Calibration of Nodal Demand in Water Distribution Systems

Weiping Cheng1 and Zhiguo He, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper presents an optimization methodology to calibrate the nodal demand in the model of water supply distribution
systems. The matrix analysis has been carried out to get the sensitive coefficients matrix for the model of water distribution systems.
Singular value decomposition is applied to calculate search director of optimization by solving the sensitive coefficients matrix, which is
more efficient than the finite-difference method. Two cases are used to show the performance of this algorithm. The first case is a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

hypothetical water distribution network showing the calculation of the optimization vector. The second case is the application of real-life
water distribution system in Hangzhou, China, which shows the determination of the cutoff singular value and the search step size in
one-dimensional search. The calibrated model has been also validated using the measured data. The results have shown that the proposed
algorithm is reliable and effective in real-time system.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲WR.1943-5452.0000093
CE Database subject headings: Water distribution systems; Water demand; Calibration; Optimization; China.
Author keywords: Water distribution network; Nodal demand; Calibration; Optimization; Singular value decomposition 共SVD兲.

Introduction
Hydraulic models are commonly used for modeling the water
distribution network and their modeling technologies have been
improved considerably during past decades. Without the appro-
priate estimation of parameters, a numerical model would not
correctly simulate the reality. As a result, the planning or operat-
ing decisions based on such simulation analysis may be in serious
errors. The disagreement between model-predicted behaviors and
actual field behaviors often exists in applications. One of the
major reasons for this discrepancy between the predicted and
measured results lies in the spatial and temporal nature of the
water use. Thus, a network model must be successfully calibrated
before its results can be reliably used for any purpose.
The calibration of computer models is usually defined as the
process of adjusting data describing the mathematical model of
the system until the observed performances, typically pressures
and flow rates, are in reasonable agreement with the computer-
predicted performances over a wide range of operating condi-
tions. Most of the available methodologies use the minimization
of errors as the only criterion for the calibration, which may be
good for simple cases with enough monitoring data. However,
error model decreases and uncertainty in the parameter increases
if the number of parameters increases. The ensemble of links and
nodes sharing the same parameter value can decrease the model
error, but the uncertainty of the estimated parameters increases
1
Associate Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China 共corresponding au-
thor兲. E-mail: ChengWeiping@zju.edu.cn
2
Assistant Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China. E-mail: hezhiguo@
zju.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 22, 2009; approved on
April 21, 2010; published online on May 4, 2010. Discussion period open
until June 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, Vol. 137, No. 1, January 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9496/2011/1-31–40/$25.00.
along with the chosen number of zones. Many studies 共Ormsbee
and Wood 1986; Ormsbee 1989; Boulos and Wood 1990, 1991;
Ferreri et al. 1994; Lansey and Basnet 1991; Savic and Walters
1995; Greco and Del Guidice 1999兲 assume that demands in the
hydraulic analysis of water distribution network are fully satisfied
ignoring the real use of the system. To develop a methodology
for use in a real-time system, the paper presents a method apply-
ing the matrix analysis of nodal demands and singular value de-
composition 共SVD兲 to calibrate nodal demands, which may help
engineers develop high efficient calibration algorithms and under-
stand errors of predictions.
Review of the Calibration of Water Distribution
Systems
The calibration of water distribution system 共WDS兲 model is typi-
cally accomplished by adjusting parameters of the network so that
the model results can match field measurements. The underlying
idea is to adjust the pipe roughness coefficients and consumer
demands in order to force predictions of pressure heads and pipe
flows to agree with measurements taken at a few locations in the
system. Calibration methods can be generally classified into three
categories as follows: 共1兲 trial-and-error procedure models; 共2兲
explicit models 共or hydraulic simulation models兲; and 共3兲 implicit
models or optimization models.
The first type of calibration methods is based on some, spe-
cifically developed, trial-and-error procedures 共Rahal et al. 1980;
Walski 1983, 1986; Bhave 1988兲. It is widely used at present in
the establishment of a WDS model due to the lack of effective
calibration algorithms.
The second type of calibration methods 共explicit兲 is based on
solving an extended set of steady-state mass balance and energy
equations 共Ormsbee and Wood 1986; Boulos and Wood 1990,
1991; Ferreri et al. 1994兲. This approach assumes the measured
heads and flows are 100% accurate, ignoring the errors of mea-
surement. Although this hypothesis has shortcoming 共or limita-
tion兲, it is still used in some system analysis.
The third type of calibration methods 共implicit兲 is that prob-

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 31

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 lems are formulated and solved using mathematical optimization
共Ormsbee 1989; Lansey and Basnet 1991; Savic and Walters
1995兲. In these procedures, an objective function is formulated to
minimize the differences between measured 共observed兲 and pre-
dicted variables 共heads and/or flows兲. Typically, parameters that
need to be calibrated are pipe roughness, nodal demands, and
valve and pump settings. Two sets of constraints are often used:
共1兲 implicit 共network mass balance and momentum equations兲
and 共2兲 explicit 共minimum and maximum bounds for all calibra-
tion parameters兲. The regression approach has been used by sev-
eral researchers 共Pudar and Liggett 1992; Datta and Sridharan
1994; Piller 1995; Reddy et al. 1996; Kapelan et al. 2007兲, in
which parameter uncertainties were estimated as a part of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
⌬x = − V UT␧ 共3兲
⌳
where 1 / ␭ = diagonal element of 1 / ⌳ and ␭ = diagonal element of
⌳ 共when ␭ = 0, the element of 1 / ⌳ is defined as 0兲. SVD solution
determines the correction value ⌬x for a problem that minimizes
储⌬x储2 and 储␧储2. The solution covers the Gaussian, least square,
and Penrose cases.
The U and V matrices created by SVD give the additional
information about the parameter behavior. The parameter space
resolution in the model can be expressed as 共Wiggins 1972兲

