Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 sur 86
Project acronym: WATERLOSS
Project full title: Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system
Project code: 2G-MED09-445
D4.1.1: 1 DATABASE OF NON REVENUE WATER MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
D4.1.2: 1 SET OF QUANTIFIED TARGETS FOR NON REVENUE WATER
REDUCTION STRATEGY
Component: CO4: Development of a DSS tool for appropriate NRW reduction strategy Phase: 4.1 Preparation of a database of NRW management methods Lead Partner: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Coordinating Partner: Department of Herault, France
Version: Final Version Date of deliverable: 31/08/2012
University
of Ljubljana
PREAMBLE In the WATERLOSS application form the presentation of Component 4 introduces the main objectives for the preparation of a database of Non-Revenue Water management methods. The following tasks have been requested: “A database with conventional and new methods for Non Revenue Water control will be prepared considering existing and future leakages. NRW reduction measures will be classified (short or long term, constructive or non-constructive) and evaluated with emphasis on the operating conditions prevailing in each area, as they affect implementation (e.g. continuous or intermittent flow, seasonal variations, etc). The feasibility of measures will include both financial requirements and physical application and consider internal WSS specific parameters as well as broader water management indicators from national River Basin Management plans. Rational and quantified goals for the studied WSSs will be set up, representing the targets for a NRW reduction strategy.” So, the main focus of the following deliverable, after the definition of the Performance Indicators, is to design a global method, based on questionnaires and data provided by each water utility, towards a set of actions to be taken. The main difficulties came from the large variety of local environment, in terms of availability of measures and thresholds. So the work team had to sort out the Non-Revenue Water reduction measures in different lists, depending on their frequency, their order of magnitude, their importance and the ratio implementation cost/ efficiency. On this groundwork, a hierarchical tree has been proposed, allowing the working team to propose a logical tree which can be considered as the corner stone of the Decision Support System (DSS). Each knot of the logical flow (a 5 steps process) is based on fundamental data that stem from the water balance and the different variables at the disposal by each partner. Consequently, additional information was requested to make the logical tree effective and operational. Those data have been gathered by special questionnaires and sent to all partners. Furthermore, as the main objectives consist in reducing the water losses, a target set has been asked from all partners (and potentially to all users of the decision support system). This will allow the definition of a departure state and a final one, to let each utility implement a global strategy towards sustainable goals.
Page 3 sur 86
TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION TO WATERLOSS ......................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Project details .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Axe ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Theme of the project ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Geographic coverage ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Summary of the project ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 The current and the next component concerned ............................................................................. 7 2. Presentation of Phase 4.1. and meetings organization....................................................................... 9 2.1 Description of phase 4.1 .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Organization and sequence of meetings ......................................................................................... 10 3. Developing the NRW reduction measures lists ................................................................................. 12 3.1. Literature review in brief ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2. Methodology developed within the WATERLOSS .......................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Definition and objectives of the hierarchical tree ................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Classification of the measures ................................................................................................. 13 3.2.3 Evaluation of operational measures ........................................................................................ 17 3.2.4 Presentation of the entire NRW reduction measures, the hierarchical tree ........................... 19
4. Implementing NRW reduction measures: Waterloss partners' experience ..................................... 27 4.1 Objectives of the first questionnaire ............................................................................................... 27 4.2 Sending the first questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Analysis of the results of the first questionnaire ............................................................................ 46
4.3.1 Analyse des résultats du premier questionnaire ..................................................................... 46 4.3.2 Time period studied and continuity of service ........................................................................ 47 4.3.3 What system is examined? ...................................................................................................... 47 4.3.4 Summary concerning the “water balance” by the IWA ........................................................... 49 4.3.4 Summary concerning the modified “water balance” .............................................................. 53
5. Linking the NRW reduction measures with the DSS under development ........................................ 55 5.1 Construction of the Decision Tree ................................................................................................... 55
5.1.1 Goals of the decision tree ........................................................................................................ 55 5.1.2 Method of constructing the decision tree ............................................................................... 55 5.1.3 The decision tree ...................................................................................................................... 57 5.1.4 Choice of variables, context information and performance indicators ................................... 58
5.2 Construction of the questionnaire regarding thresholds ............................................................... 60 5.3 Application of the decision tree to the SIE of Lodève ..................................................................... 61
5.3 .1 STEP 1 : Preliminary assessment of NRW ............................................................................... 61 5.3.2 STEP 2 : Preliminary assessment of NRW component ............................................................ 62 5.3.3 STEP 3 : In component real losses ............................................................................................ 64
6. Target as a different way to set objectives ....................................................................................... 68 6.1 Data gathering methodology .......................................................................................................... 69 6.2 Waterloss partners' NRW reduction targets ................................................................................... 75
6.2.1. The definition of targets ......................................................................................................... 75 6.2.2. The method employed for collecting targets ......................................................................... 76 6.2.3. Targets for pilot sites .............................................................................................................. 76 6.2.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 82
7 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 83
Page 4 sur 86
List of figures Figure 1: Time schedule ......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: The IWA « best practice » standard water balance [IWA, 2010] ........................................... 14 Figure 3: The four pillars of a successful leakage management strategy [Farley et al., 2008, p 47] .... 16 Figure 4: Map showing the towns and cities that returned a completed copy of the questionnaire (Source: Google Earth) .......................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 5 : Assessment period of cities ................................................................................................... 47 Figure 6: A drinking water distribution system [SAGE 33, 2004] .......................................................... 48 Figure 7 : System output volumes for each case study in 2010 (m3/year) and diagrams of NRW for each case study ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 8: System output volumes for each case study in 2010 (% of the SIV) ...................................... 50 Figure 9 : Comparison of SIV and number of service connections for each case study ........................ 50 Figure 10 : Graph of 2nd modified water balance for the 6 cities (m3/year) ......................................... 53 Figure 11 : Graph of 2nd modified water balance for the 6 cities (% of SIV) ........................................ 54 Figure 12 : Example of performance indicators values and thresholds used in the decision tree ...... 56 Figure 13 : Pathway in « Hierarchical tree » allowed by questions in ”Decision Tree” ........................ 57 Figure 14 : STEP 1 in “Decision tree” ..................................................................................................... 58 Figure 15 : Non Revenue Water Volume by System Input Volume = NRW / SIV (Fi46) (%).................. 61 Figure 16 : Real losses per connection (Op27) ...................................................................................... 62 Figure 17 : Real losses per mains length (Op28) ................................................................................... 63 Figure 18 : Unbilled authorised annual consumption per system input volume (Fi53) (%) .................. 63 Figure 19 : Apparent losses per system input volume (Op26) (%) ........................................................ 64 Figure 20 : Infrastructure Leakage Index ILI (Op29) .............................................................................. 65 Figure 21 : Calculation of ILI with 2 hypothesis on average connection length .................................... 67 Figure 22 : Pressure management Index (PMI) (Op69) ......................................................................... 68 Figure 23 : Graph for current NRW in % of the SIV………………………………………………………………………......72 Figure 24 Graph for NRW component………………………………………………………………………….…………………..72 Figure 25: Graph for current values in m3/year………….……………………………………………………………………73 Figure 26 : Graph of current values in m3/km/year………………………………………………………………………….74 Figure 27: Graph for current values………………………………………………………………………………………………….74 Figure 28: graph of NRW in liters per connections and per day…………………………………………….………….75 Figure 29: Graph for NRW targets…………………………………………………………………………………………………...76
Page 5 sur 86
1. INTRODUCTION TO WATERLOSS
WATERLOSS Project: «Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system» 10/134
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: The WATERLOSS project in brief
1.1 Project details
The “WATERLOSS-Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system” project, submitted during the 2nd call of the programme MED, is a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) co-financed MED project (Project 2G-MED09-445), further info: www.waterloss-project.eu). Title
WATERLOSS-Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system Acronym
WATERLOSS Approval No
2G-MED09-445 (under the 2nd call of the MED programme) Info
www.waterloss-project.eu
1.2 Axe
2. Protection of the environment and promotion of a sustainable territorial development through involvement of Med bodies ensuring the valorisation of water resources Objective
2.1. Protection and enhancement of natural resources and heritage through efficient use of water resources Approval No
2G-MED09-445 Duration
36 months (1 June 2010 – 31 May 2013) Total budget
1,846,788.00€ ERDF contribution
1,436,841.00€ Lead Partner
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki / Department of Chemistry Coordinator
Professor Anastasios Zoumboulis ([email protected])
1.3 Theme of the project
WATERLOSS follows the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC) to develop an integrated and sustainable water management policy, and to implement appropriate measures ensuring the conservation of water resources of sufficient quality. The target of WATERLOSS is the protection and enhancement of water resources. The means to achieve this target is the development of a methodology for the reduction of water losses in drinking water supply systems, leading to water
Page 6 sur 86
saving activities. The project focuses on the integration of water loss reduction principles in the management plans of drinking water authorities, with particular attention to MED countries where water scarcity and low quality have become major issues during the last years.
