Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00.

© WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

TOWARD A RATIONAL DESIGN FOR FIREFLOW TESTS FOR MODEL

CALIBRATION

Walter M. Grayman
W.M. Grayman Consulting Engineer, Cincinnati, Ohio USA

ABSTRACT
Fireflow tests can be used as part of a program for calibrating steady state water distribution system
hydraulic models. Though there are standard methods available for conducting fireflow tests to
assess the ability of a distribution system to deliver adequate fireflow, there is virtually no guidance
available in the literature that addresses the design issues associated with the use of fireflow tests in
model calibration. The issues associated with designing fireflow tests for model calibration are
discussed and a framework methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of fireflow tests for
calibration and for selecting locations within the distribution system for performing fireflow tests is
presented. An example of the use of fireflow tests for identifying closed valves is presented
employing the concept of “covering” valves by conducting fireflow tests that will reflect the
presence of closed valves.

INTRODUCTION
Fireflow tests have historically been used to assess the ability of a distribution system to deliver
adequate flow to an area to meet fireflow conditions (AWWA 2006). Such tests are also used as a
mechanism for calibrating steady state water distribution system hydraulic models. Though there
are standard methods available for conducting fireflow tests, there is virtually no guidance available
in the literature addressing the location or number of fireflow tests required for model calibration.
The purpose of this paper is to identify the issues associated with designing a fireflow test process
for model calibration and to begin the process of developing a rational design process for fireflow
tests for model calibration.

USE OF FIREFLOW TESTS IN MODEL CALIBRATION

In a fireflow test designed for model calibration, one or more hydrants are flowed at high rates in
order to stress the delivery system and as a result make them more sensitive to variations in pipe
roughness, valve closures and other pipe characteristics. Resulting field measurements of pressure
at other hydrants (referred to as the residual pressure) are then taken and compared to those
generated by a model to either validate the model or to suggest adjustments in the model in order to
improve the performance of the model (as compared to field data) and thus to “calibrate” the model
(Grayman et al 2006; Southern et al 2008). When used in the calibration process, fireflow tests are
not direct measurements of pipe characteristics. Rather, when used in conjunction with the model,
they indicate the presence and likely location of potential differences between the representation of
the distribution system in the model and the actual distribution system. The modeler must then act
as a detective to deduce what changes may be needed in order to bring the model into calibration.

Figure 1 shows a fire hydrant being flowed using a combination pitot gage/diffuser to measure the
flow and to diffuse the discharge in order to protect surrounding areas from the high velocity
stream. Figure 2 shows a hydrant used to measure the pressure. Both a digital logging pressure
gage and an analog pressure gage are connected to the hydrant. The digital gage is used to record
the pressure during the test at each hydrant while the analog gage is used on a selected hydrant and
read during the test in order to ensure that system pressures do not go below allowable levels.

ISBN 978-1-922107-58-9
© Engineers Australia, 2012. All rights reserved. 596 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

Figure 1: Fire hydrant being flowed during a fireflow test

Figure 2: Residual hydrant with both a digital and analog pressure gage

Examples of the modelled impacts of flowing a hydrant during a fireflow test are shown in Figures
3 and 4 for a hypothetical small distribution system. In this example, a hydrant is flowed in the
model at a rate of 94.5 Lps (1500 gpm) which results in the pressure dropping to 14.1 m (20 psi) in
the near vicinity of the flowing hydrant. 20 psi is the generally accepted minimum pressure in the
United States. In Figure 3, the change in velocity in each pipe between base conditions and during
the fireflow test is illustrated. Most of the pipes in the vicinity of the flowing hydrant experience

597
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

significant increases in velocity. This results in increases in head loss and subsequent pressure
drops as illustrated in Figure 4.

∆ VELOCITY (fps) ∆ VELOCITY (m/s)

< 0.25 < 0.08
0.25 - 2.0 0.08 – 0.61
2.0 - 3.0 0.61 – 0.92
3.0 - 4.0 0.92 – 1.22
> 4 .0 > 1.22

1500 gpm
94.5 lps

Figure 3: Effects of flowing a hydrant on change in velocity

1 psi
10 psi
20 psi

30 psi
40 psi

1500 gpm
94.5 lps

28.2 m
7.0 m
0.7 m 14.1 m
21.1 m

Figure 4: Contour plot of changes in pressure associated with flowing a hydrant

598
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

DESIGNING FIREFLOW STUDIES FOR CALIBRATION

Fireflow tests are widely used in the United States as part of the calibration process for water
distribution system models. Typically, as part of the development of a new or enhanced model, a
portion of the budget is set aside for calibration tasks including fireflow tests. In many cases, the
calibration budget is set based exclusively on availability of funds rather than based on what is
needed to adequately calibrate the model. A rational method for designing a calibration program,
including the required number of fireflow tests and the location of these tests is needed.

