Water Quality Parameter Estimation in Steady-State

Distribution System
G. R. Munavalli1 and M. S. Mohan Kumar 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The maintenance of chlorine residual is needed at all the points in the distribution system supplied with chlorine as a
disinfectant. The propagation and level of chlorine in a distribution system is affected by both bulk and pipe wall reactions. It is well
known that the field determination of wall reaction parameter is difficult. The source strength of chlorine to maintain a specified chlorine
residual at a target node is also an important parameter. The inverse model presented in the paper determines these water quality
parameters, which are associated with different reaction kinetics, either in single or in groups of pipes. The weighted-least-squares method
based on the Gauss–Newton minimization technique is used for the estimation of these parameters. The validation and application of the
inverse model is illustrated with an example pipe distribution system under steady state. A generalized procedure to handle noisy and bad
共abnormal兲 data is suggested, which can be used to estimate these parameters more accurately. The developed inverse model is useful for
water supply agencies to calibrate their water distribution system and to improve their operational strategies to maintain water quality.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9496共2003兲129:2共124兲
CE Database keywords: Decay; Disinfectants; Water quality; Chlorine; Water distribution.

Introduction able to assume, for network modeling purposes, first-order kinet-

The most predominantly used water treatment disinfectant is
chlorine. Because of chlorine’s oxidizing potential, minimum lev-
els of chlorine residual must be maintained in the distribution
system to preserve both chemical and microbial quality of treated
water 共Vasconcelos et al. 1997兲. It is a well known fact that as
chlorine travels through the distribution system, it reacts with
different materials inside the pipe. Free chlorine is consumed on
the one hand by water 共oxidation of dissolved organic com-
pounds兲 and on the other hand by the internal walls of pipes
共Frateur et al. 1999兲. As most of the distribution systems are old
and made up of unlined cast iron pipes, the wall component of
reaction plays an important role in chlorine reaction kinetics.
Studies on chlorine decay rates in single lengths of pipe have
revealed that the decay rate in the pipe is several times greater
than the decay rate of the same water in a flask 共Wable et al.
1991兲. These studies suggest that the pipe wall or material at-
tached to the pipe wall is contributing to the overall chlorine
demand observed in distribution systems 共Clark et al. 1995兲.
Rossman et al. 共1994兲 proposed a mass transfer based model of
chlorine decay in pipe networks, with the overall rate of the wall
reaction being affected by the rate at which chlorine can be trans-
ported from the bulk flow to the pipe wall. It is generally reason-
1 quite large as far as water quality modeling in networks is con-
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. E-mail: grm@civil.iisc.ernet.in
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560 012, India 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
msmk@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2003. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on June 26, 2001; approved on February 22, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage-
ment, Vol. 129, No. 2, March 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496/2003/2-
124 –134/$18.00.
ics for both bulk and overall decay 共Powell et al. 2000兲. However,
some studies show that the chlorine decay kinetics may also be
best described by second-order kinetics 共Clark 1998; Clark and
Sivaganesan 1998兲 and a semiempirical combined first- and
second-order model 共Fang Hua et al. 1999兲 in the bulk phase. The
bulk reaction parameter for first- and second-order kinetics can be
determined by bottle tests. The wall reactions can be described
either by first order or zero-order kinetics. There is currently no
established method for directly determining the kinetics of chlo-
rine decay attributable to pipe wall reactions, and calibration
against field data must be used instead 共Vasconcelos et al. 1997兲.
In the earlier studies Vasconcelos et al. 共1997兲 have performed
a water quality calibration by sequentially adjusting the chlorine
wall reaction parameter to give the best fit between the predicted
and observed field measurements. Clark et al. 共1995兲 also used
the trial and error approach for adjusting wall reaction parameters
to simulate chlorine residual. Islam et al. 共1997兲 developed the
inverse model and the model determines only the source concen-
tration共s兲 required to meet specified concentrations at selected
nodes directly for the even determined case for a system under
dynamic state. In their study, Islam et al. 共1997兲 used first order
chlorine decay coefficient and no attempt is made to estimate this
reaction coefficient as a part of their inverse model. In their analy-
sis, Islam et al. 共1997兲 used a simulation time step of 1 h which is
cerned. The use of a larger time step may lead to a situation where
information on water quality 共chlorine decay兲 is not transferred
properly to the next time step. The selection of time step in water
quality analysis is an important aspect of study as it affects both
the stability of finite difference schemes and the simulation of
water quality behavior in the network. If this time step is not
selected properly and if it is large, the rapid changes in water
quality occurring in the pipe network may be missed entirely,
leading to the incorrect estimation of water quality behavior in the
network. This incorrect information may lead to an incorrect es-
timation of the source concentration. But by taking a smaller time

124 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 step this can be corrected. However, it should be noted that this
fine segmentation will lead to a large work load to solve even a
small network. Further, the numerical schemes used for the in-
verse simulation introduce numerical diffusion 共Islam et al.
1997兲. More recently, Al-Omari and Hanif Chaudhry 共2001兲 ex-
tended the procedures developed by Islam et al. 共1997兲 to the
over- and the underdetermined cases for the determination of the
source concentration共s兲 and the overall first-order chlorine decay
coefficient共s兲. Al-Omari and Hanif Chaudhry 共2001兲 have not
handled mixed estimation of source concentration共s兲 and chlorine
decay coefficient共s兲. The above works are based only on overall
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
equations cannot be solved directly. Hence in the model these
equations are solved by the Tewarson–Chen adaptation of the
Newton–Raphson iterative technique. The above procedure is
valid for a case where initial flows satisfy the node continuity. To
obtain an initial solution satisfying the linear set of equations
from any assumed solution the procedure illustrated by Tewarson
and Chen 共1985兲 is used.
Water Quality Model
The steady-state concentration of any constituent at any node j
can be formulated as

