Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Methodology for evaluating city-level energy footprint for water

distribution systems
Kate Smith , Shuming Liu *
School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water distribution is a major contributor to energy use for water supply. Reducing network pressure can
Received 25 March 2020 decrease energy use for centralised distribution while simultaneously increasing energy use for high-rise
Received in revised form pumping. This study describes a method of calculating and optimising energy for water distribution at
21 November 2020
city level that incorporates both centralised and high-rise distribution and the pressure trade-off be-
Accepted 7 December 2020
tween them. The methodology is applied to 82 case cities in China and is used to judge whether China’s
Available online 9 December 2020
recommended minimum pressure regulation leads to unnecessarily high energy use in certain cities.
^as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo Results show that 63 of these cities could save energy by reducing the minimum and average pressure
Almeida used to distribute water, with energy savings of up to 28% of total energy for water distribution. The
methodology was also used to investigate how the distribution of households in buildings of different
Keywords: heights affects energy use for water distribution. Adjustments to pressure had greater impact on energy
High-rise buildings use and adjustments to building height distribution had less impact on energy use in cities with fewer
Pressure regulation high-rises. The methodology provides a way for urban planners, government and water companies to
China
reduce energy use for urban water distribution. For the case of China, the results suggest a city-specific
Water-energy nexus
minimum pressure recommendation is more suitable than the existing nationwide recommendation.
Pumping
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction treatment is one of the major contributors to emissions of green-

Water distribution is a major energy user in the urban water
cycle. Centralised distribution can account for over 40% of the en-
ergy used to source, treat and distribute water in cases where
gravity distribution is not possible (Cheng, 2002; Smith and Liu,
2019; Smith et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2013). This percentage does
not include pumping water within buildings. On-site pumping is
necessary when building heights exceed the minimum pressure
supplied within the water distribution system and can be 43% of
total electricity use for water supply in a built-up metropolis (Smith
et al., 2017).
Energy use is a concern for water companies and government
because it constitutes a major cost and source of greenhouse gas
emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with water supply
are reported by numerous water companies around the world, with
an example being the United Kingdom’s water sector representa-
tive WaterUK (Ofwat, 2010). Use of electricity for pumping and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shumingliu@tsinghua.edu.cn (S. Liu).
house gases (Rothausen and Conway, 2011) and air pollution by the
water sector, particularly in China where most electricity is coal-
generated (National Bureau of Statistics, 2016). It is generally also
the largest cost faced by this sector (American Water Works
Association, 2009; Guan, 2013; Smith et al., 2018a; Zhang, 2014).
The purpose of the current study is to develop a methodology to
evaluate and optimise the full energy footprint of water distribu-
tion at city level, including centralised and high-rise distribution
and the pressure relationship between them, and apply it to
numerous cities in China. The methodology will (1) optimise for
pressure so that the user can determine the minimum and average
network pressure at which energy use is lowest and (2) allow the
user to vary the spread of households across high-rise buildings of
different heights and estimate the effect on energy use for water
distribution. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no method avail-
able to calculate the energy footprint of distribution at city level
that incorporates both centralised and high-rise distribution and
the pressure trade-off between them. This conclusion is based on a
literature search as described in Section 2 and the authors’ recent
review of literature on energy use in China’s urban system (Smith
et al., 2018a).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125463
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Smith and S. Liu
The energy footprint methodology incorporates all three com-
ponents of energy for distribution and the pressure relationship
between these components: (1) energy for centralised distribution,
(2) energy lost through leakage and (3) energy for high-rise
pumping. The pressure trade-off is such that decreasing pressure
in the centralised distribution system tends to decrease energy
used for centralised pumping and lost through leakage but increase
energy used for high-rise pumping. The optimisation process uses
this methodology to assess how adjustments in minimum and
average pressure, and the distribution of households within
buildings of different heights, can affect overall energy use for
water distribution within a city. This study only considers opera-
tional energy and does not include the embedded energy associ-
ated with new pumping systems.
The method is applied to 82 case cities in China using 2010 data
from China’s Urban Water Supply Yearbook and Population Census.
China is chosen as a case study for this paper because the country’s
one-size-fits-all minimum pressure recommendation (People’s
Republic of China, 2003) is much higher than many other coun-
tries and a significant percentage of China’s urban population lives
in high-rise buildings.
Specifically, the study will help answer the question of whether
China’s minimum regulation should be country-wide or different
for each city. More generally, the study has implications for urban
planners, government and water companies looking to reduce en-
ergy used for water distribution within big cities.
2. Review
Energy is used during distribution to transfer water with suffi-
cient pressure to satisfy consumers, meet water quality objectives
and ensure fire hydrants are functional. To ensure these objectives
are met, minimum pressure for distribution is often regulated at
country level. A selection of these minimum pressure regulations
and guidelines is shown in Fig. 1 (Aguas do Porto, n.d.; Associaçaeo
Brasileira de Normas Te cnicas, 1994; Deb et al., 1995; Economic
Regulation Authority of Western Australia, 2011; Federation of
Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council, 2003;
Ghorbanian et al., 2016; Hamada, 2014; Independent Pricing and
Fig. 1. Minimum pressure guidelines (non-binding) and regulations (binding) for countries around the world.
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, 2014; Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System and Manila Water Company,
1997; Ministry of Agriculture of Czech Republic, 2001; Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development and General Administra-
tion of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine, 2016;
Oficina de Vivienda de Madrid, 2008; Ofwat, 2008; South Africa
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2005;
Superintendent of Sanitary Services of Chile, 2016; Tzatchkov et al.,
2014; Vewin, 2018). Most guidelines shown in Fig. 1 are national
guidelines; in some cases, guidelines for a major city were used.
Pressure management is commonly used to reduce energy for
centralised distribution but can increase overall energy use if high-
rise distribution is not taken into account. Reducing pressure
within the central distribution system reduces the height reached
by water within buildings and increases the need for extra pump-
ing. For example, China recommends water companies in every city
maintain a minimum of 28 m pressure in the water distribution
system, which is enough to lift water to the sixth storey of a
building (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and
General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and
Quarantine, 2016). Reducing China’s minimum pressure from 28 m
to 24 m would mean the sixth storey should be supplied using a
separate pumping system. This decision could reduce energy use
for centralised distribution while increasing energy use in buildings
of six storeys or above. Each city’s characteristics would determine
whether pressure reduction leads to a net energy saving or cost.
Thus, consideration of both centralised and high-rise distribution
and the pressure trade-off between them is necessary when
attempting to reduce electricity use for distribution.
The authors have conducted a search and review of literature on
this topic using Web of Science and Scopus and concluded no
method is available to calculate and optimise the full energy foot-
print of distribution at city level for both pressure and building
distribution. The literature search used the keyword combinations
‘energy, water, distribution, pumping, high-rise’ and ‘energy, water,
distribution, pumping, building’. Resulting literature was reviewed
in two stages. The first stage involved the elimination of studies
that appeared in the search results but were outside the scope of
reducing energy use for high-rise water distribution. These
K. Smith and S. Liu
included studies that focused on pumping for heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) purposes, renewable energy systems
connected to water supply and building heat pumps. The second
stage involved reviewing the remaining studies to identify knowl-
edge gaps. These studies and knowledge gaps are presented in
Table 1.
In summary, most studies reviewed focus solely on reducing
energy use within high-rise distribution networks and do not
include centralised water distribution in their methodologies.
Some studies consider both components but not the pressure
relationship between them. For example, Chhipi-Shrestha et al.
(2017) consider the full distribution system in a method aimed at
identifying the optimal neighbourhood density for reduced water
demand, energy use, carbon emissions and lifecycle cost. Likewise,
Zhao et al. (2020) include both centralised and high-rise distribu-
tion when assessing the impact of city shape and population dis-
tribution on energy use for water distribution. However, neither of
the methods presented in these studies optimises for pressure or
incorporates the pressure trade-off between centralised and high-
rise distribution, which is key to the present study’s objective and
methodology. In other words, the studies do not model the com-
bined impact of changing network pressure on energy for cen-
tralised distribution, energy lost through leakage and energy used
for high-rise pumping. For more details on reviewed studies, refer
to Table 1.
3. Methods
An overview of the study method is provided in Fig. 2. The
equations that constitute this methodology are described in the
following sections and include (1) known relationships (e.g.
Equations (15) and (2)) basic equations derived from logic or
dimensional analysis (e.g. Equations (13) and (3)) equations based
on a previous study by the authors (Smith et al., 2017), and (4)
equations from China’s Water Supply Yearbook (e.g. Equation (10)).
3.1. Data collection and treatment
The methodology described in the following sections was
applied to 82 cities across China using 2010 data from China’s Ur-
ban Water Supply Yearbook (China Urban Water Association, 2011)
and most recent census (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010).
Data obtained from China’s 2011 Urban Water Supply Yearbook
included average pressure for distribution, total volume of water
supplied, average pumping electricity for distribution per metre
head, leakage and loss rate, total electricity use for water supply
and daily domestic water use per capita for each city (China Urban
Water Association, 2011). The 2011 Yearbook published self-
reported data from 1803 water treatment plants across China for
the year 2010 and included cities, but not counties (around 24% of
China’s population). Around 630 cities were represented. These
data were used to calculate energy for centralised water distribu-
tion, energy lost through leakage and energy for high-rise
pumping.
Data obtained from China’s census included household size and
the number of households residing in buildings of different heights
(National Bureau of Statistics, 2010). China’s 2010 census contained
a short survey and a long survey. Household size was sourced from
the results of the short survey, which covered China’s entire pop-
ulation. Data on the number of households residing in buildings of
1 storey, 2e3 storeys, 4e6 storeys, 7e9 storeys and 10 or more
storeys were sourced from the results of the long survey, which
covered a 10% random sample of China’s population. The following
population comparison gives an indication of the error associated
with extrapolating data contained in the long survey. The actual
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
population of city (shì) areas was 404 million in 2010 according to
the short survey. The estimated population would be 336 million if
extrapolated from the long survey using China’s average household
size, which is an error of 17%. Census data were used to calculate
energy for high-rise pumping.
Data treatment involved removing cities (1) with incomplete
data or (2) for which city limits were inconsistent across the two
data sources as evidenced by different population sizes. In some
cases, population size of a given city in the Yearbook and the same
city in the census data differed greatly. This could be because the
Yearbook generally only includes cities and not districts and
counties, even though these are urbanised areas in China. Census
data could have defined the administrative limits of certain cities
differently, leading to variations in population size. This paper’s
methodology relies on the population size of each city being similar
across datasets, so if population listed in the census was not within
0.73e1.27 times the population listed in the Yearbook, the city was
removed. After data treatment, 102 cities remained. During the
optimisation process, a further 20 cities were removed as described
in Section 3.8. The remaining 82 cities were located across China,
with up to 10 cities per province.
3.2. Energy footprint calculation methodology
The study’s first objective was to develop a method to calculate
the energy footprint of water distribution in a city that incorporates
both centralised and high-rise distribution and the pressure trade-
off between them. The energy footprint methodology presented in
this section incorporates three components: (1) energy for cen-
tralised distribution, (2) energy lost through leakage and (3) energy
for high-rise distribution.
It should be noted that this methodology does not calculate the
total energy footprint of water supply, which would include all
energy for sourcing, treating and distribution. This methodology
calculates the energy footprint of water distribution. All three
components of the methodology are affected by changes in water
distribution system pressure, whereas energy for sourcing and
treatment e which are not included in the methodology e are not.
A full list of assumptions and limitations associated with each
variable presented in the methodology is provided in the Supple-
mentary Information. Assumptions of this study include that (1) all
water consumption in high-rise buildings is by households living in
residential buildings; and (2) the maximum height of buildings is
assumed to be 10 storeys given that more specific data are not
available. Limitations include that (1) the methodology does not
account for the energy embedded in extra high-rise pumping sys-
tems that would be required when minimum pressure is reduced;
and (2) energy for distribution reported by the Yearbook may be
inaccurate because it accounts for a much lower percentage of total
energy for water supply than would be expected for China.
3.3. Calculating energy for centralised distribution
Energy for centralised distribution is the energy provided by
pumps at the outlet of a water treatment plant or by booster pumps
at pumping stations. This energy maintains the pressure of water
within a city’s water distribution system. Equation (1) was used to
calculate the initial electricity used for centralised distribution
within each city.
Ed0 ¼ Ed;per metre  P0  V0 (1)
where Ed0 ¼ initial electricity use for centralised distribution (kWh/
year); Ed,per metre ¼ average electricity use for distribution per cubic
metre of water per metre head (kWh/m3$m); P0 ¼ initial average
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Table 1
Summary of literature on reducing energy use for high-rise water distribution.

