The management of urban wastewater systems and the associated modelling of these systems has become indispensable in today's world. In order for these models to represent reality as accurately as possible, a reliable calibration is essential. Water level data is used as a standard, but due to expensive sensors and harsh conditions in the sewer, data can only be collected at a few key points of the system. One novel solution, that has experienced an upswing in recent years, is collecting data using low-cost temperature sensors. Two sensors are needed; one is placed in the stream; the other is placed at the crest of the weir. In the case of dry weather, the sensor measures the air phase, whereas, in the case of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), the discharged storm and wastewater is measured. The start and end of a CSO event can be determined via the merging of measured temperature values in both points of the overflow structure. Due to this method, the duration of CSO events in a sewer system can be detected.

In this work, the potential benefits of this novel method for model calibration are assessed. Therefore, autocalibration runs with water level data and fictional temperature data were carried out via OSTRICH for a SWMM model located in Berlin. Furthermore, calibration runs with a different number of measuring sites were performed, to evaluate the amount of necessary measuring sites for a reliable calibration. In order to be able to compare the different approaches, a calibration period of 19 events was first required for the respective datatype. Next, a validation period which consisted of 18 events was carried out and evaluated by the R² of three water level measuring sites for both approaches to ensure comparability. It was revealed that the calibration with duration data based on temperature sensors was able to achieve results as good as the conventional approach using water level data. Due to low spatial distribution of the measuring sites in the model, it could not be finally answered if more measuring sites would yield to even better results. However, already with one measuring site, promising calibration outcomes could be achieved and thus, offers an alternative for water utilities and practitioners.

Water utilities worldwide are under constant stress to reduce water loss due to urbanization, population growth, and climate change. Globally, Water Distribution Networks (WDNs) lose about 30% of the treated water on an average during supply. In addition to the amount of water lost, leaky WDNs consume additional energy and increase the risk of contamination. Deteriorating pipes and pipe network elements such as valves and joints, as well as improper pressure management are the main contributing factors for water loss in WDNs. Due to the increasing concern about water loss, leakage detection and localization have been widely researched in recent decades, both in continuously pumped and intermittently pumped systems.The techniques used for leakage detection and repair range from conventional methods with direct inspection on-site to model-based optimization methods. In the present era of low-cost sensors and the availability of high computing power, the transformation of WDNs into smart water systems is higher than ever. This has led to the research and development of data-driven and hybrid methods for solving leakage detection and localization methods. Irrespective of the class of methods used, their ultimate goal can be distilled primarily into two questions - a) How quickly and reliably can the presence of leak(s) be detected, and b) How accurate and precise can the location and size of the leak(s) be estimated?Answers to these questions include uncertainties inherent to the methods and models used, their underlying assumptions and necessary abstractions. Although much research has been done for many years to reduce uncertainties in leakage detection and localization, a comprehensive study using a consistent terminology of their types, sources, and effects on the outcome are missing. The main contribution of this work is to discuss (i) why there are uncertainties in the formulation of leakage detection and localization problem, (ii) identify the sources and types of uncertainties for different classes of modeling approaches (i.e., data-driven vs. model-based), and (iii) provide a brief review of their influence concerning error bounds from existing literature.