Open and closed loop pressure control for leakage reduction

B. Ulanicki
a,
*
, P.L.M. Bounds
a
, J.P. Rance
a
, L. Reynolds
b
a
Water Software Systems, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
b
Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Gainsborough House, Manor Farm Road, Reading RG2 0JN, UK
Received 9 December 1999; received in revised form 5 September 2000; accepted 11 September 2000
Abstract
The UK water industry is addressing the major challenge of reducing leakage from water supply and distribution networks. It is
widely accepted that a signicant proportion of leakage is attributable to many small leaks (e.g., through ttings). Operational
pressure control is a cost-eective action for reducing such leakage. This paper formulates and investigates methods for planning
and implementation of on-line control strategies of predictive and feedback control for areas with many pressure reducing valves
and many target points. The considered methods explicitly take into account a leakage model. The results are applied to an area with
three pressure reducing valves and two target points. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pressure control; Leakage reduction; Optimisation; Predictive control; Feedback control
1. Introduction
Water companies are making major investments to
reduce leakage through traditional solutions and the
evaluation and application of new technology. The
leakage reduction problem as a whole is complex and
requires co-ordinated actions in dierent areas of water
network management, such as:
Direct detection and repair of existing leaks (so called
``nd and x'' actions).
General pipe rehabilitation programmes.
Operational pressure control.
Water companies undertake a mixture of these compli-
mentary actions. General pipe rehabilitation is the most
costly and long term action, but is undertaken to im-
prove a number of dierent factors including leakage
and water quality. Detection and repair actions are
targeted at sub-networks where high levels of leakage
are indicated, and tend to be most eective on larger
leaks. It is widely accepted that a signicant proportion
of leakage is attributable to many small leaks (e.g.,
through ttings and pipe joints), where detection and
repair actions are uneconomic. Operational pressure
control is a cost-eective means of reducing leakage over
whole sub-networks, and for reducing the risk of further
leaks by smoothing pressure variations. Pressure control
also has other important benets in addition to the re-
duction of existing leakage. There is growing evidence
that pressure control reduces the incidence of pipe
bursts, thus reducing water loss and the costs of re-
pairing bursts. Other benets include reduced disruption
to road trac, and reduced consequential losses (e.g.,
from ooding). Fewer bursts also reduce disruption to
customers' supplies, which is an important water in-
dustry performance measure.
Historically, most networks have had no active
pressure control and there is scope to reduce leakage
through the reduction of excess pressure. Recent devel-
opments, including the restructuring of water networks
into smaller sub-networks called pressure management
areas (PMAs), the introduction of more pressure and
ow monitoring points, and the developments in valve
control have increased the opportunity for sophisticated
pressure control.
PMA boundaries are usually closed except for inputs
via pressure reducing valves (PRVs). PRVs provide an
automatically controlled reduction in pressure over a
range of upstream pressures. The valve `resistance is
controlled by a target downstream pressure. PRV set-
points may be constant, or may be scheduled. PRV set
points are determined with respect to target points,
which are identied within the PMA and are chosen to
be representative of PMA minimum service pressures.
Many PMAs have only one PRV input, however a
Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114
www.elsevier.com/locate/urbwat
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +44-116-2506-465.
E-mail address: bul@dmu.ac.uk (B. Ulanicki).
1462-0758/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 4 6 2 - 0 7 5 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 0
signicant number have multiple PRV inputs (which,
typically, may number 24). More recently, valve sup-
pliers have oered open-loop prole PRVs and feedback
ow compensated valves. It is possible to specify a 24-h
pressure prole and load it into an open-loop prole
PRV. The 24-h set-point prole can be updated more
frequently based on measurements. A ow compensated
PRV changes output pressure depending on its ow.
The relationship between ow and the pressure can be
dened by a pressure/ow curve.
The paper formulates and investigates control strat-
egies for both types of valves for areas with many inputs
and many target points. Algorithms for calculating
open-loop optimal proles and optimal pressure/ow
curves for the feedback control are proposed. The al-
gorithms take a leakage model into account. The ap-
proach is valid for areas with many PRVs and many
target points and is concerned with the control of stea-
dy-state pressure.