Reference Method Purpose Methodological gap

Altherr et al. (2019) Branch-and-bound algorithm is used to solve a To reduce energy use through optimisation of Centralised water distribution system not
mixed-integer nonlinear program. A separation pump configuration within high-rise buildings. included in the methodology.
algorithm is used as an extension.
Cheng (2002) Theoretical estimate using a series of equations. To provide an overview of residential water use Energy use in the centralised water distribution
and a simple equation for analysing energy use system is included in calculations but the
by urban water systems, including pumping pressure relationship and trade-off between
within a 6-storey building. centralised and high-rise distribution is not
included or used in optimisation.
Cheung et al. (2013) On-site measurements, followed by a series of To reduce energy use for water supply in high- Centralised water distribution system not
equations to calculate energy use. rise buildings by optimising tank and pumping included in the methodology.
configuration.
Chhipi-Shrestha A conceptual framework in the form of a flow To calculate the impact of neighbourhood Energy use in the centralised water distribution
et al. (2017) diagram, which is followed by a series of densification on the combined water-energy- system is included in calculations but pressure
equations used to calculate water demand, carbon nexus and to identify the optimal and the pressure relationship between
energy use, carbon emissions and lifecycle cost. density (persons/hectare) for lowest per capita centralised and high-rise distribution is not
Water use, energy use and carbon emissions water demand, energy use, net carbon included or used in optimisation.
were combined and represented as ‘ecological emissions and lifecycle cost.
footprint’.
Du et al. (2017) Computational fluid dynamics simulation and To recover energy within a high-rise building Centralised water distribution system not
laboratory tests were used to study water supply system by using pumps as included in the methodology.
performance. turbines for hydropower generation.
Leise and Altherr Mixed-integer nonlinear programming; To reduce energy use in the water supply Centralised water distribution system not
(2019) domain-specific scaling laws and Latin system of a 12-storey hotel through choice of included in the methodology.
Hypercube Sampling. optimal network topology and optimal pumps.
Muller et al. (2020) Mixed-integer nonlinear and mixed-integer To reduce energy use through optimal design Centralised water distribution system not
linear modelling approaches. and operation of pumping systems in high-rise included in the methodology.
buildings, including consideration of different
configurations (parallel, series-parallel,
centralised).
Pinto et al. (2017) Measurement of energy use; laboratory To understand the relationship between water Centralised water distribution system not
assessment of efficiency of different showers; and energy use within hotel buildings and included in the methodology.
energy and water balance. decrease energy use by optimising shower
efficiency, pumping and pipe thermal
insulation.
Smith et al. (2017) On-site measurements in high-rise buildings To investigate the most efficient pumping Energy use in the centralised water distribution
and statistical data collection, followed by a system for use in high-rise buildings and system is included in calculations but the
series of equations to calculate and extrapolate estimate potential energy savings at building pressure relationship and trade-off between
energy use for water supply. level, city level and country level. centralised and high-rise distribution is not
included or used in optimisation.
Smith et al. (2018b) Not applicable; discussion article. To explain how city layout contributes to This paper identifies the need for an
energy use for water supply and provide optimisation methodology that incorporates
suggestions for reducing energy use both centralised and high-rise distribution and
considers the energy trade-off associated with
minimum pressure in the centralised
distribution system; however, the paper itself
does not present this methodology.
Smith et al. (2019) Describes results obtained through calculation To investigate the effect of building height and Energy use in the centralised water distribution
of spatial indicators using data collected from other spatial characteristics of urban water system is included in calculations and the effect
four cities. supply systems on energy use in four Asian of building height is investigated, but the work
cities. does not present a general methodology for
optimising the full energy footprint of water
distribution for pressure and building height.
Wanjiru et al. Open loop optimal control and closed-loop To meet water demand in buildings while Primary focus is on reducing energy cost rather
(2016) model predictive control strategies. minimising energy cost by avoiding pumping at than energy use.
peak power periods.
Wong et al. (2012) Pipe sizing method with probabilistic demands To reduce energy use for water supply in Centralised water distribution system not
constrained for fixed pipeline volume; Monte- buildings by reducing pipe friction. included in the methodology.
Carlo simulations.
Wong et al. (2014) On-site measurements and data collection in To investigate changes in pumping energy Centralised water distribution system not
high-rise buildings, followed by a series of efficiency as a function of installation time in included in the methodology.
equations to calculate efficiency. high-rise buildings.
Zhang et al. (2017) Flow simulations using hydraulic simulation To investigate the effect of replacing throttling Centralised water distribution system not
software; field tests. valves and introducing tank storage on energy included in the methodology.
use and cost for pumping cooling water in
buildings.
Zhao et al. (2018) On-site and laboratory tests; theoretical To reduce water use and embodied energy Centralised water distribution system not
analysis followed by verification using a case through pressure reduction in high-rise included in the methodology.
study. building water distribution systems.
Zhao et al. (2020) Empirical analysis methods and virtual city To investigate the impact of different city Energy use in the centralised water distribution
modelling using statistical datasets and shapes and population distribution on energy system is included in calculations and the effect
mapping images. use for centralised water distribution and of building height is investigated, but the work
building water distribution. does not present a general methodology for
optimising the full energy footprint of water
distribution for pressure.

