Real-time control (RTC) methods have been developed for over one decade to regulate service pressure and reduce leakage using pressure control valves in water distribution networks (WDN). The present study investigates control node selection frameworks and RTC system architecture for the field-oriented control of a rural WDN. The unique topology of the case-study area, the small size of the area, and high-pressure variety increased the considerations of the RTC system. A computer code was developed based on the method of characteristics for the hydraulic simulation of the network. The code could analyze unsteady flows through sloped pipes, implement pressure-based analysis, and regulate control valves based on the target node. Leakage reduction, pressure fluctuation reduction, and cavitation prevention were used as three criteria and constraints in the selection of control nodes. It was found that the optimal strategy would reduce the real water loss from 25 to 10%. Furthermore, key parameters in remote sensing were evaluated to minimize the number of sensors in order to further simplify the control algorithm and RTC system architecture through an artificial neural network (ANN) approach. The control function with a convergence rate of 99% was introduced.

  • The main objective of this study was field-oriented RTC in a WDN.

  • The RTC architecture was developed using an ANN and a control function.

  • A control node with minimum pressure maximizes leakage, but not necessarily pressure fluctuations.

  • New criteria, including cavitation index and head fluctuation, along with leakage reduction, play a key role in control node selection.

SYMBOLS ROMAN

A

cross-sectional pipe area (m2)

a

celerity or elastic wave speed (m/s)

C

steady and unsteady constants (–)

D

pipe diameter (m)

g

gravitational acceleration (m/s2)

H

head loss (m)

L

pipe length (m)

P

pressure head (m)

Q

flow rate, leakage (m3/s)

Re

Reynolds number (–)

Sl

the slope of the pipeline (–)

t

time (s)

v

absolute velocity of the fluid (m/s)

x

coordinate along the pipe axis (m)

GREEK SYMBOLS

β

model parameter (–)

ε

strain (–)

v

mean roughness of the pipe wall

SUPERSCRIPTS

leaks

leakage output

α

model parameter

SUBSCRIPTS

d

day

f

loss friction

i

input or initial points

j

final points

k

pipe number

mean

average pipe pressure

n

reverse characteristic line

p

forward characteristic line

q

quasi-steady

r

retarded

The global water data estimated a non-revenue water (NRW) volume of 128 billion m3 and an NRW cost of 40 billion USD in 2020. It should be mentioned that the real numbers of water loss volume are higher as only 54% of the global population uses tap water. Developing countries account for almost 74% of the water loss. Data measurements mostly estimated a global NRW rate of 20–40%, with an average of 32% (AL-Washali 2021).

The advantages of service pressure control in water distribution networks (WDNs) have been frequently mentioned in the literature in recent years, including preventive measures for reducing background leakage (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2022), diminishing pipe leakage and burst, the possibility of lengthening the service life of the infrastructure, decreasing the hidden leakage rate (Ebadati et al. 2021), and reducing customer complaints (Creaco et al. 2018). The effectiveness of the pressure control approach and its promising outcomes have been frequently mentioned in several studies. A 20–25% saving in operation and maintenance costs (Burn et al. 2002), a 25% leakage reduction in Mutare, Zimbabwe (Marunga et al. 2006), a saving of up to 35% in the WDN of Tehran, Iran (Nazif et al. 2010), an 80% leakage decrease through the combination of pressure management and infrastructure renovation/improvement in C-Town, Canada (Roshani & Filion 2014), an 46% average flow reduction in a DMA of a WDN of Beijing, China (Xu et al. 2014), Alexandria, Egypt (Samir et al. 2017), 50% reduction potential of NRW in about 38 Indian cities (Bandari & Sadhukhan 2023), and determination of economic loss levels in WDN with an optimization algorithm, Türkiye (Yilmaz et al. 2023), suggest that pressure control is an efficient decision-making approach to find the optimal solution to the performance improvement of a WDN.

Based on traditional operation frameworks, WDNs are typically expected to be efficient in most operational scenarios and ensure acceptable standards for customer satisfaction, including proper pressure, flow rate, quality, and reliability (Creaco et al. 2019). Remote real-time control (RTC) and fixed-output pressure-reducing valves (FO-PRVs) have been of increasing interest for pressure control in WDNs. FO-PRVs are mechanical-hydraulic devices that automatically reduce the input pressure to a constant lower output pressure regardless of the flow rate or input pressure variations (Ulanicki & Skworcow 2014). Although FO-PRVs provide a high level of reliability, they are set to achieve a local regulation point for the output pressure. Therefore, FO-PRVs cannot ensure a higher or equal pressure head in a given node or an expected minimum pressure for a given demand in the WDN (Creaco et al. 2018). In contrast, the RTC system controls nodes at the lowest pressure level during the day in the WDN and can remotely activate valves. Thus, service pressure regulation through RTC not only tackles the aforementioned challenge but also allows for exploding remote sensing and measurement (Campisano et al. 2016; Creaco et al. 2018). The tendency to create fluctuations at low flow rates is another disadvantage of FO-PRVs (Ulanicki & Skworcow 2014). The problems of this type of control valve include deviation from the set control point, hydraulic instabilities, and cavitation (Changklom & Stoianov 2017). On the other hand, when the operating conditions approach an unsteady state such as a water hammer, the performance of the model diverges (Janus & Ulanicki 2017). The FO-PRV will only function properly at flow rates greater than or equal to 0.7 L/s and maintain the downstream pressure around the set value (Marsili et al. 2020).

The term pressure fluctuation is used to describe any change in pressure level within pipelines, whether the change is gradual as in daily pressure profiles, or sudden changes as in pressure transient events. In practice, most pipes throughout a distribution network are exposed to different pressures during daily and seasonal changes in water consumption, as well as due to changes in system performance (KILIC et al. 2011). The design of the water pipes takes into account the working pressures, and as such, the maximum water pressure throughout the network is not sufficient to cause failure. Due to the cyclical nature of pressure fluctuations, fatigue mechanisms may be a major factor in asset deterioration and eventual failure (Rezaei et al. 2015). In the research (Meniconi et al. 2022a, 2022b), experimental tests and transient flow analysis were investigated under the influence of network topology and the position of the transient generation point (end-user consumption). The results showed that the most reflected waves appear in two positions and then weaken: (1) at the junction of the service line (due to the trapping and shock of the water hammer effect at this point). This case is less effective in the current study. Because the purpose of the current research was to investigate the effects on the entire network, and on the one hand, based on the results of Meniconi et al. (2022b), the wave resulting from the water hammer in plastic pipes with viscoelastic properties is weaker than other materials such as metal. Here, all the studied network pipes are made of PE. (2) The pressure waves applied to the network are gathered in the parts with the smallest diameter of the pipe.

Pressure RTC systems typically consist of control programs and loops. To implement these control loops in the case-study area, data were collected using equipment such as pressure sensors, motorized valves, controllers, and telemetry systems. Then, to obtain the pressure settings in the target node(s), opening degree instructions were sent to the valves. Other devices, such as flow meters, could be used in sites, depending on the strategy, to enhance data processing in RTC and improve pressure control performance (Creaco & Franchini 2013). In addition, to efficiently set RTC systems for pressure control, a number of control aspects should be considered from simulation to field implementation. It is also required to take into account controller calibration, communication protocols, and pressure signal noise aspects to reflect their effects on control performance (Campisano et al. 2016).

