Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 16 (2001) 259–267

Steady-State Analysis of Water Distribution

Networks Including Pressure-Reducing Valves
L. Khezzar,*
College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P. O. Box 33, Al Khod, Muscat 123, Oman

S. Harous
College of Arts and Sciences, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

&

M. Benayoune
College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P. O. Box 33, Al Khod, Muscat 123, Oman

Abstract: Hydraulic networks that contain controlling 1 INTRODUCTION

elements such as pressure-reducing valves (PRVs) are dif-
ficult to simulate. Limited literature exists on the explicit
modeling of PRVs in a general solution procedure for
steady-state analysis of water distribution systems. It is
also known that inclusion of PRVs may lead to numeri-
cal difficulties. The objective of this article is to develop
and present in sufficient detail the modeling of PRVs in
combination with the linear theory method for steady-state
analysis of water distribution networks. The presentation
is explicit enough and leads to a robust algorithm that
can be directly implemented in a computer program. The
general methodology for simulating water distribution net-
works that embodies graph theoretic concepts, hydraulic
theory, and numerical algorithms is reviewed.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
lyes@squ.edu.om.
The problem of simulating connected water distribution
networks in steady state is that of computing the values
of the node pressures and flows in the individual pipes
for known source pressure and fluid consumption in fixed-
demand nodes. In addition to pipes and nodes, the net-
work may include elements such as pumps, reservoirs, and
valves of different types. Pressure-reducing valves (PRVs)
are commonly used in water distribution networks to reduce
pressures and hence control leakage losses, especially in
hilly areas.
Several methods with varying degrees of merit and com-
plexity for the steady-state simulation of water distribution
networks have been developed, and the literature abounds
with them. All the methods are based on the use of two
conservation principles: flow continuity at junction nodes
and energy conservation around loops. These laws can be
applied in different ways14,16 to provide loop- or node-
based formulations. It is now recognized that the most reli-
able methods15,22 are the linear theory method of Wood and
Charles21 and the Newton loop method.

