR/year),
CCALFix ¼ annual fixed costs of ALC activity(TIRR/year),
CCALVar ¼ annual variable costs of ALC activity (TIRR/year),
NLD ¼ number of leakage detection efforts to maintain current
leakage level of the network, CLM ¼ unit cost of Leakage survey
for mains (TIRR/km length of mains), CNC ¼ unit cost of leak-
age survey for service connections (TIRR/service connections),
CBp Bp ¼ unit cost of the bonus payment to the contractor for
detected leaks on mains and or service connections (TIRR/
detected leak), CRp ¼ unit cost of repaired leaks on mains and
or service connections (TIRR/repaired leak), NumM and NumC
¼ the number of detected and repaired leaks on mains and
service connections, respectively, Lm ¼ mains length (km), NC
¼ the number of service connections.
The next key parameter in the marginal cost approach is
the value of water lost, which includes the marginal cost of
water production and distribution from existing water
resources of the utility. This marginal cost is known as the
SR-MCW and usually comprises operating costs (Fanner
et al., 2007). The SR-MCW can be calculated using the dif-
ference in operating cost in producing and distributing one
more or less unit of water in terms of power, chemicals and
possibly labor plus any volume-related costs of purchasing
or withdrawing raw water from existing sources (Pearson &
Trow, 2005; Thornton et al., 2008).
2.3. Estimation of the current level of leakage
The steady-state current leakage level in the proposed meth-
odology is estimated using MNF analysis, which is the most
widely used method for determining leakage level in practice
(Mazzolani et al., 2017; Mutikanga et al., 2013; Yousefi-
Khoshqalb, 2019). The term MNF is defined as the lowest
flow supplied into a hydraulic network zone, which usually
occurs between 02:00 and 04:00 a.m. when most users are
inactive (AL-Washali et al., 2016; Alkasseh et al., 2013;
Puust et al., 2010). Therefore, leakage accounts for a larger
fraction of water flow during this time of the day. The vol-
ume of leakage can be estimated by subtracting the expected
legitimate night-time consumption (LNC) from the MNF.
The obtained value is called the net night flow (NNF),
which estimates the leakage flow rate during the MNF
period (Hamilton & Mckenzie, 2014).
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 825
The NDF should then be obtained to convert night leak-
age rate to daily leakage rate by involving pressure changes
(AL-Washali et al., 2016; Amoatey et al., 2014; Lambert &
Taylor, 2010). The NDF accounts for the influence of pres-
sure variations during the day on leakage flow rates. The
value NDF can be calculated using pressure measurements
at the AZP and an appropriate N1 exponent value as fol-
lows:
i¼23 
X N i¼23  N
AZPi, iþ1 1 X AZPi, iþ1 1
NDF ¼ ¼ (3)
i¼0
AZNP i¼0
AZP3  4
where N1 ¼ the exponent of pressure-leakage relationship
(FAVAD N1 exponent), AZP and AZNP ¼ the average
hourly and night pressure at the AZP, respectively.
The minimum level of real loss is defined as the lowest
technically achievable annual real loss, which could be
achieved at any particular operating pressure for well-man-
aged infrastructure in good condition (Lambert, 2009;
Lambert and McKenzie, 2002). The IWA Water Loss Task
Force developed the basic equation for the calculation of
UARL. Recently, the following equation was recommended
by (Lambert et al., 2014; Lambert, Koelbl, & Fuchs-
Hanusch, 2014) to calculate UARL in m3/year:
UARLðm3 =yearÞ ¼ ð6:57  Lm þ 0:292  NC þ 9:13  LP Þ
 P  CP
(4)
where LP ¼ the total length of service connections from the
property line to the meter (Km), P ¼ the average operating-
system pressure (meters), and CP ¼ pressure correction fac-
tor to consider the influence of pipe materials on UARL as
pressure changes (Figure 2).
In fact, the UARL consists of unavoidable background
leakage (UBL) plus losses from reported and unreported lea-
kages. The UBL is the lower limit for BL, which is unavoid-
able for every zone, even newly commissioned (Fanner
et al., 2007). The following equation calculates the UBL on
mains and service connections up to property line (Lambert,
2009):
 
AZNP 1:5
UBLðlitres=hourÞ ¼ ð20  Lm þ 1:25  NC Þ 
50
(5)
The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a performance
indicator quantifying how effectively a water utility controls
the level of real loss by implementing leakage control meas-
ures like PLC, asset management, and ALC at the current
operating pressure (Lambert, 2002; Lambert et al., 2014).
Mathematically, it is a dimensionless ratio between the
CARL and the UARL. It is important to note that the ILI is
a pure technical performance indicator that does not con-
sider any economic considerations (Chisakuta et al., 2011;
Liemberger, 2002).
The general conditions of mains and service connections
have a significant effect on leakage levels in WDNs. The
effects of infrastructure condition on the level of BL are
referred to as infrastructure condition factor (ICF), which is
826 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
Figure 2. Provisional relationship between pressure and CP, for systems with different percentages of rigid pipes (Source: (Lambert, 2009)).
the ratio of the actual level of BL in a zone to the UBL. The
ICF determines the volume of BL under the current operat-
ing condition, which is the minimum achievable leakage
level in a zone after all unreported leakages have been found
and fixed using conventional ALC methods (Fanner, et al.,
2007; Farley & Trow, 2007). The ICF can be calculated
based on actual field measurements.
In this method, comprehensive leak detection and repair
is conducted in individual zones. After all, detectable leaks
have been removed; then, the remaining BL can be directly
measured (AWWA, 2016; Fanner et al., 2007; Thornton
et al., 2008). This value can be taken as actual or target BL.
If the utility does not have sufficient leakage repair data,
there is a practical method to estimate the ICF. It can be
taken by assuming the ICF to be approximately equal to the
ILI value when the target leakage levels have been achieved.
The target ILI can be identified using preliminary leakage
management target-setting guidelines based on water resour-
ces, operational and financial considerations of the water
utility (AWWA, 2016).
2.4. Economic analysis of leakage
As previously mentioned, the proposed methodology deter-
mines the SR-ELL with respect to ALC activity based on the
marginal cost approach (Fanner et al., 2007; Lim et al.,
2015; Tripartite Group, 2002). In this approach, the mar-
ginal cost of ALC is compared with the marginal cost of
water lost. The SR-ELL has been reached when the marginal
cost of leakage control activity exceeds the marginal cost of
water. Moreover, a steady-state condition for the network is
necessary to apply this approach in practice, which means
there is no backlog of unreported leakage, except those
occurring since the last survey (Fanner et al., 2007).
The marginal cost of a leakage reduction strategy is an
important factor in SR-ELL calculations. For ALC activity, it
can be calculated using the ALC cost curve modelling,
which can provide estimates of ALC costs for maintaining
leakage at different levels. The steady-state ALC cost curve
can be modelled based on the current leakage level, and the
associated ALC costs to maintain that level, as well as an
estimate of the background and passive leakage levels (UK
Water Industry Research (UKWIR), 2013).
The TBL is a minimum achievable level of leakage using
limitless ALC resources (AWWA, 2016; UKWIR, 2013). The
ALC costs are asymptotic to this point, which means that
the leakage level may be approached to the TBL when the
marginal cost is ever-increasing. The second parameter to
define the ALC cost curve is the passive level of leakage
(PLL). Leakage level reaches PLL when the utility takes a
PLC policy (i.e., no ALC activity is performed) while
responding only to leaks reported by the customer or utili-
ty’s staff (UKWIR, 2011). The PLL can be calculated using
NNF data from the same period of MNF analysis. ALC cost
curve at the PLL falls to the fixed costs of leak-
age monitoring.
The last parameter for modelling cost curve is the
steady-state ALC costs for the current leakage level, which is
calculated using Equations (1) and (2). The steady-state
ALC cost curve is then modelled using the following equa-
tion (UKWIR, 2011):
 
L  Lb
C ¼ k  ln (6)
LP  Lb
where C ¼ variable element of ALC costs, L ¼ leakage level,

Figure 3. ALC cost curve, the cost of water lost and total cost curve for estimating SR-ELL.
Lb ¼ target/actual background leakage, Lp ¼ passive leakage
level while k ¼ coefficient determined by:
C
k¼  a  (7)
La  Lb
ln Lp  Lb
Ca ¼ ALC costs at the current steady-state leakage level,
La ¼ current or actual level of leakage.
The marginal cost of ALC is the additional cost of reduc-
ing the current level of leakage to a lower level and depends
on how much water loss control efforts have been made by
the water utility (Islam & Babel, 2013). The marginal cost of
ALC is obtained by the gradient of the ALC cost curve at a
point on the curve, which is represented by:
dC k
¼ (8)
dL L  Lb
Once the ALC cost curve has been generated, it can be
compared to the cost of water lost at different levels of leak-
age that is generally a straight line with the slope of the
marginal cost of water. The total cost curve can be derived
when the ALC cost curve and the cost of water lost are
added together. Figure 3 shows a typical total cost curve,
which tends to infinity at the TBL. The SR-ELL is the leak-
age level at which the marginal cost of ALC activity will be
equal to the marginal cost of water, which can be found at
the point of the minimum total cost.
Once the SR-ELL has been established, the following
comparison should be undertaken in order to cross-check of
the estimated ICF and correct it, if necessary. The economic
ILI is calculated with the ratio of estimated SR-ELL to the
UARL as a new target ILI. The new target ILI should be
close to the former target ILI which is identified based on
the preliminary leakage management target-setting guide-
lines for accepting the estimated ICF. Differently, the esti-
mated ICF is considered equal to the new target ILI.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 827
Subsequently, the SR-ELL calculations need to be repeated
until the modified ICF reaches the new target ILI.
2.5. Sensitivity analysis
Estimation of the ELL is subject to uncertainty, as deter-
mined using a variety of variables (Fanner & Lambert,
2009; Lim et al., 2015). Sensitivity analysis is carried out
to investigate how the SR-ELL may be affected by
changing independent variables in the proposed
methodology.
3. Case study
The proposed methodology is applied to an individual zone
of a WDN in Mashhad (Iran). This is the largest city in
north-eastern Iran, at approximately 1500 metres above the
sea level. Figure 4 illustrates zone J, which was selected for
the implementation of the proposed methodology. The
WDN of zone J consists of two subzones: J1 and J2, with
the approximately 112.5 km mains length and 26566 service
connections with 99% customer metering. This zone is sup-
plied by gravity from three inlet points. General characteris-
tics of the studied zone are presented in Table 1. The
predominant pipe materials for the zone J comprise of 58%
asbestos cement concrete (ACC), 22.7% polythene (PE) and
17.5% ductile iron (DI). Most of the mains have diameters
less than 250 mm (88.5%). Moreover, the vast majority of
the pipes are less than 10 years old.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Calculation of average zone pressure
As the GIS data of service connections are not available, the
WAGL is assessed by superimposing the layout of the WDN
and digital elevation model (DEM) of the zone. For each
828 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
Figure 4. Representation of the Study area (Zone J) and J1 and J2 subzones of the WDN of Mashhad. FM ¼ flow meter, PL ¼ pressure logger. (Image # 2018
Digital Globe, # 2018 Google Earth; Map data # 2018 Google.).
contour band, the ground level at the mid-point of the band
is multiplied by the counted mains length within the band,
then totalled. Finally, the WAGL is calculated by dividing
the total obtained value of the former step over the total
length of the pipes. The values of WAGLs for subzone J1
and J2 were found to be 1125.7 and 1115.5 metres, respect-
ively. Figure 4 presents the selected points as the AZPs with
the ground levels close to the obtained WAGLs and near
the centre of the subzones. Instantaneous pressure values
were measured at the AZPs of the subzones every 15 min.
The average pressure (Pav) for zone J is then calculated as
the weighted average pressure of the two subzones where
the weighting factor is the mains length.
Flow data were collected from the existing telemetry sys-
tem, which was logged at the three inlet points to zone J
every 15 min for 24 h. Data cleaning, validation, and nor-
malization were performed using Python to achieve a reli-
able data set. Figure 5 reports the average daily water inflow
for zone J during the period between Mar. 2017 and Mar.
2018. The average daily inflow of the zone varies between
393.20 and 1122 m3/hour (average value of 747.4). As Figure
5 shows, zone J characterized by remarkable seasonal
changes in water consumption because the network serves
mainly residential users. The pressure step test was under-
taken on September 21, 2017, to estimate the FAVAD N1
exponent. The pressure was reduced in three steps during
the 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. The reduction of flow into the zone
and pressure changes at the AZP were recorded. The aver-
age value of N1 was estimated to be 1.14.
In the examined case, the Mashhad water and wastewater
company (MWWC) has conducted leak detection surveys
annually to detect leaks and breaks on mains and service con-
nections in the last three years since Mar. 2015. Furthermore,
all leaks and bursts found have also been repaired. Thus, the
network is operating under a steady-state condition. Moreover,
flow monitoring into zone J is performed continually to meas-
ure leakage. Unit costs for various components of variable
ALC costs are summarized in Table 2 based on the data
obtained from the MWWC. Accordingly, the variable costs of
ALC activities (Ca) for the study area are estimated to be
52.45 thousand IR Rials (TIRR) (USD 1.249) per service con-
nections (SC) per year. Furthermore, the leakage monitoring
costs are estimated to be 13.18 TIRR/SC/year (0.314 USD/SC/
year). It should be mentioned that the collection and analysis
of cost data were conducted during the research period
between Mar. 2017 and Mar. 2018, at that time, approximately
USD 1 ¼ 42 TIRR.
The marginal cost of ALC can vary depending on how
much effort is being carried out by the water utility. In this
study, the marginal cost of ALC, using Equation (8), is
found to be 1.37 TIRR/m3 (0.033 USD/m3) under current
operating conditions. The SR-MCW, including the cost of
power and chemicals, is estimated from the company’s exist-
ing water sources. Considering these two components, the
estimated MCW for MWWC is found to be 6 TIRR/m3
(0.143 USD/m3). One conclusion derived from the estimated
marginal costs is that the water utility can spend an add-
itional annual expenditure of 4.63 TIRR/m3 (0.11 USD/m3)
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 829

Table 1. General characteristics of WDN of zone J.