4
K. Smith and S. Liu
Fig. 2. Overview of study method.
operating pressure within the water distribution system (m);
V0 ¼ initial volume of water supplied by treatment plants, including
any water subsequently lost during distribution (m3/year).
For the cities included in this study, data on Ed,per meter, V0, and P0
were obtained from China’s Urban Water Supply Yearbook (China
Urban Water Association, 2011). Average distribution pressure
was calculated by the Yearbook according to P0 ¼ SP/N, where SP is
the sum of all pressure readings taken within a city’s water distri-
bution system and N is the total number of locations and times at
which these readings were taken.
3.4. Calculating energy lost through leakage
Energy lost through leakage (El0) is the electricity used for
sourcing, treating and distributing water that is wasted when water
leaks from the central water distribution system without meeting
demand. Thus, the equation for El0 incorporates the total energy
initially used for water supply.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
El0 ¼ L0  Es;per unit (2)
where El0 ¼ initial energy loss through leakage; L0 ¼ initial amount
of water lost due to physical leakage (i.e. at P0) (m3/year); Es,per
unit ¼ electricity use per cubic metre of water supplied before
change in average pressure (i.e. including sourcing, treatment and
central distribution) (kWh/m3).
Es,per unit was calculated by dividing total electricity used for
water supply before any change in pressure (Es, obtained directly
from the Yearbook) by total volume supplied before any change in
pressure (V0), i.e., Es,per unit ¼ Es/V0. Supply includes sourcing,
treatment and central distribution.
Equation (3) was used to calculate the initial volume of water
lost through leakage within each city.
L0 ¼ L%  V0 (3)
where L% ¼ percentage of total water supplied that is lost through
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

