See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351550087

Multi-Outlet Storage Tanks to Improve Water Distribution Networks in India

Article  in  Urban Water Journal · May 2021

DOI: 10.1080/1573062X.2021.1914117

CITATIONS READS
2 166

3 authors:

Anujkumar Ghorpade Abhishek Sinha

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
5 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pradip Kalbar
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
62 PUBLICATIONS   1,296 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS coupled multiple criteria decision making View project

New Strategies for Optimal Operation of water supply schemes by use of scheduling and Decentralized Infrastructure. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anujkumar Ghorpade on 13 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This article is published in the Urban Water Journal

Ghorpade, A., Sinha, A. K., & Kalbar, P. (2021). Multi-outlet storage tanks to improve
water distribution networks in India. Urban Water Journal, 1-9.
DOI: 10.1080/1573062X.2021.1914117

Multi-Outlet Storage Tanks to Improve Water Distribution Networks in India

Anujkumar Ghorpade, Abhishek Kumar Sinha, Pradip Kalbar*

Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai, 400067, India.
*
Assistant Professor, Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400067, India (corresponding author). Email: kalbar@iitb.ac.in

Abstract

In developing countries, Intermittent Water Supply (IWS) regimes have become a usual mode for
operating the Water Supply Systems (WSSs). The reasons and adverse impacts (inequitable
supply, deterioration of pipeline and so on) of the IWS regime are well documented in the
literature; however, limited work is available on solutions to improve IWS regime. Here, we
propose the application of multi-outlet storage tanks to overcome the issues in IWS regime by
considering field conditions in India. Two real-life Water Distribution Networks (WDNs) from
India were considered as case study. The distribution networks were optimized followed by
hydraulic simulation on various water demand situations to compare the residual pressure in the
two scenarios (single outlet and multi-outlet storage tank). Results are encouraging in terms of
residual pressures, and economy for multi-outlet storage tank scenario. Additionally, operational
benefits from the use of multi-outlet storage tank makes it an ideal low cost intervention for
improving WDNs in India.

Keywords: Intermittent Water Supply, Low cost interventions, Multi-outlet Storage Tanks.

1
1. Introduction

Piped water supply is considered the primary source of safe drinking water for people around the
World. Globally, 63.70% of people have access to piped water supply (WHO and UNICEF, 2017).
The water treatment facilities, storage tanks, network of pipes, and other necessary appurtenances
together form Water Supply Systems (WSSs). Typically, the WSSs are designed for Continuous
Water Supply (CWS) regime, and supposed to be operated under pressure 24x7. However, in low
and middle-income countries, Intermittent Water Supply (IWS) is a common practice to operate
the WSSs; 41% of the WSSs in these countries are operated intermittently, whereas, in South Asian
countries, 100% of the WSSs have IWS regime (Charalambous and Laspidou 2017). In India, on
average, water is supplied only for three hours a day (MoUD 2012).
The IWS regime adversely impacts the performance of WSSs. Various studies (Galaitsi et
al. 2016; Klingel 2012; Kumpel and Nelson 2016) related to IWS regime are focused on either
reporting the problems or the causes of intermittency. The lack of studies on the methodology for
analysis and design for the IWS regime suggests encouragement to direct conversion to the CWS
regime without addressing the fundamental issues with the IWS regime (Simukonda et al. 2018).
Few studies have reported the new design approach for the IWS regime (Batish 2003;
Vairavamoorthy and Elango 2002).
Implementation of District Metered Area (DMA) is the most preferred option for effective
pressure management, planning rehabilitation activities, and reducing Non Revenue Water (NRW)
(Charalambous 2008). Due to the isolation of the networks, actual leakages in the network can be
quantified using night flow analysis (Ferrari et al. 2014). Moreover, DMA enables identification
of supply source for the area, metering errors, water balance, data generation for engineering
experiments, and helps in scheduling the operation and maintenance activity (Gomes et al. 2013).
Overall, DMA is widely used to improve the performance of a Water Distribution Network
(WDN). However, limited studies are available related to DMA formulation in the IWS regime.
Ilaya-ayza et al. (2017) proposed a method for DMA formation in IWS regime, where sub-zones
were created based on the theoretical maximum flow concept with the help of graph theory and
cluster analysis and results showed significant improvement in the resilience index of network post
sub-zoning. However, the DMA formation approach used in the study could not resolve the issue
of minimizing the number of pipelines with isolation valves. Ideally, in the IWS regime, the DMAs

