ARTICLE IN PRESS

Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988

Modified Lagrangian method for modeling water quality in

distribution systems
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
Received 31 May 2002; received in revised form 19 January 2004; accepted 16 April 2004

Abstract

Previous work has shown that Lagrangian methods are more efficient for modeling the transport of chemicals in a
water distribution system. Two such methods, the Lagrangian Time-Driven Method (TDM) and Event-Driven Method
(EDM) are compared for varying concentration tolerance and computational water quality time step. A new hybrid
method (EDMNET) is developed which improves the accuracy of the Lagrangian methods. All the above methods are
incorporated in an existing hydraulic simulation model. The integrated model is run for different network problems
under varying conditions. The TDM-generated solutions are affected by both concentration tolerance and water quality
time step, whereas EDM solutions are dependent on concentration tolerance. The EDMNET solutions are less sensitive
to variations in these parameters. The threshold solutions are determined for all the methods and compared. The hybrid
method simulates the nodal concentrations accurately with least maximum segmentation of network and reasonable
computational effort as compared to the other Lagrangian methods.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bulk decay; Distribution system; Dynamic modeling; Quality time step; Concentration tolerance; Wall decay; Water
quality

1. Introduction Basically water quality modeling is simulated in a

It is well known that the quality of drinking water can
change within a distribution system. The movement or
lack of movement of water within the distribution
system may have deleterious effects on a once acceptable
supply. These quality changes may be associated with
complex physical, chemical and biological activities that
take place during the transport process. Such activities
can occur either in the bulk water column, the hydraulic
infrastructure, or both, and may be internally or
externally generated [1]. The ability to understand these
reactions and model their impact throughout a distribu-
tion system will assist water suppliers in selecting
improved operational strategies and capital investments
to ensure delivery of safe drinking water [2].
E-mail addresses: gurumunavalli@yahoo.co.in
(G.R. Munavalli), msmk@civil.iisc.ernet.in (M.S. Mohan Kumar).
steady or a dynamic environment. In steady-state
modeling, the external conditions of a distribution
network are constant in time and the nodal concentra-
tions of the constituents that will occur if the system is
allowed to reach equilibrium are determined. These
methods can provide general information on the spatial
distribution of water quality. In dynamic models the
external conditions are temporally varied and the time
varying nodal concentrations of the constituents are
determined. The algorithms developed include steady-
state [3–7] and dynamic [1,8–12] models.
Rossman and Boulos [13] have given a comprehensive
description of dynamic modeling and the existing
numerical solution methods hence a review will not be
repeated here. Instead the treatment given to the
reactions by these methods are presented and also the
advantages and limitations of existing Lagrangian
methods are discussed. In the Time-Driven-Method

0043-1354/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2004.04.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2974 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
Nomenclature
CE external source concentration of constituent
(M/L3)
ci concentration of constituent in pipe i (M/L3)
cnj chlorine concentration at node j (M/L3)
I number of incoming pipes at a node
Is set of links with flows into the tank
Js set of links withdrawing flow from the tank
(TDM) the constituent concentration of a segment is
subjected to reaction at every water quality time step
(Qstep). The Qstep is a computational time step at which
the quality conditions of the entire network are updated.
In the Event-Driven-Method (EDM) procedure the
constituent concentration in all the pipe segments are
subjected to reaction with respect to the length of the
subhydraulic time step [11]. In both methods the kinetic
reaction mechanism continues with time under the
conditions of zero flow or flow reversal in pipes. Both
the TDM and EDM are free from numerical dispersion
and phase shift errors when compared with Eulerian
methods. Basically the TDM simulation procedure is
carried out in steps of pre-specified Qstep. Hence it is
possible that during any step more than one segment
may be consumed at the downstream node of a pipe. If
the segments consumed have different concentrations
then this leads to an artificial mixing whose effect is
more pronounced in tracing sharp concentration fronts.
In addition, the TDM solutions are affected by a loss of
resolution in concentration and accuracy is dependent
on both Qstep and concentration tolerance used. Even
though the EDM is supposed to be accurate irrespective
of the Qstep used, the concentration tolerance used and
the tolerance dependent subsegmentation process at
changing hydraulic conditions may affect the accuracy
of the method. In the EDM procedure the concentration
conditions at a node are updated only when an event
occurs at that node. Also all the segments and nodes are
updated at the end of a hydraulic time step or output
reporting time whichever occurs first. At the start of the
simulation the event occurrences are dictated by the
travel time in the pipes.
Rossman and Boulos [13] tested and compared the
Eulerian (FDM and DVEM) and Lagrangian (TDM
and EDM) methods. They concluded that the Lagran-
gian methods are more efficient for simulating the
chemical transport in a water distribution system. The
testing of the methods was done for analytical solutions,
actual field studies and variable sized networks. The
models are contrasted with respect to analytical solu-
tions for validation at zero concentration tolerance and
a particular Qstep.
It is useful to study the differences exhibited by the
Lagrangian methods for a normally used hydraulic time
Njn total number of nodes in the network
QE external flow into a node (L3/T)
Qi flow in pipe i (L3/T)
Qstep water quality time step (T)
R(ci) first-order reaction rate expression for pipe i
R(Cs) first-order reaction rate expression for tank
t time (T)
ui mean flow velocity in pipe i (L/T)
Vs volume of storage tank (L3)
step of 1 h as reporting time under varying tolerance and
Qstep values with no restriction on the number of
segments generated. It is also interesting to study how
the analytical solutions are contrasted with respect to
the solutions obtained by these methods under varying
concentration tolerance and Qstep values. It is obvious
that the solution given by TDM and EDM may perform
better against the analytical solution for zero concentra-
tion tolerance and reasonably small quality time step.
The relative comparison of the methods with analytical
solutions considering the variations in concentration
tolerance and Qstep brings out the degree of variability
exhibited by the methods with respect to the true
solution for the system. Application of the methods to
real life networks will generate a large number of new
segments and this segmentation can be controlled by
imposing a concentration tolerance.
Also there is a need to develop a methodology which
can nearly eliminate the limitations discussed earlier in
the Lagrangian models for the transport of chemical
species. A hybrid methodology developed herein utilizes
the better features of existing Lagrangian methods. The
performance of all the methods is tested against
available analytical solutions under varying conditions
of concentration tolerance and Qstep for both reactive
and non-reactive constituents. The methods are also
applied to network problems of varying size and a set of
solutions is obtained for a range of concentration
tolerance and Qstep values. An attempt is made to
compare the representative solutions given by existing
methods and the proposed hybrid method at selected
nodes of a network problem. The results are interpreted
in terms of the maximum number of segments generated
(maximum segmentation of the network) at any time
during the simulation and the solution time.
2. Governing equations
The methodology is predicated on the assumptions of
one-dimensional flow, single or consecutive steady-state
(extended period simulation) network flow hydraulics,
complete and instantaneous mixing at the nodes, ideal
plug flow with reaction, dispersion being negligible,
single constituent with one or more feed sources and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2975

