ELSEVIER

Analysis of water distribution systems using a

perturbation method
H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

The analysis of a water distribution network requires the solution of a set of nonlinear equations. The current
methods are all iterative and require a good initial estimate to reach the solution quickly without any
convergence problems. In this study a perturbation expansion is applied to the set of nonlinear equations to
obtain a series of linear equations that can be solved easily using matrix methods. The advantage of the
proposed approach is that the solution is obtained directly without iterations, initial estimates, and issues of
convergence. The method of solution is simple and straightforward to implement because it requires only one
matrix inversion and four matrix multiplications. Hence the solution process is fast and efficient, which could
prove useful in the optimization of water distribution systems wherein the network is solved for every trial set
of design parameters. The solution is expressed in an explicit fashion which might be of use for further
mathematical manipulation and implementation in an optimization algorithm. The method has been tested on
various networks and the results obtained show a relatively high degree of accuracy.

Keywords: pipe networks, water distribution systems, perturbation solution, analytical method

1. Introduction solved directly. The current approaches are mostly iterative

and the convergence of the solution depends significantly
Water distribution network analysis is an important prob-
on the initial estimate.
lem in civil engineering. It has gained more importance in
There are basically four methods of solution: Hardy
recent years since the optimization of water distribution
Cross, Newton-Raphson, linearization, and numerical min-
networks has become a focus of current research. The
imization. The Hardy Cross method’ consists of adjusting
design of an optimal water distribution system involves an
the flows along each loop in a consecutive manner such
extensive simulation of the flow in the system for every
that the energy equations are satisfied within a certain
trial set of design parameters. An additional concern has
error limit. The method depends on the initial estimate of
been the modeling of water quality in a distribution system
flows and it suffers from slow convergence. The Newton-
whose solution also requires an efficient method of pipe
Raphson method2x3 consists of adjusting the flows or heads
network analysis. Most of the current methods used in the
simultaneously along all the loops; it uses simultaneous
analysis of water distribution networks are iterative since
corrections instead of local or individual corrections as in
the system of equations is nonlinear. An explicit and
the Hardy Cross technique. Although the simultaneous
efficient method is therefore beneficial.
corrections have improved convergence in simple net-
The basic hydraulic equations have been expressed in
works, the Newton-Raphson techniques depend highly on
two principal fashions: either in terms of the unknown
the initial guess of the solution. The further the initial
flow rates or in terms of the unknown nodal heads. The
estimate is from the exact solution the more the conver-
flow equations are expressed in terms of the flow rates in
gence problems are experienced. Additional convergence
the links and consist of nonlinear energy equations and
problems have been encountered in the nodal subdomain
linear continuity equations. The head equations are formed
(head equations) if a pipe in the network has a low value
of nonlinear continuity equations expressing the flow rates
of frictional resistance resulting from a large diameter
in the links as a function of the nodal heads. Each of them
and/or a short length. In such a case the head loss
is a set of nonlinear algebraic equations that cannot be
between the two junctions is small and the nodal heads are
close to each other which results in an ill-conditioned
matrix. Recently a hybrid element formulation4 has been
Address reprint requests to Dr. H. A. Basha at the Faculty of Engineering proposed to overcome such a problem.
and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. The linear theory method5 has been applied to the flow
equations and consists of transforming the nonlinear term
Received 31 January 1995; revised 6 July 1995; accepted 16 August 1995 in the energy equation into a linear one. The method

