Hydraulic Uniformity Index for Water Distribution Networks

Gimoon Jeong 1 and Doosun Kang 2

Abstract: Various reliability measures have been developed to evaluate design and operational aspects of water distribution system (WDS)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

performance. Conventional reliability indicators mainly focus on nodal supply conditions, such as nodal pressure and available discharge.
Here, a new link-based reliability index is proposed that considers pipe head loss–distribution throughout a network. The proposed index, the
hydraulic uniformity index (HUI), is approximated using the equivalent hydraulic gradient and intends to distribute the hydraulic gradient as
uniformly as possible throughout the network by enlarging steep-gradient pipes and reducing the size of low-gradient pipes, while satisfying
the design constraints. The HUI is intended to overcome the shortcomings of conventional node-based indices by synchronizing the evalu-
ation components with the design elements for intuitive system evaluation. An applied study using the Hanoi benchmark network demon-
strates that the proposed HUI can be used as an indicator to evaluate system design and operational reliability. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.0001158. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Equivalent hydraulic gradient; Hydraulic uniformity index (HUI); System reliability; Water distribution system.

Introduction
Water distribution systems (WDS) are critical infrastructure com-
ponents that supply drinking water over a wide area. WDS should
have sufficient capacity to ensure stable water supply in terms of
system pressure and service flow. The system capacity often is in-
terpreted using the concept of “system reliability,” which quantifies
marginal serviceability over the minimum requirement. Wagner
et al. (1988) were the first to introduce and apply the concepts of
mechanical and hydraulic reliability to the design of WDS. The
mechanical reliability focuses on the network topology, to evaluate
the system’s connectivity given the failure conditions, and often
ignores the system’s ability to effectively supply water to end users.
Meanwhile, the hydraulic reliability refers to the ability of a system
to meet the requirements of water flow and pressure given normal
and abnormal conditions (Mays 1989). Halhal et al. (1997) pro-
posed three types of benefits, such as hydraulic, physical integrity,
and flexibility as the objectives for reliable WDS design. Later,
Ostfeld (2004) proposed to categorize WDS reliability into three
properties, such as connectivity/topological, hydraulic, and entropic
contexts.
A number of studies have attempted to quantify WDS reliabil-
ity; several representative studies are reviewed in the following. In
the context of mechanical (physical) reliability, Su et al. (1987) sug-
gested a mechanical reliability indicator using a calculation of pipe
availability based on pipe failure probability. Fujiwara and Tung
(1991) advanced the concept of pipe availability by considering
pipe size variation. Khomsi et al. (1996) further expanded the
application of pipe availability by including the satisfied service
time and demonstrated the method using a Monte-Carlo simulation
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyung Hee Univ., 1732,
Deogyeong-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17104, Republic
of Korea. Email: gimoon1118@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyung Hee Univ.,
1732, Deogyeong-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17104,
Republic of Korea (corresponding author). Email: doosunkang@khu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 5, 2018; approved
on June 27, 2019; published online on December 12, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until May 12, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496.
of pipe failure and repair time. Moreover, Yamijala et al. (2009) and
Fadaee and Tabatabaei (2010) proposed regression models of pipe
reliability based on pipe breakage and failure probability analysis.
Recently, Shuang et al. (2017) reviewed historical research on
mechanical reliability of WDS and evaluated system reliability
during cascading pipe failures using a simulation-based method.
In the context of connectivity/topological reliability, Yazdani
and Jeffrey (2010) and Candelieri et al. (2015) summarized struc-
tural metrics of WDNs and demonstrated the relation between con-
nectivity and reliability under network failures. Creaco et al. (2016)
found that network performance is related to the uniformity of the
pipe diameters in the generic loop, and quantified its uniformity
as the loop–diameter uniformity coefficient. In addition, Di Nardo
et al. (2018) suggested the reliability assessment based on fractal
and topological metrics. They investigated relations among geo-
metrical metrics, topological metrics, and energy resilience, and
introduced the advantages of recognizing individual pipe having
greater impact-to-network resilience.
Regarding entropic reliability, Awumah et al. (1990) formulated
an entropy reliability index, which represents water supply diver-
sity in a network, and Tanyimboh and Templeman (1993) advanced
the entropy index and applied the concept to several study net-
works. Afshar et al. (2005) suggested a reliability-based WDS
design that simultaneously considers the network layout and pipe
size as the decision variables. Later, Di Nardo et al. (2010), Raad
et al. (2010), and Greco et al. (2012) explored the use of energetic
and entropic indices to evaluate the effects of pipe closures on a
network’s hydraulic performance.
Finally, in the context of hydraulic reliability, Xu and Goulter
(1999) assessed system reliability based on available nodal pres-
sure, and later Shi (2006) suggested a reliability index using actual
supplied flows at demand nodes. The available pressure and sup-
plied flows can be considered simultaneously as an energy term.
The resilience index (RI) developed by Todini (2000) was the first
energy-based hydraulic reliability index. Prasad and Park (2003)
and Jayaram and Srinivasan (2008) further developed various
energy-based reliability indices, such as network resilience index
(NRI) and modified resilience index (MRI), respectively, and dem-
onstrated them using benchmark networks. Cabrera et al. (2010)
proposed five energy-efficiency indicators for the evaluation of
WDS performance, and later Cabrera et al. (2014) suggested