first order reaction kinetics and no due consideration is given to N

wall related reactions. Also the Eulerian methods are less memory 兺 i⫽1
inp j
Cncnui Reci Q i
efficient in simulating the chemical transport 共Rossman and Bou- Cnc j ⫽ N
; j⫽1, . . . ,N jn (1)
los 1996兲. Thus there is a need to develop the inverse model 兺 i⫽1
inp j
Qi
which can predict the required parameters 共source concentrations where Cnc j ⫽concentration at node j (mg/L); Cncnui
and reaction parameters兲 more accurately, considering the wall
⫽concentration at node nui (mg/L); N inp j ⫽number of incoming
related reaction kinetics and nonfirst-order bulk reaction kinetics
in the overall reaction process. The splitting of overall reaction pipes at node j; nui ⫽upstream node of incoming pipe i; Q i ⫽flow
term into bulk and wall components is significant since bulk re- in pipe i (m3 /s); N jn ⫽number of nodes in the network; and
action parameters can be estimated by bottle tests, whereas the Reci ⫽reaction coefficient for pipe i.
wall reaction parameters are difficult to determine in the field. The expression for the reaction coefficient depends on the ki-
In the present study the inverse model, which determines the netics used for bulk and wall reactions. In the following sections
water quality parameters accurately, is developed and applied to a the differential equations representing the various combinations
steady state distribution system. The water quality parameters to of first- or second-order bulk reactions and first- or zero-order
be estimated using different bulk and wall reaction kinetics in- wall reactions 共Rossman et al. 1994; Vasconcelos et al. 1997;
clude the wall reaction parameters, source strength of chlorine Rossman 2000兲 are discussed along with the corresponding reac-
共the source chlorine concentration共s兲 required to meet specified tion coefficient.
concentrations at a target node共s兲 in the distribution system兲, or 1. First-order bulk and first order wall reactions:
mixed parameters consisting of both these. The inverse model dCncnui k w,1i k f i
utilizes the Gauss–Newton method which is based on sensitivity ⫽⫺k b,1i Cncnui ⫺ Cncnui (2)
analysis technique and is being widely used for parameter estima- dt r hi 共 k w,1i ⫹k f i 兲
tion in groundwater studies. The weighted least squares 共WLS兲
method based on the Gauss–Newton minimization algorithm has
also been used in the past by Datta and Sridharan 共1994兲 and
冉
Reci ⫽exp ⫺k b,1i ⫺
k w,1i k f i
r hi 共 k w,1i ⫹k f i 兲 冊
ptt i (3)

Niranjan Reddy et al. 共1996兲 for parameter estimation in water
distribution systems. In the present study, the above method is
used for the estimation of water quality parameters in a water
distribution system. The prediction of concentrations and hence
the estimation of parameters by the inverse model is more accu-
rate as the direct analysis of the steady state water quality model
is an integral part of the inverse model. The inverse model devel-
where ptt i ⫽travel time in pipe i (s); r hi ⫽hydraulic radius of pipe
i (m); k w,1i ⫽first order wall reaction parameter of pipe i (m/s);
k b,1i ⫽first order bulk reaction parameter of pipe i (s⫺1 );
k f i ⫽mass transfer coefficient of pipe i (m/s)⫽(D/d i )S hi , where
d i ⫽diameter of pipe i (m); and D⫽molecular diffusivity of chlo-
rine 共m2/s兲; S hi ⫽Sherwood number of pipe i and is given by
Rossman 共2000兲 for Ri ⭐2,300 共Laminar flow兲

冉冊
oped is an alternative to the trial–error and finite difference ap-
di
proach to compute the water quality parameters in a more direct 0.0668 R Sc
fashion. In the following sections the development, validation, Li i

冉冉 冊 冊
S hi ⫽3.65⫹ 2/3 (4)
applicability, and usefulness of the inverse model is illustrated di
1⫹0.04 R Sc
using a large multiple source water distribution system under Li i
steady state conditions.
for Ri ⬎2300

Mathematical Model S hi ⫽0.0149Ri0.88Sc1/3 (5)

Direct Analysis Model
The direct steady-state analysis of the system consists of two
parts, viz., hydraulic analysis and water quality modeling.
where Sc⫽Schmidt number⫽␯/D; ␯⫽kinematic viscosity
共m2/s兲; L i ⫽length of pipe i (m); Ri ⫽Reynolds number of pipe
i⫽u i d i /␯; u i ⫽velocity of flow in pipe i (m/s).
2. First-order bulk and zero-order wall reactions

Hydraulic Analysis Model

In the present study the hydraulic model developed by Niranjan
dCncnui
dt
⫽⫺k b,1i Cncnui ⫺Min 冉 k w,0i k f i
,
r hi r hi
Cncnui 冊 (6)

Reddy 共1994兲 is used to generate the hydraulic scenario. The If (k w,0i /r hi ) is minimum then the reaction coefficient is given
mathematical model is formulated in terms of conservation of by

冋 册
flow 共node continuity兲 and conservation of energy 共loop/path con- k w,0i 共 1⫺e k b,1i ptt i 兲 e ⫺k b,1i ptt i
tinuity兲 equations. Since the loop/path equations are nonlinear, the Reci ⫽ Cncnui ⫹ (7)
complete set of linear 共node continuity兲 and nonlinear 共loop/path兲 k b,1i r hi Cncnui

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 125

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 If (k f i /r hi )Cncnui is minimum then reaction coefficient is where Cno j ⫽observed value of chlorine concentration at jth node
given by 共mg/L兲; Cnc j ⫽computed value of chlorine concentration at jth

冉 冊
node 共mg/L兲; W j ⫽weight associated with jth node; and
kfi M⫽number of nodes where the chlorine concentration is ob-
Reci ⫽exp ⫺k b,1i ⫺ ptt i (8)
r hi served.
where k w,0i ⫽zero order wall reaction parameter for pipe
i (mg/m2 /s). Gauss–Newton Algorithm
3. Second-order bulk and first-order wall reactions As the objective function is nonlinear in nature, minimization of
the equation must be carried out iteratively. Using the Taylor
dCncnui k w,1i k f i series expansion, the expression for the variable Cnc j can be lin-
⫽⫺k b,2i Cncnu
2
⫺ Cncnui (9)
dt i r hi 共 k w,1i ⫹k f i 兲 earized as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N up
kwf ⳵Cnc
Reci ⫽
e k w f ptt i 共 k w f ⫹Cncnui k b,2i 兲 ⫺k b,2i Cncnui
(10) Cnc j ⫽Cnc*j ⫹ 兺 j

l⫽1 ⳵kws l*
⌬kws l (15)

where k w f ⫽k w,1i k f i / 关 r hi (k w,1i ⫹k f i ) 兴 ; and k b,2i ⫽second-order where Cnc j ⫽improved value of jth nodal concentration 共mg/L兲;
bulk reaction parameter 共L/mg/s兲. Cnc*j ⫽computed value of Cnc j corresponding to kws * l (mg/L);
If k w,1i is zero then ⳵Cnc j /⳵kws *
l ⫽sensitivity coefficient of jth nodal value with re-
1 spect to lth parameter; kws l* ⫽initial trial value of lth parameter
Reci ⫽ (11) or the values obtained from the previous iteration; and
共 1⫹Cncnui k b,2i ptt i 兲
⌬kws l ⫽increment to kws * l .
4. Second-order bulk and zero-order wall reactions The evaluation of sensitivity coefficient is discussed later. If
sensitivity coefficients are known, by substituting Eq. 共15兲 into
dCncnui
⫽⫺k b,2i Cncnu
2
⫺Min 冉 k w,0i k f i
冊 objective function Eq. 共14兲 we get