Appl. Math. Modelling 1996, Vol. 20, April

0 1996 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0307-904X/96/$15.00
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 SSDlO307-904X(95)00122-0
 Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

converges in a small number of iterations as compared mainly three relationships that are expressed in S.I. units
with the Newton-Raphson method, but it uses a larger as
matrix and sometimes suffers from oscillation around the Hazen-Williams
exact solution.6 The linear theory method was also devel-
0.8491r C HW D2.h3 1
oped for the head equations’ but it has proven to be x=-
unreliable in certain cases.’ “=F LO.54
1.85
(4)
Todini and Pilati’ used the concept of minimizing an Darcy-Weisbach
objective function to formulate a system of equations in
terms of the flow rates and the nodal heads. The system 1
formed of partly linear and partly nonlinear equations is x=-
(5)
2
solved using the Newton-Raphson method to find simulta-
neously the unknown flow rates in the pipes and the heads Manning
at the nodes. There are also other methods of solution that
have been published in related fields.lO~” T D8/3 1
a=--- xc-
Most of these methods depend on an initial estimate of (6)
45’3 n6 2
the flows or the heads and some suffer from slow conver-
gence or failure as has been tabulated by Wood and Substituting equation (3) into equation (1) and expressing
Rayes.‘* The proposed method follows an analytical ap- equation (1) for every node, we obtain a set of nonlinear
proach rather than a numerical one. It consists of solving equations in terms of the head losses which are coupled
the original nonlinear equation in an approximative fashion with the linear equations derived from equation (2) for
using a perturbation expansion. The advantages of the every loop. An approximate solution of the system of
method are that the solution is obtained in a straightfor- nonlinear equations can be obtained using a perturbation
ward manner without any iterations, initial estimate, and technique called the delta expansion.” The technique re-
convergence problems. It just involves the determination quires the replacement of the exponent x by S + 1 where
and summation of the terms of the perturbation series. 6 is the perturbation parameter. The perturbation approach
then consists of expanding the head loss in powers of 6
and determining analytically the terms of the series.
Expressing the head loss in the form of a perturbation
series in powers of 6
2. Perturbation solution
h=ho+h,S+h262+h3S3+0(S4)
The basic hydraulic equations describing the flow in a 6=x- 1 (7)
water distribution system are derived from the principles
of mass and energy conservation. The mass continuity we obtain
equation can be written for each node, and the energy hX=hhs=hexp(6 In h)=h,+(h,+ho In ho)6
conservation equation can be written for any path or loop.
A network has n, links, nj junction nodes, nr fixed-grade ho
+ h, + h, + h, In ho + yln2 h, a2
nodes, and 1 independent closed loops. At the nj junction i I
nodes, the sum of the flows in each connected pipe must
be equal to the consumption
+ h3+h2+$+(hI+h2) In ho

(8)
I 0
C(Qi”-Q,“,)=Cj .i=l,2,...,nj (1)

where Cj is the consumption or demand at junction node j,

positive for outflow and negative for inflow. The energy
+:ln2

where, in deriving
ho+ :ln’

equation
1
ho S3+0(S4)

(8), the following expansions

equation states that the sum of the head losses and gains were used
along a flow path must be equal to the difference of the
2
end nodal heads AH. In particular, the sum of the head z3 z4

losses and gains around a closed loop must be equal to el=l+r+s+31+z+...

zero since AH = 0:
z2 z3 z4
ln(l+z)=z-1+3_Qf - ... I.2 <I
;h=AH k=l, 2,...,1+n,-1 (2)
(10)
The discharge is related to the head loss through The flow in the pipe is therefore, from equations (3) and
(81,
Q=cxhx (3)
Q=aho+a[hI+hO In h,]S
where x varies between 0.5 and 0.54 depending on the
h0
head loss equation used, and cy is function of the length L, h, + h, + h, In ho + Tln2 ho a2
the diameter D, and the roughness in the pipe. There are I

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April 291

Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

(8) wherein the cp parameter in the expansion is combined

h:
+a
I h,+h2+2h+(h,+h2)
0
In ho with the zeroth-order term h,,, we obtain

(11)
Qp = -b, + a,( $0 + c,)

+ ;ln’ ho + ;Ln3
1
h, a3 + O( a4) + a,[

+4
$1 + (h,o + c,)

