GIS-Based Identification of Locations in Water Distribution Networks Vulnerable to Leakage
, Serter Atabay 2,*, Abdullah Gokhan Yilmaz 3, Md. Maruf Mortula 2, Kazi Parvez Fattah 2 and Zahid Khan 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. All the Figures are not clear even in the color files. They should be re-drawn with bright colors
2. Is Figure 3 should be a Figure? Why do you think it should be a Figure?
3. In abstract, observation and result should be included some numerical numbers.
4. How about the time of natural disasters? Earthquakes can cause serious Water supply network destruction. How do you address it in your model?
5. How did you justify the parameter for your model? Did you do some experiments (small scale)?
6. Introduction seems unnecessarily LONG. Reduce/compact it.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a method for determining locations in the WDNs vulnerable to leakage by combining six leakage-conditioning factors. The proposed model considered three fixed physical factors (pipe length per junction, number of fittings per length, and pipe friction factor) and three varying operational aspects (drop in pressure, decrease in flow, and variations in chlorine levels). The model performance was validated using district metered areas (DMAs) of a Water Distribution Network (WDN) using ArcGis.
The paper matches the scope of the Journal.
The paper presents an interesting topic. In its current form, the paper is not suitable for publication. The literature review must be extended. The novelties and innovations provided by the proposed research must be further discussed and assessed, accurately highlighting the innovative aspects introduced with respect to the known literature. The materials and methods need to be further described and detailed, in order to clarify the tools and concepts used in the research, but at the same time to highlight and claim the innovative theoretical concepts provided. Results and discussion must be enriched and conclusions must report qualitative and quantitative aspects.
In the following, some notes are reported.
General notes:
- Please report a literature reference for each concept that is exploited in the paper but is already known in the literature. In this way, the innovations proposed in the paper can be further highlighted.
- Please report the measurement units and the description of each term used in all the equations.
- Please improve the quality of the figures.
Abstract and Keywords
- In my opinion, the number of keywords can be increased in order to provide an overall sketch of the main concepts discussed in the paper.
- In the abstract, no reference is reported about logistic regression. This is a keyword and, in my opinion, it should appear in the abstract.
- In my opinion, the abstract is not focused on the scope of the work. Please reorganize it in order to highlight the main aspects of the paper and also add quantitative results.
Section 1 (Introduction)
- In my opinion, subsections in the introduction section can be avoided. The introduction should be reorganized as a unique section which must contain the topic, the motivation of the work, the literature review, the novelties and innovations proposed in the paper and the description of the paper structure. In addition, the novelties and innovations listed in the introduction must be also represented by an explicit and in-depth claim in the core of the paper.
- Please extend the literature review. In addition, avoid to group many references and provide a different explanation for each reference.
- The description of the GIS methodology at line 106-117, should be extended since this aspect is a declared key concept for the paper. In addition please detail the multiple layer concept (line 112)
Section 2 (Materials and Methods)
- Lines 194-206: in my opinion, this part can be reported in the introduction avoiding repetition. In addition, it seems to be a list of material and methods, but an accurate assessment of the motivation associated to the claimed innovation is not given. Please clarify with qualitative and quantitative results.
- Lines 207-212: please extend this part, providing a major description of the data set and of the case study; in addition, please better describe the Figure 1.
- Lines 216-224: please check and avoid repetition with the previous sections.
- 225-241: please further describe this part, accurately motivating the design choices.
- How the chlorine parameter is connected to water leakage?
- Please suitably extend and detail Section 2.2. This section seems to be a key part of the paper and a major description is required.
- The highlighted values cited at line 251 are not reported (highlighted) in Table 1.
- Last column of Table 4 is not clear. Please explain how these values are computed.
- Please motivate the choice of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methods, with respect to others.
Section 3 (Results and Analysis)
- Please extend this section, detailing the result analysis, adding other results and detailing the associated analysis.
- The paragraph does not allow to comprehend the effective results obtained. It should better clarified the overall results of the proposed approach.
- No comment are given to the consumer water demand satisfaction. In this way, the results of the performed analysis could suggest to keep a too low value of water pressure so to reduce leakage. This could cause bad performances in term to consumer water demand satisfaction. Please comment on this.
Section 4 (Conclusions)
- Please reorganize and detail the conclusions in order to focus on the qualitative and quantitative results obtained.
Minor comments:
- Within the references, please add the DOI where it is missing.