2
should reduce the isolation valves to improve the network’s hydraulic performance (Ilaya-Ayza et
al. 2017).
Recently, Kalbar and Gokhale (2019) reported the operational issues with WSSs in India
and suggested a few alternative design and operation approaches to improve the efficiency of the
WSSs in developing countries. In India, large storage tanks with a varying capacity between 5
Million Litres (ML) to 25 ML (Kalbar and Gokhale 2019) having a single outlet are constructed
as shown in Figure1a. The storage tanks are designed for CWS regime to satisfy the water demand
for the next 30 years. However, WSSs are operated intermittently, causing different utilization of
storage volume than the design. The Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), typically operator of the WSSs,
try to manage the increased demand by expanding the distribution network beyond the hydraulic
capacity of the storage tank. As per Kalbar and Gokhale (2019), for Indian conditions, the capacity
of the storage tank should vary between 0.1 to 2.5 ML based on the influence zone of the tank and
population density. At present, in India, different sub-zones from a storage tank are formed with
the help of isolation valves; the manual setting of isolation valves is decided based on the supply
timing of the zone. Some parts of the subzone lie outside the ideal influence area, which results in
inequitable pressure in the system due to pressure drops at various locations. The portion of the
system with low pressure fails to fulfill the consumer demand, whereas excess water is delivered
to high pressure zones. Additionally, water contamination due to backflow in the system is
observed due to low pressures, and an increase in leakages and pipe breaks are reported to surplus
pressure in the system (Ghorbanian et al., 2017). Hence, it is essential to maintain the optimal
pressure (varies in different parts of the world) in the system to deliver the water consumer in
adequate quantity and prescribed quality.
To improve the accessibility of the WSSs in India, the Government of India has launched
Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) in December 2019, which aims to provide household tap connection to
every rural household in India with the total investment of 47.34 billion USD1. However, the
traditional method of designing the WSSs based on the CWS regime and actual operation based
on the IWS regime will pose great challenge for the success of such a mission.

1 Exchange rate of currency 1 INR = 0.013 USD 19th May 2020

3
Figure1: (a) Single outlet and (b) Multi-outlet storage tank arrangement. MBR- Master Balancing
Reservoir, ESR- Elevated Storage Reservoir.

To overcome the issues of WSSs in developing countries, Kalbar and Gokhale (2019)
suggested low-cost and easy maintenance-oriented design and operation for WDN using multi-
outlet storage tank, as shown in Figure 1b. Maintaining separate sub-zones without intervention
by operators, dampening the effect of peak factor, and different supply time among each outlet to
avoid fast draining of storage tank are some of the advantages of multi-outlet storage tanks enlisted
in the study. Moreover, the direct connection of sub-zones to the storage tanks improves the
pressure management of the zones, as different sub-zones do not interact hydraulically with each
other. However, there is no detailed techno-economic performance assessment of multi-outlet
tanks available in the literature.
The present study fills this gap by assessing the performance of multi-outlet storage tanks
in the IWS regime. Two real WDNs from India are selected to test the effect of multi-outlet storage
tanks on residual pressure.
2. Methodology

The study aims to compare the performance of a multi-outlet storage tank with a single outlet
storage tank using two case locations. In this study, optimization and hydraulic simulation of the
WDNs was done using Bentley’s WaterGEMS version 10 (Connect Edition). Two scenarios on
the real WDN were formed, I) WDN with a single outlet storage tank and II) WDN with a multi-
outlet storage tank. The scenario I is an existing WDN with a single outlet from the storage tank,
which is the common practice of designing a storage tank (Batchabani et al. 2014). In scenario II,
4
two outlets are provided from the storage tank based on the topography of the WDN, and two
isolated zones were formed in the existing WDN. Darwin designer, an optimization tool based on
Genetic Algorithms present in WaterGEMS, was used to optimize the WDN in both the scenarios.
The mathematical formulation used in Darwin designer is described in Wu et al. (2011). The
diameter of the outlets in scenario II is based on the optimization of the WDN. The optimization
of the WDN was followed by the hydraulic analysis of the network in both scenarios.

