8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

EFFICIENT PRESSURE DEPENDENT DEMAND MODEL FOR LARGE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Zheng Yi Wu Email: zheng.wu@bentley.com Rong He Wang Email: Victor.wang@bentley.com Thomas M. Walski Email: Tom.walski@bentley.com Shao Yu Yang Email: Shaoyu.yang@bentley.com Daniel Bowdler Email: Daniel.bowdler@bentley.com Haestad Methods Solution Center, Bentley Systems, Incorporated 27 Siemon Co Dr. Suite 200W Watertown, CT06795, USA Christopher C. Baggett Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 730 NE Waldo Road Gainesville, FL 32641, USA Email: Cbaggett@Jonesedmunds.com

Abstract
Conventional water distribution models are formulated under the assumption that water consumption or demand defined at nodes is a known value so that nodal hydraulic head and pipe flows can be determined by solving a set of quasi-linear equations. This formulation is well developed and valid for the scenarios that the hydraulic pressures throughout a system are adequate for delivery the required nodal demand. However, there are some scenarios where nodal pressure is not sufficient for supplying the required demand. These cases may include the planned system maintenances, unplanned pipe outages, power failure at pump stations, and insufficient water supply from water sources. In addition, some water consumptions like leakages are pressure dependent. In this paper, a robust and efficient approach for pressure dependent demand analysis is developed for simulating a variety of low pressure scenarios. A set of element criticality evaluation criteria is also proposed for quantifying the relative importance of the elements that may be out of service. The results are presented for the applications of the approach to the trivial systems and also to a large water system. It is demonstrated that great modeling performance and convergence rates are achieved for modeling pressure dependent demand conditions and evaluating the element criticality of the large water distribution systems.

Key Words
Hydraulic model, water distribution system, pressure dependent demand, pressure deficient condition, criticality, reliability

INTRODUCTION
A water distribution model is created by using a link-node formulation that is governed by two conservation laws, namely mass balance at nodes and energy conservation around hydraulic loops. The node is a point where water consumption is allocated and defined as demand, which is treated as a known value so that nodal hydraulic head can be solved. This formulation is valid only if the hydraulic pressures at all nodes are adequate so that the demand is independent of pressure. It is also valid approach for analyzing volume-based demand such as filling bath tub, flushing toilet etc. even under low pressure

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

conditions. However, in many cases nodal pressure is not sufficient for supplying the desired demand. These cases may include the planned system maintenances, unplanned pipe outages, power failure at pump stations, and insufficient water supply from water sources. Water companies are required to constantly evaluate the level of water supply while coping with emergency events. A tentative guideline requirement is that a water system must meet a certain level of the original demand for the majority of customer and no large group of customers should receive their original demand. For instance, UK water companies are required by law to provide water at a pressure that will, under normal circumstances, enable it to reach the top floor of a house. In order to assess if this requirement is satisfied, companies are required to report against a service level corresponding to a pressure head of 10 meters (14.2 psi) at a flow of 9 liter per minute (2.4 gpm). In addition, water companies are also required to report the supply reference for unplanned and planned service interruptions. Water asset management has become an ever-increasing task for water utilities. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of above and underground facilities including every pipeline segment in a water system. The impact of each pipe segment needs to be carefully quantified and thus it forms a rational basis for asset management plan. The impact evaluation is usually undertaken by performing the hydraulic analysis under the assumption that a pipe or a number of pipes is out of service, namely disconnected from a system, which is likely to cause pressure deficient conditions. The accurate analysis cannot be achieved without considering the impact of the pressure change on the flow supplied. Some methods in literature proposed for modeling pressure deficient demand (Jowitt and Xu 1993; and Gupta and Bhave 1996). None of the methods seems to consider the transition between the pressure sufficient and deficient conditions. Ang and Jowitt (2005) took a modeling approach by adding an artificial reservoir at every pressure deficient node and removing it from fixed demand nodes in an iterative procedure, which requires numerous repeat solutions of the system equations with no guarantee of convergence. The iterative calculation stops until correct pressure sufficient nodes are identified without negative pressure at a node. This method seems to avoid introducing extra parameters like the method based upon orifice flow equation. But it can be difficult to apply this method to a large water system, because it is computationally expensive to add a virtual reservoir to each of hundreds of thousands of nodes and then shuffle them around. It can be also programmatically difficult to implement it since each iteration will require changing the solution matrix. Alternative, the modeler may model pressure dependent demand by using emitter at a node as implemented in EPANET2 (Rossman, 1994). Unfortunately, the emitter function produces negative demand whenever and wherever a nodal pressure becomes negative. This is not the case in real world unless the outlet is submerged in a tank. The fact is that demand is zero when the pressure becomes equal to or less than zero. There is also no upper limit for emitter flow. In other words, the emitter flow can increase without bound as the pressure increases. Consequently, the high pressure node would draw more water than the relatively low pressure locations, which distorts the actual supply because in most cases no extra demand or consumption would be required as long as the pressure is above certain desired threshold. To effectively model nodal demand as a function of nodal pressure, a robust and efficient approach of pressure dependent demand model (Wu and Walski 2006) has been developed and integrated into the modeling framework WaterGEMS v8 (Bentley 2006).