© 2001 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA,
and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK.
260 Khezzar, Harous & Benayoune
Among the nonpiping elements, PRVs can be regarded
as the most complex element to be modeled in a general-
purpose solution procedure. This is so because their status
changes according to the upstream or downstream pressure
condition. The implication is that the behavior of a PRV
cannot be modeled by a simple continuous pressure-drop-
flow relationship because its status changes will involve
a discontinuity. Thus, for any given calculation, it is not
in general possible to determine the state of a PRV a
priori. The PRV state is initially guessed and then corrected
through iterative calculations. If the computed pressures at
the PRV are in agreement with the PRV constraints, then
the assumptions are valid. Otherwise, a different set of
states is assumed, and so on.
Limited explicit literature exists on modeling of PRVs.
Jeppson and Davis12 and Jeppson11 describe a methodol-
ogy that includes PRVs in a calculation scheme based on
the Newton-loop and linear theory methods. The descrip-
tion, however, is too incomplete to be directly incorpo-
rated in a practical computer program and does not relate
explicitly to the topology of the network, which can change
during the calculations, suggesting that inclusion of PRVs
with the Newton-loop method can be very cumbersome.
Chandrashekar3 describes the inclusion of PRVs in con-
junction with the nodal method of analysis, which is easier
to formulate than the linear theory method, with the dis-
tinct disadvantage, however, of generating a nonsymmetri-
cal matrix. Based on the nodal method, Gessler9 proposes
a model that results in a symmetrical matrix. Recently,
Andersen and Powell1 developed a general procedure based
on the loop formulation for simulation of controlling ele-
ments in water distribution networks. In this method, the
distinction between the direction of the PRV and that of
the loops is important, as well as between interacting pseu-
doloops that share a common PRV. Finally, it should be
emphasized that there is no generally accepted procedure
for handling several PRVs in a network.
In general, obtaining a solution to a network problem
becomes trivial once the proper (solvable) set of model
equations is formed. This latter is constructed by consid-
ering the connectivity (topology) of the network. In the
case of the linear theory method, this implies construct-
ing the loop and node incidence matrices by finding the
set of fundamental loops and the shortest paths between
fixed-grade nodes. During their operation, PRVs can give
rise to disconnected subnetworks. This leads to a change
in connectivity of the original graph during the solution
and will necessitate the automatic and dynamic generation
of the loop and pseudoloop incidence matrix and compo-
nent trees after each iteration. The net effect is therefore
an increase in computing overhead with a marginal pay-
load. As a further consequence, the programming strategy
for solving network problems can be fundamentally dif-
ferent for networks with and without controlling elements
such as PRVs. This point assumes particular significance in
the development phase of calculation programs.
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, the imple-
mentation of a general water distribution network calcu-
lation procedure in steady state using the linear theory
method is reviewed. The second and more important objec-
tive of this article is to present in sufficient and explicit
detail the modeling of PRVs in combination with the lin-
ear theory method for the steady-state simulation of water
distribution networks to be directly and effectively incor-
porated in a computer program. The dynamic use of stack-
oriented data structures that support efficient graph search
operations presents substantial advantages in the treatment
of networks containing controlling elements. It forms part
of the fundamental basis of the methodology adopted in this
study. A general computer program written in Visual Basic
and incorporating state-of-the-art numerical and graph-
theoretic algorithms with a sophisticated graphic user inter-
face was developed for the steady-state analysis of water
distribution networks and is used to produce the results of
this study.
Section 2 presents theoretical considerations for formu-
lation and the modeling details of PRVs. Section 3 presents
results of simulation tests conducted using a computer pro-
gram developed in-house with sample networks taken from
published literature. Section 4 presents the conclusions.
2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Solving a water distribution network problem generally
involves first a representation of the network topology and
its connectivity, which is best done using graph theory. The
generation of a set of linear and nonlinear simultaneous
equations represents the second step and embodies a con-
servation principle of mass continuity and/or energy. Solu-
tion of the set of equations using an appropriate numerical
technique represents the final step. In the process, hydraulic
relationships between pressure and flow and correlations to
estimate the fluid-friction factor at the pipe wall or at junc-
tions or fittings are used.
The following subsection describes the method used to
model PRVs with the linear theory algorithm.
2.1 Graph representation
Because water distribution networks are represented by
directed graphs that in general are not heavily connected,
an adjacency list is used to represent their connectivity.
A node-branch representation is adopted in the present
model.4,6,16 The node incidence matrix of such graphs
[A][n × p] can then easily be extracted from the list.
The linear theory method of analysis requires the defi-
nition of a set of fundamental (independent) loops in the
graph.8 A fundamental loop is a closed sequence of con-
nected edges that uniquely contains at least one edge that
 Steady-state analysis of water distribution networks 261

no other loop possesses. In a connected graph, the relation- used to determine the friction factor.5 The Colebrook-White
ship between the number of real loops, pipes, and demand equation is
nodes is given by Euler’s relation:

−1/2 ki /Di 1.26
Cf i = −4 log10 + (6)
lr = p − n + 1 (1) 3.71 Rei Cf0.5i
There exist several loop-searching algorithms based either A Newton-Raphson procedure is used to calculate iter-
on depth-first search or breadth-first search.16 That of atively the friction factor from Equation (6) and makes
Travers20 has the advantage of generating the least num- use of an explicit relationship such as that of Swamee and
ber of interconnections, giving us the most sparse Jacobi Jain,19 Zigrang and Sylvester,23 or Haaland10 to calculate
matrix, and always finds the set of fundamental indepen- starting values of the iterative solution to increase its rate
dent loops even if the graph happens to be disconnected. of convergence.
This last point assumes particular significance in the treat- Singular losses due to pipe fittings and valves can be
ment of networks containing PRVs in their active state. The expressed as
result of the loop-finding algorithm is the [L][l × p] loop-