physical leakage (%). metre lift was calculated, see Smith et al. (2017).
The percentage of water lost through leakage is calculated based In the case that two different pumping systems are used in the
on values from the Yearbook. The Yearbook provides the percent- city, average electricity use per cubic metre per metre lift for
age of water unaccounted for due to leakage, theft and meter failure pumping in buildings (Eb,per metre) is a function of the coverage by
and it is assumed that 66% of this volume was lost through physical each pumping system, as shown in Equation (6). In this study, the
leakage. This is based on 2013 data from water companies in the percentage coverage by BPBT pumping systems was assumed to be
Chengdu, Dalian, Shaoxing, Xuzhou, Tianjin, Urumqi, Wuhan and 75%.
Chongqing cities that was used to support China’s Standard for
water loss control and assessment of urban water distribution system Eb;per metre ¼ rpres E pres;per metre þ rbreak E break;per metre (6)
(Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, 2016).
where rpres ¼ ratio of total residential buildings covered by entirely
3.5. Calculating energy for high-rise distribution pressurised booster system; Epres,per metre ¼ average electricity use
by entirely pressurised booster system per metre lift (kWh/m3$m);
Energy for high-rise pumping is the electricity used by pumping rbreak ¼ ratio of total buildings covered by booster pump and break
systems within residential buildings to lift water. A building re- tank system (rbreak þ rpres ¼ 1); Ebreak,per metre ¼ average electricity
quires an on-site pumping system when pressure provided by the use by booster pump and break tank system per metre lift (kWh/
water distribution system is insufficient to reach all floors. As an m3$m).
example, all buildings taller than six storeys require an on-site Equation (7) was used to calculate the volume of water supplied
pumping system in China because the recommended minimum using on-site pumping systems in residential buildings of f storeys.
pressure (28 m) only reaches the sixth storey.
Vper person  Pop0;f
Equation (4) was used to calculate initial electricity use for high- Vb0;f ¼ Vper person  Pop0;f  n0 (7)
rise pumping in buildings of f storeys. Equation (5) was used to f
calculate the total electricity use for high-rise pumping, summed
where Vper person ¼ daily per capita water use for domestic purposes
over residential buildings of all heights. In this study, the maximum
(m3/cap$day); Pop0,f ¼ total number of people living in buildings of
height of buildings is assumed to be 10 storeys. Census data are
f storeys; n0 ¼ number of storeys that do not require extra pumping
presented as the number of households in buildings of ‘10 or more
(e.g. n0 ¼ 6 if minimum pressure is 28 m). It was assumed that
storeys’ so a maximum of 10 storeys was assumed for simplicity
water use is distributed equally across all storeys.
given that more specific data are not available. This assumption
The value of n0 is determined by the minimum pressure in the
means energy for high-rise pumping would be underestimated for
given city. According to Chinese regulation, a minimum of 10 m is
cities with a large number of very tall high-rise buildings.
required to supply the bottom storey of a building, 12 m is required
Eb0;f ¼ Vb0;f  h  Eb;per T (4) for the second storey, 16 m for the third, 20 m for the fourth, 24 m
metre
for the fifth and 28 m for the sixth (Ministry of Construction, 2006).
The initial minimum pressure for each city in this study was
X
10
Eb0 ¼ Eb0;f (5) estimated using the following assumptions. A minimum pressure of
f ¼1
28 m was assumed if the city’s initial average pressure was 30 m or
greater. If the average pressure was below 30 m, then it was
where Eb0,f ¼ initial pumping electricity use in f-storey residential assumed that the minimum pressure was 2 m lower than average
buildings (kWh/year); Vb0,f ¼ initial volume of water supplied to f- pressure. For example, a city with average pressure 31 m would
storey buildings using on-site pumping systems (m3/day); h ¼ lift have a minimum of 28 m, and a city with average pressure 29 m
provided by on-site pumping systems (it is assumed all water has would have a minimum of 27 m.
sufficient head to reach the top storey of the building) (m); Eb,per Equation (8) gives the number of households living in residen-
metre ¼ average electricity use by pumping systems per cubic metre
tial buildings of f storeys. The census separates households using
water per metre lift (kWh/m3$m); T ¼ number of days in a year five height ranges: households living in buildings of 1 storey, 2-3
(day/year); f ¼ highest storey to which water must be lifted in the storeys, 4-6 storeys, 7-9 storeys and 10 storeys and over. Thus, in
building; Eb0 ¼ total pumping electricity use within residential the category 4-6 storeys, it is assumed that an equal number of
buildings of all heights (kWh/year). households live in buildings of 4 storeys, buildings of 5 storeys and
The lift (h) is given by the equation h ¼ 2.8f þ 10 þ 4.5 for the buildings of 6 storeys, as shown in Equation (8). For ease of calcu-
case of China. This assumes an average height between storeys of lation and due to lack of further information, it is assumed that the
2.8 m (Pan et al., 2008; Zhou, 2014), a 4.5 m lift to get water from maximum height of buildings is exactly 10 storeys.
the basement to ground level and 10 m of residual head at the top 8
storey as required by China’s national standards (People’s Republic >
> H1  10; f ¼ 1
>
>
of China, 2003) and does not account for friction. >
> H23
>
>  10; 2  f  3
Two common pumping systems for water distribution to high- >
>
>
> 2
rises in China are the booster pump and break tank (BPBT) sys- >
<
H46
tem and the entirely pressurised booster (EPB) system. The BPBT Hf ¼  10; 4  f  6 (8)
>
> 3
system consists of a variable speed pump and a large break tank >
>
>
> H79
and the EPB system consists of a variable speed pump and a small >
>  10; 7  f  9
>
>
pressurised tank. The BPBT system uses 0.019 ± 0.005 kWh/m3$m >
> 3
>
:
on average to pump water within residential buildings and the EPB H10  10; f ¼ 10
system uses 0.010 ± 0.001 kWh/m3$m on average, based on 14
datasets across 10 high-rise residential buildings (Smith et al., where Hf ¼ the number of households residing in f-storey build-
2017). Both systems connect to the city’s water distribution sys- ings; H1 ¼ total number of households residing in 1-storey build-
tem and pump water up from basement level. For diagrams of these ings as per the census; H2-3 ¼ total number of households residing
systems and an explanation of how pumping energy intensity per in 2- or 3-storey buildings; H4-6 ¼ total number of households
6
K. Smith and S. Liu
residing in 4- to 6-storey buildings; H7-9 ¼ total number of
households residing in 7- to 9-storey buildings; and H10 ¼ total
number of households residing in buildings of 10 or more storeys.
The number of people living in residential buildings of f storeys
(Pop0,f) is the product of the number of households living in
buildings of f storeys (Hf) and the average household size (PopH), as
shown in Equation (9). Household size was obtained from the
census (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010).
Pop0;f ¼ Hf  PopH (9)
where PopH ¼ average household size for city.
Daily per capita water use for domestic purposes (Vper person)
was obtained from China’s Urban Water Supply Yearbook and is
defined by the Yearbook as including residential (i.e., water use by
households) and public water use (i.e., water use by administrative
departments, military, public facilities, social services, retail and
hospitality). Thus, although this study focuses on residential
buildings, a certain amount of office-related water use is also
included. Daily per capita use for domestic purposes is calculated
by the Yearbook using Equation (10).
Vsold;dom
Vper person ¼ (10)
Popurb  T
where Vsold,dom ¼ volume of water supplied to consumers at a
charge by urban water supply companies for domestic purposes
(m3); Popurb ¼ population served by urban water supply;
T ¼ number of days in a year.
3.6. Total energy footprint for water distribution
Total energy use for distribution (E) at city level was calculated
using Equation (11).
E ¼ Ed0 þ El0 þ Eb0 (11)
3.7. Energy footprint optimisation methodology
The second objective of the study was to assess how adjust-
ments in minimum and average pressure, and building height
distribution, can affect the energy footprint of water distribution
within a city.
3.8. Varying minimum and average pressure
To identify the minimum and average pressure associated with
the lowest energy footprint, 35 pressure scenarios were tested
against initial pressure for each of the 102 cities that remained after
data treatment. In each scenario, minimum pressure and average
pressure were varied simultaneously in increments of 1 m, with
minimum pressure varying between 10 m and 45 m.
Sections 3.9 to 3.12 outline the method used to identify the best
pressure scenario and the maximum energy savings that can be
achieved for each city by changing pressure. In brief, electricity
used for water distribution was calculated for each pressure sce-
nario and compared to the initial energy footprint to calculate the
energy cost or savings associated with that scenario. The changes in
energy use were compared across all pressure scenarios to deter-
mine the pressure at which savings were greatest and the magni-
tude of these savings. The minimum pressure scenario at which
energy savings were greatest is called the ideal minimum pressure.
Cities that did not reach maximum energy savings for any
minimum pressure scenario between 10 m and 45 m were
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
removed, which left 82 case cities. A lower boundary of 10 m was
chosen because a minimum of 10 m is required to supply the bot-
tom storey of a building in China (Ministry of Construction, 2006),
and few countries have minimum pressure guidelines or regula-
tions below this value (see Fig. 1). Twenty of the 102 cities were
removed, all of which continued to save energy as the minimum
pressure dropped below 10 m due to a combination of high elec-
tricity use for distribution, low per capita water use, high leakage or
low percentages of households living in high-rise buildings by
comparison to other cities.
A key assumption of this section is that the change in average
pressure is the same as the change in the minimum pressure in
each scenario. A full list of assumptions and limitations associated
with each variable presented in the methodology is provided in the
Supplementary Information.
3.9. Recalculating energy for centralised distribution following
pressure variation
Energy for centralised distribution generally decreases linearly
with a decrease in average pressure. Equation (12) was used to
calculate the electricity used for centralised distribution after a
change in average pressure for distribution.
Ed1 ¼ Ed;per metre  P1  V1 (12)
where Ed1 ¼ final electricity for use centralised distribution after a
change in average pressure (kWh/year); P1 ¼ final average oper-
ating pressure in system (m); V1 ¼ final volume supplied (m3/year).
When distribution pressure decreases, water leakage also de-
creases. Equation (13) was used to calculate the change in volume
due to a reduction in leakage.
V1 ¼ V0  ðL0  L1 Þ (13)
where L1 ¼ amount of water leaked after change in average pres-
sure (i.e. at P1) (m3/year).
The change in electricity used for centralised distribution that
follows a change in average pressure was calculated using Equation
(14).
DEd ¼ Ed0  Ed1 (14)
where DEd ¼ change in electricity use for centralised distribution
(kWh/year). DEd should be positive when average pressure
decreases.
3.10. Recalculating energy lost through leakage following pressure
variation
Leakage generally decreases with lower average pressure
(Sturm et al., 2015; Walski et al., 2006), and this saves energy in two
ways. Firstly, the volume of water needing distribution decreases,
so energy for centralised distribution decreases, as shown in Sec-
tion 3.9. Secondly, the volume of water lost from the system de-
creases, so energy lost through leakage also decreases. Equation
(15) from Lambert (2001) was used to estimate the new volume
after a change in average pressure for distribution changes.
 N1
L1 P
¼ 1 (15)
L0 P0
where N1 ¼ leakage coefficient, which depends on a number of
factors, including pipe material, leakage type and even pressure
itself (Lambert, 2001; Schwaller and van Zyl, 2015).
K. Smith and S. Liu
In this study, N1 is set at 1 for all case cities. N1 tends to fall
between 0.5 and 1.5 but Thornton and Lambert (2005) suggest
assuming N1 ¼ 1 when dealing with large zones if specific N1 values
are not available. In other words, a 1% change in pressure is
assumed to cause a 1% change in leakage in large urban zones.
The difference in electricity use associated with a change in
physical leakage was calculated using Equation (16).
DEl ¼ ðL0  L1 Þ  Es;per unit (16)
where DEl ¼ change in energy lost due to leakage (kWh/year); DEl