冋 册
, Cncnui (12)
dt i r hi r hi M N up 2
⳵Cnc j
In the case of (k w,0i /r hi ) being minimum the above differential E⫽ 兺 Wj
j⫽1
Cno j ⫺Cnc*j ⫺ 兺 ⳵kws l* ⌬kws l
l⫽1
(16)
equation is solved numerically by Runge–Kutta fourth order
method up to time equal to the travel time of that pipe. If the To minimize the objective function, the partial derivatives of
numerically computed value is Cncr then the reaction coefficient the objective function with respect to the correction to the param-
is given by eters ⌬kws l are equated to zero. The resulting equations are

Reci ⫽
Cncr
Cncnui
(13)
N up

冋 M
⳵Cnc ⳵Cnc
兺 兺 W j ⳵kws l*j ⳵kws m*j
m⫽1 j⫽1
册 ⌬kws m

If (k f i /r hi )Cncnui is minimum then reaction coefficient is M

⳵Cnc
given by Eq. 共10兲 with k w f ⫽k f i /r hi . ⫽ 兺
j⫽1 ⳵kws *
j
关 Cno j ⫺Cnc j 兴 ; l⫽1, . . . ,N up (17)
If N sn is the number of source nodes, then the above formula- l
tion 关Eq. 共1兲兴 with appropriate reaction kinetics results in (N jn This equation represents N up linear equations in the unknowns,
⫺N sn) number of linear equations. An iterative procedure based ⌬kws l , l⫽1, . . . ,N up .
on the Gauss–Siedel algorithm is adopted to solve the equations. Then the corrected parameters are obtained by
The converged solution gives steady-state chlorine concentrations
at all the nodes for a given source chlorine concentrations. kws lp⫹1 ⫽kws lp ⫹⌬kws l (18)
An integrated steady-state direct analysis water quality model
where kws lp⫹1 ⫽improved parameter value; kws lp ⫽previous
itera-
combining both the hydraulic and quality modules is developed.
tion parameter value; and p⫽iteration level.
The model is also incorporated with a routine to determine the
To ensure the convergence to a minimum for the initial as-
source contributions at a node from various sources. The source
sumption in any region of the parametric space, the following
contribution computation is based on the technique given in
constraints on the relative changes of the parameters are imposed
Wood and Ormsbee 共1989兲.
as given below 共Datta and Sridharan 1994兲:
⌬kws l
Inverse Model for Parameter Estimation ⫺0.2⭐ ⭐0.5 (19)
kws l
The objective is to estimate the set of unknown parameters 共wall
reaction parameters, source strength of chlorine or mixed兲 kws l , Evaluation of Sensitivity Coefficients
l⫽1, . . . N up , where N up is the total number of unknown param- The sensitivity coefficients are evaluated using parameter pertur-
eters. The unknown parameters are to be estimated such that com- bation technique. In this technique the sensitivity coefficient is
puted values of chlorine concentration at observation 共target兲 evaluated using forward finite difference approximation and is
nodes match well with the corresponding observed values. given by
Objective Function ⳵Cnc j Cnc j 兩 kws l ⫹␦kws l ⫺Cnc j 兩 kws l
The objective function is given by ⫽ (20)
⳵kws l ␦kws l
M
where Cnc j 兩 kws l ⫹␦kws l ⫽computed concentration of chlorine at jth
E⫽ 兺 W j 关 Cnoj ⫺Cncj 兴 2
j⫽1
(14)
node with parameter value of kws l ⫹␦kws l ; Cnc j 兩 kws l

126 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 ⫽computed concentration of chlorine at jth node with parameter
value of kws l ; and ␦kws l ⫽finite difference increment
(0.005– 0.02 kws l ).
This technique requires perturbing each parameter one at a
time and solving the direct steady state water quality analysis
problem. If there are N up of parameters to be estimated, the net-
work is analyzed N up⫹1 times in each outer iteration.
Estimation of Group Wall Reaction Parameters
The number of parameters to be estimated cannot exceed the
number of observations in order to estimate the parameters accu-
rately. Also Al-Omari and Hanif Chaudhry 共2001兲 observed poor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
estimates of parameters for underdetermined cases. It is practi-
cally difficult to treat each and every pipe wall reaction parameter
as unknown. Hence it is essential to group the pipes so that the
number of groups does not exceed the number of available obser-
vations. The grouping can be based on the age, roughness factor
关Hazen–Williams coefficient 共HWC兲兴 and material of the pipe.
Now each group has an unknown parameter, which in turn is
assigned to individual pipes in that group. At the end of each
iteration, the group parameters are updated and in turn the pipes
in the group are assigned with this updated parameter.
Choice of Weights
The difference between computed and observed values of the
variables is due mainly to two reasons, namely: 共1兲 the conceptual
model may not be an exact representation of the real system and
共2兲 there may be measurement errors. The use of proper choice of
weights has the following advantages: 共1兲 normalizing various
kind of measurements; 共2兲 giving the better weightage to rela-
tively accurate measurements; and 共3兲 eliminating or suppressing
bad measurements. Niranjan Reddy et al. 共1996兲 have discussed
in detail the different weights with their applicability. The follow-
ing weights are applied in the present study:
1. Weights based on measured values 关Weight 共1兲兴
冋 册 n Restore the perturbed parameter
1
W j⫽
Cno j
The power n is varied from 1.0 to 2.0. It shall be noted that the
objective function will be dimensionless if n⫽2.0.
2. Weights based on mean of measured values 关Weight 共2兲兴
冋 册 n
1 rections 关Eq. 共17兲兴
W j⫽
Cnomean
where Cnomean⫽mean of the measurements; and W j ⫽constant for
all measurements.
3. Weights based on error variance 关Weight 共3兲兴
冋 册冋 册
2 2
1 1
W j⫽
␴ Cn Cno j
where ␴ Cn ⫽standard deviation of measurement errors.
4. Iteratively modified weights 关Weight 共4兲兴
The WLS approach with stationary weights based on Eqs.
共21兲, 共22兲, or 共23兲 is used for a specified number of Gauss–
Newton iterations 共say, 5–10兲. After this stage, in each subse-
quent iteration, the modified weights as shown below are used
W j⫽ 冉 冊冋
1
Cno j
n
共 r/Cno兲mean
共 r j /Cno j 兲 册 m
where r j ⫽residue (⫽ 兩 Cno j ⫺Cnc j 兩 ) of jth nodal observation;
(r/Cno兲mean⫽mean of 共residue/observation value兲; and m
⫽1.0– 2.0 like n.
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 127
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134
Fig. 1. Example network
The above approach has potential application in dealing with
bad data directly, in addition to noisy data. In this method, some-
times it is possible that the residue r j may become zero or very
close to zero, which will lead to assigning an infinite weight to
that measurement. To avoid such a case, the following condition
is imposed on weights:
W j ⫽⌫ if 兩 Cno j ⫺Cnc j 兩 ⭐⑀ (25)
where ⑀⫽specified small value; and ⌫⫽specified large weight.
Method of Implementation
The following pseudocode illustrates the iterative steps involved
in the present inverse model.
Read input data: Assumed parameters, error⫽100.0 and per-
missible error
DO WHILE 共Error.Gt.Permissible Error兲
Run steady state direct analysis water quality model
Store the nodal chlorine concentrations
l⫽1
DO WHILE (l.Le.N up)
Perturb the parameter
Run steady state direct analysis water quality model
(21) Compute sensitivity coefficient at observation nodes by Eq.
共20兲
l⫽l⫹1
END DO
Compute Weights 共1兲/共2兲/共3兲/共4兲 by using Eqs. 共21兲–共24兲
Formulate simultaneous linear equations for parameter cor-
(22)
Solve the system of Eqs. for parameter corrections
Update the corrected parameter 关Eq. 共18兲兴
Compute RMS of residue of all parameters
Set Error⫽RMS of residue
END DO
Print results
(23)
Illustration for Small Example
The formulation of equations with effect of weights is discussed
using a small network shown in the Fig. 1. The network consists
of three reservoir nodes 共A, B, and C兲, three consumer nodes, and
six pipes. All the pipes are considered under a single group. The
wall reaction parameter for this group and the chlorine concentra-
tion at Reservoir C constitute the two unknown parameters (kws 1
(24)
and kws 2 ). The observed chlorine concentrations (Cno1 and
Cno2 ) are assumed to be known at Nodes 1 and 2, respectively.
Thus number of parameters to be estimated (N up) and number of
observation nodes 共M兲 are equal to two leading to an evendeter-
mined case. The number of observation nodes can be more than
two, which also constitute an overdetermined case. Then starting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Banglore City water transmission network