© ASCE 04019078-1 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

 a new approach for assessing energy components in WDS.
Similarly, Dziedzic and Karney (2013) analyzed water distribution
sustainability using four energy components (supplied, delivered,
lost, and dissipated) in water networks. Moreover, Hashemi et al.
(2015) proposed five energy metrics based on six types of energy
components (supplied, delivered, required, downstream flow, leak-
age, and friction) in WDS. Recently, Jeong et al. (2017) suggested a
new approach to estimate the minimum required head at a node,
which considers the flow direction in pipes and the hydraulic gra-
dient within a network. Applying their approach, they found that
conventional resilience indices, such as RI, NRI, and MRI, are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
likely to overestimate the system reliability.
The aforementioned studies developed hydraulic reliability in-
dices based on nodal information, such as available pressure and
supplied demand. However, the effects of the head loss and flow
rate at links on the nodal pressure and flow depend on pipe char-
acteristics, such as diameter, length, material, and layout. Thus, to
evaluate the nodal index, an investigation of pipe design should be
performed beforehand. For more intuitive and effective evaluation
of system reliability, it would be beneficial to develop an index
using the pipe characteristics. Conventionally, node-based indices
are based on available nodal pressure and actual water supply.
Therefore, the water supply satisfaction is determined based on
whether the available nodal pressure is greater than the minimum
required pressure head at the nodes. Meanwhile, there exists no
specific standard for the pipes to determine system reliability
except for a flow velocity limit. Colombo and Karney (2009) sug-
gested equating water and energy leakage at pipes to determine the
appropriate pipe size, but did not go so far as to suggest a specific
boundary for design. Kang and Lansey (2011) used the pipe flow
velocity as a criterion for determining the initial pipe diameter for
the optimal design of a WDS. In addition, Suribabu et al. (2016)
proposed an approach to improve the system reliability by enlarg-
ing pipes with excessively high flow velocity. However, no gener-
ally accepted standard or index was suggested for link-based
system design and evaluation.
In this study, a link-based reliability index, the so-called hy-
draulic uniformity index (HUI), was proposed. First, we introduce
the concepts of equivalent head loss (hlequi ) and equivalent hy-
draulic gradient (HGequi ), which are suggested as standard values
for pipe evaluation. The HUI is then calculated at each pipe by
comparing the equivalent hydraulic gradient with the actual
hydraulic gradient. Finally, a systemwide HUI value (HUI sys ) is
defined to evaluate overall system design. A well-known bench-
mark network (Hanoi network) was used to demonstrate the pro-
posed index. Applied studies revealed that a hydraulically uniform
network is more reliable under abnormal conditions, and the pro-
posed HUI can successfully serve as a reliability indicator to quan-
tify a system’s hydraulic uniformity.
Methodology
Energy Loss in a Water Distribution Network
Energy distribution in a WDS is classified into three categories:
input, loss, and output energy, as shown in Fig. 1. Input energy
(Einput ) is the energy supplied to the system from the source
via pumps; loss energy (Eloss ) is the energy lost during the trans-
mission process; and output energy (Eoutput ) is the energy delivered
to and utilized by the users at demand nodes. The input energy
must be sufficient to supply the output energy after accounting
for energy loss; thus, energy conservation is satisfied, as expressed
in Eq. (1).
© ASCE 04019078-2
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078
Fig. 1. Energy distribution in a WDS. (Reprinted from Jeong et al.
2017, © ASCE.)
Einput ¼ Eloss þ Eoutput ð1Þ
In this study, a link-based reliability index is developed based on
the head loss distribution of a network. In detail, the energy loss in a
WDS can be categorized into three components: friction loss, leak-
age loss, and minor loss. The friction loss (Efriction ) is caused by
friction occurring at the pipe wall; the leakage loss (Eleak ) occurs
through leaks in the pipes. The minor loss (Eminor ) takes place at
valves, joints, and other mechanical components in a system. Since
Eminor is generally negligible, the energy loss (Eloss ) can be ap-
proximated as the sum of Efriction and Eleak , as expressed in
Eq. (2a). Efriction and Eleak are further expressed in Eqs. (2b)
and (2c), respectively
Eloss ¼ Efriction þEleak ð2aÞ
X X
T npipe
Efriction ¼ γ Qti Htloss;i Δt ð2bÞ
t¼1 i¼1
X X
T npipe
Eleak ¼ γ Qtleak;i H ti Δt ð2cÞ
t¼1 i¼1
where T = operation time; Δt = time step; npipe = number of
pipes in a system; Qti = flow rate in the ith pipe at the tth time
step; Qtleak;i = leakage rate in the ith pipe at the tth time step;
Htloss;i = friction head loss in the ith pipe at the tth time step;
and H ti = total head in the ith pipe at the tth time step, which is
generally calculated as an average of total heads at the upstream
and downstream nodes of the relevant pipe.
The friction loss (Efriction ) decreases the supply pressure at
demand nodes, while the leakage loss (Eleak ) is associated with
the loss of delivered flow and pressure. Since our proposed
concepts (i.e., the equivalent head loss and equivalent hydraulic
gradient) are associated only with the head loss in pipelines,
Eleak is not considered in the current study; therefore, Eloss only
refers to Efriction hereafter.
Concept of Acceptable Head Loss
The conventional reliability indices were defined based on nodal
supply conditions, such as nodal pressure and serviceable outflow,
while the decisions for system design are the link-based informa-
tion, such as diameter, material, and layout. Evaluating the nodal
supply conditions does not clearly identify the exact locations
where inappropriate system components are used. Thus, the con-
ventional reliability indices (i.e., the node-based indices) only focus
on system outcomes, but not on the link-based design aspects. To
overcome this shortcoming, system reliability should be evaluated
based on the link information as well, synchronizing the design
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Fig. 2. Concept of hydraulic gradient.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