This study considers the network system's steady
state over an extended period of time. It does not con-
sider dynamic aspects such as inertia of water, storage,
and pressure transients in pipes. The steady-state as-
sumption is used in hydraulic extended-period simula-
tion packages such as GINAS, EPANET, WATNETe
etc. Under the steady-state assumption changes of PRV
settings cause instantaneous changes of ows and heads
in the system. In reality, due to the dynamic aspects,
ows change gradually or can even exhibit some oscil-
latory behaviour. The dynamics of a pipe network may
have a signicant eect on the stability of the network
under the valve control, however they are not consid-
ered in this paper.
The on-line control strategies presented here use two
innovative modelling tools, an optimal PRV scheduler
and an inputoutput control model that are described in
the following sections. These tools can be used to solve
planning and on-line control problems. The objective of
the planning problem is to estimate the maximum po-
tential savings from optimal PRV scheduling. Case
studies (Ulanicki, Rance, & Bounds, 1999b) indicate
that the leakage can be reduced in one case to 30% and
in another to 50% of its original value. The problem of
pressure control has a wide coverage in the existing lit-
erature. Sterling and Bargiela (1984) developed an al-
gorithm for calculating the optimal time schedules for
valves. The leakage reduction was achieved by minimi-
sation of discrepancies between a current and an opti-
mal time prole, however the writers did not consider a
leakage model. Jowitt and Xu (1990) extended the pre-
vious work by trying to minimise the system leakage
directly rather than minimising the system overpres-
sures. The non-linear models were linearised and the
leakage minimisation problem was solved by linear
programming. The full non-linear model including a
pressure-dependent term was considered by (Vairava-
moorthy & Lumbers, 1998). The authors solved the
optimal time scheduling problem to minimise the total
volume of leakage by using a sequential quadratic pro-
gramming algorithm (SQP). Tucciarelli, Criminisi, and
Termini (1999) developed an algorithm for the estima-
tion of water losses due to small leaks based on the
maximisation of a likelihood function.
The present paper concentrates mainly on the on-line
control strategies of how to accomplish the potential
savings in practice. This work was part of an investiga-
tion into the control of PMAs supplied by multiple PRVs
for Thames Water Utilities. The optimal scheduling al-
gorithm described in Section 3 is used in two real-time
control structures, predictive control described in Sec-
tion 4 and feedback control described in Section 5. The
predictive control structure uses a control model of a
network that can be identied directly from SCADA
measurements. The idea of feedback control is a funda-
mental concept for handling system uncertainty. The
paper describes a constructive method to build feedback
rules. The feedback rules are valid for a wide range of
demands and do not require re-calculation when the
demands change. Both control methods were validated
using a case study of a network with three PRVs and two
target points and the results are presented in Section 6.
2. Planning studies
Before implementing an on-line pressure control
scheme it is necessary to perform planning studies to
investigate the economical aspects of such a scheme.
Such analysis is normally based on the existing knowl-
edge about a particular pipe network. A convenient
form of such knowledge is a hydraulic model of the
network. Unfortunately typical hydraulic models do not
include important leakage information, instead the
leakage ows are aggregated together with demands.
Such hydraulic models cannot be properly calibrated
and used for the planning of pressure control schemes.
Germanopoulos (1985), using results of eld experi-
ments, proposed a non-linear formula relating leakage
ow to pressure with the power of 1.18. May (1994)
proposed an approach to leakage modelling which has a
direct physical interpretation and can be incorporated
into a simulation algorithm comparatively easily. He
distinguished between bursts for which a leakage ow
relates to pressure with power 0.5 and background
leakage for which ow depends on pressure with power
1.5. For the background leakage the leakage area ex-
pands proportionally with an increase in pressure and
hence the power law of 1.5. In this paper the approach
for leakage modelling proposed by May (1994) has been
adopted. The simulation model was created using an
advanced GAMS/CONOPT modelling environment
(Brooke, Kendrick, & Meeraus, 1992). Additional
106 B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114
equations to represent leakage have been added to the
standard hydraulic equations. The leaks are allocated to
nodes and the respective leak ows are calculated from
the following power formula:
q
l
= ap
a
Y (1)
where a is a leakage coecient and a is a leakage ex-
ponent, 0.5 for bursts and 1.5 for the background
leakage. The value of a for each node is estimated by
distributing the total background leakage ow between
nodes. Dierent methods of evaluating the total back-
ground leakage are described, for example, in WRc-UK
Water Industry (1994a,b) and Lambert et al. (1998). In
countries where all customers are metered, regular
monthly water balances can be undertaken to assess the
dierence between monthly inow and monthly con-
sumption. This calculated dierence will obviously in-
clude any errors in the continuous metering of sector
inows and any errors in consumer metering. In the UK,
water companies are using night ow measurement for
leakage estimation. Short period measurements of in-
ows to well-dened demand management areas when
consumer use is at a minimum allows for good evalua-
tion of leakage in this area. The total leakage ow is
obtained from the following mass balance:
q
l
= q
n
q
d
q
cm
q
cn
q
op
Y (2)
where q
l
is the estimated leakage ow, q
n
the nightline,
i.e. the minimum recorded inow to the area, q
d
the
estimated legitimate domestic use, q
cm
the metered le-
gitimate commercial metered use, q
cn
the estimated le-
gitimate commercial non-metered use, and q
op
is the
operational use by a water company.