Length By Pipe Material Length By Pipe Diameter Length By Pipe Age
Material Length(km) % Diameter(mm) Length(Km) % Age (years) Length(Km) %
Sub Zone J1Long (Km)¼59.9, Area (Km2)¼7.70 5L 0.013 0.02 <100 30.191 50.34 12 0.380 0.63
ACC 28.184 46.99 100-150 17.012 28.36 11 0.000 0.00
CI 0.006 0.01 200-250 3.000 5.00 10 0.264 0.44
DCI 14.284 23.81 300-350 0.552 0.92 9 38.703 64.53
GRP 0.776 1.29 400-450 8.159 13.60 8 1.334 2.22
NP 0.018 0.03 500-550 0.000 0.00 7 0.204 0.34
PE 16.094 26.83 600-650 0.420 0.70 6 2.200 3.67
PP 0.028 0.05 700-750 0.477 0.80 5 2.560 4.27
PVC 0.152 0.25 >750 0.085 0.14 4 0.429 0.72
ST 0.424 0.71 unknown 0.069 0.12 3 0.413 0.69
unknown 0.009 0.01 2 0.018 0.03
unknown 13.481 22.48
Sub Zone J2Long (Km)¼52.6, Area (Km2)¼4.54 AC 0.115 0.22 <100 11.403 21.68 33 0.042 0.08
ACC 37.139 70.60 100-150 27.652 52.57 18 0.268 0.51
DCI 5.521 10.50 200-250 8.074 15.35 11 0.279 0.53
PE 9.471 18.00 300-350 0.025 0.05 10 0.694 1.32
ST 0.252 0.48 400-450 2.773 5.27 9 45.432 86.37
unknown 0.104 0.20 500-550 0.892 1.70 8 0.032 0.06
>600 1.620 3.08 7 0.054 0.10
UNK 0.058 0.11 6 0.716 1.36
unknown 0.104 0.20 5 0.030 0.06
4 0.074 0.14
unknown 4.979 9.47

Figure 5. Average daily water inflow for zone J during the period between Mar. 2017 and Mar. 2018.

Table 2. ALC costs data obtained from the MWWC.

Cost Symbol Value
Unit cost of Leakage survey cost for mains (TIRR/ km length of mains) CLM 4000
Length of Mains (km) LM 112.5
Unit cost of Leakage survey for service connections (TIRR/ connections) CNC 20
Number of service connections NC 26566
Unit cost of the bonus payment to the contractor for detected leaks on mains (TIRR/detected leaks) CBp  main 2300
Unit cost of repaired leaks on mains (TIRR/repaired leaks) CRp  main 8800
Unit cost of extra payment to the contractor for detected leaks on service connections (TIRR/ detected leaks) CBp  conn: 1800
Unit cost of repaired leaks on service connections (TIRR/ repaired leaks) CRp  conn: 2500
Number of detected and repaired leaks on mains NumM 20
Number of detected and repaired leaks on service connections NumC 44
Total variable Costs (TIRR/ SC/ year) 52.45

for reducing leakage levels to SR-ELL under current operat-
ing conditions.
4.2. Minimum night flow analysis
In this study, based on 24-hour zone measurements, an
MNF analysis is performed to estimate the volume of real
losses. Flow monitoring reveals that the minimum value of
night flow occurs in the time interval between 02:00 a.m.
and 5:00 a.m. Furthermore, as customer meters are located
inside the study areas properties, no minimum night con-
sumption readings could be taken. Therefore, the CNU is
estimated based on the customer night consumption for
other countries, as reported in previous studies (Amoatey
830 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.

Figure 6. MNF and total inflow variations for zone J during the research period.

Table 3. Results of MNF analysis and estimation of the current level of leakage for zone J during the research period.
NNF(m3/h) NDF Daily Leakage Level (m3/day) Annual Leakage Level (MCM/year) Annual Inflow Rate (MCM/year) Average Leakage (%)
167.1 21.43 3581 1.31 6.49 20.2

Table 4. Calculations of maximum and economic potentially recover- 4.3. Estimation of CARL, UARL and UBL
able leakage.
Parameter Symbol Units Value % of Total The calculations of UARL and UBL for zone J are presented
Current Annual Real Losses CARL m3/SC/year 49.2 – in Table 4. As can be seen, the calculated value of UARL
Short-run Economic SR-ELL m3/SC/year 27 55.9
Leakage Level
using Equation (4) is found to be 0.377 MCM/year, which
Target Background TBL m3/SC/year 20.35 41.4 corresponds to 14.2 m3/SC/year. The calculated value of ILI
Leakage, if ICF ¼ 2 for the WDN of zone J is then obtained to be 3.46. With
Maximum potentially MPRL m3/SC/year 28.85 58.6
Recoverable Leakage
this ILI value, the network is classified as A2 based on real
Economic potentially EPRL m3/SC/year 22.2 44.1 losses assessment matrix (WBI target matrix) for low and
Recoverable Leakage middle-income countries (Liemberger et al., 2007;
Liemberger, 2010). Consequently, the improvement of ALC
activities and assessment of ELL is required.
et al., 2014; Morrison, Tooms, & Rogers, 2007). The cus- The TBL can be assessed by multiplying the calculated UBL
tomer night use is assumed to be equal to 5 lit/SC/hour, by an estimation of ICF. The value of UBL using Equation (5)
similar to reported CNU for Malaysia (Amoatey et al., 2014; is calculated as 0.27 MCM/year or 10.17 m3/SC/year (Table 4).
Fantozzi & Lambert, 2012). This value is chosen because As mentioned previously, there are several methods for estimat-
Malaysia is an Islamic country with similar social and reli- ing ICF. In this paper, ICF is obtained based on the estimation
gious costumes. Moreover, there are no large night users of target ILI. An initial estimate for ICF is considered approxi-
(industrial and agricultural) in the studied area. mately equal to the ILI value when the target level of leakage
Figure 6 plots variation in MNF and total inflows into the has been achieved. In addition, the target ILI can be selected
studied DMA during the research period. The average MNF dur- using the current ILI value as well as preliminary leakage man-
ing this period is calculated to be 299.9 m3/hourwhich is approxi- agement target-setting guidelines (AWWA, 2016). In this guide-
mately 40% of the average flow rate into zone J. This analysis line, the target ILI range is identified based on the water
indicates that the share of leakage may be significant in zone J. resources’ circumstances, operational and financial considera-
Moreover, the average level of NNF is calculated to be 167.1 m3/ tions that water utility encountered.
hour. It should be noted that the calculated NNF is mostly com- Accordingly, it is found that the target ILI range of 1.0-
posed of real losses due to leakage in the water mains and service 3.0 most closely represents the conditions in the water util-
connections, as flow rates are measured at the inlet points of the ity based on the calculated ILI value (ILI ¼ 3:46) and also
network. The value of the NDF, using Equation (3), is calculated the circumstances encountered by the MWWC under the
to be 21.43. Therefore, the estimated daily leakage derived by three aforementioned considerations. Therefore, for the ini-
MNF analysis is found to be 3582 m3 per day, with correspond- tial estimation of ICF, the mid-level of the determined target
ing annual leakage of 1.31 MCM/year. In terms of service con- ILI range (i.e., ILITarget ¼ 2) can be used. The resulting TBL
nections, the current annual leakage is equal to 49.2 m3/SC/year. for zone J is then obtained to be 0.54 MCM/year or 20.35
Table 3 reports the summary of night flow analysis for zone J. As m3/SC/year. Eventually, the PLL can be estimated using
can be seen in this table, the leakage accounts for approximately NNF data during the same period of MNF analysis by cal-
20.2% of the total annual inlet volume. culating the maximum of the 7-day rolling 50th percentile