reactions based on first-order kinetic characteristic 3. Numerical methods for water quality modeling
functions.
The existing Lagrangian methods are described in
2.1. Network model detail by Rossman and Boulos [13] and hence are not
discussed here. The proposed hybrid method is de-
A water distribution system comprises of links (pipes, scribed in the following sections:
pumps, valves) interconnected by nodes (junctions,
storage points) in some particular branched or looped 3.1. Numerical hybrid method (EDMNET)
configuration. The network model is represented by
node-link system. A network water quality model 3.1.1. Terminology
determines how the concentration of a dissolved Parcel: It is an imaginary finite volume of water
substance varies with time throughout the network within a pipe.
under a known set of hydraulic conditions and source Segment: It is the portion of a pipe volume considered
input patterns. to be made up of a number of discrete parcels of water.
It is assigned with a constituent concentration as a
2.2. Hydraulic model parameter and is represented by two separators at each
end.
The hydraulic simulation model [14] is modified to Separator: It is a line that separates two segments and
handle the extended period simulation and is applied to is assigned with distance travelled with respect to the
generate the dynamic flows in pipes during the specified upstream end of the pipe (DT), time of creation (TC),
hydraulic time steps (normally 1 h). time of arrival at its downstream node (TA) and
effective residence time (ERT) as parameters. The two
separators of a segment are associated with the most
2.3. Water quality model
downstream and most upstream discrete parcels of
water within that segment.
The water quality model formulation is from Ross-
Activity: An activity is said to occur when a separator
man et al. [10].
in any of the pipe reaches its downstream node.
Transport of the constituent along the ith pipe is given
Effective residence time (ERT): It is defined for both
by the classical advection equation:
the separators and the discrete parcels of water. It is the
@ci @ci total time taken by any discrete parcel of water/
¼ ui 7Rðci Þ; ð1Þ
@t @x separator to reach the downstream node from the
where, ci is the concentration of constituent in pipe i upstream node of a pipe. For any interior discrete
(mg/l) as a function of distance x and time t; ui the mean parcel, (ERT) can be calculated using the time slope of a
flow velocity in pipe i (m/s); and Rðci Þ the reaction rate segment and the location of the parcel within the
expression (equals zero for conservative constituent). segment.
Instantaneous and complete mixing at the node is given Time slope (TS): If ERT of a separator is represented
by the equation: by an ordinate, then the line joining ordinates of two
PI separators for a segment represents the time slope.
i¼1 Qi ci þ QE CE Generation of new separator/segment: A new separa-
cnj ¼ P I
; j ¼ 1; y; Njn ; ð2Þ
i¼1 Qi þ QE
tor/segment in all outgoing pipes from a upstream node
of the pipe is generated when the difference in
where, I is the number of incoming pipes at node j; Njn constituent concentration at that node and in most
the total number of nodes in the network; QE the upstream segment of the pipe exceeds imposed specified
external source flow into node j ðm3 =sÞ; and CE the concentration tolerance.
external source concentration into node j (mg/l).
Mass balance at storage tanks is given by 3.1.2. Basic concept of the method
dðVs Cs Þ X X It is a fact that the discrete parcels within a segment
¼ Qi c i  Qj Cs þ RðCs Þ; ð3Þ
dt from the downstream end to the upstream end have
iAIs jAJs
linearly varying effective residence times which are
where, Is is the set of links with flows into the tank; Js represented by the time slope. At any stage during the
the set of links withdrawing flow from the tank; Vs the simulation, a discrete parcel of a segment in a pipe
volume of storage tank (m3); Cs the concentration of reaches its downstream node. An ERT of that discrete
constituent (mg/l) within a storage tank; RðCs Þ the first- parcel can be computed using the time slope and its
order reaction rate expression for a tank; Qi the flow position in the segment. As the constituent concentra-
(m3/s) in pipe i; and ci is the concentration of constituent tion of that segment is known, the reacted concentration
(mg/l) in pipe i: for that parcel of water can be determined. Thus the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2976 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
constituent concentration at any node can be computed
by knowing these reacted concentrations of the discrete
parcels reaching that node from the incoming pipes. The
method is either governed by a specified water quality
time step or the system activity. The process of
computing the concentration and generating the new
segments (if and when required) is carried out at all the
nodes irrespective of whether the Qstep or the system
activity governs the simulation. The proposed method is
described in detail in the following subsections.
3.1.3. Initialization
At the start of the simulation, each pipe has a single
segment with the first separator at the downstream node
and second separator at the upstream node. This
segment is assigned with the constituent concentration
of the downstream node. The second separator (at the
upstream node) has an ERT equal to the travel time of
the pipe while the first separator (at the downstream
node) has zero value. The line joining the ERT of these
two separators represents the time slope as shown in Fig.
1. Also the second separator has time of arrival equal to
the pipe travel time whereas the first separator is already
at the downstream node. These times of arrival
constitute the scheduled activity times till any change
in the hydraulic conditions occur. The second segment
for this pipe as and when it is created will follow the
second separator and it carries the concentration of its
upstream node till any change occurs in the concentra-
tion at that upstream node of the pipe. Also this second
segment has zero time slope indicating that all the
discrete parcels in this segment will have same ERT
equal to pipe travel time till any change in hydraulic
conditions occur.
3.1.4. Time step computation
The first activity is scheduled to occur at a time equal
to the least of all the travel times of separators in the
entire network. Till this time the second separator of all
Fig. 1. Definition sketch: initialization (EDMNET).
the pipes carry the concentration (which has not
changed since no activity occurred in the entire network
at any node) of the upstream node forward. But the
concentration at all the nodes is continuously changing
and this change needs to be carried forward. Hence in
the case of a large time gap between two successive
activities than Qstep, it is required to update the
concentrations at all the nodes in between intervals of
Qsteps also. Thus the simulation clock is either moved
to the next scheduled system activity time or the
previous time is increased by Qstep.
3.1.5. Sequence of steps at any time
Case (a): If System activity governs the simulation.
In this case a separator in one of the pipes
corresponding to that activity reaches its downstream
node and the separators in other pipes do not reach their
downstream nodes. But in rare cases two activities occur
simultaneously. In such cases the algorithm handles the
activities one by one. The separators in all the pipes are
moved forward by a length corresponding to the time
period equal to the difference of current system activity
time and previous time, and the distance moved by them
is updated.
First consider the pipe in which a separator has
reached its downstream node. The arrival of a separator
at its downstream node indicates that the first discrete
parcel of the next segment in line has reached the
downstream node effecting a change in concentration.
As the ERT of the separator (and hence the discrete
parcel) and the concentration of the segment are known,
the reacted concentration contribution of this discrete
parcel to its downstream node can be calculated. The
time of creation for this discrete parcel is the difference
between the current time and its ERT. If the reaction
coefficient is considered to be varying with hydraulic
conditions then the hydraulic time periods through
which this discrete parcel has passed should be
identified. And the discrete parcel is subjected to a
change in concentration with the appropriate reaction
coefficient and the corresponding time period. This
process of computing the reacted concentration con-
tribution is illustrated in Fig. 2. In this figure the
computation is illustrated for a discrete parcel which has
reached its downstream node at a time of 1370 min. By
knowing its ERT (computed using TS) the TC can be
computed as 1224 min. The discrete parcel has passed
through different hydraulic time steps each having a
different reaction constant. Then using the first-order
reaction rate expression the reacted concentration
contribution can be determined as represented in the
figure. The separators and segments are reordered for
this pipe. And the time slope for the most downstream
segment is computed.
Next all the pipes where the separators have not
reached their downstream nodes are considered. As the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2977