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

PRESSURE DEPENDENT DEMAND

When an outage occurs, nodal pressures are affected. Some locations may not have the sufficient pressure. Pressure may drop below a reference level, so-called reference pressure for supplying 100% of desired demand or reference demand. Whenever the pressure is below the reference pressure, nodal demand, the water available at a location, is certainly dependent on the pressure at the node. In other words, unlike the conventional approach of demand-driven analysis, demand is a function of pressure in pressure dependent demand (PDD). However, it is believed that a junction demand is not affected by pressure or water consumption will be maxed out (keep constant) if the pressure is above a threshold. In general, the threshold above which demand is no longer sensitive to pressure must be greater than or equal to the reference pressure at which all demand is met. The junction demand is reduced from the normal reference demand when the pressure is dropping below the reference pressure and increased above reference demand when the pressure is greater than the reference pressure but less than the threshold. PDD is then defined as follows.

0 Qis H i = Qri H ri H t H ri

Hi 0 0 < Hi < Ht Hi Ht
(1)

Where Hi represents the calculated pressure at node i; Qri denotes the requested demand or reference demand at node i; Qis is the calculated demand at node i; H ri designates the reference pressure that is deemed to supply full requested/reference demand; Ht is the pressure threshold above which the demand is independent of nodal pressure and a is the exponent of pressure demand relationship. A typical PDD power function is illustrated in the Fig. 1. The actual demand increases to the full requested demand (100%) as pressure increases, but remains constant after the pressure is greater than the pressure threshold, namely the percent of pressure threshold is greater than 100%. Alternatively, PDD function can be specified as a pressure-demand piecewise linear curve or a table of pressure percentage vs demand percentage. Pressure percentage is the ratio of actual pressure to a nodal threshold pressure while demand percentage is the ratio of the calculated demand to the reference demand. Unlike the conventional water distribution model where the nodal demand is a known value, pressure dependent demand modeling approach stipulates that both the nodal demand and pressure are unknown. Solving for such a hydraulic model requires for reformulating the solution method as follows.

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

140 120

Percent of Reference Demand

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Percent of Pressure Threshold

Figure 1 A Typical Pressure Dependent Demand Curve

SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
The key solution methodology is how to solve for the pressure dependent demand as given by Eq.(1). Conventionally, nodal demand is a known value. Applying the mass conservation law to each node and energy conservation law to each loop, the network hydraulics solution can be obtained by iteratively solving a set of linear and quasi-nonlinear equations. A unified formulation for solving network hydraulics is given as global gradient algorithm (GGA) as (Todini 1988):

D11 ... A12 dQ dE ... ... ... ... = ... ... A D 22 dH 21 dq

(2)

The only difference from the original GGA is the new diagonal matrix D22, which is the deviation of A22 of pressure head H. For supply characteristic defined as Eq.(1), the corresponding expression is

0 Hi D22 (i, i ) = a Ht 0

a -1

H is 0 Qi 0 < H is < H t H is H t
(3)

The modified GGA is to calculate D22 for each pressure dependent demand node and add to A(i, i) as follows.

A(i, i ) = pij - D22 (i, i )

j

(4)

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Where j denotes the pipe j that is connected with node i. This notation is the same as EPANET2 implementation. The PDD approach as formulated above can be applied to analyzing pressure deficient of many scenarios including element outages, system maintenance, leakage, insufficient water sources, intermittent supply, sprinkler flows, reliability and criticality analysis.