with the assumed parameter values (kws * 1 and kws *2 ) all the parameters such as pipe resistances and consumptions. The net-
steps given in the pseudocode are followed up to the formulation work is shown in Fig. 2. The details of the network are given in
of equations and simultaneous linear equations as per Eq. 共17兲 as Datta and Sridharan 共1994兲. A brief description of the network is
given below given here. The network consists of 15 reservoir nodes and three

冉 冊
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc2 ⳵Cnc2 water supply sources. The water supply sources are Cauvery
W1 ⫹W 2 ⌬kws 1 Stage I, Cauvery Stage II, and Arkavathi schemes which supply
⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
1 1.577, 1.682, and 1.577 m3/s, respectively, under normal operat-

冉 冊
ing condition. The operating condition I, in which the direct with-
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc2 ⳵Cnc2
⫹ W1 ⫹W 2 ⌬kws 2 drawls from the transmission mains are cut off and only with-
⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
2 ⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
2 drawls from 14 reservoirs 共as reservoir at node 81 is disconnected
in this operating condition兲 and at some selected nodes are al-
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc2
⫽ 共 Cno1 ⫺Cnc1 兲 ⫹ 共 Cno2 ⫺Cnc2 兲 (26) lowed, is considered for the present study. The pipes are divided
⳵kws *
1 ⳵kws *
1 into three groups as per their association with the three sources of

冉 W1
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc1
⳵kws 2* ⳵kws 1*
⫹W 2
⳵Cnc2 ⳵Cnc2
⳵kws 2* ⳵kws 1* 冊 ⌬kws 1
supply. As the three projects 共Cauvery Stage I, Cauvery Stage II,
and Arkavathi scheme兲 are commissioned in different periods, the
grouping seems to be appropriate. Pipes 1–36, 37–71, and 72–94

冉 冊
with HWC of 106.90, 127.50, and 103.60 共Datta and Sridharan
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc2 ⳵Cnc2
⫹ W1 ⫹W 2 ⌬kws 2 1994兲 form the three groups, respectively.
⳵kws *
2 ⳵kws *
2 ⳵kws *
2 ⳵kws *
2 The first-order kinetics for both bulk and wall reactions is
adopted for validation of the model. The first-order bulk reaction
⳵Cnc1 ⳵Cnc2
⫽ 共 Cno1 ⫺Cnc1 兲 ⫹ 共 Cno2 ⫺Cnc2 兲 (27) parameter used is 2.0 day⫺1, and the wall reaction parameters
⳵kws *
2 ⳵kws *
2 assigned are 0.75, 0.50, and 1.0 m/day for the three groups of
The corrections (⌬kws 1 and ⌬kws 2 ) given by the solution of pipes, respectively. A constant chlorine concentration of 0.75
the above equations are used to update the parameters (kws 1 and mg/L is assumed to be injected from all three sources of supply.
kws 2 ) and convergence error is checked. The iterative process The validation of the model is done in two steps. In the first step
continues until convergence criteria is satisfied. the steady state direct analysis water quality model is run using
the above water quality parameters and the ultimate chlorine con-
centrations are obtained at all the nodes. The results of direct
Model Application, Results, and Discussion analysis steady state water quality model are given in Table 1
along with the percentage source contributions at each node by
To illustrate the verification and application of the inverse model Sources 1, 2, and 3. In the second step the chlorine concentrations
the water transmission main model of Bangalore City in India is at some nodes 共from Table 1兲 are assumed to be the input obser-
chosen. This network is used in the past by Datta and Sridharan vations for the inverse simulation and the parameters considered
共1994兲 and Niranjan Reddy et al. 共1996兲 to estimate the hydraulic to be unknown are estimated by the inverse model using some

128 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 Table 1. Chlorine Concentrations and Source Contributions
Source Contribution 共%兲 By Source Contribution 共%兲 By
Concentration Concentration
Node 共mg/L兲 Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Node 共mg/L兲 Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
1 0.7500 — — — 44 0.2013 0 100 0
2 0.7500 — — — 45 0.3639 0 100 0
3 0.7500 — — — 46 0.3668 0 100 0
4 0.6628 100 0 0 47 0.3897 0 100 0
5 0.6600 100 0 0 48 0.5987 0 100 0
6 0.6113 100 0 0 49 0.5984 0 100 0
7 0.6189 38.5 61.5 0 50 0.5774 13.5 86.5 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 0.5993 100 0 0 51 0.5717 13.5 86.5 0

