Intermittent water supply (IWS) is one of the effective methods to manage the consumption of urban water networks under water scarcity conditions. However, it is essential to minimize unfair water distribution in this method by defining a proper strategy. This study utilized the EPANET pressure-dependent hydraulic analysis and the gray wolf optimization algorithm to achieve maximum volumetric reliability under different scenarios in a district of the Hamedan urban water distribution network in Iran. The volumetric reliability of the network was evaluated in the IWS condition regardless of justice constraints, with the justice constraint, and by considering the leakage in the IWS network with the justice constraint. The first scenario demonstrated that the reliability decreased by an average of 4.6% for every meter of water level reduction in the tank. The second scenario revealed that the objective function was negligibly affected by the variation of the justice constraint; however, fluctuation of the water level in the tank significantly affected the volumetric reliability. In the third scenario, the objective function value was significantly impacted by leakage, ranging from 0 to 0.3 (representing the absence and presence of leakage in 30% of the nodes, respectively), resulting in an average decrease of about 17%.

  • A pressure-dependent hydraulic analysis in the intermittent water supply (IWS) under various scenarios.

  • Volumetric reliability assessment in an IWS network.

  • Evaluating the justice index in the IWS network.

  • Investigating the effect of leakage on the performance of the equitable IWS.

  • Development of simulation-optimization model in IWS.

Water shortage and technical problems in the network can disturb the provision of the required drinking water. Such problems can be caused by climatic changes, natural disasters, conflicts, intentional or accidental water pollution, or even insufficient hydraulic capacity of the network (Solgi et al. 2015, 2020; Bozorg-Haddad et al. 2016; Mohammadi et al. 2020; Nyahora et al. 2020). Access to water resources and the amount of water needed are affected by the mentioned factors, and meeting the current needs of consumers is one of the main challenges faced by urban water supply systems (Mokssit et al. 2018).

There are different solutions for addressing water crises. For example, water can be supplied to consumers continuously using recycled water or with lower-than-optimal pressure or supplied through rationing, which may include intermittent water supply (IWS). IWS is a common practice in many cities, particularly in developing countries (Soltanjalili et al. 2013; Bozorg-Haddad et al. 2016). Distribution networks with continuous water supply systems provide the water needs of consumers permanently, and the network is under pressure 24 h a day. On the other hand, IWS refers to distribution networks where the available water is insufficient to meet the needs of all consumers. In such cases, water is delivered to consumers for less than 24 h a day, and some consumers may have their water supply cut off at certain times (Bozorg-Haddad et al. 2016; Taylor et al. 2019). To evaluate the behavior of the system, we need to develop a hydraulic model for the IWS network. In a comprehensive study, Sarisen et al. (2022) review different methods for IWS hydraulic modeling. They found that for accurate modeling of IWS, some aspects of the system, such as water losses, pressure-deficient conditions, and the filling and emptying process, should be considered.

Totsuka et al. (2004) stated that three conditions create intermittent supply. The first case occurs when the available water (untreated) is insufficient to meet consumers' demand, resulting from absolute water scarcity. The second case occurs when existing economic facilities do not allow for an increase in the supply of purified water or expansion of the network, resulting in water scarcity caused by economic factors. The third case occurs when the network supply can be done continuously, despite repairs of leaks and operational works. However, weak technical management in the network causes technical scarcity, resulting in IWS (Haider et al. 2019; Taylor et al. 2019).

One of the main problems associated with IWS is unfair water distribution, a social issue. Certain parts of the network may have to wait longer for water than others located closer to the source. This unfairness is more noticeable when the network is filled with more demand than supply. Consumers closer to the source will benefit, while consumers farther away will face issues due to the longer time it takes for water to reach them. Additionally, demand in intermittent supply systems is pressure-dependent. Consumers tend to store large amounts of water in their personal tanks when the pressure is sufficient, decreasing water pressure during supply hours and disadvantaging those located further away from the source. Intermittent operation of urban water distribution networks is undesirable; however, it may be unavoidable depending on specific conditions (Solgi et al. 2020). As a result, IWS should be considered a last resort during a water shortage, and its use should be prevented through proper planning and appropriate measures during critical times (Ilaya-Ayza et al. 2017).