In an RTC system, the pressure at critical node(s) is monitored through sensor(s). Then, a programmable logic controller (PLC) can effectively adjust the valve(s) through the signals to maintain the minimum required pressure in the remote critical node(s). Although RTC has a higher initial cost than PRVs, RTC-based valves have a greater return on capital (ROC) in the long run, particularly in areas with high leakage and water price per unit (Creaco & Walski 2017).

The RTC simulation assumes that each target node in the WDN is regularly controlled at a time step of Δt, and the hydraulic analysis and control of the WDN are simultaneously performed. Furthermore, based on the recommendation of valve providers, the valve shutters are assumed to have the same opening and closing rates. The shutter displacement of the valve begins at control time t at a very small mechanical rate (<1 mm/s) so that the hydraulic effects of the transient pressures caused by shutter displacement are eliminated (Campisano et al. 2010, 2016).

A review of previous studies indicates at least three valid reasons for the implementation of RTC in WDNs, including (Creaco et al. 2019):

  • (1) Today, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies have facilitated supervision,

  • (2) Case-study studies have proved that RTC has a significant potential to improve the performance of WDNs, and

  • (3) RTC allows for saving water and energy.

To implement the RTC strategy on each positioned control valve, it is required to simulate the following stages for time t (Campisano et al. 2010):

  • (I) Obtaining the pressures of all the sensitive nodes in the WDN;

  • (II) Regulating the valve to achieve the desired pressure in the setpoint.

The selection of the target node (control node) is important in the establishment of an RTC architecture. Many studies proposed the node at the lowest pressure as the target node in the WDN. However, Campisano et al. (2010) suggested that nodes with a pressure change above 5% after the valve is fully closed (for example, a group of nodes that are affected by the action of the valve) are selected as target nodes. Moreover, the selection of appropriate control nodes is important from several aspects. First, the greatest leakage reduction results from the greatest removal of excess pressure at network nodes. On the other hand, the aim is to keep the pressure constant in the control node. Therefore, by choosing a control node outside the initial and end area of the distribution network, the greatest reduction in the signal of positive and negative pressure fluctuations is provided. As a result, by adjusting the service pressure, while increasing customer satisfaction, the possibility of pipe burst decreases (Campisano et al. 2016; Negharchi & Shafaghat 2022).

The selection of RTC architecture is an important step to maximize system performance. To select an effective and efficient architecture for the RTC system, detailed network design knowledge is required in order to identify PRV-sensitive nodes. In general, no architecture can be recommended as the most optimal alternative to adapt an RTC pressure program to WDNs since control systems encounter implementation challenges in sites (Campisano et al. 2016). However, local, remote, and single- or multi-control RTC architecture could be employed, depending on the WDN topology, connection patterns, and complexities (Creaco et al. 2019). Hence, different candidate architectures may be adopted.

For real-time PRV adjustment, the simplest architecture that can be adopted in the system is to use only one measuring (flow or pressure) sensor. In this architecture, the valve sensor and actuator are installed in the same location as the pumping station. The valve hydraulically pressurizes the flow and reduces the downstream service pressure.

The second architecture is implemented on relatively large systems, all of which are based on the remote control. A sensor performs remote measurements to set one (single-control) or more (multi-control) actuators (Berardi et al. 2018).

The third architecture, which is the most commonly used alternative for large WDNs, typically consists of multiple sensors and actuators, and the measurements performed in all the sites are sent to a central control room that operates different actuators in a coordinated manner at a comprehensive level. In some cases, sensors and actuators can communicate directly; however, they can be canceled by the control room.

Furthermore, depending on the RTC objectives, one can describe architectures that are controlled by an actuator based on measurements received by multiple distributed remote sensors in the network. Network control can consist of different degrees of automation, e.g., manual, supervised, and automatic. In manual control, actuators are set through instructions of human operators who compare the controlled variables to the setpoints. In supervised control, automatic controllers recommend modifications to supervision operators, and the operators apply the modifications based on their expertise. In the last case, fully automatized control is applied, even though it is possible to implement manual override under emergency conditions (Creaco et al. 2019).

The theoretical and practical advantages of pressure management have been analyzed in the literature, demonstrating the superiority of the RTC approach over FO control. In the RTC policy, the target node(s) are selected. Then, the most optimal regulatory head is identified through the dynamic modeling of network hydraulics. Finally, the effectiveness of the approach is evaluated using characteristics such as leakage reduction and customer complaint reduction. However, gaps remain yet to be filled in knowledge and technology development. First, no comprehensive criteria have been proposed for the selection of target nodes. The selection of the node with the lowest head as the target node in U-shaped1 WDNs with pressure lack and excess pressure at the network level at the same time would yield unreliable results due to a lack of an effective pressure balance. Moreover, research has shown that control algorithms are very effective; however, their effectiveness is more dependent on field conditions and RTC system architecture (Creaco & Franchini 2013; Campisano et al. 2016; Creaco et al. 2019; Bosco et al. 2020). To select the target node from candidate nodes, the present study evaluates pressure fluctuation reduction and valve cavitation as criteria in addition to the existing criteria in the literature. Modeling of WDNs under unsteady flow conditions considering water consumption effects has been presented in previous studies (Huang et al. 2017; Bohorquez et al. 2020; Marsili et al. 2022). Here, to enhance the dynamic regulation capabilities, the unsteady flow based on the transient nature of the demand pulses was tested in the laboratory environment and then modeled using the method of characteristics (MOC). Furthermore, the present study sought to conveniently implement RTC architecture in terms of the number of sensors and the number of actuators using ANN results. The WDN of the Gavankola village in northern Iran was discussed as a case study as it had a diverse topography, a U-shaped structure, and a large number of private storage tanks. The measurements of the input flow rate (using an ultrasonic flow meter) and the pressure at the critical point were performed through remote sensing at 10- and 5-min intervals, respectively. It is worth noting the issue of understanding the pressure waves caused by water hammer or pulse demand was investigated in the context of the laboratory test of the authors' previous research. Then the solution method was implemented for a real network. It is worth mentioning that in field conditions, most of the transient flows are caused by the phenomenon of pulsed demand, which has much milder pressure wave effects than the impact of a water hammer.

Control algorithm and RTC architecture

In order to achieve the algorithm and control program, it is first necessary to describe the hydraulic modeling approach. For this purpose, the hydraulic system according to Figure 1 is adopted. Water is supplied by a reservoir located upstream (point S). The hydrostatic pressure in the control node downstream of the pipeline (point N) is . It is assumed that an RTC-PRV is deployed at point V for the real-time pressure control of node N, and the pressure declines from H to the setpoint Hsp using the controller. Moreover, a demand-driven approach is adopted; the flow rate Q is assumed to be the same as the flow rate of the pipeline and independent of valve opening (Campisano et al. 2011).
Figure 1

A schematic of the proposed hydraulic system (Campisano et al. 2011).