9 0.5516 100 0 0 52 0.5661 13.5 86.5 0
10 0.5515 100 0 0 53 0.5342 13.5 86.5 0
11 0.5825 100 0 0 54 0.5342 13.5 86.5 0
12 0.5455 100 0 0 55 0.5041 13.5 86.5 0
13 0.4846 100 0 0 56 0.4188 13.5 86.5 0
14 0.4733 100 0 0 57 0.6707 0 0 100
15 0.4306 100 0 0 58 0.4886 37.8 0 62.2
16 0.3826 100 0 0 59 0.2117 100 0 0
17 0.2684 100 0 0 60 0.3284 100 0 0
18 0.3826 100 0 0 61 0.3269 100 0 0
19 0.2541 100 0 0 62 0.3121 100 0 0
20 0.2540 100 0 0 63 0.2680 100 0 0
21 0.2527 100 0 0 64 0.6377 0 0 100
22 0.5819 100 0 0 65 0.4389 0 0 100
23 0.5638 100 0 0 66 0.3754 0 0 100
24 0.5542 100 0 0 67 0.3752 0 0 100
25 0.5808 100 0 0 68 0.3719 0 0 100
26 0.5177 100 0 0 69 0.2494 0 0 100
27 0.4528 100 0 0 70 0.2299 0 0 100
28 0.4084 100 0 0 71 0.3025 0 35.1 64.9
29 0.3684 100 0 0 72 0.4533 37.8 0 62.2
30 0.3606 100 0 0 73 0.6330 0 0 100
31 0.3582 100 0 0 74 0.5863 0 0 100
32 0.3635 100 0 0 75 0.3541 0 100 0
33 0.3635 100 0 0 76 0.2626 0 35.1 64.9
34 0.6794 0 100 0 77 0.3587 0 100 0
35 0.6572 0 100 0 78 0.3895 0 100 0
36 0.6150 0 100 0 79 0.2440 0 100 0
37 0.3897 0 100 0 80 0.3815 100 0 0
38 0.3084 0 100 0 82 0.6535 100 0 0
39 0.2091 0 100 0 83 0.6177 38.5 61.5 0
40 0.1681 21.8 78.2 0 84 0.5765 0 100 0
41 0.1486 21.8 78.2 0 85 0.4181 13.5 86.5 0
42 0.2507 0 100 0 86 0.5391 100 0 0
43 0.2035 0 100 0

initial 共trial兲 estimates for these parameters. The model is consid-
ered to be verified if the parameters are re-established from the
assumed initial estimates by the inverse model. The unknown
water quality parameters to be estimated by the inverse model are
the three group wall reaction parameters and three source concen-
trations. The above validation procedure is carried out by using
various initial estimates of parameters 关viz. over 共10 times true
value兲, under 共1/10 of true value兲, and mixed 共over and under兲兴,
different weights, and the chlorine concentrations 共error free兲 at
14 reservoir nodes given in Table 2. The run of the inverse model
virtually reproduced the corresponding true water quality param-
eter values used in the direct simulation, irrespective of the initial
estimates and weights used. This result verifies the model and
also illustrates the capability of the model of handling the estima-
tion of the mixed water quality parameters.
Application for Estimation of Wall Reaction
Parameters
Although the network represents a real life example, the field
values of chlorine concentrations are not available, hence the
chlorine concentrations obtained by direct simulation at the res-
ervoir nodes 共error free data兲 are corrupted to generate noisy mea-
surements and bad measurements for further application of the
model. In the following two cases, assuming that the source
strength of chlorine 共0.75 mg/L兲 at all source nodes is known, the

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 129

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 Table 2. Error Free and Noisy Chlorine Concentrations 共Conc.兲 for Set 1, Set 2, and Set 3 at Reservoir Nodes in Network
Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3
Error free conc. noisy conc. noisy conc. noisy conc.
Reservoir node 共mg/L兲 共mg/L兲 Error 共%兲 共mg/L兲 Error 共%兲 共mg/L兲 Error 共%兲
72 0.4533 0.4535 0.05 0.4452 1.78 0.4486 1.03
73 0.6330 0.6671 5.11 0.6465 2.13 0.6503 2.74
74 0.5863 0.5783 1.38 0.5982 2.03 0.6302 7.49
75 0.3541 0.3639 2.69 0.3229 8.80 0.3359 5.15
76 0.2626 0.2471 6.27 0.2462 6.25 0.2415 8.03
77 0.3587 0.3631 1.22 0.3705 3.28 0.3564 0.65
78 0.3895 0.3852 1.13 0.4145 6.43 0.4002 2.74
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

79 0.2440 0.2675 8.78 0.2733 12.03 0.2593 6.26

80 0.3815 0.3812 0.07 0.3875 1.57 0.3996 4.76
82 0.6535 0.6642 1.61 0.6788 3.87 0.6233 4.62
83 0.6177 0.6168 0.14 0.6001 2.84 0.6030 2.38
84 0.5765 0.5814 0.85 0.6096 5.74 0.5785 0.36
85 0.4181 0.4260 1.85 0.4082 2.36 0.3954 5.43
86 0.5391 0.5451 1.10 0.5244 2.72 0.5662 5.02