The level of network performance under different operating conditions can be evaluated by an index called reliability, which is an essential aspect of the design and operation of any system. A higher value of the reliability index in the distribution network during critical conditions indicates a higher level of trust in the network's performance under these circumstances. This means that fewer customers will be affected during abnormal conditions. In other words, reliability is an inherent characteristic of every system and should be considered an essential design and management parameter. Goulter (1995) used the reliability criterion as an indicator to check the extent to which the water distribution network fulfills its duties of providing the desired flow with adequate pressure and quality, even during abnormal conditions such as pipe breaks. Therefore, reliability can be defined as the probability of meeting a certain percentage of needs within a certain period. Reliability refers to the network's ability to provide consumers with their desired quantity and quality of water, both under normal and abnormal conditions (Nyahora et al. 2020). Gottipati & Nanduri (2014) stated that the reliability of a water supply system should consider all possible factors, such as changes in demand, water availability at the source, failures of components like pumps, treatment units, valves, and pipes, and the interplay of these factors in the system's performance.

IWS can complicate the operation of the water distribution network and lead to consumer dissatisfaction. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate the principles of justice and fairness in the network. From this point of view, Solgi et al. (2015) developed an optimization model that incorporates the principles of justice and fairness in the network. The objective function of the optimizer model considered these two principles and was solved using the honeybee mating optimization algorithm (HBMO) along with a hydraulic simulation model. The results showed that this model could optimize the scheduling of IWS while preserving the principles of justice and fairness in all network nodes, even under severe water shortage conditions. Nyahora et al. (2020) developed a multi-objective optimization model using a genetic algorithm to maximize justice and reliability. They concluded that fairness and reliability could be practical and guiding objectives and criteria for decision-making.

In water distribution networks with intermittent supply conditions, water pressure can decrease significantly during supply hours, particularly in the early hours. Therefore, enhancing reliability in various conditions to improve consumer satisfaction is an important goal of this study. The article aims to create a simulation-optimization model for a real distribution network under different water shortage scenarios while considering justice in the system and the effect of leakage on network reliability which has not been studied in previous research.

Hydraulic model

The pressure-dependent hydraulic analysis (PDHA) was used in this research to consider the relationship between the output flow from the node and the pressure. In IWS conditions, when there is a lack of water or energy, the duration of the water supply may be less than 24 h a day and may even be limited to 1 or 2 h a day. During the supply hours, due to the influx of consumers and the storage of water in personal reservoirs, the water pressure can decrease significantly, and the amount of water that consumers can take depends on the pressure at their specific node. Therefore, abnormal and critical conditions can arise during the time of water supply, and it is necessary to use PDHA to simulate the actual performance of the system (Baek et al. 2010). The pressure-flow equation used in this study is Equation (1), presented by Shirzad et al. (2013), which is one of the most recent equations in this field:
(1)
where is the available head at node j; and are the available and required flow rates at node j.

Optimization model

The gray wolf optimization (GWO) algorithm introduced by Mirjalili et al. (2014) was used to solve the optimization problem of this study. This algorithm was derived from the group life and hunting mechanism of gray wolves. The group life of wolves has a precise and orderly social hierarchy. There are four groups which are called α, β, δ, and ω (from top to bottom). The α wolf is the group leader and is responsible for all decisions and management of the herd. The β wolf is at the second level and assists the α wolf in making decisions and other group activities. The third level is occupied by the delta δ wolf pack, which is under the command of the α and β wolves and dominates the ω wolf, which is responsible for the safety and integrity of the entire pack and typically obeys all wolves of higher levels.