K 4Qi 2
incidence matrix.4
Ps = ν = Rs Q2i (7)
The linear theory method does not require an initial set 2 π Di2
of balanced flows at the beginning of the iterative solu- Pressure boost provided by pumps is expressed as
tion procedure. However, the use of an initial set of bal-
anced flows in tree branches8 will speed up the convergence
PP = A + BQP + CQ2P (8)
toward the solution. To generate such a starting flow vec-
tor, a minimum-resistance spanning tree of the graph needs 2.3 Mathematical model
to be determined. Two tree-searching algorithms are gener- In the linear theory method, the continuity equations and
ally used.13,18 That of Prim18 is used in this study because energy equations around loops and pseudoloops are solved
it is computationally faster than Kruskal’s.13 simultaneously. The continuity linear equation at each node
When dealing with fixed-grade nodes or in the treatment connected to nc pipes can be written as
of PRVs, it is necessary as part of the solution to define nc

paths between fixed-grade nodes, which are also referred αij Qj = qli (9)
to as pseudoloops. Minimum paths increase the sparsity of 1
the Jacobi matrix and hence are used here. In this instance, The summation is over all pipes linked to node i, and αij =
Dijkstra’s algorithm7 is used. In a situation where a network 1 if the node is at the downstream end of the pipe and
contains fixed-grade nodes, Equation (1) becomes αij = −1 if the node is at the upstream end of the pipe.
lr + lp = p − n (2) Using Kirchoff’s second law, the loop matrix and
the pseudoloop matrices are joined together to form the
from which it can be shown that nonlinear loop equations:
lp = nfg − 1 (3) number of pipes in loops/pseudoloops

where nfg is the number of fixed-grade nodes. i
 α−1  
2.2 Pressure-drop relations ×βi Ri Qi  Qi + Rsi Qi Qi
For flow through pipes, two main categories of semiem- 
pirical pressure-drop correlations that are based on the −(Ai + Bi Qi + Ci Q2i ) −
Pj = 0 (10)
assumption of fully developed pipe flow exist.11 The
Hazen-Williams pressure-drop correlation, which is valid βi is equal to 1 if the pipe has the same direction as the loop
for turbulent flow only, represents the first category and is or −1 otherwise.
Pj is the pressure difference between
given for SI units by two fixed-grade nodes between which the pseudoloop is
defined and is equal to zero for real loops.
104.72 × 103 Li 1.85185 Equations (9) and (10) will form a set of p = lr + lp + n

Pi = Qi = Ri Qi1.85185 (4)
CH1.85185
W Di4.87 equations, which are linearized at iteration level n thus:
    α−1  
The second category is based on the Darcy equation:  βi Ri Qi, (n−1)  + RSi Qi, (n−1)  − Bi


L 
 i

Pi = 4.242Cf i ρ i5 Q2i = Ri Q2i (5) 
Di  (11)

 − C i i, (n−1) Qi, (n) −
Pj − βi Ai = 0
Q
In turbulent flow, which is prevalent in water distribution 