wall reaction parameters are evaluated for noisy data 共Case 1兲 and with these two bad measurements, introduced into error free data
noisy as well as bad 共abnormal兲 data 共Case 2兲. The performance without any noise, resulted in the estimation of true values of all
of different weights in the estimation of parameters is also evalu- the group parameters for any type of initial estimate using Weight
ated for both the cases. 共4兲. This is due to the fact that the method penalizes the largest
residual there by reducing its effect on the final estimates. How-
Case 1: Noisy Data ever, the presence of too many bad values may result in the in-
Three sets of noisy measurements are created by using three dif- correct estimation of parameters.
ferent sets of random errors which are assumed to be normally It is observed from the above two cases that no single method
distributed. The random errors are generated with mean zero and handles both the cases successfully. Hence a generalized proce-
standard deviation of 0.02 mg/L. The total number of data sets is dure is suggested to estimate the wall reaction parameters for
chosen as three for a wider representation of the noisy data. The handling both the cases as accurately as possible. First run the
corrupted 共noisy兲 chlorine concentrations are also given in Table inverse model using Weight 共4兲 and compare the observed and
2 along with the percentage errors introduced with respect to the computed chlorine concentrations at the observation nodes. Write
error free data. It can be seen that the actual errors introduced at down the abnormal percentage errors 共if any兲 between observed
some nodes are as high as 12%. Next using initial estimates the and computed concentrations. Remove these observations with
inverse problem is solved for parameter estimation with different
weights for all the data sets separately. The comparative results of
the true and estimated values obtained by Weights 共1兲–共4兲 are Table 3. Estimated First-Order Wall Reaction Parameters for Noisy
shown in Table 3, where it is seen that parameter obtained by the Concentrations Data
use of Weights 共1兲 and 共3兲 lead to the same parameter value. The Estimated Value 共m/day兲 by Weight
results also show that the parameters obtained by using weight 共2兲 True value
performs marginally better 共as the average error is less兲 compared Parameter 共m/day兲 1 2 3 4
to the three other methods indicating its use in handling noisy Data set 1
data. 1 0.75 0.7302 0.7208 0.7302 0.7228
2 0.50 0.4382 0.4554 0.4382 0.5325
Case 2: Noisy and Bad „Abnormal… Data 3 1.00 1.1550 1.0257 1.1550 1.1271
The objective of this case is to evaluate the performance of vari- Average error
ous weights used in the model against the combination of noisy 共%兲 10.16 5.13 10.16 7.61
and possible presence of bad 共abnormal兲 data. A set of noisy and
bad data is created by introducing nodal concentrations of 0.6359 Data set 2
and 0.25 mg/L at nodes 75 and 83, respectively, in the noisy data 1 0.75 0.7500 0.7618 0.7500 0.7289
Set 3 of the previous case. The corresponding errors introduced 2 0.50 0.4601 0.4627 0.4601 0.5494
are 89.31 and 58.54%, respectively. The inverse model is run 3 1.00 1.1576 1.0353 1.1576 1.1643
using various weights 共1兲–共4兲. However of note, only the method Average error
of iteratively modified weights 关Weight 共4兲兴 is successful. All the 共%兲 7.91 4.18 7.91 9.70
other runs with the use of Weights 共1兲–共3兲 resulted in unaccept-
Data set 3
able parameter values. In the method of iteratively modified
1 0.75 0.6476 0.6719 0.6476 0.6295
weights, initially for the first ten iterations any of Weights 共1兲, 共2兲,
2 0.50 0.5115 0.5358 0.5115 0.5149
or 共3兲 can be used and after that Weight 共4兲 is used. Using this
3 1.00 1.1479 0.9270 1.1479 1.1672
procedure the evaluated parameters are 0.6295, 0.5149, and
Average error
1.1672 m/day, which are essentially same as noisy data Set 3
共%兲 10.25 8.29 10.25 11.92
results 共Table 3兲 of Case 1 for Weight 共4兲. Similarly the model run

130 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 Table 4. Observed and Computed Chlorine Concentrations for likely to be lowest among all the nodes. Hence it is important to
Case 2 know the source strength of chlorine to maintain the specified
Observed Computed minimum chlorine concentration at the target nodes. The problem
concentration concentration Error is more significant in the case of large multiple source networks.
Node 共mg/L兲 共mg/L兲 共%兲 In this section the application of an inverse model to determine
the source strength of chlorine, which is helpful in fixing the
72 0.4486 0.4605 2.65
operational strategy for chlorine input in a multiple source net-
73 0.6503 0.6364 2.14
work, is illustrated for the network used earlier. The first step is to
74 0.6302 0.5908 6.25
identify the target node with respect to each source from the re-
75 0.6359 0.3518 44.68
sults of direct analysis steady state water quality modeling which
76 0.2415 0.2685 11.18 are presented in Table 1. This is done by selecting the node with
77 0.3564 0.3565 0.03
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the lowest chlorine concentration among the nodes which are

78 0.4002 0.3876 3.15
79 0.2593 0.2414 6.90
80 0.3996 0.3950 1.15
82 0.6233 0.6585 5.65
83 0.2500 0.6202 148.08
84 0.5785 0.5747 0.66
85 0.3954 0.416 5.21
86 0.5662 0.549 3.04
abnormal percentage error from the input data and again run the
inverse model with Weight 共2兲 to estimate the wall reaction pa-
rameters. The latter step is nothing move than applying the in-
verse model with Weight 共2兲 for noisy data containing a lesser
number of observations. To illustrate the above procedure it is
applied to the results of Case 2. The observed 共noisy and bad data
set兲 and computed chlorine concentrations by Weight 共4兲 along
with the percentage errors introduced are given in Table 4. It can
be clearly seen from the above table that percentage error at
Nodes 75 and 83 is very high. Next the wall reaction parameters
are estimated by the inverse model with Weight 共2兲 and without
these observations. The wall reaction parameters estimated are
0.6585 m/day 共error of 12.20%兲, 0.5144 m/day 共error of 2.88%兲,
and 0.9329 m/day 共error of 6.71%兲 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respec-
tively, with the average error being 7.26%. The result shows that
the parameters are better estimated by this procedure as compared
to the parameters estimated in Case 2 by using Weight 共4兲. How-
ever, when compared to the results of noisy data Set 3 of Case 1
by Weight 共2兲, the second group wall reaction parameter is better
computed compared to the other two parameters. This is due to
the fact that observation Node 75 is more sensitive to the second
group wall reaction parameter and hence the removal of noisy
measurement 共5.15%兲 at this node from the input observation data
resulted in better computation of this parameter. This indicates
that the quality of the data is more important than the quantity of
the data. If the observation node is more sensitive to a parameter
and the observation error at this node is high, then the computed
parameter will not be accurate. Al-Omari and Hanif Chaudhry
共2001兲 also concluded that the computed chlorine-decay coeffi-
cient depends on the accuracy of the measurement as well as on
its location and for accurate results measurements should be made
at locations sensitive to the chlorine-decay coefficients. Thus it
can be added to their conclusion that the observations made at
sensitive nodes should be accurate for better estimation of the
parameters.
Application to Determination of Source Strength
of Chlorine
It is desirable to maintain a specified minimum chlorine residual
at the critical 共target兲 nodes where the chlorine concentrations are
dominated by the contribution from respective sources of supply.
The three identified target nodes are 59, 41, and 70, having chlo-
rine concentrations of 0.2117, 0.1486, and 0.2299 mg/L, respec-
tively. These nodes also have source contributions of 100, 78.20,
and 100% from sources 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Now the objec-
tive is to maintain a specified chlorine concentration of 0.20 mg/L
at these target nodes and to estimate the corresponding source
strength of chlorine at source Nodes 1, 2, and 3. It should be
noted that Nodes 59 and 70 already have chlorine concentrations
more than the specified minimum 0.20 mg/L, but assigning a
concentration of 0.20 mg/L at these nodes essentially reduces the
required source strength from the corresponding source. The in-
verse model is then run by specifying these target concentrations
as observed chlorine concentrations and the three source strengths
are determined. The estimated source strength of chlorine at
Nodes 1, 2, and 3 are 0.7087, 1.0180, and 0.6560 mg/L, respec-
tively. The source strength identification is always to be an even-
determined case. This is true as a particular source cannot main-
tain an exactly specified minimum chlorine concentration at more
than one target node dominated by it.
Performance of Reaction Kinetics Models
In this section we attempt to identify the appropriate reaction
kinetics model against a hypothetically assumed field data and to
estimate the wall reaction parameters associated with reaction ki-
netics used. It is assumed that the first and second order bulk
reaction parameters determined from the field observations are 2
day⫺1 and 4.5 L/mg/day, respectively. Four sets of hypothetical
field data are generated at all 14 reservoir nodes and are shown in
Fig. 3. The observation numbers 1–14 represented along the x
axis in the figure correspond to reservoir Nodes 72– 86, respec-
tively 共except for Node 81兲. Now the objective is to select the
appropriate reaction kinetics model based on the goodness of fit
between the observed concentrations at the target nodes and the
concentrations to be computed by the inverse model at these
nodes. The goodness of fit between the two observations is inter-
preted in terms of average absolute error and root mean square
共RMS兲 of absolute error at each observation node. The four reac-
tion kinetics models considered are: first-order bulk and first-
order wall, first-order bulk and zero-order wall, second-order bulk
and first-order wall, and second-order bulk and zero-order wall.
The above reaction kinetics models are tested against the hypo-
thetically generated observation sets and this test is carried out in
two steps. In the first step the inverse model is run using Weight
共4兲 to check the presence of any bad 共abnormal兲 observed con-
centration. In the second step the inverse model is run again but
with Weight 共2兲 and observation set free from bad concentration
共if any兲 to estimate the parameters. The above process is carried
out for all four data sets and the results, which include the esti-
mated wall reaction parameters, the average absolute error, and

