ELSEVIER

Analysis of water distribution systems using a

perturbation method
H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab
Faculty of Engineering

and Architecture,

American

University

of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

The analysis of a water distribution network requires the solution of a set of nonlinear equations. The current
methods are all iterative and require a good initial estimate to reach the solution quickly without any
convergence problems. In this study a perturbation expansion is applied to the set of nonlinear equations to
obtain a series of linear equations that can be solved easily using matrix methods. The advantage of the
proposed approach is that the solution is obtained directly without iterations, initial estimates, and issues of
convergence. The method of solution is simple and straightforward to implement because it requires only one
matrix inversion and four matrix multiplications. Hence the solution process is fast and efficient, which could
prove useful in the optimization of water distribution systems wherein the network is solved for every trial set
of design parameters. The solution is expressed in an explicit fashion which might be of use for further
mathematical manipulation and implementation in an optimization algorithm. The method has been tested on
various networks and the results obtained show a relatively high degree of accuracy.
Keywords: pipe networks, water distribution systems, perturbation solution, analytical method

1. Introduction

Water distribution network analysis is an important problem in civil engineering. It has gained more importance in
recent years since the optimization
of water distribution
networks has become a focus of current research. The
design of an optimal water distribution system involves an
extensive simulation of the flow in the system for every
trial set of design parameters. An additional concern has
been the modeling of water quality in a distribution system
whose solution also requires an efficient method of pipe
network analysis. Most of the current methods used in the
analysis of water distribution networks are iterative since
the system of equations is nonlinear.
An explicit and
efficient method is therefore beneficial.
The basic hydraulic equations have been expressed in
two principal fashions: either in terms of the unknown
flow rates or in terms of the unknown nodal heads. The
flow equations are expressed in terms of the flow rates in
the links and consist of nonlinear energy equations and
linear continuity equations. The head equations are formed
of nonlinear continuity equations expressing the flow rates
in the links as a function of the nodal heads. Each of them
is a set of nonlinear algebraic equations that cannot be

Address reprint requests to Dr. H. A. Basha at the Faculty of Engineering

and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Received 31 January

1995; revised 6 July 1995; accepted

Appl. Math. Modelling 1996, Vol. 20, April

0 1996 by Elsevier Science Inc.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

16 August 1995

solved directly. The current approaches are mostly iterative

and the convergence of the solution depends significantly
on the initial estimate.
There are basically four methods of solution: Hardy
Cross, Newton-Raphson,
linearization, and numerical minimization. The Hardy Cross method consists of adjusting
the flows along each loop in a consecutive manner such
that the energy equations are satisfied within a certain
error limit. The method depends on the initial estimate of
flows and it suffers from slow convergence. The NewtonRaphson method2x3 consists of adjusting the flows or heads
simultaneously
along all the loops; it uses simultaneous
corrections instead of local or individual corrections as in
the Hardy Cross technique. Although the simultaneous
corrections
have improved convergence
in simple networks, the Newton-Raphson
techniques depend highly on
the initial guess of the solution. The further the initial
estimate is from the exact solution the more the convergence problems are experienced. Additional convergence
problems have been encountered in the nodal subdomain
(head equations) if a pipe in the network has a low value
of frictional resistance resulting from a large diameter
and/or
a short length. In such a case the head loss
between the two junctions is small and the nodal heads are
close to each other which results in an ill-conditioned
matrix. Recently a hybrid element formulation4 has been
proposed to overcome such a problem.
The linear theory method5 has been applied to the flow
equations and consists of transforming the nonlinear term
in the energy equation into a linear one. The method