calibration process. Recently, transient WDS hydraulic models R = VVT 共4兲

were also calibrated using the implicit approach 共Liggett and
Chen 1994; Vítkovský et al. 2000; Jonkergouw et al. 2008兲. Be-
side above methods, Kapelan et al. 共2003兲 introduced the
Bayesian-type procedure to calibration WDS, which can provide
more statistic information about WDS.
General Inverse Problem
For a model f共x , v兲 = 0 with v being the state variable and x
the model parameter, the problem of model calibration is to find
the parameter x to minimize the errors ␧ = y − Y, where Y and y
are defined as the physical measured and predicted values of
the stated variable, respectively, and y = subset of v. It is a kind
of general inverse problem. The correction value of parameter
⌬x makes ␧ = 0 by solving the following equations in matrix form
as:
␧ = − S⌬x 共1兲
where S = sensitivity matrix. Eq. 共1兲 can be solved easily using
methods such as Gaussian elimination if m = n 共m, n = row and
column numbers of matrix S兲 and det S ⫽ 0. If m ⬎ n, the problem
is usually overdetermined and the least-squares methods leads to
the solution ⌬x = −共STS兲−1ST␧ with det SST ⫽ 0. If there is at least
one parameter that has no significant influence on any of the
selected observations, the sensitivity matrix becomes rank defi-
cient, which is the ill-conditioned problem. More details about the
inverse problem can be found in some inverse problem books
共e.g., Meneke 1984兲.
The number of measurements is always less than the number
of calibrated variables in the WDS. Thus, the problem of nodal
demand calibration is usually an underdetermined problem. Al-
though it is a nonlinear problem, the linear method can be used to
solve it by the local linearization. The following sections intro-
duce how to use SVD to solve the underdetermined linear prob-
lem.
SVD is capable of solving under-, over-, even-, or mixed-
determined problems as explained in detail by Meneke 共1984兲.
SVD was proposed by Wiggins 共1972兲, Ward et al. 共1973兲, and
Uhrhammer 共1980兲 to solve linear inverse problems. It is based
on the key theorem that matrix S can be decomposed into three
matrixes V, ⌳, and U as follows:
The relative size of the elements of R shows the relative res-
olution or independence of the corrections to the parameters. If
the parameters are finely resolved, this matrix is expected to be
close to unity. If the parameters are not individually resolvable
but are resolvable as groups, the problem is characterized by com-
pact resolution, showing square blocks or groups of dominant
elements in the matrix.
The covariance of the estimated parameters is defined as ␥2
= cov共x
兲 = E关共x̄ −
x兲共x̄ −
x兲T兴, where x̄ and
x = estimated and actual
values, respectively. When det共STS兲 is not zero, ␥2 can be com-
puted as ␴2共STS兲−1 with ␴2 being the variance of observation
error. If the matrix is ill conditioned, the method fails. Using the
results of SVD, the covariance matrix for both singular and non-
singular sensitivity matrices can be derived as follows 共Wiggins
1972; Uhrhammer 1980兲:
␴2 T
␥2 = V V 共5兲
⌳2
A value of 1 is used for ␴2 to obtain the relative value in the
matrix elements. Uhrhammer 共1980兲 referred to the variance
matrix as the uncertainty matrix. If 1 / ␭ becomes too large, the
error level in the solution will be blown out of proportion.
Uhrhammer 共1980兲 suggested a damping parameter to damp out
the effects of small singular values on 1 / ␭ during a sharp cutoff.
A threshold value of 10−2 or 10−3 is suggested by Wiggins 共1972兲
and Wasantha Lal 共1995兲.
Mathematical Model of the Nodal Demand
Calibration
Objective Function and Constraints
In the present paper, the algorithm minimizes the sum of square
differences between measured and computed values of pipe flows,
nodal pressure heads, and the source supplement. Mathematically,
the optimization model can be stated as
nh nq
min J共Q兲 =
Q苸Rn
兺
i=1
共Whi 兲2关hoi − hip共Q兲兴2 + 兺
j=1
共Wqj 兲2关qoj − q pj 共Q兲兴2

S = U⌳VT 共2兲 nk

where ⌳ = m ⫻ n diagonal matrix of singular values of S and U

+ 兺
k=1
共Wqt
k 兲 关qtk − qtk 共Q兲兴
2 o p 2
共6兲
and V = m ⫻ m and n ⫻ n matrices of orthogonal singular vectors,
respectively. Eq. 共1兲 can be solved by SVD as Subject to

32 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 G共H,Q,RC兲 = 0
Ql 艋 Q 艋 Qu
where J = objective function to be minimized; hoi and hip
= measured and predicted pressures at node i, respectively; qoj and
q pj = measured and predicted pipe flows at pipe j, respectively; qtok
and qtkp = measured and predicted source supplement flows at
water station k, respectively; Wh , Wq , Wqt = weighting factors ap-
plied to the different terms to ensure that they are of similar
magnitude and unit; nh , nq , nk = numbers of observed nodal pres-
sure, pipe flow, and source supplement, respectively; H = vector of
nodal head; Q = vector of nodal demand; Ql and Qu = lower and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
共7兲 ⌬H = A−1⌬Q 共12兲
The submatrixes Ash and ⌬Hsh can be extracted from the ma-
共8兲
trix A−1 and vector ⌬H, which are related to observed nodes di-
rectly. They are nh ⫻ n matrix and nh vector, respectively, and
have the following relationship:
⌬Hsh = Ash⌬Q 共13兲
The pipe flow from node i to node j can be computed as qij
= cij共Hi − H j兲, or in matrix form, q = CBTA−1Q, in which q denotes
the vector of pipe flow. By extracting the submatrix Asq from
matrix CBTA−1 and the subvector qs from the vector q that are
related to observed pipes, the perturbation equation about pipe

upper nodal demand bounds, respectively; and G = system of non- flow and nodal demand is
linear equations describing the hydraulic steady state of flows and
pressure in a water distribution network, which includes mass ⌬qs = Asq⌬Q 共14兲
continuity and energy conservation equations. Similarly, the submatrix related to water station supplement
and nodal demand is constructed as
Solution Methodology ⌬qst = Asqt⌬Q 共15兲
The key of solving multivariable optimization is to get the opti-
Another constraint is 兺⌬Qi = 0, written in matrix form as
mal search vector. One-dimensional search method, i.e., golden
section search 共Press et al. 1999兲, is applied along with this vector 1⌬Q = 0 共16兲
in the optimization. Since one-dimensional search method is
simple, the following sections only discuss how to get the optimal where 1 = 关1 1 . . . 1兴. Usually, supervisory control and data acqui-
search vector. sition 共SCADA兲 can monitor all pumps’ state in real time, includ-
The theoretical derivation of the equations assumes that the ing the flow rate, head, etc., so that Qtotal is known. During the
numerical model to be calibrated can be represented as a continu- process of solving equations, 兺Qri may be not equal to the total
ous function of the model parameters locally within the useful demand Qtotal. The right term is adjusted to Qtotal − 兺Qri at the r
range of the variables 共Wasantha Lal 1995兲. Eq. 共6兲 shows the + 1 iteration.
objective function of calibration. Assuming the function is con- Assembling Eqs. 共14兲–共16兲 in matrix form gives
tinuous, the influence coefficient method uses parameter pertur-