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 131

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Comparison of observed and computed chlorine concentrations for: 共a兲 data set 1; 共b兲 data set 2; 共c兲 data set 3, and 共d兲 data set 4 by
selected reaction kinetics models

RMS error are given in Table 5. Based on the average absolute
error and RMS error it can be observed that different reaction
kinetics are required to get the best fit with different sets of hy-
pothetically generated field data. The concentrations computed by
the inverse model for these best fits with respect to each hypo-
thetical data set are shown in Fig. 3 along with the corresponding
observations. It is also seen from Table 5 that any of the reaction
kinetics can be fitted to the hypothetical data since the average
absolute error and RMS error are relatively comparable for all the
reaction kinetics models used. Thus the choice of proper reaction
kinetics model becomes more difficult. Such a situation may arise
in the field condition also. This aspect can be seen in the study by
Vasconcelos et al. 共1997兲 on comparison of alternative chlorine
reaction models for the Harrisburg site 共Oberlin system兲 where
the average absolute errors for reaction kinetics models 共bulk
⫹first-order wall兲 and 共bulk⫹zero-order wall兲 are 0.108 and
0.088 mg/L, respectively. This indicates that the best fit of a par-
ticular reaction kinetics model to field observations is system spe-
cific. Table 5 also shows that the lowest wall reaction parameter,
of any wall reaction kinetics estimated, corresponds to the group

Table 5. Performance of Reaction Kinetics Models and Estimated Reaction Parameters

Wall Reaction Parameter
Average RMS
Reaction Kinetics m/day 共1 Order兲 mg/m2/day 共0 Order兲
absolute error
Data set Bulk order Wall order Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 error 共mg/L兲 共mg/L兲
1 first first 0.6839 0.5096 0.8831 0.0340 0.0390
first zero 284.75 197.72 251.91 0.0448 0.0506
second first 0.4452 0.3718 0.7295 0.0272 0.0353
second zero 194.57 147.01 218.54 0.0344 0.0397

2 first first 0.7071 0.4427 0.8563 0.0371 0.0429

first zero 316.18 180.93 267.40 0.0367 0.0457
second first 0.4662 0.3023 0.7352 0.0384 0.0429
second zero 225.57 124.95 248.21 0.0359 0.0412

3 first first 0.7993 0.4924 1.1066 0.0314 0.0379

first zero 348.48 200.08 349.07 0.0292 0.0359
second first 0.5489 0.3671 0.9681 0.0350 0.0439
second zero 254.36 154.52 305.24 0.0311 0.0371

4 first first 0.5913 0.4258 1.8112 0.0384 0.0551

first zero 292.83 167.60 444.98 0.0442 0.0601
second first 0.3480 0.2977 1.6445 0.0435 0.0563
second zero 191.14 115.45 427.56 0.0423 0.0564
Note: Bulk reaction parameter assumed; first order: 2 d⫺1, second order: 4.5 L/mg/d