a hydraulic time. Hence it is necessary to determine that

last time step (usually less than Qstep) and carry out all
the steps as applied for case (b) above.

3.1.6. Sequence of steps at the start of any hydraulic time

step
At the start of a next hydraulic time step a new set of
flows are computed. Now the parameters ERT and time
of arrival of the separators have to be changed in the
pipes where the flows are affected. The computation of
new set of these parameters is done depending on
whether the flow in the pipe reverses or not. If the flow
does not reverse in a pipe then the computation of these
parameters is simple. For any separator the new ERT
and TA are given by

ERT ¼ ðCurrent time  TCÞ þ Time reqired to reach

the downstream node with the current velocity;

TA ¼ Current time þ Time reqired to reach

the downstream node with the current velocity:
Fig. 2. Computation of reacted concentration contribution
(EDMNET). This is illustrated in Fig. 3 and the ordinates indicate
ERT of separators. Note that a new separator is
introduced at the upstream node of the pipe. This is
time slope and length of the most downstream segment essential as the discrete parcels (yet to enter the pipe)
are known, the ERT of the discrete parcel reaching the from new segment will have a different ERT (equal to
node in that segment can be determined. Then the time pipe travel time). Also note that the ordinates of
of creation of this discrete parcel is the difference
between current time and the ERT of the discrete parcel.
The reacted concentration contribution of this discrete
parcel can be computed in a similar way as explained
earlier.
The concentrations at all the nodes are then computed
with these reacted concentration contributions from all
incoming pipes and using Eq. (2). Then new separators/
segments are created at each node by comparing the new
nodal concentrations with the concentration of most
upstream segment in all the outgoing pipes from that
node depending on the specified concentration tolerance
imposed.
Case (b): If Qstep governs the simulation.
In this case no separator in any pipe reaches its
downstream node. All the separators are moved forward
by a time period equal to Qstep and the distance
travelled by them is updated. Then ERT and time of
creation for all the discrete parcels are computed as
illustrated earlier. The remaining steps namely determin-
ing the reacted concentration contributions, nodal
concentrations and creating the new separators/seg-
ments are also same as illustrated earlier.
The above sequence is carried out till the end of a
hydraulic time step. It usually happens that the
scheduled activity time or the simulation clock time Fig. 3. Definition sketch: handling no flow reversal (EDM-
increased by the Qstep does not coincide with the end of NET).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2978 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
separator one (sep 1) in old flow and new flow are the
same.
But the computation of ERT and TA for separators in
pipes with flow reversals is entirely different. The
discrete parcel which is about to reach the downstream
end with respect to old flow has to travel back towards
the current downstream end and hence its ERT in the
pipe is longer. Hence it is necessary to distinguish
between the two ERT values of a discrete parcel in the
most upstream segment (current) and a discrete parcel
about to enter the pipe. It is done by introducing a
dummy segment of zero length (seg 4 in Fig. 4) at the
upstream end of the pipe. And similarly the discrete
parcel which has just entered the upstream end with
respect to old flow has in effect zero ERT in the pipe. It
is illustrated in Fig. 4. The new ERT and TA for the
separators are computed using the same relations
quoted earlier. It should be noted that a new separator
(sep 5) is introduced at the upstream of the pipe and
separator one (sep 1) has zero ERT.
These two sequences viz. at any time and at the start
of a hydraulic step are continued till the end of a total
simulation time.
3.1.7. Analysis and discussion on the proposed hybrid
method
The main objective of the proposed hybrid method is
to consider and carry forward the effect of changes in
Fig. 4. Definition sketch: handling flow reversal (EDMNET).
the nodal concentrations as much as possible. That is
why all the nodal conditions are updated regularly either
at activity occurrence times or at times increased by
Qstep. This helps in proper simulation of existing
concentration conditions in the pipe unlike the EDM
procedure. It should be noted that moving the simula-
tion clock by a Qstep does not always result in finer
segmentation of the pipe. It is only used to update the
conditions regularly in case the occurrence of an activity
is delayed. The generation of the new segments is mainly
controlled by the difference in the concentrations at a
node and in the most upstream segment of an outgoing
pipe from that node being greater than the tolerance. As
all the nodal concentrations are updated and new
segments are created at any time (unlike EDM), rarely
the two successive activities differ by the specified Qstep
of 5 min in this method. However the effect Qstep on
EDMNET results are shown in the application exam-
ples. Also the treatment given to the reaction term is
entirely different from the other methods. The concen-
tration of a parcel of water reaching its downstream
node is subjected to reaction for its ERT in that pipe.
The ERT consists of time periods either having a
constant or varying (in case of chlorine) reaction