In this paper it is assumed that all the bursts have
been removed from the area and pressure control is in-
troduced to reduce the background leakage. After esti-
mating the total background leakage it is necessary to
distribute this leakage between the network nodes. Ex-
perimental work (Lambert, Myers, & Trow, 1998) in-
dicates that the major part of background leakage is
through ttings therefore, the leakage ow should be
redistributed in proportion to the number of properties
attached to each node.
Finally a complete hydraulic model is obtained which
includes standard hydraulic data as well as the leakage
information. This model will constitute the basis for
further investigations.
2.1. Optimisation problem formulation
In the planning studies, benets of the pressure con-
trol scheme will be evaluated assuming that the knowl-
edge contained in the model is accurate. The method is
based on calculating the optimal schedules for PRVs
and comparing results of the optimisation with current
practice. The optimal PRV schedules should satisfy the
following objectives:
Minimise cost of the total water supplied into the ar-
ea (including leakage ow).
Satisfy pressure requirements at critical nodes.
Satisfy additional operational requirements. e.g. uni-
directional boundary ows.
For a steady-state situation this is a typical non-linear
programming problem. The network equations represent
the major part of the problem formulation. The network
structure is conveniently represented by a node-branch
incidence matrix K. The matrix has a row for each node
and a column for each branch. A row contains infor-
mation about which branches are connected to a par-
ticular node. The value 1 indicates that a branch is
oriented towards the node and 1 indicates a branch is
leaving the node, 0 indicates that a branch is not con-
nected to the node. Each column contains two non-zero
entries, 1 for the branch origin node and 1 for branch
destination node. Let the set of all nodes be I and the set
of all branches be J. The set of boundary nodes (where
PRVs are connected) is denoted by I
b
_ I, the set of
leakage nodes by I
l
_ I, and the set of target nodes at
which pressure will be monitored by I
t
_ I. The ith row
of the matrix K is denoted by K
i
and the jth column by
K
T
j
. The heads at the nodes h
i
X i I can be assembled
into a vector of nodal heads h, and branch ows q
j
X j J
can be assembled into vector of branch ows q.
The non-linear program P has the following form.
The cost function represents the cost of boundary ows
F =

iI
b
c
i
q
bYi
Y (3)
where q
bYi
is a boundary ow and c
i
is the price of a
boundary ow.
Equality constraints are represented by the following
network equations.
HazenWilliams pipe equations
K
T
j
h = R
j
[q
j
[
0X852
q
j
for j JY (4)
where R
j
is a pipe resistance.
Mass balance equations at nodes
K
i
q = d
i
q
lYi
q
bYi
for i IY (5)
where d
i
is a demand ow, q
lYi
is a leakage ow and q
bYi
is
a boundary ow.
The leakage ows at nodes
q
lYi
= a
i
h
i
[ h
0Yi
[
a1
(h
i
h
0Yi
) for i I
l
Y (6)
where h
0Yi
is the elevation of the node.
Inequality constraints represent dierent operational
requirements:
Boundary ow must go into the network
q
bYi
P0 for i I
b
X (7)
The available boundary head is constrained by the sit-
uation in the surrounding system
B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114 107
h
b maxYi
Ph
bYi
Ph
b minYi
for i I
b
Y (8)
where h
b maxYi
and h
b minYi
are the maximum and minimum
available boundary heads.