In GWO, the wolves in the first three levels are considered the best answers in the search space, and the rest of the wolves must update their position in the search space based on these solutions.

GWO is competitive with other popular metaheuristic algorithms, such as differential evolution (DE), genetic algorithms (GA), and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithms (Masoumi et al. 2021, 2022).

As mentioned, gray wolves surround their prey during the hunt. In order to mathematically model this encircling behavior, the following equations have been proposed:
(2)
(3)
where t represents the current iteration, A and C are coefficient vectors towards the best position defined by Equations (4) and (5), respectively. Xp and X represent the position vector of the prey and the gray wolf, respectively.
(4)
(5)
where a is a coefficient that linearly decreases from 0 to 2 throughout iterations, and r1 and r2 are random vectors within the range [0, 1].
In the mathematical simulation of gray wolves, where the optimal location (i.e., the prey location) is unknown, it is commonly assumed that the first to third groups, alpha (the best candidate solution), beta, and delta, have better information about the probable location of the prey. These three solutions are stored as the best answers in the search space, and other search agents (the rest of the wolves (ω)) are forced to update their positions according to the better positions found by the best search agents (the best solutions). Equations (6)–(12) formulate this process:
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

X and X(t+1) are the variable positions in the current and next state, and Xα, Xβ, and Xδ are the positions of α, β, and δ wolves, respectively.

The volumetric reliability objective function is the percentage of demand satisfaction (Duckstein & Plate 1987). The relation of the volumetric reliability of the supply of needs in the network is expressed as the following equation:
(13)
where is the volume reliability of the network in supplying the demand. NCNode and NH are the number of consumption nodes of the network and the number of hydraulic time steps during the shortage period, respectively. Also, and are the water volume of supply and demand at node i and in the hydraulic time step h.
In order to ensure equitable distribution of water and consider the satisfaction of the consumers, justice condition is considered by Equation (14). Justice is defined as a condition in which the ratio of total water supply to total water demand in all nodes of the water distribution network during intermittent supply is equal (Solgi et al. 2015):
(14)
where is the number of consumption nodes in the distribution network. and are the total supply at nodes i and i′ in the intermittent supply period (unit of time or volume), respectively. and are the total demand of nodes i and i′ in the period of intermittent supply (unit of time or volume).

Leakage–pressure relationship

One of the applications of pressure-based hydraulic analysis is the hydraulic analysis of leaks in the network. The simplest method for simulating leakage is to replace the leakage section with a hole. The orifice formula is usually the most common relation used to calculate hydraulic leakage. In this case, the output flow rate (leakage) from each hole (i) can be calculated as the following equation (Giustolisi et al. 2008):
(15)
where is the constant coefficient of leakage (depends on pipe characteristics such as age and external factors such as environmental conditions, traffic load, external stresses, corrosion, etc.). Pi is the pressure at the orifice, and N presents the pressure power (based on the variety of the leak hole and pipe specifications, such as material and rigidity, its value changes from 0.5 to 1.5).

Specifications of distribution network

The developed simulation-optimization model was applied to a district of the Hamadan water distribution network in Iran (Figure 1) to evaluate the performance of the model. Figure 2 shows the coefficients of the time pattern of consumption estimated for the network during a summer day. The demand requirement for each node in each hour equals the product of the node's highest requirement and the corresponding consumption pattern coefficient for that hour in Figure 2. The intended network includes a tank located at 1,820 m with an initial water level of 17 m. The pressure in the network is provided by gravity, and there is no pump in the desired network. The minimum required pressure () and the maximum allowed pressure () for all consumption nodes are considered to be 30 and 100 m of water, respectively. The network consists of 178 consumer nodes and 195 pipes. The Hazen–Williams coefficient is set to 130 for all network pipes. In all scenarios, the intermittent supply period is 12 h, and the rationing time interval is also set to 3 h. The total volume of water entering the tank every day is proportional to the amount of water in the defined scenario. The water entering the tank during the intermittent supply period is calculated hourly, and this amount is equal to the total water available in a day divided by 24. Additionally, the time step of the EPANET model hydraulic calculations is set to 15 min.
Figure 1

Hamadan water distribution network, Iran.