1.4 Geographic coverage
As water is one of the most valuable natural resources and commodities in the world, water losses represent a serious international problem. Especially within the specific geographic and climatic context of the Mediterranean, particular attention needs to be paid to water resources in order to safeguard a sustainable future water supply in the times of climate change. The project partners are coming from representative urban and semi-urban areas with differences in the availability of water, the size of the distribution networks and the methods currently used to reduce water losses, therefore providing wide coverage of different conditions found in the Mediterranean.
1.5 Summary of the project
The project’s target is the development and demonstration of an integrated approach for monitoring and controlling water losses in drinking water supply systems. WATERLOSS will assist regional actors to face the emerging issues of water management and shortage that came up recently as a result of long droughts in many Mediterranean territories. The project will also contribute to setting up appropriate water pricing schemes in the MED area, as required by the EU Water Framework Directive. The WATERLOSS primary output will be a Decision Support System (DSS) tool for reducing water losses. The tool will consider all potential non-revenue water parameters (“non-revenue water” represents inefficiency in water supply systems and, for several operations, may account to a sizeable proportion of total water supply), i.e. apparent and real losses, authorized and non-authorized consumption, etc. The tool will cover the whole water supply system, from water entrance to the system up to the customer’s meter. The project’s duration is three years, including three main components in addition to management and dissemination:
Monitoring the performance of Water Supply Systems and evaluation of water losses. This includes an assessment of the performance of water supply systems in partners’ areas through effective performance indicators, assisted by water analyses and preparation of water balances for each area.
Development of a DSS tool and establishment of appropriate water loss reduction strategy. This includes the preparation of a database of available water management measures, together with suggestions on their implementation.
Demonstration of the DSS tool and of the corresponding water loss reduction measures in the partners’ areas, and critical evaluation of the results.
Nine partners from six MED countries (Greece, France, Cyprus, Slovenia, Spain and Italy), participate in WATERLOSS (Table 1), including two Universities (AUTH, UL), three Drinking Water Suppliers (WBN, DEYAK, AMB) and three public authorities & a development centre with direct influence in their regions’ water supply and management systems (PO, LG, DH, RDC).
Lead partner is the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki that has a long standing experience in the management of transnational projects, and also possesses the technical know-how to guide the other partners into real world implementation of water loss reduction measures.
An extended dissemination component will take place, including a web site, CD-rom, online and printed material for the implementation of the project results in various facilities and for the development of water loss reduction standards. Training activities will take place to ensure that the suggested measures become part of the partners’ operations.
Page 7 sur 86
A layman’s guide will assist consumers to support the project’s activities through creating awareness on the need for water loss reduction
1.6 The current and the next component concerned
CO4: Development of a DSS tool for appropriate NRW reduction strategy
The specific Component includes the two interlinked phases that follow:
Phase 4.1: Preparation of a database of NRW management methods
o Responsible Partner: Département de l'Hérault (PP9-DH)
o Duration: 1/5/2011 – 31/8/2012
o Contents:
- database with conventional & new methods for NRW control
- NRW reduction measures will be classified (short or long term, constructive or non-constructive) & evaluated
- feasibility of measures will include both financial requirements & physical application and consider internal WSS specific parameters as well as broader water management indicators from national River Basin Management plans
- rational and quantified goals for the studied WSSs will be set up, representing the targets for a NRW reduction strategy
o Deliverables:
- D4.1.1_1 Database of Non Revenue Water management measures
- D4.1.2_1 Set of quantified targets for Non Revenue Water reduction strategy
Phase 4.2 –Development of the DSS tool
o Responsible Partner: University of Ljubjlana
o Duration: 1/5/2011 – 30/11/2012
o Content:
- DSS tool for controlling water losses & improving WSS performance, resulting in a prioritized list of activities according to how the required reduction can be most cost effectively achieved.
- the DSS tool will integrate:
1. The system of PIs weighted by certain factors to account for the regional characteristics
2. The proposed NRW strategies delivered from the database
3. The corresponding targets for NRW control, considering the utility’s other goals or policies
- …resulting to a comprehensive system taking into account pipe failures, water interruption, customer complaints, water demand, water quality, etc.
o Deliverables:
- D4.2.1_1 Set of Performance Indicators weighting parameters
- D4.2.2_1 DSS tool for Non Revenue Water reduction strategy
Page 8 sur 86
CO 5: Demonstration of the DSS tool into specific WSS
The specific Component includes
Phase 5.1: Demonstration of the DSS tool into specific WSS
o Responsible Partner: Municipal Enterprise for Water Supply & Sewerage in Kozani (PP6-DEYAK)
o Duration: 1/5/2012 – 31/5/2013
o Contents:
- application of the DSS in the partners WSSs
- suggestions for measures for the implementation of a NRW reduction strategy & identification of budget requirements
- demonstration of measures by GIS tools
- provide an insight into the decision making process, possible scenarios, and results
- pilot application will take place in areas substantial enough to ensure that corresponding conditions will be representative and can be replicated when activities are going to be applied throughout the entire network
- validation of the assumptions, re-adjustment of the parameters and certification of the DSS, by comparison of actual and predicted NRW reduction values
o Deliverables:
- D5.1_6 Lists of prioritized measures for partners' WSSs from the application of the DSS tool
- D5.2_6 Reports from the demonstration of the DSS tool in small areas of the corresponding WSSs
Page 9 sur 86
2. Presentation of Phase 4.1. and meetings organization
2.1 Description of phase 4.1 In the application form the presentation of this component gives the main objectives about the preparation of a database of NRW management methods A database with conventional and new methods for Non Revenue Water control will be prepared considering existing and future leakages. NRW reduction measures will be classified (short or long term, constructive or non-constructive) and evaluated with emphasis on the operating conditions prevailing in each area, as they affect implementation (e.g. continuous or intermittent flow, seasonal variations, etc). The feasibility of measures will include both financial requirements and physical application and consider internal WSS specific parameters as well as broader water management indicators from national River Basin Management plans. Rational and quantified goals for the studied WSSs will be set up, representing the targets for a NRW reduction strategy. The following document will present mainly 3 parts, with: - Developing the NRW reduction measures list, - Implementing NRW reduction measures: Waterloss partners' experience - Setting NRW reduction targets At the end of the current report, there is the bibliography and the annexes.
Page 10 sur 86
Several meetings have allowed a continuous and regular monitoring of the work and the mutual understanding in order to ensure a structure of the database fitting the need of the forthcoming Decision Tool to be as operational as possible.
2.2 Organization and sequence of meetings Numerous meeetings took place either on the spot either by means of phone conferences as described here after.