When using fireflow tests as part of the calibration of models, the goal may be expressed as
designing a set of fireflow tests in order to maximize the amount of information gained from each
test. However, there is little in the literature to assist the engineer in designing the tests.

Past Studies. There are many research oriented studies that address the general issue of designing
sampling programs. Walski et al (2003) define the main aim of a sampling design problem for
calibration as determining “what, when, under what conditions, and where to observe the behaviour
of the system and collect data that, when used for calibration, will yield the best results.” Savic et al
(2009) provide a detailed discussion of the past research on use of optimization methods for
designing calibration programs. Two of the papers that are cited that are most relevant to the
problem at hand are Lee and Deininger (1992) and Meier and Barkdoll (2000). The former paper
was the first to use optimization for sampling design and proposed a coverage-based system which
tracks the path of water from the source to each node. The latter paper describes the use of a genetic
algorithm approach for determining the optimal flow test locations used to calculate pipe roughness
coefficients. Pipe links were considered to be “covered” if the velocity induced by the flow test
exceeded a specified value. The objective function was to maximize the total percentage length of
pipes that were covered (velocities exceeding 0.3 m/s [1.0 ft/s]) during at least one of the n flow
tests.

Proposed Methodology. The proposed methodology for designing fireflow tests builds upon the
concepts developed in the earlier studies described above. In our methodology, we are looking at
the ability of fireflow tests to identify the likely presence of unexpected closed valves. In a
distribution system model calibration study conducted in a regional water system in southwest
Wyoming, Southern et al (2008) found that fireflow tests were very effective in identifying the
presence of unexpected closed valves. On the other hand they found that such tests were much less
effective in identifying incorrect roughness factors unless the roughness values used in the model
were grossly in error. In the Wyoming study, engineering judgment was used in selecting the
location of hydrants to be flowed and hydrants used for measuring pressure drops. The authors
report that their ability to select the hydrants improved as additional tests were conducted though no
formal rules were established for the selection process. In fact, there is little in the literature that
assists the engineer in selecting the location of hydrants for use in a fireflow test.

In the proposed methodology, an EPANET model is used to calculate the pressures resulting from
flowing a hydrant as part of a fireflow test. This is considered to be the uncalibrated model. For our
purposes, it is uncalibrated because it does not represent valves that are unexpectedly closed. We
then look at the cases where individual valves are sequentially closed and examine how that affects
the pressure in the distribution system. By comparing the pressure results from the initial run of
EPANET for the uncalibrated model to the pressure results with valves individually closed we can
develop a procedure for selecting the fireflow tests that provide the most information in identifying
closed valves. Details of this procedure are described below.

1. With all valves open (the base condition), each hydrant in the system is sequentially flowed
at a rate such that no pressures in the distribution system fall below an allowed level (in the

599
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

United States this value is typically 20 psi [14.1 m]). The resulting pressures at all hydrants
are calculated and designated as the base pressure, PBASE(i,j) where i refers to the hydrant
being flowed and j refers to the hydrant where the pressure is calculated (the residual
pressure).

2. For each flowed hydrant, each valve in the distribution system is sequentially closed, and the
model run to determine the pressure at each hydrant. This is referred to as PCV(i,j,k) where
i and j are as defined earlier, k refers to the valve that is closed with all other valves assumed
open, and PCV refers to Pressures with a Closed Valve. For each combination of a flowed
hydrant, a hydrant where the pressure is calculated and a closed valve, an index PINDEX is
calculated as follows:

PINDEX(i,j,k) = |PBASE(i,j)-PCV(i,j,k)|/PBASE(i,j) (1)

3. Valve k is then considered to be “covered” by any combination of a flowing hydrant i and a

residual hydrant j where the value of PINDEX(i,j,k) exceeds some pre-established tolerance.
For example, a tolerance value for PINDEX of 0.25 would indicate that there is a 25%
difference between the base pressure and the pressure with a closed valve. An alternative
formulation for equation 1 could utilize absolute pressure differences with a tolerance
defined as an absolute pressure difference of say, 10 psi or 7 m.