constant. The method has many advantages in changing
flow conditions. Also it is possible that a little more
solution time may be needed in some cases as more
number of events are covered by the method.
4. Testing of methods against analytical solutions
All the methods are tested against the analytical
solutions for two test problems. The objective of
analytical testing is to study how closely the solutions
given by the methods agree with analytical solutions as
the concentration tolerance values are varied between
0.05 and 0 mg/l. In addition, the effect of Qstep is also
tested against the analytical solution for TDM.
Test problem 1. The schematic of test problem 1 is
shown in Fig. 5 and is a modified version of the problem
used by Boulos et al. [11]. The Tables 1 and 2 summarize
the pipe and node characteristics, respectively. All the
pipes have a roughness coefficient of 120. The supply
sources A, B and C represent pumping wells with a total
head of 50.0, 56.0 and 60.0 m, respectively. The three
well pumps are identical and the operating data is
presented in Table 3. The control valve in pipe 2 has a
minor loss coefficient of 10.0. The chlorine concentra-
tion of 1.0, 2.0 and 1.5 mg/l are injected constantly at
sources A, B and C, respectively. The wall reaction
parameter is set to zero for all the pipes. This test
problem is meant to validate the EDMNET model
against an analytical solution, and to illustrate the effect
of concentration tolerance and Qstep values on the
performance of TDM. As EDM and EDMNET
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2979

solutions, Qsteps of 3 and 1 min are used along with

concentration tolerances of 0.0 and 0.05 mg/l. The
analysis of the solutions is done for the nodes 1 and 2.
The TDM fails to simulate the concentration fronts
correctly as shown in Fig. 6(a) for zero tolerance and
Qstep of 3 min. This fact can be seen at the sharp change
in concentration fronts for both the nodes. Fig. 6(b)
shows a TDM and analytical solutions are identical for a
Fig. 5. Network of Test problem 1. concentration tolerance of 0.0 mg/l and Qstep of
1.0 min. But TDM solution exhibits oscillations for
concentration tolerance of 0.05 mg/l even for a smaller
Table 1 Qstep of 1.0 min as shown in Fig. 6(c). All these
Pipe data (Test problem 1) observations show that TDM solution is affected by
Pipe no. Length Diam Reaction Flow (l/s) both the concentration tolerance and Qstep values. The
(m) (mm) coefficient EDMNET solutions are obtained at Qstep of 3 min and
(day1) a concentration tolerance of 0.05 mg/l. In contrast to
TDM solution the EDMNET/EDM solution is indis-
1 300.0 480 3 320.39 tinguishable from analytical solution even for a con-
2 600.0 350 5 21.40
centration tolerance of 0.05 mg/l as shown in Fig. 6(d).
3 300.0 480 3 557.70
4 650.0 400 5 52.89 Test problem 2. The test problem 2 is shown in Fig. 7
5 400.0 350 20 58.20 with all node details. It was previously used by Rossman
6 300.0 480 10 671.91 and Boulos [13]. The pipe characteristics are tabulated in
7 600.0 300 20 210.81 Table 4. The problem is meant to test how well the
8 400.0 350 20 389.19 method can track a reactive substance (chlorine) in a
network subjected to flow reversals. Initially all water in
the network is at a concentration of 0.50 mg/l and is fed
from A (with a concentration of 1.0 mg/l) reservoir.
Table 2 After 6 h, pipe 1 is closed and the network begins to
Node data (Test problem 1) receive water from the B (with a concentration of
Node no. Demand (l/s) Elevation (m) Initial 0.50 mg/l) reservoir thus causing the flow reversal in
concentration pipes 2 and 3. The chlorine is decaying with a bulk decay
(mg/l) constant of 2.0 d1 with no wall reaction. The network
nodal concentrations are simulated by all the methods
1 400.0 120.0 0.6 with a Qstep of 5 min and varied concentration
2 200.0 120.0 0.7
tolerances (0.0 and 0.05 mg/l). The TDM solutions for
3 350.0 120.0 0.8
4 600.0 120.0 0.6 Qstep of 5 min and concentration tolerance of 0.00 and
5 0.0 50.0 0.6 0.05 mg/l are shown in Figs. 8(a) and (b). The solution
6 0.0 56.0 0.7 appears to be too sensitive for the concentration
7 0.0 60.0 0.8 tolerance variations. It shows that the solution fails to
simulate the concentration fronts even for zero tolerance
at a Qstep of 5 min. The TDM solution is found to track
the fronts better at a Qstep of 2 min and 0.00 mg/l
Table 3 concentration tolerance, but the introduction of
Pump characteristic data (Test problem 1) 0.05 mg/l concentration tolerance results in an oscillat-
Head (m) Flow rate (l/s) ing solution. The EDM (0.00 and 0.05 mg/l) and
EDMNET (0.00 and 0.05 mg/l at Qstep of 5 min) results
130.0 0.0 are shown in Figs. 8(c)–(f), respectively. The EDM
120.0 1000.0 solution simulates results which are indistinguishable
100.0 2000.0
from the analytical solution at 0.00 mg/l concentration
tolerance. But the EDM solutions also exhibit variations
between concentration tolerance values of 0.05 and
0.00 mg/l with the analytical solution. This is due to the
solutions are same for constant flow conditions this test fact that EDM needs subsegmentation at the sixth hour
problem does not produce an effective comparison of due to the change in hydraulic condition and the
these two methods. The nodal concentrations are subsegmentation depends on the concentration toler-
obtained with a reporting time of 3.0 min. For TDM ance used. If the concentration tolerance used does not
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2980 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988