冤冥 冤 冥
bations to define influence or sensitivity coefficients as follows: Ash ⌬Hsh
Asq ⌬qs
⳵ yi y i共xi + ⌬xi兲 − y i共xi兲 ⌬Q = 共17兲
sij = = lim 共9兲 Asqt ⌬qst
⳵ xi ⌬xi→0 ⌬xi
1 0
where sij = sensitivity of state variables; y i = state variable being
the value of pipe flow rate or water head; and x j = parameter being Applying Eqs. 共12兲–共15兲 and substituting Eq. 共17兲 into Eq. 共6兲,
the value of nodal demand. Using the matrix notation, Eq. 共9兲 can gives the difference expression of objective function in matrix
be expressed as ⌬y = S⌬x, in which S = matrix with sij being its form as

冤冥 冤冥
element. If there are hundreds or thousands of nodes in a WDS Ash T
Ash
model, finite-difference method needs to solve equations hun-
dreds or thousands of times to get the sensitivity matrix, which is Asq Asq
⌬J = ⌬QT W TW ⌬Q 共18兲
time consuming. Since the objective function is constrained by Asqt Asqt
Eq. 共7兲, matrix analysis can simplify this calculation. The water 1 1
distribution governing equation G in matrix form is expressed as
Eq. 共18兲 expresses the first-order linear approximation of ob-
BCBTHⴱ = Qⴱ 共10兲 jective function and is an explicit form of ⌬Q. Multiplying the
where B = incidence matrix and Qⴱ and Hⴱ = real nodal demand weight functions, Eq. 共18兲 becomes
and head, respectively. If the number of nodes is n and the num-

冤冥 冤冥
ber of pipes is m, B is a n ⫻ m matrix, and C is a m ⫻ m nonlinear Ash ⌬Hs
matrix, which depends on the pipe roughness, diameter, and the Aq ⌬qs
hydraulic gradient, etc. Defining ⌬Q and ⌬H as the differences W ⌬Q = W 共19兲
Asqt ⌬qst
between predicted and actual nodal demand and head, respec-
1 0
tively, the following expression can be obtained:
If the high order terms of J is neglected, the solution of
A共H p + ⌬H兲 = Q p + ⌬Q 共11兲
Eq. 共19兲 satisfies Eq. 共7兲 locally and gives ⵜJ ⬇ 0. Then, the so-
where A = BCBT, which is nonlinear matrix due to the nonlinear lution of Eq. 共19兲 can be used as the search direction in the opti-
matrix C, and H p and Q p = predicted nodal head and the estimated mization. The rate of convergence is second order if the solution
demand, respectively. Note that Eq. 共11兲 is the nonlinear equation of Eq. 共19兲 is used as the search direction. If nh + nq + nk + 1 ⬍ n,
due to the nonlinearity of matrix A. H p and Q p satisfy Eq. 共7兲. By the model is underdetermined-condition and Eq. 共19兲 has no
removing H p and Q p, the perturbations equation of the nodal de- unique solution. SVD determines ⌬x for a problem that mini-
mand and head is mizes 储⌬x储2 and 储␧储2. Greco and Del Guidice’s 共1999兲 model is a

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 33

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Water distribution network of Case 1

0 艋 ␳r 艋 ␳r,ub 共22兲
where ⌬Qr+1 = solution of Eq. 共19兲 in the r + 1 iteration and ␳r
= parameter that is used to control the step size. The determination
of ␳r,ub is related to the constraints Eq. 共7兲. The relation of
␳r,ub⌬Qr ⬍ 10% ⬃ 30%Q̄ is suggested, with Q̄ being the average
nodal demand. Fig. 1 gives a flowchart to show the procedure of
solving Eqs. 共6兲–共8兲 on a real-time system.

Case Study

The algorithm described above is applied to two cases. The first

case is a hypothetical water distribution network, while the sec-
Fig. 1. Flowchart of node demand calibration in a real-time system ond case is a real-life network in Hangzhou City, China.

Case 1
This network is taken from an example of EPANET and modified
global minimum length solution, while this paper applies the local
for the estimation of nodal demand, as shown in Fig. 2. The
minimum length solution as the search direction of optimal
system contains 11 nodes, 12 pipes, 1 tank, 1 pump, and 1 source.
model.
All information of the pipe diameter, length, and roughness can
Different terms with different units cannot be combined physi-
be found from EPANET samples 共Rossman 2000兲. This network
cally, such as Eq. 共6兲. Weight functions play two roles: making
is hypothetical and this case will show readers how to use SVD to
objective function dimensional concordant and strengthening im-
calculate the nodal demand search vector. In this case, all calibra-
portant elements. A common method is to convert them dimen-
tion results are only mathematic results and do not represent
sionless by dividing the water head H or node demand Q. Another
nodal demand properties in real-life networks. Three tests are
method is to transform all terms to the same unit. The matrix A
performed in this section.
in Eq. 共11兲 transforms the water head to inflow or outflow. By
multiplying the diagonal element aii of matrix A in both sides of
Test 1
Eq. 共13兲, Eq. 共13兲 can be converted from the calculation of water
The first test assumes that three water head monitors are set up at
head errors to that of flow errors. aii⌬Hi represents the increase of
Nodes 3, 5, and 8. The first step in the calibration is to calculate
water flowing into the node if node head increase by ⌬Hs. aii is
the inverse matrix of matrix A, as shown in Table 1. According to
used as the weight of water head and can make the objective
Eq. 共13兲, Rows 3, 5, and 8 are subtracted to construct a new
function dimensional and physical concordant. Thus, Eq. 共6兲 is a
matrix with the matrix I as follows:
nonlinear optimization model. SVD solution of Eq. 共19兲 provides
the search vector in iterations. The corrected set of nodal demand