$2 + $1 + h,, ln(h,o
ln(h,o + c,)] 8

+ c,>
Equation (11) expresses the discharge in the pipe in terms +OS(h,,+c,) ln2(h,o+c,)]62+ ...
of the various orders of the head losses.
Pipe fittings can also be included in the above analysis (18)
by expressing the minor losses as Equation (18) expresses the pump discharge as a function
of the different perturbation orders of the pump head
Q, = a,h; h,,, h,,, . . . etc.
Substituting equations (ll), (13), and (18) into the
continuity equation (1) and collecting same powers of S
(12) we obtain a sequence of systems of linear algebraic equa-
where (Y, is a function of the minor loss coefficient k, tions. Each system consists of nj continuity equations and
1 + nf - 1 energy equations obtained from equation (2)
which depends on the type of fittings such as valves or
bends. Expanding equation (12) as in equation (8), we Zeroth order:
calculate that the discharge through the fitting is E‘Mhol= +E,l
Q, = q,$,o + ~,h,,~ +h,o ln k,ol~+ s[hrn~ kl[hol= +[Affl (19)
First order:
+ h,, + h,, In h,, + OSh,, ln2 h,,] 6’
[A,l[hrl= -[oh, ln hoI
+ ... (13) Mhl = + WI (20)
Second order:
For a system that includes a pump, an additional equation
that relates the head change across the pump to the dis- [ A,][ h2] = - [ cr(h, + h, In h, + OSh, ln2 h,,)]
charge can be expressed as a second-order pump-character-
L4Jh21 = + PI (21)
istic curve12”4
Third order:
h, = pQ2 + wQ + w2 (14) h:
where p, q, and r are the coefficients of the quadratic
curve representing the actual operation for a pump operat-
[A,][h,]= -

4
[(
cx hZ+~+hlpnho+h2
0

h0
In ho

ing at full speed and 77 is the ratio of the rotational speed + yin’ ho + dln3 ho
at any time to the rotational speed used to determine the
coefficients (v= 1 for constant-speed operation). Equation
(14) can be fitted to actual operating data using at least MM = + WI (22)
three points from a pump test relating the discharge to the where the coefficient matrix [A,] is a sparse matrix that
head differential across the pump. It can be written in a corresponds to the continuity equations and whose ele-
more suitable form for perturbation analysis using the ments depend on the network topology and the characteris-
following transformationr4 tics of the links [ aI, rx2,. . . , an,], while [A,] is a matrix
whose elements are zeros and ones representing the energy
equations. These two matrices are coupled together to
G=Q+$ (15) solve for the vector [ho] = [ho 1 ho 2.. . ho n ] which con-
sists of all the n, unknown zerdth-order head losses in the
and substituting into equation (14) to get network links. The systems (19)-(22) are solved recur-
sively whereby at each step the right-hand side is known
q2v2 from previous steps; the first-order solution is a function of
h, =pG2 + rq2 - - (16) the zeroth-order one, and the second-order solution de-
4P
pends on [ho] and [h,]. The zeroth-order solution [ho1 is
Using equations (15) and (16), the pump discharge can be the linear solution and the higher order terms can be
expressed as considered as refinements to the solution. Note that in the
above set of systems (19)-(22), only the right-hand side
1 vector is different for every order while the coefficient
Q = Qr, = u,( h, + cP), - b, xc-
(17) matrix remains unaltered. Therefore, once the inverse ma-
2
trix is determined, the solutions for the different orders can
where up = I/ 6, b, = OSvq/p, and cp =pb,f - rq2. be evaluated by a simple matrix product thereby reducing
Expressing h, as a perturbation series and using equation the computational time.