components and evaluation components, while satisfying the nodal
conditions. The system reliability is interpreted as the marginal
serviceability over the minimum requirement. In water pipe net-
works, a system performance evaluation is conducted to deter-
mine whether the energy loss (Eloss ) is acceptable to secure reliable
water supply. In this study, a concept of acceptable head loss is
suggested based on equivalent head loss (hlequi ) and equivalent
hydraulic gradient (HGequi ), which are derived based on total en-
ergy loss and pipe characteristics (i.e., flow rate, diameter, and
length). Here, the HGequi can be understood as hlequi per unit pipe
length.
Definition of Hydraulic Gradient
The hydraulic gradient (HG) of a pipe is defined as the head loss
per unit length of a pipe. The head loss through a pipe is the head
difference between the upstream and downstream nodes in the di-
rection of flow, and it varies depending on pipe size and conveying
flow rate (Fig. 2). Particularly steep or mild slope implies that the
relevant pipe is either underdesigned or overdesigned, respectively,
for a given flow rate. A network with consistent hydraulic gradient
indicates that the individual pipes are designed to have consistent
slope throughout the network. Common design practices are likely
to distribute the hydraulic gradient as uniformly as possible over the
network by enlarging the steep-gradient pipes and reducing the size
of the mild-gradient pipes.
Hydraulic Gradient and System Reliability
Each of the four alternative designs in Fig. 3 is comprised of three
pipes with diameters of 200, 250, and 300 mm for different layouts.
Note that the pipe lengths and nodal demands are identical for all
four designs. As seen in Fig. 3, the service pressure is highest in
Design 1, with the most uniform hydraulic gradient, whereas the
nodal pressures are relatively low in Designs 3 and 4, which have
inconsistent hydraulic gradients. The results reveal that the system
reliability (i.e., service pressure) is proportional to the uniformity of
the hydraulic gradient, given identical design constraints.
Further investigation of the correlation between system reliabil-
ity and gradient uniformity was pursued. That is, given the four
alternative designs in Fig. 3, the nodal demands were increased
by 10%, simulating abnormal conditions. Table 1 summarizes the
pressure drop of each network for the abnormal demand increase
condition. As seen, the overall pressure reduction is inversely pro-
portional to the hydraulic uniformity, such that Design 1, with the
most uniform hydraulic gradient, shows the lowest pressure drop
for the increased demand scenario. Meanwhile, Designs 3 and 4
suffer greater pressure drops than the other designs.
For simple branch networks, the hydraulic gradients can be
estimated easily, and it is possible to evaluate individual pipes. For
large and complex, looped networks, however, a quantification
metric based on a formulated approach would be beneficial to
quantitatively evaluate the system performance.
Calculation of Hydraulic Uniformity Index
Equivalent Head Loss
Using the loss energy equation, the equivalent head loss of a system
can be estimated by assuming that each pipe in the system has
identical head loss, as seen in Eq. (3a), and is finally expressed
in Eq. (3b).

Fig. 3. Hydraulic gradient and system pressure of alternative designs: (a) Design 1; (b) Design 2; (c) Design 3; and (d) Design 4.

© ASCE 04019078-3 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

 Table 1. Nodal pressure drop (m) caused by 10% increase in nodal water hlequi × npipe
demand HGequi ¼ Pnpipe ð4Þ
i¼1 Li
Node Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4
B 0.40 0.40 2.87 2.87 where HGequi = the equivalent hydraulic gradient of a system; and
C 0.86 1.75 3.06 3.33 Li = the length of the ith pipe.
D 1.23 1.88 3.19 3.38 Finally, by substituting the equivalent head loss (hlequi ) of
Average 0.83 1.34 3.04 3.19 Eq. (4) with Eq. (3b), HGequi can be derived as Eq. (5)
P
npipe × npipe
i¼1 Qi hli
HGequi ¼ Pnpipe P npipe ð5Þ
i¼1 Li i¼1 Qi
X
npipe X
npipe
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