2.1. WDN optimisation and hydraulic analysis

To optimize WDN with the multi-outlet and single outlet storage tank, the network was initially
built in WaterGEMS, which includes updating the node and pipe details and demand allocation.
The demand allocation to the nodes was done using the proportional distribution by area method
as the water demand was available for the administrative wards. Population projection was made
in three stages viz, initial, intermediate (15 years from the initial stage), and ultimate stage (30
years from the initial stage). Based on the projected population, demand was calculated for the
three stages. Additionally, to compare the performance of the two scenarios with increased
demand, two additional demand situations were created viz., 1.5 and 2 times the ultimate stage
demand. The 1.5 times and 2 times ultimate stage situation are used as a proxy for the situation of
IWS, considering that in IWS regime there will be additional flow than design peak flow. The
optimisation of the network was done for all the five demand situations (Initial, Intermediate,
Ultimate, 1.5 times ultimate, 2 times ultimate stage demand) in both the scenarios. The cost of the
optimal pipe diameter in both the scenarios was compared to test the feasibility of the multi-outlet
storage tanks. The costs of the pipe are taken from the District Schedule Rates (Konkan region)
for 2018-2019, defined by the Government of Maharashtra, India.
Once the optimization was complete, the optimal pipe diameters were updated in the WDN,
and hydraulic analysis of the networks was carried. The steady state hydraulic simulation of both
scenarios was performed using a Pressure Dependent Demand (PDD) modelling approach. The
PDD curve defined by Wu et al. (2009) without threshold pressure was used to check the
performance of the network in both scenarios. The main aim of using PDD is to simulate the effect
of low pressure on the demand satisfaction, hence defining threshold pressure value is not
necessary (Bentley communities, 2019). The reference pressure in PDD analysis was considered
as 7.0 m in both the scenarios.

5
 Pressure Indices given by Di Nardo et al. (2015) were used to check the effectiveness of
multi-outlet storage tank, which included calculation of minimum (hmin), and maximum (hmax)
pressure and the standard deviations of the pressure at the demand nodes. In addition to it, Mean
Pressure Surplus (MPS), Mean Pressure Deficit (MPD), and Mean Square Deviation from the
Design Pressure (MSDP) were also calculated for both the scenarios. As the design is based on the
norms of CPHEEO (1999), design pressure for both the case study networks was considered as 7
m, and the pressure indices for ultimate stage demand are calculated based on the design pressure.
Figure 2 shows the detailed flow chart of the methodology.

Figure 2: Flow chart of the methodology

6
2.2. Case Studies

The proposed methodology was tested on two real WDN from India. The first case study is WDN
of Kholapur, Amravati, Maharashtra (Figure 3 a). The Kholapur WDN is a branch type network,
serving the population of 20750 (Table 1). The total daily water demand of the town is 6.0 ML.
The second case study is WDN of Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. The Ratnagiri WDN is more
complicated with loops in the network (Figure 3 b). The total population served by the Ratnagiri
WDN is 23820 having total daily water demand of 9.2 ML (Table 1). Both the WDN has one
storage tank for the entire area. As shown in Figure 3, the networks have different topography
having varied ground elevations and starting Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) from the storage tank.
The storage tank in the networks is designed for a single outlet, and demand is met through the
single outlet for the entire network, resulting in different pressure zones in the networks.

Figure 3: Network layout of Kholapur (a) and Ratnagiri (b) WDN.

7
Table 1. Hydraulic details of the case studies
Network characteristics Kholapur WDN Ratnagiri WDN

Number of nodes, n 262 330

Number of links, m 263 334

Number of storage tank 1 1

Capacity of storage tank

300 2000
(kL)

Population served 20750 23820

Ultimate stage demand

6.0 9.2
(ML)

HGL at Storage tank (m) 312.6 88.2

Minimum Elevation (m) 291.4 44.2

Maximum Elevation (m) 300.7 79.1

Total pipe length (km) 12.6 20.3

Pipe materials PVC HDPE and DI

63,75,90,110,125,
63,75,90,110,140, 140,160,180,200,225,
Pipe diameters (mm) 160,180,200,225,
250,280,315. 250,280,300, 350,400
450,550,600

Design pressure, h* (m) 7.00 7.00

Two different scenarios in WaterGEMS were formed with a minor change in the
distribution main layout of the two networks, as shown in Figure 3 (from the storage tank to point
X for both the WDN). The modification made in the distribution main layout was based on
optimization of the networks, and the details of the outlet are provided in Supplementary Material
(Figure S-1 and S-2). Hydraulic simulation for each scenario was performed individually, and the

8
residual pressure at the demand nodes for different water demands was compared in both the
scenarios.
3 Result and discussion

Results show significant benefits of multi-outlet storage tank over the single outlet storage tank,
which are discussed in two aspects, hydraulic efficiency improvements, and operational benefits.
Finally, the economic feasibility of the two scenarios is discussed.