Fig. 6. Analytical validation of Test problem 1: (a) TDM for tolerance=0.00 mg/l and Qstep=3.0 min; (b) TDM for
tolerance=0.00 mg/l and Qstep=1.0 min; (c) TDM for tolerance=0.05 mg/l and Qstep=1.0 min; (d) EDMNET for toleran-
ce=0.05 mg/l and Qstep=3.0 min.

Table 4
Pipe data (Test problem 2)

Pipe no. Length (m) Diam (mm) Roughness Flow (l/s)

0–6 h >6 h

1 3048 457 100 147.33 0.00

2 1524 457 100 134.73 12.60
3 61 457 100 122.12 25.20

Fig. 7. Network of Test problem 2.
divide the existing segment into sufficient number of
subsegments required for representing the concentration
profile then the EDM results in such a solution. But this
variation (Fig. 8(d)) is less when compared to TDM
(Fig. 8(b)). The EDMNET solutions are virtually
identical with analytical results for the extreme tolerance
values used.
The contrasting of all the methods as done above with
analytical solutions shows that TDM solutions are
concentration tolerance and Qstep dependent, the
EDM solutions are dependent on concentration toler-
ance (during subsegmentation) and EDMNET is less
sensitive to both these parameters in the range used. For
these examples, the EDMNET solutions obtained by
using a coarser tolerance and a coarser Qstep are
comparable with those obtained from other methods for
a finer tolerance.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2981

Fig. 8. Analytical validation of Test problem 2: (a) TDM for tolerance=0.00 mg/l and Qstep=5.0 min; (b) TDM for
tolerance=0.05 mg/l and Qstep=5.0 min; (c) EDM for tolerance=0.0 mg/l; (d) EDM for tolerance=0.05 mg/l; (e) EDMNET for
tolerance=0.00 mg/l and Qstep=5.0 min; (f) EDMNET for tolerance=0.05 mg/l and Qstep=5.0 min.

5. Application: results and discussions
In this section all the methods are applied to two
networks of varying sizes subjected to dynamic condi-
tions. The objective of this section is to evaluate the
sensitive behavior of the methods under varied concen-
tration tolerance and Qstep values. Both concentration
tolerance and Qstep are varied for TDM and EDM-
NET, whereas only the concentration tolerance is varied
for EDM. A concentration tolerance range of 0.0025–
0.05 mg/l is considered and sets of solution are obtained.
The TDM and EDMNET solutions are obtained for
Qstep of 5, 3 and 1 min at each of the concentration
tolerance in the above range. In all, seven sets consisting
of three TDM, three EDMNET and one EDM solutions
are obtained at each node for both the test problems.
Then analysis of each set of solutions is done at selected
nodes of each test problem. The main thrust of
analyzing the results is to study the relative variation
of the solutions within each set and to find out a
threshold solution. A threshold solution is a solution at
a concentration tolerance below which there is no
significant improvement in the solutions. The threshold
solutions of each set are compared with each other. The
comparison is also made in terms of the maximum
segmentation and the solution time for each method at
this threshold solution. The maximum segmentation
refers to the highest number of segments by which the
network is divided at any time during the simulation
process.
Test problem 3. The methods are next applied to a
system for which field sampling of water quality
behavior had been made by Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and American Water Works Association
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2982 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
and Research Foundation (AWWARF). The system, the
Brushy plains zone of the south central Connecticut
Regional Water Authority, has been used many times in
the past to validate and test network water quality
models [2,15]. The network schematic is shown in Fig. 9.
The bulk decay factor and wall decay factor used are
0.55 d1 and 0.15 m/d, respectively. The bulk decay
factor in the tank is assumed to be 0.55 d1. The input to
the network has a constant chlorine value of 1.15 mg/l.
All the numerical methods are applied to simulate the
chlorine concentrations at all the nodes with a wide
range of concentration tolerance as specified above. For
each of the Qstep values the TDM simulations showed
wide variations in the nodal concentrations with respect
to the concentration tolerances used. In case of the
TDM the threshold solution is identified at a concentra-
tion tolerance of 0.005 mg/l for all the Qstep values used.
Similarly the EDMNET simulations are also analyzed
and in contrast to the TDM simulations EDMNET
exhibited no such variations except at few locations for a
Fig. 9. Network of Test problem 3.
concentration tolerance of 0.05 mg/l, and the threshold
solution corresponds to a concentration tolerance of
0.015 mg/l for all the Qsteps. The EDM solutions also
showed variations at a number of periods along the
profile in the coarser part of the concentration tolerance
range, but in the finer range the variation between the
solutions is less. This is due to the fact that the coarser
tolerance used results in an insufficient number of
subsegments to represent the concentration profile of
an existing segment. The threshold EDM solution is
obtained at a concentration tolerance of 0.0075 mg/l.
Table 5 shows the maximum network segmentation and
the solution times for all the methods at each of the
threshold solutions. It can be seen that as Qstep
decreases the number of segments used by TDM
increases; whereas the variation in Qstep values has a
least effect on the number of segments generated
indicating that a 5 min Qstep is sufficient to fill the gap
between delayed activity occurrence times. The EDM
solution required a maximum segmentation of the
network and comparatively more solution time. It can
be noted that the EDMNET solutions discretize the
network into the least number of segments with reason-
able computational effort. Also if all the methods are
compared at the same concentration tolerance of
0.01 mg/l and a Qstep of 3 min the EDMNET performs
in between the TDM and EDM as far as the segment
generation and solution times are concerned. But it
simulates the conditions better at these parameters as
the variations exhibited by the EDMNET solutions are
less compared to the other methods. The nodal
concentrations simulated by the threshold solutions of
the TDM at a Qstep of 1 min, the EDMNET at a Qstep
of 5 min and the EDM are given for nodes 3, 11, 19 and
34 in Fig. 10. The solutions given by all the methods
represent the general pattern of the observed chlorine
levels at these nodes. The system was also analyzed using
a wall decay factor of 0.457 m/d, but the variation
between the observed and simulated chlorine levels is
large. A sensitivity study with respect to the wall decay
factor is needed to match the general pattern of chlorine
levels in a better way.
The objective of this case study is to illustrate how the
various water quality models developed in the present
study predict the fluoride levels (conservative constitu-
ent) for a well calibrated extended period hydraulic
simulation model and to compare with field observed
values. Using a finer concentration tolerance and water
quality time step of 3 min all the models are run and the
results are obtained. The input fluoride concentrations
at the source are taken from EPANET Network 2. The
fluoride concentrations predicted by all the models are
shown in Fig. 11. All the models have resulted in
identical fluoride concentrations and the results for the
nodes 3, 10, 19 and 34 are shown in Figs. 11(a)–(d),
respectively. Also the observed fluoride concentrations
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2983