pipe networks, the implicit Colebrook-White relation is Aij Qj, (n) − qli = 0
262 Khezzar, Harous & Benayoune
Using a starting flow vector, the pseudolinear Equa-
tions (11) are solved simultaneously and iteratively using
Crout’s LU decomposition technique.17 The following
relaxation may be used at each iteration:
Qi, (n) = (1 − γ )Qi, (n−1) + γ Qi, (n) (12)
The coefficient γ is usually found by trial and error. Exten-
sive tests have suggested a value of γ = 0.7.
The iteration process is stopped when
p  
 the node-incidence matrix and hence the set of continuity
i=1 Qi, (n) − Qi, (n−1)
p  
 <& (13)
i=1 Qi, (n)
where & is a sufficiently small convergence criterion usually
equal to 10−3 to 10−4 . Seeking a tight tolerance may lead
to convergence problems in some cases.
Once the flows in all pipes of the networks have been
determined to the required accuracy, the nodal pressures
are conveniently calculated using a spanning tree.
2.4 Incorporating PRVs
Because PRVs have several possible modes of operation,
they are complex elements to incorporate in a network
model. Three basic modes of operation can be identified
and are summarized in Figure 1.
1. Active mode. Water flows through the valve, and
downstream pressure is reduced to the preset pres-
sure level of the valve. In this case the pipe portion
downstream of the PRV is disconnected with the PRV
being modeled as a fixed-grade node. The pressure at
this node is the setting pressure of the PRV.
2. Open mode. The valve is entirely open and acts as if
it were not present.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of PRV status.
3. Closed mode. If reverse flow in the pipe is incipient,
the valve will completely close and acts as a check
valve.
With reference to Figure 1, in all these modes of oper-
ation, it is important to realize that the flow continuity
equations for nodes j and j + 1 will not change when
the PRV is in any one of the preceding modes of oper-
ation. The practical implication is that once determined
at the start of the analysis with the network connected,
Equations (9) will not change thereafter in the analysis.
The loop-incidence matrix, however, will change as the
PRV status changes from open or closed to active mode and
vice versa. Consequently, the connectivity of the underly-
ing graph, which may become nonconnected, also will be
affected. In this case, the minimum spanning tree for each
component of the graph representing the network needs
to be determined with the identification of its fixed-grade
nodes. Subsequently, the loops and pseudoloops for all
the component trees are determined to lead a new loop-
incidence matrix and hence a new set of energy equations,
which can be solved in combination with the original con-
tinuity equations.
Two further points need to be addressed before consid-
ering the solution algorithm: how a closed pipe is mod-
eled and how a flow rate is fixed in a pipe when treating
flow control valves. In the case of a closed valve or pipe,
the resistance of the pipe in question in Equation (13) is
changed as
Ri = Ri + 1030 (14)
The actual magnitude of the constant 1030 is arbitrary as
long as it is very large compared with all the resistance.
In the case of a fixed flow rate in a particular pipe, one of
the continuity equations containing this flow rate is changed
in the following manner:

αij Qj, (n) + (αij + 1030 )Qp, (n) = qli + 1030 Qfix (15)
j =p
Qfix is the value of the fixed flow rate. Thus, if qli and
αij are small compared with 1030 , the equation effectively
states that Qp = Qfix , which fixes the flow rate in that pipe.
In any solution algorithm, the status of the valve needs
to be determined after each iteration of the linear theory
method and is indicated by a variable called status that may
take one of the following values: closed, open, or active.
Thus the solution algorithm proceeds as follows:
1. From the initial graph of the network, determine the
node-incidence matrix (continuity equations). Deter-
mine also the real and pseudoloops for the initial net-
work (energy equations). Set the status of all PRVs to
open.
 Steady-state analysis of water distribution networks 263