3.1. Hydraulic efficiency improvements

Hydraulic analysis of the two networks with optimal pipe diameters revealed a significant
difference between residual pressures at the nodes in both the scenarios. Figure S-3 and S-4
(Supplementary Material) show the residual pressure profile of the two networks in the two
scenarios. Two isolated zones are formed for both the networks while creating two outlets from
storage tanks. In scenario II, the isolated zones are demarcated with an individual devoted outlet
from the storage tanks. The mean pressure in the Kholapur WDN (Figure S-3, Supplementary
Material) for scenario I is 10.8 m and in scenario II 11.3 m, which shows significant hydraulic
improvement. Pressure improvements (mean pressure from 10.2 m to 10.7 m) at the periphery of
the zone followed the same trend. Box plots (Figure 4) shows the effect of variable water demand
on the residual pressure for the two scenarios. For Kholapur WDN (Figure 4 a), as expected, the
residual pressures in the system were high for the initial stage demand, and as the demand
increased, the reduction in the residual pressures was observed. For the initial stage demand, the
mean of the residual pressure moved from 11.5 m to 12.0 m in scenario II. Similarly, rise in the
mean of residual pressure was observed scenario II for all demand situations, maximum rise in 1.5
times and 2 times ultimate demand situation (Figure 4 a). Thus, the effect of multi-outlet storage
tanks is more when WDN is subjected to higher loading, i.e., operating the network beyond its
carrying capacity, which is the common effect of IWS. Similar observations apply to Ratnagiri
WDN (Figure S-4, Supplementary Material, and Figure 4 b). Based on this, we argue that the
multi-outlet storage tank scenarios are always beneficial for improving hydraulic efficiency, both
for CWS and IWS regime.

9
Figure 4: Box plots of residual pressure at all demand nodes for different demands. The box
depicts the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile of the residual pressures of the demand nodes. (a)
Kholapur WDN (260 demand nodes), (b) Ratnagiri WDN (227 demand nodes).

Further investigation on improvements observed in Figure 4 reveals that these

improvements are attributed to the shift of HGL. In Kholapur WDN, as shown in Figure S-5
(Supplementary Material), for scenario I, the HGL at the tank Lowest Supply Level (LSL) is 312.6
m, and HGL at the initial nodes is 311.4 m. For scenario II, the starting HGL is the same; however,
the HGL at the bifurcation point is 312.3 m and 309.8 m. Similarly, HGLs for Ratnagiri is shown
in Figure S-6 (Supplementary Material). These results show that the distribution mainline plays a
vital role in maintaining the residual pressures at the downstream nodes. The multi-outlet storage

10
tanks provide flexibility in assigning the distribution main’s diameter as per our requirement and,
maintaining the required HGLs in the network.
To further examine the effect of isolated zones with the help of multi-outlets, pressure
indices were used to compare the two scenarios. Table 2 shows the pressure indices value for the
two case studies. The value of minimum residual pressure in scenario I for Kholapur WDN is near
to the design pressure (7 m). Whereas the Ratnagiri WDN seems to be pressure deficient. Other
pressure indices can provide more insight into the impact of multi-outlet storage tanks.
Table 2. Pressure indices for all two case study

Min Max
Case Mean ±
Scenario Pressure Pressure MPS MPD MSDP
Study SD
(m) (m)

Single Outlet 6 16 10.8 ± 2.0 3.9 0 3.9

Kholapur
WDN
Multi-Outlet 7 17 11.3 ± 2.0 4.6 0 4.8

Single Outlet 1.2 20.5 9.2 ± 4.4 3.9 0.4 4.9

Ratnagiri
WDN
Multi-Outlet 3.1 23 11.5 ± 4.7 5.3 0.1 6.5

Kholapur WDN result shows that the MPS value increased in scenario II (3.9 to 4.6), with
similar observation for Ratnagiri WDN. The improved MPS value suggests an increase in the
network’s residual pressure after the formation of isolation zones. The better residual pressure in
the system improves the delivery of the water to the consumers, especially to the tail end
consumers. The MPD values were zero for Kholapur WDN in both the scenarios. Whereas, for
Ratnagiri WDN, the MPD value for scenario I is more than zero, which suggests that there is a
pressure deficit in the zone. However, the MPD value for scenario II is near to zero, which indicates
a definite improvement in the case of multi-outlet storage tanks.
Finally, the MSDP indicates residual pressure variation with respect to design pressure (7
m in this study). Higher values of MSDP indicates an improvement in residual pressures. In both
the WDN, the MSDP values significantly improved in scenario II, demonstrating the increased
residual pressures due to multi-outlet storage tanks.