- Friday, June 8, 2012 :
Face to face in the building of DH
- Thursday, July 24, 2012
Video-conference between
IRSTEA Bordeaux
Université of Ljubljana
- Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Meeting in Ljubljana
- Thuesday, August 2, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
- Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
- Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
- Thursday, August 23, 2012
Page 11 sur 86
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
- Thursday, August 30, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
- Thuesday, September 4, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana )
- Monday, September 17, 2012
Video conference
IRSTEA Bordeaux
University of Ljubljana
A summary can be overlook on the following scheme:
LEGENDE
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Meeting face to face
Meeting with CG34 Visioconference
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Meeting CG34+UL+AUTH+WBN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Meeting with UL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Meeting with UL
sept-12
août-12
juin-12
juil-12
Page 12 sur 86
Figure 1: Time schedule
3. Developing the NRW reduction measures lists
3.1. Literature review in brief The main bibliographic references come from Farley [Farley et al., 2008]. A lot of information can be found on this topic in scientific literature nevertheless a detailed review is at disposal at the end of the report. Besides, the University of Ljubljana has also done a specific review that can be found in the decision support tool. For further details you can directly visit the web site, all information is at disposal.
3.2. Methodology developed within the WATERLOSS
3.2.1 Definition and objectives of the hierarchical tree
The hierarchical tree constitutes the database of measures which the partnership must produce within the framework of the Waterloss project (see Table 6). Its objectives are to:
- categorise, sort and arrange the operational measures which will enable volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW) to be reduced ;
- evaluate their relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.
Page 13 sur 86
3.2.2 Classification of the measures
During the meeting which took place in Ljubljana in 2012, a request was put forward to the CG34 to divide the operational actions into the following categories:
- Components for volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW)
- Subcomponents for volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW)
- Strategies = objectives of these measures
- Operational description of the measure
The result of this categorisation was the creation of an Excel file named “Hierarchical tree, 2012”.
A) Components of Non Revenue Water (NRW) in the hierarchical tree
Based on [Waterloss, 2012a ; IWA, 2010], five components were determined for Non Revenue Water (NRW):
1. Unbilled authorised consumption
2. Apparent losses
3. Real losses
4. General measures for all components
5. Water billed not payed
The first three components are taken directly from the IWA water balance [IWA, 2010] (see red circle on Figure 2).
Page 14 sur 86
Figure 2: The IWA « best practice » standard water balance [IWA, 2010]
Many of the actions aiming to reduce these volumes are applicable to more than one of the 3 first components. This is the case, for example, with all of the actions consisting in training/educating staff. This is why a fourth component was created named “general actions which may appear in all components”.
Finally, in order to take into account the work carried out as part of the Waterloss project [Waterloss, 2012a] which has led to the IWA water balance being modified twice, a 5th component was created to include the actions enabling the money for un-paid water bills to be collected.
B) Sub-components of NRW in hierarchical tree
It was not possible to 100% use the categories of the IWA water balance [IWA, 2010] to determine the subcomponents of the hierarchical tree. In fact, the IWA water balance consists in dividing up the volumes of water using an accounting/financial method.
However, we received a request to combine the concrete measures of the different areas with the technical volumes.
Consequently, the components were divided up into 1 to 5 subcomponents (see table 1), in accordance with the following bibliography:
- [IWA, 2010], of a financial nature
- [Farley et al. 2008], of a more technical nature, more suited to concrete actions.
Page 15 sur 86
Table 1 : Details of components and subcomponents in table 6
For example, in order to determine the 4 subcomponents of Real Losses, we copied exactly the four steps to combating real losses by [Farley et al. 2008] (see Figure 3).
Page 16 sur 86
Figure 3: The four pillars of a successful leakage management strategy [Farley et al., 2008, p 47]
C) Strategic approaches of measures for NRW reduction
The subcomponents for the volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW) were then divided up according to the objective of the operational actions to reduce the volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW) (see table 1).
Table 2 : Details of all “strategic approach to measure” for the sub-component “speed and quality of repair” in the component “Real losses”.
Page 17 sur 86
D) Operational description of the measure for NRW reduction
Once the objectives were defined, the concrete measures were then described (see table 3)
Table 3 : Details of all “operational measures” in “strategic approach to measures” Improve speed of repair.
Nota Bene: “OM ID” is a reference code enabling the origin of the measure to be traced:
- DSS: measures listed by AUTH, on the site of the DSS tool, web page “DSS”.
- RM: measures listed by UL (University of Ljubljana), on the site of the DSS tool, web page “NRW Reduction Measures”
- Ljub: measures created during the meeting in Ljubljana in 2012
- DH: measures created by the DH
3.2.3 Evaluation of operational measures
Assessment method
Each operational measure is evaluated according to six criteria using a scale of 1 to 5 stars (see table 4).
Page 18 sur 86
Table 4: Assessment system of each operational measure
The higher the number of stars, the more advantageous the measure is for the manager.
The results of the evaluation
In order to obtain the results of the evaluation, we used: - firstly, the 6 responses to the questionnaire (see Annexe 1 Part A) we received from
the partners. This notably includes the section in which they indicate whether the measure was relevant or not relevant.
- secondly: our knowledge on the subject.
The result is presented as follows:
Table 5: Example of assessment of one operational measure.
Page 19 sur 86
3.2.4 Presentation of the entire NRW reduction measures, the hierarchical tree
Page 20 sur 86
Page 21 sur 86
Page 22 sur 86
Page 23 sur 86
Page 24 sur 86
Page 25 sur 86
Page 26 sur 86
Table 6: NRW reduction measures (or the “Hierarchical tree”)
Page 27 sur 86
The hierarchical tree is a list of actions to take to reduce volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW) arranged into a number of categories. Having presented the hierarchical tree (see Table 6), we will now provide detail on partners’ experiences on NRW reduction measures.
4. Implementing NRW reduction measures: Waterloss partners' experience
4.1 Objectives of the first questionnaire The aim of the first questionnaire (see $4.2 or Annex1 Part1), sent to all of the project’s partners, was to:
eliminate inaccuracies in the “water balances” sent during the previous stage of the Waterloss project (see the first two parts of the questionnaire, beginning “Additional information”);
find out,
- what action the project’s partners are taking to reduce the volume of Non Revenue Water (NRW),
- what impact this action has had,
- how this action was evaluated,
(see part of the questionnaire entitled “NRW reduction measures”);
listen to the opinions of the project’s partners concerning the action taken to reduce the volume of Non Revenue Water (NRW). (see relevant/not relevant question) ;
gather proposals for new action put forward partners.
4.2 Sending the first questionnaire
Sending of 1st version: Friday 8th June 2012 (Questionnaire 1st version)
Sending of 2nd version: Monday 2nd July 2012 (Questionnaire 2nd version + table of measures) see below and Annex 1 Part A).
Page 28 sur 86
Page 29 sur 86
Page 30 sur 86
Page 31 sur 86
Page 32 sur 86
Page 33 sur 86
Page 34 sur 86
Page 35 sur 86
Page 36 sur 86
Page 37 sur 86
Page 38 sur 86
Page 39 sur 86
Page 40 sur 86
Page 41 sur 86
Page 42 sur 86
Page 43 sur 86
Page 44 sur 86
Page 45 sur 86
Page 46 sur 86
4.3 Analysis of the results of the first questionnaire
4.3.1 Analyse des résultats du premier questionnaire
We received six responses to the questionnaire (see Annex 1 PartA) and subsequently summarised these (see Annex 1 Part B): - City of Nicosia by WBN
- Town of Argelès-sur-Mer by the PO (Pyrénées-Orientales)
- Town of Castellbisbal by AMB
- SIE of Lodève by DH (Hérault County).
- Melito di Napoli by LG
- Kozani by DEYAK
Page 47 sur 86
Figure 4: Map showing the towns and cities that returned a completed copy of the questionnaire (Source: Google Earth)
4.3.2 Time period studied and continuity of service
H1 H2
City Is the assessment period the billing
period ?
Assessment
period (day)
Intermittent supply ? Time system is
pressurised (hours
in a year)Castellbisbal No. Assessment period is 2010. Billing
period is every 2 months.