Figure 7. Analysis of ELL for zone J under current operating conditions.
values (UKWIR, 2011). Following this procedure, the PLL
for zone J is estimated to be 129.3 m3/SC/year.
4.4. Economic level of leakage estimation
Figure 7 represents the steady-state ALC cost curve (solid
line), the cost curve of water loss (dashed line) at different
leakage levels, and the total cost curve (point line) for zone
J under current operating conditions. As may be observed
in Figure 7, the ALC cost curve tends towards infinity at
the TBL of 20.35 m3/SC/year. The maximum potentially
recoverable leakage (MPRL) can be obtained by deducting
the estimated TBL from the CARL. The MPRL is found to
be 28.85 m3/SC/year, which can be achieved with unlimited
ALC resources for the study area. The curve also falls to the
minimum level of 13.18 TIRR/SC/year (0.314 USD/SC/year),
which is equivalent to the leakage monitoring costs (ALC
fixed costs) at the passive leakage level of 129 m3/SC/year.
As can be seen in Figure 7, the value of SR-ELL for zone J
is obtained as 27 m3/SC/year that corresponds to 0.717
MCM/year at the current operating pressure and current
ALC policy adopted by the MWWC.
The estimated SR-ELL can be set as the target level of
leakage, which can be achieved by the water utility under
current operating conditions. In order to control the ICF
estimation method, the economic ILI is calculated by divid-
ing the estimated SR-ELL by the calculated UARL and com-
pared with the determined target ILI, obtained from leakage
management target-setting guidelines. Following this pro-
cedure, the economic ILI (new target ILI) is 1.94, which is
reasonably close to the determined target ILI of 2.0. Thus, it
may be concluded that the estimated ICF is acceptable and
it is not necessary to update the estimated ICF.
The economic potentially recoverable leakage (EPRL) is
obtained by deducting CARL from SR-ELL. The EPRL value
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 831
for zone J is found to be 22.2 m3/SC/year, which is equiva-
lent to 0.59 MCM/year (Table 4). Looking at Table 4, the
EPRL comprises 45% of the CARL. This means that there is
an apparent justification for the further reduction in the
leakage level in zone J under the current ALC policy and
operating pressure. From an economic point of view, if the
CARL is reduced by 45% (i.e., reaches 11% of supplied
water), the ALC policy can be quite effective.
As shown in Figure 7, the annual economic budget for
ALC activities is obtained to be 285 TIRR/SC/year (6.786
USD/SC/year), that is, around four times higher than the
current ALC costs which are approximately 65.63 TIRR/SC/
year (1.563 USD/SC/year). These results suggest that the
intervention frequency should be performed economically
every 3 months in the study area to achieve SR-ELL. In add-
ition, the results indicate that the value of water lost in this
case is high enough to justify more frequent interventions
for further leakage reductions. This is due to the fact that
the average run time of unreported leakages can be reduced
by increasing the annual operating budget for ALC activities
and thereby, economic intervention frequencies.
4.5. Sensitivity analysis
In the last step of the proposed methodology, the sensitivity
analysis is carried out to examine the variables affecting SR-
ELL. The representative variables applied to this study are
average operating pressure, marginal cost of water, infra-
structure condition, and the marginal cost of ALC activity.
The necessity of incorporating PM options into the estima-
tion of SR-ELL has been widely accepted (Fanner &
Lambert, 2009; Fantozzi & Lambert, 2007). Pressure varia-
tions can affect the leak flow rates of all components of
leakage, pipe break frequencies, and thereby SR-ELL. After
implementing PM, the BL, the frequency, and the flow rate
832 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
Figure 8. The relationship between ALC costs and different operating pressures for five specific leakage levels.
of reported and unreported leakages are reduced. In con-
trast, if operating pressure is increased to improve service,
new leaks may occur, and flow rates from existing leaks
can increase.
As mentioned previously, the steady-state ALC cost curve
is developed for modelling steady-state ALC costs for leak-
age levels above and below the current level under current
operating pressure and ALC policy. Therefore, the ALC cost
curves for different operating pressures can be developed
using pressure-leakage and pressure-pipe breaks relation-
ships. Changes in leak flow rates (L0 to L1 ) as average oper-
ating pressure at the AZP varies (AZP0 to AZP1 ) is
estimated using N1 power law, an approximate version of
the FAVAD concept, with the following equation: L0 =L1 ¼
ðAZP0 =AZP1 ÞN1 (Lambert & Fantozzi, 2010; Thornton &
Lambert, 2005). It is important to note that in this equation,
the value of N1 exponent for estimating BL changes should
be assumed to be close to 1.5, as the BL is very sensitive to
pressure (Fantozzi & Lambert, 2007).
Furthermore, the relationship between pipe breaks fre-
quency and maximum pressure at the AZP can be predicted
using the following equation (Lambert, Fantozzi, &
Thornton, 2013; Lambert & Thornton, 2012; Moslehi and
Jalili_ghazizadeh, 2020):
  !
AZPmax1 N2
ðBF0  BF1 Þ ¼ ðBF0  BFnpd Þ  1 
AZPmax2
(9)
where, BF0 and BF1 ¼ pipe breaks frequency before and
after PMrespectively, BFnpd ¼ pressure-independent pipe
break frequency; AZPmax1 and AZPmax2 ¼ maximum pres-
sure at the AZP before and after pressure changes, respect-
ively. N2 ¼ the exponent of pressure-pipe breaks
relationship is recommended to be close to 3 (Ghorbanian,
Guo, & Karney, 2016; Lambert & Thornton, 2012).
The estimated pipe breaks frequency (mains and service
connections) and the predicted leak flow rates (i.e., back-
ground, passive and current level of leakage) due to imple-
menting PM are then used to calculate ALC costs. Figure 8
shows the relation between ALC costs and different operat-
ing pressures for five specific leakage levels.
As Figure 8 shows, all ALC costs for different leakage
levels follow a common trend: the ALC costs are higher for
high values of operating pressure values and decrease for
small values. This means that lower ALC costs are required
to maintain leakage at a specific steady-state level after
implementing PM schemes. For example, at the current level
of leakage, 49.2 m3/SC/year, if the average operating pressure
can be reduced by 44% (from 44.5 m to 25 m), the predicted
reduction of ALC costs will be around 65% (66 to 23 TIRR/
SC/year (1.571 to 0.548 USD/SC/year)). Moreover, the rate
of increase in ALC costs is not constant, and it is much
greater when the average operating pressure is higher. This
may be expected given that a change in pressure can
increase the pipe break frequencies with a cubic relation-
ship; variable costs of ALC will increase nonlinearly.
Figure 9 represents the influence of pressure changes for
different SR-MCW on the SR-ELL. As can be seen, the SR-
ELL shows a decreasing trend as the operating pressure
reduce. This may be owing to the fact that implementing
PM can cause lower pipe break rates, lower leak flow rates
specifically for BL, lower NRR of unreported leakage, and
thereby lower SR-ELL (Fantozzi & Lambert, 2007;
Ghorbanian et al., 2016). It is also relevant to note that the
SR-ELL rate is not directly proportional to pressure, and it
is lower when the operating pressure reduces. For the
MWWCʼs current operating condition, a 30% reduction in
SR-ELL requires a 20% reduction in the operating pressure.
Figure 9 also demonstrates that for different operating pres-
sure, the SR-ELL is not sensitive to the SR-MCW up to a
certain value.