11
 These evident hydraulic improvements suggest that multi-outlet storage tanks improve the
hydraulic efficiency of WDN. The efficiency depends on the layout, topology of the network, and
distance of the tank to the distribution area. Apart from these hydraulic improvements, some
operational benefits are discussed below in the prevailing Indian conditions.
3.2. Operational Benefits

The WSSs in India are designed for the CWS regime. However, the operation is based on the IWS
regime. As the operation schedule is not designed explicitly in a scientific manner, it only ensures
that water is delivered throughout WDN and there is no uniform residual pressure. In such a
condition, the operation of WSSs is not focused on delivering water to consumer at minimum
residual pressure. Additionally, the unequal growth of urban areas, non-uniform land use and
varying ground level adversely impact the performance of the WDN. The application of multi-
outlet storage tanks in such scenario can improve the efficiency of the WDN both in CWS and
IWS regime.
3.2.1. Design enabled zoning

The multi-outlet storage tanks provide more control over the WDN as the isolation zone starts
from the storage tank. As proposed in Kalbar and Gokhale (2019), if multi-outlets are used in small
scale tanks, multi-outlet storage tanks can provide design enabled isolation zones (refer to Figure
1b). This creates an opportunity for differential supply timings; hence pressure can be sustained
downstream to the storage tank. Even in case of unequal growth in one zone served by one outlet,
performance of other zone served by another outlet will remain unaffected. Additionally, the
maintenance activity in one of the zone can be done independently without affecting the operation
of the other zone.
3.2.2. Improved operation in Mix land use setting

In developing countries like India, haphazard urbanization has led to the formation of different
clusters of high-rise buildings and slums. Also, there exists mixed land use as well as building
usage e.g., area served by one tank typically has residential, commercial, and slum areas. In current
practice, consumers with varying demand (both quantity and pattern) are connected to single outlet
(refer to Figure 1a). Simultaneous withdrawal of water from the storage tank causes the inequitable
distribution of water. Certain users get more water compared to others based on the location and
ground level. Also, due to the existing socio-political situation, the areas where high-income group

12
residence exists are supplied more water by manipulating valves, marginalizing the supply to the
low-income residential area/slums. Hence creating a dedicated outlet for different groups
(residential, commercial, high rise area, slums) will certainly help in creating more equitable
distribution and pressure improvements.
3.2.3. Varying ground level

The ground level is a significant parameter in finalising the layout of WDN. In flat terrain,
maintaining equal pressure throughout the serving area of the storage tank is easy; such a scenario
rarely existence. A considerable ground level variation is observed in real WDN. In India, typically
elevated water storage tanks are used with a height ranging from 10 m to 15 m (Kalbar and
Gokhale, 2019). If water distributed with such a moderate head in the uneven terrain through single
outlet from the storage tank, available pressure at the consumer connections at low laying areas
will be high and elevated areas will be deprived of the pressure. Typically, Pressure Reducing
Valves (PRVs) are recommended to maintain optimal pressure at the low laying areas (Vicente et
al. 2016). In extreme cases, additional pumping may be required for catering to the demand of high
elevation areas. However, as supply timing for both areas may be same due to common valve on
single outlet, inequitable distribution of water prevails. Additionally, for a network with tail end
nodes at high elevation area, higher residual pressure must be maintained throughout the network
to deliver water at the tail end. Maintaining high pressure throughout the WDN is cost-intensive
and will increase leakages and maintenance (Charalambous and Laspidou 2017). A separate
dedicated outlet for an elevated area can minimize the cost of pumping (Bajwa 2011) and help in
achieving equitable water distribution. Hence, varied elevated areas to be served under one zone,
multi-outlets provide better operational flexibility and improves hydraulic efficiency.
3.3. Economic feasibility of multi-outlet tanks

The economic feasibility of scenario II (multi-outlet storage tanks) was checked by equating the
total cost of the optimized distribution network in the scenario I and II. Figure S-7 and S-8
(Supplementary Material) show the optimized pipe diameter for all the two WDN. Also, the pipe
diameter wise summary for the two networks is shown in Table S-9 (DI pipes are considered for
vertical pipe section of Kholapur WDN) and S-10 (Supplementary Material). The cost of the
distribution network of Kholapur in Scenario II decreased by 4%, 6%, 2%, 7%, and 2% for initial,
intermediate, ultimate, 1.5 times ultimate, and 2 times ultimate stage demand respectively (Table