365 No 8760
SIE Lodève Yes. 2010 365 No 8760
Nicosie No. Assessment period is the days of the
year 2010.
365 Continuous supply was re-
installed during the
assessment period year 2010
(after intermittent sypply from
4/2008-1/2010).
8760
Argelès-sur-Mer No. Assessment period is 2010. Billing
period is every 6 months.
365 No 8760
Melito di Napoli Yes, it has been assumed the period
since utility is in charge of the network
management
180 No 8760
Kozani Assesment has been performed in
annual basis 2010.
365 No 8760
Figure 5 : Assessment period of cities
In most cases, the data studied is annual, except for the city of Naples (6 months). All of the water utility services are continuous (no intermittent supply).
4.3.3 What system is examined?
Does the system input volume (SIV) include raw water ?
Page 48 sur 86
Figure 6: A drinking water distribution system [SAGE 33, 2004]
City SIV ? Cercle ?
Argelès-sur-Mer There is no treatment plant, just a gas chlorine
Circle green = Circle red
Castellbisbal SIV starts after treatment plant
Circle red
Nicosie There is no raw water in SIV Circle red
SIE Lodève SIV includes raw water Circle green
Kozani There is no raw water in SIV Circle red
Melito di Napoli There is no raw water in SIV Circle red
Table7 : Synthesis of what is the SIV for the 6 cities
In general, the system examined includes only the water distribution system, excluding the SIE of Lodève where the system examined also includes the raw water conveyance system.
Page 49 sur 86
4.3.4 Summary concerning the “water balance” by the IWA
Synthisis regarding the « water balance » of IWA
VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWAA3 A8 A9 A11 A12 A16 A17
SIV
System Input
Volume
(m3/year)
CityBilled metered
consumption
Billed non-
metered
consumption
Unbilled
metered
consumption
Unbilled non-
metered
consumption
Unauthorised
consumption
Meter under-
registration
and data
handling error
Real losses
2 445 454 Castellbisbal 2 194 336 0 0 9 782 9 782 29 345 202 209
1 436 640 SIE Lodève 557 134 0 0 3 000 2 000 6 025 868 481
23 838 611 Nicosie 14 467 783 13 310 1 490 6 760 103 570 414 290 8 831 408
2 123 191 Argelès-sur-Mer 1 695 092 0 0 7 160 2 260 26 350 392 329
4 193 300 Melito di Napoli 2 658 000 0 0 10 483 10 483 41 933 1 472 401
5 688 642 Kozani 2 369 301 0 0 113 773 56 886 236 930 2 911 752
System Output Volumes (m3/year)
Table 8: Synthesis of normal IWA water balance for the 6 cities (m3/year) in 2010
In yellow : figures are the same as [Waterloss, 2012 a]
In orange : figures are different from [Waterloss, 2012 a]
System Output Volumes
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
Castellbisbal SIE Lodève Nicosia Argelès-sur-
Mer
Melito di
Napoli
Kozani
m3/y
ear
Real Losses
Metering inaccuracies =Meter under-registration anddata handling error
Unauthorised consumption
Unbilled non-meteredconsumption
Unbilled meteredconsumption
Billed non-meteredconsumption
Billed metered consumption
NRW : Castellbisbal NRW : SIE Lodève
NRW : Nicosia
NRW : Argeles-sur-Mer NRW : Melito di napoli
NRW : Kozani
NRW
Figure 7 : System output volumes for each case study in 2010 (m3/year) and diagrams of NRW for each case study
Page 50 sur 86
System Output Volumes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Castellbisbal SIE Lodève Nicosia Argelès-sur-
Mer
Melito di
Napoli
Kozani
% o
f S
IV
Real Losses
Metering inaccuracies =Meter under-registration anddata handling error
Unauthorised consumption
Unbilled non-meteredconsumption
Unbilled meteredconsumption
Billed non-meteredconsumption
Billed metered consumption
NRW
Figure 8: System output volumes for each case study in 2010 (% of the SIV)
The water utility service with the highest percentage of Non Revenue Water (NRW) in relation to System Input Volume (SIV) is the SIE of Lodève (see figure 8). In this respect, it is the SIE of Lodève that has achieved the worst performance out of the 6 water utility services that are partners of the Waterloss project.
However, the water utility service with the highest volume of Non Revenue Water, in absolute terms (m3/year), is the Water Board of Nicosia (see figure 7). In fact, Nicosia is the largest utility service for its number of service connections and therefore for its diverse volumes (see Figure 9).
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
Castellbisbal SIE Lodève Nicosia Argelès-sur-
Mer
Melito di
Napoli
Kozani
SIV
(m
3 i
n 2
010)
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
No
. o
f serv
ice c
on
necti
on
s
System Input Volume
Service connections
Figure 9 : Comparison of SIV and number of service connections for each case study
Page 51 sur 86
The water utility service with the lowest percentage of Non Revenue Water (NRW) in relation to System Input Volume (SIV) is the town of Castellbisbal (see Figure 8). In this respect, it is the town of Castellbisbal that has achieved the best performance out of the 6 water utility services that are partners of the Waterloss project.
Next, for the Waterloss project’s 6 case studies, of the different volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW), the highest volume is that which corresponds to real losses (see brown colour on the diagrams of Figure 7). The volume of real losses should therefore be a priority focus.
Nevertheless, these results are to be modified slightly. In fact, the following volumes are not actually calculated, they are simply estimations:
- Billed non-metered consumption (A9)
- Unbilled authorised non-metered consumption (A12)
- Unauthorised consumption (A16)
- Meter under-registration and data handling error (A17).
The following table (see table 8) shows us the diverse nature of the methods employed by the partners of the Waterloss project for estimating these volumes.
For example, for the unbilled non-metered authorised consumption volume (A12), the estimations range from 0.25% for the water entering the mains for Naples, to 2% for Kozani (see Table 4). This makes the estimation for Kozani 8 times higher than that for Kozani!
The same goes for the unauthorised non-metered consumption volume (A16); the method used by Argelès-sur-Mer gives a result that is 10 times lower than that of Kozani!
The method employed has a significant impact on the results in the IWA water balance and prevents any really direct comparison from being made between one water utility service and another.
Page 52 sur 86
VAR-IWA VAR-IWA VAR-IWA
A12 A16 A17
City Unbilled non-metered consumption Unauthorised
consumption
Meter under-registration and data
handling error
Castellbisbal 0,4% of SIV 0,4% of SIV 1,2% of SIV
SIE Lodève
Expert Expert It is considred empirically that (values taken from the
averages observed from our calibration database).
• Over 15 years of age under-value by an average
of – 15 % x Q
• Between 12 and 15 years of age under-value by
an average of – 10 % x Q
• Between 9 and 12 years of age under-value by
an average of – 5 % x Q
Nicosie
1) Flushing : An estimation concerning the time the hydrant was left
open and an average flow calculation.
2) Fire fighting and training : Fire brigade provides a monthly
consumption estimate.
Internal statistical
data
Statistical analysis and bench testing
Argelès-sur-Mer
1) Flushing : Roads service of the territory:
Information on water storage capacity (washer truck)* nb of refills*nb
of day in service
2) Fire fighting and training :
• Reference ASTEE for training : nb of training
(Hydrants)*duration(10min)*flow rate(60m3/h)
• Estimation for fire fighting (extract from our external expertise) :
about 20 m3/fire intervention
3) Other :
• Reference ASTEE for networks purge : purge
nb*duration(2h)*2,5m3/h
• Reference ASTEE for disinfection of pipe ans connection after
work : 8 times pipe volume or connection*0,2m3
• Reference ASTEE for pumps leakage volume (internal) : 90
m3/year/pump
0,1% of SIV Meter inaccuracies because of meter ages. We are
using as reference a study from water agencies.
Melito di Napoli
0,25% of SIV Estimation have
been done
assuming literature
data.