0307-904X/96/$15.00
SSDlO307-904X(95)00122-0

Analysis

of water

converges in a small number of iterations as compared

with the Newton-Raphson
method, but it uses a larger
matrix and sometimes suffers from oscillation around the
exact solution.6 The linear theory method was also developed for the head equations
but it has proven to be
unreliable in certain cases.
Todini and Pilati used the concept of minimizing
an
objective function to formulate a system of equations in
terms of the flow rates and the nodal heads. The system
formed of partly linear and partly nonlinear equations is
solved using the Newton-Raphson
method to find simultaneously the unknown flow rates in the pipes and the heads
at the nodes. There are also other methods of solution that
have been published in related fields.lO~
Most of these methods depend on an initial estimate of
the flows or the heads and some suffer from slow convergence or failure as has been tabulated by Wood and
Rayes.* The proposed method follows an analytical approach rather than a numerical one. It consists of solving
the original nonlinear equation in an approximative fashion
using a perturbation
expansion. The advantages of the
method are that the solution is obtained in a straightforward manner without any iterations, initial estimate, and
convergence problems. It just involves the determination
and summation of the terms of the perturbation series.

2. Perturbation

distribution

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

mainly three relationships

as
Hazen-Williams

that are expressed

0.8491r C HW D2.h3
=F

x=-

LO.54

in S.I. units

(4)

1.85

Darcy-Weisbach
1

x=-

(5)

2
Manning
D8/3

a=---

xc-

453 n6

(6)

Substituting equation (3) into equation (1) and expressing

equation (1) for every node, we obtain a set of nonlinear
equations in terms of the head losses which are coupled
with the linear equations derived from equation (2) for
every loop. An approximate solution of the system of
nonlinear equations can be obtained using a perturbation
technique called the delta expansion.
The technique requires the replacement of the exponent x by S + 1 where
6 is the perturbation parameter. The perturbation approach
then consists of expanding the head loss in powers of 6
and determining analytically the terms of the series.
Expressing the head loss in the form of a perturbation
series in powers of 6

solution
h=ho+h,S+h262+h3S3+0(S4)

The basic hydraulic equations describing the flow in a

water distribution system are derived from the principles
of mass and energy conservation.
The mass continuity
equation can be written for each node, and the energy
conservation equation can be written for any path or loop.
A network has n, links, nj junction nodes, nr fixed-grade
nodes, and 1 independent closed loops. At the nj junction
nodes, the sum of the flows in each connected pipe must
be equal to the consumption
C(Qi-Q,,)=Cj

.i=l,2,...,nj

(1)

6=x-

hX=hhs=hexp(6

;h=AH

k=l,

2,...,1+n,-1

(2)

In h)=h,+(h,+ho

ho

h, + h, + h, In ho + yln2

In ho)6
h,

a2
I

+ h3+h2+$+(hI+h2)
0
I
+:ln2

where Cj is the consumption or demand at junction node j,

positive for outflow and negative for inflow. The energy
equation states that the sum of the head losses and gains
along a flow path must be equal to the difference of the
end nodal heads AH. In particular, the sum of the head
losses and gains around a closed loop must be equal to
zero since AH = 0:

(7)

we obtain

In ho

ho+ :ln

where, in deriving
were used

equation
2

(8)

ho S3+0(S4)

(8), the following

z3

expansions

z4

el=l+r+s+31+z+...

z2

z3

z4

ln(l+z)=z-1+3_Qf

...

I.2 <I
(10)

The discharge
Q=cxhx

is related to the head loss through

The flow in the pipe is therefore,

(81,
(3)

where x varies between 0.5 and 0.54 depending on the

head loss equation used, and cy is function of the length L,
the diameter D, and the roughness in the pipe. There are

Q=aho+a[hI+hO

from equations

In h,]S
h0

h, + h, + h, In ho + Tln2

Appl. Math. Modelling,

(3) and

ho a2
I

1996, Vol. 20, April

291

Analysis

of water distribution

+a

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

h:

h,+h2+2h+(h,+h2)

+ ;ln

Equation (11) expresses

of the various orders of
Pipe fittings can also
by expressing the minor

(11)

ho + ;Ln3

(8) wherein the cp parameter in the expansion

with the zeroth-order term h,,, we obtain

In ho

h, a3 + O( a4)

the discharge in the pipe in terms

the head losses.
be included in the above analysis
losses as

Q, = a,h;

