Efficient Technique for Pipe Roughness Calibration and

Sensor Placement for Water Distribution Systems

Richárd Wéber 1 and Csaba Hős 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The need to improve the accuracy of mathematical models describing hydraulic networks (e.g., water distribution systems) poses
numerous challenges regarding the problems of parameter calibration and optimal sampling. In this paper, a comparison is made between
different sensor placing strategies, including a novel, direct (iteration-free) algorithm. The approach used is based on maximizing both the
sensitivity and the so-called hydraulic distance of the sampling points without the need for optimization. Based on these sampled measure-
ments, the pipe roughness coefficient of each pipe is calibrated individually (without grouping) by solving the resulting underdetermined
linear system with singular value decomposition. The efficiency of the approach is demonstrated on case studies, including artificial
(e.g., Anytown and C-town) and real-life water distribution systems through detailed statistical comparison. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.0001150. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Water distribution systems (WDSs) are essential infrastructures
providing sufficient quantity and quality of drinking water for both
civilian and industrial customers. The complexity of these systems
increases quickly with the number of demand (consumption) points
(that is, the size of the area served), resulting in the challenging task
of instrumentation and supervision of such large systems. One of
the emerging challenges is that because the number of measure-
ment devices—pressure loggers, flow meters—is far smaller than
the number of potential measurement points (typically fire hydrants
for pressure), one must optimize (in some sense) the layout of the
measurements. Another issue with the increasing complexity is that
the number of parameters to be calibrated in a WDS computer
model escalates with system size and the calibration process re-
quires both high computational effort and highly sophisticated
algorithms.
The focus of the present study is on hydraulic systems with
significant frictional pressure drop, and the aim is to calibrate
the pipe roughness values in such a way that the model output
(nodal pressures) is as close to the “real values” as possible. Such
calibration requires two steps: (1) designating the sampling points,
i.e., the nodes at which pressure values are measured and (2) a
calibration algorithm that minimizes the discrepancy between
the measured and the computed pressure values by adjusting the
pipe friction coefficients. The novelties of the proposed techniques
are as follows.
The sampling design is based on a quantity combining the sen-
sitivity and the “hydraulic distance” of the sampling points, defined
1 larger systems a MATLAB version R2018a built-in optimization
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Hydrodynamic Systems, Faculty of Mechan-
ical Engineering, Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics, Budapest
1111, Hungary (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-2556-3841. Email: rweber@hds.bme.hu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Hydrodynamic Systems, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering, Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics,
Budapest 1111, Hungary. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1930-515X.
Email: cshos@hds.bme.hu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 8, 2018; approved
on May 22, 2019; published online on November 12, 2019. Discussion
period open until April 12, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496.
as the weighted shortest path between two sampled nodes. This
approach ensures that the pressure loggers are located at nodes that
are (a) sensitive and (b) “far” from each other, i.e., widespread over
the network.
The calibration process adjusts the friction parameter of each
pipe individually. The advantage of this approach is that no addi-
tional data (e.g., age or pipe material) is needed, which is usually
used for the grouping of the pipes and might be inaccurate or
even missing. However, the resulting problem is underdetermined,
i.e., the number of parameters to be adjusted is (far) greater than
the available measurement data. Here, the use of singular value de-
composition (SVD) is proposed to solve such problems, which re-
sults in a parameter vector closest to the initial guess (least-norm
solution).
This paper is organized as follows. The next section includes a
literature overview in which, even though the focus is on friction
parameter calibration, a brief overview of demand calibration and
sampling approaches is also provided. Then the mathematical tools
that are used, such as the mathematical background of hydraulic
simulation, sensitivity analysis, SVD, and distance metrics on
graphs, are summarized. Then the main results, i.e., a deterministic,
iterative calibration and a direct, iteration-free sensor placement
technique, are described. The next section includes a comparison
of the proposed layout design with five standard approaches from
the literature on six different networks of increasing size and com-
plexity, including the the Anytown, C-town, and KY2 networks, in
addition to a small artificial network and two real-life networks. In
the case of the simple systems, a full enumeration of the possible
sampling layouts (that is, for a given number of sampling points, all
possible combinations were evaluated) is performed, while for the
package is used. For each case, 100 calibration processes were
run with random initial parameter sets, and a detailed statistical
comparison is provided. The final section concludes the study.
Literature Review
Hydraulic models of WDSs consist of a large number of nodal mass
balances and pressure difference–flow rate relationships, with the
former being linear and the latter being nonlinear, due to the inher-
ently nonlinear dependence of frictional pressure losses on flow