Estimation have been done assuming literature data.
Kozani 2% of SIV 1% of SIV 10% of billed authorised consumption.
Table 8: Estimation of tree non-metered system output volumes by 6 cities.
In the previous component (C03) of the Waterloss project, the IWA water balance was modified twice. Added to the volumes of Non Revenue Water (NRW) of the IWA was the volume of water that had been billed but not paid for. Then, subtracted from the volume of Non Revenue Water (NRW) of the IWA was a volume called Minimum Charge Difference (MCD) which represents the volumes that were not consumed but were billed due to the fixed part of the water rate applied. We will now describe for each partner the volumes indicated in the first questionnaire concerning these two notions.
Page 53 sur 86
4.3.4 Summary concerning the modified “water balance”
From VAR-IWA
ID A3
year City
System
Input
Volume
(m3/year)
MCDWater billed
not paid
2010 Castellbisbal 2 445 454 0 0
2010 SIE Lodève 1 436 640 0 0
2010 Nicosie 23 838 611 3 331 144 8 500
2010 Argelès-sur-Mer 2 123 191 317 463 0
2010 Melito di Napoli 4 193 300 670 000 903 720
2010 Kozani 5 688 642 2 311 834 156 827
Table 9: Synthesis of 2nd modified water balance for the 6 cities (m3/year)
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
Cas
tellb
isba
l
SIE L
odèv
e
Nicos
ie
Argel
ès-s
ur-M
er
Mel
ito d
i Nap
oli
Kozan
i
(m3/y
ear)
System Input Volume
(m3/year)
MCD
Water billed not paid
Figure 10 : Graph of 2nd modified water balance for the 6 cities (m3/year)
Page 54 sur 86
0%
5%10%
15%
20%25%
30%
35%40%
45%
Cast
ellbisbal
SIE
Lod
ève
Nicos
ie
Arg
elès-su
r-M
er
Melito
di N
apoli
Koz
ani
% o
f S
IV
MCD
Water billed not paid
Figure 11 : Graph of 2nd modified water balance for the 6 cities (% of SIV)
The volumes in the IWA water balance are the actual annual volumes, whereas the two volumes in the water balance modified twice by the Waterloss project are:
- for the MCD, a very abstract volume
- for “water billed, not paid” volumes, generally multi-annual volumes.
Consequently, they cannot be represented graphically alongside the volumes of the IWA water balance. They cannot be compared with the rest of the data.
Having carried out a global analysis of the 6 responses to the first questionnaire entitled “NRW measures questionnaire”, we will now provide detail on how to construct the decision tree.
The decision tree enables you to select from the hierarchical tree a small group of actions that are suited to the context of the water utility service. Its goal is to link the NRW reduction measures with the DSS tool under development.
Page 55 sur 86
5. Linking the NRW reduction measures with the DSS under development
5.1 Construction of the Decision Tree
5.1.1 Goals of the decision tree
The decision tree is the heart which will be implemented in the decision-making tool (see Annex 2 Part B). The objective of the decision tree is to enable a given water utility service to determine which groups of operational measures in the it should put in place as a priority in order to decrease its volume of Non Revenue Water (NRW).
5.1.2 Method of constructing the decision tree
In order to take into account the specific characteristics of each water utility service, we use the values of variables (Vs) and context information (CI), from which performance indicators (PIs) are then calculated.
Depending on where the value of the performance indicator is situated (see Figure 12) in accordance with the previously defined thresholds, the progression in the decision tree will not be the same, and the groups of operational measures selected within the hierarchical tree will also be different.
Therefore, in the example below (see Figure 12), if the performance indicator is below the “low” threshold (low threshold line in blue), the action in the Decision Tree will be “STOP”. This will result in the selection of a number of operational measures in the “Hierarchical tree”.
On the other hand, if the performance indicator is above the “low” threshold, the action in the Decision tree will be “Go to next STEP”. Several questions will therefore be asked in order to calculate other indicators. At the end of the progression through the Decision tree, a different group of operational measures will be selected from the Hierarchical tree.
Page 56 sur 86
Figure 12 : Example of performance indicators values and thresholds used in the decision tree
The progression through the various measures of the Hierarchical tree takes place over a maximum of five steps (see Figure 13).
Stop Go to next STEP
Page 57 sur 86
STEP 1Preliminary assessment of NRW
Preliminary assessment of NRW component (cpt)
STEP 2
In cpt Real Losses In cpt apparent lossesIn cpt unbilled authorized consumption
STEP 3
In subcpt pressure
management
In subcpt active leakage
control
In subcpt speed & quality of repair
In subcpt asset management
STEP 4
MainsServices
connexionSTEP 5
In subcpt unauthorised consumption
In subcomponent Metering inaccuracies
water losses
Figure 13 : Pathway in « Hierarchical tree » allowed by questions in ”Decision Tree”
5.1.3 The decision tree
Figure 14 presents the beginning, i.e. STEP 1, of the decision tree.
According to the responses given to the questions (yes or no), the next branch of the decision tree will be:
- either 3-figure codes in blue which correspond to the reference code of the group of measures with the same strategy (“strategic approach to measures”) in the [Hierarchical tree, 2012] (see Figure 14).
- codes consisting of letters and figures in green which correspond to a specific reference code of a measure in the Hierarchical tree, preceded by the reference code of the “strategic approach to measures“.
- another question.
Page 58 sur 86
Figure 14 : STEP 1 in “Decision tree”
5.1.4 Choice of variables, context information and performance indicators
As a priority, the variables (Vs), context information (CIs) and performance indicators (PIs) were chosen in the following order from the following sources:
1) IWA + Waterloss Vs & PIs [Waterloss, 2012b]
2) IWA CIs [IWA = Alegre et al., 2010]
3) DH questionnaire Cis (see Annex 1 PartA)
4) If necessary, new PIs and CIs
Further information regarding variables, context information and performance indicators is available in the file (Annex 2 part B Synthesis of variables, context information and indicators used at each step).
Source Meaning
V-IWA Variable from IWA [IWA = Alegre et al., 2010] V-WAT Variable from Waterloss project [Waterloss, 2012 b] CI-IWA Context Information from IWA [IWA = Alegre et al., 2010] CI-DH Context Information from DH
PI-IWA Performance Indicator from IWA [IWA = Alegre et al., 2010] PI-DH Performance Indicator from DH
Table 50: Sources of variables, context information and indicators used in «Decision tree»
Page 59 sur 86
Page 60 sur 86
Table 6: Detail of main indicators of the DSS tool
Having presented the decision tree, we will now provide details on how to construct the questionnaire regarding the decision thresholds, entitled “thresholds questionnaire”. It helps to finish to build the decision.
5.2 Construction of the questionnaire regarding thresholds The transition (or not) from one step to the next in the decision tree depends on whether the performance indicator calculated is above or below a decision threshold.
Certain thresholds can be found in international literature (see [Trow, 2009; Liemberger et al., 2007] for thresholds concerning the “ILI” indicator). Nevertheless, most decision thresholds do not appear in literature. These should instead be set in accordance with the local context and the performance objectives of policies. This questionnaire (see Annex 2 Part C) was therefore created in order to enable the partners of the Waterloss project to set decision thresholds for each indicator used in the “Decision Tree”:
- low
- medium
- high
Having presented the essence of the decision support system (DSS tool), we will now apply this method to the pilot case of the Hérault County, and namely the SIE of Lodève.
Page 61 sur 86
5.3 Application of the decision tree to the SIE of Lodève Nota Bene: As of yet, the various thresholds (low, medium, high) for the Waterloss project have not been set as we are awaiting responses to the “thresholds” questionnaire. Therefore, in order to set the thresholds below, we took inspiration from [Kingdom et al., 2006; Liemberger et al., 2007; Pearson and Trow, 2011]
5.3 .1 STEP 1 : Preliminary assessment of NRW
The SIE of Lodève is able to determine its A3, A8 and A9 variables.