should be positive when average pressure decreases.
3.11. Recalculating energy for high-rise distribution following
pressure variation
Changes in minimum pressure lead to changes in electricity use
for high-rise pumping. Equation (16) was used to calculate elec-
tricity use for high-rise pumping in residential buildings of f storeys
after a change in minimum pressure. Equation (17) was used to
calculate the total electricity use for high-rise pumping, summed
over buildings of all heights.
Eb1;f ¼ Vb1;f  h  Eb;per metre  T (17)
X
10
Eb1 ¼ Eb1;f (18)
f ¼1
where Eb1,f ¼ final pumping electricity use in f-storey residential
buildings (kWh/year); Vb1,f ¼ final volume of water supplied using
on-site pumping systems (m3/day); Eb1 ¼ total final pumping
electricity use within all buildings (kWh/year).
Equation (19) was used to calculate the volume of water sup-
plied to residential buildings of f storeys using on-site pumping
systems after a change in minimum water distribution pressure.
Vper person  Popf
Vb1;f ¼ Vper person  Pop0;f  n1 (19)
f buildings of 7e9 storeys; in Scenario 4, 100% of households in
where n1 ¼ number of storeys that do not require extra pumping
after change in minimum pressure.
Equation (20) is used to calculate the change in electricity use
for high-rise pumping after a change in the minimum pressure.
DEb ¼ Eb1  Eb0 (20)
where DEb ¼ change in electricity use for pumping water in high-
rise residential buildings following a change in minimum pres-
sure (kWh/year). DEb should be positive when minimum pressure
decreases.
3.12. Total energy saving through pressure variation
The total energy saving associated with a change in minimum
and average pressure was calculated using Equation (21) for each of
the 35 pressure scenarios for each case city.
DE ¼ DEd þ DEl  DEb (21)
where DE ¼ total energy saving (or cost) associated with each
scenario (kWh/year). In the case that an increase in energy for high-
rise pumping outweighs a decrease in energy use within the water
distribution system, DE will be negative (i.e. overall energy cost).
It should be noted that DEd incorporates the change in energy
for central distribution due to a change in volume distributed. But it
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
does not include the change in the loss of energy used for sourcing,
treatment and central distribution due to a change in volume
leaked. This is represented by the term. DEl :
Energy saved as a percentage of total energy used for distribu-
tion was calculated using Equation (22) using the maximum energy
saving among all 35 pressure scenarios. The minimum pressure
scenario at which DEmax occurs is called the ideal minimum
pressure.
DEmax
DE% ¼  100 (22)
Ed0 þ El0 þ Eb0
where DE% ¼ energy saved as a percentage of total energy use for
distribution (%); DEmax ¼ maximum energy saving among all 35
pressure scenarios. In some cases, all changes in pressure cost en-
ergy, in which case DEmax was 0 and the ideal pressure was the
initial pressure.
3.13. Varying building height distribution
In this section, we investigate the energy savings possible when
building heights are distributed differently. The distribution of
households in buildings of different heights has an effect on the
energy for high-rise pumping and, thus, the total energy footprint
of water distribution.
To meet this objective, a number of different re-distribution
scenarios were proposed and tested on two case cities. The two
cities were chosen so that one represented cities with large pop-
ulations and significant need for high-rise pumping, and the other
represented cities with small populations and limited need for
high-rise pumping.
Hypothetical scenarios were established in which households in
high-rise buildings (>6 storeys) were redistributed to low-rise
buildings (<7 storeys). In Scenario 1, 50% of households in build-
ings of 10 storeys or over were instead housed in buildings of 4e6
storeys; in Scenario 2, 100% of households in buildings of 10 storeys
or over were housed in buildings of 4e6 storeys; in Scenario 3, 50%
of households in buildings of 10 storeys or over were housed in
buildings of 10 storeys or over were housed in buildings of 7e9
storeys; in Scenario 5, 50% of households in buildings of 7 storeys or
over were housed in buildings of 4e6 storeys; in Scenario 6, 50% of
households in buildings of 7 storeys or over were housed in
buildings of either 5 or 6 storeys depending on the minimum
pressure estimated for the city.
3.14. Recalculating energy for high-rise pumping following
variation in building height distribution
The new volume supplied to residential buildings of f storeys
using on-site pumping systems in each of these scenarios is given
by Equation (23).
Vper person  Pop1;f
Vb1;f ¼ Vper person  Pop1;f  n0 (23)
f
where Pop1,f ¼ total number of people living in buildings of f storeys
after redistribution of households. Pop1,f is determined using the
scenario descriptions above.
For each scenario, the change in electricity use for high-rise
pumping (DE b Þ can be calculated using Equations (17), (18) and
(20). Energy for centralised distribution and energy lost through
leakage do not change, so DE ¼ DE b in this case.
Energy saved as a percentage of total energy was calculated by
replacing DEmax with DE in Equation (22).
K. Smith and S. Liu
3.15. Sensitivity analysis
The following method was used to determine the sensitivity of
energy savings or cost to changes in independent variables. The
minimum and average pressures of the 82 case cities were reduced
by 4 m and the energy saving or cost associated with this reduction
was recorded. Then, each variable was increased by 10% while other
variables were held constant. The absolute value of the percentage
change in the original energy saving or cost was recorded. The
average change across the 82 cities is recorded for each variable in
Section 4.4, along with the maximum and minimum change and
standard deviation.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Impact of pressure on energy use
Optimising for pressure revealed that most case cities could save
energy by reducing average and minimum pressure. In general,
cities with a lower ideal minimum pressure saved more energy. In
Fig. 3, energy savings increase from an average of 2% for an ideal
pressure of 24 m, 8% for 20 m, and 16% for 16 m, to an average of
20% for an ideal pressure of 12 m. Of the 82 case cites, 63 cities
benefited from a reduction in pressure, with energy savings up to
28% of energy for water distribution. These cities included cities
with average pressure of 30 m or higher and cities with average
pressure below 30 m. Table S2 in the Supplementary Information
contains reduction in energy use in terms of kilowatt-hours and the
corresponding greenhouse gas emissions.
Of these 63 cities, 36 cities with an average annual pressure of
30 m or above were able to save energy by reducing both average
and minimum pressure. It was assumed that all these cities initially
maintained a minimum pressure of 28 m, China’s recommended
value. The maximum energy savings possible for the 36 cities
ranged between 0.4% and 28% of each city’s original energy foot-
print of water distribution, as shown in Fig. 3. The energy savings
shown in Fig. 3 are the maximum for each city, selected after
comparing the total energy use for each pressure scenario to the
original energy use. Reducing minimum pressure from 28 m to
24 m led to savings of up to 5% for 7 cities and reducing to 20 m led
to savings of 3e12% for 16 cities. A further 10 cities had an ideal
minimum pressure of 16 m (savings of 7e28%) and 3 cities saved
most when the minimum pressure was 12 m (14e24%). In each
case, both average and minimum pressure were reduced by the
same amount.
Correlation analysis for the 82 case cities shows a moderate
positive correlation between optimal pressure and the percentage
of people living in households 7 floors or over. The Pearson corre-
lation coefficient is 0.348. In other words, cities with a lower per-
centage of households living in high-rise buildings may be more
likely to benefit from lower pressures.
Cities with average pressure below 30 m could still benefit from
reducing pressure further. Fig. 4 shows that 27 case cities with an
initial average pressure of 29 m or below could achieve energy
savings of up to 19% by further reducing pressure. It was assumed
that all these cities initially maintained a minimum pressure of 2 m
below their average pressure, meaning that minimum pressure
initially ranged from 18 m to 27 m before any changes were made.
Reducing minimum pressure to 24 m was the best option for 7 of
these cities (savings of up to 10%), reducing to 20 m was ideal for 15
cities (savings of 6e11%) and reducing to 16 m was the best scenario
for 5 cities (savings of 4e17%).
Nineteen of the case cities in this study did not benefit from
pressure reduction. All scenarios in which minimum and average
pressure were reduced by 1 m or more resulted in a net energy cost.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
For 11 of these cities, increasing pressure increased net energy cost;
in other words, they were already operating at optimal pressure.
For the remaining 8 cities, the energy footprint of water distribu-
tion was lowest when pressure was increased. These cities, shown
in Fig. 5, all began with an average pressure of 30 m or over and
were assumed to start with a minimum pressure of 28 m.
Increasing minimum pressure to 32 m resulted in energy savings of
up to 2% for 5 of the cities in Fig. 5 and increasing to 36 m led to
savings of 4e28% for a further 3 cities. None of the case cities
benefited from having a minimum pressure over 36 m.
4.2. Impact of building height distribution on energy use
A further aim of this study is to assess how different building
distributions can affect overall energy use for water distribution
within a city. In this section, we consider the following hypothetical
situation: if it were possible to rebuild a city so that the number of
high-rises were reduced and all else was held constant, how much
energy for water distribution would be saved (if any)? The two
cities selected for this analysis are Guangzhou e a city with a large
number of high-rises e and Guilin e a city with a small number of
high-rises.
Results reveal that certain building height scenarios can lead to
significant energy savings in a city dominated by high-rise build-
ings when compared to the current situation. Up to 13% of total
energy used for water distribution could be saved in Guangzhou,
where 48% of households live in buildings of 7 storeys or over and
18% live in buildings of 10 storeys or over. The scenario with the
greatest energy savings (13%) is where 50% of households living in
buildings of 7 storeys or over are instead housed in 5-storey
buildings. Guangzhou’s average water pressure is 28 m so it was
assumed buildings of 5 storeys and below did not need on-site
pumping. Hypothetically, redistribution of a much smaller per-
centage of the city’s population e those living in buildings 10 sto-
reys or over e could also lead to significant savings. If these
households were in buildings of 4e6 storeys, water distribution
energy savings would equal 11%. Fig. 6 shows the six scenarios
considered for the case of Guangzhou.
Energy savings were much less significant when similar sce-
narios were tested on a city with few high-rise buildings. In
contrast to Guangzhou, only 3% of all households in Guilin live in
buildings of 10 storeys and over and only 20% live in buildings of 7
storeys or over. The savings from the six scenarios in which a
portion of households in high-rise buildings are instead located in
low-rise buildings are 5% or less of total energy use for water dis-
tribution for all scenarios. The scenarios with the greatest energy
savings are those in which 50% of households in buildings of 7
storeys or over were instead housed in buildings of 4e6 storeys or
buildings of 6 storeys (the highest that can be supplied without
requiring on-site pumping in Guilin, where average pressure is
34 m and minimum pressure is assumed to be 28 m) (see Fig. 7).
Guilin saves almost as much energy from reducing minimum
and average pressures by 4 m each (saving of 2% as shown in Fig. 3)
as from redistributing households, based on results of this analysis.
4.3. Impact of city size on energy use
The case cities used in this study present different options for
accommodating the tens of millions of people moving from rural
areas to cities as part a Chinese government plan to increase ur-
banisation to 60% by 2020 (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare
of Japan, 2014). This population could be concentrated in big cities
with many high-rise buildings or spread over small cities with
fewer high-rises. The percentage of households that need on-site
pumping would be higher in the first scenario. This section of the
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Fig. 3. Ideal minimum pressure and associated energy savings for 36 case cities with average pressure 30 m or greater that benefit from pressure reduction.