γ Qi hli ¼ γhlequi Qi ð3aÞ

i¼1 i¼1
Pnpipe
i¼1 Qi hli
hlequi ¼ P npipe
i¼1 Qi
where hlequi = the equivalent head loss of a system; and hli = the
head loss in the ith pipe.
The proposed equivalent head loss (hlequi ) does not contain pipe
length information; thus, it implies identical head loss for individ-
ual pipes. Although the head loss is identical, the hydraulic gradient
can change, depending on the pipe length, as seen in Fig. 4(b).
Therefore, in order to estimate an equivalent value over the entire
network, it is necessary to calculate the equivalent hydraulic
gradient (HGequi ), considering the pipe length.
Equivalent Hydraulic Gradient
The equivalent hydraulic gradient (HGequi ) is calculated as the total
head loss over a network divided by the total pipe length and is
expressed as Eq. (4):
Hydraulic Uniformity Index
The hydraulic uniformity index (HUI) of an individual pipe is
calculated as the ratio of the hydraulic gradient of a pipe to the
equivalent hydraulic gradient and is formulated in Eq. (6)
ð3bÞ
HGi hli
HUI i ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
HGequi HGequi × Li
where HUI i = the hydraulic uniformity index of the ith pipe; and
HGi = hydraulic gradient of the ith pipe.
An HUI value greater than 1.0 indicates that the pipe may be
underdesigned, degrading the system performance by inducing ex-
cessive head loss. On the contrary, a pipe with an HUI value lower
than 1.0 can be considered to be overdesigned. Therefore, the ideal
HUI value of an individual pipe is close to 1.0.
Furthermore, a systemwide HUI (HUI sys ) can be quantified as
shown in Eq. (7), which is the standard deviation of individual
pipes’ HUI from the ideal value of 1.0. A HUI sys value of zero
indicates that the hydraulic gradients of individual pipes are
perfectly uniform. Therefore, the system design with the lowest
HUI sys value (closest to zero) would be the most reliable solution

Fig. 4. Concept of equivalent head loss: (a) equivalent head loss with equivalent hydraulic gradient; and (b) equivalent head loss with varying
hydraulic gradient.

© ASCE 04019078-4 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparisons of alternative designs with different hydraulic gradients.

when satisfying the design conditions, such as minimum pressure

requirements and minimum design cost
sPffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
npipe 2
i¼1 ðHUI i 1Þ
HUI sys ¼ ð7Þ
npipe

where HUI sys = the systemwide hydraulic uniformity index.

It should be noted that HUI sys only constrains the uniformity of
the hydraulic gradient of an entire network. If the hydraulic gra-
dients of individual pipes are consistent throughout the network,
the HUI sys is equal to zero even for different designs [e.g., Designs
(A), (B), and (C)], as shown in Fig. 5. Here, Design (A) is oversized
with redundant capacity representing a reliable but unfavorable de-
sign, while Design (C) is infeasible and unfavorable since it cannot
meet the minimum pressure requirement. Meanwhile, Designs (B),
(B’), and (B’’) are all feasible by satisfying the minimum pres-
Fig. 6. Hanoi network with node and pipe IDs.
sure requirement but have different HUI sys values. Among them,
Design (B) is the most hydraulically uniform and reliable design
with the lowest HUI sys . As seen, the HUI sys can be used to evalu-
ate the consistency of the hydraulic gradient throughout a network.
Table 2. Available pipe diameters with unit cost
To further evaluate individual pipes in a network, the pipe HUI
value should be reviewed to enhance the system design. Pipe diameter
(inch) (mm) Unit cost (USD/m)
a
8 203 22.7
Applications 12 305 45.7
16 406 70.4
Applied Designs 20 508 98.4
24 610 129.3
The proposed indices were applied to the Hanoi network for dem- 30 762 180.7
onstration (Fig. 6). The Hanoi network has been used widely as a 40 1,016 278.3
benchmark network for optimal design practices. It is a looped net- 48a 1,219 368.9
work supplying 19,940 m3 =h of demand to 31 nodes through 34 a
Marked diameters are newly added for network modification.
pipes (with no pumps or valves). The network has a single source
with a total head of 100 m, and the elevation of all demand nodes is
equal to 0 m. The Hanoi network has been optimized in many pre-
vious studies, and Cunha and Sousa (1999) suggested the lowest Base Design (Cost: USD 6,056,101)
cost design. Here, the least-cost optimal design suggested by Cunha Fig. 7(a) shows pipe diameters of the least expensive design of
and Sousa (1999) was used as a base design for comparison. Table 2 Cunha and Sousa (1999). The HUI value of each pipe was calcu-
summarizes the available pipe sizes and unit costs applied for lated for the base design and displayed in Fig. 7(b). The thick
Hanoi network optimization. In Cunha and Sousa (1999), the avail- lines in Fig. 7(b) indicate underdesigned pipes (P1, P2, P18,
able pipe diameters ranged from 305 to 1,016 mm (12 to 40 in.). and P19) with high HUI values (≥1.5), while the dotted lines
In this study, 203- and 1,219-mm (8- and 48-in.) pipes were also (P12, P16, P28, and P31) indicate overdesigned pipes with low
included for system modification. HUI values (≤0.1). Note the design cost of the base design is

© ASCE 04019078-5 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Base design (Cost = USD 6,056,101, HUIsys ¼ 0.8391): (a) pipe diameter (millimeters); and (b) pipe HUI.