冤 冥
is 0.154 0.175 2.646 1.249 0.578 0.623 0.540 0.689 0.041
0.999 1.135 0.578 1.185 12.679 8.101 4.026 1.429 0.040
Qr+1 = Qr + ␳r⌬Qr 共20兲 0.346 0.393 0.689 1.421 1.429 1.545 1.331 1.715 0.041
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Subject to
The generalized inverse matrix calculated by SVD is shown in
Table 2. The optimal search direction is the result of ⌬h multi-
Qr,lb 艋 Qr+1 艋 Qr,ub 共21兲 plying the generalized inverse matrix. For example, in row 1

34 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 Table 1. Inverse Matrix A−1 共s / ft2兲
Node
number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 6.975 3.365 0.154 0.291 0.999 0.733 1.221 0.346 0.033
2 3.365 3.820 0.175 0.330 1.135 0.833 1.387 0.393 0.037
3 0.154 0.175 2.646 1.249 0.578 0.623 0.540 0.689 0.041
4 0.291 0.330 1.249 2.614 1.185 1.281 1.105 1.421 0.041
5 0.999 1.135 0.578 1.185 12.679 8.101 4.026 1.429 0.040
6 0.733 0.833 0.623 1.281 8.101 14.290 2.930 1.545 0.040
7 1.221 1.387 0.540 1.105 4.026 2.930 4.942 1.331 0.040
8 0.346 0.393 0.689 1.421 1.429 1.545 1.331 1.715 0.041
9 0.033 0.037 0.041 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.041
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⌬Q1 = − 关共− 0.693兲 ⫻ 共− 0.0937兲 + 2.872 ⫻ 共− 0.0054兲 which may be due to the sensitivity matrix ⳵H / ⳵Q close to
1.852A.
+ 共− 0.1645兲 ⫻ 共− 0.00853兲兴 ⫻ Ucf = − 22.797
in which Ucf= unit conversion coefficient in EPANET, with a Test 2
value of 448.831 in this case. The initial objective function Test 2 assumes that the flow meters are set up at Pipes 2, 4, and
兺i=3,5,8⌬h2i is 8.73 ft2共0.811 m2兲. In the test, the objective function 11. According to the above derivation, the sensitivity matrix of
is 2.09 ft2共0.194 m2兲 if the step length is 1.0. The optimal step is pipe flow CBTA−1 is obtained, which is a 13⫻ 9 matrix and all
0.611 when the one-dimensional search procedure is used. The elements are given in Table 3. There is a simple method to vali-
objective function is 0.0296 ft2 共0.00275 m2兲. Most of optimal date this matrix. The incidence matrix B 共Table 3兲 multiplying
steps are about 0.6–0.65 in other cases with pressure monitors, CBTA−1 leads to an identity matrix. For example, the Column 5 of
Table 4 is related to Node 5. The Pipes 6 and 11 connect with this
node, which gives 0.307⫻ 1 + 共−1兲 ⫻ 共−0.693兲 = 1. It means that
flow rates of the Pipes 6 and 11 increase by 0.307⌬Q5 and
Table 2. Optimal Search Direction Calculation in Test 1
0.693⌬Q5, respectively, if the nodal demand at the Node 5 in-
兺⌬Qi ⌬Q creases by ⌬Q5. The Column 5 in Table 4 suggests the influence
Node 3 Node 5 Node 8 共gal./h兲 共gal./h兲 coefficient on all other pipes with the perturbation at the Node 5.
␧ ⫺0.69326 2.872198 ⫺0.00853 0 In the above procedure, a new matrix is constructed by extracting
Node 1 ⫺0.0937 ⫺0.0054 ⫺0.1645 0.3619 ⫺22.797 submatrix from CBTA−1 and combining with the matrix I. The
generalized inverse matrix is obtained by using SVD. The search
Node 2 ⫺0.0923 ⫺0.0057 ⫺0.1486 0.346 ⫺21.915
direction is calculated by multiplying the generalized inverse ma-
Node 3 0.4141 0.0096 ⫺0.2378 0.0063 115.430
trix and the discrepancy between observation and simulation val-
Node 4 0.0364 ⫺0.0336 0.2546 ⫺0.0555 55.551 ues, as shown in Table 5.
Node 5 0.0431 0.0759 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.0269 ⫺84.910
Node 6 ⫺0.0212 0.0243 0.0949 ⫺0.0485 ⫺37.515 Test 3
Node 7 ⫺0.072 ⫺0.01 0.1657 0.0343 ⫺8.867 The third test assumes that the observations are the flow rate of
Node 8 ⫺0.115 ⫺0.0509 0.4522 ⫺0.0804 31.528 Pipe 11, the pressure at Node 4, and the flow at Tank 11. The row
Node 9 ⫺0.0993 ⫺0.0042 ⫺0.2665 0.4628 ⫺26.473 related to Node 4 multiplies a4,4, and the row related to Tank 11 is
the copy of Pipe 7 共Table 6兲. The matrix is

Table 3. Incidence Matrix of Case 1

Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8 Node 9
Pipe 1 1 ⫺1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pipe 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1
Pipe 3 0 0 ⫺1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Pipe 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⫺1 0
Pipe 5 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 0 0 1 0
Pipe 6 0 0 0 0 1 ⫺1 0 0 0
Pipe 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1
Pipe 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 0
Pipe 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 1
Pipe 10 0 0 1 ⫺1 0 0 0 0 0
Pipe 11 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 1 0 0
Pipe 12 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 1 0
Pipe 13 ⫺1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 35

