Leakage Monitoring Overview
Campus distribution network snapshot with rule-based indicators for night flow anomalies and zone variance.
Focus zone
DMA-02
Continuous night-flow increase suggests a leaking valve downstream of Hostel Cluster B.
Estimated impact
Estimated 12% excess flow between 02:00 and 05:00 with a 14-21 kPa pressure drop.
Generated from simulated DMA inputs.
Operations snapshot
KPI summary
Pressure baseline updates every simulated hour.
Total DMA zones
3
Active leak alerts
2
Highest night flow
DMA-02
Estimated water loss (simulated)
11%
DMA zones
DMA Zone Comparison
Overview
DMA Overview
Monitoring 3 zones. Active leak scenario in DMA-02.
Status shown is based on analytical indicators presented below.
Comparative View
Zone Comparison
Current flow 216.0 m³/h vs peer average 122.4 m³/h.
Focus zone
Primary DMA
Current flow weighted by leak scenario.
Peer average
Other DMAs
Baseline flow from remaining zones.
Full daily demand cycle from 12:00 to 12:00 with an expected baseline that varies by time of day. Sustained elevated flow during the 02:00–05:00 night period is abnormal. Data is simulated for PoC demonstration.
Peer Comparison
DMA Zone Comparison – Night Flow vs Expected Baseline
Each DMA is compared against its own expected night-flow baseline. DMA-02 shows actual night flow significantly above its baseline, while DMA-01 and DMA-03 remain below their baselines. This indicates abnormal behaviour in DMA-02 and normal behaviour in the other zones.
Diagnostic focus
Minimum Night Flow Analysis
Night Audit
Minimum Night Flow
Observed night flow
Observed flow: 92.7 m³/h
Expected baseline
Baseline: 52 m³/h
Minimum Night Flow Verification
Simulated dataLegitimate demand should fall toward the MNF level during this period. Sustained flow above MNF is a strong leakage indicator. Data is simulated for PoC purposes.
Response queue
Leakage Alerts & Insights
Notifications
Leakage Alerts
Active leakage indicators detected. Prioritize field validation.
Detected leakage: Threshold variance (high)
Observed flow: 216.0 m³/h Expected baseline: 122.4 m³/h Variance: +76% above baseline Pressure reading: 359 kPa (pressure remains steady during higher flow)
Engineering Rationale
Under normal operating conditions, each DMA follows a predictable baseline flow pattern, particularly during low-demand periods. In this case, the observed flow significantly exceeds the expected baseline for this same zone and remains elevated over time. Such sustained deviation is inconsistent with normal consumption behaviour and points to continuous water loss. The stable pressure reading supports this finding, but is not the primary driver of the conclusion. Field verification is therefore recommended before any corrective action.
Recommended Field Verification Checks
1. Network & Valves
1.1 Confirm local valve positions and isolation boundaries for this DMA.
1.2 Check for recent valve changes that could shift the baseline.
2. Meter & Instrumentation
2.1 Validate the zone inlet meter accuracy against logger totals.
2.2 Check pressure sensor placement and calibration for this DMA.
3. Consumption & Operations
3.1 Verify any night‑time usage or scheduled draw‑off in this DMA.
3.2 Confirm large consumers are not driving a local baseline shift.
4. Field Inspection Focus
4.1 Inspect service connections, valves, and PRVs within the zone.
4.2 Walk the highest‑flow branches and night‑flow paths for leakage.
Rule-based indicator flagged this zone for review.
Detected leakage: Zone comparison (high)
Peer average flow (similar-demand zones): 122.4 m³/h Observed zone flow (DMA-02): 216.0 m³/h Difference: +93.6 m³/h (76% above peers) Large deviations from peer zones are abnormal and often point to leaks or unaccounted flow.
Engineering Rationale
Zones with similar size and demand characteristics are expected to exhibit comparable flow behaviour under normal conditions. In this case, the affected DMA shows a substantially higher flow than its peer zones over the same period. This persistent deviation indicates a network-level imbalance that is not explained by typical usage patterns. Peer-based comparisons like this are commonly used in DMA analysis to identify hidden leaks or unaccounted-for flow. Field verification is recommended to confirm the source of the imbalance.
Recommended Field Verification Checks
1. Network & Valves
1.1 Confirm boundary valves between zones are closed and intact.
1.2 Check for unauthorized inter‑zone connections or temporary bypasses.
2. Meter & Instrumentation
2.1 Validate peer‑zone meters for consistency and drift.
2.2 Review logger timestamps to ensure aligned comparisons.
3. Consumption & Operations
3.1 Check for operational differences that could explain the imbalance.
3.2 Confirm no special events are elevating demand in the affected zone.
4. Field Inspection Focus
4.1 Survey boundary valves and trunk mains linking peer zones.
4.2 Inspect corridors where imbalance would most likely appear.
Rule-based indicator flagged this zone for review.