Calibration Guidelines for Water Distribution System Modeling

by
Engineering Computer Applications Committee

Hydraulic network simulation models are widely used by planners, water utility
personnel, consultants, and others involved in the analysis, design, operation, and
maintenance of closed-conduit hydraulic systems. Quite possibly the largest application
of hydraulic network models lies with the municipal water supply industry. The results
of network models have been used to assist in long-range master planning, short-term
project design, fire flow studies, daily operations, emergency response, energy
management, rehabilitation, troubleshooting, operator training, and water quality
investigations. Clearly multi-million dollar decisions can be and have been based on the
results provided by hydraulic network models. Consequently the results from the model
must bear close resemblance to the actual performance of the hydraulic system. In other
words, the computer model must be calibrated. The purpose of this paper is to present
guidelines for network model calibration. The degree of accuracy needed for model
calibration will be discussed within the context of the intended use of the model. For
example, a higher degree of calibration is necessary for a model that is used to examine
daily operations than is needed for a model used in long-range planning studies. The
paper will also discuss calibration approaches and testing procedures that can be used to
aid in the calibration effort.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 Calibration Guidelines for Water Distribution System Modeling

By

Engineering Computer Applications Committee

Introduction

A computer model of a water distribution system is a valuable tool which can assist
engineers and planners in analyzing the hydraulic performance of water delivery systems.
Computer models of water supply systems are constructed for a variety of uses including:

1) Identifying system deficiencies,

2) Analyzing the impacts of proposed development or long-term growth within the
system,
3) Determining the ability of the system to deliver adequate fire flows,
4) Sizing pipes, selecting pumps, locating tanks,
5) Evaluating operating strategies,
6) Assessing pipeline rehabilitation methods,
7) Developing emergency response plans,
8) Training new operators,
9) Estimating the quality of water throughout the system.

A computer model of a water distribution system is a mathematical representation of a

real physical system. Data describing the physical characteristics of the system as well as
loading conditions and boundary information are supplied to a computer program that
simulates the behavior of the real system. Physical data includes information such as
pipe length, diameter and roughness, pump characteristics and minor loss coefficients.
Loading conditions reflect demands that are placed on the system while boundary
information describes reservoir and tank levels, valve settings and pump on/off status.
The computer program uses this information to develop a set of equations which is then
solved by the program. The solution to the set of equations provides information on
pressures and flows throughout the system. Information on pressures and flows can then
be used to aid in decision-making.

It is not unusual for the results provided by a computer simulation model to be used in
capital projects involving several million dollars. As a result, it is imperative that the
results provided by the model bear close resemblance to reality. If this is not the case,
then the results provided by the model will be of limited value. Consequently, the model
must be calibrated. Computer model calibration can best be defined as the process of
adjusting data describing the mathematical model of the system until observed
performance, typically pressures and flow rates, are in reasonable agreement with
computer-predicted performance over a wide range of operating conditions.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
There have been a number of papers published on the subject of hydraulic network model
calibration. These papers generally discuss errors that contribute to discrepancies
between observed and computer predicted performance, provide detail on data collection
and testing methods and provide some insight into what should be adjusted to achieve a
suitable match. However a void exists in the United States network modeling community
dealing with an acceptable accuracy of the calibration effort. In other words, when is the
model calibrated well enough?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a little deeper background on the various sources
of error that will produce differences between measured and computed system
performance. Armed with a strong understanding of the errors inherent in a network
model, we will briefly discuss the level of effort that can be involved in performing a
comprehensive network calibration. Finally we propose some calibration guidelines and
attempt to establish some criteria indicating a suitable level of calibration based upon the
intended use of the model. The purpose of this paper is not to establish standards for
model calibration. Rather members of the Engineering Computer Applications
Committee hope that the proposed criteria presented here will foster meaningful
discussion among the United States modeling community regarding the need and validity
of calibration standards.