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 Table 4. Matrix CBTA−1 in Case 1
Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8 Node 9
−1 −1 −3 −3 −2 −2 −2 −2
Pipe 1 7.93⫻ 10 −1.00⫻ 10 −4.58⫻ 10 −8.65⫻ 10 −2.97⫻ 10 −2.18⫻ 10 −3.63⫻ 10 −1.03⫻ 10 −9.73⫻ 10−4
Pipe 2 6.20⫻ 10−1 7.04⫻ 10−1 2.49⫻ 10−2 5.38⫻ 10−2 2.04⫻ 10−1 1.47⫻ 10−1 2.51⫻ 10−1 6.54⫻ 10−2 −7.61⫻ 10−4
Pipe 3 −3.16⫻ 10−2 −3.58⫻ 10−2 −6.78⫻ 10−1 −3.15⫻ 10−1 −1.40⫻ 10−1 −1.52⫻ 10−1 −1.30⫻ 10−1 −1.69⫻ 10−1 3.87⫻ 10−5
Pipe 4 1.55⫻ 10−1 1.76⫻ 10−1 −2.64⫻ 10−2 −5.61⫻ 10−2 4.60⫻ 10−1 2.45⫻ 10−1 6.40⫻ 10−1 −6.79⫻ 10−2 −1.90⫻ 10−4
Pipe 5 3.16⫻ 10−2 3.58⫻ 10−2 −3.22⫻ 10−1 −6.85⫻ 10−1 1.40⫻ 10−1 1.52⫻ 10−1 1.30⫻ 10−1 1.69⫻ 10−1 −3.87⫻ 10−5
Pipe 6 1.78⫻ 10−2 2.02⫻ 10−2 −3.03⫻ 10−3 −6.43⫻ 10−3 3.07⫻ 10−1 −4.14⫻ 10−1 7.34⫻ 10−2 −7.80⫻ 10−3 −2.18⫻ 10−5
Pipe 7 −7.93⫻ 10−1 −9.00⫻ 10−1 −9.95⫻ 10−1 −9.91⫻ 10−1 −9.70⫻ 10−1 −9.78⫻ 10−1 −9.64⫻ 10−1 −9.90⫻ 10−1 −9.99⫻ 10−1
Pipe 8 1.73⫻ 10−1 1.96⫻ 10−1 −2.95⫻ 10−2 −6.25⫻ 10−2 −2.33⫻ 10−1 −1.69⫻ 10−1 −2.87⫻ 10−1 −7.57⫻ 10−2 −2.12⫻ 10−4
Pipe 9 −1.41⫻ 10−1 −1.60⫻ 10−1 −2.93⫻ 10−1 −6.23⫻ 10−1 −6.27⫻ 10−1 −6.79⫻ 10−1 −5.83⫻ 10−1 −7.56⫻ 10−1 1.73⫻ 10−4
Pipe 10 −3.16⫻ 10−2 −3.58⫻ 10−2 3.22⫻ 10−1 −3.15⫻ 10−1 −1.40⫻ 10−1 −1.52⫻ 10−1 −1.30⫻ 10−1 −1.69⫻ 10−1 3.87⫻ 10−5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pipe 11 1.78⫻ 10−2 2.02⫻ 10−2 −3.03⫻ 10−3 −6.43⫻ 10−3 −6.93⫻ 10−1 −4.14⫻ 10−1 7.34⫻ 10−2 −7.80⫻ 10−3 −2.18⫻ 10−5
Pipe 12 −1.78⫻ 10−2 −2.02⫻ 10−2 3.03⫻ 10−3 6.43⫻ 10−3 −3.07⫻ 10−1 −5.86⫻ 10−1 −7.34⫻ 10−2 7.80⫻ 10−3 2.18⫻ 10−5
Pipe 13 −2.07⫻ 10−1 −1.00⫻ 10−1 −4.58⫻ 10−3 −8.65⫻ 10−3 −2.97⫻ 10−2 −2.18⫻ 10−2 −3.63⫻ 10−2 −1.03⫻ 10−2 −9.73⫻ 10−4

冤 冥
0.127 0.144 0.543 1.140 0.515 0.557 0.481 0.618 0.0178
− 0.141 − 0.160 − 0.293 − 0.623 − 0.627 − 0.679 − 0.583 − 0.756 1.73E-04
− 0.793 − 0.900 − 0.995 − 0.991 − 0.970 − 0.978 − 0.964 − 0.990 − 0.999
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Discussion of the Test Results
One step search technique can obtain the minimum of the objec-
tive function in a linear system. The water distribution network
system is a weak nonlinear system. An optimal result can be
obtained within two or three iterations in most cases without con-
straints, as shown in Table 7. All of the three models’ objective
functions are equal to zero finally, which suggests that there
would be no discrepancy between observed and simulated values.
It is not surprising that their results are different because it is an
underdetermined case. Different distributions of monitors, search
methods, and initial state variables will lead to different results.
For example, in Fig. 3, two pressure meters are set up at Nodes 1
and 4, and nodal demands are different between Patterns 1 and 2.
However, these pressure meters are the same in both conditions. It
is impossible to determine the nodal outflows at Nodes 2 and 3.
Some researchers validate the calibrated result by comparing
the nodal demand node by node in their work. This method will
be infeasible in the realistic WDS calibration. There are two rea-
sons. The first reason is that the customer demand is usually as-
signed to the nearest junction in the numerical model. In other
words, the nodal is not a real outflow but an equivalent nodal
outflow based on the water head and flow. The second reason is
that the quantity of monitors in real water distribution network is
very limited. All real-life water distribution calibrations are un-
derdetermined or mixed determined. They are not identifiable sys-
tems. The comparison of nodal demand in a way of node by node
is meaningless. It looks like that finding a unique solution is in a
predicament. In the pragmatic point, a good calibration algorithm
or monitor network is to improve the estimation of nodal demand.
Due to limited monitors, a feasible evaluation method is to see
how much it improves the estimation of zone demand. For ex-
ample, in Fig. 3, if an algorithm can determine that the total
demand of Nodes 2 and 3 are 150 or near 150, it is a good
algorithm. In this case, the real nodal demands in Nodes 4 and 8
are 300 and 150 gal./h, respectively. The calibrated results in Test
2 are 200.54 and 209.63 according to the initial values of 170 and
180 gal./h, respectively. The result is not good in the view of node
comparison. The initial total demand of two nodes is 350 gal./h