Table 5
Segments and solution time at threshold tolerance (Test problems 3 and 4)

Test problem Method Concentration tolerance (mg/l) Qstep (min) Segments Solution time (s)

3 (Reactive) TDM 0.005 5.0 830 3.07

TDM 0.005 3.0 990 3.24
TDM 0.005 1.0 1260 3.24
TDM 0.01 5.0 553 3.02
TDM 0.01 3.0 661 3.13
TDM 0.01 1.0 737 3.68
EDM 0.0075 — 1193 9.66
EDM 0.01 — 997 7.74
EDMNET 0.015 5.0 678 5.16
EDMNET 0.015 3.0 670 5.17
EDMNET 0.015 1.0 671 5.22
EDMNET 0.01 5.0 854 5.44
EDMNET 0.01 3.0 846 5.55
EDMNET 0.01 1.0 855 5.61

3 (Conservative) TDM 0.00005 3.0 1308 3.74

EDMNET 0.00005 3.0 804 4.29
EDM 0.00005 3.0 790 7.47

4 TDM 0.0025 5.0 1296 11.60

TDM 0.0025 3.0 1685 13.98
TDM 0.0025 1.0 2773 14.52
EDM 0.005 — 2205 30.71
EDMNET 0.005 5.0 1228 18.60
EDMNET 0.005 3.0 1228 19.38
EDMNET 0.005 1.0 1228 19.32