© ASCE 04019070-1 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 rates and pump head curves. Hence, when calibrating a hydraulic
model, one must cope with a (possibly large number of) nonlinear
algebraic equations. One of the first attempts to support the manual
calibration of parameters (namely, roughness coefficients and nodal
demands) in a nonlinear mathematical model that could describe
a hydraulic system was reported in Walski (1983) based on fire
hydrant tests on low and high flow rates. Up to the present day,
the main idea behind the calibration process has been to define an
objective scalar function that indicates the difference between mea-
sured values and the output of the simulation and then to use an
optimization method (iterative or heuristic) to find the parameter
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
set that provides the lowest value of the objective function. The
first algorithmic method can be found in Ormsbee (1989), where
nonlinear optimization was used.
Studies have been published on the calibration of the roughness
coefficient itself without the adjustment of consumption values.
Greco (1999) used the sensitivity matrix with linear and nonlinear
programming to increase the accuracy of the model. To avoid the
(potentially inaccurate) computation of the derivatives, Kapelan
et al. (2007) presented a method called shuffled complex evolution
metropolis that could also calculate uncertainties without the wide-
spread first-order second method (FOSM). Koppel and Vassiljev
(2009) presented a technique in which the number of parameters
was decreased by grouping the pipes based on their age, and then
they used the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for optimization.
Khedr et al. (2015) showed that a sophisticated optimization algo-
rithm could increase the accuracy of the calibration compared to
the case of adjusting the roughness coefficients manually. Simi-
larly, Meirelles et al. (2017) also compared the standard calibration
process to optimization using particle swarm optimization and
concluded that the latter results in higher accuracy. Todini and
Pilati (1987) introduced the Global Gradient Algorithm for solving
the basic hydraulic equations, which was further developed for
calibration in Giustolisi and Berardi (2011). This algorithm also
inspired a direct inversion algorithm [published in Du et al. (2018)]
combining all unknowns in a system into a single global vector,
including unmeasured pipe flows, nodal pressures, and rough-
ness coefficients, and then solving them simultaneously using a
Newton-based linear method. Ostfeld et al. (2012) summarize the
competition known as the Battle of Water Calibration Networks
whose purpose was an objective comparison of different calibration
techniques using the C-town network.
A different approach to increasing the accuracy of the hydraulic
model is to calibrate nodal demands or demand patterns. For this
purpose Kang and Lansey (2009) used a weighted least-squares
method that was also capable of predicting the chlorine concentra-
tion in the examined system. The SVD theory was applied to
determine the search direction where the golden section search
was used to obtain the optimal nodal demands in Cheng and He
(2011). Kun et al. (2015) presented an efficient inversion model
that avoided the repeated computation of a Jacobian matrix. Do
et al. (2016) developed a genetic algorithm for the calibration of
the demand multipliers where the number of measurements is lower
than the number of unknowns, i.e., it is underdetermined. SVD was
also applied in Sanz and Pérez (2015) to reduce the parameters by
grouping nodal demands into several patterns.
Another frequent idea of calibration is to take into consideration
both the demands (or demand patterns) and roughness coefficients.
A two-step weighted least-squares method was introduced for
the adjustment of parameters in Kang and Lansey (2011). Dini
and Tabesh (2014) used the ant colony optimization method for
simultaneous calibration. In Xie et al. (2017) a Bayesian-based,
two-level Markov chain Monte Carlo–Particle Filter method was
used that can also handle the uncertainties of calibrated values.
© ASCE 04019070-2
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070
Gao (2017) defined a multistage calibration process using a
weighted least-squares method. Zhang et al. (2018) also introduced
a numerical technique that is capable of adjusting nodal demands
and pipe roughness coefficients. Overall, the mentioned methods
follow the widespread idea of minimizing (using a sophisticated
algorithm) the difference between the measurements and the out-
come of the hydraulic model.
Finding the optimal measurement layout was approached from
several directions to make the hydraulic model calibration more
accurate. Yu and Powell (1994) formulated this problem in a multi-
objective way in which the accuracy was maximized, and the total
metering cost was minimized using decision trees. Bush and Uber
(1998) introduced an idea in which the propagated measurement
error should be minimized. This theory was also applied to build
a three-step method in Lansey et al. (2001), and further develop-
ment was carried out where the uncertainty of the model output was
considered. Kapelan et al. (2003) used this theory by taking into
consideration the total sampling design cost and solved the lem
as multiobjective optimization. Single and multiobjective genetic
algorithms were used in Kapelan et al. (2005), where the latter
was capable of determining a whole set of (Pareto) optimal solu-
tions. In Behzadian et al. (2009) the authors combined a multiob-
jective genetic algorithm with an adaptive neural network to
minimize uncertainties. However, completely different approaches
were presented in de Schaetzen et al. (2000), where the methods
were based on the shortest path algorithm, sensitivity, and Shannon
entropy. Morosini et al. (2014) performed sensitivity analysis to
prioritize the influences of nodes and pipes, but it was not empha-
sized that the most sensitive nodes and pipes were often in the
vicinity of each other or even adjacent ones. Moreover, if one
wishes to place several sensors incrementally (which is typically
the case), it is not clear how to locate the subsequent sampling
node. Klapcsik et al. (2017) demonstrated the performance of sev-
eral of the aforementioned techniques plus a novel one based on
graph theory using real-life water distribution networks.
Another typical problem of optimal sampling involves early
warning systems for detecting contamination, accidental or inten-
tional. Numerous studies were carried out to address the issue of
how to minimize the effects of pollution by locating an optimal set
of sensor layout. One of the first attempts was made by Lee and
Deininger (1992) based on maximizing the “covered nodes” in
the network using integer linear programming. The origin tracking
algorithm was presented in Laird et al. (2005); it is capable of de-
termining contamination spread in a system without the need for
discretizing pipelines. Later, Berry et al. (2006) introduced the min-
imization of the expected impact calculating numerous different
scenarios and optimized with mixed integer programming and heu-
ristic method. A competition, called the Battle of the Water Sensor
Networks, was organized in 2006 and its results were published
later in Ostfeld et al. (2008). The main conclusions were that plac-
ing sensors at water sources (e.g., pump stations, tanks) is not nec-
essary and the clustering of sensors is inefficient. Xu et al. (2008)
presented a method based on graph theory where no additional data
apart from the topology of the network were needed, which seems
to be uneconomical given that hydraulic data are already available
but not utilized. A technique can be found in Krause et al. (2008)
that is capable of handling huge networks (21,000 nodes) while
maintaining rigorous approximation and low CPU running time.
Hart and Murray (2010) published a comprehensive review on
the topic, also suggesting directions for further research, e.g., effi-
ciently solving large-scale problems or comparing new methods
to existing ones. Later, Zheng et al. (2018) published a paper com-
paring different sensor placement strategies, using the quantities
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 presented in Ostfeld et al. (2008), but considering expected and
worst-case scenarios.
To sum up the relevant literature, calibration and sensor place-
ment problems are usually solved by optimization techniques
requiring significant computational effort and sophisticated solvers.
Table 1 contains all the important properties of calibration ap-
proaches found in the literature. As that literature shows, often sev-
eral parameter sets (e.g., pipe roughness and demand) are calibrated
at once. Also, the calibration problem is usually transformed into an
overdetermined problem by grouping the parameters in such a way
that the final number of aggregated parameters is smaller than the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mathematical Tools
Hydraulic Simulation
In this section, the fundamental equations of one-dimensional hy-
draulic modeling and the solution strategy are introduced. Even
though an in-house C++ software (STACI) was used for simula-
tions, the underlying equations are the same as those implemented
in EPANET2 (Rossman 2000). The mass conservation law is
solved for every node
X X