Table 5. Optimal Search Direction Calculation in Test 2 Table 6. Optimal Search Direction Calculation in Test 3
兺⌬Qi ⌬Q 兺⌬Qi ⌬Q
Pipe 2 Pipe 4 Pipe 11 共gal./h兲 共gal./h兲 Pipe 11 Node 4 Tank 11 共gal./h兲 共gal./h兲
␧ 48.62 41.65 ⫺40.83 0 — ␧ ⫺0.47361 0.029665 ⫺0.01955 0 —
Node 1 0.7934 ⫺0.2611 0.0392 ⫺0.0226 ⫺26.0984 Node 1 0.166384 0.132012 ⫺4.5975 4.474454 ⫺6.73
Node 2 0.9576 ⫺0.2787 0.0152 ⫺0.0600 ⫺34.3269 Node 2 ⫺0.12599 0.234183 ⫺0.73996 0.975014 ⫺36.39
Node 3 ⫺0.3381 ⫺0.2323 0.1638 0.2466 32.8015 Node 3 0.45183 0.790972 1.483471 ⫺1.17166 98.53
Node 4 ⫺0.2439 ⫺0.3465 0.1041 0.2376 30.5412 Node 4 1.390851 0.902356 ⫺0.72554 0.550296 277.27
Node 5 0.0368 0.1838 ⫺1.0057 ⫺0.0418 ⫺50.5104 Node 5 ⫺0.35868 ⫺0.62469 0.214605 ⫺0.19655 ⫺66.04
Node 6 ⫺0.0621 ⫺0.0506 ⫺0.5638 0.0705 ⫺17.8945 Node 6 ⫺0.38483 ⫺0.72122 0.321891 ⫺0.32823 ⫺69.38
Node 7 ⫺0.5160 1.5087 0.9503 0.0810 1.0492 Node 7 ⫺0.33683 ⫺0.54404 0.124964 ⫺0.08654 ⫺63.26
Node 8 ⫺0.2062 ⫺0.3923 0.0801 0.2340 29.6349 Node 8 ⫺0.42294 ⫺0.8619 0.478235 ⫺0.52012 ⫺74.23
Node 9 ⫺0.4215 ⫺0.1311 0.2168 0.2546 34.8034 Node 9 ⫺0.37979 0.692327 3.43983 ⫺2.69667 ⫺59.77

36 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 Table 7. Optimal Results of Three Tests in Case 1 共gal./h兲
Node Real nodal
number demand Initial Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
1 0 30 21.97 3.90 3.75
2 150 180 185.78 145.67 158.49
3 100 80 151.09 112.80 122.65
4 300 170 216.44 200.54 279.36
5 50 100 49.26 49.49 77.64
6 50 80 64.01 62.11 58.43
7 150 150 159.26 151.05 127.40
8 150 180 221.00 209.63 157.52
9 150 130 129.21 164.80 114.76
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and becomes 410.17 gal./h close to 450 gal./h after the calibra-
tion. It improves dramatically. This evaluation can be also used at
Nodes 5 and 6. Fig. 4. WDS in Hangzhou City, China

Real-Life Case
Jmin = 兺
i=27,410,¯
aii共hoi − hip兲2 + 兺
k=13,14,¯
共qtok − qtkp兲2 共23兲
Calibration of Nodal Demand in Hangzhou City, China
Hangzhou City is the capital city of Zhejiang Province located in The demand on pipe line is assumed to be proportional to the
the eastern China. Its WDS is composed of 2, 639-km pipe lines pipe line length in the initial iteration, and then converted to the
and five sources, as shown in Fig. 4. It provides over 106 m3 nodal demand. This method is usually adopted in the WDS plan-
water per day. A water distribution network model has been de- ning. SVD is used to calculate the optimal search vector. Eq. 共5兲
veloped, which owns 492 nodes and 855 pipe lines with diameters shows the covariance matrix. If 1 / ␭ is too large, data errors can
larger than 300 mm. The values of pipe roughness range from 75 cause unnecessary magnifications of errors. The cutoff level or
to 100 according to the pipe material and service age. The net- the smallest singular values is useful in controlling the data errors
work has 17 water head monitors and water stations with water in the solution 共Wiggins 1972; Uhrhammer 1980兲. If ␭cut is small,
head meters and flow meters. SCADA system provides the water 1 / ␭ becomes too large, and errors in the solution are blown out of
head and flow values every 15 min. All the water head monitors proportion. If ␭cut is large, some useful information is discarded.
are marked in Fig. 4. The proper ␭cut is different with specific cases. It is more univer-
SCADA of Hangzhou, China can provide monitor data every sal to determine the threshold value of ␭cut / ␭max. The variance of
15 min. The algorithm presented in this paper is developed to nodal demand is estimated by ␥2 = V共␴2 / ⌳2e 兲VT, in which ␴ is
calibrate the nodal demand every 15 min, and then the improved assumed independent and 共V共1 / ⌳2e 兲VT兲␴2 can be used to estimate
nodal demand is used in the hydraulic simulation and pumps op- the variance level directly. The total demand is
timization. The calibration of the water nodal demand at 4 a.m. on 30, 000 m3 / h共294.29 ft3 / s兲 in this case. The average nodal de-
March 18, 2002 is given to help the reader understand the prac-
tical procedure. Measured water heads at water stations are ap-
plied as the boundary of the water distribution network model. Table 8. Measured, Initial, and Calibrated Nodal Heads 共m兲
Water stations’ supplements and water heads of monitors are used
Node
as the measured values. There are 22 measured values in total as number Measured Initial Calibrated
shown in Tables 8 and 9. The objective function is
27 38.4354 36.564 37.434
410 36.952 36.361 37.081
388 36.5506 36.204 36.806
465 36.8376 35.96 36.440
482 40.7374 39.764 40.160
372 39.2626 37.397 38.625
215 38.447 36.998 37.623
45 36.6616 35.174 36.374
284 37.1044 35.019 36.277
548 33.9968 34.933 34.150
78 36.3314 34.416 35.767
90 35.6052 34.309 35.025
115 30.0644 33.387 30.431
82 35.8474 34.428 35.699
26 32.5984 29.552 31.747
122 35.6932 34.851 35.640
Fig. 3. Example of node demand indetermination 324 33.8284 35.27 34.088