Pressures at target nodes have to be maintained
within the recommended limits of service
h
t maxYi
Ph
tYi
Ph
t minYi
for i I
t
Y (9)
where h
t maxYi
and h
t minYi
are the maximum and minimum
recommended target heads. Currently, there are very
ecient modelling environments and solvers for solving
large-scale non-linear programming problems. In this
case an advanced mathematical modelling language
called GAMS (Brooke et al., 1992) was used. GAMS
automatically calls a non-linear programming solver
called CONOPT (Drud, 1985) based on the generalised
gradient method (GRG) to provide the numerical so-
lution. A description of how to use GAMS for solving
water network optimisation problems is given by U-
lanicki, Bounds, and Rance (1999a).
The scheduler can solve non-linear hydraulic models
and is accurate over a wide range of conditions. Medi-
um-sized networks can be solved directly from data
typically found in a simulation model, while very large
models can be solved after automatic simplication of
the model (Ulanicki, Zehnpfund, & Martinez, 1996).
Alternatively, a simple inputoutput control model can
be derived directly from measurements.
The optimal schedules from planning provide theo-
retically the cheapest solution. In practice the expected
benets could be smaller due to incomplete knowledge
about the network used for the planning studies. If the
potential benets of introducing pressure control sig-
nicantly outweigh the required investment the imple-
mentation is justied. Sometimes implementation is not
a purely economical decision but is forced by external
regulators.
On-line pressure control cannot be purely based on a
model but in addition requires a control structure that
uses current feedback information (measurements). This
information about the behaviour of the physical system
enables the control action to be adapted to the situation
in the eld. Two control structures will be discussed, one
called predictive control and another called feedback
control.
3. Predictive control
The predictive control strategy is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The physical system is controlled at regular intervals,
e.g., every hour. At each interval optimal PRV set points
are calculated by the optimal scheduling algorithm de-
scribed in the previous section. The scheduling algo-
rithm for calculating optimal PRV schedules requires a
model of the network and an updated demand predic-
tion.
The predictive strategy is a good compromise be-
tween the open-loop and continuous feedback strategies.
It yields a robust performance at low computational
cost by repetitively solving an easy open-loop optimal
scheduling problem during the course of the control
action.
3.1. Demand update
The total demands for the previous time step are
known and this allows for updating the prediction for
the next hour. Any of the known demand prediction
methods can be used provided it works sequentially and
takes into account the current information. In this case
triple exponential smoothing has been employed (Ten-
nant, 1987). The prediction is split between three stages:
data screening, data smoothing, and data forecasting.
Screening rejects errors caused by instrumentation fail-
ures. Smoothing acts as a low-pass lter; the time series
is expanded into its harmonic components using Fast-
Fourier-Transform (FFT) and all harmonics above a
certain frequency are rejected. Data forecasting uses
position, velocity, and acceleration calculated from
historical data to extrapolate data one step forward. The
forecasting methodology is very simple and easy to im-
plement, and although less accurate than more sophis-
ticated methods, it is adequate for short-term
predictions.
3.2. Control model
A network model used to obtain the optimal pressure
schedules is called a control model. This control model
is normally simpler than a full hydraulic model of the
system in order to accelerate optimisation calculations.
Fig. 1. Predictive pressure control scheme.
108 B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114
A control model can be automatically obtained by using
two dierent methods, identication from measure-
ments or from the simplication of a full hydraulic
model.
3.2.1. Identication from operational measurements
In this case the control model contains only boundary
heads, target nodes and ctitious pipes connecting each
node to all other nodes. The ctitious pipes and relo-
cated demands mimic hydraulic relationships between
the input and output variables. For example a control
model for a network with three boundary nodes and two
target nodes has the structure shown in Fig. 2.
The measurements can be obtained by installing
temporary data loggers or from existing on-line mea-
surements. If operational on-line measurements are
available then typically there are no extra measurement
costs. Because the control model is simple and can be
calibrated on-line there is no requirement for extensive
eld studies. The only data required are, boundary
pressures and ows, target pressures, and total demands.
Parameters of the control model can be updated se-
quentially at each time step or occasionally (e.g., every
month) or when a major change is made to the network.
