Furthermore, Farley et al. [11] noted that if pressure sensors were to be used solely to
detect leak/burst events, the issue of false alarms would be of concern. In that study,
the authors observed that false alarms are more common when using pressure timeseries values for detection, as pressure fluctuates much more than the flow in the
system. Similar/related observations have been made by a number of other
researchers. For example, as already mentioned in Sects. 2 and 3, Hagos et al. [52]
observed that the best pressure sensor locations for detection are not likely to be the
Table 2 Main characteristics of selected publications – hydraulic solver used, demand-/pressuredriven formulation, use of single/extended period simulations and choice of leak/burst simulation
method
Hydraulic
solver used
Demand-/
pressure-driven
Single/
extended
period
Leak/burst
simulation
method
Farley et al. [30]
AQUIS
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Farley et al. [11]
AQUIS
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Pérez et al. [31]
PICCOLO
Demand-driven Single period Additional
demand at nodes
Casillas et al. [39]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Sarrate et al. [42]
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not mentioned
b
Sarrate et al. [44]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Single period Not mentioned
b
Wu and Song [49]
WaterGEMS Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Hagos et al. [52]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Huang et al. [57]
Not
mentioned
Not mentioned
a
Single period Additional
demand at nodes
Candelieri et al. [59]
EPANET
Pressure-driven
[96]
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter on pipes
[96]
Boatwright et al. [63]
EPANET
Demand-driven Single period Emitter at nodes
Blesa et al. [73]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Casillas et al. [75]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Steffelbauer and FuchsHanusch [78]
OOPNET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Puleo et al. [80]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter in the
middle of pipes
Raei et al. [84]
EPANET
Demand-driven Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Forconi et al. [83]
EPANET
Pressure-driven Extended
period
Emitter in the
middle of pipes
a Assumed demand-driven
b
Assumed emitter at nodes
c Assumed single period
48
M. Romano
detect leak/burst events, the issue of false alarms would be of concern. In that study,
the authors observed that false alarms are more common when using pressure timeseries values for detection, as pressure fluctuates much more than the flow in the
system. Similar/related observations have been made by a number of other
researchers. For example, as already mentioned in Sects. 2 and 3, Hagos et al. [52]
observed that the best pressure sensor locations for detection are not likely to be the
Table 2 Main characteristics of selected publications – hydraulic solver used, demand-/pressuredriven formulation, use of single/extended period simulations and choice of leak/burst simulation
method
Hydraulic
solver used
Demand-/
pressure-driven
Single/
extended
period
Leak/burst
simulation
method
Farley et al. [30]
AQUIS
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Farley et al. [11]
AQUIS
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Pérez et al. [31]
PICCOLO
Demand-driven Single period Additional
demand at nodes
Casillas et al. [39]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Sarrate et al. [42]
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not mentioned
b
Sarrate et al. [44]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Single period Not mentioned
b
Wu and Song [49]
WaterGEMS Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Hagos et al. [52]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Huang et al. [57]
Not
mentioned
Not mentioned
a
Single period Additional
demand at nodes
Candelieri et al. [59]
EPANET
Pressure-driven
[96]
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter on pipes
[96]
Boatwright et al. [63]
EPANET
Demand-driven Single period Emitter at nodes
Blesa et al. [73]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Casillas et al. [75]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Steffelbauer and FuchsHanusch [78]
OOPNET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter at nodes
Puleo et al. [80]
EPANET
Not mentioned
a
Not
mentioned
c
Emitter in the
middle of pipes
Raei et al. [84]
EPANET
Demand-driven Extended
period
Emitter at nodes
Forconi et al. [83]
EPANET
Pressure-driven Extended
period
Emitter in the
middle of pipes
a Assumed demand-driven
b
Assumed emitter at nodes
c Assumed single period
48
M. Romano