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 37

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 Table 9. Measured, Initial, and Calibrated Water Station Supplements Table 10. Nodal Head Errors
共m3 / h兲
Error level Sample
Water 共m兲 number
station Measured Initial Calibrated
⬍0.5 88
13 4,600 2,264.029 4,299.125 ⬍1 137
14 3,380 4,502.663 3,580.309 ⬍1.5 162
15 8,700 9,574.947 8,692.16 ⬍2 165
19 8,160 8,433.139 8,221.247 ⬍3 166
20 4,953 4,590.921 4,972.855 ⬍4 168
Sum 29,793 29,365.7 29,765.7

mand is 0.0169 m3 / s共0.6 ft3 / s兲. If the nodal standard deviation ␥

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is less than 10% of nodal demand, ␥2 is about 2.89

Fig. 5. Nodal demand variance and condition number
⫻ 10−6 m6 / s2共0.0036 ft6 / s2兲. The error of water head is about
0.305– 0.914 m 共1 – 3 ft兲. Assuming the variance of water head
error is about 0.372 m2共4 ft2兲, the acceptable nodal demand vari-
ance is about 8.02⫻ 10−7 m6 / s2共10−3 ft6 / s2兲. Fig. 5 shows the
profile of maximum element of variance matrix and ␭cut / ␭max
condition number. The cutoff threshold value of 10−2 is deter-
mined mathematically, which makes ␭cut / ␭max 艌 0.01.
Another problem is the maximum step. If the maximum step is
not constrained, it is very easy to get the minimum of the objec-
tive function. However, the result is not acceptable, because some
solved nodal demands are negative, which are not physically cor-
rect. The maximum 储⌬Q储⬁ is about 1.7⫻ 10−3 – 5.1
⫻ 10−3 m3 / s共0.06– 0.36 ft3 / s兲 in this case, which satisfies the rea-
sonable range of 储⌬Q储⬁ ⬍ 10⬃ 30%Q̄ with Q̄ being the average
nodal demand. Fig. 6 shows the profile of 储⌬Q储⬁ and ␭cut / ␭max.
According to the above discussion, the cutoff of condition number
is then determined as 10−2 and the corresponding 储⌬Q储⬁ is
0.0424 m3 / s共1.5 ft3 / s兲. Thus, ␳r ⬍ 0.1– 0.2 is suggested. The
golden section search algorithm is applied in one dimensional
optimization. All measured, initial, and calibrated values are
shown in Tables 8 and 9. It takes between 4 and 5 min on our PC.

Validation of the Calibrated Results

Fig. 6. Nodal demand length and cutoff condition number
It is believed that good fitness of observation values mean good
calibration. This is not the case for even and mixed determined
problem. Eq. 共5兲 can be used to estimate the error level of nodal
demand, but it is just a mathematical evaluation. A good calibra-
tion result should be in high agreement in different real condi-
tions. The water demand is periodical in most conditions. The
nodal water demand is assumed to be proportion of the total de-

Fig. 7. Nodal heads in all stations and total demand

38 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 too much variables. The established method using SVD has been
applied to calculate the sensitivity coefficients matrix of optimi-
zation, which is more efficient than the finite-difference method.
Two case studies have been used to show the calculation of the
nodal demand correction value and optimization search step size
and the determination of the cutoff singular value by the variance
analysis.
A successful calibration depends on both the monitor network
and calibration algorithm. Sufficient and suitable distributions of
monitors determine the resolution of calibration physically. The
calibration algorithm is also very important, which affects the
accuracy and extension of models. In the present paper, 11 days’
measured data has been used to validate the realistic model in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Distribution of nodal head errors real-life case. The result indicates that the calibrated model is
reliable and the proposed calibration algorithm is practical and
effective. This method can be used in the real-time calibration.
mand at the same time every week. Mathematically, it is
Qij / Qtotal
j
= Qij+168 / Qtotal
j+168
, where i and j = indexes of the node num-
ber and the hour. Measured values on other days are used to
validate the reliability of the calibration. The data for validation Notation
was measured at 4 a.m. from March 25 共Monday兲 to June 16. The
monitors were failed on June 2 and the water head monitors at The following symbols are used in this paper:
Nodes 26 and 548 were failed on May 19. These failed data are A ⫽ linear matrix of describing the flow and pressure
ignored. Total 168 water head and 50 station flow observation in the water distributions network;
values are used to evaluate the reliability of calibration. Fig. 7 Ash ⫽ submatrix Ash extracted from matrix A−1;
shows the water stations’ water head and the total demand. Table Asq ⫽ submatrix extracting from matrix CBTA−1;
10 shows the sample number in different error level. Fig. 8 shows B ⫽ incidence matrix;
the sample error distribution. The variance of all nodal water head C ⫽ m ⫻ m matrix;
prediction is 0.65 m2 / s2. The 90% prediction error of nodal water G ⫽ nonlinear equations describing the flow and
head is less than 2 Psi 共1.406 mH2O兲. The prediction errors of the pressure in the water distributions network;
water supplement in the water stations are shown in Fig. 9. H p ⫽ predicted node head vector;
Ninety-six percent of the sample error is less than 15%. It is Hⴱ ⫽ real nodal pressure;
believed that the calibration is reliable in macrosize. The simula- Hoi ⫽ measured pressure at node i;
tion also indicates that more difference between the validating Hip ⫽ predicted pressure at node i;
and calibrating total water demands cause the larger error. These Jmin ⫽ objective function to be minimized;
errors possibly lie in the random property of spatial and temporal m, n ⫽ row and column numbers of matrix, respectively;
nature of the water use. nh ⫽ numbers of observed nodal pressure;
nk ⫽ numbers of source supplement;
nq ⫽ numbers of pipe flow;
Conclusions Q ⫽ vector of nodal demand;
Ql ⫽ lower bound of nodal demand;
This paper gives an efficient methodology to calibrate the nodal Qu ⫽ upper bound of nodal demand;
demand of a water supply distribution system model. SVD is Q p ⫽ predicted nodal demand vector;
useful in identifying and understanding an arbitrary number of Qⴱ ⫽ real nodal demand vector;
parameters when the equations involved are overdetermined
Q̄ ⫽ average nodal demand vector;
even-determined, and underdetermined. The calibration of nodal
q ⫽ pipe flow vector;
demand is an underdetermined problem for limited monitors and
qij ⫽ element of pipe flow vector;
qoj ⫽ measured pipe flow at pipe j;
q pj ⫽ predicted pipe flows at pipe j;
qs ⫽ subvector extracting from the vector q;
qtok ⫽ measured source supplement flow at water
station k;
qtkp ⫽ predicted source supplement flow at water
station k;
R ⫽ parameter space resolution;
r ⫽ number of iteration;
RC ⫽ vector of pipe roughness coefficients;
RCl ⫽ lower bound pipe roughness coefficient;
RCu ⫽ upper bound pipe roughness coefficient;
S ⫽ sensitivity matrix;
sij ⫽ element of the sensitivity matrix;
U m ⫻ m ⫽ orthogonal matrix;
Fig. 9. Relative error of station supplement V n ⫻ n ⫽ orthogonal matrix;