Fig. 8. Modified design 1 (Cost = USD 6,136,906, HUIsys ¼ 0.8359): (a) pipe diameter (millimeters); and (b) pipe HUI.

USD 6,056,101 with a system HUI (HUI sys ) value of 0.8391. The
lowest and system-averaged pressures are 29.7 m (N27) and
41.0 m, respectively.
Modified Design 1 (Cost: USD 6,136,906)
The base design was manually modified to improve the HUI values
of individual pipes by enlarging the underdesigned pipes and
reducing the sizes of overdesigned pipes. Note that optimization
approaches may apply to improve system design, especially for
large and complex, looped networks. In the modifications, the
available pipe sizes were set to be the same as those used in the
base design (i.e., 305–1,016 mm, Table 2). Fig. 8 shows the modi-
fied pipe diameters and HUI values of Modified design 1. The final
design cost was USD 6,136,906 (1.3% increase compared to the
base design), and the HUI sys value was marginally improved to
0.8359. Note the lower HUI sys indicates the more consistent
system layout.
The specific modifications are as follows. The underdesigned
pipes P1 and P2 could not be enlarged further since they already
were the maximum available size of 1,016 mm (40 in.). Similarly,
the overdesigned pipes P16, P28, and P31 were not further reduced
since they already were the minimum diameter of 305 mm (12 in.).
Other pipes with an unacceptable HUI value (either much higher or
lower than 1.0) were modified manually until no further improve-
ment could be obtained. Note that the minimum pressure constraint
was applied when modifying the pipe diameter; that is, the mini-
mum nodal pressure should be greater than 29.7 m. In Modified
design 1, the lowest and system-average pressures are 29.8 m
and 42.6 m, respectively. It is still observed that P1 and P2 are
underdesigned (thick lines), requiring enlargement, while P12,
P31, and P33 are overdesigned (dotted lines), and need to be
decreased further. Overall, marginal improvement of system perfor-
mance was obtained with a slight increase of design cost in
Modified design 1 compared to the base design.
Modified Design 2 (Cost: USD 5,981,392)
To further improve Modified design 1, the available pipe sizes were
extended by including 203- and 1,219-mm (8- and 48-in.) pipes, as
listed in Table 2. Fig. 9 shows the pipe sizes and HUI values for
Modified design 2. The design cost was reduced to USD 5,981,392
(1.2% decrease compared to the base design), while the HUI sys
value was improved to 0.4746, showing remarkable improvement

© ASCE 04019078-6 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Modified design 2 (Cost = USD 5,981,392, HUIsys ¼ 0.4746): (a) pipe diameter (millimeters); and (b) pipe HUI.

Fig. 10. Pipe HUI comparison of three designs: (a) HUI values for pipes in three designs; and (b) pipe HUI distribution of three designs.

in hydraulic uniformity. That is, the system performance was im-
proved, while decreasing the design cost.
It should be noted that the design cost could be decreased below
that of the least-cost design (the base design) because the available
pipe sizes were extended in Modified design 2. Given the design
condition, the system HUI was significantly improved (from
0.8391 to 0.4746) and the lowest and system-average pressures
were calculated as 38.3 and 63.5 m, respectively, showing substan-
tial improvement in system reliability. In addition, as seen in
Fig. 9(b), pipe HUI values are close to 1.0 (except P1, P2, and
P31), indicating hydraulically uniform network design.
Fig. 10 compares the pipe HUI values of the three designs. As
shown, Modified design 2 is the most uniform design in terms of
hydraulic gradient, with HUI values of most pipes close to 1.0,
whereas the base design and Modified design 1 contain several
pipes with unfavorable HUI values.
Comparison with Conventional Reliability Indices
The proposed HUI was compared with conventional reliability in-
dices using the three designs obtained in the previous section. The
resilience index (RI) (Todini 2000) is the representative reliability
indicator based on energy analysis of WDNs, and loop diameter
uniformity (LDU) (Creaco et al. 2016) is the topological index
of uniformity of pipe diameters in WDN loops. These indicators
are well known for network reliability quantification and reflecting
uniformity in concept of network composition, respectively, and
thus were chosen for comparison with HUI.
Table 3 summarizes the comparison results of three indices for
the applied designs. Here, the lower system HUI value, the higher
RI value, and the higher LDU value indicate the more reliable
system design. As seen, both the HUI and RI indicate a slight en-
hancement in Modified design 1 and a remarkable improvement in
Modified design 2 compared to the base design. Note that the RI
value of Modified design 2 is remarkably increased from the value
of the base design (i.e., from 0.2111 to 0.5084), which reveals that
the network modification based on the pipe HUI clearly enhances
overall network resilience/reliability. On the other hand, LDU val-
ues of the three designs are almost consistent, which indicates that
the system modifications based on the pipe HUI does not alter the
diameter uniformity within a loop. This proves that the proposed
modification approach enhances the system reliability, while main-
taining the loop-based diameter uniformity in a topological aspect.
Abnormal Operation Scenarios
In the previous section, it was found that Modified design 2 is
the most hydraulically uniform network, followed by Modified