number of available measurements—resulting in a least-squares Qi − Qi ¼ d ð1Þ

solution. Moreover, it seems that nowadays, heuristic techniques
are more common than iterative methods. Finally, concepts from
graph theory (e.g., distance, segmentation) seem to have begun
to infiltrate WDS analysis.
The primary motivation of this work is to create an objec-
tive method for comparing different sensor placement strategies
(the ones available in the literature and a novel one presented
in this paper) in terms of the “goodness” of the pipe roughness
calibration and in terms of computation times. To keep the anal-
ysis focused, other (possibly also important) effects are ignored,
e.g., unmodeled leaks or the uncertainty of the nominal consump-
tion values, even though the extension of the proposed methods to
these cases is straightforward. A novel approach is presented that
calibrates all pipe roughness values independently (i.e., without
grouping) and a sensor placement strategy that is highly efficient.
Then, these novel techniques and those available in the literature
are compared in an objective way, using several networks, from
simple artificial ones to real-life cases. The comparison is based on
a statistical evaluation of the “goodness” of the calibration (yet to
be defined precisely) and the required CPU time. Even though
roughness calibration problems are typically solved offline, the au-
thors think that the required computational effort (CPU time) is still
relevant because the size of the hydraulic models tends to increase
quickly nowadays (e.g., Gao 2014). It is not uncommon to use
models with 10,000þ pipe segments; thus, the use of efficient
numerical techniques can significantly increase the potential for
even larger hydraulic models in the future.
i∈in i∈out
where it is assumed that the fluid is incompressible (i.e., liquid).
Q denotes the volume flow rate, the term with “in” indicates in-
flows, while that with “out” indicates outflows, and d is the nodal
demand (consumption). The other set of equations describes the
energy balance through the edges (e.g., pipe, pump, valve) and
is formally given by
ps − pe ¼ fðQÞ ð2Þ
where ps and pe = pressure at two ends of edge; and f function =
nonlinear function of volume flow rate. As an example, for a pipe
connecting two nodes with geodetic heights hs and he , one has
L ρ QjQj
ps − pe ¼ ρgðhe − hs Þ þ λ ð3Þ
D 2 A2
where λ = friction coefficient; ρ = density of water; g = gravita-
tional acceleration; and A, D, and L = area of cross section, pipe
diameter, and length, respectively. To estimate the actual value of
the friction coefficient λ, one can use e.g., the Darcy–Weisbach
(where λ is a function of the Reynolds number and the relative wall
roughness) or the Hazen–Williams equations (where the C factor
defines λ).
Combining (and rearranging) all (1) mass and (2) energy equa-
tions for a WDS results in N nodes þ N edges equations, which are to

Table 1. Basic properties of calibration methods

Reference
Walski (1983)
Ormsbee (1989)
Greco (1999)
Kapelan et al. (2007)
Kang and Lansey (2009)
Koppel and Vassiljev (2009)
Cheng and He (2011)
Giustolisi and Berardi (2011)
Kang and Lansey (2011)
Dini and Tabesh (2014)
Kun et al. (2015)
Khedr et al. (2015)
Sanz and Pérez (2015)
Do et al. (2016)
Gao (2017)
Meirelles et al. (2017)
Xie et al. (2017)
Du et al. (2018)
Zhang et al. (2018)
Proposed method
Objectivity
Single Multi
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
— X
X —
X —
X —
— X
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
X —
Optimization Parameter
Direct Heuristic Roughness Demand Grouping
Manual X X X
X — X X X
X X — —
— X X — X
X — — X X
X — X — X
X — — X —
X X — X
X — X X X
— X X X X
X — — X X
— X X — X
X — — X X
— X — X —
X X X X
— X X X X
— X X X X
X — X — X
X — X X X
X — X — —