The model calibration task, in the proposed control
structure, is formulated as a least-square problem and
solved with the GAMS/CONOPT software. The iden-
tied parameters are pipe roughness, demand factors
and leakage coecients. The program minimises the
residuals of the network equations. The pipe model is
expressed in a reverse form
q
j
= G
j
[Dh
j
[
0X46
Dh
j
for j JY (10)
where G
j
is the conductance of pipe j.
A nodal demand is the result of allocation of a total
time varying demand curve v(k) to a node with a
weighting coecient w
i
Y d
i
(k) = w
i
v(k) where k is a time
step, and coecient w
i
is constant in time or at least
changes at a very slow rate e.g., it requires updating
once a month. If the pipe model (10) is substituted into
the node mass balance Eq. (5) then a nodal network
model is obtained. For a control model where all heads
and boundary ows are measured the residuals e
i
(k) of
the model equations can, for a given time step k, be
calculated as

jJi
k
ij
G
j
[Dh
+
j
(k)[
0X46
Dh
+
j
(k) w
i
v(k) a
i
[h
+
i
h
0Yi
[
a1
(h
+
i
h
0Yi
) q
+
bYi
(k) = e
i
(k) for i IY (11)
where all heads h
+
and boundary ows q
+
b
are measured,
and k
ij
, is the i,jth element of matrix K. The identied
parameters are pipe conductances G
j
, demand factors w
i
and leakage coecients a
i
. If all heads are measured the
model is linear with respect to the identied parameters.
The least-square program relies on minimising the
squared residuals of the equations for all nodes and
selected time steps k K,
minimise

kK

iI
b
i
(k)e
2
i
(k)Y (12)
where b
i
(k) are weights. The time steps are selected so
that boundary heads change in all possible directions
(span the full input space) to ensure identiability
(Ljung, 1987) of the model.
3.2.2. Simplication of existing simulation model
Simplication is accomplished by a special simpli-
cation algorithm which is described fully in Ulanicki
et al. (1996). The algorithm makes direct use of a sim-
ulation model (e.g., GINAS, EPANET, WATNETe)
and automatically produces a simplied model. The user
selects nodes that should be preserved in the simplied
model. The simplication algorithm automatically re-
moves unwanted nodes, redistributes demands from the
removed nodes and modies the conductance of the
respective pipes. The relationships between variables in
the simplied model accurately approximate the rela-
tionships from the original model. Mathematically the
simplication procedure can be interpreted as the elim-
ination of some variables from the model by back sub-
stitution. The simplied model has the same `curvature'
as the original model and approximates the original
model in a wide range of operating conditions (i.e., wide
range of demands). The algorithm is based on a sound
mathematical theory and the results are reproducible.
The approach is more accurate and much faster than the
traditional heuristic methods of model simplication. If
signicant changes are made to the network model, then
the simplication process can be easily repeated.
Therefore, the algorithm can signicantly reduce the
time and cost of model building and model mainte-
nance. The simplied model can be used for control
purposes. Fig. 2. An example of a control model.
B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114 109
Implementation of the predictive control strategy
requires a central control computer (PC) linked with
PRVs and target points. Communication between PRVs
and the control computer is in two directions. The
computer sends new set-point schedules for the next
time step and reads the values of the PRV ows. Com-
munication with target points is unidirectional to read
values of target pressures for monitoring and model
identication purposes. The frequency of intervention
and the control horizon can vary according to the par-
ticular situation.
4. Feedback control
The idea of feedback control will initially be ex-
plained using an example of a single input PMA.
Consider then a system with a single input ow and
head set-point. The input ow must equal to the sum
of the demand and leakage of the system. The head set-
point aects the pressure and leakage of the system. As
pressure increases leakage increases according to Eq.
(1). For a given level of demand, the head set-point
and input ow relate to each other according to this
relationship between pressure and leakage. This is
called the system response or system curve. Any head-
ow point on the system curve is called an operating
point. The optimal operating point is the point that
minimises the input ow into the network but satises
the pressure requirements at certain target nodes. This
is calculated by the optimal PRV scheduling algorithm.
An optimal point is valid for a given level of demand.
If optimal points are calculated for a range of demand
levels then the curve that intersects these points is
called the optimal curve. The optimal curve can often
be accurately approximated by a quadratic polynomial.