Sources of Error

Before discussing how accurately a computer model should be calibrated, it is valuable to

closely examine why a computer model might not exactly match the field performance of
a real hydraulic system. With a computer simulation model we are trying to reproduce
the behavior of a real system that acts continuously over space and time. We do so by
supplying data that depicts the physical characteristics of the system and by providing
information that, to some degree, represents the continuous loads (system demands)
placed on the system. Calibrating a hydraulic network model involves more than just
adjusting pipe roughness values and nodal demands. True model calibration is achieved
by adjusting whatever should be adjusted within the model until a reasonable agreement
between model-predicted behavior and actual field behavior is obtained.

Errors in Input Data

In computer modeling, any data that is supplied to the model is a candidate for
adjustment. There are two sources of error that can be directly associated with input data:
1) typographical errors and 2) measurement errors. Generally speaking, typographical
errors are more easily corrected than measurement errors assuming, of course, that they
can be identified. An example of a typographical error would be typing in a value of
2250 ft for a 250 ft pipe segment. A measurement error, on the other hand, might occur
because of the limited precision of measuring devices combined with the scale used on
system maps. For instance, all else being equal a length measurement on a map having a
scale of 1”=50’ would have more precision than a length measured from a map having a
scale of 1”= 2000’.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
A critical piece of information required of all computer simulation models is the diameter
of system pipes. Many times modelers ask the question “Which pipe diameter should be
used – the actual diameter or the nominal diameter?” Nominal diameters have values like
6”, 8”, 12”, etc. The actual pipe diameter must be measured in the field. For older pipes
such as unlined cast iron it is likely that the actual internal diameter will vary along the
length of pipe.

Consider the pipe shown in Figure 1. Notice the build-up, called turburculation, on the
interior pipe walls. The actual diameter of this pipe might be closer to 5 ½” or 5 ¼”
instead of 6”. Because the build-up on the pipe walls is totally random and irregular, it is
highly doubtful that the actual diameter, regardless of what it is, will remain the same
throughout the pipe length. Generally speaking it is usually best to use the nominal
diameter in a computer model and adjust pipe roughness values to achieve calibration.

Unknown Internal Pipe Roughness Values

In the paragraph above it was stated that it is usually best to supply the nominal pipe
diameter and adjust pipe roughness values until a suitable match is obtained. But what
roughness values should be used? There are a number of tables in various texts that
provide estimates of pipe roughness, usually Hazen-Williams C-Factors, as a function of
pipe material, size and age. However pipe roughness is also a function of water quality
[1]. In other words, there is no guarantee that the internal roughness of a 12” 40-year old
unlined cast iron pipe in New York City will be the same as the internal roughness of a
12” 40-year old unlined cast iron pipe in Seattle.

Simulation models require a value for pipe roughness for each individual pipe segment.
This can result in quite a bit of information if one considers that it is not unusual for a
model of a moderately sized system to contain 500-1,000 pipes with larger systems
incorporating 2,000 or more pipelines. Certainly observed pressures can point the
modeler in the correct direction with regard to pipe roughness values. Nonetheless
compensating errors could cause incorrect pipe roughness values to be used.

Consider the simple parallel pipe system shown in Figure 2. Suppose that pressure
measurements have been taken at the node on each end of the pipe segment and the flow
through the system is known. The unknowns are the internal pipe roughness values for
each pipe. Table 1 shows the results of a simple analysis performed on this system.
Column 1 represents an assumed internal roughness for Pipe #1. Column 2 is the
resulting flow due to the measured head loss, the pipe characteristics and the assumed
roughness. Column 3 is the flow in Pipe #2 assuming a total system flow of 1,350 Gpm.
Finally column 4 represents the pipe roughness in Pipe 2 that is due to the head loss, the
pipe characteristics and the pipe flow.