Fig. 10. Comparison of threshold solutions for Test problem 3 at nodes (a) 3, (b) 11, (c) 19 and (d) 34.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2984 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
and the predicted ones match well indicating that the
hydraulic model is well calibrated. Table 5 shows that
the TDM solution requires more segmentation and
EDM more solution time. The EDMNET solution
results in lesser segmentation of the network at a
reasonable execution time as compared to other models.
Test problem 4. The fourth test problem chosen is the
North Marin Water District which was used in the past
by Clark et al. [16] and the network is shown in Fig. 12.
This network is of reasonable size to test the perfor-
mance of EDMNET against TDM and EDM and it
consists of 117 pipes, 95 nodes, two pump elements,
three tanks and two supply sources. The two water
sources, the North Marin Aqueduct (River) and
Stafford lake are of widely different quality. Standard
first-order bulk reaction factors assigned are 0.31 and
0.03 d1 for Stafford lake, and the aqueduct, respectively
[16]. The pipes are assigned bulk and wall reaction
parameters in accordance with the zones determined by
Clark et al. [16]. These are presented in Table 6. The
pipes not mentioned in this table have default bulk and
wall reaction parameters of 0.03 d1 and 0.3048 m/d,
respectively. The initial concentrations at the nodes are
shown in Table 7. A constant chlorine concentration of
1.50 mg/l is applied from the source at the lake and a
Fig. 11. (a–d) Observed and computed fluoride concentrations—Test problem 3.
time varying chlorine input is injected from the river
source. The chlorine injection pattern at the river is
given in Table 8. All the other data for this network on
pipe, nodes, pumps, controls, patterns etc. are adopted
from EPANET [17] examples (Example Network 3).
As in the earlier example the simulation of nodal
concentrations is done with a varied concentration
tolerance. It is found that the TDM exhibited wide
variations in the nodal concentrations as the concentra-
tion tolerance is varied from coarser to finer values
whereas the other two methods showed smaller varia-
tions. Also the TDM solutions are affected by the Qstep
values, with lower values simulating the concentrations
more accurately. The effect of Qstep on the TDM
solutions at a concentration tolerance of 0.0025 mg/l is
shown for nodes 123 and 163 in Fig. 13(A). The TDM
solutions have a threshold solution at 0.0025 mg/l for all
the Qsteps used. But TDM results are comparable with
other two methods at a threshold solution correspond-
ing to a Qstep of 1 min. The EDMNET (at all Qsteps
used) and EDM simulations have a threshold solution at
a concentration tolerance of 0.005 mg/l. The maximum
network segmentation and solution times for all of the
methods are given in Table 5. It can be seen that
EDMNET discretizes the network into the least number
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988
Fig. 12. Network of Test problem 4.
of segments compared to other methods in a reasonable
computational time. Also the EDMNET solutions and
the corresponding segmentation of network are least
affected by the change in the Qstep values. Again it
suggests the fact that a 5 min time step is sufficient to
update the network conditions in the case of delayed
activity occurrences. The EDM results are also accurate
but result in more segmentation compared to EDM-
NET. The TDM solutions are fast but the accuracy is
dependent on both the concentration tolerance and
Qstep values. The concentrations at the nodes 123, and
163 for the threshold solutions are shown in Fig. 13(B).
Next, all the methods are used to simulate the water
age for this network. The results of the run in terms of
segmentation and solution time are given in Table 9 for
different tolerance and Qstep values. Further the water
ages simulated at these tolerances and Qsteps by all the
methods for the nodes 123 and 163 are shown in Fig. 14
(the legend in the figure shows method, tolerance and
Qstep). The results show that the EDMNET results at
coarser tolerance (12 min) and coarser Qstep (5 min) are
comparable with those of TDM results at finer tolerance
(3 min) and finer Qstep (1 min). It can be further noted
that if coarser values of tolerance and Qstep are used for
TDM an incorrect peak at 9 h for both the nodes occurs.
2985
Thus the results indicate that the EDMNET solutions at
coarser tolerance and Qstep values are comparable with
those obtained using finer values from the other
methods.
6. Conclusions
All the water quality modules TDM, EDM and
EDMNET are encoded and integrated in the existing
hydraulic model. The integrated model was run on
different network test problems under varied tolerance
values for each water quality module. An additional set
of results are also obtained with TDM and EDMNET at
varied Qstep values. The results of this study showed the
following:
1. Analytical comparison of the TDM solution shows
that it fails to simulate the exact solution for sharp
concentration fronts with coarser Qstep values even at
zero tolerance, but it results in a much closer solution
for a smaller Qstep and finer tolerance. In the
application test problems the method exhibited wide
variation in the solutions between coarser and finer
concentration tolerance values. Also the smaller Qstep
values need to be used even at a finer concentration
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2986 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988

Table 6 Table 7
Reaction parameters (Test problem 4) Initial chlorine concentrations (Test problem 4)

Pipe no. Bulk Wall Pipe no. Bulk Wall Node Conc. Node Conc. Node Conc.
(d1) (m/d) (d1) (m/d) no. (mg/l) no. (mg/l) no. (mg/l)

40 0.31 3.0487 238 0.31 3.0487 10 0.15 157 0.20 215 0.21
50 0.31 1.524 241 0.31 3.0487 15 0.15 159 0.20 217 0.21
101 0.31 6.0975 243 0.31 1.524 20 0.15 161 0.20 219 0.21
103 0.31 6.0975 245 0.31 1.524 35 0.15 163 0.20 225 0.21
105 0.31 6.0975 247 0.31 1.524 40 0.15 164 0.20 229 0.21
109 0.31 6.0975 249 0.31 1.524 50 0.15 166 0.20 231 0.21
111 0.31 6.0975 251 0.31 1.524 60 0.15 167 0.23 237 0.21
112 0.31 6.0975 257 0.31 1.524 61 0.23 169 0.26 239 0.21
113 0.31 6.0975 261 0.31 1.524 101 0.15 171 0.15 241 0.21
114 0.31 6.0975 263 0.31 1.524 103 0.25 173 0.15 243 0.15
115 0.31 6.0975 269 0.31 1.524 105 0.25 177 0.15 247 0.15
116 0.31 3.0487 271 0.31 1.524 107 0.02 179 0.15 249 0.15
117 0.31 6.0975 273 0.31 1.524 109 0.02 181 0.15 251 0.13
119 0.31 6.0975 275 0.31 1.524 111 0.18 183 0.15 253 0.15
121 0.31 6.0975 277 0.31 1.524 113 0.05 184 0.15 255 0.15
186 0.31 3.0487 281 0.31 1.524 115 0.18 185 0.15 257 0.13
193 0.31 3.0487 283 0.31 1.524 117 0.15 187 0.26 259 0.13
195 0.31 3.0487 287 0.31 1.524 119 0.24 189 0.15 261 0.13
197 0.31 3.0487 289 0.31 1.524 120 0.15 191 0.21 263 0.15
199 0.31 3.0487 291 0.31 1.524 121 0.25 193 0.15 265 0.23
201 0.31 3.0487 295 0.31 1.524 123 0.25 195 0.21 267 0.21
204 0.31 3.0487 297 0.31 6.0975 125 0.15 197 0.21 269 0.15
205 0.31 3.0487 299 0.31 6.0975 127 0.15 199 0.21 271 0.15
213 0.31 3.0487 301 0.31 6.0975 129 0.15 201 0.21 273 0.21
215 0.31 3.0487 303 0.31 6.0975 131 0.15 203 0.21 275 0.28
217 0.31 3.0487 305 0.31 6.0975 139 0.15 204 0.26 601 0.25
219 0.31 3.0487 307 0.31 6.0975 141 0.15 205 0.15 Tank 1 0.10
223 0.31 3.0487 311 0.31 3.0487 143 0.15 206 0.28 Tank 2 0.05
225 0.31 3.0487 315 0.31 3.0487 145 0.15 207 0.21 Tank 3 0.05
237 0.31 3.0487 147 0.15 208 0.28 Lake 1.50
149 0.15 209 0.21 River 1.25
151 0.15 211 0.21
153 0.15 213 0.21
tolerance in order to get results comparable with the
other two methods. Thus the TDM solutions are
dependent on both the concentration tolerance and
Qstep values.
2. The EDM simulates the analytical solution exactly
for a steady-state hydraulic conditions. But in changing Table 8
Concentration pattern at river source (Test problem 4)
hydraulic conditions the method requires much finer
tolerance for simulating the exact solution. The EDM Time Concentration Time Concentration
though exhibits however much lower variations than period (h) (mg/l) period (h) (mg/l)
TDM, and its accuracy is largely dependent on the
0–1 1.25 12–13 1.50
concentration tolerance. If the concentration tolerance 1–2 1.25 13–14 1.50
used is not enough to divide the existing segment into 2–3 1.30 14–15 1.25
sufficient number of subsegments then the method may 3–4 1.30 15–16 1.25
result in an inaccurate solution. Otherwise each and 4–5 1.50 16–17 1.25
every segment is subjected to a refined subsegmentation. 5–6 1.50 17–18 1.25
As the number of subsegments increases the better is the 6–7 1.30 18–19 1.50
accuracy of the method is better. 7–8 1.30 19–20 1.50
3. The analytical comparison of the modified event 8–9 1.30 20–21 1.50
driven method (EDMNET) is excellent even for the 9–10 1.00 21–22 1.50
10–11 1.00 22–23 1.25
coarser concentration tolerance values used under all the
11–12 1.00 23–24 1.25
conditions. The EDMNET is less sensitive to the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988 2987