Figure 1

Hamadan water distribution network, Iran.

Close modal
Figure 2

Coefficients of the time pattern of consumption during a day in the summer period (Solgi et al. 2015).

Figure 2

Coefficients of the time pattern of consumption during a day in the summer period (Solgi et al. 2015).

Close modal

Considered scenarios

The objective of this research was to maximize the volumetric reliability of the water supply network in three different scenarios as follows:

  • 1.

    Regardless of the justice constraint and without considering leakage in the network.

  • 2.

    Using justice constraint without any leakage in the network. We used three compliance ratings of 25, 50, and 75%.

  • 3.

    The same justice constraints as the second scenario are accompanied by leakage in the network. We randomly assigned the leakage to 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Sixteen modes of rationing were considered for IWS. In other words, 16 states were defined where water was cut off during periods when the water consumption coefficient was zero. Different permutations of omitting the consumption at different hours were used. The rationing period was divided into 3-h intervals from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The objective is to allocate the rationing among users to maximize the network's reliability. Choosing each rationing pattern for each node depends on which pattern is deemed appropriate by the optimization algorithm. Table S1 in the supplementary information shows the 16 states of the rationing pattern.

The method proposed in this research was applied to the desired network in different scenarios, and the results of the objective function in the considered scenarios are presented in the following tables. Table 1 shows the results of the objective function value of volumetric reliability, where the justice index is regarded as zero under varying water levels in the tank during IWS conditions. As shown in the table, the volumetric reliability decreases by an average of 4.6% for every 1-m decrease in the water level in the tank.

Table 1

The optimal value of the volumetric reliability with varying water levels during IWS

Water level (m)ReliabilityWater level (m)Reliability
17 0.9760 14 0.9086 
16 0.9621 13 0.8707 
15 0.9395 12 0.8207 
Water level (m)ReliabilityWater level (m)Reliability
17 0.9760 14 0.9086 
16 0.9621 13 0.8707 
15 0.9395 12 0.8207 

Table 2 shows the values of the objective function in the second scenario. The justice constraint is observed in the system with varying justice indices of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 at different water levels in the tank. As shown in Table 2, the change in the justice constraint does not significantly affect the value of the objective function. However, this does not necessarily mean that the status of the decision variables is the same in all justice constraint situations. Instead, the status of the decision variables may differ, even though the output or objective function remains relatively constant.

Table 2

The optimal value of the volumetric reliability with varying water levels in the tank during IWS, considering the different values of the justice index

Water level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliabilityWater level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliability
17 0.25 0.9659 16 0.25 0.9596 
0.5 0.9650 0.5 0.9563 
0.75 0.9695 0.75 0.9617 
15 0.25 0.9391 14 0.25 0.9074 
0.5 0.9328 0.5 0.8861 
0.75 0.9391 0.75 0.9074 
13 0.25 0.8705 12 0.25 0.8172 
0.5 0.8520 0.5 0.8154 
0.75 0.8705 0.75 0.7997 
Water level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliabilityWater level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliability
17 0.25 0.9659 16 0.25 0.9596 
0.5 0.9650 0.5 0.9563 
0.75 0.9695 0.75 0.9617 
15 0.25 0.9391 14 0.25 0.9074 
0.5 0.9328 0.5 0.8861 
0.75 0.9391 0.75 0.9074 
13 0.25 0.8705 12 0.25 0.8172 
0.5 0.8520 0.5 0.8154 
0.75 0.8705 0.75 0.7997 

In order to verify the model's performance, the above calculations were repeated for increased demand using the maximum hourly consumption coefficient (1.75) and the maximum daily consumption coefficient (1.25) of the network. The demand increase factor was calculated by multiplying these two values (2.19), and once again, assuming that only half of this increase occurs (1.59), the optimization was performed. The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