Figure 1

A schematic of the proposed hydraulic system (Campisano et al. 2011).

Close modal
With the PRV installed, the head loss is given by
(1)
where ξ is the variable head loss coefficient, is the flow coefficient, is valve resistance, V is the water velocity through the pipe, Q is the flow rate, A is the pipe cross-sectional area, and g is the gravitational acceleration. PRVs are employed to maintain the pressure in the target node(s). PRVs reduce or maintain the pressure through shutter or membrane displacement. PRVs are modeled in the form of a local head loss.
Valve resistance is obtained as a function of the valve opening degree based on the catalog provided by the manufacturer. Figure 2 shows the opening degree determination of a PRV. The size of gate valves is determined based on the pipeline size, while the size of PRVs is dependent on the required flow rate and the manufacturer-recommended optimal velocity. In contrast to non-Iranian companies, Iranian manufacturers often provide flow coefficient graphs rather than head loss coefficient diagrams (Negharchi et al. 2016). The regression form (polynomial) of the valve opening degree (based on the catalog of Mechanic_AB.Co (2024) is written as
(2)
where and represent a 100% close and a 100% open PRV, respectively. The control process adjusts the valve shutter based on Equation (2). Furthermore, the allowable pressure loss of a PRV is determined using the cavitation curve. It is required to ensure that the PRV does not operate in the cavitation zone. To this end, the input and output pressures should be identified in the graph to find their intersection. Then, it is required to ensure that the intersection is not in the cavitation zone. In general, the output pressure of a port-type valve can be reliably reduced to one-sixth of the input pressure; however, for a higher-pressure reduction, the cavitation index must be positive.
Figure 2

PRV opening degree determination based on the manufacturer's catalog.

Figure 2

PRV opening degree determination based on the manufacturer's catalog.

Close modal

The RTC architectures could be classified into two groups based on the network type:

  • (I) Single-control architecture is recommended when the PRVs are positioned in the inlet of a branched network (with no loops). The target node is selected among nodes that are directly influenced by each PRV. This implies that the nodes which are sensitive to a given PRV are not sensitive to other PRVs. Fig. 1 of Campisano et al. (2016) depicts single-control architectures. Figure 1(a) shows a network in which all the nodes are sensitive to PRV 1, while Figure 1(b) indicates that PRV 2 enables the selection of another group of PRVs for these two PRVs.

  • (II) Multi-control architecture is recommended when PRVs positioned in a looped network have shared sensitive nodes, as shown in Fig. 2 of Campisano et al. (2016). Figure 2(a) illustrates such a network. PRVs 1 and 2 mutually affect each other. Thus, the coordinated RTC of the two PRVs is necessary to avoid control system destabilization. Figure 2(b) shows a control architecture where the two PRVs share no sensitive node. As mentioned, single-control architecture is the only alternative recommended. The methods described in architectures I and II can be used for combined branched-looped networks.

Case-study WDN

This study used a real WDN in the Gavankola village, Mazandaran Province, northern Iran, as a case study to improve RTC architecture to reduce leakage and burst. The Gavankola WDN has features that have rarely been discussed in previous research. The selected rural area has various pressure services that involve two consumption patterns (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2022), and approximately half of the customers use private storage tanks to store water. Also, the tourist attraction of this village has caused a significant increase in water consumption on weekends. The WDN implements a gravitational distribution of water through polyethylene pipes and meets the national standards of Iran – i.e., the pipes have larger diameters than the required diameter for typical consumers. The WDN has been increased by nearly 1.4 km in length by experts to improve water distribution management in the past 12 months. The WDN was structured using nodes and 129 main branches. Table 1 summarizes the major characteristics of the WDN. It has a reservoir, a pumping station with a single pump, and nine commercial pipe sizes (32–125 mm). The maximum elevation difference between the reservoir and consumption points is 91 m. The WDN experiences high-pressure fluctuations during the day due to its U-shaped structure. It should be noted that bursts and leakage are much more likely to occur in variable-pressure water distribution systems (KILIC et al. 2011; Rezaei et al. 2015). High leakage was directly associated with the high pressure of the Gavankola WDN.

Table 1

WDN parameters

CharacteristicsGavankola
Number of costumers 309 
Number of nodes 130 
Number of pipes 129 
Developed pipes total length (km) 9.413 
Median Hazen–Williams coefficient 85 
Wave speed (m/s) 314 
Number of inlets 
Mean flow supplied (L/s) 4.18 
Mean consumption (L/s) 2.22 
The standard deviation of 10 min consumption (L/s) 0.68 
Number of inhabitants 900 
Area (km21.1 
legitimate night-time consumption (L/s) 1.88 
Minimum night flow (L/s) 1.12 
Real Water loss (%) 24 
Non-revenue water (%) 47 
Maximal difference in elevation (m) 91 
CharacteristicsGavankola
Number of costumers 309 
Number of nodes 130 
Number of pipes 129 
Developed pipes total length (km) 9.413 
Median Hazen–Williams coefficient 85 
Wave speed (m/s) 314 
Number of inlets 
Mean flow supplied (L/s) 4.18 
Mean consumption (L/s) 2.22 
The standard deviation of 10 min consumption (L/s) 0.68 
Number of inhabitants 900 
Area (km21.1 
legitimate night-time consumption (L/s) 1.88 
Minimum night flow (L/s) 1.12 
Real Water loss (%) 24 
Non-revenue water (%) 47 
Maximal difference in elevation (m) 91 

Pressure and flow rate data were collected at 5- and 10-min intervals for a 3-month period, respectively. An ultrasonic flow meter (SonixMeter SL300) with a data logger was installed on the inlet main pipe of the WDN (Soleyman.Co 2024). The flow velocity was measured via the time difference method (by measuring the time difference between ultrasonic signals transmitted between the sensors).

Generation of demand pulses in network nodes

Consumption curves are used to determine the nodal demand. Two different approaches can be adopted to present the consumption curve. In the first approach, the amount of water entering the network is measured at different time intervals. Then the consumption multiplier is created based on the average consumption. Finally, considering this correction factor, the nodal demand is obtained at any time (Creaco et al. 2015). The second approach, known as the bottom-up approach, creates a consumption pattern or demand time series based on the aggregation of the nodal demand process of individual customers' demands. This approach is called demand pulses. In recent years, hydraulic analysis of unsteady flows using the concept of demand pulses has received more attention (Creaco et al. 2017). In the demand pulses approach, the amount of common demand is called pulse intensity and the demand withdrawal time is called pulse duration.

Here, a combination of three approaches of water demand time series, consumption accumulation pattern of each component, and leakage pattern has been used to create the demand pulse pattern in nodes. Based on the first approach, by measuring the inlet flow rate of the network, the pattern of the demand factor of the whole network can be determined. Then, based on the required flow of each pipe, the demand of each node is assigned.

The inlet flow rate of the network was collected over 3 months (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2020). Here, most customers use water storage tanks to store water at night within the specified limits.