Criticality Analysis
Criticality analysis is to evaluate the impact of elements outage. Instead of considering each pipe outage as defined in a model, a more practical approach is undertaken by dividing a system into a number of segments (Walski 1993) isolated by all the valves, each of which represents a smallest isolable portion of the system. The impact of the segment is evaluated by performing a hydraulic model simulation with the segment out of service. A number of indicators can be used to assess the criticality of the segments as follows. 1. System supply shortfall under steady state simulation; 2. System supply shortfall percentage; 3. Accumulated system supply shortfall over an extended period of time 4. Percentage of accumulated system supply; 5. Node with maximum demand shortfall. For a given outage, there are three cases for any node: 1. No effect on pressure (or demand) 2. Node is completely cut off from water source (demand supplied = 0) 3. Demand is reduced because pressure drops (demand = F(pressure)) PDD calculations are required in the third case.

APPLICATIONS
Three examples are presented below to illustrate the application of pressure dependent approach. The first example is taken from the literature (Gupta and Bhave 1996; and Ang and Jowitt 2005), the second example is to demonstrate the PDD application to criticality analysis and the third example is to exemplify the efficiency of the integrated approach applied to a large water system.

Example 1: Benchmark System

This example system is as in Figure 2. It consists of one source tank, 4 demand nodes and 4 pipes in series. The trivial system was used by a few researchers for testing the methods of pressure deficient hydraulic analysis. Under the normal condition, the system supply adequate pressure for the desired demand. The pressure deficient condition is caused by a big fire flow of 3.00 m3/min at node J-4. Hydraulic results are given for both scenarios by using conventional demand-driven analysis approach. Conventional analysis shows that the pressure at J-3 significantly drops to almost zero, but the demand is still met. A pressure dependent demand approach is applied to analyze the system.

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Figure 2 Series system for testing pressure dependent demand analysis Table 1 Conventional hydraulic simulation results with tank level of 109.86 meters J-1 Q P (m3/min) (m) 2 17.13 2 14.97 J-2 Q P (m3/min) (m) 2 16.1 2 10.55 J-3 Q P (m3/min) (m) 3 11.08 3 0.02 J-4 Q P (m3/min) (m) 1 15.83 4 1.98

Scenarios Base Base and fire flow

While applying the pressure dependent demand approach to analyzing the system under the fire flow at J4, two scenarios are considered as follows. Scenario I: all the nodal demands including fire flow at J-4 are considered as pressure dependent demand; Scenario II: fire flow at J-4 is considered as volume-based demand while the other demands are treated as pressure dependent demand. This is because fire truck may pump whatever is available from the tank regardless the pressure at hydrant.

Table 2 Simulation results of 100% pressure dependent demand for different source heads J-1 Q (m3/min) 1.95 1.37 1.28 1.12 0.58 0.38 0.00 0.00 P (m) 16.29 8.03 7.01 5.38 1.42 0.60 0.00 0.00 J-2 Q (m3/min) 1.86 1.37 1.30 1.18 0.81 0.70 0.36 0.00 P (m) 13.93 7.58 6.80 5.57 2.66 1.97 0.51 0.00 J-3 Q (m3/min) 2.32 1.45 1.31 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P (m) 6.57 2.59 2.11 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-4 Q (m3/min) 3.13 2.53 2.44 2.31 2.01 1.88 1.57 0.00 P (m) 9.64 6.28 5.89 5.26 3.97 3.47 2.43 0.00

Tank level (m) 109.86 100.00 98.78 96.82 91.97 91.03 89.08 85.00

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Table 3 Simulation results of mixed volume-based demand and pressure dependent demand for different source heads J-1 Q (m3/min) 1.94 1.35 1.26 1.10 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 P (m) 16.08 7.79 6.79 5.19 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 J-2 Q (m3/min) 1.83 1.32 1.24 1.12 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.00 P (m) 13.36 6.94 6.20 5.04 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 J-3 Q (m3/min) 2.09 0.99 0.80 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P (m) 5.36 1.21 0.79 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-4 Q (m3/min) 3.70 3.49 3.47 3.43 3.13 3.13 3.00 0.00 P (m) 7.73 3.84 3.45 2.93 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00