Fig. 13. (A) Effect of Qstep on TDM solutions for Test problem 4 at nodes 123 and 163 and (B) comparison of threshold solutions for
Test problem 4 at nodes 123 and 163.

Fig. 14. (a) and (b) Water age simulations for Test problem 4 at nodes 123 and 163.

different concentration tolerance values used for simu-
lating the nodal concentrations. The Qstep value has the
least effect on the EDMNET solutions. In other words,
the method provides a solution at coarser concentration
tolerance which is comparable to the solutions of other
methods but with finer concentration tolerance or
smaller Qstep values. The EDMNET eliminates defi-
ciencies such as artificial mixing of segments and loss of
resolution in concentration as in the case of TDM, and
concentration tolerance dependent subsegmentation as
in the case of EDM. The maximum segmentation of the
network is least (for all simulations) with a reasonable
computational effort. Hence the method provides a
good tool for analyzing accurately reasonable size
networks for simulating the water quality within
distribution systems.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2988 G.R. Munavalli, M.S. Mohan Kumar / Water Research 38 (2004) 2973–2988

Table 9 [8] Liou CP, Kroon JR. Modeling the propagation of

Segments and solution time for water age simulations (Test waterborne substances in water distribution networks.
problem 4) J AWWA 1987;79(11):54–8.
[9] Grayman JA, Clark RM, Males RM. Modeling distribu-
Method Tolerance Qstep Segments Solution
tion system water quality: dynamic approach. J Water
(min) (min) time (s)
Resour Plann Manage ASCE 1988;114(3):295–311.
TDM 12 5 674 13.95 [10] Rossman LA, Boulos PF, Altman T. Discrete volume
TDM 3 1 2452 14.63 element method for network water quality models. J Water
EDM 12 — 1307 17.96 Resour Plann Manage ASCE 1993;119(5):505–17.
EDM 3 — 2658 24.77 [11] Boulos PF, Altman T, Jarrige PA, Collevatti F. An event-
EDMNET 12 5 1075 16.26 driven method for modeling contaminant propagation in
water networks. J Appl Math Modeling 1994;18(2):
84–92.
References [12] Islam MR, Chaudhary MH. Modeling of constituent
transport in unsteady flows in pipe networks. J Hydraul
[1] Boulos PF, Altman T, Jarrige PA, Collevatti F. Discrete Eng ASCE 1998;124(11):1115–24.
simulation approach for network water quality models. J [13] Rossman LA, Boulos PF. Numerical methods for water
Water Resour Plann Manage ASCE 1995;121(1):49–60. quality in distribution systems: a comparison. J Water
[2] Rossman LA, Clark RM, Grayman WM. Modeling Resour Plann Manage ASCE 1996;122(2):137–46.
chlorine residuals in drinking water distribution systems. [14] Niranjan Reddy PV. General analysis, paramter estima-
J Environ Eng ASCE 1994;120(4):803–20.
tion and valve operational policy in water distribution
[3] Males RM, Clark RM, Wehrman PJ, Gates WE. Algo-
networks. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Banga-
rithm for mixing problems in water systems. J Hydraul
lore, 1994.
Eng ASCE 1985;111(2):206–19.
[15] Clark RM, Grayman WM, Males RM, Hess AF.
[4] Clark RM, Grayman WM, Males RM. Contaminant
propagation in distribution system. J Environ Eng ASCE Modeling contaminant propagation in drinking water
1988;114(4):929–43. distribution systems. J Environ Eng ASCE 1993;
[5] Shah M, Sinai G. Steady state model for dilution in water 119(2):349–64.
networks. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 1988;114(2):192–206. [16] Clark RM, Rossman LA, Wymer LJ. Modeling distribu-
[6] Wood DJ, Ormsbee LE. Supply identification for water tion system water quality: regulatory implications. J Water
distribution systems. J AWWA 1989;81(7):74–80. Resour Plann Manage ASCE 1995;121(6):423–8.
[7] Boulos PF, Altman T, Sadhal K. Computer modeling of [17] Rossman LA. EPANET users manual. Risk Reduction
water quality in large networks. J Appl Math Modeling Engineering Laboratory, US Environmental Protection
1992;16(8):439–45. Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1994.