{"title":"基于深度学习的配水网络泄漏检测","authors":"Hridik Punukollu, A. Vasan, K. Srinivasa Raju","doi":"10.1080/09715010.2022.2134742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Two deep learning algorithms, namely, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Network- Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), were used to classify the water distribution networks (WDN) as leaky or non-leaky. LeakDB dataset was employed to generate different leakage scenarios for Net 1 and Hanoi benchmark WDN. Three cases, (a) incipient leaks, (b) abrupt leaks, and (c) mixed leak situations, are employed for pressure and flow conditions. A total of 1000 scenarios have been employed, 80% for training and 20% for testing. Seven metrics for analyzing the performance of CNN and LSTM are training accuracy, testing accuracy, total accuracy, true positive rate, false positive rate, false negative rate & area under curve. The results obtained are compared with those of Kammoun, et al. (2021). CNN is performing slightly better than LSTM in several metrics for most scenarios. However, both CNN and LSTM performed most of the time with better accuracy than those used by Kammoun et al. (2021). Leak detection accuracy is in the range of 90.56–98.23 % for Net1 WDN, whereas it is 49–96.55 % for Hanoi WDN.","PeriodicalId":38206,"journal":{"name":"ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering","volume":"82 1","pages":"674 - 682"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leak detection in water distribution networks using deep learning\",\"authors\":\"Hridik Punukollu, A. Vasan, K. Srinivasa Raju\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09715010.2022.2134742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Two deep learning algorithms, namely, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Network- Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), were used to classify the water distribution networks (WDN) as leaky or non-leaky. LeakDB dataset was employed to generate different leakage scenarios for Net 1 and Hanoi benchmark WDN. Three cases, (a) incipient leaks, (b) abrupt leaks, and (c) mixed leak situations, are employed for pressure and flow conditions. A total of 1000 scenarios have been employed, 80% for training and 20% for testing. Seven metrics for analyzing the performance of CNN and LSTM are training accuracy, testing accuracy, total accuracy, true positive rate, false positive rate, false negative rate & area under curve. The results obtained are compared with those of Kammoun, et al. (2021). CNN is performing slightly better than LSTM in several metrics for most scenarios. However, both CNN and LSTM performed most of the time with better accuracy than those used by Kammoun et al. (2021). Leak detection accuracy is in the range of 90.56–98.23 % for Net1 WDN, whereas it is 49–96.55 % for Hanoi WDN.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"674 - 682\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2022.2134742\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2022.2134742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要采用卷积神经网络(CNN)和递归神经网络-长短期记忆(LSTM)两种深度学习算法对供水网络(WDN)进行泄漏和非泄漏分类。利用LeakDB数据集对Net 1和Hanoi基准WDN生成不同的泄漏场景。三种情况,(a)初期泄漏,(b)突然泄漏和(c)混合泄漏情况,用于压力和流动条件。总共使用了1000个场景,80%用于培训,20%用于测试。分析CNN和LSTM性能的七个指标是训练准确率、测试准确率、总准确率、真阳性率、假阳性率、假阴性率和曲线下面积。所得结果与Kammoun, et al.(2021)的结果进行比较。在大多数情况下,CNN在几个指标上的表现略好于LSTM。然而,CNN和LSTM在大多数情况下都比Kammoun等人(2021)使用的准确率更高。Net1 WDN的泄漏检测准确率为90.56 - 98.23%,而河内WDN的泄漏检测准确率为49 - 96.55%。
Leak detection in water distribution networks using deep learning
ABSTRACT Two deep learning algorithms, namely, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Network- Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), were used to classify the water distribution networks (WDN) as leaky or non-leaky. LeakDB dataset was employed to generate different leakage scenarios for Net 1 and Hanoi benchmark WDN. Three cases, (a) incipient leaks, (b) abrupt leaks, and (c) mixed leak situations, are employed for pressure and flow conditions. A total of 1000 scenarios have been employed, 80% for training and 20% for testing. Seven metrics for analyzing the performance of CNN and LSTM are training accuracy, testing accuracy, total accuracy, true positive rate, false positive rate, false negative rate & area under curve. The results obtained are compared with those of Kammoun, et al. (2021). CNN is performing slightly better than LSTM in several metrics for most scenarios. However, both CNN and LSTM performed most of the time with better accuracy than those used by Kammoun et al. (2021). Leak detection accuracy is in the range of 90.56–98.23 % for Net1 WDN, whereas it is 49–96.55 % for Hanoi WDN.