(12)
where (Y, is a function of the minor loss coefficient k,
which depends on the type of fittings such as valves or
bends. Expanding equation (12) as in equation (8), we
calculate that the discharge through the fitting is

Q, = q,$,o + ~,h,,~ +h,o ln k,ol~+

s[hrn~

Qp = -b,

+ a,( $0

is combined

+ c,)

+ a,[

$1 + (h,o

+4

$2 + $1 + h,, ln(h,o

+OS(h,,+c,)

ln(h,o

+ c,)

+ c,)] 8
+ c,>

ln2(h,o+c,)]62+

...
(18)

Equation (18) expresses the pump discharge as a function

of the different perturbation
orders of the pump head
h,,, h,,, . . . etc.
Substituting
equations (ll),
(13), and (18) into the
continuity equation (1) and collecting same powers of S
we obtain a sequence of systems of linear algebraic equations. Each system consists of nj continuity equations and
1 + nf - 1 energy equations obtained from equation (2)
Zeroth order:

EMhol=
kl[hol=

+E,l
+[Affl

(19)

First order:
+ h,,

+ h,,

In h,,

+ OSh,,

ln2 h,,]

+ ...

6
(13)

For a system that includes a pump, an additional equation

that relates the head change across the pump to the discharge can be expressed as a second-order pump-characteristic curve124

h, = pQ2 + wQ + w2

(14)

where p, q, and r are the coefficients of the quadratic

curve representing the actual operation for a pump operating at full speed and 77 is the ratio of the rotational speed
at any time to the rotational speed used to determine the
coefficients (v= 1 for constant-speed operation). Equation
(14) can be fitted to actual operating data using at least
three points from a pump test relating the discharge to the
head differential across the pump. It can be written in a
more suitable form for perturbation
analysis using the
following transformationr4
G=Q+$

and substituting

(15)
into equation

(14) to get

q2v2
h, =pG2 + rq2 - 4P
Using equations
expressed as

(16)

(15) and (16), the pump discharge

Q = Qr, = u,( h, + cP), - b,

xc-

can be

1
2

(17)

where up = I/ 6,
b, = OSvq/p,
and cp =pb,f - rq2.
Expressing h, as a perturbation series and using equation

292

Appl. Math. Modelling,

1996, Vol. 20, April

[A,l[hrl=

Mhl

-[oh,

ln hoI

= + WI

(20)

Second order:
[ A,][ h2] = - [ cr(h, + h, In h, + OSh,
L4Jh21

= + PI

ln2 h,,)]
(21)

Third order:
[A,][h,]=

[(

4
+ yin

MM

h:

cx hZ+~+hlpnho+h2

= + WI

In ho

0
h0

ho + dln3

ho

(22)

where the coefficient matrix [A,] is a sparse matrix that

corresponds to the continuity equations and whose elements depend on the network topology and the characteristics of the links [ aI, rx2,. . . , an,], while [A,] is a matrix
whose elements are zeros and ones representing the energy
equations. These two matrices are coupled together to
solve for the vector [ho] = [ho 1 ho 2.. . ho n ] which consists of all the n, unknown zerdth-order head losses in the
network links. The systems (19)-(22)
are solved recursively whereby at each step the right-hand side is known
from previous steps; the first-order solution is a function of
the zeroth-order one, and the second-order
solution depends on [ho] and [h,]. The zeroth-order solution [ho1 is
the linear solution and the higher order terms can be
considered as refinements to the solution. Note that in the
above set of systems (19)-(22),
only the right-hand side
vector is different for every order while the coefficient
matrix remains unaltered. Therefore, once the inverse matrix is determined, the solutions for the different orders can
be evaluated by a simple matrix product thereby reducing
the computational time.