Figure 9. The influence of pressure variations for different SR-MCW on the SR-ELL.
Figure 10. The relation between the total costs (ALC costs plus the cost of water lost) and leakage levels for different SR-MCW.
The influences of the SR-MCW on the SR-ELL are also
assessed at the current operating pressure and ALC activity.
Figure 10 presents the relation of the total annual costs
(ALC costs plus the cost of water lost) versus leakage levels
for different SR-MCW. The figure indicates that the SR-
MCW has little influence on the SR-ELL up to a certain
value. As can be seen, if the SR-MCW is more than 6
TIRR/m3 (0.143 USD/m3), the SR-ELL does not change sig-
nificantly, while the total costs of ALC will increase signifi-
cantly with increasing SR-MCW. For example, at the
current operating pressure (i.e., an average pressure of
44.5 m) and ALC activity, doubling the SR-MCW from 6 to
12 TIRR/m3 (0.143 to 0.286 USD/m3) only offers a 10%
reduction in SR-ELL. However, when the SR-MCW is
reduced by 50% from 4 to 2 TIRR/m3 (0.095 to 0.048 USD/
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 833
m3), the SR-ELL grows by approximately 30%. This can be
linked to the fact that the ALC activity follows the law of
diminishing returns which results in a slowing down in the
rate of reduction of SR-ELL when more resources (higher
value of SR-MCW) are dedicated to leakage reduction
(Pearson & Trow, 2005; Thornton et al., 2008).
Another key variable in the estimation of SR-ELL is the
condition of infrastructure, which directly influences the
volume of BL (AWWA, 2016; Fanner et al., 2007). Figure
11 relates the SR-ELL for different values of TBL and SR-
MCW under current ALC policy and operating pressure.
TBL levels are estimated by multiplying the calculated UBL
by different ICF values, varying from infrastructure good
condition (ICF ¼ 1) to poor condition (ICF ¼ 3). Figure 11
reveals a direct link between SR-ELL and TBL. When
834 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
Figure 11. The influence of infrastructure condition on SR-ELL for different SR-MCW.
Figure 12. The influence of variable elements of ALC costs on SR-ELL for different SR-MCW at the current operating pressure.
infrastructure condition gradually worsens, the ICF and
thereby, the minimum achievable leakage level (i.e., TBL),
which can be achieved through limitless ALC costs, will
increase. The higher level of TBL can cause moving the
ALC cost curve and also total cost curve to the right
because of the increased collective sum of minor leaks that
are too small to be found by the current ALC policy.
Therefore, the SR-ELL for the current operating conditions
can increase when the condition of the network infrastruc-
ture gradually worsens.
Moreover, as may be observed in Figure 11, the SR-ELL
is almost linearly proportional to the TBL. For example, If
the infrastructure condition of the network changes from
current average conditions (ICF ¼ 2) to poor conditions
(ICF ¼ 3), then the SR-ELL will increase approximately by
33%. Moreover, the volume of BL comprises a high propor-
tion of the current leakage level (more than 40%) for zone
J. Thus, SR-ELL may be significantly reduced by improving
infrastructure conditions through leakage control activities
like network rehabilitation, renewal and replacement (i.e.,
asset management). In contrast, if the infrastructure condi-
tion will improve to good conditions (ICF ¼ 1), then the
SR-ELL reduces from 27 to 17.8 m3/SC/year for the current
operating conditions.
The relationship between SR-ELL, variable costs of ALC
activity, and SR-MCW is represented in Figure 12. The
influence of variable elements of ALC costs, including detec-
tion and repair costs, are assessed for different SR-MCW at
the current operating pressure. Figure 12 shows a common
trend for different SR-MCW: the SR-ELL is lower for small
values of variable costs of ALC and would increase for high
values. This is due to the fact that for a specific SR-MCW,
the marginal cost of ALC increase for the higher values of
variable ALC costs, and therefore the SR-ELL increases for a
certain value of water lost. However, the rate of increase of
SR-ELL is not constant for different SR-MCWs, and it is
reduced for the higher SR-MCW. For example, for a higher
SR-MCW value, 12 TIRR/m3 (0.286 USD/m3), the SR-ELL
remains largely indifferent to the ALC variable costs,
whereas, for a lower value of the SR-MCW, 2 TIRR/m3
(0.048 USD/m3), the SR-ELL is considerably affected by
ALC variable costs.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a data-based field methodology that
aims at estimating the short-run economic level of leakage
concerning active leakage control, which can be utilized by
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 835