Clearly there are multiple values of pipe roughness in pipes 1 and 2 that produce the same
head loss across the system. So the real question becomes which is the correct set of pipe
roughness values? The only way this question can be answered is to measure the flow in
one of the pipes. With the flow known the correct roughness values can be established.
Frequently in the United States actual pipeline flows throughout the system are not

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
measured in support of model calibration. Instead only system pressures at a several
selected locations are measured.

The problem above illustrates the complexity for a simple two pipe system. The problem
complexity is compounded in real systems. For the system shown in Figure 2, let’s
assume that the flow into the system is not known and that the pressure at the upstream
node is also unknown. Then the number of combinations of flow, pipe roughness and
upstream pressure that would produce a pressure of 47 psi at the downstream node is very
large. Now consider that there are many parallel paths that water may take in real
systems. With the above illustration it is clear how compensating errors can result in
incorrect model parameters even though an exact match between computer predicted and
observed values is obtained.

Effect of System Demands

Although simulation models require that water use be applied at a single point called a
node, in reality water use occurs along the entire length of a pipe as shown in Figure 3.
Water use is assigned to nodes because this approach simplifies the complexity of the
modeling problem. In Figure 3 the water use associated with the eight homes closest to
J-23 was assigned to this node. Likewise, the water use for the 10 homes closest to J-24
is assigned to junction node J-24.

Grouping or lumping water use at junction nodes instead of placing it at the actual
location where water is withdrawn from the system will produce some differences
between computer predicted and actual field performance. The differences should be
relatively minor assuming, of course, that the customer demand assigned to a particular
junction node is not located far away from the node. A bigger reason for the discrepancy
between computer predicted and field measured results lies with the spatial and temporal
nature of water use.

Water use within a home, and to a lesser extent, a commercial establishment is most
likely stochastic or random. In other words, one cannot predict with absolute certainty
when and how much water will be used at a particular residence. Perhaps the closest one
can get to certainty in residential water use lies with those homes that have automatic
lawn irrigation systems designed to operate at the same time each day. If one were to
meter the instantaneous water use in a specific residence the usage might look something
that shown in Figure 4. Industrial water use has a tendency to be a somewhat less
variable than residential or commercial usage. Any difference between the actual water
use in a distribution system and the estimates of that use supplied to a computer model
will generate errors between computer predicted and field measured performance.

Errors in System Maps

Water system maps are the primary source of model data for the physical characteristics
of many water distribution systems. Pipeline lengths and diameters are typically taken
from water system maps. The presence and types of fittings and appurtenances that
contribute to minor losses can also be found from system maps. Finally the layout of the
system and the pipe/node connectivity is usually determined from the system maps.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
Water system maps come in a variety of formats. Some systems may have very accurate,
nicely detailed maps generated using sophisticated CAD or GIS systems. The water
system maps of other utilities may consist of a set of rolled-up plans that have not been
unrolled in several years even though some system improvements have taken place. For
some systems, the system caretaker may be the sole individual responsible for record
keeping including maintaining the system maps – that is if they even exist! Indeed, it is
entirely possible that the extent of system mapping for some systems may be the
knowledge that is kept in the head of the system caretaker.

As changes to a system are made then the system maps should be modified to reflect the
changes that have been made. Most water utilities are very good at making these changes
though some are not. Despite the best efforts of the mapping department, sometimes
systems grow at a faster pace than the mapping department can make the changes.
Obviously the accuracy of system maps can have a pronounced effect on the accuracy of
a model calibration effort.

Node Elevations
Frequently in hydraulic network simulation ground elevations will be used to find
pressures at locations throughout the hydraulic network. For most systems, pipes are
buried at a uniform distance below the ground surface usually anywhere between 3-6 ft
deep (1.3-2.6 psi). The pressure difference associated with using the ground level versus
the actual pipe centerline elevation is usually not that great. Moreover, it is easier to
gather elevation data from topographic maps than it is to scour through As-Built
drawings to find the actual elevations.