© ASCE 04019070-3 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 be solved for nodal pressures and edge flow rates. Formally, one
can write
FðxÞ ¼ 0
where x ¼ ½p; QT ¼ ½p1 ; p2 ; : : : ; pN nodes ; Q1 ; Q2 ; : : : ; QN edges T con-
tains the unknown hydraulic variables. The preceding system is
solved iteratively via Newton’s technique, that is
Jðxn Þðxnþ1 − xn Þ ¼ −Fðxn Þ
which is a linear set of equations, with J being the Jacobian, that is,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J i;j ¼ ∂Fi =∂xj . Note that this is a sparse system with mostly two
or three nonzero elements per row, so the package UMFPACK
(Davis 2004) is used to solve it efficiently and avoid an expensive
inversion of the Jacobian.
Pressure Sensitivity Analysis
It is useful to compute the variation of the solution (that is, pressure
or flow rate values) with respect to (wrt) a parameter, for example,
the pipe friction coefficient λ. That is, the variation of the pressure
at node i wrt to a small change in the friction coefficient of
pipe j is
∂pi
Si;j ¼
∂λj
To compute this quantity, Eq. (4) is differentiated wrt to the
parameters [and keeping in mind that if the parameter is varied,
so is the solution, i.e., pðλÞ], giving
∂F ∂p ∂F
þ ¼0
∂p ∂λi ∂λi
where the first term (the Jacobian) was already computed during the
Newton iteration, the second term is one column from the sensi-
tivity matrix S pursued to compute, and the third term is easily
evaluated from either Eq. (1) or (2). Eq. (7) is again a linear set
of algebraic equations, which has to be solved as many times as
there are parameters. However, because the linear coefficient matrix
(the Jacobian) is constant, the use of lower–upper (LU) decompo-
sition makes this process efficient and inexpensive. It should be
noted that the same process could be employed to compute the sen-
sitivity of any output variable wrt to any parameter (for example,
the sensitivity of the pipe flow rates wrt to demand); however, this
study focuses on the sensitivity of nodal pressures to the pipe fric-
tion parameters.
The roughness coefficients of every pipeline affect the pressure
at each node; the local or nodal sensitivity can be defined by taking
the absolute value of every element and summing the rows of the
matrix:
X
N edges
Snodal;i ¼ jSfi;jg j
j¼1
This equation forecasts the increase (or decrease) of a nodal
pressure in cases where the roughness of every pipe is (equally)
increased.
Singular Value Decomposition
The calibration technique introduced in the next section results in a
nonsquare linear system; that is, there are fewer equations than un-
knowns. Such a linear system is underdetermined, and there are
infinitely many solutions of which the one with the smallest norm
© ASCE
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070
(that is, closest to the initial guess of the parameters) is of greatest
interest. Such systems (and overdetermined or even mixed systems)
are easily solved by SVD. SVD decomposes a matrix A ∈ Rn×m
ð4Þ with a rank r into the product of three special matrices
as A ¼ UΣV T , where U ∈ Rn×n and V ∈ Rm×m are column-
orthogonal matrices (i.e., UUT ¼ VV T ¼ I, where I is the identity
matrix), and Σ ∈ Rn×m is a diagonal matrix. U and V T contain the
left and right singular vectors (eigenvectors of AAT and AT A, re-
ð5Þ spectively, if m ¼ n) and Σ the singular values (square root of ei-
genvalues of AAT , if m ¼ n). There are no restrictions on Matrix A
i.e., it can even be singular. If an underdetermined system Ay ¼ b
is solved by SVD, the solution vector will have the smallest norm of
all possible solutions, that is, kyk → Min. However, the SVD is
also computationally favorable since the overall cost is Oðmn2 Þ,
where n ≪ m, meaning, in the present case, it will grow linearly
with the size of the network.
Another useful feature of this technique is that it can determine
the rank of a matrix, i.e., the number of linearly independent rows
or columns. In theory, the singular values are always positive, and
the number of nonzero singular values gives the rank of the matrix.
However, in reality, in numerical cases the out-of-rank singular val-
ues are never precisely zero (but, instead, some small finite num-
ber). Therefore, a widely used approach is that 90% of the overall
energy (information) should be retrained. This means that once Σ
ð6Þ (which was a diagonal matrix including the singular values) has
been computed, one deletes the smallest singular values in such
a way that the sum of the squares of the remaining (nondeleted)
singular values should provide at least 90% of the sum of the
squares of all singular values (Leskovec 2014).
After determining the SVD of a matrix, its inverse (or pseudoin-
verse) can also be easily found by Aþ ¼ VΣþ UT , where Σþ is a
ð7Þ diagonal matrix with the reciprocal of the retained (nondeleted) sin-
gular values. Finally, the method is capable of evaluating the de-
terminant of a singular, nonsquared matrix; the determinant is
simply the product of the retained singular values. For additional
features on SVD, the reader may consult Leskovec (2014). These
computations were performed using the C++ library Eigen (Gael
and Benoi 2010), which ensures computational efficiency.
Graph Theory: Distance
The final mathematical tool that is needed is borrowed from graph
theory. A water distribution system can be interpreted as a graph
where the pipelines, valves, pumps, and so forth are the edges
(links), and their intersections (nodes) are the vertices. In graph
theory, a path is defined as a route through links between two nodes
(possibly far away from each other) (e.g., Barabási 2016). Clearly,
in a looped network there could be several different paths between
two particular nodes and, in the simplest case, the shortest path or
distance is the one with the minimum number of edges. For exam-
ple, in Fig. 1 the shortest path between Nodes 1 and 4 is three (if
just the number of edges defines the length of the path), as high-
ð8Þ lighted by the solid thick line. However, the distance or length can
also be defined in the case of a weighted graph (Barabási 2016). In
this case, the shortest path is the one along which the sum of the
weights is minimal. In this sense, in Fig. 1, the distance between
Nodes 1 and 4 is 10 þ 10 þ 5 þ 10 ¼ 35 (dashed line). For com-
puting this quantity, the C++ library igraph was used (Csardi and
Nepusz 2012).
Proposed Calibration and Sensor Placement Method
In the following sections, the model calibration and the sensor
placement problem both focus on the accuracy of the model output,
04019070-4 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Visualization of definition of distance.
i.e., the purpose is to minimize the discrepancy between the “real”
pressure distribution and the output of the calibrated model by ad-
justing the roughness coefficients of the model. Note that the cal-
ibration and sampling techniques are independent of each other.
First, the proposed calibration technique is explained using prede-
fined sampling locations, then an efficient sensor placing strategy is
described.
Calibration Technique
There are two important features of the proposed calibration tech-
nique. First, it assigns an independent roughness coefficient to each
pipeline i.e., here they are not grouped as in, e.g., Mallick et al.
(2002). The advantage of grouping similar pipes (based on material
or age, for example), and then assigning a single friction coefficient
to all pipes within a group reduces the problem to a large extent, but
it might require more input data that might not be available or
be uncertain. Second, it is iterative; thus, no heuristic optimization
(e.g., genetic algorithm, simulated annealing) is required. This
method could use any friction model, e.g., Darcy-Weisbach,
Hazen-Williams: in the first case, the parameter to be adjusted
is the relative roughness, while in the latter case, it is the C-factor.
For the time being it is assumed that the sampled nodes have al-
ready been chosen (the sensor placement techniques will be dis-
cussed subsequently). The calibration technique consists of the
following steps.
1. The sampling nodes, the measured values at these nodes, and the
estimated parameter vector are input values. If additional data
(e.g., age or material) are available for the pipelines, they should
be used to increase the accuracy of the calibration. If such data
are unavailable, some “default” value needs to be assigned to
each pipe.
2. Run a standard hydraulic simulation with the estimated rough-
ness values and with the nominal (average) demand values.
Then calculate the sensitivity matrix.
3. Extract the reduced sensitivity matrix Sr including only the sen-
sitivity of the sampled pressures, i.e., delete the rows corre-
sponding to unsampled nodes. The original sensitivity matrix
is of size N nodes × N edges and, in the case of N sampled number
of pressure transducers, the size of the reduced sensitivity matrix
Sr is N sampled × N edges .
4. Compute the pressure difference between the hydraulic model
output (obtained with the estimated parameters) and the mea-
surements (“real” values):
Δp ¼ pmod − pmeas ð9Þ
© ASCE 04019070-5
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070
For now, it is assumed that the measurement was performed
at nominal demand values.
5. Solve the linear system Sr Δλ ¼ Δp using the previously pre-
sented SVD method for an update of the roughness coefficient
distribution.
6. Update the parameter vector and repeat from Point 2 until Δp is
sufficiently small. To determine the end of the cycle, an absolute
threshold can be prescribed for Δp, e.g., 10−3 m, or the subse-
quent values of Δλ can be monitored, and a threshold can be
defined for the relative difference, e.g., 0.1%.
Mathematically speaking, the solution of the linear equation
system at Point 5 is far from trivial. On the one hand, the linear
system is underdetermined, i.e., the number of equations (number
of sampling points) is significantly lower than the number of var-
iables (number of pipes). On the other hand, it is possible that the
rows (the measurements) are not linearly independent, resulting in
almost identical rows in the sensitivity matrix. This can easily hap-
pen if the sampling points are close to each other (e.g., they are two
nodes of the same, short pipe). As presented earlier, both issues can
be addressed if SVD is used to compute the pseudoinverse of the
reduced sensitivity matrix (Sþ r ). Because the system is underdeter-
mined, there are usually multiple possible solutions for the prob-
lem, but the SVD finds the one with the least norm, that is, this
iteration gives the closest set of parameters to the initial estimation
at the first step and the closest to the previous one in the following
steps; i.e., it is a step-by-step least-norm solution. To speed up
the convergence of the subsequent parameter improvement steps,
it is useful to apply relaxation, i.e., Δλ ¼ ωSþ r Δp, where
0.1 ≤ ω ≤ 0.8.
In this paper, the method is used for only one hydraulic state
with nominal values, but the technique itself can be used straight-
forwardly for multiple operational points. Assume that there are
measurements available with N op different operational loads. In this
case, in Step 2, N op hydraulic simulation needs to be performed and
N op sensitivity matrices calculated ; constructing the reduced ma-
trix is similar, and it has N op × N sampled rows. The rest of the
method is unchanged.
Another property of the method is that in the case of fully in-
dependent measurements (mathematically speaking, if the rank of
the reduced sensitivity matrix is not lower than its smaller size), the
technique is capable of removing the difference fully between the
measurements and the model output, i.e., Δp ¼ 0, see Eq. (9).
However, if there are linearly dependent measurements, the result-
ing linear system Sr Δλ ¼ Δp is ill-conditioned because this means
that the left-hand side of the linear equations are almost identical,
while the corresponding right-hand sides are different. This can
easily happen, e.g., if two sampled nodes are too close to each other
and there is uncertainty in the consumption values or in the pressure
measurement. In such cases, the proposed calibration technique can
still be utilized and will converge robustly. However, the difference
between the measurement and the model output would not
vanish, i.e., Δp ≠ 0.
Sensor Placement Based on Hydraulic Distance with
Sensitivity
Intuitively, a “good” sensor placement fulfills two requirements.
First, sensitive nodes are used for sampling. As a counterexample,
it is inefficient to deploy pressure loggers close to reservoirs, where
the pressure is primarily defined by the reservoir water level. How-
ever, sensitive nodes tend to accumulate at certain locations within
a WDS, so simply choosing the most sensitive nodes often results
in the accumulation of sampling points close to each other (de
Schaetzen et al. 2000; Klapcsik et al. 2017). The problem with
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Table 2. Basic data of networks This leads us to the concept of hydraulic distance, which is the
No. of Overall pipe Total distance of the actual node from the nodes of prescribed pressures
Name pipes length (m) consumption (m3 =h) (e.g., reservoirs, tanks) or sampled pressures, measured by weight-
ing the edges by frictional pressure loss, i.e., the pressure difference
4 × 4 Grid 24 2,400 2,610
Anytown 35 69,590 1,454 without the geodetic head difference. (For the mathematical defi-
C-town 452 56,723 980.7 nition of distance, see the section “Graph Theory—Distance.”)
Sopron Network I (SN-I) 287 7,673 2.11 Reference is made to the nodes from which distance is measured
Sopron Network II (SN-II) 920 13,084 20.1 as “master nodes.” The hydraulic distance is defined as the mini-
KY2 1,124 152,248 329 mum value of the distances between the actual node and the
master nodes.
A node can then be characterized by the product of its nodal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sensitivity and the hydraulic distance. Note that if a sensitive node