© ASCE 04019078-7 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078

 Table 3. Comparison of system reliability indices for three designs
Index Base design
HUI sys 0.8391
Resilience index (RI) (Todini 2000) 0.1847
Loop diameter uniformity (LDU) (Creaco et al. 2016) 0.5108
Table 4. Comparison of three designs under base and abnormal scenarios
Measure Base design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
HUI sys 0.8391
Design cost 6,056,101
Base condition
H min (m) 29.7
H average (m) 41.0
Scenario 1
H min (m) 18.9
H average (m) 32.0
No. of unsatisfactory nodes 18
Scenario 2
H min (m) 22.2
H average (m) 40.4
No. of unsatisfactory nodes 5 4
design 1 and the base design. To investigate the relationship
between HUI and system reliability, the three designs were tested
with two abnormal operation scenarios, including an increase in
water demand and unexpected pipe failure.
Scenario 1: Water Demand Increase
The nodal demands were increased by 8%, assuming peak water
usage during the summer, and the system pressure of the three de-
signs were compared. Note that the scenario of an 8% increase in
water consumption during the summer season due to climate
change was adopted from an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) technical paper (Bates et al. 2008). Table 4 sum-
marizes the system performance of the three designs for normal and
abnormal demand conditions.
Comparing the base design, Modified design 1, and Modified
design 2, due to the demand increase, the maximum nodal pressure
drops are 10.8, 10.8, and 9.4 m, respectively; and the system-
average pressure reductions are 9.0, 8.8, and 5.6 m, respectively.
In addition, the number of nodes with unsatisfactory pressure head
can be used to compare the system reliability of each design. As
shown, the system serviceability is improved in the modified de-
signs compared to the base design since the number of unsatisfac-
tory nodes is reduced from 18 locations for the base design to 14
and 1 locations for Modified designs 1 and 2, respectively.
Overall, the base design and Modified design 1 show similar
results in terms of design cost and system HUI. Comparing the
system performance (reliability), the two designs provide very sim-
ilar system pressures, though Modified design 1 is marginally im-
proved, with a slightly higher design cost. Comparing the base
design and Modified design 2, Modified design 2 outperforms
the base design in every aspect, including cost, HUIs, and system
pressure for normal and abnormal demand conditions. Note that the
system HUI of Modified design 2 is clearly decreased compared
with that of the base design and Modified design 1.
Scenario 2: Single Pipe Failures
The second abnormal operation scenario demonstrates the effects
of single-pipe failures to the system reliability. Six representative
© ASCE 04019078-8
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078
Modified design 1 Modified design 2
0.8359 0.4746
0.2111 0.5084
0.5237 0.5204
Modified design 1 Modified design 2
0.8359 0.4746
6,136,906 5,981,392
29.8 38.3
42.6 63.5
19.0 28.9
33.8 57.9
14 1
26.1 31.7
42.1 62.4
1
pipes (P14, P15, P16, P27, P28, and P31) were selected to simulate
the single-pipe failure conditions. Note that multiple-pipe failures
were not considered in this study. Here, the six pipes were selected
since they do not induce a negative pressure when failed. The six-
pipe failure conditions are simulated one by one and minimum no-
dal pressure, average pressure, and number of unsatisfactory nodes
are calculated. The average values of six simulation results are sum-
marized in Table 4. Comparing the base design, Modified design 1,
and Modified design 2, the minimum nodal pressures are 22.2,
26.1, and 31.7 m, respectively, and the system-average pressures
are 40.4, 42.1, and 62.4 m, respectively. In addition, the numbers
of nodes with unsatisfactory pressure head are 5, 4, and 1, respec-
tively. Overall, the scenario analysis reveals that the Modified de-
sign 2 is the most reliable and robust design as affected by the pipe
failure events, followed by Modified design 1 and the base design.
The lower system HUI represents the more hydraulically uni-
form network that avoids over- and underdesigned components,
leading to a more reliable system design with a similar design cost.
Comparing the applied designs, it was clearly observed that a net-
work with lower system HUI (with similar design cost) provides
sufficient pressure more reliably under abnormal operating condi-
tions. The applied study also demonstrates that the suggested HUIs
can be used as indicators for evaluating individual pipe and overall
system reliability.
Conclusions
A link-based reliability index was developed based on the head
loss distribution of a network. The proposed index, called a hy-
draulic uniformity index (HUI), is intended to overcome the short-
comings of conventional node-based reliability indices that are
dependent mainly on nodal supply conditions, such as nodal pres-
sure and serviceable discharge. The newly proposed, link-based
index synchronizes the evaluation components with the design
elements. Thus, it can suggest the optimal system design using a
more intuitive approach. The proposed HUI intends to distribute
the hydraulic gradient as uniform as possible throughout the
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 network by enlarging the steep-gradient pipes and reducing the size
of the mild-gradient pipes, while satisfying the nodal pressure
requirements. The HUI of an individual pipe is calculated as the
ratio of the hydraulic gradient of a pipe to the equivalent hydraulic
gradient; therefore, the ideal value is 1.0. Furthermore, a system-
wide HUI can be quantified as the standard deviation of individual
pipes’ HUI from the ideal value of 1.0; thus, a system HUI of zero