When pressure measurements are taken for model calibration they are usually taken at
fire hydrants or at some other direct connection to the water system. The elevation of the
pressure gauge at the hydrant can be several feet higher than the ground elevation or
several feel lower than the ground in the case of a meter vault. For calibration purposes
this elevation difference can make a difference. Therefore one should always use the
elevation of the pressure gauge, that is, the location where the pressure measurement is
taken when calibrating a hydraulic network model.

Effect of Time
If the hydraulic simulation is an extended period simulation (EPS), then the calibration
must also consider adjustments that should be made for time-varying conditions.
Generally this will mean adjusting model parameters until there is a reasonable
agreement between computer predicted and observed tank water levels. In addition to
tank water levels, time-varying pressures and pipeline flows can also be compared.

Many times information on tank water levels will be obtained from circular charts such as
the one shown in Figure 5. Notice that there can be fairly substantial changes in tank
water level over a short period of time. This is especially true for small storage tanks
such as standpipes or if the tank capacity is too small for the system it is supplying. If too
large a time step is used in hydraulic calculations then the true time-varying behavior of

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
the system between time intervals may not be captured even though a suitable agreement
is obtained at individual time steps.

Model Detail
When a computer model of an existing system is constructed, quite often a simplified or
skeletal version of the system will be developed instead of one which contains every pipe
in the system. A skeletal version of the system is one that does not include small
diameter pipes or does not include lines that have an insignificant influence the
hydraulics of the overall system. A skeletal model is one which is manageable and yet
accurate – when properly calibrated. Interestingly, Cesario, et al state that the economics
of model construction make a strong case for including all pipes in the mathematical
model [2].

Although skeletalization can have an impact on the calibration process, the effects of
skeletalization on calibration are, for the most part, unknown. If one is having difficulty
in achieving a reasonable calibration with a highly skeletal system, then perhaps it may
be necessary to include more lines in the model. For example, omitting a dense grid of
small diameter mains from a model simply because of their size may be inappropriate if,
as a group, they present a sizeable hydraulic impact on the system.

Geometric Anomalies
Even if high quality information on the physical attributes of the system is available and
good estimates of nodal demand is provided to the simulation model, there can still be
differences between computer predicted and observed performance. Anomalies in the
geometry of the system are usually to blame in these cases. For example, suppose that
we have a condition where two pipes cross one another as illustrated in Figure 6. From
the plan view it may appear that these two lines are connected. The cross-section view
shows otherwise. Obviously the model will not be calibrated if these pipes were assumed
to be connected.

Another issue related to geometric anomalies that could cause differences between
observed and predicted behavior lies with system isolation valves. Most of the time in
computer models gate valves, butterfly valves, etc. are assumed to be fully open. In some
systems this may not be the case. If one has to use unrealistically low roughness values to
obtain a suitable calibration then perhaps there are closed or partially closed isolation
valves in the system.

Outdated Pump Characteristic Curves

If there are pumps in the system then it is necessary to supply information on the pump
characteristics. Most hydraulic models use some type of curve fit using three or more
points from the actual pump head-discharge relationship to reproduce the curve. Errors
in the numerical curve fit could contribute to discrepancies. However the more likely
cause of error for pumps is due to old or outdated pump curves. Over time impellers can
wear and change the characteristics of the pump. It is possible that new impellers may
have been installed on a pump without the pump curve being updated to reflect the

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
change. Clearly pump curves used in hydraulic simulation should represent the in-situ
pump characteristics of the unit.

Not only can inaccurate pump curves cause a discrepancy between computer predicted
and observed system performance, but errors in any boundary element can cause
difficulty with the calibration. These boundary elements include regulating valve
settings, tank levels and pressure zone boundaries. Clearly an incorrect setting for
pressure reducing valve will produce pressures in the computer model that are
inconsistent with field measured values.