close or neighboring samplings is simply that the measurements are is designated for measuring, the nodes surrounding it (probably
not independent of each other. Thus, the second requirement is that also with high sensitivity) become of low importance as they
the measurement points should be “far enough” from each other to are close to a master node. Similarly, a node far from the master
be “as independent as possible.” nodes but with low sensitivity is not suitable for calibration. This

Fig. 2. Layout of networks. Anytown, Grid, C-town, and KY2 are artificial networks, while the other two are different zones of Sopron (Hungarian
city). For basic data of the water distribution networks, see Table 2.

© ASCE 04019070-6 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 technique is sequential in the sense that it adds sampling points one two methods are based on the minimization of the propagation of
by one; after a node is designated for sampling, only the distances measurement uncertainty to the output of the calibrated model, as
must be recomputed. Nevertheless, the strategy is straightforward explained, e.g., in Kapelan et al. (2003), by minimizing the trace
and free of iteration or heuristic optimization. (A-optimality) or the determinant (D-optimality) of the covariance
The HDS sensor placement method consists of the follow- matrix, that is
ing steps.
1. Estimate the roughness values, if possible using the available C ¼ Covðpmod Þ ¼ SSþ þ T T
r Covðpmeas ÞðSr Þ S ð11Þ
data (e.g., pipe material, age) to improve accuracy.
and then minimize the trace or the determinant
2. Calculate the sensitivity matrix and the nodal sensitivities.
3. For each node, determine the distance from the master nodes NX
1 nodes
and the product of the distance and nodal sensitivity. FCov−A ¼ C1=2
i;i → Min! ð12Þ
N nodes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4. Find the maximum value and designate the corresponding node i¼1
as a sampled node, i.e., add it to the master nodes.
5. Repeat from Step 3 until a sufficient number of nodes has been FCov−D ¼ ðdetðCÞÞð1=2NÞ → Min! ð13Þ
selected.
Note that the computation of the hydraulics and the sensitivity is A similar method, based on a sensitivity matrix, can be found in
required only once, and only the distances are recalculated at each de Schaetzen et al. (2000). The idea is to maximize the sensitivity
step. This ensures a low computational time, even in the case of that the measured nodes cover, mathematically
large networks.
X
N edges
FSmax ¼ aj ; aj ¼ maxðSi;j Þ → Max! ð14Þ
i
j¼1
Comparison of Measurement Layouts
which means the sum of the columnwise maximum values, and this
This section presents a detailed comparison of different sensor basically maximizes the sensitivity of the measured nodes. In de
placement strategies, including the proposed technique and other Schaetzen et al. (2000) the entropy of the sensitivity is also used:
approaches available in the literature. The previously presented
calibration technique is used for every method during the compari- X
N edges
aj
son to ensure low CPU time. This ensures that once the sampling FShannon ¼ − bj lnðbj Þ; bj ¼ P → Max! ð15Þ
nodes are designated, the calibration process will be the same for all j¼1 j aj

methods. The analysis that follows uses six WDSs with increasing
complexity, whose main parameters are listed in Table 2 and the
layouts of the networks are depicted in Fig. 2. The steps of the
analysis are as follows.
• Fix the number of pressure measurement points: N sampled .
• Perform a hydraulic analysis with nominal friction values and
average demands. Save all nodal pressure data. This simulates
the measurement, and the corresponding pressure values are de-
noted by pmeas.
• By means of a sampling layout design technique, choose
N sampled sampling nodes.
• Perturb all nominal friction parameter values by a random
number with normal distribution (0 expected value and 20%
standard deviation). Perform calibration using the perturbed
frictions as initial values and evaluate the error, that is, the norm
of the difference between the nominal and calibrated model
pressure at all nodes, mathematically
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN nodes
i¼1 ðpmod;i − pmeas;i Þ
ep ¼
N nodes
While in de Schaetzen et al. (2000) one objective function
was defined by taking the weighted sum of the two method, the
present analysis deals with these theories separately, similarly to
Klapcsik et al. (2017).
Finally, in de Schaetzen et al. (2000) graph theory is used
(similar to the proposed technique); the weights in the definition
of distance are the lengths of the pipelines. With this approach,
the next sensors are located as far away from each other and the
sources as possible (in a geographical sense). This approach adds
the sensors one by one. Hence, there is no need for optimization as
in the case of the first four approaches. The mentioned techniques
are summarized in Table 3.
Test Networks
In this section, six networks are used for comparison. The first net-
work is entirely artificial, and it is a regular 4 × 4 grid network. The
2

next two systems are well known from the literature: the Anytown
ð10Þ and C-town networks. While the fourth one, KY2, is still artificial,