An example application of the procedure is shown in Figure 5 for part of the hypothetical system
presented earlier. In this example the critical value for PINDEX was selected as 0.25. The results
are shown for the case where Hydrant H16 is flowed and Valve 7 is closed. As illustrated, there are
nine potential residual hydrants where PINDEX exceeds the critical value of 0.25. The combination
of flowing Hydrant H16 and taking residual pressures at any of these nine residual hydrants would
result in “covering” Valve 7.

Monitors at circled hydrants “cover” Valve 7 0.30

Valve covered if PINDEX >0.25
H11

H10 0.29
0.33
H12 0.29
H14
0.38 H9 0.28
H13 H16 flowed

V7 closed 1610 gpm 0.27

101.4 lps
H15
H8 0.27

H7
PINDEX = 0.26

Figure 5: Example representation of covering a valve in a fireflow test

600
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.945836495776839. Veolia, on 11/03/2022 09:37 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © WDSA 2012: 14th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Conference, 24-27 September 2012 in Adelaide, Sou

The concept of covering valves by flowing hydrants and reading residual pressures at other hydrants
can be embedded in a optimization framework to determine optimal fireflow test designs. The
objective in the optimization program could be: (a) find the fewest number of flow tests that will
cover all valves; or (b) with a fixed budget that will allow only a limited number of fireflow tests,
find the combination of flowing hydrants and residual hydrants within your budget that results in
the largest number of valves being covered. These are not trivial optimization problems so
development of an efficient routine is advantageous.

There are some issues that further complicate the optimization problem. In more advanced fireflow
tests, multiple hydrants are flowed and, using digital logging pressure gages, residual pressures are
measured at multiple hydrants (Grayman et al 2006). For example, flowing one hydrant while
reading residual pressures at five other hydrants, is typically far less costly than running five
separate fireflow tests with a single residual hydrant each. Therefore the optimization routine should
account for the multiple residual hydrant option and the number of digital pressure gages that are
available as a constraint to the number of potential residual hydrants during a fireflow test. If
valves are not embedded in the model, an alternative near-equivalent formulation could investigate
closed pipes (pipes with closed valves) and use an objective function of maximizing the number or
length of pipes that are covered by the fireflow tests.

CONCLUSION
A structured methodology and general guidelines are needed to assist engineers in designing
fireflow tests for use in model calibration. However, currently there is little in the literature that
provides such assistance. A methodology is proposed for designing fireflow tests to identify the
likely presence of unexpected closed valves. The concept of “covering” valves by flowing hydrants
and reading residual pressures is introduced. Such a method could be embedded in a optimization
framework to determine optimal fireflow test designs – i.e., which hydrants to flow and which
hydrants to use to measure residual pressures. The objective in the optimization program could be:
(a) find the fewest number of flow tests that will cover all valves; or (b) with a fixed budget that
will allow only a limited number of fireflow tests, find the combination of flowing hydrants and
residual hydrants within your budget that results in the largest number of valves being covered.

REFERENCES
AWWA (2006). "Installation, field testing, and maintenance of fire hydrants." M17 Manual of
Water Supply Practices, 4th Edition, American Water Works Association.
Grayman, W.M., Maslia, M.L., and Sautner, J.B. (2006). “Calibrating distribution system models
with fire-flow tests.” Opflow, AWWA. 32(4): 10-12.
Lee, B. H., and Deininger, R. A., (1992). “Optimal locations of monitoring stations in water
distribution systems”. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 118 (1), 4–16.
Meier, R. W., and Barkdoll, B. D., (2000). “Sampling design for network model calibration using
genetic algorithms.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 126 (4),
245–250.
Savic, D.A., Kapelan, Z.S., and Philip M.R. Jonkergouw, P.M.R. (2009). “Quo vadis water
distribution model calibration?” Urban Water Journal, 6(1): 3-22.
Southern, T., Grayman, W., Kjellgren, L., and Bryan Seppie, B. (2008). “Use of fireflow tests in
the calibration of a water distribution system model.” Proc. EWRI-ASCE World Water &
Envir. Resources Congress. (CD-ROM), ASCE, Reston, VA.
Walski, T.M., Chase, D.V., Savic, D.A., Grayman, W., Beckwith, S., Koelle, E. (2003). Advanced
Water Distribution Modeling and Management, Haestad Press, Waterbury CT.

601