Skip to Main Content
Table 5

Best solutions as compared to Detection Likelihood (Rathi & Gupta 2017b)

Methodology (1)Sensor location (nodes) (2)Z1 (min) (3)Z2 (People) (4)Z3 (gallons) (5)Z4 (DL) (%) (6)Z5 (DC) (%) (7)
Dorini et al. (2006)  10,31,45,83,118 1,068 (6) 258 (4) 7,983 (5) 0.801 30.37 (4) 
Wu & Walski (2006)  45,68,83,100,118 704 (1) 303 (6) 8,406 (6) 0.787 37.34 (2) 
Eliades & Polycarpou (2006)  17,31,45,83,126 912 (5) 221 (3) 7,862 (4) 0.763 34.39 (3) 
Krause et al.(2006)  17,83,122,31,45 842 (4) 181 (2) 3,992 (2) 0.756 24.02 (6) 
Propato & Piller (2006)  17,22,68,83,123 711 (2) 164 (1) 3,148 (1) 0.725 27.45 (5) 
Rathi & Gupta (2015) (SGA1) 58, 83,101,118,124 724 (3) 297 (5) 4,510 (3) 0.725 43.85 (1) 
Methodology (1)Sensor location (nodes) (2)Z1 (min) (3)Z2 (People) (4)Z3 (gallons) (5)Z4 (DL) (%) (6)Z5 (DC) (%) (7)
Dorini et al. (2006)  10,31,45,83,118 1,068 (6) 258 (4) 7,983 (5) 0.801 30.37 (4) 
Wu & Walski (2006)  45,68,83,100,118 704 (1) 303 (6) 8,406 (6) 0.787 37.34 (2) 
Eliades & Polycarpou (2006)  17,31,45,83,126 912 (5) 221 (3) 7,862 (4) 0.763 34.39 (3) 
Krause et al.(2006)  17,83,122,31,45 842 (4) 181 (2) 3,992 (2) 0.756 24.02 (6) 
Propato & Piller (2006)  17,22,68,83,123 711 (2) 164 (1) 3,148 (1) 0.725 27.45 (5) 
Rathi & Gupta (2015) (SGA1) 58, 83,101,118,124 724 (3) 297 (5) 4,510 (3) 0.725 43.85 (1) 
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal