Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAli Asgar Chandanwala
dc.contributor.authorSrutakirti Bhowmik
dc.contributor.authorParna Chaudhury
dc.contributor.authorUma Rajasekaran
dc.contributor.authorJ. Jean Jenifer Nesam
dc.contributor.authorMohanaprasad Kothandaraman
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-17T23:05:47Z
dc.date.available2025-08-17T23:05:47Z
dc.date.copyright8/1/2025 12:00:00 AM
dc.date.issued2025
dc.identifier.otherJPSEA2.PSENG-1815.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4307898
dc.description.abstractWater distribution systems often face problems with leaks, causing water loss and environmental worries. In literature, applications of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms in detecting a pipeline leak are tremendous, which helps to avoid wastage of water and environmental worries. For pipeline leak location, there are a few DL-based techniques, but ML techniques are not available. This work’s primary goal was to investigate various machine learning and deep learning techniques for leak identification and localization utilizing data gathered from an acousto-optic sensor to determine a more effective and precise approach. ML algorithms explored in this study are k-nearest neighbors (KNN), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), categorical boosting (CatBoost), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost). DL models explored in this study are the recurrent neural network (RNN), convolutional neural network (CNN), VGG16, and region-based convolutional neural network (RCNN). For ML algorithms, 10 traditional features were extracted from the raw one-dimensional time series data. For DL methods, the collected data underwent preprocessing. The preprocessing included data augmentation and normalization to ensure high-quality and consistent results. XGB provided the highest leak detection and localization accuracy among the ML algorithms. All the DL methods were tested at two different pressures, namely 200,000 Pa (2 bar) and 300,000 Pa (3 bar), to check the stability. Furthermore, the RCNN provided the highest leak detection and localization accuracy among the DL methods at pressures of both 2 and 3 bar.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleWater Pipeline Leakage Recognition and Localization Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.journal.volume16
dc.journal.issue3
dc.journal.titleJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/JPSEA2.PSENG-1815
dc.journal.fristpage04025035-1
dc.journal.lastpage04025035-7
dc.page7
dc.treeJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice:;2025:;Volume ( 016 ):;issue: 003
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record