The optimal value of the volumetric reliability with varying water levels in the tank, considering the different values of the justice index, in the network with a demand increase factor of 2.19 and 1.59

Water level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliabilityWater level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliability
Demand increase factor = 2.19 17 0.8210 16 0.7808 
0.25 0.8194 0.25 0.7762 
0.5 0.8182 0.5 0.7733 
0.75 0.8071 0.75 0.7653 
15 0.7340 14 0.6899 
0.25 0.7303 0.25 0.6878 
0.5 0.7272 0.5 0.6792 
0.75 0.7219 0.75 0.6686 
13 0.6405 12 0.5901 
0.25 0.6397 0.25 0.5882 
0.5 0.6387 0.5 0.5838 
0.75 0.6257 0.75 0.5829 
Demand increase factor = 1.59 17 0.9225 16 0.8962 
0.25 0.9137 0.25 0.8856 
0.5 0.9136 0.5 0.8836 
0.75 0.9113 0.75 0.8755 
15 0.8588 14 0.8528 
0.25 0.8553 0.25 0.8157 
0.5 0.8505 0.5 0.8009 
0.75 0.8456 0.75 0.7959 
13 0.7623 12 0.7136 
0.25 0.7618 0.25 0.7105 
0.5 0.7541 0.5 0.6905 
0.75 0.7416 0.75 0.6858 
Water level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliabilityWater level in tank (m)Justice IndexReliability
Demand increase factor = 2.19 17 0.8210 16 0.7808 
0.25 0.8194 0.25 0.7762 
0.5 0.8182 0.5 0.7733 
0.75 0.8071 0.75 0.7653 
15 0.7340 14 0.6899 
0.25 0.7303 0.25 0.6878 
0.5 0.7272 0.5 0.6792 
0.75 0.7219 0.75 0.6686 
13 0.6405 12 0.5901 
0.25 0.6397 0.25 0.5882 
0.5 0.6387 0.5 0.5838 
0.75 0.6257 0.75 0.5829 
Demand increase factor = 1.59 17 0.9225 16 0.8962 
0.25 0.9137 0.25 0.8856 
0.5 0.9136 0.5 0.8836 
0.75 0.9113 0.75 0.8755 
15 0.8588 14 0.8528 
0.25 0.8553 0.25 0.8157 
0.5 0.8505 0.5 0.8009 
0.75 0.8456 0.75 0.7959 
13 0.7623 12 0.7136 
0.25 0.7618 0.25 0.7105 
0.5 0.7541 0.5 0.6905 
0.75 0.7416 0.75 0.6858 

Figure 3 compares the volumetric reliability objective function values in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different water levels in the tank under IWS conditions without considering the justice constraint (Scenario 1). Additionally, Figure 4 compares the volume reliability objective function values in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different water levels in the tank under IWS conditions while considering the justice constraint.
Figure 3

Comparison of volumetric reliability in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different levels of water in the tank.

Figure 3

Comparison of volumetric reliability in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different levels of water in the tank.

Close modal
Figure 4

Comparison of volumetric reliability for different percentages of justice constraint in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different levels of water in the tank under IWS conditions.

Figure 4

Comparison of volumetric reliability for different percentages of justice constraint in the network with basic water demand and networks with increased water demand at different levels of water in the tank under IWS conditions.

Close modal

As the amount of leakage is not constant and depends on pipe characteristics and water pressure, various formulas have been developed to estimate it. One of the most straightforward formulas for calculating leakage is Equation (15). However, since water pressure in urban networks can vary hourly, the amount of leakage also changes accordingly. Consequently, it is impossible to directly incorporate the variable leakage amounts into the model using software, as the leakage rate is also affected by changes in pressure. Given the dynamic nature of leakage, it is necessary to introduce the leakage rate into the model by accessing the program code, which represents an innovative approach in this research. The pressures obtained from the previous results without considering leakage are used to calculate the leakage, and the resulting leakage from the initial pressure is added to the total demand. In this research, for instance, 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes are randomly selected, and the probability that the selected nodes have the highest pressure increases. Additionally, the coefficient K used in the leakage calculation is randomly chosen between 0.05 and 0.5. Table S2 presents the objective function values for the desired network, considering the system's leakage.