• Repeat this process 100 times, then compute the average and
standard deviation of the ep errors. For a given number of sam- Table 3. Sensor placement methods for roughness calibration in the
pling nodes, one layout is superior to another one if the average literature
of ep is smaller. It is expected that the calibration error will van- Name Short notation Optimization Reference
ish if all nodes are sampled.
Covariance Cov-A/Cov-D Yes Lansey
Note that in a real-life case, ep is not available since only the
(A-optimal/D-optimal) et al. (2001)
sampled pressures are known. However, the authors think that this Sensitivity Smax Yes de Schaetzen
quantity gives an objective way of comparing different sampling maximization et al. (2000)
strategies, at least for artificial test cases. Shannon entropy Shannon Yes de Schaetzen
et al. (2000)
Shortest path Spath No de Schaetzen
Standard Sampling Methods et al. (2000)
The standard sampling methods found in the literature are briefly Hydraulic distance HDS No Presented
with sensitivity in this paper
described; for a complete description, see the cited papers. The first

© ASCE 04019070-7 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 Grid network Anytown
Cov-A Cov-A
1 Cov-D 1 Cov-D
Smax Smax
Shannon Shannon
Spath Spath
0.8 HDS 0.8 HDS
ep / max(ep ) [-]

ep / max(ep ) [-]
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2
0.2

0
0 0 5 10 15 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
no. of sensors
no. of sensors
Fig. 4. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average
Fig. 3. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average
as error bars) as function of number of sensors for Anytown network.
as error bars) as function of number of sensors for 4 × 4 Grid network.

the final two networks are real-life WDSs near Sopron, Hungary.
The network layouts can be found in Fig. 2 while some of the es-
sential characteristic data are provided in Table 2.
As mentioned, the first system for the comparison is a simple,
4 × 4 grid network, for which all parameters (e.g., pipe length, no-
dal demand) are identical. The pressure source is located at the top
left corner and a prescribed amount of water is fed into the system
at the bottom right corner, which is equal to the total nominal con-
sumption, i.e., there is no water entering at the prescribed pressure
point. The second system is the Anytown network described in
Walski et al. (1987). In the case of these networks (Grid and Any-
town), due to the small number of nodes, it was possible to perform
full enumeration, that is, for a given sensor number, evaluate all
possible combinations of the sampling nodes and compare the
objective function (FCov−A , FCov−D , FSmax , FShannon ) results and
choose the optimal layout (minimum or maximum) for each
method.
The results for the Grid network can be seen in Fig. 3 and those
for the Anytown system in Fig. 4. The average pressure error de-
fined by Eq. (10) (including the pressure error of the unsampled
nodes) is depicted against the number of sensors. In addition,
the standard deviation of the average, based on 100 calibrations,
is depicted using error bars. For the Grid network, the Spath
and Shannon techniques provide slow convergence, and the
Cov-A technique gives slightly (but not significantly) slower con-
vergence than the rest of the techniques. In the case of the Anytown
system, Smax and the HDS techniques provide the fastest conver-
determining the objective function for every possible scenario (di-
rect enumeration) was impossible (the number of potential layouts,
e.g., for five sensors only, is approximately 8.2 × 1010 ). Thus,
MATLAB’s built-in discrete genetic algorithm was used to find
a solution close to optimal for all techniques except the Spath
and HDS methods, which do not require any optimization. The re-
sults for C-town can be seen in Fig. 5, where Smax outperforms the
other techniques, HDS performs second best, and Spath is slightly
behind them. In the case of KY2 (Fig. 6) four techniques converge
similarly, but HDS is slightly ahead of Smax. In Fig. 9 the optimal
measurement layout depicts the cases corresponding to sampling
with less than 20% error. In the case of C-town, the Smax method
requires 16 sensors, while HDS requires 29, but the other tech-
niques could not achieve this goal within 30. On the other hand,
in the case of the KY2 network, HDS needs 15 sensors. Again,
the sensors are well spread out across the network, and they are
mostly found close to the end of the networks or at pressure zone
borders.
C-town
Cov-A
1 Cov-D
Smax
Shannon
Spath
0.8 HDS
ep / max(ep ) [-]

gence. The number of sensors needed to decrease the error of the 0.6
initial “uncalibrated” error to its 20% is also highlighted. These
sensor placement layouts are depicted in Fig. 9. It is easy to see
that these “optimal” layouts are far from the pressure sources (res- 0.4
ervoirs), but they seem to be located close to each other. However,
these sampling points are far from each other in the “hydraulic”
sense in that they are separated by pipes with large frictional pres- 0.2
sure drop due to the high velocity.
The next networks in this comparison are the C-town (Ostfeld
0
et al. 2012) and KY2 (Hwang and Lansey 2017) (see Fig. 2 and 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Table 2 for basic data). These are still hypothetical networks, no. of sensors
but they are already an order of magnitude larger than the previous
Fig. 5. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average
ones and contain several pumps, pressure-reducing valves, and so
as error bars) as function of number of sensors for C-town network.
forth. Since even the C-town network includes over 400 nodes,

© ASCE 04019070-8 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 KY2 Sopron Network II
Cov-A Cov-A
1 Cov-D 1 Cov-D
Smax Smax
Shannon Shannon
Spath Spath
0.8 HDS 0.8 HDS
ep / max(ep) [-]

ep / max(ep ) [-]
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
no. of sensors no. of sensors
Fig. 6. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average Fig. 8. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average
as error bars) as function of number of sensors for KY2 network. as error bars) as function of number of sensors for Network II from
Sopron Waterworks.