Fig. 4. Ideal minimum pressure and associated operational electricity savings for 27 case cities with an initial average pressure <30 m.

analysis considers the difference in energy use for water distribu-
tion in these two scenarios.
Correlation analysis for the 82 cities suggests energy use for
distribution tends to increase with population size and high-rise
living. There is a moderate correlation between the percentage of
households living in high-rise buildings and energy use per capita
and a weak-to-moderate correlation between population size and
per capita energy use for distribution. The Pearson correlation co-
efficients were 0.389 for per capita energy use for distribution and
percentage of households living in buildings 10 storeys or over,
0.429 for per capita energy use for distribution and percentage of
households living in buildings 7 storeys or over, and 0.258 for per
capita energy use for distribution and population size.
Table 2 shows three pairs of cities in three provinces of China
that represent different city types for accommodating population
from rural areas. In each case, one city has a higher percentage of
households living in high-rise buildings and a larger population
than the other city. Total energy use for distribution (E) was divided

10
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Fig. 5. Ideal minimum pressure and associated energy savings for 19 cities with original average pressure of 30 m or greater that do not benefit from pressure reduction.

Fig. 6. Energy savings as a percentage of energy used for water distribution for various scenarios in Guangzhou. Scenarios: 1) 50% of households in >9 storey buildings were instead
housed in 4e6 storey buildings; 2) 100% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 4e6 storey buildings; 3) 50% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 7e9
storey buildings; 4) 100% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 7e9 storey buildings; 5) 50% of households in >6 storey buildings were housed in 4e6 storey
buildings; 6) 50% of households in >6 storey buildings were housed in 5 storey buildings.

by the urban population provided in the Yearbook (Popurb) to
calculate total energy use for distribution per capita.
Analysis of Table 2 suggests that cities with larger populations
and a greater percentage of households living in high-rise buildings
provide a less energy-efficient option for accommodating new
residents in terms of water distribution than smaller cities with
fewer high-rise buildings. For example, the northern Chinese city of
Lanzhou has a population of 2.3 million and 46% of households live
in buildings of 7 storeys or greater, whereas Zhangye e in the same
province e has a population of 200,000 and 6% live in buildings of 7
storeys or greater. Based on a comparison of energy use for water
distribution in these two cities, accommodating 2.3 million people
in a city like Lanzhou would use three times more energy than if
this population were accommodated in numerous cities like
Zhangye. In another example provided in Table 2, Guangzhou has a
population of 7.6 million and 18% live in buildings of 10 storeys or
over, whereas Yangchun has a population of 220,000 and almost no
households live in buildings of 10 storeys or over. Both cities are in
11
southern Guangdong province. Accommodating 7.7 million in a city
like Guangzhou could use four times more energy for water dis-
tribution than if this population were accommodated in numerous
smaller cities of the size of Yangchun with fewer high-rise
buildings.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis
This section discusses the sensitivity of energy savings or cost to
changes in the independent variables used in the study’s proposed
methodology. The sensitivity analysis involved calculating the en-
ergy saving or cost associated with a 4 m reduction in minimum
and average pressure for all case cities and assessing the effect on
this value of varying each variable in the methodology by 10%. The
average change in energy saving and cost across all 82 cities is
recorded for each variable in Table 3.
Change in energy use is most sensitive to change in average
pressure (P0). A 10% increase in the average pressure causes an
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Fig. 7. Energy savings as a percentage of energy used for water distribution for various scenarios in Guilin. Scenarios: 1) 50% of households in >9 storey buildings were instead
housed in 4e6 storey buildings; 2) 100% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 4e6 storey buildings; 3) 50% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 7e9
storey buildings; 4) 100% of households in >9 storey buildings were housed in 7e9 storey buildings; 5) 50% of households in >6 storey buildings were housed in 4e6 storey
buildings; 6) 50% of households in >6 storey buildings were housed in 6 storey buildings.

Table 2
Energy use for low-rise and high-rise cities of different populations within the same province.

Population Total energy use for water distribution per Percentage of households in buildings 10 Percentage of households in buildings 7
(people) capita (kWh/cap) storeys or over (%) storeys or over (%)

Yangchun 220,000 9 0 15
Guangzhou 7,664,900 39 18 48
Nanning 1,965,700 30 10 36
Guigang 380,000 13 1 8
Lanzhou 2,300,100 21 11 46
Zhangye 200,000 7 0 6

average 115% change in the energy savings or cost. Energy lost
through leakage and energy used for centralised distribution are
both calculated using average pressure, meaning a small change in
the latter affects both of these components.
A 10% change in volume supplied (V0) affects energy for cen-
tralised distribution, which leads to an average 64% change in total
energy saving or cost. A 10% change in electricity use for distribu-
tion (Ed,per metre) has the same effect.
Change in energy use is also sensitive to changes in per capita
water use (Vper person), household size (PopH), electricity use by BPBT
systems (Ebreak,per metre) and the number of households in buildings
of 4e6 storeys (H4-6) and 7-9 storeys (H7-9), which all impact energy
for high-rise pumping. A 10% change in H2-3 and H4-6 causes more
than a 30% change in total energy saving or cost. The same change
in Vper person or PopH or Ebreak,per metre alters the final result by over
70%. By contrast, a 10% increase in electricity use by EPB systems
(Epres,per metre) only causes a 13% change in the final result. This is
because EPB systems were assumed to make up only 25% of all
high-rise pumping systems, compared to 75% for BPBT systems (see
Equation (6)).
The implication of this analysis is that accurate calculation or
estimation of P0, Vper person, PopH, Ebreak,per metre, V0, Ed,per metre, H4-6
and H7-9 is important because these variables have the greatest
impact on change in energy of all independent variables used in
this study.
5. Limitations and disadvantages
A major benefit of the methodology described in this study is
that it allows cities to reduce energy use for water distribution by
identifying optimal water pressure.
There are some disadvantages associated with pressure reduc-
tion. Firstly, more buildings will require on-site pumping systems,
the installation of which requires energy and materials. Secondly,
reducing minimum pressure in the water distribution system to
10 m could compromise the readiness of fire hydrants. The mini-
mum pressure allowed for fire-fighting in China is 10 m. Thirdly, an
increase in on-site pumping could lead to water quality problems if
care is not taken to keep pumping systems clean. This risk is
greatest for break tank systems (e.g. BPBT systems), which store
water at atmospheric pressure. The risk can be reduced if break
tanks are cleaned regularly or if pressurised tanks are used (i.e. EPB
systems). Fourth, a reduction in pressure within the centralised
distribution system could lead to consumer dissatisfaction if high-
rise pumping systems are not installed where required.
A general disadvantage of the methodology is that suggestions
based on theoretical calculations could unexpectedly lead to an
increase in energy use for water distribution in reality. This risk can
be reduced by allowing for a margin of error when using the
methodology in decision-making.
It should be noted that the percentage of cities with average
pressure 30 m or above is greater for this study than for China as a
whole. Around half of all Chinese cities maintain an average pres-
sure of 30 m or over, as shown in Fig. 8, compared to 67% of the case

12
K. Smith and S. Liu Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463

Table 3
Changes in energy saving or cost associated with a 10% change in independent variables.