It is therefore possible to calculate performance indicator Fi46 (Non Revenue Water Volume by System Input Volume) (see Figure 15).
Fi46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
Low Medium High
15 25 35
Figure 15 : Non Revenue Water Volume by System Input Volume = NRW / SIV (Fi46) (%)
The SIE of Lodève has 61.2 % Non Revenue Water (NRW) in relation to System Input Volume (SIV), which is above the high threshold (35%). Consequently, this SIE has a very high volume of Non Revenue Water. It must therefore move on to STEP 2.
Page 62 sur 86
5.3.2 STEP 2 : Preliminary assessment of NRW component
A) Real losses
Op27
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
L/connection/day when system is pressurised
Low Medium High
Figure 16 : Real losses per connection (Op27)
Page 63 sur 86
Op28
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
L / km / day when system is pressurised
Low Medium High
Figure 17 : Real losses per mains length (Op28)
The SIE of Lodève has a very high level of real losses per connection (see Figure 16) and a high level of real losses per mains length (see Figure 17). It must therefore continue on to step 3 of the real losses component.
B) Unbilled authorised consumption
Fi53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
LowMedium
High
5 15 25
Figure 18 : Unbilled authorised annual consumption per system input volume (Fi53) (%)
The SIE of Lodève has a low level of unbilled authorised consumption (see Figure 18). Consequently, it is not necessary to continue on to the next steps within this component.
Page 64 sur 86
C) Apparent losses
Op26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
LowMedium
High
5 15 25
Figure 19 : Apparent losses per system input volume (Op26) (%)
The SIE of Lodève has a low level of apparent losses (see Figure 19). Consequently, it is not necessary to continue on to the next steps within this component.
5.3.3 STEP 3 : In component real losses
A) Infrastructure Leakage Index
A1 - using the DSS tool
The SIE of Lodève does not know the average length of its connections (average service connection length). It is therefore not possible to calculate the ILI (Infrastructure Leakage Index) indicator (see Figure 20).
Page 65 sur 86
ILI
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
Low Medium High
2
Figure 20 : Infrastructure Leakage Index ILI (Op29)
The SIE of Lodève must therefore put in place strategic group measures (401, 402, 411 and 413) (see table 12).
?
?
Page 66 sur 86
Table 12: Measures group which must be implemented by SIE Lodève
Of these 23 operational measures, as a priority the SIE of Lodève must put in place measures of a level 5 importance, i.e. the following 8 operational measures (see table 13).
Page 67 sur 86
OM ID Operational measuresTimeframe
(stars)
Duration
(stars)
Importa
nce
(stars)
Organizatio
nal
Complexity
(Stars)
Constructiv
e/ non
constructive
(Stars)
Cost
efficiency
Ratio
(Stars)
DH-MA01 Volumetric accuracy checked using a second meter
4 4 5 4 3 4
RM-04
Calibration of water meters, managing inaccuracy of
water meters, age of water meters
4 4 5 4 3 4
RM-28 Metering of revenue water
3 5 5 3 3 5
DH -MA05
Establishment of guidelines for WB volumes
calculation
4 5 5 5 5 5
RM-36
Document management and archives in the
management company (archiving the documents on
construction, service connections, permits etc.)
4 5 5 4 5 5
Ljub-4131 Education of staff on operational procedures taking
into consideration existing affirmated practices
4 5 5 4 5 5
RM-45
HRM – company culture (every drop counts),
permanent, targeted education of employees,
4 5 5 4 5 5
RM-46
HRM – adequate staffing for different processes,
adequate tools, equipment, education
4 5 5 4 5 5
Table 13: Operational measures which must be implemented in priority by SIE Lodève
As soon as the SIE of Lodève finds out the average length of its connections, it will be possible for it to progress further through the DSS tool’s decision tree.
A2) To go a step further than the DSS tool
The average length of a connection is generally between 2 and 20 metres.
Regardless of which end of the scale in this hypothesis (min and max), the ILI always works out very high for the SIE of Lodève (see Figure 21).
ILI
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
SIE Lodève
min
max
Low Medium High
Figure 21 : Calculation of ILI with 2 hypothesis on average connection length
This ILI value indicates that the use of raw water resources is highly inefficient, highlighting the poor maintenance of the mains and the poor condition of the system in general.
Page 68 sur 86
This means that the SIE of Lodève must, as a priority, put in place measures to actively look for leaks, starting, for example, with the task of dividing its network up into sections in order to monitor its night flow. In fact, the night flow can be defined, during an initial simplistic phase, by the leakage volume. This will enable the SIE to locate more precisely where the leaks are. It will subsequently be able to put in place actions to repair these leaks as best and as quickly as possible.
Finally, the renewal of mains should only be envisaged when the SIE of Lodève has better knowledge of its network!!
B) Pressure Management Index
PMI
0 1 2 3 4 5
Castellbisbal
SIE Lodève
Nicosia
Argelès-sur-Mer
Melito di Napoli
Kozani
Low Medium High
1,5 2,5 3,5
Figure 22 : Pressure management Index (PMI) (Op69)
The PMI level for the SIE of Lodève is low which means that the pressure in this network is not too high. There is not enough room for manoeuvre to reduce this pressure. It is therefore not necessary to move on to the next step (STEP 4) in the “pressure management” component.
6. Target as a different way to set objectives
Page 69 sur 86
6.1 Data gathering methodology The useful information has been gathered with the following template.
PARTNER NAME
PARTNER No
CASE STUDY
Base Year
Population Served
SIV
Km of pipes
No. of water
No. of customers'
connections
A as % SIVB in m3 per
year
C in m3 per
Km of
mains per
year
D in litres per
connection per
year
A B C D A B C Das % of
Current Value
UNBILLED METERED
CONSUMPTION
UNBILLED UNMETERED
CONSUMPTION
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNAUTHORIZED
CONSUMPTION
METERS ERRORS
METERING ERRORS
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LEAKAGE IN MAINS
LEAKAGE IN SERVICE
CONNECTIONS
TANKS OVERFLOWS
BACKGROUND LEAKAGE
BREAKS
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Current
Value
(base year:
Target
Value
(target
IMPROVEMEN
T wished (rate
or value)
Achiev
ed
Value
No of water meters replaced per year
SETTING THE NRW REDUCTION
TARGETS
TOTAL
Km of watermains inspected per year
other relative targets/goals
REDUCTION
APPARENT LOSSES
UNBILLED AUTHORIZED
CONSUMPTION
Current Value (base year: ………) Target Value (target year: 2013)
NRW
REAL LOSSES
average operating pressure (in bars)
Break incidents reported (in mains)
Km of mains inspected per year (Active Leakage Control)
SETTING THE NRW REDUCTION TARGETS
Current Value (base year: ………)
Target Value
(target year: 2013)
Reduction
NRW UNBILLED
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Page 70 sur 86
APPARENT LOSSES
Variables
B13 Meter Management personnel (No.)
D35 Water interruption (persons*hours)
D42 Customer meter readings (No.)
D44 Operational meters (No.)
D45 Meter replacement (No.)
E6 Direct customer meters (No.)
E9 Bulk customer meters (No.)
C26 Roof tanks number (No.)
C28 Domestic water meters aged less than 5 years (No.)
C29 Domestic water meters aged between 5-10 years (No.)
C30 Roof tanks volume (m3)
C37 Domestic water meters aged more than 10 years (No.)
D69 Flow meters replaced (No.)
Performance Indicators
Pe14 Meter management personnel (No./1000 meters)
Ph10 District meter density (No./1000 service connections)
Op6 Hydrant inspection (/year)
Op7 System flow meters calibration (/year)
Op8 Meter replacement (/year)
Op25 Apparent Losses (%)
Op26 Apparent Losses per SIV (%)
Op38 Operational meters
Page 71 sur 86
(%)
Op51 Apparent Losses per roof tank (m3)
Op52 Apparent losses per roof tank volume (%)
Op53 Apparent losses per water meter (m3/water meter)
Op54 ALI
Op64 Meter replacement (%)
Ph18 Under 5 years old Domestic water meters rate (%)
Ph19 5 to 10 years old Domestic water meters rate (%)
Ph20 Over 10 years old Domestic water meters rate (%)
REAL LOSSES Variables
B8 Operations & maintenance personnel (No.)
