The document discusses water loss control through leak detection in Joliet, Illinois. It summarizes that initial leak detection surveys in 180 miles of mains found 149 leaks reducing losses by 1.73 million gallons per day. Subsequent surveys in 150 more miles found 69 leaks reducing losses by an additional 0.26 million gallons. In total, the surveys are estimated to save over $1 million annually in wholesale water costs through repaired leaks. The case study demonstrates how leak detection can significantly reduce real water losses and recover costs.

1. Finding “Real”
Water Losses in Joliet
John H. Van Arsdel, Vice President

2. Overview
Water Loss Control
Water Balance Format (AWWA/IWA)
Apparent Losses
Real Losses
Leakage control
Case Study

3. Water Loss Control
Monitoring water resources has been conducted for
thousands of years.
Julius Frontenus was first Roman Water
Commissioner and recognized importance of
equitable water distribution (300 BC)
Concept of “water rights” and water use has been
debated for centuries
End result: majority of water use is now
metered or monitored

4. Gallons of water being pumped into the distribution system
each billing period exceeds the gallons being sold.
Water Sold
Water Pumped

5. Water Loss Control
The difference in the water pumped versus
water sold is basically termed “water loss”
Is it not possible to have a “perfect system”
Concept of “acceptable loss” levels
– What is “acceptable”?
– How do you control losses?

6. State Water Loss Standards - 2001
20%
10%
15% 15% 15%
15%
20%
15%
20% 15%
10% 15% 15%
10% 15%
15%
15% 7.5%
20% 15% 10%
10%

7. Water Systems are not designed to
loose $$’s
• If you think it is OK to loose 10%, 15% or 20% of
your water …
Just hand over to me …
10%, 15%, or 20% of your paycheck each
payday… and I will go away!!
Now that I have your attention….

8. Water systems are not designed to lose
money!
What is considered “acceptable loss”
in a system?
10%, 15%, ???
Why are these losses unacceptable?
Law of diminishing returns…

9. Water Loss Control
Water Loss Control is defined simply as the
process of “Auditing” the operational
procedures and processes of our water
utility to determine losses and then
provide remediation for those issues.
IWA/AWWA developed a “Water Balance”
chart after much research into differences
in concept of water losses.

10. Standard Water
Start here
Balance Format
Move this direction
Water Billed Water Exported
Exported
Billed
Revenue
Authorized Billed Metered Consumption
Own Authorized Water
Consumption
Sources Consumption
Total
Total Billed Unmetered Consumption
System
System
Input
Input Unbilled Unbilled Metered Consumption
Authorized
(allow Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
( allow Water
for Supplied
for Apparent Unauthorized Consumption
known
known Losses Non-
errors)
errors ) Revenue Customer Metering & Data Inaccuracies
Water Water
Water Leakage on Mains
Imported
Losses
Real Leakage on Service Lines
Losses (before the meter)
Leakage & Overflows at Storage

11. Water Audit Form
Developed by the
AWWA Water
Loss Committee
Easier than a
1040 form!

12. Water Loss Control
Water Loss Spreadsheet provides help
and direction for Financial, Operational,
and Water Resources Considerations
through a “scoring” mechanism (called
ILI).
Considerations are given to optimization of
the above 3 resources.

13. Now available free of charge at
http://www.awwa.org/waterwiser/waterloss/

14. Water Loss Control / Water Audit
A Water Audit is made up of 5 major
components
1. Master Meter Testing
2. Commercial/Industrial Meter Testing
3. Residential Meter Testing
4. Meter Reading & Billing Review
5. Leak Detection

15. Water Losses
Apparent - Metering Inaccuracies
Unauthorized Consumption
( $$ Non-Revenue Water $$ )
Real Losses - Leakage
( $$ Non-Revenue Water $$)

16. Real Losses

17. “Let’s begin today with a look at
Holy #@**%$ ... When did this happen”?
72” main break

18. Too late…

19. Well, so much for watering the lawn and
washing the car today…
**Main breaks happen… some are
unavoidable.
Are you ready for this??