Poorly Calibrated Measuring Equipment

There are many ways calibration data is gathered including direct measurement using
pressure gauges and flow recording devices. Many of today’s water supply systems have
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that can provide
information on tank levels and possibly pressures and flows at selected locations.
However in the United States pressure and flow measurement using SCADS systems is
generally limited to pump stations and boundaries with other systems.

Whenever a measurement is taken we must be sure that the equipment or device that was
used to take the measurement is itself calibrated. Pressure measurements that were taken
with a poorly calibrated pressure gauge or pressure transducer are of limited value and
will frequently be discarded. Remember not only should the equipment used to take
measurement be calibrated but the pressure, flow, and tank level monitors for the
SCADA system should also be calibrated.

Even if measuring and monitoring equipment is well calibrated, other problems can arise
to give poor data. Suppose tank water levels is obtained from circular charts such as that
shown in Figure 5. Notice how the chart indicates the tank water level at a given time.
We need to make sure that the timing mechanism in the chart recorder is working. In
other words, does the level on the circular chart at 6:00 a.m. really correspond to 6:00
a.m. or some other time because the timing mechanism is slow or because the chart slips
or because someone installed the chart incorrectly. Issues such as these must be
considered when using analog monitoring equipment. Of course the Y2K issue may
create problems for digital systems that are not compliant.

Calibrating for Water Quality

In the preceding paragraphs we discussed some of the data requirements for hydraulic
network models. Key among this information is internal pipe roughness values for each
individual pipe segment. Providing accurate roughness coefficients for moderate to large
models can be a considerable undertaking. In fact, it is possible that each individual
internal pipe roughness value could be a candidate for adjustment during the calibration.

When calibrating for water quality, the level of effort required to obtain a suitable
calibration can be even more imposing. Most water quality models require information

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
on coefficients describing reactions that take place within the bulk fluid and reactions that
take place between the fluid and the pipe wall. In essence this means that two additional
parameters for each pipeline are required.

Obtaining bulk reaction coefficients is not that difficult and procedures are available to
perform the necessary tests. Finding wall reaction coefficients can be much more
challenging. Just as each pipeline can have a unique internal roughness, it is possible that
each pipeline can have a unique wall reaction coefficient. Unlike roughness coefficients,
no well-established test is available for measuring reaction coefficients. Unlike roughness
coefficients, very little data is available for typical reaction coefficients. In fact, there is
some question within the modeling community if “typical” reaction coefficients even
exist.

In the case of water quality models, a match between some observed and predicted water
quality parameter such as chlorine or fluoride concentrations is usually used for
calibration purposes. However in the case of nonconservative species such as chlorine not
only are system-wide concentrations dependent upon the network hydraulics, but they are
a function of any reactions that take place in the system. Clearly one can see that
calibrating for water quality can greatly increase the level of effort required to obtain a
suitable match between observed and computer predicted performance. Interestingly as
Grayman points out, a water quality model can be used to help calibrate a hydraulic
model [5].

Calibration Methods

There have been a number of papers written on the subject of hydraulic network model
calibration and several methods have been developed to assist with the calibration effort.
However the traditional method of trial-and-error (trial-and-effort?) still seems to be the
predominate method of choice. In other words, data describing the model is adjusted –
sometimes randomly – until a suitable match is obtained.

The lack of calibration methods is not surprising once the full complexity of the level of
effort required for a comprehensive calibration is understood. Ormsbee and Reddy
provide a nice summary of the steps necessary to calibrate a hydraulic network computer
model [3]. In their paper they note that direct solution techniques or optimization
approaches offer some potential for simplifying the calibration effort. However for
moderate to large systems calibrating a model can be a considerable undertaking.