Analysis

of water distribution

Since quadratic functions are used in the case of pumps

and minor losses, a similar exponent must be used for the
pipe friction formula because the perturbation parameter
must be the same for all the nonlinear terms. Therefore
either the Darcy-Weisbachs
equation or the Mannings
equation can be used since it has a similar exponent. This
is not a severe limitation since all three formulas (4)-(6)
are commonly used. Switching from one head loss equation to another does not compromise the accuracy because
the three formulations are equivalent especially since each
equation resorts to a roughness coefficient that must be
calibrated and whose value is often uncertain. Note that in
case only minor losses are present, the Hazen-Williams
equation can still be used by implementing
the equivalent
pipe length approach which transforms the minor loss
associated with any valve into an equivalent length of a
fictitious pipe to be added to the system.
The procedure for including pressure regulating or sustaining valves can be mathematically
accommodated
by
the perturbation
method since they generally follow the
same discharge head relationship
as equation (12). The
modeling approach follows the one presented by Jeppson
and Davis. The analysis of the pipe network must first
determine whether the pressure reducing valve is in the
normal mode of operation which consists of maintaining a
constant downstream
pressure or whether the valve is
inoperative because the upstream pressure is below the
valve setting or whether the valve acts as a check valve
when there is a reverse flow. The linear solution can be
used to determine which case applies. In case the upstream
pressure is below the valve setting, the valve has no effect
and the analysis proceeds as if no valve were present. In
case of normal operation of the valve, the procedure
consists of replacing the pressure regulating valve by an
artificial reservoir with a constant head equal to the pressure setting of the valve and the analysis proceeds as if an
extra reservoir were present. In the case of reverse flow,
the pipe is closed and a zero flow rate is obtained by
assigning a zero head loss to the closed pipe. The reservoir
head then becomes a variable and it is set equal to the head
at the downstream node.
In order to ensure the validity of the logarithmic expansion (10) where I z 1 = 1Sh,/h, + 62h,/h, + . . . 1 must
be less than one, the head loss and the flow rate are
normalized
with respect to some characteristic
values.
Choosing Q, and h * as the normalizing
variables, we
can define the following dimensionless variables
&7;h_

Q+
*
The discharge

(23)

then becomes

(24)
and the perturbation
solution is as-given
by equations
(1_9)-(22) but with h replaced by h, (Y by (Y, [Cl by
[Cl = [C/Q, I and AH by AH/h,.
The normalizing
variables Q * and h, can be taken as the total demand of
the system and the maximum head difference among the
various reservoirs, respectively. In case there is only one

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

reservoir or none, Q * and h * can be set to one. Equations

(23) and (24) have sometimes proven to be instrumental in
assuring the accuracy of the perturbation series in the case
of more than one reservoir in the network system (see
Example II).
The above perturbation solution can be further simplified by expressing the head loss in every link in terms of
the end nodal heads. The resulting system is formed only
of the continuity equations and it results in a matrix that is
smaller in size and nearly symmetric since the system of
head loss equations exceeds the system of head equations
by the number of energy equations If n, - 1. The solution of such a system gives the various orders of the nodal
heads. Note that the right-hand side remains the same as in
the head loss formulation. The flow obtained with the head
equations is exactly the same as with the head loss formulation since both are derived from the same perturbation
expansion. However, the head formulation
requires the
specification of at least one nodal head in order for the
solution not to be ill-conditioned.
In this work, the head
loss formulation has been chosen for ease of presentation
and programming,
noting that the extra computational
effort due to the added energy equations was deemed
negligible.
It should be mentioned
that, unlike the
Newton-Raphson
approach for the head equations, small
values of the head loss do not cause problems in the
proposed head loss formulation as the head loss terms do
not appear in the coefficient matrix.
In summary, the perturbation method reduces the solution procedure to a series of matrix equations (19)--(22)
that can be solved directly using efficient matrix methods
for sparse matrices. Having obtained the various orders of
the head losses, the discharges in the pipes, fittings, and
pumps are then obtained through equations (11) (13), and
(18), respectively.
Starting from a reference head, the
nodal heads can also be determined by adding or subtracting the head loss h as obtained from h = (Q/cx)/.
The
solution process is therefore direct and efficient without
any difficulties of poor initial estimates and convergencerelated problems. It is simple and straightforward to implement as it does not require sophisticated algorithms and
numerical techniques besides matrix inversion and multiplication. The method is also fast since it necessitates only
one matrix inversion and four matrix multiplications;
however, it may not necessarily be the fastest method since
some iterative methods can reach the solution in a very
small number of iterations. Iterative methods involve a
number of matrix operations that are roughly equal to the
number of iterations since every iteration requires the
solution of the nonlinear set of equations. An iterative
method may reach an acceptable solution in three iterations which makes it faster than the perturbation solution
or in five or more iterations which makes it slower.
Obviously the number of iterations depends on the choice
of the initial estimates.