The optimal curve provides the feedback rule for on-
line feedback control. A controller measures the output
of the PRV continuously and adjusts the head set-point
using the feedback rule. The idea is applicable for an
area with many PRVs and many target points. A
generalisation of the system curve is an inputoutput
model depicted in Fig. 3. The input variable (cause) is
a vector of boundary heads h
b
and the output variable
(eect) is a vector of boundary ows q
b
. The uncon-
trolled input variable is a vector of demands. The idea
of feedback control is to observe (measure) output
variables and adjust input variables to achieve the de-
sired behaviour of the system, in this case to minimise
leakage and satisfy the operational constraints. The
feedback law is represented by a vector function
h
b
= f (q
b
), which can also be represented in an ex-
panded form as
h
bYi
= f
i
(q
bY1
Y q
bY2
Y F F F Y q
bYn
b
) for i I
b
and
I
b
= 1Y 2Y F F F Y n
b
Y
(13)
where n
b
is the number of boundary nodes.
Feedback is a fundamental concept for handling un-
certainty in the system. In this case the uncertainty is
presented by demands d. In the feedback structure the
demands are not measured directly or predicted by a
prediction module. Their eects are indirectly observed
by measuring the network output. The calculation of the
optimal feedback function f (q
b
) is a much more dicult
task than the calculation of time optimal schedules. The
calculation of the optimal feedback function is equiva-
lent to solving the scheduling problem many times for all
possible values of demands. However once the feedback
law has been calculated it will work for all values of
demands and will provide robust control for the system.
By solving the optimal scheduling problem P for all
possible values of demands the functions relating de-
mands to optimal values of boundary heads and ows
can be dened

h
b
= f
h
(d) and q
b
= f
q
(d)X (14)
If the function f
q
can be inverted the following com-
position can be dened:

h
b
= f
h
(f
1
q
( q
b
))Y (15)
which in turn determines the optimal feedback function
f = f
h
f
1
q
. The inverse function f
1
q
exists if for each
optimal solution of the problem P it is possible to de-
duce the value of total demands from the boundary
ows q
b
. The implementation of the feedback control
requires a central controller because calculation of any
of the boundary heads requires information about all
boundary ows as indicated by (13). This structure is
called centralised feedback control. From a practical
and economical point of view it is interesting to inves-
tigate the possibility of a decentralised feedback where
each boundary head depends only on a local boundary
ow. Consequently, the local controllers can be em-
bedded into each PRV without expensive communica-
tion links. Such a decomposition is possible if the
interaction between dierent PRVs are `weak'. The de-
composed solution is suboptimal. Decomposed feed-
back rules may be unstable and could lead to
Fig. 3. General structure of a feedback control.
110 B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114
unpredictable behaviour of the whole system. If for a
given valve the points ( q
bYi
Y

h
bYi
) constitute a functional
relationship then the decomposition can be carried out,
however if for a given value of q
bYi
there are more than
one value of

h
bYi
the feedback rule cannot be simply
decomposed.
4.1. Centralised feedback control
The centralised feedback control scheme for two in-
puts is depicted in Fig. 4. The scheme works continu-
ously. The required PRV settings depend on the level of
demands, therefore the input ows q
1
and q
2
that indi-
cate level of demand are measured continuously and
sent to a central controller. This single controller cal-
culates the set-points (h
1
and h
2
) for all the valves. Each
set point depends on both ows and hence the name
centralised. Subsequently, the calculated set-points are
sent to the respective valves, which are actuated.
The control rules h
1
(q
1
Y q
2
) and h
2
(q
1
Y q
2
) can be im-
plemented as a two-dimensional look-up table or can be
expressed in analytical form. This second solution is
more interesting from an implementation point of view.
The centralised feedback scheme requires a central
control computer operating at high sampling frequency.
To overcome this diculty an interesting idea is inves-
tigated which uses only local information for control.
4.2. Decentralised feedback control
Like centralised feedback control the process is con-
tinuous, but instead of a central controller each valve
has its own local controller as shown in Fig. 5. Each ow
into the network (q
1
or q
2
) is measured and read by its
local controller. Each controller calculates the set-point
(h
1
or h
2
) for its valve, which is then actuated. Decen-
tralised feedback control is especially convenient from a
practical point of view. The control is local to the valve
and no central computer or communication lines are
needed. Therefore this scheme provides a low cost so-
lution.