Tank level (m) 109.86 100.00 98.78 96.82 91.97 91.03 89.08 85.00

Both scenarios are simulated for different available source heads or tank levels, which give different hydraulic grades and pressures at nodes. The pressure dependent demand analysis is undertaken by using the corresponding nodal pressures under normal condition (Base scenario) given as in Table 1 as reference pressures as in Eq(1) for each node and a large value as pressure threshold. This effective means that the normal nodal demands (without fire flow at J-4) are met at the normal pressure conditions. Under the fire flow conditions, the pressure dependent demand analysis results are given in Table 2 and 3 for 100% PDD and the mixed PDD and volume-based demand. When all the nodal demands are treated as PDD, Table 2 shows that the demands including fire flow decrease as the pressures at nodes decrease. The predicted demand is zero (0.0) when the pressure becomes zero or tank runs out of water. If the fire flow is treated as volume-based demand and the other demands are modelled as PDD, Table 3 illustrates that the fire flow is always met when there is water available from the source (tank T-1), and that the pressure dependent demands change as pressure changes. This example shows that the method developed can effectively simulate scenarios of pressure deficient conditions same as Ang and Jowitts approach. The method is better than the previous method in simulating the combination of pressure-dependent and volume-based demands at the same node and predicting the partial nodal demand when the pressure is between the desired or reference pressure and zero.

Example 2: Small System

This is a simple example system as shown in Figure 2, supplied by a reservoir via a pump and a storage tank in north. The system is used to demonstrate the criticality analysis with and without pressure dependent demand. Criticality analysis is undertaken in two steps. First step is to perform the system segmentation that divides the system into a number of segments, as shown in Figure 4. A hydraulic simulation is conducted for one segment by assuming that all the elements (pipes and nodes) are out of service. The outage impact is evaluated by system supply shortfall as given in Table 4 and 5.

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Figure 3 System layout of example 2 with isolation valves for criticality analysis Criticality analysis results, as shown in Table 4, indicate that most of the segments outage cause system supply shortfall by the conventional demand-driven analysis, the maximum demand shortfall may go up about 70%. When a segment is out of service, the flow path will change accordingly, which may result in large head loss so that negative nodal pressures may occur by conventional demand-driven analysis. For instance, when either segment s4 or s5 is out of service, the system demand will be supplied by only one flow path via s12 or s8, since the demand-driven analysis assumes that the nodal demand is known and independent from the pressure so that 100% of demand for the rest of system will be forced through the remaining connected pipeline, thus a huge head loss is resulted in along the pipelines and negative pressures will occurs at the downstream nodes, where the demand is deemed not met, therefore a larger than expected demand shortfall is reported for s4, s5 and s12 as shown in Table 4.

Figure 4 Color coded segmentation of the example system for criticality analysis

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Table 4 Criticality analysis results under steady state simulation Conventional demand-driven simulation System Demand System Shortfall (-) or Supplied Surplus Flow (gpm) (+) % 670.8 0.0 670.8 0.0 477.4 -28.8 200.4 -70.1 114.2 -83.0 598.2 -10.8 537.8 -19.8 608.4 -9.3 668.8 -0.3 639 -4.7 632.2 -5.8 228.0 -66.0 583.8 -13.0 670.8 0.0 PDD simulation with reference Pressure of 20 psi System Demand System Shortfall (-) or Supplied Surplus Flow (gpm) (+) % 670.8 0.0 659.7 -1.7 477.4 -28.8 541.8 -19.2 480.8 -28.3 598.2 -10.8 537.8 -19.8 591.7 -11.8 668.8 -0.3 639.0 -4.7 632.2 -5.8 493.3 -26.5 583.8 -13.0 659.7 -1.7 PDD simulation with reference Pressure of 100 psi System Demand System Shortfall (-) or Supplied Surplus Flow (gpm) (+) % 670.8 0.0 452.7 -32.5 465.6 -30.6 481.1 -28.3 366.8 -45.3 561.1 -16.4 460.8 -31.3 478.5 -28.7 668.8 -0.3 566.4 -15.6 561.5 -16.3 421.6 -37.2 499.8 -25.5 452.7 -32.5