A fraction of water inflow in a WDN is lost through leakage. The leakage rate varies during the day. The leakage was calculated using the minimum night flow (MNF) method (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2020). The difference between the inflow rate and leakage rate represents the consumption rate of the customers (Figure 3 – total demand).
Figure 3

Demand pattern of all the customers, Group A and Group B.

Figure 3

Demand pattern of all the customers, Group A and Group B.

Close modal

A pressure sensor was installed in the critical node of the network, where the least service pressure to customers. Since this pressure is service pressure or discharge pressure, the trend of the pressure pattern (unlike the pressure and flow behavior at the network input) will indicate the pattern of demand pulses for customers with private storage tanks (Group B). The demand pulse pattern of Group A would be calculated as the difference between the total consumption pattern and the demand pattern of Group B, as shown in Figure 3. This study used remote data transmission without computers. The authors described the technical characteristics of the equipment in earlier works (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2020, 2021).

Model simulation

Unsteady flow model

For an unsteady flow with two dynamic terms of unsteady pressure loss and viscoelastic pipe wall effects, the partial differential equations (PDEs) of the conservations of mass and momentum are derived as (Chaudhry 2014; Evangelista et al. 2015):
(3)
(4)
where is the instantaneous piezometer head, is the instantaneous flow rate, is the slope of the energy line, and d/dt denotes the total derivative (). This system of differential equations is solved using the MOC. To complete the calculations at each space step, upstream (constant-pressure reservoir), downstream (transient flow production valve), and PRV boundary conditions are considered.
Characteristic lines indicate the path physically traveled by the transient wave along the pipeline at each space step. The length of the pipe is discretized at a space step of . Then, the time step of the analysis is obtained as . The compatibility equations of linear viscoelastic polyethylene pipes can be written in a simple form as (Soares et al. 2008; Chaudhry 2014):
(5)
(6)
WDNs with variable parameters were analyzed by developing modified relations for sloped WDNs in the form of a computer code. The pipeline slope is defined based on the empirical model structure with some sloped pipes using Equation (7). As a result, steady-state friction, unsteady-state friction, and the mechanical model adopted to describe the viscoelastic behavior of the pipe are given by Equations (8) and (9) (Negharchi & Shafaghat 2021):
(7)
(8)
(9)
where , , and are certain constants dependent on the numerical approach adopted (Soares et al. 2008; Chaudhry 2014). Marks ′, ″, and ′′′ represent steady-state friction, unsteady friction, and the mechanical behavior of the pipe wall. It should be noted that B is a function of the physical parameters of the fluid and pipe.
(10)

The coefficients are defined in Soares et al. (2008). The boundary conditions and equations of PRVs to solve the unsteady flow model in Table 1 are provided in Janus & Ulanicki (2018).

The numerical definition of each coefficient is available in earlier works (Soares et al. 2008). The boundary conditions and relationships of PRVs to solve the unsteady flow model are presented in Table 1 (Janus & Ulanicki 2018).

Frictional pressure loss estimation
Several methods are employed to estimate the pressure loss of a steady flow. The present study calculated the steady-state pressure loss as a quasi-steady flow using the explicit Hagen–Poiseuille equations (Equation (11)) for laminar flow regime (Re < 2,000) and using the Colebrook equation (Equation (12)) for turbulent flows regime (Re > 4,000). Moreover, a linear equation is defined for pressure loss function continuity at Reynolds numbers of 2,000–4,000 (Vítkovský et al. 2000; Covas 2003).
(11)
(12)
Several equations have been proposed to estimate the unsteady pressure loss. Research has shown that the model proposed by Brunone et al. (2000) outperforms other models (Rahmanshahi et al. 2018). Vítkovský et al. (2000) proposed the modified variant of the Brunone et al. model (Vítkovský et al. 2000). The modified equations are written as Equations (13)–(15). The effects of unsteady frictional pressure loss fluctuations are simulated based on the instantaneous local acceleration and instantaneous transitional acceleration in this model.
(13)
(14)
(15)
where is Brunone's friction deterioration coefficient, while the operator Sign denotes the sign function (Covas 2003). The flow parameter in section i at time j for all the internal sections of the pipe is modeled as:
(16)
(17)

Furthermore, the additional equations that describe the boundary conditions at the two ends of the pipe should be determined.

Calibration

The experimental WDN model at the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology was used to validate and calibrate the simulation model since it had the same pipe material (i.e., polyethylene) and density as the Gavankola WDN. Since it had a slope, this WDN could provide a realistic representation of WDNs. First, the system was simulated without the effects of drops for a steady-state flow. Then, the WDN was simulated for the same initial conditions in the computer code using the MOC. It was found that acceptable results could be obtained even by one division; however, more realistic results could be derived by increasing Ns. The evaluation of the effect of the space step () on MOC accuracy indicated that the use of 20 divisions for each pipe in the WDN could yield the most rapid solution with an error below 1%. The unknown numerical parameters, including the coefficients of the longitudinal frictional pressure loss and local pressure losses in the steady-state flow, were obtained using experimental testing after the influential unsteady flow coefficients had been determined.

Hydraulic model and leakage

This model can also implement WDN pressure-driven analyses. The demand of each node can be found as a function of the nodal hydraulic pressure (H). Likewise, the service flow rate Qe is calculated as:
(18)
where is the nodal demand, denotes the minimum allowable hydraulic pressure, and is the minimum hydraulic pressure required for full customer satisfaction. From a hydraulic modeling perspective, leakage is assumed to be a dispersive water discharge that is dependent on the flow rate and pressure along the pipe. Previous studies assumed the leakage rate was dependent on the average pipe pressure (Giustolisi et al. 2008; Giustolisi & Walski 2012). Thus, the leakage rate of pipe k is calculated as:
(19)
where k denotes the number of the pipe, is the leakage discharge of pipe k, and are model parameters (Giustolisi et al. 2008; Berardi et al. 2015), is the pipe length, and is the average of the pipe. For a pipe between nodes i and j, .

ANN

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been employed in WDNs since the late 1980s. They incorporate variables such as flow rate, pressure, district metered area (DMA) demand, reservoir water level, valve and pump settings, and pipe characteristics for leakage/burst detection, operational control settings, and the prediction of the pressure distribution and demand (O'Reilly et al. 2018; Kizilöz 2022; Rashid & Kumari 2023). Since it is impossible to install pressure sensors in all or a large number of nodes, it is not possible to permanently supervise and predict parameters, particularly leakage (Meirelles et al. 2017). Moreover, it may be time-consuming and costly to measure and analyze sensor data (Meirelles et al. 2017). Hence, ANNs could be utilized for process prediction.

Considering the complexity of WDNs, the present study adopted an ANN as an efficient approach for PRV setting prediction. A controller sets and controls the pressure adjustment screw on the valve pilot. The proposed ANN has a feedforward multi-layer perceptron (MLP) architecture (Wei et al. 2021). MLPs are popular predictive algorithms in water distribution systems. A review reported that nearly 40% of the papers in the literature had adopted MLPs for prediction (O'Reilly et al. 2018). The present study utilizes a hyperbolic tangent sigmoid activation function for neurons in the hidden layer (Rumelhart et al. 1985) and employs the Levenberg–Marquardt method to train the ANN.