Implementation of a local control rule is quite
straightforward. It is either a one-dimensional look-up
table or an analytical function of one variable ob-
tained by the best-t procedure from the look-up
table. This will be illustrated in the considered case
study.
5. Case study
The methods for on-line control are tested o-line by
using a simulation model to mimic the physical network
system. All the dierent calculations are written in the
GAMS language. This includes the simulator, which
contains a leakage model. The model used in the case
study is depicted in Fig. 6.
Three PRV inputs (nodes 260, 255 and 250) and two
target points (nodes 270 and 283) were selected. The
average consumption for the area is 1858 l/s. The orig-
inal practice was to maintain constant boundary heads
at the following values h
250
= 155X80 m, h
255
= 156X19
mY h
260
= 156X88 m. The average volume of leakage
under the original control was 565 l/s.
5.1. Results of planning studies
The objective of the planning studies was to evaluate
the potential savings and to provide a base-line for
comparing the on-line control schemes. The results are
shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The pressures at target nodes
270 and 283 for the original control strategy are high
over the entire day. The minimum value is 24.4 m at the
time when the demands are highest. If the control heads
are constant their values must be conservative to cover
the worst case. For average demands the target pressure
and leakage is higher than necessary. The situation is
much better for optimal schedules. The pressures at
target nodes 270 and 283 are close to the critical value of
15 m and are maintained almost constant throughout
the entire day (Fig. 7). Fig. 4. Centralised feedback pressure control scheme.
Fig. 5. Decentralised feedback pressure control scheme.
B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114 111
The leakage ows are shown in Fig. 8; the original
average leakage ow is 565 l/s and the optimal average
leakage ow is 299 l/s.
The costs are taken from the total annual leakage
ow and a 24 pence per cubic metre unit price of water.
Annual original leakage: 17832 Ml, 4,279,672.
Annual leakage with optimal PRV control: 9443 Ml,
2,266,428.
Annual savings: 8389 Ml, 2,013,244.
Leakage could be reduced to 53% of the original
value. The non-linear models that are used in this study
should potentially provide better evaluation of savings
than linear models used in other existing packages. The
results of the planning studies indicate substantial po-
tential savings and the two proposed on-line control
strategies were investigated.
5.2. Results of predictive control
The entire predictive control scheme is simulated on a
computer including physical system, demand predictor,
scheduler and model calibrator. Target pressures are
kept close to the lower limit of 15 m as shown in Fig. 9.
At node 283 the pressure slightly violates the 15 m limit
due to uncertainty in the demand prediction. It reects
what can happen in reality where there are errors be-
tween demand prediction and true demand.
The mass balance can be seen in Fig. 10.
The boundary ows follow the pattern of demands.
However the leakage ow is almost constant due to ef-
cient pressure control.
5.3. Results of decentralised feedback control
The decentralised feedback rules for calculating the
valve set-points from the ow measurements are in the
form of quadratic relationships. The feedback rules for
two PRVs for the case-study model are shown in Figs.
11 and 12. In the planning and predictive control studies
the optimal ow at node 250 was found to be almost
zero and so a PRV was no longer required. Each head-
ow point plotted in the gures represents the optimal
Fig. 6. The case study network model.
Fig. 8. Leakage ows for the planning studies.
Fig. 7. Target pressures for the planning studies.
Fig. 9. Target pressures during predictive control.
112 B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114
setting for the system for a given demand level. These
were calculated o-line using the optimal PRV sched-
uler. A best t of the plots produced a quadratic curve
and its equation. The best t is very accurate which in-
dicates that the feedback rules can be decomposed and
the system is stable. Because there are two independently
controlled pressure/ow curves the solution will be sub-
optimal for the given range of demands.
The feedback control scheme is simulated on a
computer. The feedback equations were simply added to
the simulation program written in GAMS to test this
control strategy. The results are similar to those for
predictive control. The pressures at the target nodes are
kept close to 15 m (Fig. 13), the boundary ows are
smooth and follow the pattern of demand (Fig. 14). The
leakage ow is almost constant due to eective pressure
control.
In all cases, the leakage is reduced to 53% of the
original leakage. The total volume of water supplied
into the area is less due to the reduction in leakage and
the cost of supplying the area is reduced at all demand
loads. The sub-optimality of the decentralised feedback
control was not signicant in this case.