- Please fix typos in the paper. For example, after the colon “:” the lower case should be used.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manusript aims to identify Locations in Water Distribution Networks Vulnerable to Leakage by using MCDM like AHP and GIS. In this regard, the work has an original value. It has the capacity to contribute to the efforts made in this regard. However, it should review some basic considerations. After these improvements, it is acceptable for publication in your Journal.
- The authors used the AHP method as a multi-criteria decision method in section 2 to calculate the weight of the parameters used, but the use of this method is not well justified in the introduction.
- I propose to the authors to draw up a table to summarize some works in the same direction of their study by mentioning the methods and techniques used.
- The presentation of the conclusion were not enough; it should be highlighted.
- The authors should elaborate the limitations of their study.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a method for determining locations in the WDNs vulnerable to leakage by combining six leakage-conditioning factors. The proposed model considered three fixed physical factors (pipe length per junction, number of fittings per length, and pipe friction factor) and three varying operational aspects (drop in pressure, decrease in flow, and variations in chlorine levels). The model performance was validated using district metered areas (DMAs) of a Water Distribution Network (WDN) using ArcGis.
The paper matches the scope of the Journal.
The literature review must be extended. The novelties and innovations provided by the proposed research must be further discussed and assessed, accurately highlighting the innovative aspects introduced with respect to the known literature. The materials and methods need to be further described and detailed, in order to clarify the tools and concepts used in the research, but at the same time to highlight and claim the innovative theoretical concepts provided. Results and discussion must be enriched, and conclusions must report qualitative and quantitative aspects.
In the following, some notes are reported.
General notes:
- Please report the measurement units and the description of each term used in all the equations, tables and figures. In the revised version of the paper the authors improved this aspect but still some terms have not the specification of the measurement units
- Please fix the typos in the paper, e.g., “3.1” at line 35. In addition, after the colon “:” the lower case should be used.
- Within the references, please add the DOI where it is missing.
Abstract
- In my opinion, the new abstract is not focused on the scope of the work. Please reorganize it in order to highlight the main aspects of the paper and also add quantitative results.
Section 1 (Introduction)
- In the revised version of the paper, the authors added the sentence “The innovative aspects introduced in this work with respect to the known literature includes the use of logistic regression and vulnerability analysis is utilized for identifying the parts of WDN susceptible to leaks.”. I have some doubts on this statement. Please carefully check the statement through a further literature analysis. Please extend the literature review. For example, the paper https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0044005 uses logistic regression for the same purpose of the present paper.
- The novelties and innovations listed in the introduction must be also represented by an explicit and in-depth claim in the core of the paper.
- Lines 111-126: the description of the GIS methodology should still be extended since this aspect is a declared key concept for the paper. In addition, please detail the multiple layer concept (line 117).
Section 2 (Materials and Methods)
- Lines 199-209: it still seems to be a list of material and methods, but an accurate assessment of the motivation associated to the claimed innovation is not given. Please clarify with qualitative and quantitative concepts.
- Lines 210-220: please extend this part, providing a major description of the data set and of the case study; in addition, please better describe the Figure 1.
- Lines 225-232: please check and avoid repetition with the previous sections.
- Lines 233-249: please further describe this part, accurately motivating the design choices.
- Please suitably extend and detail Section 2.2. This section seems to be a key part of the paper and a major description is required. For example, a further description of the tables can improve the readability of the paper.
- How the chlorine parameter is connected to water leakage? The authors answered to the reviewer to see lines 279-286, but, on these lines, there is not the required description. Please clarify.
- Please further motivate in the paper the choice of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methods, with respect to others. The motivations given are not clear.
Section 3 (Results and Analysis)
- Please extend this section, adding other results and detailing the associated analysis. The authors answered to the reviewer to see lines 528-538, but, on these lines, there is not the required description. Please clarify.
- The section does not allow to comprehend the effective results obtained. It should better clarify the overall results of the proposed approach. The authors answered to the reviewer to see lines 528-538, but, on these lines, there is not the required description. Please clarify.
- The comment given about the consumer water demand satisfaction is not fully appropriate. The management of the net pressure depends on the implemented control system. The comment given does not consider this aspect. Please rewrite this part.
Section 4 (Conclusions)
- Please reorganize and detail the conclusions in order to focus on the qualitative and quantitative results obtained. The authors answer is not exhaustive . Please modify.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest to accept this paper in this current form
Author Response
Authors would like to thank Reviewer for accepting our manuscript in the current form and for his previous constructive comments.