C8 Mains length (Km)
C9 Distribution mains length (Km)
C12 Pressure meters (No.)
C24 Service connections (No.)
C25 Average service connection length (m)
D8 Network inspection (Km)
D9 Leakage control (ALC) (Km)
D10 Leaks repaired due to ALC (No.)
D20 Mains rehabilitation (Km)
D21 Mains renovation (Km)
D22 Mains replacement (Km)
D24 Service Connection rehabilitation (No.)
Page 72 sur 86
D28 Mains failures (No.)
D29 Service connection failures (No.)
D34 Average operating pressure (Kpa)
D52 Water quality tests carried out (No.)
D57 Water quality tests required (No.)
F13 Connections repair time (days)
F14 Connections repaired (No.)
C27 Average building height (m)
C32(a-i) Pipes length of the same material (Km)
C33(a-i) Pipes length of the same diameter (Km)
C34(a-i) Pipes length of the same material and diameter (Km)
C35 Pipes length of the same age (Km)
C36 Pipes roughness coefficient
D66 Minimum operating network pressure (m)
D67 Maximum operating network pressure (m)
D70 Time to respond to repair leakage events (hours)
D71 Total number of repairs occurred (No.)
D79(a-i) Number of failures of mains of the same material (No.)
D80(a-i) Number of the same type of failure in mains and fittings (No.)
Performance Indicators
Pe9 Operations & maintenance personnel (%)
Page 73 sur 86
Pe12 Transmission, storage and distribution personnel (No/100km)
Op3 Network inspection (%/year)
Op4 Leakage control (%/year)
Op5 Active Leakage control repairs (No./100 Km/year)
Op16 Mains rehabilitation (%/year)
Op17 Mains renovation (%/year)
Op18 Mains replacement (%/year)
Op19 Replaced valves (%/year)
Op20 Service connection rehabilitation (%/year)
Op27 Real Losses per connection (lt/connection/day)
Op28 Real Losses per mains length (lt/Km/day)
Op29 ILI
Op31 Mains failures (No./Km/year)
Op32 Service connection failures (No./1000connections/year)
Op33 Hydrant failures (No./1000 hydrants/year)
QS13 Water interruptions (%)
QS18 Quality of supplied water (%)
QS25 Connection repair time (days)
Op45(a-i) Real Losses per pipe material (m3/Km)
Op46(a-i) Real losses per pipe diameter (m3/Km)
Page 74 sur 86
Op47(a-i) Real losses per pipe material and diameter (m3/Km)
Op48(a-i) Real Losses per pipe age (m3/Km)
Op49(a-i) Real losses per roughness coefficient
Op50 Real losses - pressure (m3/m)
Op60(a-i) Mains failures per type of main (No./Km/year)
Op65(a-i) Assessment of failures according to type of material and fittings in mains and service connections
Op66 Elasticity of losses related to operating pressure (m3/m)
Op67 Elasticity of failures occurrence rate related to the operating pressure (failures/m)
Op68 Number of days to respond to repair leakage events (days/repairs)
GENERAL
Variables
H1 Assessment period (days)
H2 Time system is pressurized (hours)
A25 Minimum Charge Difference (m3)
A26 Accounted for NRW (m3)
Performance Indicators
Op23 Water Losses per connection (m3/connection/year)
Op24 Water Losses per mains length (m3/Km/year)
Op39 Unmetered Water (%)
Fi46 NRW by volume (%)
Fi47 NRW by cost (%)
Page 75 sur 86
Op55(a-i) Water losses per water resources (%)
Op58 NRW per connection (lt/connection/day)
Op59 NRW per mains length (lt/Km/year)
Fi48 MCD per Real Losses (%)
Fi49 MCD per connection (m3/connection/day)
Fi50 Accounted for NRW per NRW (%)
Op56(a-i) Water losses % water use (%)
Table 14
6.2 Waterloss partners' NRW reduction targets A specific document has been completed in the project based on goals and steps to get set by each water utility. The deliverables are in the Annex 3 and correspond to the Component 4.1.2 : quantified targets for Non Revenue Water reduction strategy.
6.2.1. The definition of targets
The work carried out within the framework of component 3 enabled the local context of each of the pilot sites to be specified: the quantitative level of leaks, the quality of leaks, the tools already currently put to use to manage current leaks and to anticipate future leaks. The optimised management of networks involves putting to use a range of operational tools that are both preventative and curative. The chosen strategies should take into account multiple demographic, geological and technical factors. The targets for these strategies depend on a number of economic factors: the effect of the international economic crisis will probably slow down building investments and reduce staff numbers. The target for the reduction of water losses in a drinking water network also depends greatly on resources: economic advantage via the reduction of volumes treated and/or environmental advantage (decrease in the withdrawal of the resource). Like in every decision-making process, any action must be preceded by a diagnosis and followed by an evaluation.
Page 76 sur 86
The work carried out within the framework of component 3 therefore enabled more information to be provided concerning the management of the drinking water service and impacted the level of revenue lost. In parallel with component 4.1 and prior to the launch of component 5 relating to the implementation of the strategies for reducing loss of revenue, it is essential that targets are defined for every pilot site. These target values enable us to set out the level to reach for each sub-component in detail and then aggregated for each component and finally for system as a whole.
6.2.2. The method employed for collecting targets
A questionnaire was completed by all of the partners responsible for monitoring pilot sites. This table will also enable the results of the implementation of these strategies to be evaluated. The values to be filled in were broken down into three groups:
- A detailed table of variables and performance indicators for each of the 4 components of the NRW system:
- * UNBILLED AUTHORISED CONSUMPTION
- * APPARENT LOSSES
- * REAL LOSSES
- * GENERAL
- A table summarising the important characteristics indicative of the management of the
system: the average pressure level, the number of network breakages recorded, the length of the network of pipes inspected annually, the length of the network of pipes renewed annually.
- A general table giving orders of magnitude for the 3 components of the NRW and each of
their sub-components: UNBILLED AUTHORISED CONSUMPTION, APPARENT LOSSES, REAL LOSSES.
6.2.3. Targets for pilot sites
The 8 pilot cases represent a population of 461 547 inhabitants. The range is very large : the smallest one is 3021 and the biggest one is 349 760. The total linear of pipe is 2004 km. All the datas have been gathered for the 2010 year. Except for WBN of Nicosia which gathered datas for 2011 year. The main NRW datas and targets associated are analysed bellow: % SIV, m3/year, m3/km/year, l/connection/day.
Page 77 sur 86
NRW in %SIV
Table 15 synthesis for NRW in % In 2010, NRW varies from 10 to 60% of SIV.
Figure 23: Graph for current NRW in % of the SIV In the NRW (current values 2010) :
- most of the UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION don’t exceed 2 % of SIV (excepting DH), - The APPARENT LOSSES vary from 1 to 5% - The REAL LOSSES are in majority close to 50% but some of them are very low (under 20%).
Page 78 sur 86
Figure 24 Graph for NRW component For 2013, the targets are not filled except for 3 pilot cases: two are below 7 % and the other one is close to 35 %.
In the NRW :
- The target for UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION vary from 0.04% to 7,6% reduction, - The APPARENT LOSSES vary from0.20% à 0,49% - The REAL LOSSES vary from 2% to 28% reduction.
NRW as current values (m3/year)
Table 16 synthesis for NRW in current values In 2010, the current values are for the most of them below 200 000 m3/year.
Page 79 sur 86
Figure 25: Graph for current values in m3/year
For 2013, the targets are not filled except for 3 pilot cases. They are 11%, 18% and 66 % of reduction.