13
3). In the case of Ratnagiri WDN, the cost reduction in scenario II was 6% for the 1.5 times ultimate
stage demand (Table 3). Hence, in some cases, there may be a significant reduction in the cost due
to multi-outlet storage tanks. The decrease in cost in multi-outlet scenario can be attributed to
reduction in peak flow due to bifurcations of the demand on each load. The cost saved due to such
dampening of peak load on distribution pipes exceeds the additional costs incurred on the multi-
outlets. Even in cases where there is a small reduction in the cost, multi-outlet storage tanks are
vital in operating the network under different situations mentioned in section 3.2.
Table 3 Mean pressure and cost of Kholapur and Ratnagiri WDN for different demands

Kholapur WDN Ratnagiri WDN

Outlet
Demand Scenario Mean Mean
Scenario Cost
Pressure Pressure Cost (INR)
(INR )
(m) (m)

Single Outlet 11.5 37,10,129 11.8 1,45,61,343

Initial Stage
Multi-outlet 12.0 35,64,110 12.0 1,41,68,509

Single Outlet 11.2 42,80,060 11.7 1,52,50,231

Intermediate stage
Multi-outlet 11.7 40,14,464 12.0 1,48,69,025

Single Outlet 10.8 45,57,732 9.2 1,91,76,163

Ultimate stage
Multi-outlet 11.3 44,49,202 11.5 1,88,14,998

Single Outlet 10.6 55,77,509 9.4 2,50,37,199

1.5 time ultimate
stage Multi-outlet 11.0 51,60,420 11.0 2,35,82,923

Single Outlet 9.5 62,78,456 8.2 2,67,17,903

2 times ultimate
stage
Multi-outlet 11.0 61,61,659 9.1 2,61,86,877

4 Limitations

In the present study, only two case studies were used to test multi-outlet storage tanks'
performance. More case studies with different topologies and network configurations can be used
to check the impact of multi-outlet storage tanks. Also, PDD simulation was used to capture the
impact of pressure variation on demand satisfaction in single and multi-outlet storage tank

14
scenario. Sometimes PDD simulation gives unpredictable results as consumer demand pattern
varies (Ciaponi and Creaco, 2018). However, in the present study, a widely used PDD formulation
was applied to hydraulic simulations of the case studies. Furthermore, storage tanks with more
than two outlets can be used to test the robustness of multi-outlet storage tanks.
5 Conclusion

The present work addressed issues related to the prevailing IWS regime in India and proposed
multi-outlet tanks as one of the solutions to it. The numerous negative impacts of the IWS regime
affects both consumers and service providers. Although extensive research is available on the
causes and effects of IWS, limited research is done on alternative design and operation strategies
for improving the efficiency of WSSs in the IWS regime. This study proposed a new design
approach for the distribution network to improve the IWS regime. A multi-outlet storage tank is
proposed instead of a conventional single outlet storage tank. WDNs of the two real case studies
were analysed and residual pressure for a single outlet and multi-outlet storage tank were
compared. The use of multi-outlet storage tanks proved to be effective in improving the residual
pressure and achieving better pressure distribution than single outlet tanks. Apart from the
hydraulic benefits, multi-outlet storage tanks have many operational benefits like retaining
different isolation zones in the WDN, serving demand with different consumption patterns in
mixed land use, and overcoming the topographical constraint in WDN. The multi-outlet tanks are
also found economically better in the studied case networks due to the dampening of the peak flow.
Based on these hydraulic and economic benefits, multi-outlet storage tanks are recommended for
improving the WDNs both in CWS and IWS regimes.
Acknowledgment

The first author acknowledges the scholarship received under the Teaching Assistant Category at
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development
(MHRD), Government of India. Authors also acknowledge the funding received under the
sponsored research project from Department of Science and Technology (DST), India – Water
Technology Initiative (WTI) – 2017 DST/TM/WTI/2K17/39. Technical discussions with Mr.
Pradeep Gokhale, Retired Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Maharashtra, India, helped to bring clarity in this work.

15
Supplemental Materials

Figure S1- S8 and Table S-9 and S-10 are available online in Supplementary Material.