Table S2 shows that as the leakage coefficient increases from zero to 0.3, the objective function value decreases by an average of approximately 17%, indicating a significant impact of leakage on the system.

The leakage calculations were performed for the network with increased demand factors of 2.19 and 1.59, and the results are also presented in Table S2. This table shows that leakage rate changes significantly impact the objective function value. The results presented in this table indicate that increasing the consumption coefficient from 1 to 1.59 and 2.19 has a significant impact (ranging from 15 to 43%) on the value of the objective function in all scenarios.

Figure 5 compares the volumetric reliability values for different water levels in the tank in the network with basic water demand, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes. Moreover, Figures 6 and 7 illustrate a comparison of the value of volumetric reliability for different water levels in the tank, as well as different justice indexes in networks with increasing water demand.
Figure 5

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for different water levels in the tank in the network with basic water demand, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Figure 5

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for different water levels in the tank in the network with basic water demand, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Close modal
Figure 6

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for the different water levels in the tank in the network with the demand increase factor of 2.19, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Figure 6

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for the different water levels in the tank in the network with the demand increase factor of 2.19, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Close modal
Figure 7

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for different water levels in the tank in the network with the demand increase factor of 1.59, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Figure 7

A comparison of the volumetric reliability values for different water levels in the tank in the network with the demand increase factor of 1.59, considering leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes.

Close modal

A simulation-optimization model was developed in this study to provide the IWS schedule in the studied network during water shortage conditions. The model aims to achieve maximum reliability while addressing justice by considering hydraulic and social constraints. Various scenarios were analyzed and evaluated to understand the impact of different factors on the objective function value. The findings showed that increased demand and water level decreases led to a significant decrease in reliability value. Additionally, as justice in the network increased (25, 50, and 75%), the objective function value slightly decreased.

Moreover, a comparison was made between the current conditions of the desired network and the scenarios with increased network demand while observing the justice condition. The results showed that the reliability decreased as the demand in the network increased. Studying the effects of leakage in networks, especially in networks with longer lifespans, on the water available to consumers and the network's reliability is crucial. Therefore, a scenario called the presence of leakage in the network was defined, with different percentages of leakage in the nodes. The volumetric reliability was evaluated for leakage in 10, 20, and 30% of the nodes, with and without the justice constraint. The justice constraint was applied with 25, 50, and 75% compliance rates in the network. The results indicated that the objective function value was higher in the case of no leakage compared to the corresponding value in the case of network leakage.