3. Application

and results

The perturbation
solution has been tested on many networks of various sizes, some of which have been presented

Appl. Math. Modelling,

1996, Vol. 20, April

293

Analysis

of water distribution

.lction

Figure 1.

nurnbar

Hydraulic

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

the schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure 1.
The network is supplied from two reservoirs and includes
a pump with specifications shown in Table 1. The steadystate head loss equations include the nonlinear continuity
equations at the junction nodes

network of Example

I.

in the literature, and two are discussed here. The first

example is presented in detail in order to illustrate the
application of the method, while the second example has
been used as a benchmark network in a previous study.
The calculation procedure consists of solving equations
(19)-(22)
in a stepwise fashion. The various orders of
perturbation solutions are then compared with the numerical solution as obtained by the Environmental
Protection
Agency Network (EPANET) software which is based on
the algorithm by Todini and Pilati. The differences between the analytical and numerical solutions, the average
difference and the maximum difference are also tabulated.
The percent average and percent maximum difference is
determined by dividing the difference by the average flow
rate in the system since such a relative measure is more
useful for comparison purposes. The performance of the
method is also assessed by calculating the residual of the
head losses which in principle must be equal to zero for
closed loops. The ratio of the residual head losses to the
absolute ones gives another relative indication of the degree of error in the complete solution. Using the definition
of Wood and Rayes, I2 failure of the method is recorded
when the percent average difference is more than 10% or
when the percent maximum difference is more than 30%.

+ ash; = 0.1

(26)

qh;

= 0.15

(27)

System characteristics

1
2
3
4
5

Diameter
(mm)

Mannings

300
200
250
150
200

250
200
200
200
250

0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010

h, + h, - h, = 0

(29)

H,+h,=H,+h,+h,-h,

(30)

cqh, 1 - qh,

from

2 - cz3h, 3 = 0

Q,

1996,

Vol.

20,

(31)

%h0,3 + czqh, , = 0.15

czIh,, , - a,h, p = apcp -b,
ho,, + ho,, - ho,, = 0
h 0-P

ho,,

ho,, + ho,, = 40

where the first subscript on h denotes the perturbation

order of the head loss term and the second subscript
denotes the link number. The first-order head loss solution
h, is obtained from equation (20):
- azh, z - Y$,,,

= - ( a@,,; ln ho,, - a~ho,,

a&o,3 ln ho,,)

Node

Demand
(I/s)

Head
(m)
10

0
100
150
50

Q,

Q,

Q, - Q,

Q, - Q,

86.26
20.27
65.98
84.02
163.74

85.73
18.77
66.96
83.04
164.27

- 0.69
- 1.39
0.72
- 0.72
0.69
0.82
1.39
0.97
1.66

-0.16
0.11
-0.26
0.26
0.16
0.19
0.26
0.22
0.31

April

equation

(Y2h02-(Yqh04+t(Ygh05=0.1

A
1
2
3
B

= 1 I/s; h, = 1 m: Qavg = 84.08 I/s.

Modelling,

(28)

Upon perturbation
expansion, we obtain
(19) the zeroth-order head loss h,

1
85.57
2
18.88
3
66.70
4
83.30
5
164.43
Average difference
Maximum difference
% average difference
% maximum difference

Math.

= a,( h, + cP) - bP

Flow rates in I/s and absolute error for sample network I

Pipe no.

