Pipe Break Rate Assessment While Considering Physical and Operational Factors: A Methodology based on Global Positioning System and Data-Driven Techniques

Abstract

Deterioration of urban Water Distribution Networks (WDNs) is one of the primary cases of water supply losses, leading to the huge expenditures on the replacement and rehabilitation of elementsWDNs. An accurate prediction of pipes failure rate play a substantial role in the management of WDNs. In this study, a field study was conducted to register pipes break and relevant causes in the WDN of Yazd City, Iran. In this way, 851 water pipes were incepted and localized by the Global Positioning System (GPS) apparatus. Then, 1033 failure cases were reported in the eight zones of under study WDN during March-December 2014. Pipes break rate (BRP) was calculated using the depth of pipe installation (hP), number of failure (NP), pressure of water pipes in operation (P), and age of pipe (AP). After completing a pipe break database, robust Artificial Intelligence models, namely Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS), Gene-Expression Programming (GEP), and M5 Model Tree were employed to extract precise formulation for the pipes break rate estimation. Results of the proposed relationships demonstrated that MARS model with Coefficient of Correlation (R) of 0.981 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.544 provided more satisfying efficiency than M5 model (R=0.888 and RMSE=1.096). Furthermore, statistical results indicated that MARS and GEP models had comparatively at the same accuracy level. Explicit 2 equations by AI models were satisfactorily comparable with those obtained by literature review in terms of various conditions: physical, operational, and environmental factors and complexity of AI models. Through a probabilistic framework for the pipes break rate, the results of first-order reliability analysis that MARS technique had highly satisfying performance when MARSextracted-equation was assigned as a limit state function.

Artificial intelligence‐based correlation: Process side heat transfer coefficient for helical coils in stirred tank reactors

“…For a given significance level α, one can take the α/2 and 1 − α/2 quantiles of all observations ŷ t n for a given data point X and prediction interval for that point X can be given as [ŷ ɑ/2 n , ŷ 1 − ɑ/2 n ]. 24,25 Prediction intervals for the prediction of HTC in the testing set are observed in Figure 8. The Prediction Interval Coverage Probability (PICP) tells us the percentage of time an interval contains the actual value of the prediction, while Mean Prediction Interval Width (MPIW) gives us the average width of a predicted interval.…”

Advanced Techniques for Monitoring and Management of Urban Water Infrastructures—An Overview

“…Amiri and Najafzadeh [125] present a methodology for assessing pipe break rate by analyzing data containing number of pipe failures, pipe localization, depth of installation, pipe pressure and age. They compute the pipe break rate using three different AI models: multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS), gene-expression programming (GEP) and M5 model tree.…”

Predicting Inflow Rate of the Soyang River Dam Using Deep Learning Techniques

“…Data-driven models are capable of repeatedly learning the complex nonlinear relationships between input and output data to produce highly predictive performance, regardless of the conceptual and physical characteristics. Researchers worldwide use data-driven models for various applications, such as decoding clinical biomarker space of COVID-19 [17], water quality prediction [18], and pipe-break rate prediction [19]. Researchers attempt to use data-driven models for various hydrological predictions, such as MARS [20][21][22][23][24], DENFIS [25], LSTM-ALO [26], and LSSVR-GSA [27].…”