The weights and bias are adjusted to minimize the mean square error (MSE) and maximize ANN performance. The input and output simulated data are randomly divided into training, validation, and testing datasets. The present study uses 70% of the simulated data as the training dataset, 15% of the data as the validation dataset, and the remaining 15% as the testing dataset.

The proposed ANN involved one hidden layer; however, the optimal number of neurons is dependent on the predicted error by the simulation. To select an effective ANN to predict the PRV opening degree, the number of neurons in the hidden layer was investigated using trial and error, evaluating performance and correlation coefficient. Finally, the optimal number of hidden neurons was selected.

The present study adopted the BP learning methodology, including dynamic learning. An iterative configuration enables the ANN to recover its previous results from the feedback of the produced opening degree settings. The adopted architecture is known as the element network, in which the outputs are compared to the inputs, utilizing BP to gradually set the PRV opening degree. This ANN was employed as it was an efficient behavior estimator in control systems. The development of an MLP can be summarized as (Barros Filho et al. 2018):

  • (1) Defining the hidden layer number;

  • (2) Defining the number of neurons in the hidden layer;

  • (3) Generating random data for ANN weighting;

  • (4) Implementing the regulation algorithm with real-time learning;

  • (5) Confirming the PRV opening degree regulation.

The proposed ANN model consists of an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer. As the MLP was intended to control pressures in a WDN, the input signals included variables influencing pressure control. Furthermore, the supervision system consisted of a minimum of one and a maximum of three inputs and a single output. The inputs would receive signals from two pressure transducers, a flow meter, and PRV position feedback. The outputs were employed to change the pressure adjustment screw position. The ANN controller was aimed at maintaining the output pressure of the valves at a level near the setpoint in all the tests.

Finally, a flowchart of the whole methodology is presented according to Figure 4.
Figure 4

The dynamic model flowchart based on pulse frequency.

Figure 4

The dynamic model flowchart based on pulse frequency.

Close modal

Simulation framework

For simulation, the nodes were classified into consumption nodes and connection nodes. Based on the MOC, a connection node could function only as a cumulative accumulation node. Therefore, to apply the corresponding demand of the node, it is required to define a structure of a virtual pipe and a virtual consumption node (Fig. 11 in Negharchi & Shafaghat (2022)). Hence, a WDN was structured using 221 pipes and 222 nodes (Figure 5). The simulation framework was developed by introducing the data of the pipes, including the numbers of nodes at pipes both ends, unsteady flow wave velocity, inner diameter, pipe slope, and initial head and flow rate (based on MOC principles (Chaudhry 2014)).
Figure 5

WDN structure and zones of Gavankola village; important pressure quantities.

Figure 5

WDN structure and zones of Gavankola village; important pressure quantities.

Close modal
The model of nodal demand generation in unsteady flow modeling was implemented in MATLAB. The computations were performed on a laptop with CPU Intel Core i7-2630QM 2.0 GHz and 8 GB of RAM. The hydraulic analysis of the WDN was carried out with 221 pipes of a maximum length of 149.7 m (150 space steps) for a period of 72 min (30 s for each demand) under the assumption of a necessary steady-state pressure pattern. The time step of the model was determined to be 0.003184 s. The solution matrix had a dimension of 221 × 150 × 678,240. The pressure was quantified for all the sections at all times. The pressure quantities were collected every 30 s for the end section of each of the 129 main pipes for hydraulic analysis. Figure 6 plots the pressure fluctuations and the mean pressure of each pipe during the 24 h. As can be seen, the WDN was found to have an average pressure head of 63.4 m and an average pressure fluctuation of 9.7 m. The maximum pressure occurred in Zone B due to the large elevation differences (up to 96 m in some locations). The maximum pressure fluctuations occurred in Zones B and D, partially due to consumption pattern changes and being located at the end of the WDN.
Figure 6

Mean pressure and pressure fluctuations of the pipes.

Figure 6

Mean pressure and pressure fluctuations of the pipes.

Close modal

The control time step of Δt = 10 min was found to be effective for the analysis of the WDN. It was long enough to allow for neglecting instabilities arising from the valve reaction. In addition, it was short enough to enable a pressure deviation from the setpoint between two consecutive operation times. Indeed, the selection of the control time step was specific to the case study WDN. The present study sought to minimize the pressures of the pipes and ensure that the customer demands would be completely met. To this end, the estimated leakage was used as the evaluation criterion. For control conditions, the pressure of the control node was required to remain unchanged, while the pressure throughout the WDN was required to remain above 5 m (Campisano et al. 2010, 2016) and below 50 m, based on Iranian national regulations (Guideline 556 of Iran MOE 2017).

The simulations were aimed at:

  • (1) Determining the proper target node for regulation in the control algorithm and

  • (2) Determining the main parameter to implement the control algorithm.

An analysis of the pressure reduction potential indicated that RTC implementation in the main pipeline (including sub-branches that were not regulated by pressure management areas (PRVs)) while keeping PRVs installable at the primary of some PMAs could provide numerous benefits.

Control node selection

The node with the minimum pressure has been recommended to be considered as the control node in the literature; meeting the minimum allowable pressure in the control node minimizes the pressure levels throughout the WDN for a period of 24 h, diminishing the leakage. Furthermore, constant service pressure would satisfy customers. However, this scenario is not practical in the case study WDN due to its topography and U-shaped structure. The excess pressure begins at the end of Pipe 6. Thus, the control of this point enables the effective control of all the zones. As a result, the main PRV (RTC-PRV) was positioned at the end of Pipe 6.

If the node with the minimum pressure (selected as the control node) is kept at the minimum allowable head (i.e., 5 m), a large fraction of the WDN will still have a higher head than the maximum allowable level (i.e., 50 m).

Furthermore, the idea of selecting the node with the maximum pressure may be applied. However, the implementation of the control algorithm based on the maximum absolute head would keep a significant portion of the WDN below the minimum allowable head. Thus, the constraints can be handled only by eliminating all the excess pressures and using small pumps. To this end, the control node is selected from the nodes with low-pressure levels in the WDN. The present study utilizes two filters. First, the minimum daily pressure is considered as a criterion at the critical maximum pressure node. This level was simulated as 83 m in the WDN. Thus, the pipes whose minimum simulation pressures were below 38 m were filtered as the candidate target nodes, as shown in Figure 6 – this criterion was implemented based on the difference between the minimum and maximum allowable pressure levels (83 − 50 + 5 = 38 m). A total of 14 nodes were found to be candidate target nodes using this filter. Second, the worst node in each branch was selected, and the remaining nodes were excluded. Finally, the end nodes of pipes 62, 82, 91, and 60 were selected for analysis. The regulation of the pressure in the control nodes to the minimum pressure (i.e., 5 m) changed the initial pressure pattern (Figure 6) into a new pressure distribution, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Pressures of zones C, E, F, G, and H under the control of different target nodes