Segments S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13 S-14

System Flow (gpm) 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8 670.8

Using pressure dependent demand simulation, the impact of each segment is analyzed by assuming different reference pressure of 20 psi and 100 psi. The results obtained are given in Table 4 and Table 5 for both steady state and extended period simulations. Instead of forcing all the required demand through the connected flow path, the nodal demand is calculated by the available pressure accordingly by the PDD function definition. Therefore, available partial demand is more accurately calculated for node, the system shortfall is estimated less than the demand-driven approach. The greater the reference pressure, i.e. 100 psi, the less demand is supplied at the same pressure level, the greater demand shortfall is resulted in as indicated in Table 4. The criticality results for EPS simulation, as shown in Table 5, show the impact of each segment out of service for 24 hours. More segments are identified to cause the system shortfall with greater supply shortfall. The critical segments are s-2, s-5 and s-14 that connect to the reservoir via the pump, and also s-12 that represents the weakest distribution segment that causes the greatest pressure drop when the outage occurs. In addition, the reference pressure appears to be an important parameter for applying pressure dependent demand in general, and evaluating the criticality using pressure in particular. The reference pressure may be different from one type customer to another (such as residential, commercial and industry), but, it is not hard to come up with a rational pressure required for deliver the desired water supply service for a particular type of water customers.

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Table 5 Criticality analysis results under extended period simulation Conventional demand-driven simulation System Demand System Shortfall Supplied (-) or Volume Surplus (MG) (+) % 0.97 0.00 0.09 -90.90 0.69 -28.80 0.29 -70.50 0.02 -98.40 0.86 -10.80 0.70 -27.90 0.80 -17.60 0.96 -0.30 0.89 -8.30 0.91 -5.80 0.28 -70.60 0.83 -13.90 0.09 -90.90 PDD simulation with reference Pressure of 20 psi System Demand System Shortfall Supplied (-) or Volume Surplus (MG) (+) % 0.97 0.0 0.09 -90.4 0.69 -28.8 0.76 -21.6 0.09 -90.9 0.86 -10.9 0.73 -24.3 0.80 -17.5 0.96 -0.3 0.90 -7.1 0.90 -7.1 0.66 -31.6 0.82 -15.2 0.09 -90.6 PDD simulation with reference Pressure of 100 psi System Demand System Shortfall Supplied (-) or Volume Surplus (MG) (+) % 0.97 0.0 0.09 -90.9 0.64 -33.5 0.69 -28.3 0.09 -90.9 0.78 -19.2 0.63 -34.5 0.66 -31.2 0.96 -0.3 0.79 -18.6 0.78 -19.2 0.58 -40.3 0.69 -28.1 0.09 -90.9

Segments S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13 S-14

System Flow Volume (MG) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96

Example 3: Large System

This example, as shown in Figure 5, is a real water system of Pinellas County in Florida. The water system supplies drinking water to approximately 800,000 customers along Floridas central west coast and is sourced from Tampa Bay Water (TBW), the regions wholesale provider. Hydraulically, the system functions as two large transmission and distribution systems of the Northern system and the Central/Southern system that are networked together with a variable interface location, depending on demand conditions. Water source of the Northern system is from the Eldridge Wilde Wellfield. Water source of the Central/Southern system is from a 66-inch pipeline that connects directly to the TBW system which contains blended water including desalted water, surface water, and groundwater. The system is composed of an extensive piping network, six pumping stations, and 11 storage tanks. The piping network includes approximately 2,000 miles of piping, with diameters ranging from less than 1inch to 66-inch and with several pipe materials including ductile iron, gray cast iron, pre-stressed concrete cylinder, steel, and polyvinyl chloride. The six pumping stations include 25 constant-speed and variablespeed pumps. The model of the water system consists of 80,870 pipe, 25 pumps, and 11 storage tanks. The model has been constructed for Pinellas County by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in support of a blending and pumping facility with a design maximum daily demand capacity of approximately 100 million gallons per day. The new facility will blend the source waters and distribute a consistent water quality to the Countys customers.