indicates that the hydraulic gradients of individual pipes are
perfectly uniform, providing the most reliable solution for given
design constraints, such as minimum pressure requirements and
limited design cost.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The proposed indices were applied to the Hanoi benchmark
network for demonstration. The least expensive optimal design
suggested by Cunha and Sousa (1999) was used as a base design
for comparison. The base design was then modified manually to
improve HUI values (both pipes’ HUI and systemwide HUI) and
two modified designs were suggested. Through the system modi-
fications (enlarging the underdesigned pipes and reducing the sizes
of overdesigned pipes), the pipe HUI values were improved to be
close to the ideal value of 1.0, and the system HUI value was
reduced compared to the base design. The lower system HUI is
indicative of the more hydraulically uniform network, which avoids
over- and underdesigned components, leading to a more reliable
design with similar design cost. Comparing the system perfor-
mance of the applied designs under normal and abnormal demand
conditions, it was demonstrated that a network with lower system
HUI (assuming similar design cost) can provide sufficient pressure
at demand nodes more reliably. The applied study also shows that
the suggested HUI can be used as an indicator for evaluating indi-
vidual pipe and overall system reliability.
The proposed system HUI can be used to evaluate the
consistency of the hydraulic gradient throughout the network
and possibly can be implemented as an objective or constraint
quantifying system reliability for system design optimization. To
further evaluate individual pipes in a network, the pipe HUI value
can be used to enhance the system design. The proposed HUI can
be improved by reflecting the individual pipe importance (based on
pipe diameter, length, and flow rate) in calculation to avoid bias and
precisely evaluate the system reliability. Implementing the pro-
posed indices in network design is a fruitful area to pursue in future
studies.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-
2016R1A2B4014273); and the EDISON (Education-research
Integration through Simulation On the Net) Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Min-
istry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (2017M3C 1A6075016).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Einput = total input energy;
Eloss = total loss energy;
© ASCE 04019078-9
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078
Eoutput = total output energy;
Efriction = lost energy due to pipe wall friction;
Eleak = lost energy by leakage;
Hti = total head in ith pipe at tth time step;
HGequi = equivalent hydraulic gradient of system;
HGi = actual head loss in ith pipe;
HUI i = hydraulic uniformity index in ith pipe;
HUI sys = hydraulic uniformity index of system;
hlequi = equivalent head loss of system;
hli = head loss in ith pipe;
Li = length of ith pipe;
T= the operation time;
npipe = total number of pipes;
Qti = discharge in ith pipe at tth time step;
Qtleak;i = leakage rate in ith pipe at tth time step;
γ= specific weight of water; and
Δt = simulation time step.
References
Afshar, M. H., M. Akbari, and M. A. Mariño. 2005. “Simultaneous layout
and size optimization of water distribution networks: Engineering ap-
proach.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11 (4): 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:4(221).
Awumah, K., I. Goulter, and S. K. Bhatt. 1990. “Assessment of reliability in
water distribution networks using entropy based measures.” Stochastic
Hydrol. Hydraul. 4 (4): 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544084.
Bates, B. C., M. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P. Palutikof. 2008. Climate
change and water, IPCC technical paper IV. Geneva: Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change.
Cabrera, E., E. Gómez, E. Cabrera, Jr., J. Soriano, and V. Espert. 2014.
“Energy assessment of pressurized water systems.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 141 (8): 04014095. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.0000494.
Cabrera, E., M. A. Pardo, R. Cobacho, and E. Cabrera Jr. 2010. “Energy
audit of water networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 136 (6):
669–677. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000077.
Candelieri, A., D. Soldi, and F. Archetti. 2015. “Network analysis for
resilience evaluation in water distribution networks.” Environ. Eng.
Manage. J. 14 (6): 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2015.136.
Colombo, A. F., and B. W. Karney. 2009. “Leaks and water use represen-
tation in water distribution system models: Finding a working equiva-
lence.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 135 (3): 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:3(234).
Creaco, E., M. Franchini, and E. Todini. 2016. “The combined use of resil-
ience and loop diameter uniformity as a good indirect measure of net-
work reliability.” Urban Water J. 13 (2): 167–181. https://doi.org/10
.1080/1573062X.2014.949799.
Cunha, M. D. C., and J. Sousa. 1999. “Water distribution network design
optimization: Simulated annealing approach.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage. 125 (4): 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(1999)125:4(215).
Di Nardo, A., M. Di Natale, C. Giudicianni, R. Greco, and G. F.
Santonastaso. 2018. “Complex network and fractal theory for the as-
sessment of water distribution network resilience to pipe failures.”
Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 18 (3): 767–777. https://doi.org/10
.2166/ws.2017.124.
Di Nardo, A., R. Greco, G. F. Santonastaso, and M. Di Natale. 2010.
“Resilience and entropy indices for water supply network sectorization