20. Four
Components of
Managing
Real Losses
Imp
r ove ce,
enan tation
for l respons in t
e Ma ehabili
eak
repa e time ov
irs Impr ent & R
cem
R epla
Existing
Real
Losses Pres
e
Activ ntrol Mana sure
Co ge m
ent
Lea kage
Economic
As each component receives Level
more or less attention, the losses The Utility should
will increase or decrease Unavoidable strive to keep losses
Real Losses to a minimum

21. Non-Revenue Water
Non-Revenue Water = Pumped Water – Billed Water
Real Losses- Leakage
-
( $$ Non-Revenue Water $$)
(You do not make $$’s on leaks!!)

22. Think all leaks surface?
Don’t bet on it!!

23. Acoustic Leak Detection 101
• Fluid escaping a pipe
under pressure produces
“Leak Noise”
• Leaks are detectable
based on:
– Size of leak
– Pressure of pipe
– Pipe size
– Pipe material
– Length of pipe between
listening points
– Good physical contact with pipe
or valve

24. How to perform a Leak Survey…
The old way…

25. Acoustic Leak Detection 101 (continued)
• Leak noise is picked up by a set of transducers
• Signal is amplified and transmitted to Correlator to
pinpoint leak location.
• Leak Correlation is based on time delay difference of
arrival of leak sound received by each sensor.
• Generally,
– Smaller, high pressure leaks - mid to higher frequency
ranges
– Larger, low pressure leaks - low to mid range
– PVC - lowest range

26. The pipe material, pipe size, and length of pipe segments
are entered into the Correlator
and the leak noise is analyzed and the leak pinpointed!

27. Operational Theory
• L=d-vt/2
• L is Leak Distance from “A”
• D is distance between “A” and “B”
• V is velocity of leak noise
• T is time delay of noise between “A” & “B”

28. Leak Correlation Equipment

29. Leak Located - X marks the Spot
Note the other utility’s locations…

30. Hole Dug…

31. Leak Repaired - One Hole, One Restoration

32. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
24 wells providing average 13 mgd.
2005 capacity increased to 23 mgd.
Large part of the piping system was
over 100 years old

33. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
375 miles of water main in the City of
Joliet’
Joliet’s distribution system.
180 miles surveyed for Phase I of the
program
Focus on older sections of pipe,
downtown areas

34. Reasons behind leak detection
Conserve freshwater resources by reducing the
amount of “real” water losses through leakage
Conserve energy and reducing treatment costs
by reducing pumpage because of main breaks
Help in monitoring potential distribution system
operations and maintenance problems Water Sold
Water Pumped
Promote proper accounting and financial
reporting (GASB 34)
Reduce the risk of water shortage and customer
hardship by finding leaks before
they become catastrophic
Ensure a sound and reliable water service and
fire protection for customers of the Utility

35. City of Joliet, IL
Some areas similar to other Cities and Villages…

36. City of Joliet, IL
Other older areas have been renewed …

37. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
What was found in first part of survey….
59 leaks in first 67 miles surveyed (average of
one leak per 1.1 miles of main)
12 main breaks (average 1 main break per 5.6
miles)
17 service line leaks
26 hydrant leaks
4 valve leaks (packing and bonnet bolts).

38. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
What was found ….
149 leaks (average of one leak per
1.2 miles of main)
33 main breaks (average 1 main break per 4.5
miles)
59 service line leaks (7 on the customer side of
the shut off valve
46 hydrant leaks
11 valve leaks (packing and bonnet bolts).

39. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
What was found ….
149 leaks
(estimated total 1.73 mgd or about 1200 gpm)
33 main breaks (average 24.5 gpm each)
59 service line leaks (average 5 gpm each)
46 hydrant leaks (2 gpm each)
11 valve leaks (1 gpm each)

40. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
The majority of these leaks did not surface
because the local geology of Joliet is
limestone.
Annualized water losses
$918,354.00
(wholesale costs of $1.45/1000 gals)
Payoff for cost of survey: 15 days

41. Case study
City of Joliet, IL (2008-2009)
Estimated leakage 1.73 mgd
(or about 1200 gpm)
Daily average pumpage @ 13 mgd
Loss = 13.3 %

42. State Water Loss Standards - 2001
20%
10%
15% 15% 15%
15%
20%
15%
20% 15%
10% 15% 15%
10% 15%
15%
15% 7.5%
20% 15% 10%
10%

43. Leak Locations (water drops) in 180 miles of main

44. Downtown area

45. Estimating Leak Amounts
Hole Diameter GPM Loss GPD Loss
1/2" 34.9 50,256.0
1/4" 8.85 12,744.0
1/8" 2.25 3,240.0
1/16" 0.5666 815.9
1/32" 0.1333 192.0
** Pressure at 50 psi

46. Pressure’s affect on leak amounts
Mathematical relationship…
Double the pressure…
(50psi x 2 = 100psi)
The leak amount (volume) is
SQUARED!
(10 gpm x 10 = 100 gpm)

47. When things went wrong….
A few Problems …
Once leak was pinpointed, dug as soon
as possible
•When leak location was off, leak crew
returned to verify location.
•Generally reason for miss was wrong
distance, pipe material, diameter,
abandoned service…

48. Typical Neighborhood ….

49. Main line break near a corp.

50. Some valve boxes cleaned
to gain access to the valve
for listening…

51. Documentation
GPS location of leaks for
import into GIS
Field Documentation
Diagram of Location

52. Leak tracking in survey area…

53. Phase II
What was found ….
• 69 leaks in 150 miles of pipe
(estimated total .26352 mgd or about 183 gpm)
• 6 main breaks (average 17.5 gpm each)
• 15 service line leaks (average 2 gpm each)
• 44 hydrant leaks (1 gpm each)
• 4 valve leaks (1 gpm each)

54. Phase II
The majority of these leaks did not surface
because the local geology of Joliet is
limestone.
Annualized estimated water losses
$139,468.00
(wholesale costs of $1.45/1000 gals)
Payoff for cost of survey: 51 days

55. Phase I & II totals
$ 1,057,822 estimated annual
wholesale costs (loss)
1.998 mgd loss
Average pumpage 13 mgd
15.3% estimated loss

56. State Water Loss Standards - 2001
20%
10%
15% 15% 15%
15%
20%
15%
20% 15%
10% 15% 15%
10% 15%
15%
15% 7.5%
20% 15% 10%
10%

57. Lessons Learned from the Leak program
• Fire Hydrant issues…
• Potential Customer Meter
issues…
• Customer Lateral issues
• GIS Mapping Updates
• Not all leaks surface!
• Prioritize CIP programs

58. Standard Water
Balance Format
Water Billed Water Exported
Exported
Billed
Revenue
Authorized Billed Metered Consumption
Own Authorized Water
Consumption
Sources Consumption
Total
Total Billed Unmetered Consumption
System
System
Input
Input Unbilled Unbilled Metered Consumption
Authorized
(allow Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
( allow Water
for Supplied
for Apparent Unauthorized Consumption
known
known Losses Non-
errors)
errors ) Revenue Customer Metering & Data Inaccuracies
Water Water
Water Leakage on Mains
Imported
Losses
Real Leakage on Service Lines
Losses (before the meter)
Leakage & Overflows at Storage

59. Future goals
• Increased water loss control
• Introduce the best leak detection available
• Continue process of identifying high percentage
leak areas for system betterment
• Preparing and implementing a reporting system
in accordance with proposed AWWA guidelines
(per M-36)

60. AWWA Policy Statement (M-36)
Conduct Audits
Evaluate overall effectiveness of:
Metering
Billing and accounting
Water loss control (leaks)
** Audits provide basis of assessing what needs to
be improved

61. THANK YOU!!
A special thank you to the following
people/entities who provided information:
AWWA Water Loss Control Committee
John Van Arsdel/Dan Hood – M.E. Simpson
Co., Inc.