292 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April

 Analysis of water distribution
Since quadratic functions are used in the case of pumps
and minor losses, a similar exponent must be used for the
pipe friction formula because the perturbation parameter
must be the same for all the nonlinear terms. Therefore
either the Darcy-Weisbach’s equation or the Manning’s
equation can be used since it has a similar exponent. This
is not a severe limitation since all three formulas (4)-(6)
are commonly used. Switching from one head loss equa-
tion to another does not compromise the accuracy because
the three formulations are equivalent especially since each
equation resorts to a roughness coefficient that must be
calibrated and whose value is often uncertain. Note that in
case only minor losses are present, the Hazen-Williams’
equation can still be used by implementing the equivalent
pipe length approach which transforms the minor loss
associated with any valve into an equivalent length of a
fictitious pipe to be added to the system.
The procedure for including pressure regulating or sus-
taining valves can be mathematically accommodated by
the perturbation method since they generally follow the
same discharge head relationship as equation (12). The
modeling approach follows the one presented by Jeppson
and Davis.” The analysis of the pipe network must first
determine whether the pressure reducing valve is in the
normal mode of operation which consists of maintaining a
constant downstream pressure or whether the valve is
inoperative because the upstream pressure is below the
valve setting or whether the valve acts as a check valve
when there is a reverse flow. The linear solution can be
used to determine which case applies. In case the upstream
pressure is below the valve setting, the valve has no effect
and the analysis proceeds as if no valve were present. In
case of normal operation of the valve, the procedure
consists of replacing the pressure regulating valve by an
artificial reservoir with a constant head equal to the pres-
sure setting of the valve and the analysis proceeds as if an
extra reservoir were present. In the case of reverse flow,
the pipe is closed and a zero flow rate is obtained by
assigning a zero head loss to the closed pipe. The reservoir
head then becomes a variable and it is set equal to the head
at the downstream node.
In order to ensure the validity of the logarithmic expan-
sion (10) where I z 1 = 1Sh,/h, + 62h,/h, + . . . 1 must
be less than one, the head loss and the flow rate are
normalized with respect to some characteristic values.
Choosing Q, and h * as the normalizing variables, we
can define the following dimensionless variables
Q+ &7;h_
(23)
* *
The discharge then becomes
(24)
and the perturbation solution is as-given by equations
(1_9)-(22) but with h replaced by h, (Y by (Y, [Cl by
[Cl = [C/Q, I and AH by AH/h,. The normalizing
variables Q * and h, can be taken as the total demand of
the system and the maximum head difference among the
various reservoirs, respectively. In case there is only one
systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab
reservoir or none, Q * and h * can be set to one. Equations
(23) and (24) have sometimes proven to be instrumental in
assuring the accuracy of the perturbation series in the case
of more than one reservoir in the network system (see
Example II).
The above perturbation solution can be further simpli-
fied by expressing the head loss in every link in terms of
the end nodal heads. The resulting system is formed only
of the continuity equations and it results in a matrix that is
smaller in size and nearly symmetric since the system of
head loss equations exceeds the system of head equations
by the number of energy equations If n, - 1. The solu-
tion of such a system gives the various orders of the nodal
heads. Note that the right-hand side remains the same as in
the head loss formulation. The flow obtained with the head
equations is exactly the same as with the head loss formu-
lation since both are derived from the same perturbation
expansion. However, the head formulation requires the
specification of at least one nodal head in order for the
solution not to be ill-conditioned. In this work, the head
loss formulation has been chosen for ease of presentation
and programming, noting that the extra computational
effort due to the added energy equations was deemed
negligible. It should be mentioned that, unlike the
Newton-Raphson approach for the head equations, small
values of the head loss do not cause problems in the
proposed head loss formulation as the head loss terms do
not appear in the coefficient matrix.
In summary, the perturbation method reduces the solu-
tion procedure to a series of matrix equations (19)--(22)
that can be solved directly using efficient matrix methods
for sparse matrices. Having obtained the various orders of
the head losses, the discharges in the pipes, fittings, and
pumps are then obtained through equations (11) (13), and
(18), respectively. Starting from a reference head, the
nodal heads can also be determined by adding or subtract-
ing the head loss h as obtained from h = (Q/cx)‘/“. The
solution process is therefore direct and efficient without
any difficulties of poor initial estimates and convergence-
related problems. It is simple and straightforward to imple-
ment as it does not require sophisticated algorithms and
numerical techniques besides matrix inversion and multi-
plication. The method is also fast since it necessitates only
one matrix inversion and four matrix multiplications; how-
ever, it may not necessarily be the fastest method since
some iterative methods can reach the solution in a very
small number of iterations. Iterative methods involve a
number of matrix operations that are roughly equal to the
number of iterations since every iteration requires the
solution of the nonlinear set of equations. An iterative
method may reach an acceptable solution in three itera-
tions which makes it faster than the perturbation solution
or in five or more iterations which makes it slower.
Obviously the number of iterations depends on the choice
of the initial estimates.
3. Application and results
The perturbation solution has been tested on many net-
works of various sizes, some of which have been presented
Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April 293
Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

the schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure 1.

The network is supplied from two reservoirs and includes
a pump with specifications shown in Table 1. The steady-
state head loss equations include the nonlinear continuity
.l”“ction nurnbar - n k equations at the junction nodes
Figure 1. Hydraulic network of Example I.
‘huh; - a2h; - a3h; = 0 (25)
a2h,” - qh; + ash; = 0.1 (26)
in the literature, and two are discussed here. The first
example is presented in detail in order to illustrate the qh; + qh; = 0.15 (27)
application of the method, while the second example has
the nonlinear pump equation
been used as a benchmark network in a previous study.”
The calculation procedure consists of solving equations aIht = a,( h, + cP)’ - bP (28)
(19)-(22) in a stepwise fashion. The various orders of
perturbation solutions are then compared with the numeri- and the linear energy equations
cal solution as obtained by the Environmental Protection h, + h, - h, = 0 (29)
Agency Network (EPANET) software which is based on
the algorithm by Todini and Pilati.’ The differences be- H,+h,=H,+h,+h,-h, (30)
tween the analytical and numerical solutions, the average Upon perturbation expansion, we obtain from equation
difference and the maximum difference are also tabulated. (19) the zeroth-order head loss h,
The percent average and percent maximum difference is
determined by dividing the difference by the average flow cqh, 1 - qh, 2 - cz3h, 3 = 0 (31)
rate in the system since such a relative measure is more (Y2h02-(Yqh04+t(Ygh05=0.1
useful for comparison purposes. The performance of the
method is also assessed by calculating the residual of the %h0,3 + czqh, ‘, = 0.15
head losses which in principle must be equal to zero for czIh,, , - a,h, p = apcp -b,
closed loops. The ratio of the residual head losses to the
absolute ones gives another relative indication of the de- ho,, + ho,, - ho,, = 0
gree of error in the complete solution. Using the definition h 0-P - ho,, - ho,, + ho,, = 40
of Wood and Rayes, I2 failure of the method is recorded
where the first subscript on h denotes the perturbation
when the percent average difference is more than 10% or
order of the head loss term and the second subscript
when the percent maximum difference is more than 30%.
denotes the link number. The first-order head loss solution
h, is obtained from equation (20):
3.1 Example I
a&,, - azh, z - ‘Y$,,,
The first example consists of a simple five-pipe network
= - ( a@,,; ln ho,, - a~ho,, ln ho,,
taken from Boulos and Wood16 to illustrate the application
-
of the method. Table 1 lists the network parameters, and a&o,3 ln ho,,) (32)

Table 1. System characteristics data of sample network I

Pump data
Pipe no. Length Diameter Manning’s Node Demand Head
(m) (mm) n (I/s) (m) h,(m) Q”(l/S)
1 300 250 0.010 A 10 40 0
2 200 200 0.010 1 0 30 100
3 250 200 0.010 2 100 22.8 150
4 150 200 0.010 3 150
5 200 250 0.010 B 50

Table 2. Flow rates in I/s and absolute error for sample network I
Pipe no. Q, Q, Q, Q, - Q, Q, - Q,
1 85.57 86.26 85.73 - 0.69 -0.16
2 18.88 20.27 18.77 - 1.39 0.11
3 66.70 65.98 66.96 0.72 -0.26
4 83.30 84.02 83.04 - 0.72 0.26
5 164.43 163.74 164.27 0.69 0.16
Average difference 0.82 0.19
Maximum difference 1.39 0.26
% average difference 0.97 0.22
% maximum difference 1.66 0.31
0, = 1 I/s; h, = 1 m: Qavg = 84.08 I/s.