Direct parameter calculation methods and optimization techniques are not immune to the
problem of compensating errors. This problem can be addressed somewhat with
optimization methods by placing constraints on the decision variables, e.g. pipe
roughness values, water demand, valve setting, etc. With the direct parameter calculation
methods engineering judgment is usually the filter which captures unrealistic model
parameter values. Nonetheless, the problem of compensating errors may still exist.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
Perhaps the best way to address the problem of compensating errors short of measuring
heads and flows at numerous points in the system is to calibrate for multiple demand
conditions. These demands conditions may reflect maximum day, average day and
minimum day demands. Generally speaking the physical characteristics of the system
will be the same between the various demand days. Only the loading and boundary
conditions will change. If the same or nearly the same roughness characteristics produce
a suitable match between observed and predicted pressures then chances are good that
these roughness values are the correct ones. However, there is no substitute for
measuring flows in throughout the system which, unfortunately, is not commonly done in
the United States.

Calibration Accuracy in the US vs. the UK

It should be clear by now that the level of effort required to obtain an acceptable level of
calibration can be considerable. Water quality calibrations can be even more challenging.
Many modelers in the United States agree that the level of effort required to calibrate a
hydraulic network model will depend upon the intended use of the model [2, 3, 4]. In
other words, it may not be reasonable to expect that a model used for long-range planning
purposes will have the same level of accuracy than a model intended for operations or
water quality investigations. Walski provides some suggestions on a suitable level of
calibration as a function of the use of the model [4].

In the United Kingdom, however, standards or performance criteria that modeler should
strive for have been established. The criteria for flow and pressure are shown below.
Additional criteria also exist including those for extended period simulations [6].

1. Flows agree to:

a) 5% of measured flow when flows are more than 10% of total demand
(transmission lines),
b) 10% of measured flow when flows are less than 10% of total demand (distribution
lines).
2. Pressures agree to:
a) 0.5 m (1.6 ft) or 5% of head loss for 85% of test measurements,
b) 0.75 m (2.31 ft) or 7.5% of head loss for 95% of test measurements,
c) 2 m (6.2 ft) or 15% of head loss for 100% of test measurements.

The manner by which hydraulic networks are operated in the United Kingdom goes a
long way to explaining why calibration criteria exist in the UK. For example, in the UK
it is not unusual for water utilities to provide a lower level of fire protection than is
provided in the United States. Perhaps one of the bigger differences lies in metering. In
the UK most individual service connections are not metered. Rather large networks are
typically divided into smaller “demand management areas” each serving about 1,000 –
2,000 connections. The demand areas are independent service areas that are metered at
all inflow and outflow points. As a result, there will be more “in-line” flow metering

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
than exists in the US. Cesario, et al provide a summary of the differences in water utility
operations between the United States and the United Kingdom [2].

Calibration Accuracy

Despite the many variables that contribute to differences between observed and predicted
system performance and even though calibrating a hydraulic network model can be a
time consuming and sometimes frustrating task, the time is right in the United States to
consider adopting some calibration criteria. The results of computer simulations are
frequently used as the basis for capital projects involving many millions of dollars.
Moreover, the 1997 EPA Drinking Water Needs Survey has placed the price tag over the
next 20 years of bringing water distribution systems up to compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act at nearly $140 billion [7]. It is likely therefore that in the near future
computer simulation will be even more widely used for planning, design, operation and
water quality investigations.

As stated earlier, the primary purpose of this paper is to suggest calibration guidelines
that can be used in the United States to determine a suitable level of model calibration for
a particular use of the model. The purpose of this paper is not to establish calibration
standards. The Engineering Computer Applications Committee hopes that by providing
these criteria some discussion among the network modeling community in the United
States (and abroad) will ensue regarding the need for such criteria and the validity of the
criteria.

Minimum calibration criteria are presented in Table 2. Note that while a hydraulic
network model may have a number of different uses, four basic use categories are
presented in Table 2. Most of the uses of hydraulic models should fit into one of the
following categories: 1) Planning, 2) Design, 3) Operations and 4) Water Quality. For
example training system operators, developing emergency response plans, or performing
energy efficiency studies would all fall under the Operations category.