6. Conclusions
The paper considered the operational control of
steady-state pressure in water networks. Operational
pressure control is a cost-eective method for reducing
leakage over whole sub-networks, and for reducing the
risk of further leaks by smoothing pressure variations.
The planning studies under the assumption of perfect
knowledge of demand and network model (including
leakage) allow for the estimation of the maximum po-
tential savings resulting from the optimal control of
PRVs. These potential savings can be accomplished by
using optimised on-line control strategies. The paper
investigated two such strategies: predictive control and
Fig. 13. Target node pressures for decentralised feedback control
scheme.
Fig. 14. Total boundary, demand, and leakage ows for decentralised
feedback control scheme.
Fig. 11. The feedback rule for PRV 260 for decentralised feedback
control scheme.
Fig. 12. The feedback rule for PRV 255 for decentralised feedback
control scheme.
Fig. 10. Total ows during predictive control.
B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114 113
feedback control. The predictive control strategy relies
on the repetitive solution of the optimal scheduling
problem using the current prediction of the total de-
mands. The scheduler can use either a detailed hydraulic
model (e.g., simulation model) or an on-line control
model built from current measurements. The idea of a
control model is very powerful and it enables a universal
control system to be created that will work for any water
network. The feedback control strategy was proposed in
two versions: centralised and decentralised. The feed-
back rules are calculated in an o-line study and then
applied for on-line control. The centralised feedback
provides an optimal solution with the performance
comparable with predictive control. The decentralised
solution provides a sub-optimal solution that is very
attractive for practical implementation. The control rules
can be embedded in autonomous valves. Subsequently,
the valves will be working correctly by sustaining pres-
sure at target points for any value of demands. Only
signicant changes in water network topology will re-
quire recalculating the pressure/ow curves. The simu-
lation studies conrmed that the predictive and feedback
control strategies allow for achieving leakage reduction
close to that predicted by optimal planning studies, i.e.,
50% of the original leakage level.
References
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1992). GAMS a user guide.
USA: Boyd & Fraser The Scientic Press Series.
Drud, A. (1985). CONOPT: a GRG code for large sparse dynamic
non-linear optimisation problems. Mathematical Programming, 31,
153191.
Germanopoulos, G. (1985). A technical note in the inclusion of
pressure dependent demand and leakage terms in water supply
network models. Civil Engineering Systems, 2, 171179.
Jowitt, P. W., & Xu, C. (1990). Optimal valve control in water
distribution networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, ASCE, 116(4), 455472.
Lambert, A., Myers, S., & Trow, S. (1998). Managing water leakage,
economic and technical issues. London, UK: Financial Times
Energy.
Ljung, L. (1987). System identication. Theory for the user. Englewood
Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
May, J. (1994). Pressure-depended Leakage, World Water and Envi-
ronmental Engineering Magazine, 17(5).
Sterling, M. J. H., & Bargiela, A. (1984). Leakage reduction by
optimised control of valves in water networks. Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control, 6(6), 293298.
Tennant, S. T. (1987). Short term demand analysis and prediction for
control of water supply. Research Report No. 58, Leicester,
Leicester Polytechnic, UK.
Tucciarelli, T., Criminisi, A., & Termini, D. (1999). Leak analysis in
pipeline systems by means of optimal valve regulation. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 125(3), 277285.
Ulanicki, B., Bounds, P. L. M., & Rance, J. P. (1999a). Using GAMS
modelling environment to solve network scheduling problems.
Measurement and Control, 32(4), 110115.
Ulanicki, B., Rance, J., & Bounds, P. (1999b). Control of pressure
management areas supplied by multiple PRVs. Research Report,
Water Software Systems, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1
9BH, UK.
Ulanicki, B., Zehnpfund, A., & Martinez, F. (1996). Simplication of
water network models. In Proceedings of the hydroinformatics 96
international conference, 913 September (pp. 493500). Interna-
tional Association for Hydraulic Research, ETH, Zurich.
Vairavamoorthy, K., & Lumbers, J. (1998). Leakage reduction in
water distribution systems: optimal valve control. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 11, 11471154.
WRc-UK Water Industry (1994a). Managing leakage using night ow
data. Report F.
WRc-UK Water Industry (1994b). Managing leakage managing
water pressure. Report G.
114 B. Ulanicki et al. / Urban Water 2 (2000) 105114