NRW in m3/km/year
Table 17 Current values in 2010 In 2010, the NRW vary from 1 500 to 25 000 m3/km/year
Page 80 sur 86
Figure 26 : Graph of current values In the NRW (current values 2010) :
- Majority of the UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION are below 200 m3/km/year (except two of them closed to 1000 m3/km/year)
- The APPARENT LOSSES are all under 1000 m3/km/year (except one of them closed to 2500) - The REAL LOSSES are in majority below 10 000 m3/km/year (except two of them closed to 25
000).
Figure 27: Graph for current values For 2013, the targets are not filled except for 3 pilot cases :
- the % reduction for UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION are from 0, 14 and 100 %. - the % reduction for APPARENT LOSSES are 13, 13 and 16%. - the % reduction for REAL LOSSES are 18, 11 and 65%.
Page 81 sur 86
NRW in liters/connection/day
Table 18 Synthesis for NRW in liters per connection and per day In 2013, the NRW varies from 50 000 to 400 000 liters/connection/day.
Figure 28: graph of NRW in liters per connections and per day In the NRW (current values 2010) the NRW target is 11 % of reduction:
- Majority of the UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION are below 15 000 liters/connection/day. (except one of them close to 30 000)
- The APPARENT LOSSES are all under 15 000 liters/connection/day (except one of them close to 35 000)
- The REAL LOSSES are in majority below 150 000 m3/km/year (except one of them close to 300 000).
Figure 29: Graph for NRW targets For 2013, the targets are not filled except for 3 pilot cases :
- the % reduction for UNBILLED AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION are from 0, 14 and 100 %. - the % reduction for APPARENT LOSSES are 13, 13 and 16%. - the % reduction for REAL LOSSES are 18, 11 and 65%.
Page 82 sur 86
6.2.4. Conclusion
The connection between the strategy and the impacts is very important. In order for partners to make their comments they need data regarding the presuppositions and also the results. The data also show a huge variety of situation that makes comparison ineffective; data have to be considered in a context that explains mainly those differences.
Page 83 sur 86
7 Bibliography [AGHTM, 2002] AGHTM. (2002) Diagnostic des réseaux d’eau potable (Diagnosis of drinking water networks) TSM folder, no.6, June 2002. p. 31-40. Ajuste C., Berland J-M., Celrier J-L. (2004). Réhabilitation/Remplacement des réseaux d’eau potable en zone rurale (The restoration/replacement of drinking water networks in rural zones) FNDAE technical document, special edition no.10. p. 10-70. [Cambrezy and Cousin, 2009] Cambrézy M., and Cousin A.C. (2009). Intégration de la démarche d’amélioration des pertes en eau dans une démarche de gestion patrimoniale (Integrating the approach to improving water losses into an asset management approach) January 2009, No. 318 - L’eau, l’industrie, les nuisances (water, industry and nuisances). pp 37-45. [Coussy, 2008] Coussy E. (2008). Amélioration du rendement et de la qualité de l’eau d’un réseau d’eau potable, syndicat de basse Dheune (71) (Improving the yield and quality of the water in a drinking water system, Basse Dheune water association). Placement essay, ENGEES and Lyonnaise des Eaux SUEZ, 100 p. [Farley et al. , 2008] Farley M., Wyeth G., Ghazali Z.B. M., Istandar A. and Singh S. (2008). The Manager’s Non-Revenue Water Handbook. A Guide to Understanding Water Losses. USAID, 110 p. [IWA, 2010] IWA : Alegre H., Baptista J.M., Cabrera E., Cubillo F., Duarte P., Hirner W., Merkel W. and Parena R. (2010). Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services. First published 2006, Reprinted 2007, Reprinted 2010, 2nd Edition. Manual of Best Practice, IWA Publishing. 289p. [Kingdom et al., 2006] Kingdom B., Liemberger R. and Marin P. (2006). The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water (NRW) in Developing Countries. How the Private Sector Can Help: A Look at Performance-Based Service Contracting. World bank group, Water supply and sanitation sector board and Public- private infrastructure advisory facility. Washington, 52 p. [Liemberger et al., 2007] Liemberger R., Brothers K., Lambert A., McKenzie R., Rizzo A. and Waldron T. (2007). Water Loss Performance Indicators. Waterloss, Conference proceeding, 13p. [MED, 2010] MED. (2010). Application Form, Priority-Objective 2-1, Axis 2: Protection of the environment and promotion of a sustainable territorial development, Objective 2.1: Protection and enhancement of natural resources and heritage, WATERLOSS, Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system, Submitted version, version 5. 80 p.
Page 84 sur 86
[Oertlé, 2011] Oertlé E. (2011). Réduction des pertes en eau dans les réseaux de distribution. Terminologie, méthodes et instruments (the reduction of water losses in distribution networks. Terminology, methods and instruments) GWA, (9) 2011, Suisse, pp.665, 674. [Pearson et Trow, 2011] Pearson D. and Trow S. W. (2011). Comparing Leakage Performance using the Frontier Approach. 10 p. [SAGE 33, 2004] SAGE nappes profondes de la Gironde (the deep water tables of the Gironde). (2004). Rendement des réseaux d’eau potable, définition des termes utilises (the output of drinking water networks, definition and terms used) Bordeaux, 23 p. [Trow, 2009] Trow S.W. (2009). Development of a pressure management Index. Waterloss, Conference proceeding, Cape Town, 26-29 April 2009, 9p. [Waterloss, 2012 a] Waterloss. (2012) a. Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system C03: Monitoring of the performance of Water Supply Systems & Evaluation of NRW. Phase 3.1 Overview of Water Supply Systems & performance assessment. Project report D3.1.1 & D3.1.2: Water balance assessments, GIS Plots. By LG, Italy, 135 p. [Waterloss, 2012 b] Waterloss. (2012) b. Management of water losses in a drinking water supply system C03: Monitoring of the performance of Water Supply Systems & Evaluation of NRW. Phase 3.2. Establishment of an efficient performance indicator system. Project report, D3.2.1 & D3.2.2: Database of performance indicators, Group of appropriate performance indicators adapted to regional conditions. By WBN, Cyprus, 186 p.
Page 85 sur 86
Annex list Annex 1 : NRW reduction measures……………………………….1
Part A : Answers of Waterloss project partners at DH questionnaire on NRW measures…………………………………………………………..….1
1. Answer of AMB : Castellbisbal…………………...2 2. Answer of DEYAK : Kozani………………………..20 3. Answer of DH : SIE de Lodève…………………..38 4. Answer of LG : Melito di Napoli………………..56 5. Answer of PO : Argelès-sur-Mer……………….74 6. Answer of WBN : Nicosia………………………...95
Part B : Synthesis of project partners answers at DH questionnaire on NRW measures………………………………………………………113
Annex 2 : Decision tree building…………………………………..140
Part A : Decision tree……………………………………………..140
Part B : Synthesis of variables, context information and indicators used at each STEP………………………………………………………………………..153
Part C : DH questionnaire on thresholds…………………166
Part D : Thresholds guide………………………………………..174
Part E : Answers of Waterloss project partners at DH questionnaire on thresholds………………………………………………………………177
1. Answer of AMB : Castellbisbal……………………178 2. Answer of PO : Argelès-sur-Mer………………....184
Annex 3 : NRW reduction targets, answers of Waterloss project partners at LP questionnaire on thresholds………………………185
1. Answer of AMB : Castellbisbal……………….…186 2. Answer of DEYAK : Kozani……………………..…193 3. Answer of DH : SIE de Lodève……………………198 4. Answer of LG : Melito di Napoli………………..203 5. Answer of PO : Argelès-sur-Mer……………… 208 6. Answer of PO : Baho…………………………………213 7. Answer of PO : Thuir……………………………..…218 8. Answer of WBN : Nicosia………………………….223
Page 86 sur 86