ResultsRTC
P#62
RTC
P#82
RTC
P#91
FO-6RTC
P#60-set12
WDN mean pressure (m) 30.4 29.2 18.6 30.8 21.1 
Pressures higher than 50 m (%) 12 
Pressures between 30 and 50 m (%) 44 42 27 44 32 (0% > 42) 
Pressures between 5 and 30 m (%) 44 47 61 39 56 
Pressures lower than 5 m (%) 12 12 12 
Pressure fluctuation (m) 5.4 8.6 12.7 7.5 5.3 
ResultsRTC
P#62
RTC
P#82
RTC
P#91
FO-6RTC
P#60-set12
WDN mean pressure (m) 30.4 29.2 18.6 30.8 21.1 
Pressures higher than 50 m (%) 12 
Pressures between 30 and 50 m (%) 44 42 27 44 32 (0% > 42) 
Pressures between 5 and 30 m (%) 44 47 61 39 56 
Pressures lower than 5 m (%) 12 12 12 
Pressure fluctuation (m) 5.4 8.6 12.7 7.5 5.3 

The end node of pipe 62 is the first candidate control node among four candidates, based on the literature. Under RTC implemented, when this node is kept at the minimum level (5 m), all the nodes in the WDN meet the minimum pressure constraint; however, 12% of the WDN exceeds the maximum allowable head (due to the high elevation differences in the case-study WDN). The implementation of RTC in the second candidate control node (the end of pipe 82) leads to slight violations of the two constraints. RTC in the third candidate control node (i.e., the end of pipe 91) would eliminate all the excess pressures; however, a pressure shortage appears in two sub-branches, which could be handled using two low-energy pumps.

The pressure fluctuation in these control nodes is of great importance. Although it led to the most optimal pressure levels and average WDN pressure, candidate control node 91 maximized the pressure fluctuation (up to 12.7 m). This would result in bursts. In other words, this node has both a positive and a negative effect on leakage reduction at the same time.

It was found that the positioning of the target node closer to the geographical center of the WDN reduces the pressure fluctuations. Therefore, node 60 was evaluated as the fourth candidate control node with different regulation conditions from the other candidates. It was regulated at 12 m. According to Table 2, node 60 not only provided the same benefits as node 91 but also reduced the pressure fluctuations.

Figure 7 depicts the contributions of the zones to the leakage and the effects of the control node candidates on leakage reduction. It should be noted that the contributions are also provided for candidate control node 6 to compare the RTC and FO approaches. The maximum leakage reductions were expectedly found to occur for control nodes 91 and 60; the initial leakage declined from 1.105 L/s (24.7%) to 0.505 L/s (12%) for control node 91 and to 0.545 L/s (13%) for control node 60.
Figure 7

Leakage and saving contributions (L/s) of the zones under non-RTC and RTC approaches in control nodes 91, 82, 60, 6, and 62.

Figure 7

Leakage and saving contributions (L/s) of the zones under non-RTC and RTC approaches in control nodes 91, 82, 60, 6, and 62.

Close modal
Based on the manufacturer's specifications and a valve control motor was considered as a pressure control measure. The PRV was positioned based on the limitations to ensure power supply to RTC requirements and convenient PRV repair and maintenance. The PRV size was found to be 2 inches. The considerations of installation, PRV manhole size, air valve, and standard gate valve were taken into account. Furthermore, it is essential to avoid PRV cavitation. The cavitation index range is provided by the manufacturer. This index is dependent on the input and output pressures of the PRV. To prevent the cavitation phenomenon in the valve, it is necessary that the cavitation index (6P_o-P_i + 2 [bar]) has a positive value. RTC-PRV regulation was studied for pressure control in the candidate nodes, as shown in Figure 8. According to Figure 8(a), regulation in control node 91 would lead to cavitation. Thus, node 91 should not be used as the control node. Node 60 is the most optimal control node candidate. It should be noted that the cavitation index almost remains unchanged as pressure is constant in node 6 under the FO approach. Figure 8(b) shows the range of input and output pressures under the influence of different candidate target nodes. As can be seen, in some working times (related to the target node 91), the considerations of the cavitation index have not been observed.
Figure 8

Cavitation index and input–output pressure range of ported PRVs in the candidate control nodes.

Figure 8

Cavitation index and input–output pressure range of ported PRVs in the candidate control nodes.

Close modal

Also, as mentioned earlier, in components of the network that have the smallest diameter, the most reflected waves appear. In this study, the RTC valve was selected based on the valve selection criteria of the manufacturer's catalog (as flow rate), with a size of two inches, while based on the RTC architecture, the pipe diameter at that position was 110 mm. Therefore, in addition to the considerations related to the cavitation index of the valve catalog, it is also evaluated as the potential point to create vulnerability indices.

Finally, control node 60 represents the optimal candidate in terms of leakage and pressure fluctuation minimization. Two simulation scenarios are considered: (1) FO-PRV is applied in the inlets of zones A, B, and D, and (2) constant-head pumps or variable-speed pumps (VSPs) are employed in sub-branches below the standard pressure. The adopted strategy was found to be effective as it resulted in an average saving of 0.69 L/s, diminishing the real water loss from nearly 27 to 10%. According to Figure 9, the RTC strategy was found to outperform VSP, pipe displacement, and FO-PRV strategies.
Figure 9

Effects of the RTC strategy for control node 60; (a) leakage reduction during the day (24 h), (b) effects of the control measures, and (c) leakage and water saving (L/s) contributions of the zones.

Figure 9

Effects of the RTC strategy for control node 60; (a) leakage reduction during the day (24 h), (b) effects of the control measures, and (c) leakage and water saving (L/s) contributions of the zones.

Close modal

Furthermore, the modification of the WDN (FO-PRV effect in the inlet of zone D) changed the leakage to 0.894 L/s in the non-RTC approach, while the use of RTC saves only 0.06 L/s of water, as shown in Figure 9(b). It should be noted that FO-PRV leakage reduction in the inlet of zone D was estimated to be larger for other control nodes. Thus, WDN modification can be expected to result in a 5–20% reduction in leakage.

Additionally, the results indicated that small pumps and VSPs would not be different in water loss reduction since the pump operation time and demand are low, and Mazandaran Water and Wastewater Company would not require additional pumps if sufficient water was stored in private storage tanks, with the approval of the customers.

Control algorithm framework determination based on the ANN results

An ANN with a hidden layer is employed. However, the optimal number of neurons is dependent on the predicted error. Hence, to develop an efficient ANN to predict the RTC-PRV control algorithm, different numbers of hidden neurons were evaluated using trial and error. Then, performance and correlation coefficient were evaluated to find the optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer. Table 3 represents the ANN input and output data ranges and the corresponding results.