0,

pump equation

ln ho,,
(32)

data of sample network I

Length
(m)

Table 2.

+ qh;

and the linear energy equations

a&,,

Pipe no.

Appl.

a2h, - qh;

aIht

The first example consists of a simple five-pipe network

taken from Boulos and Wood16 to illustrate the application
of the method. Table 1 lists the network parameters, and

294

(25)

the nonlinear

3.1 Example I

Table 1.

huh; - a2h; - a3h; = 0

Pump data
h,(m)
40
30
22.8

Q(l/S)
0
100
150

Analysis
Table3.
Link no.

of water distribution

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

System characteristicsdataof sample network11

Length
(m)

Diameter
(mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

610
944
762
610
610
457
610
914
762
610
30
61
1524
975
valve
valve

356
356
356
356
356
305
356
356
356
356
203
152
406
305
356
356

17
18

valve
valve

152
356

19

pump

n or km

Nodeno.

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
5
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A
B
C

In ho,,)

a,h,,,

+ c,)

= - [ alho,
x 14h.,

h, 2 + hI.4 -h,,,

11, ho,, - a,(h,,,

+ 41

= 0

h I,P
- hl,l - ht.* + h,,S = 0

Table4.
Link no.

Pump

Head
(m)

h,(m)

0
0
113
113
57
0
57
57
0
0
0
0
0

170.0
165.6
131.9

data
a, (I/s)
0
200
600

3.05
33.53
30.48

10
10

azh,,, - adh,,,+ Q,,,

= - ( Q0,2 ln ho,,- Go,, ln ho,,
+ Qo,s In ho,,)
Y34.3+ qh, 4 = - ( a3h0,3 In ho,, + a4ho,4
- a,h,,,

Demand
(I/s)

and so on for the higher orders. The flow rates in the pipes
are calculated for the different orders from equation (ll),
whereby the zeroth-order is Q, = cxho, the first order is
Q, = ahO + c_x(hl+ h, In h,)S, and so on for Q, and Qa.
Table 2 shows the second and third-order flow rates
alongside their differences with the solution as obtained
from the EPANET solver. We notice that in general the
approximate perturbative method gives reasonably accurate solutions. The maximum difference in the second-order
solution is 1.39 l/s which is further reduced to 0.26 l/s
with the third order. The percent average difference, as

Flow rates in I/sand absoluteerrorsforsample

Q,

1
271.42
2
147.50
3
- 34.50
4
- 0.65
5
57.65
6
95.87
7
- 140.47
8
-112.66
9
258.80
10
123.92
11
- 62.86
12
18.78
13
530.23
14
- 89.14
15
530.23
16
271.42
17
18.78
18
57.65
19
530.23
Averagedifference
Maximum
difference
% averagedifference
% maximum
difference

network II

Q2

Q,

Q,- Q2

Q,-

284.71
156.15
- 43.15
12.30
44.70
98.76
-147.42
-117.61
265.12
128.56
- 65.27
2.94
549.84
- 90.51
549.84
284.71
2.94
44.70
549.84

275.60
150.15
- 37.15
9.43
47.57
97.24
-140.70
-112.49
261.01
125.44
- 55.42
7.33
536.61
- 91.52
536.61
275.60
7.33
47.57
536.61

-13.29
- 8.65
8.65
-12.95
12.95
- 2.89
6.95
4.95
- 6.32
- 4.64
2.41
15.84
-19.61
1.37
-19.61
-13.29
15.84
12.95
-19.61
10.67
19.61
6.05
11.11

- 4.18
- 2.65
2.65
-10.08
10.08
- 1.37
0.23
-0.17
- 2.21
- 1.52
-7.44
11.45
- 6.38
2.38
- 6.38
- 4.18
11.45
10.08
- 6.38
5.33
11.45
3.02
6.49

Qs

0, = 400 I/s;h, = 30 m; Qava =176.5 I/s.

Appl.