294 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April

 Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

Table3. System characteristicsdataof sample network11

Pump data
Link no. Length Diameter n or km Nodeno. Demand Head
(m) (mm) (I/s) (m) h,(m) a, (I/s)
1 610 356 0.012 1 0 170.0 0
2 944 356 0.012 2 0 165.6 200
3 762 356 0.012 3 113 131.9 600
4 610 356 0.012 4 113
5 610 356 0.012 5 57
6 457 305 0.012 6 0
7 610 356 0.012 7 57
8 914 356 0.012 8 57
9 762 356 0.012 9 0
10 610 356 0.012 10 0
11 30 203 0.012 11 0
12 61 152 0.012 12 0
13 1524 406 0.012 13 0
14 975 305 0.012 A 3.05
15 valve 356 5 B 33.53
16 valve 356 8 C 30.48
17 valve 152 10
18 valve 356 10
19 pump

azh,,, - adh,,,+ Q,,, and so on for the higher orders. The flow rates in the pipes
are calculated for the different orders from equation (ll),
= - ( Q0,2 ln ho,,- Go,, ln ho,, whereby the zeroth-order is Q, = cxho, the first order is
+ Qo,s In ho,,) Q, = ahO + c_x(hl+ h, In h,)S, and so on for Q, and Qa.
‘Y34.3+ qh, 4 = - ( a3h0,3 In ho,, + a4ho,4 In ho,,) Table 2 shows the second and third-order flow rates
alongside their differences with the solution as obtained
a,h,,, - a,h,,, = - [ alho, 11, ho,, - a,(h,,, + c,) from the EPANET solver. We notice that in general the
approximate perturbative method gives reasonably accu-
x 14h”., + 41
rate solutions. The maximum difference in the second-order
h, 2 + hI.4 -h,,, = 0
solution is 1.39 l/s which is further reduced to 0.26 l/s
h I,P
’ - hl,l - ht.* + h,,S = 0 with the third order. The percent average difference, as

Table4. Flow rates in I/sand absoluteerrorsforsample network II

Link no. Q, Q2 Q, Q,- Q2 Q,- Qs

1 271.42 284.71 275.60 -13.29 - 4.18
2 147.50 156.15 150.15 - 8.65 - 2.65
3 - 34.50 - 43.15 - 37.15 8.65 2.65
4 - 0.65 12.30 9.43 -12.95 -10.08
5 57.65 44.70 47.57 12.95 10.08
6 95.87 98.76 97.24 - 2.89 - 1.37
7 - 140.47 -147.42 -140.70 6.95 0.23
8 -112.66 -117.61 -112.49 4.95 -0.17
9 258.80 265.12 261.01 - 6.32 - 2.21
10 123.92 128.56 125.44 - 4.64 - 1.52
11 - 62.86 - 65.27 - 55.42 2.41 -7.44
12 18.78 2.94 7.33 15.84 11.45
13 530.23 549.84 536.61 -19.61 - 6.38
14 - 89.14 - 90.51 - 91.52 1.37 2.38
15 530.23 549.84 536.61 -19.61 - 6.38
16 271.42 284.71 275.60 -13.29 - 4.18
17 18.78 2.94 7.33 15.84 11.45
18 57.65 44.70 47.57 12.95 10.08
19 530.23 549.84 536.61 -19.61 - 6.38
Averagedifference 10.67 5.33
Maximum difference 19.61 11.45
% averagedifference 6.05 3.02
% maximum difference 11.11 6.49
0, = 400 I/s;h, = 30 m; Qava =176.5 I/s.