in district meter areas.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Hydroinformatics,
2365–2373. Tianjin, China: Tianjin Univ.
Dziedzic, R. M., and B. W. Karney. 2013. “Energy metrics for water dis-
tribution assessment.” In Proc., 46th Annual Stormwater and Urban
Water Systems Modeling Conf. on Journal of Water Management Mod-
eling. Guelph, ON, Canada: Computational Hydraulics International.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Fadaee, M., and R. Tabatabaei. 2010. “Estimation of failure probability in
water pipes network using statistical model.” World Appl. Sci. J. 11 (9):
1157–1163.
Fujiwara, O., and H. D. Tung. 1991. “Reliability improvement for water
distribution networks through increasing pipe size.” Water Resour. Res.
27 (7): 1395–1402. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR00882.
Greco, R., A. Di Nardo, and G. Santonastaso. 2012. “Resilience and en-
tropy as indices of robustness of water distribution networks.” J. Hydro-
inf. 14 (3): 761–771. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2012.037.
Halhal, D., G. A. Walters, D. Ouazar, and D. A. Savic. 1997. “Water net-
work rehabilitation with structured messy genetic algorithm.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 123 (3): 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1061
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 12/14/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
/(ASCE)0733-9496(1997)123:3(137).
Hashemi, S., Y. R. Filion, and V. L. Speight. 2015. “Pipe-level energy
metrics for energy assessment in water distribution networks.” Procedia
Eng. 119 (17): 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.864.
Jayaram, N., and K. Srinivasan. 2008. “Performance-based optimal
design and rehabilitation of water distribution networks using life
cycle costing.” Water Resour. Res. 44 (1): W01417. https://doi.org/10
.1029/2006WR005316.
Jeong, G., A. Wicaksono, and D. Kang. 2017. “Revisiting the resilience
index for water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Man-
age. 143 (8): 04017035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943
-5452.0000792.
Kang, D., and K. Lansey. 2011. “Revisiting optimal water-distribution sys-
tem design: Issues and a heuristic hierarchical approach.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage. 138 (3): 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000165.
Khomsi, D., G. A. Walters, A. R. D. Thorley, and D. Ouazar. 1996. “Reliabil-
ity tester for water-distribution networks.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 10 (1):
10–19. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1996)10:1(10).
Mays, L. W. 1989. Reliability analysis of water distribution systems.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ostfeld, A. 2004. “Reliability analysis of water distribution systems.”
J. Hydroinf. 6 (4): 281–294. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2004.0021.
Prasad, T. D., and N. S. Park. 2003. “Multiobjective genetic algorithms
for design of water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage. 1 (73): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(2004)130.
© ASCE 04019078-10
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2020, 146(2): 04019078
Raad, D. N., A. N. Sinske, and J. H. Van Vuuren. 2010. “Comparison of
four reliability surrogate measures for water distribution systems
design.” Water Resour. Res. 46 (5): W05524. https://doi.org/10.1029
/2009WR007785.
Shi, P. 2006. “Seismic response modeling of water supply systems.” Ph.D.
dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
Univ.
Shuang, Q., Y. Liu, Y. Tang, J. Liu, and K. Shuang. 2017. “System reli-
ability evaluation in water distribution networks with the impact of
valves experiencing cascading failures.” Water 9 (6): 413. https://doi
.org/10.3390/w9060413.
Su, Y.-C., L. W. Mays, N. Duan, and K. E. Lansey. 1987. “Reliability-
based optimization model for water distribution systems.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 114 (12): 1539–1556. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(1987)113:12(1539).
Suribabu, C. R., K. Prashanth, S. V. Kumar, and N. S. Ganesh. 2016.
“Resilience enhancement methods for water distribution networks.”
Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 10 (2): 219–231. https://doi.org/10.14525/JJCE
.10.1.3538.
Tanyimboh, T. T., and A. B. Templeman. 1993. “Calculating maximum
entropy flows in networks.” J. Oper. Res. Soc. 44 (4): 383–396.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1993.68.
Todini, E. 2000. “Looped water distribution networks design using a resil-
ience index based heuristic approach.” Urban Water 2 (2): 115–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(00)00049-2.
Wagner, J. M., U. Shamir, and D. H. Marks. 1988. “Water distribution reli-
ability: Simulation methods.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 114 (3):
276–294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1988)114:3(276).
Xu, C., and C. Goulter. 1999. “Reliability-based optimal design of water
distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 125 (6):
352–362. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1999)125:6(352).
Yamijala, S., S. D. Guikema, and K. Brumbelow. 2009. “Statistical models
for the analysis of water distribution system pipe break data.” Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 94 (2): 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008
.03.011.
Yazdani, A., and P. Jeffrey. 2010. “Robustness and vulnerability analysis of
water distribution networks using graph theoretic and complex network
principles.” In Proc., 12th Annaul Conf. on Water Distribution Systems
Analysis (WDSA), 933–945. Reston, VA: ASCE.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.