Math. Modelling,

1996, Vol. 20, April

295

Analysis

of water distribution

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

4. Concluding

Junctlsn

Figure 2.

nunh.r

Hydraulic

network of Example

II.

with respect to the average flow rate in the

system, is about 1% for Qa and 0.2% for Qa which is
quite a small error. The percent maximum difference for
the third order is only 0.3% of the average flow rate. The
sum of the residual head losses in the pipes around the
loop in the clockwise direction is Z;h = -0.089 m which
is close to zero. In fact, it forms only 0.73% of the sum of
absolute losses _Z 1h 1around the loop. The head difference
between the two reservoirs A and B is 40.045 m as
obtained using Q, and has an error of 0.045 m. Hence, the
third-order solution produces a result with a high degree of
accuracy for this simple network.
calculated

3.2 Example II
The second example is the benchmark network used by
Wood and Rayes* to compare the various iterative methods. It is composed of 14 pipes, three fixed-head reservoirs, four valves, and one pump. The network is shown in
Figure 2, and the system characteristics data are tabulated
in Table 3.
Table 4 compares the second-and third-order perturbation solutions to the EPANET results. The normalizing
variable proved instrumental
in assuring the accuracy of
the solution as the solution of the original problem with
Q .+ = h * = 1 was in error because the condition of equation (10) was not satisfied. The normalizing variables were
chosen as the total demand of the system Q, = 0.4 m3/s
and the maximum head difference among the three reservoirs h, = 30 m. Other values for Q * and h * could have
been used and would have given slightly different flow
rates but with an error of the same order of magnitude.
We see that the largest difference occurs in pipe 12 and
it is, for order 3,6.5% of the average flow rate; whereas the
percent average error is only 3%. The error can be further
reduced by including additional perturbation terms up to
the fifth order. However, the accuracy gained does not
justify the computational effort especially in that the number of terms on the right-hand
side of equation (22)
increases significantly with increasing order. It reaches 11
terms for order 4, 18 terms for order 5, and 30 terms for
order 6. The ratios of Zh, to 2 I h, 1 for the different
loops show that the energy equations are reasonably satisfied in most of the loops using Q3, the maximum error
5.6% being in loop III which includes pipe 12 which also
has the largest error.

296

Appl. Math. Modelling,

1996, Vol. 20, April

remarks

The networks tested show that the perturbation method for

the head loss equations gives solutions of sufficient accuracy with a third-order perturbation expansion, The head
loss equations turn out to give better results than the flow
equations
when similarly
expanded
in a perturbation
series.17 Few terms are needed here since the perturbation
parameter is small (- .50 I 6 I -0.46),
whereas 6 is
higher for the flow equations ranging between 0.85 and 1.0
since x in that case ranges from 1.85 to 2. The smaller
perturbation
parameter causes the perturbation
series to
reach an accurate solution with fewer terms. In principle,
the perturbation
solution can be further improved using
PadC approximants,i
however they have not proven useful
here because the accuracy gained was not worth the extra
effort.
In summary, the third-order solution Q3 can be considered satisfactory for a preliminary design or as part of an
optimization program whereby hundreds of trial runs are
executed to get the optimum set of design parameters. The
perturbation solution is useful by itself or as a very good
initial estimate for the iterative methods if an exact solution is so desired. The proposed method is simple and
straightforward
to implement in that it does not require
sophisticated algorithms and numerical techniques and it
has a comparable computational
time to the current iterative methods. Its main advantage is in its simplicity and
ease of programming while most current numerical methods require fairly sophisticated algorithms and programming skills. This may prove advantageous when a water
distribution network solver is needed as part of a larger
model or program as in optimization
or water quality
modelling.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the University
Board at the American University of Beirut.