Variable Average absolute change in result Standard Minimum change Maximum change
(%) deviation (%) (%)

Electricity use by entirely pressurised booster systems (Epres,per metre) 13 48 0 422

Electricity use by booster pump and break tank systems (Ebreak,per metre) 71 48 0 2280
Average water distribution system pressure (P0) 115 504 0 4531
Volume supplied by treatment plants (V0) 64 246 0 2188
Electricity use for distribution (Ed,per metre) 64 246 0 2188
Leakage and loss (%) 28 90 0 700
Daily per capita water use (Vper person) 84 310 2 2701
Household size (PopH) 84 310 2 2701
Number of households in buildings of 4e6 storeys (H4-6) 37 109 1 954
Number of households in buildings of 7e9 storeys (H7-9) 33 138 0 1139
Number of households in buildings of 10 or more storeys ðH10 ) 14 70 0 609
Leakage coefficient (N1) 26 84 0 643
Ratio of total buildings covered by booster pump and break tank system 32 116 1 1015
(rbreak)
Total electricity use for water supply before (Es) 22 71 0 523

cities used in this study. Fig. 8 does not include any cities with
average pressure of >100 m or <10 m or with invalid data (no data,
non-numerical data, or a pressure range instead of a single value).
A limitation related to the analysis of building height distribu-
tion is that it does not consider increase in land footprint or in-
dicators other than electricity use for water distribution. If a large
percentage of people living in high-rises were instead housed in
buildings with fewer storeys, the city’s land footprint would in-
crease. Note that scenarios considered in Figs. 6 and 7 do not sug-
gest locating households in buildings of fewer than 4 storeys. Also,
if the city’s population density is reduced, transport-related
greenhouse gas emissions could increase. The methodology and
analysis presented in this paper focus on energy use for water
distribution. This information would need to be considered in
conjunction with multiple criteria.
Other key limitations of the study include (1) the study assumes
all water consumption in high-rise buildings is by households living
in residential buildings; (2) the maximum height of buildings is
assumed to be 10 storeys; (3) the methodology does not account for
the energy embedded in extra high-rise pumping systems that will
be required when minimum pressure is reduced.
6. Implications
The main implications of results for optimising pressure are as
follows. First, there is significant scope for reducing energy use for
water distribution by reducing average and minimum pressure, as
shown by the results presented in Figs. 3 and 4. Second, numerous
cities in China are already setting minimum pressure below the
nationally recommended value of 28 m, as shown by the percent-
age of cities with minimum pressure below 30 m in Fig. 8. Third,
cities with a lower percentage of households in high-rise buildings
may be more likely to benefit from lowering pressure. Fourth,
greater energy savings are possible in cities where ideal minimum
pressure is lower.
The implications of results for optimising building height dis-
tribution are that building height has an impact on energy use for
water distribution and the impact is greater in a city with a large
percentage of households living in high-rise buildings.
Further analysis of results suggests that energy use for distri-
bution tends to increase with population size and high-rise living,
and that cities with larger populations and a greater percentage of
households living in high-rise buildings may provide a less energy-
efficient option for accommodating new population.
Calculation of energy savings using this paper’s methodology
will be impacted by the quality of data available, with average

Fig. 8. Percentage of cities for which annual average pressure is 30 m or over. Data obtained from China’s Urban Water Supply Yearbooks 2002e2014 (excluding 2012 Yearbook).