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April 295

Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

4. Concluding remarks
The networks tested show that the perturbation method for
the head loss equations gives solutions of sufficient accu-
racy with a third-order perturbation expansion, The head
loss equations turn out to give better results than the flow
equations when similarly expanded in a perturbation
series.17 Few terms are needed here since the perturbation
parameter is small (- .50 I 6 I -0.46), whereas 6 is
Junctlsn nunh.r - n higher for the flow equations ranging between 0.85 and 1.0
Figure 2. Hydraulic network of Example II. since x in that case ranges from 1.85 to 2. The smaller
perturbation parameter causes the perturbation series to
reach an accurate solution with fewer terms. In principle,
the perturbation solution can be further improved using
PadC approximants,i’ however they have not proven useful
calculated with respect to the average flow rate in the
here because the accuracy gained was not worth the extra
system, is about 1% for Qa and 0.2% for Qa which is
effort.
quite a small error. The percent maximum difference for
In summary, the third-order solution Q3 can be consid-
the third order is only 0.3% of the average flow rate. The
ered satisfactory for a preliminary design or as part of an
sum of the residual head losses in the pipes around the
optimization program whereby hundreds of trial runs are
loop in the clockwise direction is Z;h = -0.089 m which
executed to get the optimum set of design parameters. The
is close to zero. In fact, it forms only 0.73% of the sum of
perturbation solution is useful by itself or as a very good
absolute losses _Z 1h 1around the loop. The head difference
initial estimate for the iterative methods if an exact solu-
between the two reservoirs A and B is 40.045 m as
tion is so desired. The proposed method is simple and
obtained using Q, and has an error of 0.045 m. Hence, the
straightforward to implement in that it does not require
third-order solution produces a result with a high degree of
sophisticated algorithms and numerical techniques and it
accuracy for this simple network.
has a comparable computational time to the current itera-
tive methods. Its main advantage is in its simplicity and
ease of programming while most current numerical meth-
3.2 Example II ods require fairly sophisticated algorithms and program-
ming skills. This may prove advantageous when a water
The second example is the benchmark network used by
distribution network solver is needed as part of a larger
Wood and Rayes’* to compare the various iterative meth-
model or program as in optimization or water quality
ods. It is composed of 14 pipes, three fixed-head reser-
modelling.
voirs, four valves, and one pump. The network is shown in
Figure 2, and the system characteristics data are tabulated
in Table 3.
Table 4 compares the second-and third-order perturba- Acknowledgments
tion solutions to the EPANET results. The normalizing
variable proved instrumental in assuring the accuracy of This work was supported by the University Research
the solution as the solution of the original problem with Board at the American University of Beirut.
Q .+ = h * = 1 was in error because the condition of equa-
tion (10) was not satisfied. The normalizing variables were
chosen as the total demand of the system Q, = 0.4 m3/s
Nomenclature
and the maximum head difference among the three reser-
voirs h, = 30 m. Other values for Q * and h * could have nl number of links
been used and would have given slightly different flow nj number of junctions
rates but with an error of the same order of magnitude. nf number of fixed-grade nodes
We see that the largest difference occurs in pipe 12 and number of closed loops
it is, for order 3,6.5% of the average flow rate; whereas the $i” flow in
percent average error is only 3%. The error can be further O”f flow out
reduced by including additional perturbation terms up to ‘j consumption at junction node j
the fifth order. However, the accuracy gained does not L length of pipe
justify the computational effort especially in that the num- HA head loss for reservoir A
ber of terms on the right-hand side of equation (22) D diameter
increases significantly with increasing order. It reaches 11 c HW Hazen- Williams’ roughness coefficient
terms for order 4, 18 terms for order 5, and 30 terms for h head loss
order 6. The ratios of Zh, to 2 I h, 1 for the different kin minor loss coefficient
loops show that the energy equations are reasonably satis- h, the head change across the pump
fied in most of the loops using Q3, the maximum error P coefficient of the quadratic curve
5.6% being in loop III which includes pipe 12 which also 4 coefficient of the quadratic curve
has the largest error. r coefficient of the quadratic curve