Nomenclature
nl
nj
nf

$i
Of
j
L
HA
D
c HW
h
kin

h,
P
4
r

number of links
number of junctions
number of fixed-grade nodes
number of closed loops
flow in
flow out
consumption at junction node j
length of pipe
head loss for reservoir A
diameter
Hazen- Williams roughness coefficient
head loss

minor loss coefficient

the head change across the
coefficient of the quadratic
coefficient of the quadratic
coefficient of the quadratic

pump
curve
curve
curve

Research

Analysis

[A,1
Q,> h,
AH
j
(Y
;
n
6

subscript

of water

expansion parameters of the pump discharge

expansion parameters of the pump discharge
expansion parameters of the pump discharge
coefficient matrix corresponding
to the continuity equation
coefficient matrix corresponding to the energy
equation
normalizing variables
difference in nodal heads
consumption at node j
coefficient of head loss equation
exponent of head loss equation
Darcy-Weisbachs
friction factor
Mannings roughness coefficient
perturbation parameter
O,I@ler of perturbation or link number
coefficient of minor loss equation
flow rate as obtained from EPANET

References
1. Cross, H. Analysis of flow in networks of conduits or conductors.
Bulletin No. 286, University of Illinois, Engineering Experimental
Station, Urbana, IL, 1936
2. Martin, D. W. and Peters G. The application of Newtons method to
network analysis by digital computers. J. fnsf. Wafer Eng. Sci. 1963,
17, 115-129
3. Shamir, U. and Howard, C. D. D. Water distribution systems analysis. J. Hydraul. Dill. Am. Sot. Cio. Eng. 1968, 94(l), 219-234
4. Nogueira, A. C. Steady-state fluid network analysis. J. Hydr. Eng.
ASCE 1993, 119(3), 431-436

distribution

systems:

H. A. Basha and B. G. Kassab

5. Wood, D. J. and Charles, C. 0. A. Hydraulic network analysis using

linear theory. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1972, 98(7), 11571170
6. Nielsen, H. B. An efficient method of analyzing pipe networks, J.
Hydr. Eng. ASCE 1989, 115(2), 139-157
7. Isaacs, L. T. and Mills, K. G. Linear theory methods for pipe
network analysis. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Cb. Eng. 1980, 106(7),
1191-1201
8. Wood, D. J. Discussion of Linear theory methods for pipe network
analysis by I. T. Isaacs and K. G. Mills, J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot.
Cir. Eng. 1981, 107(3), 384-385
9. Todini, E. and Pilati, S. A gradient algorithm for the analysis of pipe
networks. Proceedings of the International/Conference
on Computer
Applications for Water Supply and Distribution, Leicester, UK 1987
of pipe
10. Gomasta, S. K. and Devi, R. Analysis and optimization
networks. Proceedings of the Conference/Engineering
Software, New
Delhi, India, Norsa Publishing House, 1989, pp. 381-389
11. Kiuchi, T. Calculation of steady state flow in pipeline networks by
means of node admittance matrix. Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu,
Lbolume 57, pp. 2784-2790,
1991 (in Japanese)
12. Wood D. .I. and Rayes, A. G. Reliability of algorithms for pipe
network analysis. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1981, 107(10),
1145-1161
13. Bender, C. M., Milton, K. A., Pinsky, S. S. and Simmons, Jr., L. M.
New perturbative approach to nonlinear problems. J. Math. Phys.
1989,30, 1447-1455
14. Jeppson, R. W. and Tavallaee, A. Pumps and reservoirs in networks
by linear theory. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Cit. Eng. 1975, 101(3),
576-580
15. Jeppson, R. W. and Davis, A. L. Pressure reducing valves in pipe
network analyses. J. Hydr. Diu. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng. 1976, 102(7),
987-1001
16. Boulos, P. F. and Wood, D. J. Explicit calculation of pipe-network
parameters. J. Hydr. Eng. ASCE 1990, 116(11), 1329-1344
17. Kassab, 8. G. A non-iterative perturbation approach for nonlinear
water network analysis. M. E. Thesis, American University of Beirut,
Beirut, Lebanon, 1995
18. Bender, C. M. and Orszag, S. A. Advanced Mathematical Methods
for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978

Appl.

Math.

Modelling,

1996, Vol. 20, April

297