4.3 Article

Weighted Least Squares with Expectation-Maximization Algorithm for Burst Detection in U.K. Water Distribution Systems

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000344

关键词

Signal processing; Flow; Unsupervised classification; Burst detection; Water distribution system; Weighted least squares; Expectation maximization algorithm

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/E003192/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/E003192/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E003192/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow measurement data at the district meter area (DMA) level has the potential for burst detection in the water distribution systems. This work investigates using a polynomial function fitted to the historic flow measurements based on a weighted least-squares method for automatic burst detection in the U.K. water distribution networks. This approach, when used in conjunction with an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, can automatically select useful data from the historic flow measurements, which may contain normal and abnormal operating conditions in the distribution network, e.g.,water burst. Thus, the model can estimate the normal water flow (nonburst condition), and hence the burst size on the water distribution system can be calculated from the difference between the measured flow and the estimated flow. The distinguishing feature of this method is that the burst detection is fully unsupervised, and the burst events that have occurred in the historic data do not affect the procedure and bias the burst detection algorithm. Experimental validation of the method has been carried out using a series of flushing events that simulate burst conditions to confirm that the simulated burst sizes are capable of being estimated correctly. This method was also applied to eight DMAs with known real burst events, and the results of burst detections are shown to relate to the water company's records of pipeline reparation work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据