296 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April

 Analysis of water distribution systems: H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

expansion parameters of the pump discharge 5. Wood, D. J. and Charles, C. 0. A. Hydraulic network analysis using
expansion parameters of the pump discharge linear theory. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1972, 98(7), 1157-
1170
expansion parameters of the pump discharge 6. Nielsen, H. B. An efficient method of analyzing pipe networks, J.
coefficient matrix corresponding to the conti- Hydr. Eng. ASCE 1989, 115(2), 139-157
nuity equation 7. Isaacs, L. T. and Mills, K. G. Linear theory methods for pipe
network analysis. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Cb. Eng. 1980, 106(7),
[A,1 coefficient matrix corresponding to the energy
1191-1201
equation 8. Wood, D. J. Discussion of “Linear theory methods for pipe network
Q,> h, normalizing variables analysis” by I. T. Isaacs and K. G. Mills, J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot.
AH difference in nodal heads Cir. Eng. 1981, 107(3), 384-385
consumption at node j 9. Todini, E. and Pilati, S. A gradient algorithm for the analysis of pipe
‘j networks. Proceedings of the International/Conference on Computer
(Y coefficient of head loss equation
Applications for Water Supply and Distribution, Leicester, UK 1987
exponent of head loss equation 10. Gomasta, S. K. and Devi, R. Analysis and optimization of pipe
; Darcy-Weisbach’s friction factor networks. Proceedings of the Conference/Engineering Software, New
n Manning’s roughness coefficient Delhi, India, Norsa Publishing House, 1989, pp. 381-389
6 perturbation parameter 11. Kiuchi, T. Calculation of steady state flow in pipeline networks by
means of node admittance matrix. Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu,
subscript O,I@ler of perturbation or link number Lbolume 57, pp. 2784-2790, 1991 (in Japanese)
coefficient of minor loss equation 12. Wood D. .I. and Rayes, A. G. Reliability of algorithms for pipe
flow rate as obtained from EPANET network analysis. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1981, 107(10),
1145-1161
13. Bender, C. M., Milton, K. A., Pinsky, S. S. and Simmons, Jr., L. M.
New perturbative approach to nonlinear problems. J. Math. Phys.
1989,30, 1447-1455
14. Jeppson, R. W. and Tavallaee, A. Pumps and reservoirs in networks
References by linear theory. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Cit. Eng. 1975, 101(3),
576-580
1. Cross, H. Analysis of flow in networks of conduits or conductors. 15. Jeppson, R. W. and Davis, A. L. Pressure reducing valves in pipe
Bulletin No. 286, University of Illinois, Engineering Experimental network analyses. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1976, 102(7),
Station, Urbana, IL, 1936 987-1001
2. Martin, D. W. and Peters G. The application of Newton’s method to 16. Boulos, P. F. and Wood, D. J. Explicit calculation of pipe-network
network analysis by digital computers. J. fnsf. Wafer Eng. Sci. 1963, parameters. J. Hydr. Eng. ASCE 1990, 116(11), 1329-1344
17, 115-129 17. Kassab, 8. G. A non-iterative perturbation approach for nonlinear
3. Shamir, U. and Howard, C. D. D. Water distribution systems analy- water network analysis. M. E. Thesis, American University of Beirut,
sis. J. Hydraul. Dill. Am. Sot. Cio. Eng. 1968, 94(l), 219-234 Beirut, Lebanon, 1995
4. Nogueira, A. C. Steady-state fluid network analysis. J. Hydr. Eng. 18. Bender, C. M. and Orszag, S. A. Advanced Mathematical Methods
ASCE 1993, 119(3), 431-436 for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996, Vol. 20, April 297