water utilities to have a clear strategy on their leakage con- significantly influences the short-run economic level of leak-
trol policies. The methodology was applied to a large indi- age, as it directly affects the background leakage, which
vidual zone Mashhad (Iran) that operated under steady-state comprises of more than 40% of the current leakage in the
conditions. The average zone points were determined using study area. The proposed methodology could assist water
a systematic approach and GIS tools for assessing the aver- utilities in deciding the leakage target level based on the
age operating pressure of the case study. economic level of leakage. It offers a practical approach in
Different leakage levels were estimated using collected estimating short-run economic leakage level with respect to
flow and pressure data to develop an active leakage control the active leakage control strategy.
cost curve. Night flow analysis was carried out to estimate
the night leakage rate. Subsequently, the night-day factor
was calculated to predict average daily leakage from night Acknowledgments
leakage rate. Night flow results reveal that the current leak-
age level is 49.2 m3/SC/year, which is around 20% of the The authors appreciate the help provided by the Mashhad water and
wastewater company through provision of data used in this work and
total input volume of water. The target background leakage,
scientific and technological support.
which is achievable with the current policies and unlimited
active leakage control resources, is estimated to be 20.35 m3/
SC/year. The passive leakage level is found to be 129.3 m3/
SC/year when the water utility performs no active leakage Disclosure statement
control activity. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
After developing the active leakage control cost curve
and total cost curve, the short-run economic level of leakage Notations
is estimated to be 27 m3/SC/year for the studied area at the ALC Active Leakage Control
current operating pressure and active leakage control policy. AZNP Average Zone Night Pressure
AZP Average Zone Point
The economic intervention frequency of active leakage con- BABE Burst and Background Estimates
trol should be undertaken every three months to achieve the BL Background Leakage
estimated short-run economic level of leakage. Results show CARL Current Annual Real Losses
that when the current leakage level is reduced to short-run DEM Digital Elevation Model
DMA District Metered Area
economic level of leakage through active leakage control EIF Economic Intervention Frequency
activity, 45% of the total leakage can be potentially recover- ELL Economic Level of Leakage
able, and the ILI will be proportionally decreased from 3.46 EPRL Economic Potentially Recoverable Leakage
to 1.94. From an economic point of view, an additional EURL Economic Unavoidable Real Losses
annual expenditure of 4.63 TIRR (USD 0.086) per cubic FAVAD Fixed and Variable Area Discharge
GIS Geographic Information System
metre of water can be spent by the water utility for reducing ICF Infrastructure Condition Factor
leakage levels under current operating conditions. ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index
The effects of different influential factors on the short- ILIMSS International Leakage Management Support Services
run economic level of leakage and their interrelationships IWA International Water Association
LNC Legitimate Night-time Consumption
were investigated by conducting sensitivity analysis. The
LR-ELL Long-run Economic Level of Leakage
sensitivity analysis results prove that implementing pressure LRMC Long-run Marginal Cost
management has a significant influence on the short-run MNF Minimum Night Flow
economic level of leakage, as the average operating pressure MPRL Maximum Potentially Recoverable Leakage
in the study area was relatively high. Therefore, the imple- MWWC Mashhad Water and Wastewater Company
NDF Night-Day Factor
mentation of pressure management can cause less frequent NNF Net Night Flow
pipe breaks and reduce leakage components, especially back- NPV Net Present Value
ground leakage. For the current operation, if the operating NRR Natural Rate of Rise
pressure is reduced by 20%, the short-run economic level of PLC Passive Leakage Control
leakage will decrease by 30%. PLL Passive Level of Leakage
PM Pressure Management
Results demonstrate that the short-run economic level of PRV Pressure Reducing Valves
leakage remains unaffected for the short-run marginal cost RR Rate of Rise
of water up to a certain level. This may be due to the fact SC Service Connections
that the active leakage control activity follows the law of SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SELL Sustainable Economic Level of Leakage
diminishing returns, which means that, as more money is
SR-ELL Short-run Economic Level of Leakage
spent on active leakage control activity, units of water saved SRMC Short-run Marginal Cost
for each unit of money spent will be less. The short-run SR-MCW Short-run Marginal Cost of Water
economic level of leakage can only reduce with 10% by dou- TBL Target Background Leakage
bling the short-run marginal cost of water (from 6 to 12 TIRR Thousands of IR Rials
UARL Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
TIRR/m3 (0.143 to 0.286 USD/m3)) at the current operating UBL Unavoidable Background Leakage
pressure and active leakage control policy. The results also WAGL Weighted Average Ground Level
point to this fact that the infrastructure condition WDN Water Distribution Network
836 I. MOSLEHI ET AL.
References
Al-Washali, T., Sharma, S., & Kennedy, M. (2016). Methods of assess-
ment of water losses in water supply systems: a review. Water
Resources Management, 30(14), 4985–5001. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-016-1503-7
Alkasseh, J. M. A., Adlan, M. N., Abustan, I., Aziz, H. A., & Hanif,
A. B. M. (2013). Applying minimum night flow to estimate water
loss using statistical modeling: A case study in Kinta Valley. Water
Resources Management, 27(5), 1439–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-012-0247-2
Alkasseh, J. M. A., Adlan, M. N., Abustan, I., & Hanif, A. B. M.
(2015). Achieving an economic leakage level in Kinta Valley,
Malaysia. Water Utility Journal, 11, 31–47.
Amoatey, P. K., Minke, R., & Steinmetz, H. (2014). Leakage estimation
in water networks based on two categories of night-time users: A
case study of a developing country network. Water Supply, 14(2),
329–336. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2013.201
Amoatey, P. K., Minke, R., & Steinmetz, H. (2018). Leakage estimation
in developing country water networks based on water balance, min-
imum night flow and component analysis methods. Water Practice
and Technology, 13(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2018.005
Ashton, C. H., & Hope, V. S. (2001). Environmental valuation and the