Six calibration criteria have been identified. The level of detail criteria relates the degree
of skeletonization that a model may have while the type of time simulation reflects
whether the model should be a steady-state or extended period simulation model. The
number of pressure readings is expressed as a percentage of the number of nodes in the
model while the number of flow readings is presented in terms of the number of pipes in
the model.

Note that the criteria represent minimum criteria. For example, based on the proposed
criteria a model used for long-range planning may have a low level of detail. However
there is nothing to prevent a model used for long range planning from being a model with
a high degree of detail. Note that the level of detail and the type of time simulation will,
in large measure, depend upon the use of the model.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
References

[1] Walski, Thomas M., Sharp. Wayne W. and Shields, F. Douglas Jr. 1988 “Predicting
Internal Roughness in Water Mains,” Miscellaneous Paper EL-88-2, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

[2] Cesario, A. L., Kroon, J.R., Grayman, W., and Wright, G. “New Perspectives on
Calibration of Treated Water Distribution System Models,”

[3] Ormsbee, L.E. and Lingireddy, S. “Calibrating Hydraulic Network Models,” Journal
American Water Works Association, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 42-50, 1997.

[4] Walski, Thomas M. “Standards for Model Calibration,” 1995 AWWA Computer
Conference, Norfolk, VA.

[5] Grayman, Walter M. “Use of Tracer Studies and Water Quality Models to Calibrate
a Network Hydraulic Mode,” Essential Hydraulics and Hydrology, Haestad Press,
Waterbury, CT., 1998.

[6] Water Authorities Association and WRc, 1989, “Network Analysis – A Code of
Practice,” WRc, Swindon, England.

[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. “Drinking Water Infrastructure

Needs Survey,” EPA/012/R-97/001. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 List of Tables

Table 1
Pipe Roughness Values and Flow for Simple Two-Pipe System

Pipe #1 Pipe #1 Pipe #2 Pipe #2

Roughness Flow (Gpm) Flow (Gpm) Roughness
80 660.75 689.25 166.88
90 743.34 606.66 146.88
100 825.93 524.07 126.88
110 908.53 441.47 106.89
120 991.12 358.88 86.89
130 1073.71 276.29 66.89
140 1156.31 193.69 46.90

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 Table 2
Minimum Criteria for Hydraulic Network Model Calibration

Intended Use Level of Detail Type of Time Number of Accuracy of Number of Accuracy of
Simulation Pressure Pressure Flow Readings Flow Readings
Readings1 Readings
Long-Range Low Steady-State 10% of Nodes ± 5 Psi for 100% 1% of Pipes ± 10%
Planning Or EPS of Readings
Design Moderate to Steady-State 5% - 2% of ± 2 Psi for 90% 3% of Pipes ± 5%
High Or EPS Nodes of Readings
Operations Low to High Steady-State 10% - 2% of ± 2 Psi for 90% 2% of Pipes ± 5%
Or EPS Nodes of Readings
Water Quality High EPS 2% of Nodes ± 3 Psi for 70% 5% of Pipes ± 2%
of Readings

Notes:
1. The number of pressure reading is related to the level of detail as illustrated in the table below.

Level of Detail Number of

Pressure
Readings
Low 10% of Nodes
Moderate 5% of Nodes
High 2% of Nodes

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 List of Figures

Figure 1

Pipe 1
L = 2,300 Ft
D = 10”

P = 54 Psi P = 47 Psi

1350 Gpm

Pipe 2
L = 2,800 Ft
D = 8”

Figure 2

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 These Demands Assigned These Demands Assigned
To J-23 To J-24

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

J-23 J-24
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Figure 3
Water Use

Time (Hrs)

Figure 4

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.
 Mid

6 pm 6 am

2-Hrs
A

Noon

Figure 5

Top View

SideView

Figure 6

Reprinted from Proceedings of AWWA 1999 ImTech Conference, by permission.

Copyright  1999 American Water Works Association.