13
K. Smith and S. Liu
operating pressure, per capita water use and average household
size being among the variables with the greatest impact according
to sensitivity analysis.
7. Conclusion
In this study, a method to calculate and optimise the full energy
footprint of a city’s water distribution system was developed and
applied to 82 case cities in China. The methodology incorporated
electricity use for centralised distribution, energy lost through
leakage and energy for high-rise pumping and was used to assess
how adjustments in minimum and average pressure, and the dis-
tribution of households within buildings of different heights, can
affect the energy footprint of water distribution within a city.
The study aimed to answer the question of whether China’s
minimum regulation should be country-wide or different for each
city and provide a way in which urban planners, government and
water companies in general can reduce energy used for water
distribution within big cities. The study finds:
 China’s current recommended minimum pressure of 28 m does
not optimise electricity use for distribution in 63 of the 82 case
cities used in this study. Energy savings of up to 28% were
possible in these cities when pressure was reduced. Around half
of all cities in China already report average annual pressure of
29 m or below, suggesting many cities do not currently adhere to
the existing regulation. The optimisation methodology showed
that cities with average pressure below 30 m could still benefit
from reducing pressure further. Correlation analysis for the 82
case cities showed cities with a lower percentage of households
living in high-rise buildings are more likely to benefit from
lower pressures.
 Scenario analysis for a city where 48% of households live in
buildings of 7 storeys or over showed that energy for water
distribution could be reduced by >10% if 50% of these house-
holds were instead living in low-rise buildings. Energy savings
were much less significant when similar scenarios were tested
on a city with few high-rise buildings.
 Cities with larger populations and a greater percentage of
households living in high-rise buildings provide a less energy-
efficient option for accommodating new population than
smaller cities with fewer high-rise buildings. Correlation anal-
ysis for the 82 cities showed that energy use for distribution
tended to increase with population size and high-rise living.
Limitations of the study include that it focuses solely on elec-
tricity used for distribution and excludes land footprint and
embedded energy. All high-rise water consumption is assumed to
be in residential high-rises of maximum 10 storeys.
The study findings show that pressure, building height distri-
bution and population size all have an impact on energy for water
supply. In particular, there is significant scope for reducing energy
use for water distribution by reducing average and minimum
pressure, particularly in cities where a lower percentage of
households live in high-rise buildings. For the case of China, a city-
specific minimum pressure recommendation is more suitable than
the existing nationwide recommendation.
8. Future research
The research presented in this study can be expanded in the
following ways.
Firstly, the methodology presented in this thesis should be
expanded in the future to cover the embedded energy associated
with installation and maintenance of extra high-rise pumping
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
systems in scenarios where water distribution system pressure is
reduced. Currently, the study only considers the operational elec-
tricity use associated with high-rise pumping systems.
Secondly, actual pressure and flow data can be collected from a
few representative cities to check the effect of average pressure
calculation on the results of the methodology. The city-level
average operating pressure used in this thesis was calculated by
the Yearbook according to SP/N (i.e. the sum of all pressure read-
ings divided by the total number of locations and times at which
these readings were taken), which may not be as accurate as
calculating the weighted average. The two different pressure
calculation methods should be applied to actual data to determine
the effect on energy savings potential.
Thirdly, it would be valuable to provide a series of reference
minimum and average pressure values for cities with different
characteristics. It may be possible to categorise cities according to
average building height and provide a pressure recommendation
by category, rather than just by city.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kate Smith: Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Shuming Liu:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Funding acquisi-
tion, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number 5187090620); the National Key
Research and Development Program of China for International
Science & Innovation Cooperation Major Project between Govern-
ments [2016YFE0118800]; and the Major Science and Technology
Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment
[2017ZX07201002].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125463.
References
Aguas do Porto. n.d. Regulamento geral dos sistemas públicos e prediais de dis-
gua e de drenagem de a
tribuiçaeo de a guas residuais. http://www.aguasdoporto.
pt/assets/misc/img/Regulamentos/Regulamento_Geral.pdf. (Accessed 20 June
2016).
Altherr, L.C., Leise, P., Pfetsch, M.E., Schmitt, A., 2019. Resilient layout, design and
operation of energy-efficient water distribution networks for high-rise build-
ings using MINLP. Optim. Eng. 20, 605e645.
American Water Works Association, 2009. Rican water works association. Denver,
CO.
Associaçaeo Brasileira de Normas Te cnicas, 1994. NBR 12218 Project of Water Dis-
tribution Network for Public Supply. Associaçaeo Brasileira de Normas Te cnicas,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Cheng, C.L., 2002. Study of the inter-relationship between water use and energy
conservation for a building. Energy Build. 34 (3), 261e266.
Cheung, C.T., Mui, K.W., Wong, L.T., 2013. Energy efficiency of elevated water supply
tanks for high-rise buildings. Appl. Energy 103, 685e691.
Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2017. Impacts of neighborhood densifi-
cation on water-energy-carbon nexus: investigating water distribution and
residential landscaping system. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 786e795.
China Urban Water Association, 2011. Urban water supply Yearbook. https://www.
yearbookchina.com/navibooklist-n3019080615-1.html.
K. Smith and S. Liu
Deb, A.K., Hasit, Y.J., Grablutz, F.M., 1995. Distribution system performance evalu-
ation. CO. American Water Works Association, Denver.
Du, J., Yang, H., Shen, Z., Chen, J., 2017. Micro hydro power generation from water
supply system in high rise buildings using pump as turbines. Energy 137,
431e440.
Economic Regulation Authority of Western Australia, 2011. Water Corporation
Operating Licence 32. Economic Regulation Authority of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council, 2003. Water
quality in distribution systems: a best practice by the national guide to sus-
tainable municipal infrastructure. Feder. Can. Municipal. Natl. Res. Counc.
(Canada) https://WaterQualityinDistributionSystems(fcm.ca).
Ghorbanian, V., Karney, B., Guo, Y., 2016. Pressure standards in water distribution
systems: reflection on current practice with consideration of some unresolved
issues, 142 (8), 04016023.
Guan, X., 2013. Analysis of the relationship between cost and water supply volume
for water treatment plants. Money Chin. 10, 73. &124.
Hamada, M., 2014. Critical Urban Infrastructure Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, 2014. Sydney
Water Corporation Operating Licence 2015-2020. Independent Pricing and
Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Lambert, A., 2001. What Do We Know about Pressure: Leakage Relationships in
Distribution Systems?, IWA Conference on System Approach to Leakage Control
and Water Distribution Systems Management. Brno, Czech Republic.
Leise, P., Altherr, L.C., 2019. Optimizing the design and control of decentralized
water supply systems e a case-study of a hotel building. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Eng.
Opt. 1241e1252.
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and Manila Water Company, 1997.
Concession agreement. Metropolitan Waterworks and sewerage system and
Manila water Company. Manila.
Ministry of Agriculture of Czech Republic, 2001. Ministry of agriculture prague.
Decree no. 428/2001.
Ministry of Construction, 2006. Code for design of outdoor water supply engi-
neering GB50013-2006. People’s Republic of China. Shanghai.
Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare of Japan, 2014. Determination of water
supply system. http://kyuusuidb.mhlw.go.jp/tec/kyusuidb/kyusui/sys2-2.htm.
(Accessed 1 June 2016).
Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, 2016. Standard for water loss
control and assessment of urban water distribution system CJJ 92-2016 People’s
Republic of China. Beijing.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development and General Administration of
Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine, 2016. Code for Urban Water
Supply Engineering Planning GB 50282-2016. China Building Industry Press,
Beijing.
Muller, T.M., Leise, P., Lorenz, I.-S., Altherr, L.C., Pelz, P.F., 2020. Optimization and
validation of pumping system design and operation for water supply in high-
rise buildings. Optim. Eng.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2010. Tabulation on the Population Census of the
People’s Republic of China. China Statistics Press, Beijing.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2016. China Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press,
Beijing.
Oficina de Vivienda de Madrid, 2008. Codigo tecnico de la edificacion documento
basico HS Salubridad. Oficina de Vivienda. Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid.
Ofwat, 2008. The guaranteed standards scheme (GSS). Water services regulation
authority (Ofwat), Birmingham, UK.
Ofwat, 2010. Playing our part e reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the water
and sewerage sectors. https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/
prs_inf_emissionssup.pdf.
Pan, X.Z., Zhao, Q.G., Chen, J., Liang, Y., Sun, B., 2008. Analyzing the variation of
building density using high spatial resolution satellite images: the example of
Shanghai City. Sens. Basel 8 (4), 2541e2550.
People’s Republic of China, 2003. Code for design of building water supply and
drainage GB 50015e52003. People’s Republic of China, Beijing.
Pinto, A., Afonso, A.S., Santos, A.n.S., Pimentel-Rodrigues, C., Rodrigues, F, 2017.
Nexus water energy for hotel sector efficiency. 6th Int. Conf. Appl. Energy -
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 288 (2021) 125463
ICAE2014 111, 215e225.
Rothausen, S.G.S.A., Conway, D., 2011. Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in
the water sector. Nat. Clim. Change 1 (4), 210e219.
Schwaller, J., van Zyl, J., 2015. Modeling the pressure-leakage response of water
distribution systems based on individual leak behavior. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 141(5), 04014089.
Smith, K., Liu, S., 2019. Reducing energy for urban water and wastewater: prospects
for China. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Smith, K., Liu, S., Liu, Y., Guo, S., 2018a. Can China reduce energy for water? A review
of energy for urban water supply and wastewater treatment and suggestions for
change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 41e58.
Smith, K., Liu, S., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, Y., 2017. Reducing energy use for water supply to
China’s high-rises. Energy Build. 135, 119e127.
Smith, K., Liu, Y., Liu, S., 2019. Urban drinking water challenges and solutions: en-
ergy nexus, in: urban water management for future cities: technical and
institutional aspects from Chinese and German perspective, in. In: Koester, S.,
Moritz, R., Zuo, J. (Eds.), Urban Drinking Water Challenges and Solutions: En-
ergy Nexus, in: Urban Water Management for Future Cities: Technical and
Institutional Aspects from Chinese and German Perspective. Springer, Basel.
Smith, K., Liu, Y., Wang, T., Liu, S., Liu, Y., 2018b. City layout: a key to reducing energy
use for water supply. Resources,. Conserv. Recycl. 138, 229e230.
South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2005. Guidelines for
Human Settlement Planning and Design. Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Sturm, R., Gasner, K., Andrews, L., 2015. Water audits in the United States: a review
of water losses and data validity. Water research foundation and United States
environmental protection agency. San Francisco, CA.
Superintendent of Sanitary Services of Chile, 2016. Pressure of potable water. http://
www.siss.gob.cl/577/w3-article-3841.html. (Accessed 20 June 2016).
Thornton, J., Lambert, A., 2005. Progress in Practical Prediction of Pressure:leakage,
Pressure:burst Frequency and Pressure:consumption Relationships. Pro-
ceedings of IWA Special Conference ’Leakage 2005’, Halifax, Canada.
Tzatchkov, V., Alcocer Yamanaka, V., Bourguett Ortiz, V., Arreguin Cortes, F., 2014.
Avances en la hidra ulica de redes de distribucio  n de agua potable. Mexican
Institute of Water Technology. Mexico City.
Vewin, 2018. Dutch drinking water statistics 2017: from source to tap. https://www.
vewin.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publicaties/Cijfers/Drinkwaterstatistieken-
2017-EN.pdf.
Walski, T., Bezts, W., Emanuel, P., Weir, M., Whitman, B., 2006. Modeling leakage
reduction through pressure control. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 98 (4), 147e155.
Wanjiru, E.M., Zhang, L., Xia, X., 2016. Model predictive control strategy of energy-
water management in urban households. Appl. Energy 179, 821e831.
Wong, L.T., Mui, K.W., Cheung, C.T., 2012. Minimum Pumping Energy of Tree-Shaped
Water Supply Networks for Probabilistic Demands in Built Environment, Pro-
ceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress &
Exposition IMECE2012. Texas, Houston.
Wong, L.T., Mui, K.W., Lau, C.P., Zhou, Y., 2014. Pump efficiency of water supply
systems in buildings of Hong Kong. 6th Int. Conf. Appl. Energy - ICAE2014 61,
335e338.
Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Xia, J., 2017. Energy performance analysis of an integrated
distributed variable-frequency pump and water storage system for district
cooling systems. Appl. Sci. 7, 1139e1153.
Zhang, Z., 2014. Analysis and control of operation costs for Xiamen city wastewater
treatment plants. N. Econ. 20, 112e113.
Zhao, J., Xie, X., Liu, R., Sun, Y., Wu, M., Gu, J., 2018. Water and energy saving po-
tential by adopting pressure-reducing measures in high-rise building: a case
analysis. Build. Serv. Eng. Technol. 1e13, 0.
Zhao, S., Liu, Y., Liang, S., Wang, C., Smith, K., Jia, N., Arora, M., 2020. Effects of urban
forms on energy consumption of water supply in China. J. Clean. Prod. 253,
119960.
Zhou, H., 2014. High-rise Residential Building Energy Analysis in Shanghai, China.
Architecture Texas A&M University.
Zhou, Y.C., Zhang, B., Wang, H.K., Bi, J., 2013. Drops of energy: conserving urban
water to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (19),
10753e10761.