IWA best practice and performance indicators for water utilities in Serbia: Case study Pirot

Abstract

Active water loss management has become one of the primary interests of the water utilities in the world. Due to efforts of the IWA Task Force in the last decade, traditional approach of water loss expression in percentage of system input values has been proven to be misleading in may cases, and new way of performance measuring and benchmarking is proposed. This paper presents the basic principles of this methodology and results of the first step in attempt to approach Serbian water utilities performance according to new standards. Pirot water supply system is used as a case study to estimate pressure reducing impact on technical performance indictor values before introducing active leakage control

Leakage Management and Pipe System Efficiency. Its Influence in the Improvement of the Efficiency Indexes

“…for the control of real losses, at the current operating pressure. It is the ratio of the Current Annual volume of Real Losses (CARL) to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) [104].…”

Management of Non-Revenue Water in Distribution Network and Conveyor Lines; a Case Study

“…The amount of leakage in distribution systems accounts for 10.46% and that in conveyor lines is 1.12% due to wear in the distribution systems, invisible leakages, ground breakages and high pressure as a result of the high volume of water (22). Studies show that in Serbia, real losses are estimated about 36% (26). The reconstruction, and repair and renewal of distribution systems and conveyor lines will play an important role in reducing real water losses.…”

Water Loss Assessment in Distribution Networks: Methods, Applications and Implications in Intermittent Supply

“…The IWA Water Loss Task Force has developed an international standard water balance with clear definitions, as presented in Figure 2.2 (Farley and Trow 2003;Lambert et al 2014). The IWA approach was first introduced in an IWA international report by Lambert and Hirner (2000) and quickly gained wide acceptance and promotion by many national and international organisations, including the American Water Works Association (AWWA), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank (EPA 2010;Lambert et al 2014;Radivojević et al 2008). The IWA terminology which was first presented in Lambert and Hirner (2000) has been revised over time, fine-tuned, and elaborated with minor modifications and highlights, as in Lambert et al (2014) and Vermersch et al (2016).…”

“…Table 9.1 presents common UC default values for high-, middle-, and low-income countries. A particularly low rate is assigned as the UC in high-income countries, ranging from 0.1% of the billed consumption in New Zealand to 0.25% of the system input volume in the USA (Austin Water Utility 2009; AWWA 2009; Jernigan 2014; Lambert and Taylor 2010;MDWSD 2011;Radivojević et al 2008). For Europe, 0.2% of the billed consumption is proposed as the UC (Lambert et al 2014).…”