This research underscored the significance of IWS and highlighted the importance of considering various constraints to optimize water distribution network reliability and justice. However, it would be better if we could consider economic and mechanical constraints in the optimization model, which can be regarded as the future work of this study.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Baek
C. W.
,
Jun
H. D.
&
Kim
J. H.
2010
Development of a PDA model for water distribution systems using harmony search algorithm
.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
14
(
4
),
613
625
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-0613-7
.
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Hoseini-Ghafari
S.
,
Solgi
M.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2016
Intermittent urban water supply with protection of consumers’ welfare
.
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
7
(
3
).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000231
.
Duckstein
L.
&
Plate
E. J.
1987
Engineering
Reliability and Risk in Water Resources
.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
.
Giustolisi
O.
,
Savic
D.
&
Kapelan
Z.
2008
Pressure-driven demand and leakage simulation for water distribution networks
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
134
(
5
),
626
635
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(2008)134:5(626)
.
Gottipati
P. V. K. S. V.
&
Nanduri
U. V.
2014
Equity in water supply in intermittent water distribution networks
.
Water and Environment Journal
28
(
4
),
509
515
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12065
.
Goulter
I.
1995
Analytical and simulation models for reliability analysis in water distribution systems
.
Water Science and Technology
14,
235
266
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1841-7_10
.
Haider
H.
,
Al-Salamah
I. S.
,
Ghazaw
Y. M.
,
Abdel-Maguid
R. H.
,
Shafiquzzaman
M.
&
Ghumman
A. R.
2019
Framework to establish economic level of leakage for intermittent water supplies in arid environments
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
145
(
2
).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001027
.
Ilaya-Ayza
A. E.
,
Benítez
J.
,
Izquierdo
J.
&
Pérez-García
R.
2017
Multi-criteria optimization of supply schedules in intermittent water supply systems
.
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
309
,
695
703
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2016.05.009
.
Masoumi
F.
,
Masoumzadeh
S.
,
Zafari
N.
&
Javad Emami-Skardi
M.
2021
Optimum sanitary sewer network design using shuffled gray wolf optimizer
.
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
12
(
4
).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000597
.
Masoumi
F.
,
Masoumzadeh
S.
,
Zafari
N.
&
Emami-Skardi
M. J.
2022
Optimal operation of single and multi-reservoir systems via hybrid shuffled grey wolf optimization algorithm (SGWO)
.
Water Supply
22
(
2
),
1663
1675
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.326
.
Mirjalili
S.
,
Mirjalili
S. M.
&
Lewis
A.
2014
Grey wolf optimizer
.
Advances in Engineering Software
69
,
46
61
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007
.
Mohammadi
A.
,
Jalili-Ghazizadeh
M.
,
Moslehi
I.
&
Yousefi-Khoshqalb
E.
2020
Survival analysis of water distribution network under intermittent water supply conditions
.
Water Supply
20
(
8
),
3531
3541
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.228
.
Mokssit
A.
,
de Gouvello
B.
,
Chazerain
A.
,
Figuères
F.
&
Tassin
B.
2018
Building a methodology for assessing service quality under intermittent domestic water supply
.
Water
10
(
9
),
1164
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091164
.
Nyahora
P. P.
,
Babel
M. S.
,
Ferras
D.
&
Emen
A.
2020
Multi-objective optimization for improving equity and reliability in intermittent water supply systems
.
Water Supply
20
(
5
),
1592
1603
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.066
.
Sarisen
D.
,
Koukoravas
V.
,
Farmani
R.
,
Kapelan
Z.
&
Memon
F. A.
2022
Review of hydraulic modelling approaches for intermittent water supply systems
.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua
71
(
12
),
1291
1310
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.028
.
Shirzad
A.
,
Tabesh
M.
,
Farmani
R.
&
Mohammadi
M.
2013
Pressure-discharge relations with application to head-driven simulation of water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
139
(
6
),
660
670
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000305
.
Solgi
M.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
,
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni
S.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2015
Intermittent operation of water distribution networks considering equanimity and justice principles
.
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
6
(
4
).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000198
.
Solgi
M.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2020
A multi-objective optimization model for operation of intermittent water distribution networks
.
Water Supply
20
(
7
),
2630
2647
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.159
.
Soltanjalili
M.-J.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2013
Operating water distribution networks during water shortage conditions using hedging and intermittent water supply concepts
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
139
(
6
),
644
659
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000315
.
Taylor
D. D. J.
,
Slocum
A. H.
&
Whittle
A. J.
2019
Demand satisfaction as a framework for understanding intermittent water supply systems
.
Water Resources Research
55
(
7
),
5217
5237
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018wr024124
.
Totsuka
N.
,
Trifunovic
N.
&
Vairavamoorthy
K.
2004
Intermittent urban water supply under water starving situations
. In
People-Centred Approaches to Water and Environmental Sanitation: Proceedings of the 30th WEDC Conference
.
Vientiane, Lao PDR
, pp.
505
512
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Supplementary data