Real-Life WDSs
The real water distribution networks are derived from Sopron, a city
in Hungary where several tens of thousands of people live and the
examined systems are in different zones. Their technical data can be
found in Table 2, and the layouts are depicted in Fig. 2. Similarly to
the C-town case, for the evaluation of the optimization methods,
MATLAB’s built-in genetic algorithm function was used. The re-
sults can be seen in Figs. 7 and 8. At SN-I HDS, the Smax and
Spath techniques are relatively close to each other, the latter slightly
outsmarts the others, while at SN-II Shannon is also among the best
ones. It is interesting to note that these networks only require four
(SN-I) and two (SN-II) transducers to achieve a sufficiently cali-
brated model. Moreover, the placement of additional sensors does
not increase the accuracy significantly. The optimal sensor place-
ments are depicted in Fig. 9. Similarly to C-town, the transducers
Sopron Network I
Cov-A
1 Cov-D
Smax
Shannon
0.8
Spath
HDS
ep / max(ep ) [-]
are widely spread out and are mostly located around the edge of the
network.
Finally, it is essential to highlight the CPU time that is required
to find an optimal layout. Table 4 contains the runtime values in
seconds for both Sopron networks and C-town. It can be seen that
the covariance-based methods (Cov-A and Cov-D) require a mas-
sive amount of CPU time since they contain expensive matrix op-
erations (e.g., pseudoinverse, determinant). In contrast, the HDS
and Spath techniques are computationally inexpensive.
Conclusions
This paper introduced an objective comparison of different sensor
placement techniques for roughness calibration. A novel calibration
technique for hydraulic systems was introduced that is capable of
adjusting the roughness coefficients of each pipe individually with
low CPU time, creating the possibility of statistical comparison be-
tween sampling strategies.
The proposed calibration technique is based on the least-norm
solution of underdetermined linear systems utilizing SVD and
pseudoinverse. This approach is deterministic in the sense that,
even though the parameter vector is improved in several steps,
no heuristic optimization method is used. A novel iteration-free
pressure sensor placement strategy was also proposed based on

0.6 the combination of nodal sensitivities and hydraulic distance, en-

suring that the sampling nodes are both sensitive to parameter
variation and are independent of each other, i.e., they are widely
0.4 spread over the WDS.
The proposed technique was compared to existing sensor layout
strategies utilizing statistical comparison on several WDSs of
0.2
varying size and complexity. The evaluation criterion was the dis-
crepancy between the initial “real” pressure distribution and the
0
calibrated ones at every node. For the two small networks (Grid
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 layout and Anytown) it was possible to perform full enumeration,
no. of sensors that is, the objective function was evaluated for every sensor place-
ment method (that required optimization) and for every possible
Fig. 7. Average error of calibration (with standard deviation of average
sensor layout, an optimal one was chosen for each case.
as error bars) as function of number of sensors for Network I from
It was found that the performance of the proposed technique
Sopron Waterworks.
is competitive against the existing approaches. For most hydraulic

© ASCE 04019070-9 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. “Ideal” sensor placements for each network with minimum number of sensors required to decrease initial (uncalibrated) error to 20%.

systems, the Spath, Smax, and the presented HDS technique gives The main advantage of the proposed technique lies in its com-
the most accurate calibration for a given number of sensors. petitive performance and its computational efficiency. Apart from
However, the Spath technique struggled with the Grid layout the C-town problem, the HDS technique gave similar results to the
(consisting of many identical pipes). It was also interesting to Smax approach within a fraction of the CPU time (Table 4). The
see that the tree-like C-town system turned out to be a “challeng- authors speculate that this advantage becomes more pronounced
ing” problem for all approaches, clearly because of its lack of topo- with increases in network size. Furthermore, HDS is free from
logical connectivity. any unpredictability found in heuristic optimization techniques.
However, how uncertainties of other model parameters (e.g., de-
mand, pipe diameter) affected the presented HDS technique is a
Table 4. CPU time in seconds to calculate optimal measurement layouts question for further research.
for different methods Considering the “best layouts” for calibration (Fig. 9), it can be
concluded that the pressure transducers should be located far from
Network Cov-A Cov-D Smax Shannon Spath HDS
points of prescribed pressure; moreover, they were also found to be
C-town 6,750 3,200 40 20 4 <1 “hydraulically far away” from each other, which was observed
KY2 4,000 11,800 32 30 6 <1 regardless of the actual sensor deployment technique. However,
SN-I 400 100 10 10 3 <1 in the case of tree-like networks, it is important to cover as many
SN-II 8,750 2,066 20 14 10 <1
branches as possible.