10

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

To test the application of applying pressure dependent demand to criticality analysis based upon segmentation, more than 69,921 isolation valves were automatically inserted onto to the pipelines programmatically. This allows network tracing algorithm to automatically generate 65,562 segments for the whole system. The criticality analysis is performed for each of the segments, that is 65,562 consecutive hydraulic runs automatically conducted for each of the conventional demand-driven and pressure dependent demand simulations. Each of which took about 2 hour 58 minutes and 20 seconds, and 5 hours 33 minutes and 20 seconds respectively on a Pentium 4 machine with CPU 3.06 GHz and 1.0 GB of RAM. In average, each steady state hydraulic run takes about 0.2 seconds and 0.3 seconds for the demand-driven and PDD simulation respectively. It exemplifies the efficiency of the hydraulic simulation of both conventional demand-driven and pressure dependent demand analysis for this scale of the model. The criticality analysis results obtained so far are based on the hypothetic isolation valve locations. Once the real valve data is ready, the model building tool in WaterGEMS v8 can automatically insert the isolation valves into the model for more accurate analysis. This excise proves the robustness and efficiency of the integrated network segmentation, criticality analysis and pressure dependent demand modeling. Pressure dependent demand analysis is able to more accurately quantify the impact of pipe outage. For instance, Figure 6 shows the northern part of Pinellas water system, a pipeline is identified critical to the node WSMB and also the nodes in the west of WSMB. Under normal condition, the nodal demand is met at the pressure of 60 psi, as shown in Figure 7. It is noticed that any of the pipes along the critical segment is out of service, it will cause a dramatic pressure drop. Using conventional demand-driven analysis, the calculated demand is met as requested, but the calculated pressure at WSMB goes more than -70 psi as shown in Figure 8. It is just not possible to supply the full demand under the negative pressure. The available demand needs to be predicted for such an outage event. To predict how much water can be supplied under such a pressure deficient condition, pressure dependent demand analysis is applied with a reference pressure specified as the normal operating pressure of 60 psi, and the pressure threshold set to be equal to the reference pressure, a power PDD function, given as Eq.(1) with exponent of 0.5, is used for PDD simulation run. The results are illustrated in Figure 9. The available demand is reduced accordingly as pressure drops. This exemplifies that PDD analysis is able to rationally evaluate the impact of pipe outage while conventional demand-driven analysis may lead to confusing results.

CONCLUSIONS
The pressure dependent demand analysis approach developed in this paper has provided a robust and efficient method for analyzing many conditions where the demand is function of pressure in a water distribution system. It proves to be flexible at modeling the mixed volume-based and pressure dependent demands, which improves the modeling capability of the conventional network hydraulic analysis. The application of the pressure dependent demand to criticality analysis enables engineers to practically evaluate the system impact than using the conventional demand-driven analysis method.

REFERENCES
Ang, W. H. and Jowitt, P.W. (2006) Solution for Water Distribution Systems under pressure-deficient conditions ASCE J. of Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 132(3), 175-182. Bentley Systems, Incorporated, (2006). WaterGEMS v8 User Manual. 27 Siemon Co Dr, Suite200W, Watertown, CT06795, USA. Gupta, R. and Bhave, P. R. (1996) Comparison methods for predicting deficient-network performance. ASCE J. of Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 122(3), 214-217.

11

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Jowitt, P. W. and Xu, C. (1993). Predicting pipe failure effects in water distribution systems. ASCE J. of Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 119(1), 18-33. Rossman, L.A. (1994). EPANET Users Manual. Drinking Water Research Division, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. USA. Todini, E. & Pilati, S. (1988). A gradient algorithm for the analysis of pipe network. In Coulbeck B. and Chun-Hou O. (eds). Computer Applications in Water Supply, Vol. 1 System Analysis and Simulation, John Wiley & Sons, London, pp.1-20. Walski, T.M. (1993), Water Distribution Valve Topology, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 21. Wu, Z. Y. and Walski, T. M. (2006) Pressure Dependent Hydraulic Modelling for Water Distribution Systems under Abnormal Conditions, Proc. of IWA World Water Congress, Sept.10-14, 2006, Beijing, China.

Figure 5 Hydraulic model layout for Pinellas county water system

12

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Demand shortfall node: WSM B

Critical Pipes

Figure 6 Northern part of Pinellas water distribution system an example of critical pipeline and demand shortfall nodes caused by critical pipeline outage

13

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Figure 7 Calculated demand and pressure of node WSMB under normal operating condition (without pipe outage)

Figure 8 Calculated demand and pressure at node WSMB by using demand-driven analysis under the critical pipe outage 14

8th Annual International Symposium on Water Distribution System Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27-30, 2006

Figure 9 Calculated available demand, pressure and demand shortfall at node WSMB by using pressure dependent demand analysis under the critical pipe outage

15