Table 3

ANN input and output parameter ranges

ParameterRangeOptimal number of neuronsRMSE
Input Flow rate (Q6–17 (m3/h) 11 0.988 0.537 
Input PRV input pressure (Pi12–19 (m) 0.548 15.99 
Input PRV output pressure (Po49–57 (m) 70 0.308 20.65 
Output PRV opening degree (α21–41 11 0.993 8.145 × 10−5 
ParameterRangeOptimal number of neuronsRMSE
Input Flow rate (Q6–17 (m3/h) 11 0.988 0.537 
Input PRV input pressure (Pi12–19 (m) 0.548 15.99 
Input PRV output pressure (Po49–57 (m) 70 0.308 20.65 
Output PRV opening degree (α21–41 11 0.993 8.145 × 10−5 

The performance of the ANN was evaluated for different numbers of hidden neurons to predict the RTC-PRV setting opening degree. The dataset was divided into training, validation, and testing subsets. A total of 144 data points were provided for the ANN, including 100 training data points, 22 validation data points, and 22 testing data points. To identify the optimal ANN structure, the optimal number of hidden neurons for PRV opening degree settings was found to be 11 using trial and error. Furthermore, the optimal inputs were independently identified. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the input error and the proposed ANN structure for the prediction of the PRV setting opening degree, respectively. As can be seen, the input flow rate was found to be a more efficient parameter for prediction. This is important since:
  • (1) The use of fewer measurement parameters eliminates the need for more measurement devices and handles data sampling concurrency, and

  • (2) The output pressure or control node pressure data would change due to the PRV adjustment, requiring new data samplings for the control algorithm.

Figure 10

Input errors.

Figure 11

Proposed ANN structure for PRV setting opening degree prediction.

Figure 11

Proposed ANN structure for PRV setting opening degree prediction.

Close modal
Figure 12 compares the number of data points and the PRV setting opening degrees predicted for the training, validation, and testing subsets and the total dataset using a linear regression model. As can be seen, the data points are mostly situated on or around the bisector, suggesting a good correlation between the simulation data and ANN predictions. The MSE and correlation coefficient (R) were calculated to be 0.537 and 0.988, respectively. This implies that the proposed ANN accurately predicted the PRV setting opening degree.
Figure 12

Correlation between simulation data and predicted outputs for the PRV opening degree for the (a) training, (b) validation, (c) testing, and (d) total data.

Figure 12

Correlation between simulation data and predicted outputs for the PRV opening degree for the (a) training, (b) validation, (c) testing, and (d) total data.

Close modal
Figure 13 compares the simulation data and prediction outputs of the PRV setting opening degree, suggesting that the proposed ANN is efficient and effective. Based on the ANN weight and bias, it is proposed that:
(20)
where i is the number of input data points, Pi denotes the input data, and Ne is the number of hidden neurons selected through trial and error. Finally, by adjusting the PRV shutter opening based on the presented RTC algorithm, it can be expected that the pressure at the target node (node 91 in this research) will always remain constant at the set value (12 m). The most appropriate control conditions will be provided.
Figure 13

Comparison of the simulation data and predicted outputs of the PRV setting opening degree.

Figure 13

Comparison of the simulation data and predicted outputs of the PRV setting opening degree.

Close modal

This study applied RTC to a real-life WDN to evaluate whether it could be a field-oriented approach. Control node selection, RTC architecture, and control algorithm are known as the three main factors in the development and implementation of RTC methods. The first two factors were developed in a rural WDN in northern Iran. The dynamic hydraulic modeling of the field WDN was performed by developing a computer code using the MOC. Furthermore, the calibration results of the frictional pressure loss coefficients of steady and unsteady flows and the local pressure loss coefficients of the hydraulic model at the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology have been employed for field WDN simulations. To extract input data for the computer code, field measurements were used, including target node pressure measurements at 5-min intervals and WDN input flow rate measurements at 10-min intervals. Finally, the RTC architecture was simplified using an ANN and a control function. The results can be summarized as:

  • (1) The total inflow rate was measured to be 4.18 L/s and the initial leakage was 1.105 L/s. Regardless of the effect of RTC, two pipeline modification and FO-PRVs approaches were investigated, which showed that the initial leakage was reduced to 0.894 and 0.873 L/s, respectively.

  • (2) The control node with the minimum pressure would maximize the leakage but not necessarily the pressure fluctuations. Therefore, the burst rate and leakage would be likely to increase.

  • (3) Since the conventional control node selection criteria (the node with the minimum pressure during the day) could not meet the pressure constraints, new criteria, including the cavitation index and head fluctuation, along with leakage reduction, play key roles in the selection of the control node.

  • (4) In this study, the suggestion of past research (i.e., choosing the node with the lowest pressure in the WDN as the target node) was not applied, because in this case, one of the three selection criteria (i.e., cavitation index) was not met. Therefore, the node where the base working pressure was equal to 12 m instead of the minimum head (5 m) was chosen as the target node.

  • (5) The ANN (MLP) indicated that the flow rate was the key parameter for remote sensing, and the RTC architecture was further simplified.

Considering the existence of lows and highs in real WDNs, it is suggested to analyze and investigate the process of air trapping and its unsteady flow modeling in future works.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

1

A structure of a pipe path in which the elevation points are drawn from high to down and then to high.