economic level of leakage. Urban Water, 3(4), 261–270. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1462-0758(01)00046-2
American Water Works Association. (2016). Water Audits and Loss
Control Programs: M36. Denver: American Water Works
Association.
Bettin, A., Rogers, D., & Serrani, C. (2014). Beyond leakage manage-
ment: How to decide if, where and when to look for leaks. Water
Utility Journal, 7, 45–49.
Chisakuta, S., Mayumbelo, K., Mulenga, K., Simbeye, I., Wegelin, W.,
McKenzie, R., & Andres, D. (2011). Non-revenue water: trainers
manual. Wave Pool Zambia Imprint. Germany: German Foundation
for International Cooperation (GIZ).
Creaco, E., & Walski, T. (2017). Economic analysis of pressure control
for leakage and pipe burst reduction. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 143(12), 04017074. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000846
Fanner, P., & Lambert, A. (2009, April). Calculating SRELL with pres-
sure management, active leakage control and leak run-time options,
with confidence limits. In Proceedings of 5th IWA Water Loss
Reduction Specialist Conference (pp. 373–380).
Fanner, P. V., Strum, R., Thornton, J., Liemberger, R., Davis, S. E., &
Hoogerwerf, T. (2007). Leakage management technologies. American
Water Works Association. Denver, Colo: Awwa Research
Foundation.
Fantozzi, M., & Lambert, A. (2007). Including the effects of pressure
management in calculations of Short-Run Economic Leakage Levels.
In IWA Conference’Water Loss (pp. 1–10). Bucharest, Romania.
Fantozzi, M., & Lambert, A. (2012). Residential night consumption –
Assessment, choice of scaling units and calculation of variability. In
IWA Conference “Water Loss 2012 (pp. 1–10). Manila, Philippines.
Farley, M., & Liemberger, R. (2005). Developing a non-revenue water
reduction strategy: planning and implementing the strategy. Water
Supply, 5(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2005.0006
Farley, M., & Trow, S. W. (2007). Losses in water distribiution net-
works; a practitioners guide to assessment, monitoring, and control
(2nd ed.). UK: International Water Association Publishing.
Frauendorfer, R., & Liemberger, R. (2010). The issues and challenges of
reducing non-revenue water. Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian
Development Bank.
Ghorbanian, V., Guo, Y., & Karney, B. (2016). Field data–based meth-
odology for estimating the expected pipe break rates of water distri-
bution systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 142(10), 04016040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.
1943-5452.0000686
Gonelas, K., & Kanakoudis, V. (2015). The economic impact of pressure
management in Kozani city’s water distribution system. Benefits,
expenditures and revenue losses. In IWA Balkan Young Water
Professionals Conference (pp. 182–190). Thessaloniki, Greece.
Gonelas, K., & Kanakoudis, V. (2016). Reaching economic leakage level
through pressure management. Water Supply, 16(3), 756–765.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2015.181
Gupta, A., & Kulat, K. D. (2018). A selective literature review on leak
management techniques for water distribution system. Water
Resources Management, 32(10), 3247–3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-018-1985-6
Haider, H., Al-Salamah, I. S., Ghazaw, Y. M., Abdel-Maguid, R. H.,
Shafiquzzaman, M., & Ghumman, A. R. (2019). Framework to
Establish Economic Level of Leakage for Intermittent Water
Supplies in Arid Environments. Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, 145(2), 05018018. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001027.
Hamilton, S., & Mckenzie, R. (2014). Water management and water
loss. Water Intelligence Online (Vol. 13). London: IWA Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780406367
Howarth, D. A. (1998). Arriving at the economic level of leakage:
Environmental aspects. Water and Environment Journal, 12(3),
197–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.1998.tb00173.x
ILMSS Ltd. (2013). Guidelines relating to the assesment and calculation
of average pressure in water distribiution systems and zones.
Gwynedd, UK: ILMSS.
Islam, M. S., & Babel, M. S. (2013). Economic analysis of leakage in
the Bangkok Water distribution system. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 139(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000235
Kanakoudis, V., & Gonelas, K. (2015). The optimal balance point
between NRW reduction measures, full water costing and water
pricing in water distribution systems. Alternative scenarios forecast-
ing the Kozani’s WDS optimal balance point. Procedia engineering,
119(2015), 1278–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.996
Kanakoudis, V., & Gonelas, K. (2016). Analysis and calculation of the
short and long run economic leakage level in a water distribution
system. Water Utility, 12, 57–66.
Kanakoudis, V., & Muhammetoglu, H. (2014). Urban water pipe net-
works management towards non-revenue water reduction: Two case
studies from Greece and Turkey. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water, 42(7),
880–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201300138
Kanakoudis, V., & Tsitsifli, S. (2010). Results of an urban water distri-
bution network performance evaluation attempt in Greece. Urban
Water Journal, 7(5), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.
2010.509436
Kanakoudis, V., Tsitsifli, S., Cerk, M., Banovec, P., Samaras, P., &
Zouboulis, A. I. (2015). Basic principles of a DSS tool developed to
prioritize NRW reduction measures in water pipe networks. Water
Quality, Exposure and Health, 7(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12403-014-0111-0
Kanakoudis, V., Tsitsifli, S., & Demetriou, G. (2016). Applying an inte-
grated methodology toward non-revenue water reduction: the case
of Nicosia, Cyprus. Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(25),
11447–11461. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1048537
Kanakoudis, V., Tsitsifli, S., Kouziakis, C., & Lappos, S. (2015).
Defining the level of the non-revenue water in Kozani, Greece: is it
a typical case? Desalination and Water Treatment, 54(8), 2170–2180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.934119
Kanakoudis, V., Tsitsifli, S., Samaras, P., & Zouboulis, A. (2013).
Assessing the performance of urban water networks across the EU
Mediterranean area: The paradox of high NRW levels and absence
of respective reduction measures. Water Supply, 13(4), 939–950.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2013.044
Kanakoudis, V., Tsitsifli, S., & Zouboulis, A. I. (2015). WATERLOSS
project: developing from theory to practice an integrated approach
towards NRW reduction in urban water systems. Desalination and
Water Treatment, 54(8), 2147–2157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2014.934114
Lambert, A., & McKenzie, R. D. (2002). Practical experience in using
the infrastructure leakage index. In IWA Conference “Leakage