© ASCE 04019070-10 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070

 Data Availability Statement
The source code of the in-house hydraulic solver (STACI) can be
obtained from GitHub (https://github.com/hoscsaba/staci). More-
over, it has a graphical interface that is also available (http://www
.hds.bme.hu/staci_web/). This requires a user account that can be
requested from the authors. The WDNs presented in the paper, the
additional C/C++ codes, and the MATLAB codes are also available
from the authors by request. The figures and tables presented in the
article are available upon request from the authors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was supported by the Higher
Education Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capaci-
ties within the framework of the Water Science & Disaster Preven-
tion research program of the Budapest University of Technology
and Economics (BME FIKP-VÍZ).
References
Barabási, A. L. 2016. Network science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Behzadian, K., Z. Kapelan, D. Savic, and A. Ardeshir. 2009. “Stochastic
sampling design using a multi-objective genetic algorithm and adaptive
neural networks.” Environ. Modell. Software 24 (4): 530–541. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.09.013.
Berry, J. W., W. E. Hart, C. A. Phillips, J. G. Uber, and J.-P. Watson. 2006.
“Sensor placement in municipal water networks with temporal integer
programming models.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 132 (4): 218–
224. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:4(218).
Bush, C. A., and J. G. Uber. 1998. “Sampling design methods for water
distribution model calibration.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
124 (6): 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1998)
124:6(334).
Cheng, W., and Z. He. 2011. “Calibration of nodal demand in water
distribution systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 137 (1): 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000093.
Csardi, G., and T. Nepusz. 2012. Igraph reference manual, 812.
Davis, T. A. 2004. “Algorithm 832: UMFPACK V4.3, an unsymmetric-
pattern multifrontal method.” ACM Trans. Math. Software 30 (2): 1–4.
de Schaetzen, W., G. Walters, and D. Savic. 2000. “Optimal sampling
design for model calibration using shortest path, genetic and entropy
algorithms.” Urban Water 2 (2): 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S1462-0758(00)00052-2.
Dini, M., and M. Tabesh. 2014. “A new method for simultaneous calibra-
tion of demand pattern and Hazen-Williams coefficients in water dis-
tribution systems.” Water Resour. Manage. 28 (7): 2021–2034. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0592-4.
Do, N. C., A. R. Simpson, M. Asce, J. W. Deuerlein, and O. Piller. 2016.
“Calibration of water demand multipliers in water distribution systems
using genetic algorithms.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 142 (11):
4016044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000691.
Du, K., R.-Y. Ding, Z.-H. Wang, Z.-G. Song, B.-F. Xu, M. Zhou, Y. Bai,
and J. Zhang. 2018. “Direct inversion algorithm for pipe resistance
coefficient calibration of water distribution systems.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 144 (7): 04018027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.0000948.
Gael, G., and J. Benoi. 2010. “Eigen v3.” Accessed October 08, 2019.
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org.
Gao, T. 2014. “Efficient identification of segments in water distribution
networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 140 (6): 04014003.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000395.
Gao, T. 2017. “Roughness and demand estimation in water distribution net-
works using head loss adjustment.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
143 (12): 04017070. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452
.0000845.
© ASCE 04019070-11
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070
Giustolisi, O., and L. Berardi. 2011. “Water distribution network calibration
using enhanced GGA and topological analysis.” J. Hydroinf. 13 (4):
621. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2010.088.
Greco, M. 1999. “New approach to water distribution network calibration.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 125 (8): 849–854. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(1999)125:8(849).
Hart, W. E., and R. Murray. 2010. “Review of sensor placement strategies
for contamination warning systems in drinking water distribution sys-
tems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 136 (6): 611–619. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000081.
Hwang, H., and K. Lansey. 2017. “Water distribution system classification
using system characteristics and graph-theory metrics.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 143 (12): 04017071. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000850.
Kang, D., and K. Lansey. 2009. “Real-time demand estimation and
confidence limit analysis for water distribution systems.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 135 (10): 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0000086.
Kang, D., and K. Lansey. 2011. “Demand and roughness estimation in
water distribution systems.” Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 137 (1):
20–30. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000086.
Kapelan, Z. S., D. A. Savic, and G. A. Walters. 2003. “Multiobjective sam-
pling design for water distribution model calibration.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 129 (6): 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2003)129:6(466).
Kapelan, Z. S., D. A. Savic, and G. A. Walters. 2005. “Optimal sampling
design methodologies for water distribution model calibration.” J. Hy-
draul. Eng. 131 (3): 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9429(2005)131:3(190).
Kapelan, Z. S., D. A. Savic, and G. A. Walters. 2007. “Calibration of water
distribution hydraulic models using a Bayesian-type procedure.” J. Hy-
draul. Eng. 133 (8): 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9429(2007)133:8(927).
Khedr, A., B. Tolson, and S. Ziemann. 2015. “Water distribution system
calibration: Manual versus optimization-based approach.” Procedia
Eng. 119 (1): 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.926.
Klapcsik, K., R. Varga, and C. Hős. 2017. “Optimal pressure measurement
layout design in water distribution network systems.” Periodica Poly-
technica Mech. Eng. 62 (1): 51–64. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPme
.11409.
Koppel, T., and A. Vassiljev. 2009. “Calibration of a model of an opera-
tional water distribution system containing pipes of different age.” Adv.
Eng. Software 40 (8): 659–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft
.2008.11.015.
Krause, A., J. Leskovec, C. Guestrin, J. VanBriesen, and C. Faloutsos.
2008. “Efficient sensor placement optimization for securing large water
distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 134 (6): 516–
526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:6(516).
Kun, D., L. Tian-Yu, W. Jun-Hui, and G. Jin-Song. 2015. “Inversion model
of water distribution systems for nodal demand calibration.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 141 (9): 04015002. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000506.
Laird, C. L., L. T. Biegler, B. G. van Bloemen Waanders, and A. R. Bartlett.
2005. “Contamination source characterization for water networks.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 131 (2): 125–134. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2005)131:2(125).
Lansey, K. E., W. El-Shorbagy, I. Ahmed, J. Araujo, and C. T. Haan. 2001.
“Calibration assessment and data collection for water distribution net-
works.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (4): 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:4(270).
Lee, B. H., and R. A. Deininger. 1992. “Optimal locations of monitoring
stations in water distribution system.” J. Environ. Eng. 118 (1): 4–16.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1992)118:1(4).
Leskovec, J. 2014. Dimensionality reduction, 384–414. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mallick, K. N., I. Ahmed, K. S. Tickle, and K. Lansey. 2002. “Determining
pipe groupings for water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 128 (Apr): 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2002)128:2(130).
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Meirelles, G., D. Manzi, B. Brentan, T. Goulart, and E. Luvizotto. 2017.
“Calibration model for water distribution network using pressures esti-
mated by artificial neural networks.” Water Resour. Manage. 31 (13):
4339–4351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1750-2.
Morosini, A. F., F. Costanzo, P. Veltri, and D. Savić. 2014. “Identification
of measurement points for calibration of water distribution network
models.” Procedia Eng. 89: 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng
.2014.11.496.
Ormsbee, L. 1989. “Implicit network calibration.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage. 115 (2): 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(1989)115:2(243).
Ostfeld, A., et al. 2008. “The battle of the water sensor networks (BWSN):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore" on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A design challenge for engineers and algorithms.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 134 (6): 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2008)134:6(556).
Ostfeld, A., et al. 2012. “Battle of the water calibration networks.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 138 (5): 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000191.
Rossman, L. A. 2000. Vol. 38 of EPANET 2: Users manual. Cincinnati:
Cincinnati US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
Sanz, G., and R. Pérez. 2015. “Sensitivity analysis for sampling design and
demand calibration in water distribution networks using the singular
value decomposition.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 141 (10):
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000535.
Todini, E., and S. Pilati. 1987. “A gradient method for the analysis of pipe
networks.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Computer Applications for Water
Supply and Distribution. Leicester, UK: Leicester Polytechnic.
© ASCE 04019070-12
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(1): 04019070
Walski, T. M. 1983. “Technique for calibrating network models.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 109 (4): 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9496(1983)109:4(360).
Walski, T. M., et al. 1987. “Battle of the network models: Epilogue.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 113 (2): 191–203. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1987)113:2(191).
Xie, X., H. Zhang, and D. Hou. 2017. “Bayesian approach for joint esti-
mation of demand and roughness in water distribution systems.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 143 (8): 04017034. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000791.
Xu, J., P. S. Fischbeck, M. J. Small, J. M. VanBriesen, and E. Casman.
2008. “Identifying sets of key nodes for placing sensors in dynamic
water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
134 (4): 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)
134:4(378).
Yu, G., and R. S. Powell. 1994. “Optimal design of meter placement in
water distribution systems.” Int. J. Syst. Sci. 25 (12): 2155–2166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207729408949342.
Zhang, Q., F. Zheng, H.-F. Duan, Y. Jia, T. Zhang, and X. Guo. 2018.
“Efficient numerical approach for simultaneous calibration of pipe
roughness coefficients and nodal demands for water distribution sys-
tems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 144 (10): 04018063. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000986.
Zheng, F., J. Du, K. Diao, T. Zhang, T. Yu, and Y. Shao. 2018. “Investigat-
ing effectiveness of sensor placement strategies in contamination
detection within water distribution systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage. 144 (4): 06018003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943
-5452.0000919.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.