132 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134

 of pipes with highest HWC and vice versa in most cases. Thus
this section illustrates the usefulness of the inverse model to iden-
tify an appropriate reaction kinetics and its capability to estimate
the corresponding unknown wall reaction parameters.
Conclusions
An integrated hydraulic, source contribution, and water quality
model is developed for direct steady state analysis. The inverse
model is formulated and solved for parameter estimation using
the weighted-least-squares method based on the Gauss–Newton
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
minimization technique. The parameters considered are wall re-
action parameters and source chlorine concentration, which can
be estimated separately or simultaneously by the inverse model.
The parameter perturbation technique is used for evaluating the
sensitivity coefficients. The model developed handles various
types of initial estimates elegantly. The influence of different
choice of weights on parameter estimation, for error free data,
noisy data, and noisy data that include bad 共abnormal兲 measure-
ments is studied. For error free data choice of weights has no
influence on the final results. For a bad data only the method of
iterative weights is successful. It can be concluded that for noisy
measurements, Weights 共1兲, 共2兲, or 共3兲 can be used and for noisy
data with bad 共abnormal兲 data the generalized procedure pre-
sented can be used as it estimates the wall reaction parameters
more accurately. The observations at nodes which are sensitive to
the parameters should be made accurately. The developed inverse
model can also be used to identify an appropriate reaction kinetics
which best fits the field data and to estimate the corresponding
wall reaction parameters as illustrated in the last section of the
paper. The present model can be easily applied to the field con-
ditions to estimate the water quality reaction parameters.
The model is useful in scheduling the operational strategy in
terms of source strength of chlorine so as to maintain a specified
chlorine level at a particular point in the distribution system. The
use of the inverse model in deciding the operational strategy is
illustrated for a large multiple source network which is governed
by real life hydraulic conditions. The evaluation of source
strength of chlorine, together with determination of source con-
tributions, provides the water supply agencies with a tool for bet-
ter management of their systems. The present inverse model is
being extended to estimate the reaction parameters and source
strength of chlorine under dynamic flow conditions.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Cnc j ⫽ computed concentration at node j (ML⫺3 );
Cnc*j ⫽ computed value of Cnc j corresponding to
kws l* (ML⫺3 );
Cncnui ⫽ computed concentration at node upstream of
pipe i (ML⫺3 );
Cno j ⫽ observed concentration at node j (ML⫺3 );
Cnomean ⫽ mean of measurements 共ML⫺3兲;
D ⫽ molecular diffusivity of chlorine 共L2 T⫺1兲;
d i ⫽ diameter of pipe i (L);
k b,1i ⫽ first-order bulk decay constant 共T⫺1兲;
k b,2i ⫽ second-order bulk decay constant
共M⫺1 L3 T⫺1兲;
k f i ⫽ mass transfer coefficient in pipe i (LT⫺1 );
k w,1i ⫽ first order wall reaction parameter 共LT⫺1兲;
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003 / 133
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134
k w,0i ⫽ zero order wall reaction parameter
共ML⫺2 T⫺1兲;
kws l ⫽ previous iteration parameter value;
p
kws lp⫹1 ⫽ improved parameter 共wall reaction or source
strength兲 value;
kws * l ⫽ initial trial or previous iteration value of lth
parameter;
L i ⫽ length of pipe i (L);
M ⫽ number of observation nodes;
N inp j ⫽ number of incoming pipes at node j;
N jn ⫽ total number of nodes in network;
N sn ⫽ number of source nodes;
N up ⫽ number of unknown parameters;
nui ⫽ node upstream of pipe i;
ptt i ⫽ travel time in pipe i (T⫺1 );
Q i ⫽ flow in pipe i (L3 T⫺1 );
Ri ⫽ Reynold number of pipe i;
Reci ⫽ reaction coefficient for pipe i;
r hi ⫽ hydraulic radius of pipe i (L);
r j ⫽ residue (⫽ 兩 Cno j ⫺Cnc j 兩 ) of jth observation
共ML⫺3兲;
(r/Cno兲mean ⫽ mean of 共residue/observation兲;
Sc ⫽ Schmidt number;
S hi ⫽ Sherwood number of pipe i;
u i ⫽ velocity of flow in pipe i (LT⫺1 );
W j ⫽ weight associated with node j;
⌫ ⫽ specified large weight;
⫺1
⌬kws l ⫽ increment to kws * l (LT );
␦kws l ⫽ finite difference increment;
⑀ ⫽ specified small limit;
␯ ⫽ kinematic viscosity 共L2 T⫺1兲;
␴ Cn ⫽ standard deviation of measurement errors; and
⳵Cnc j /⳵kws l⫽ sensitivity coefficient.
References
Al-Omari, A. S., and Chaudhry, M. H. 共2001兲. ‘‘Unsteady-state inverse
chlorine modeling in pipe networks.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 127共8兲, 669–
677.
Clark, R. M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Chlorine demand and trihalomethane formation
kinetics: A second-order model.’’ J. Environ. Eng., 124共1兲, 16 –24.
Clark, R. M., Rossman, L. A., and Wymer, L. J. 共1995兲. ‘‘Modeling
distribution system water quality: regulatory implications.’’ J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manage., 121共6兲, 423– 428.
Clark, R. M., and Sivaganesan, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Predicting chlorine residuals
and formation of TTHMs in drinking water.’’ J. Environ. Eng.,
124共12兲, 1203–1210.
Datta, R. S. N., and Sridharan, K. 共1994兲. ‘‘Parameter estimation in
water-distribution systems by least squares.’’ J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manage., 120共4兲, 405– 422.
Frateur, I., Deslouis, C., Kiene, L., Levi, Y., and Tribollet, B. 共1999兲.
‘‘Free chlorine consumption induced by cast iron corrosion in drink-
ing water distribution systems.’’ Water Res., 33共8兲, 1781–1790.
Hua, F., West, J. R., Barker, R. A., and Forster, C. F. 共1999兲. ‘‘Modelling
of chlorine decay in municipal water supplies.’’ Water Res., 33共12兲,
2735–2746.
Islam, M. R., Chaudhry, M. H., and Clark, R. M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Inverse mod-
eling of chlorine concentration in pipe networks under dynamic con-
dition.’’ J. Environ. Eng., 123共10兲, 1033–1040.
Niranjan Reddy, P. V. 共1994兲. ‘‘General analysis, parameter estimation
and valve operational policy in water distribution networks.’’ PhD
thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Reddy, P. V. Niranjan, Sridharan, K., and Rao, P. V. 共1996兲. ‘‘WLS
 method for parameter estimation in water distribution networks.’’ J.
Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 122共3兲, 157–164.
Powell, J. C., West, J. R., Hallam, N. B., Forster, C. F., and Simms, J.
共2000兲. ‘‘Performance of various kinetic models for chlorine decay.’’
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 126共1兲, 13–20.
Rossman, L. A. 共2000兲. EPANET 2 Users manual, Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincin-
nati.
Rossman, L. A., and Boulos, P. F. 共1996兲. ‘‘Numerical methods for mod-
eling water quality in distribution systems: A comparison.’’ J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manage., 122共2兲, 137–146.
Rossman, L. A., Clark, R. M., and Grayman, W. M. 共1994兲. ‘‘Modeling
chlorine residuals in drinking-water distribution systems.’’ J. Environ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Science Bangalore on 08/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eng., 120共4兲, 803– 820.
Tewarson, R. P., and Chen, D. Q. 共1985兲. ‘‘A method for solving alge-
braic systems consisting of linear and nonlinear equations.’’ Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng., 21, 1577–1581.
Vasconcelos, J. J., Rossman, L. A., Grayman, W. M., Boulos, P. F., and
Clark, R. M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Kinetics of chlorine decay.’’ J. Am. Water
Works Assoc., 89共7兲, 55– 65.
Wable, O., Dumoutier, N., Duguet, J., Jarrige, P., Gelas, G., and Depierre,
J. 共1991兲. ‘‘Modeling chlorine concentrations in a network and appli-
cations to Paris distribution network.’’ Water quality modeling in dis-
tribution systems. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, 265–276.
Wood, D. J., and Ormsbee, L. E. 共1989兲. ‘‘Supply identification for water
distribution systems.’’ J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 81共7兲, 74 – 80.

134 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2003

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2003, 129(2): 124-134