Declarations

Data Availability Statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared
publicly, so the data related to real Water Distribution Network models is not available.
Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

References

Bajwa,G. 2011. Practical handbook on Public Health Engineering, 3rd Edition, Saurabh
Publishers, New Delhi.
Batish, R. 2003. A New Approach to the Design of Intermittent Water Supply Networks. World
Water and Environmental Resources Congress, 1–11.
Batchabani, E., and Fuamba, M., 2014. “Optimal Tank Design in Water Distribution Networks :
Review of Literature and Perspectives.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 140(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000256
Bentley communities. 2019. Using Pressure Dependent Demands.
https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/w/hydraulics_and_hydr
ology__wiki/2671/using-pressure-dependent-demands
Charalambous, B. 2008. “Use of district metered areas coupled with pressure optimisation to
reduce leakage.” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 8(1), 57–62.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2008.030
Charalambous, B., and Laspidou, C. 2017. Dealing with the Complex Interrelation of
Intermittent Supply and Water Losses. IWA Publishing.
Ciaponi, C., and Creaco, E. 2018. Comparison of pressure-driven formulations for WDN
simulation. Water, 10(4), 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040523
CPHEEO 1999. Manual on Water supply and Treatment. 3rd Edition, Ministry of Urban
Development , Government of India, New Delhi.
Di Nardo, A., Di Natale, M., Santonastaso, G. F., Tzatchkov, V. G., and Alcocer-Yamanaka, V.
16
 H. 2015. “Performance indices for water network partitioning and sectorization.” Water
Science and Technology: Water Supply, 15(3), 499–509.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2014.132.
Ferrari, G., Savic, D., and Becciu, G. 2014. “Graph-Theoretic Approach and Sound Engineering
Principles for Design of District Metered Areas.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 140(12), 04014036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000424.
Galaitsi, S., Russell, R., Bishara, A., Durant, J., Bogle, J., and Huber-Lee, A. 2016. “Intermittent
domestic water supply: A critical review and analysis of causal-consequential pathways
”.Water,8(7), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8070274.
Ghorbanian, V., Karney, B., and Guo, Y. 2016. Pressure standards in water distribution systems:
reflection on current practice with consideration of some unresolved issues. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(8), 04016023.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000665
Gomes, R., Marques, A. S. A., and Sousa, J. 2013. “District Metered Areas Design Under
Different Decision Makers’ Options: Cost Analysis.” Water Resources Management,
27(13), 4527–4543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0424-y.
Ilaya-Ayza, A., Martins, C., Campbell, E., and Izquierdo, J. 2017. “Implementation of DMAs in
Intermittent Water Supply Networks Based on Equity Criteria.” Water, 9(11), 851.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9110851.
Kalbar, P., and Gokhale, P. 2019. Decentralized infrastructure approach for successful water
supply systems in India: use of multi-outlet tanks, shafts and manifolds.Journal of Water
Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua,68(4), 295-301.
https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2019.158
Klingel, P. 2012. “Technical causes and impacts of intermittent water distribution.” Water
Science and Technology: Water Supply, 12(4), 504–512.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2012.023.
Kumpel, E., and Nelson, K. L. 2016. “Intermittent Water Supply: Prevalence, Practice, and
Microbial Water Quality.” Environmental Science & Technology, 50(2), 542–553.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03973.
MoUD. 2012. Service levels in Urban Water and Sanitation Sector. 1st edition, Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.

17
Simukonda, K., Farmani, R., and Butler, D. 2018. “Intermittent water supply systems: causal
factors, problems and solution options.” Urban Water Journal, Taylor & Francis, 15(5),
488–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2018.1483522.
Vairavamoorthy, K., and Elango, K. 2002. Guidelines for the design and control of intermittent
water distribution systems.Waterlines,21(1), 19-21.
Vicente, D. J., Garrote, L., Sánchez, R., and Santillán, D. 2016. Pressure management in water
distribution systems: Current status, proposals, and future trends. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 142(2), 04015061.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000589
WHO, and UNICEF. 2017. Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and
SDG baselines. Geneva, Switerzland: World Health Organisation.
Wu, Z. Y., Wang, Q, Butala, S. and Mi T. 2011. “Darwin Optimization Framework User
Manual.” Bentley Systems, Incorporated, Watertown, CT 06795, USA.
Wu, Z. Y., Wang, R. H., Walski, T. M., Yang, S. Y., Bowdler, D., and Baggett, C. C. 2009.
Extended global-gradient algorithm for pressure-dependent water distribution analysis.
Journal of water resources planning and management, 135(1), 13-22.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2009)135:1(13)