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 39

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40

 W ⫽ weighting factor vector; Kapelan, Z., Savic, D. A., and Walters, G. A. 共2007兲. “Calibration of
Wh ⫽ weighting factor vector of pressure item; WDS hydraulic models using the Bayesian recursive procedure.”
Wq ⫽ weighting factor vector of flow item; J. Hydraul. Eng., 133共8兲, 927–936.
Wqt ⫽ weighting factor vector of source supplement Lansey, K. E., and Basnet, C. 共1991兲. “Parameter estimation for water
flow item; distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 117共1兲,
126–144.
x ⫽ parameter;
Liggett, J. A., and Chen, L. C. 共1994兲. “Inverse transient analysis in pipe
␥2 ⫽ covariance of the estimated parameters;
networks.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 120共8兲, 934–955.
⌬H ⫽ nodal water head difference vector between
Meneke, W. 共1984兲. Geophysical data analysis: Discrete theory, Aca-
predicted and real values;
demic, New York.
⌬Q ⫽ nodal demand difference vector between
Ormsbee, L. E. 共1989兲. “Implicit network calibration.” J. Water Resour.
predicted and real values; Plann. Manage., 115共2兲, 243–257.
⌬Qr+1 ⫽ nodal demand correction solution at r + 1 Ormsbee, L. E., and Wood, D. J. 共1986兲. “Explicit pipe network calibra-
iteration; tion.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 112共2兲, 166–182.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de la Sabana on 03/01/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⌬x ⫽ correction vector of parameter; Piller, O. 共1995兲. “Modeling the behavior of a network-hydraulic analysis
␧ ⫽ vector of errors; and sampling procedures for parameter estimation.” Ph.D. thesis,
␧i ⫽ element of error vector; Univ. of Bordeaux I, Bordeaux, France.
⌳ m⫻n ⫽ diagonal matrix of singular values of A; Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P.
␳r ⫽ step size in the r iteration; 共1999兲. Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing, 2nd
␳r,lb ⫽ upper bound step size in the r iteration; Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
␳r,ub ⫽ upper bound step size in the r iteration; Pudar, R. S., and Liggett, J. A. 共1992兲. “Leaks in pipe networks.”
␴2 ⫽ error variance of output; and J. Hydraul. Eng., 118共7兲, 1031–1046.
1 ⫽ vector 关1 1 . . . 1兴. Rahal, C. M., Sterling, M. J. H., and Coulbeck, B. 共1980兲. “Parameter
tuning for simulation models of water distribution networks.” Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng., Part 2. Res. Theory, 69共2兲, 751–762.
References Reddy, P. V. N., Sridharan, K., and Rao, P. V. 共1996兲. “WLS method for
parameter estimation in water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage., 122共3兲, 157–164.
Bhave, P. R. 共1988兲. “Calibrating water distribution network models.”
Rossman, L. A. 共2000兲. EPANET 2 users manual, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati.
J. Environ. Eng., 114共1兲, 120–136.
Boulos, P. F., and Wood, D. J. 共1990兲. “Explicit calculation of pipe net- Savic, D. A., and Walters, G. A. 共1995兲. “Genetic algorithm techniques
work parameters.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 116共11兲, 1329–1344. for calibrating network models.” Rep. No. 95/12, Centre for Systems
Boulos, P. F., and Wood, D. J. 共1991兲. “An explicit algorithm for calcu- and Control Engineering, Univ. of Exeter, Exeter, U.K.
lating operating parameters for water networks.” Civ. Eng. Syst., 8, Uhrhammer, R. A. 共1980兲. “Analysis of seismographic station networks.”
115–122. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 70共4兲, 1369–1379.
Datta, R. S. N., and Sridharan, K. 共1994兲. “Parameter estimation in water- Vítkovský, J. P., Simpson, A. R., and Lambert, M. F. 共2000兲. “Leak
distribution systems by least squares.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Man- detection and calibration using transients and genetic algorithms.”
age., 120共4兲, 405–422. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 126共4兲, 262–265.
Ferreri, G. B., Napoli, E., and Tumbiolo, A. 共1994兲. “Calibration of Walski, T. M. 共1983兲. “Technique for calibrating network models.”
roughness in water distribution networks.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 109共4兲, 360–372.
Water Pipeline Systems, Vol. 1, D. S. Miller, ed., PEP, Suffolk, U.K., Walski, T. M. 共1986兲. “Case study: Pipe network model calibration is-
379–396. sues.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 112共2兲, 238–249.
Greco, M., and Del Guidice, G. 共1999兲. “New approach to water distri- Ward, S. H., Peeples, W. J., and Ryu, J. 共1973兲. “Analysis of geoelectro-
bution network calibration.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共8兲, 849–854. magnetic data.” Methods in computational physics, Vol. 13, Aca-
Jonkergouw, P., Khu, S.-T., Kapelan, Z., and Savic, D. A. 共2008兲. “Water demic, New York, 226–238.
quality model calibration under unknown demands.” J. Water Resour. Wasantha Lal, A. M. 共1995兲. “Calibration of riverbed roughness.” J. Hy-
Plann. Manage., 134共4兲, 326–336. draul. Eng., 121共9兲, 664–671.
Kapelan, Z., Savic, D. A., and Walters, G. A. 共2003兲. “A hybrid inverse Wiggins, R. A. 共1972兲. “The general linear inverse problem: Implications
transient model for leakage detection and roughness calibration in of surface waves and free oscillations for surface structures.” Rev.
pipe networks.” J. Hydraul. Res., 41共5兲, 481–492. Geophys. Space Phys., 10, 251–285.

40 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2011, 137(1): 31-40