Management: A Practical Approach (Vol. 3, pp. 1). Lemesos,
Cyprus.
Lambert, A. (2001). What do we know about pressure-leakage relation-
ships in distribution systems. In IWA Conference. Systems approach
to leakage control and water distribution system management (pp.
1–8).
Lambert, A. (2002). International report: Water losses management
and techniques. Water Supply, 2(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001789695501300409
Lambert, A. (2009). Ten years experience in using the UARL formula to
calculate infrastructure leakage index. In IWA Conference “Water
Loss 2009 (pp. 189–196).
Lambert, A., Charalambous, B., Fantozzi, M., Kovac, J., Rizzo, A., St
John, S. G., & Galea St. John, S. (2014). 14 years experience of using
IWA best practice water balance and water loss performance indica-
tors in Europe. In IWA Specialized Conference: Water Loss (pp.
1–31).
Lambert, A., & Fantozzi, M. (2005). Recent advances in calculating
economic intervention frequency for active leakage control, and
implications for calculation of economic leakage levels. Water
Supply, 5(6), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2005.0072
Lambert, A., & Fantozzi, M. (2010). Recent developments in pressure
management. In IWA Conference ‘Water Loss.
Lambert, A., Fantozzi, M., & Shepherd, M. (2017). CCWi2017: F100
‘Pressure: Leak Flow Rates Using FAVAD: An Improved Fast-Track
Practitioner’s Approach’ (Version 1). The University of Sheffield.
https://doi.org/10.15131/shef.data.5365078.v1
Lambert, A., Fantozzi, M., & Thornton, J. (2013). Practical approaches
to modeling leakage and pressure management in distribution system-
s–progress since 2005. In 12th International Conference on
Computing and Control for the Water Industry (pp. 2–4). Perugia,
Italy.
Lambert, A., Koelbl, J. K., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2014). Interpreting
ILIs in small systems. In IWA Water Ideas 2014: Intelligent
Distribution for Efficient and affordable Supplies (pp. 1–10).
Lambert, A., & Lalonde, A. (2005). Using practical predictions of eco-
nomic intervention frequency to calculate short-run economic leakage
level, with or without pressure management. In IWA Specialised
Conference ‘Leakage (pp. 310–321).
Lambert, A., & McKenzie, R. D. (2002). Practical experience in using
the infrastructure leakage index. In IWA Conference “Leakage
Management: A Practical Approach (Vol. 3, pp. 1–16). Lemesos,
Cyprus.
Lambert, A., Merks, C., & Trow, S. (2015). EU reference document
good practices on leakage management WFD CIS WG PoM: Main
Report. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2779/102151
Lambert, A., & Taylor, R. (2010). Water loss guide, a guideline for the
New Zealand water and wastes association. New Zealand: Water
New Zealand.
Lambert, A., & Thornton, J. (2012). Pressure: Bursts relationships:
Influence of pipe materials, validation of scheme results, and impli-
cations of extended asset life. Water Loss, 2012, 2–11.
Liemberger, R. (2002). Do you know how misleading the use of wrong
performance indicators can be? In IWA Specialised Conference
“Leakage Management-A Practical Approach (pp. 1–17). Lemesos,
Cyprus.
Liemberger, R. (2010). Recommendation for initial non revenue water
assessment. In IWA Conference “Water Loss 2010 (Vol. 1, pp.
1–13).
Liemberger, R., Brothers, K., Lambert, A., Mckenzie, R., Rizzo, A., &
Waldron, T. (2007). Water loss performance indicators. In IWA
International Specialised Conference Water Loss 2007 (pp.
148–160).
Lim, E., Savic, D., & Kapelan, Z. (2015). Development of a leakage tar-
get setting approach for South Korea based on Economic Level of
Leakage. Procedia Engineering, 119(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.proeng.2015.08.862
Loureiro, D., Amado, C., Martins, A., Vitorino, D., Mamade, A., &
Coelho, S. T. (2016). Water distribution systems flow monitoring
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 837
and anomalous event detection: A practical approach. Urban Water
Journal, 13(3), 242–252. doi:10.1080/1573062X.2014.988733.
Mazzolani, G., Berardi, L., Laucelli, D., Simone, A., Martino, R., &
Giustolisi, O. (2017). Estimating leakages in water distribution net-
works based only on inlet flow data. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 143(6), 04017014–04017011. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000758
Morrison, J., Tooms, S., & Rogers, D. (2007). District metered areas
guidance notes. London: IWA Publishing.
Moslehi, I., & Jalili_ghazizadeh, M. (2020). Pressure-Pipe Breaks
Relationship in Water Distribution Networks: A Statistical Analysis.
Water Resources Management, 1–18. 10.1007/s11269-020-02587-4
Moslehi, I. (2020). Developing a decision support system for real loss
management in water distribution networks (Doctoral dissertation).
Department of Civil, Water, and Environmental Engineering,
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).
Munoz-Trochez, C., Smout, I., & Kayaga, S. (2011). Economic level of
leakage (ELL) calculation with limited data: an application in
Zaragoza. In 35th WEDC International Conference. Loughborough,
UK.
Mutikanga, H. E., Sharma, S. K., & Vairavamoorthy, K. (2013).
Methods and tools for managing losses in water distribution sys-
tems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(2),
166–174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000245
National water and Wastewater Engineering Company. (2018, July 20).
Annually non-revenue water reports on water distribution system.
Retrieved from https://www.nww.ir/
Pearson, D., & Trow, S. W. (2005). Calculating the economic levels of
leakage. In Leakage Conference (pp. 1–16). Portugal.
Puust, R., Kapelan, Z., Savic, D. A., & Koppel, T. (2010). A review of
methods for leakage management in pipe networks. Urban Water
Journal, 7(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15730621003610878
Renaud, E., Sissoko, M. T., Clauzier, M., Gilbert, D., Sandraz, A. C., &
Pillot, J. (2015). Comparative study of different methods to average
pressures in water distribution zones. Water Utility Journal, 10,
25–35.
Smout, I. K., Kayaga, S., & Munoz-Trochez, C. (2010). Adapting the
economic level of leakage concept to include carbon emissions, and
application with limited data. In IWA World Water Congress 2010
(pp. 1–10).
Thornton, J., & Lambert, A. (2005). Progress in practical prediction of
pressure: leakage, pressure: burst frequency and pressure: consumption
relationships. In IWA Special Conference’Leakage (pp. 1–10).
Thornton, J., Sturm, R., & Kunkel, G. (2008). Water loss control.
McGraw Hill Professional. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tripartite Group (2002). Best practice principles in the economic level of
leakage calculation. UK: Tripartite Group.
Trow, S., & Farley, M. (2004). Developing a strategy for leakage man-
agement in water distribution systems. Water Supply, 4(3), 149–168.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2004.0051
Tsitsifli, S., & Kanakoudis, V. (2018). Disinfection impacts to drinking
water safety: A review. Proceedings, 2(11), 603. https://doi.org/10.
3390/proceedings2110603
Tsitsifli, S., Kanakoudis, V., Kouziakis, C., Demetriou, G., & Lappos, S.
(2017). Reducing non-revenue water in urban water distribution
networks using DSS tools. Water Utility, 2017(16), 25–37.
UK Water Industry Research. (2011). Best practice for the derivation of
cost curves in economic level of leakage analysis. London: UK Water
Industry Research.
UK Water Industry Research. (2013). Factors affecting background leak-
age levels. London: UK Water Industry Research.
Van Zyl, J. E., Lambert, A. O., & Collins, R. (2017). Realistic modeling
of leakage and intrusion flows through leak openings in pipes.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 143(9), 04017030. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001346
Yousefi-Khoshqalb, E. (2019). Impact of pressure management on
the economic level of leakage in water supply networks (Master’s
thesis). Department of Civil, Water, and Environmental
Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (In persian).