18
Supplementary Information

(a) (b)
Outlet:
Diameter:250 mm Outlet 2:
Length: 107.00 m Outlet 1:
Diameter: 150 mm
Diameter:250 mm Diameter:225mm
Length: 132.00 m
Diameter:160 mm Length: 28.00 m Length: 135.00 m
Length: 29.00 m
(b)
First demand node First demand node

Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution

system system system system

Figure S-1: (a) Single outlet tank and (b) Multi-outlet tank arrangement of Kholapur WDN for
ultimate stage demand

(a) (b)
Outlet
Diameter:300 mm Outlet 2:
Length:200.0 m Outlet 1:
Diameter: 300 mm
Diameter:300 mm
Length: 910.0 m
Length: 910.0 m
Diameter:300 mm
Length: 710 .0 m

First demand node

Distribution
system Distribution Distribution
system system

Figure S-2: (a) Single outlet tank and (b) Multi-outlet tank arrangement of Ratnagiri WDN for
ultimate stage demand

19
 Zone 2

LEGEND
Pressure
≤ 7.0 m
≤ 10.0 m
≤ 13.0 m
≤ 16.0 m
(a) ≤ 19.0 m
Zone 1
(b)
Figure S-3: Analysis of Kholapur WDN for ultimate stage demand. (a)-Single outlet tank Scenario
and (b)-Multi-outlet tank Scenario

20
 LEGEND
Pressure
(a)
≤ 5.0 m
≤ 9.0 m
≤ 14.0 m
≤ 19.0 m
≤ 28.0 m

Zone 2

Zone 1

(b)

Figure S-4: Analysis of Ratnagiri WDN for ultimate stage demand. (a)-Single outlet tank Scenario
and (b)-Multi-outlet tank Scenario

21
 HGL=312.6 m (a) HGL=312.6 m (b)

HGL=311.4 m HGL=311.4.m HGL=312.3 m HGL=309.8 m

First demand node First demand node

Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution

system system system system

Figure S-5: HGL values at initial nodes in Kholapur WDN for ultimate stage demand. (a) Single
outlet tank Scenario and (b). Multi-outlet tank Scenario

HGL=88.2 m (a) HGL=88.2 m (b)

HGL=83.7 m
HGL=85.1 m HGL=87.6 m

First demand node

Distribution
system Distribution Distribution
system system

Figure S-6: HGL values at initial nodes in Ratnagiri WDN for ultimate stage demand. (a) Single
outlet tank Scenario and (b) Multi-outlet tank Scenario

22
 (a) (b)

LEGEND
Pipe diameters
≤ 110.0 mm
≤ 140.0 mm
≤ 180.0 mm
≤ 200.0 mm
≤ 250.0 mm

Figure S-7: Pipe diameters in Kholapur WDN. for ultimate stage demand. (a) Single outlet tank
Scenario and (b) Multi-outlet tank Scenario

23
 LEGEND
Pipe diameters
≤ 110.0 mm
≤ 160.0 mm
≤ 200.0 mm
≤ 250.0 mm
≤ 300.0 mm (a)

(b)

Figure S-8: Pipe diameters in Ratnagiri WDN. for ultimate stage demand. (a) Single outlet tank
Scenario and (b) Multi-outlet tank Scenario

24
Table S-9 Abstract of pipes in Kholapur WDN for ultimate stage demand

Single outlet Multi-outlet

Diameter(mm)
PVC pipe PVC pipe
length (m) length (m)

63 1508 1800

75 1351 1562

90 2215 1751

110 1307 1726

140 923 650

160 1987 1903

180 987 650

200 744 902

225 933 1114

250 586 404

Total 12541 12462

25
 Table S-10 Abstract of pipes in Ratnagiri WDN for ultimate stage demand

Single outlet Multi-outlet

Diameter
HDPE DI pipes Total length HDPE pipes DI pipes Total
(mm) pipes length length length length
(m)
length (m) (m) (m)
(m) (m)

63 926 926 1871 1871

75 1337 1337 599 599

90 1321 1321 1029 1029

110 1098 1098 1288 1288

125 2088 2088 1375 1375

140 213 213 1148 1148

160 1288 1288 1413 1413

180 1422 1422 2215 2215

200 2031 2031 2153 2153

225 2011 2011 2507 2507

250 2041 2041 1919 1919

280 1420 1420 836 836

300 3180 3180 2938 2938

Total length 17196 3180 20376 18353 2938 21291

26

View publication stats