AL-Washali
T. M.
2021
Water loss assessment in distribution networks: Methods, applications and implications in intermittent supply methods
. In:
Applications and Implications in Intermittent Supply
.
CRC Press, London, UK
.
Barros Filho
E. G.
,
Salvino
L. R.
,
Bezerra
S. d. T. M.
,
Salvino
M. M.
&
Gomes
H. P.
2018
Intelligent system for control of water distribution networks
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
18
,
1270
1281
.
Berardi
L.
,
Laucelli
D.
,
Ugarelli
R.
&
Giustolisi
O.
2015
Leakage management: Planning remote real time controlled pressure reduction in oppegård municipality
.
Procedia Engineering
119
(
7
),
81
82
.
Berardi
L.
,
Simone
A.
,
Laucelli
D. B.
,
Ugarelli
R. M.
&
Giustolisi
O.
2018
Relevance of hydraulic modelling in planning and operating real-time pressure control: Case of Oppegård municipality
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics
20
,
535
550
.
Bohorquez
J.
,
Alexander
B.
,
Simpson
A. R.
&
Lambert
M. F.
2020
Leak detection and topology identification in pipelines using fluid transients and artificial neural networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
146
,
04020040
.
Brunone
B.
,
Karney
B. W.
,
Mecarelli
M.
&
Ferrante
M.
2000
Velocity profiles and unsteady pipe friction in transient flow
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
126
,
236
244
.
Burn
L. S.
,
De Silva
D.
&
Shipton
R. J.
2002
Effect of demand management and system operation on potable water infrastructure costs
.
Urban Water
4
(
22
),
236
239
.
Campisano
A.
,
Creaco
E.
&
Modica
C.
2010
RTC of valves for leakage reduction in water supply networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
136
,
138
141
.
Campisano
A.
,
Modica
C.
&
Vetrano
L.
2011
Calibration of proportional controllers for the RTC of pressures to reduce leakage in water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
138
,
377
384
.
Campisano
A.
,
Modica
C.
,
Reitano
S.
,
Ugarelli
R.
&
Bagherian
S.
2016
Field-oriented methodology for real-time pressure control to reduce leakage in water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
142
,
04016057
.
Changklom
J.
&
Stoianov
I.
2017
Fault detection and diagnosis for pressure control valves in water supply networks
. In:
CCWI 2017, 15th International Computing & Control for the Water Industry Conference
.
Chaudhry
M. H.
2014
Transient-flow equations
. In:
Applied Hydraulic Transients
.
Springer
,
New York, NY, USA
, pp.
35
64
.
Covas
D. I. C.
2003
Inverse Transient Analysis for Leak Detection and Calibration of Water Pipe Systems-Modelling Special Dynamic Effects
.
University of London
,
London, UK
.
Creaco
E.
&
Franchini
M.
2013
A new algorithm for real-time pressure control in water distribution networks
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
13
,
875
882
.
Creaco
E.
&
Walski
T.
2017
Economic analysis of pressure control for leakage and pipe burst reduction
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
143
(
04
),
017074
.
Creaco
E.
,
Farmani
R.
,
Kapelan
Z.
,
Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia
L.
&
Savic
D.
2015
Considering the mutual dependence of pulse duration and intensity in models for generating residential water demand
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
141
,
04015031
.
Creaco
E.
,
Campisano
A.
,
Franchini
M.
&
Modica
C.
2017
Unsteady flow modeling of pressure real-time control in water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
143
,
04017056
.
Creaco
E.
,
Campisano
A.
&
Modica
C.
2018
Testing behavior and effects of PRVs and RTC valves during hydrant activation scenarios
.
Urban Water Journal
15
(
3
),
218
226
.
Creaco
E.
,
Campisano
A.
,
Fontana
N.
,
Marini
G.
,
Page
P.
&
Walski
T.
2019
Real time control of water distribution networks: A state-of-the-art review
.
Water Research
161
,
517
530
.
Ebadati
E.
,
Asadabadi
M. R.
,
Majidaei
H.
&
Negharchi
S.
2021
Providing a targeted algorithm for replacing customers’ water meters aiming at reducing NRW: Case study
. In
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
.
IOP Publishing
,
Bristol, UK
, p.
012034
.
Evangelista
S.
,
Leopardi
A.
,
Pignatelli
R.
&
de Marinis
G.
2015
Hydraulic transients in viscoelastic branched pipelines
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
141
,
04015016
.
Giustolisi
O.
&
Walski
T. M.
2012
Demand components in water distribution network analysis
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
138
,
356
367
.
Giustolisi
O.
,
Savic
D.
&
Kapelan
Z.
2008
Pressure-driven demand and leakage simulation for water distribution networks
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
134
,
626
635
.
Guideline 556 of Iran MOE
2017
Guideline for Determining Effective Parameters on Unaccounted for Water (UFW) and Water Losses Reduction Schemes; Code 556. Ministry of Energy, Water Industry of Iran. Confirmation Group: Water and Wastewater Expert Committee for Preparation of Technical Standards and Standards, University of Tehran Water Institute, in Persian, pp. 1–175
.
Huang
Y.
,
Duan
H.-F.
,
Zhao
M.
,
Zhang
Q.
,
Zhao
H.
&
Zhang
K.
2017
Probabilistic analysis and evaluation of nodal demand effect on transient analysis in urban water distribution systems
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
143
,
04017041
.
Kilic
R.
,
Cinal
H.
&
Ogleni
N.
2011
Effect of pressure on burst and leakage in drinking water network
.
Scientific Research and Essays
6
,
3595
3600
.
Marsili
V.
,
Meniconi
S.
,
Alvisi
S.
,
Brunone
B.
&
Franchini
M.
2022
Stochastic approach for the analysis of demand induced transients in real water distribution systems
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
148
,
04021093
.
Marunga
A.
,
Hoko
Z.
&
Kaseke
E.
2006
Pressure management as a leakage reduction and water demand management tool: The case of the city of Mutare, Zimbabwe
.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C
31
,
763
770
.
Mechanic_AB.Co
2024
Manufacturer of Industrial Valves, Mechanic AB Company, Rajaei Industrial Zone, Tabriz, Iran. Available from: https://www.mechanicab.com/index.php/en/home2 (accessed 12 February 2024)
.
Meirelles
G.
,
Manzi
D.
,
Brentan
B.
,
Goulart
T.
&
Luvizotto
E.
2017
Calibration model for water distribution network using pressures estimated by artificial neural networks
.
Water Resources Management
31
,
4339
4351
.
Meniconi
S.
,
Maietta
F.
,
Alvisi
S.
,
Capponi
C.
,
Marsili
V.
,
Franchini
M.
&
Brunone
B.
2022a
Consumption change-induced transients in a water distribution network: Laboratory tests in a looped system
.
Water Resources Research
58
,
e2021WR031343
.
Nazif
S.
,
Karamouz
M.
,
Tabesh
M.
&
Moridi
A.
2010
Pressure management model for urban water distribution networks
.
Water Resources Management
24
,
437
458
.
Negharchi
S. M.
,
Shafaghat
R.
,
Najafi
A.
&
Babazade
D.
2016
Evaluation of methods for reducing the total cost in rural water pumping stations in Iran: A case study
.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua
65
,
277
293
.
O'Reilly
G.
,
Bezuidenhout
C.
&
Bezuidenhout
J.
2018
Artificial neural networks: Applications in the drinking water sector
.
Water Supply
18
,
1887
1869
.
Rahmanshahi
M.
,
Fathi-Moghadam
M.
&
Haghighi
A.
2018
Leak detection in viscoelastic pipeline using inverse transient analysis
.
Journal of Water and Wastewater
29
,
85
97
.
Rumelhart
D. E.
,
Hinton
G. E.
&
Williams
R. J.
1985
Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation
.
University of California San Diego La Jolla Institute for Cognitive Science
,
La Jolla, CA, USA
.
Samir
N.
,
Kansoh
R.
,
Elbarki
W.
&
Fleifle
A.
2017
Pressure control for minimizing leakage in water distribution systems
.
Alexandria Engineering Journal
56
,
601
612
.
Soares
A. K.
,
Covas
D. I.
&
Reis
L. F.
2008
Analysis of PVC pipe-wall viscoelasticity during water hammer
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
134
,
1389
1394
.
Soleyman.Co
2024
Available from: http://soleymantech.com (accessed 01 March 2024)
.
Ulanicki
B.
&
Skworcow
P.
2014
Why PRVs tends to oscillate at low flows
.
Procedia Engineering
89
,
378
385
.
Vítkovský
J.
,
Lambert
M.
,
Simpson
A.
&
Bergant
A.
2000
Advances in unsteady friction modelling in transient pipe flow
. In:
Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Pressure Surges
.
BHR Group
,
Bedford, UK
, pp.
471
482
.
Wei
X.
,
Zhang
L.
,
Yang
H.-Q.
,
Zhang
L.
&
Yao
Y.-P.
2021
Machine learning for pore-water pressure time-series prediction: Application of recurrent neural networks
.
Geoscience Frontiers
12
,
453
467
.
Xu
Q.
,
Chen
Q.
,
Ma
J.
,
Blanckaert
K.
&
Wan
Z.
2014
Water saving and energy reduction through pressure management in urban water distribution networks
.
Water Resources Management
28
,
3715
3726
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).