2. At the end of each iteration of the procedure, if a con- During the iteration process, the status of the PRV
verged solution is not reached, then check the status depends on the values of either the flow rate in the pipe that
of each PRV as follows: contains it or the pressures upstream or downstream of it.
Case status(PRV) The values of these variables, however, are only approxi-
mate during the iterative solution process and therefore may
closed: if (Pj ≥ Pj +1 and Pj < Pset ) then influence the convergence process. On the other hand, if the
Ri = Ri − 1030 PRV is located on a bridge pipe, which when removed dis-
Status(PRV) = open connects the original connected graph into two subgraphs,
Else if (Pj ≥ Pj +1 ) then the pressure upstream of it is independent of the network
Disconnect pipe from its original upstream part downstream of it. In this case, the PRV status can be
node checked after a solution is sought to Equation (11).
Although the method presented by Jeppson and Davis12
Create a fixed grade to model the PRV and
is acceptable, it failed to be presented within the gen-
connect pipe to it Ri = Ri − 1030 eral framework of graph theory and remains cumbersome
Status(PRV) = active to implement. The method of Andersen and Powell1 was
Endif developed in conjunction with the loop method, and the dis-
open: if Qi < 0 then tinction between the direction of the PRV and its associated
Ri = Ri + 1030 loops is important. They further assume that a fixed-grade
Status(PRV) = closed node should exist upstream of every PRV in the network
and that the latter is connected. The present algorithm
Else if Pj > Pset then
makes no such assumptions. A proper set of equations can
Disconnect pipe from its original
always be formed even if the underlying graph becomes
upstream node nonconnected during the solution process.
Create a fixed grade to model the PRV and
connect pipe to it. 3 RESULTS
Status(PRV) = active
endif 3.1 The computer program
active: if Qi < 0 then The computer program used is OWN (Oman Water Net-
Ri = Ri = 1030 works) and is based on MS Windows using Visual Basic as
the programming language. The OWN system is a totally
Connect pipe to its original upstream node
graphically based environment oriented toward the trans-
Delete the fixed grade created to model fer of information along the design path rather than toward
the PRV individual application packages. The interface is divided
Status(PRV) = closed into three classification windows and menus: primary win-
Else if Pj < Pset then dow and container menu, workspace windows, and active
Connect pipe to its original upstream node object windows. Data entry organized using forms and
Delete the fixed grade created to model draw windows is rendered easy and in this way minimizes
the PRV the input of errors at this stage. The draw window is used
Status(PRV) = open to draw the network with the aid of a mouse. Identifica-
tion of primary loops and pseudoloops and generation of
endif
an initial flow vector for starting the solution process are
End case
handled automatically by the program.
3. If the status of any of the PRVs has changed, then find
the loops. Apply Prim’s algorithm to find the mini- 3.2 Calculation tests
mum spanning tree for the calculation of nodal pres- The test examples were chosen considering the possible
sures. If the graph is disconnected, then invoke this presence of disconnected subnetworks during the iteration
algorithm as many times as the number of discon- process, size of network, published results for compari-
nected components. son, and benchmarking. The network of Boulos and Wood2
4. If more than one tree exists, then identify to which was used as an illustrative example; it contained 36 pipes,
tree each fixed-grade node belongs. Find the pseu- 26 junction nodes, 1 valve, 1 pump, and 3 PRVs. It is a
doloops between the fixed-grade nodes and source for typical example of a municipal water supply system. The
each component. For components that do not contain network characteristics are summarized in Table 1, and its
the original datum node, one of the fixed-grade nodes graphic representation is given in Figure 2. The initial anal-
will act as the source for that particular tree. ysis was conducted with the three PRVs operating at a
264 Khezzar, Harous & Benayoune

Table 1b
Table 1a Results for Boulos and Wood case
Network characteristics (Boulos & Wood, 1991)
Pipe Q (liters/s)
Pipe Length Diameter Node Demand number (Boulos & Wood) Q (liters/s) OWN
number (m) (mm) CH W Kv number (liters/s)
1 2040.00 2040.00
1 600 1000 120 5.0 1 120 2 691.71 691.70
2 1300 700 120 0 2 120 3 166.34 166.34
3 400 400 120 0 3 60 4 94.05 94.05
4 300 400 120 0 4 60 5 60.00 60.00
5 400 400 120 0 5 60 6 1228.29 1228.30
6 400 700 120 0 6 120 7 495.22 495.21
7 500 700 120 0 7 120 8 96.64 96.55
8 800 700 120 0 8 120 9 405.37 405.37
9 400 700 120 0 9 60 10 133.66 133.66
10 400 400 120 0 10 60 11 12.29 12.29
11 400 400 120 0 11 120 12 85.95 85.95
12 300 400 120 0 12 120 13 25.95 25.95
13 400 400 120 0 13 120 14 613.07 623.09
14 400 700 120 0 14 60 15 133.07 133.09
15 500 700 120 0 15 60 16 278.58 278.66
16 400 700 120 0 16 60 17 52.19 51.68
17 800 700 120 0 17 60 18 248.35 248.25
18 400 700 120 0 18 60 19 239.45 240.06
19 300 400 110 0 19 60 20 180.55 179.94
20 300 400 110 0 20 60 21 −52.58 −53.08
21 300 400 110 0 21 60 22 −120.55 −119.94
22 500 400 110 0 22 60 23 126.87 126.99
23 300 400 110 0 23 60 24 6.85 6.97
24 300 400 110 0 24 60 25 113.13 113.02
25 300 400 110 0 25 60 26 60.01 60.02
26 200 200 110 0 26 60 27 .01 0.02
27 300 200 110 0 28 59.99 59.99
28 200 200 110 0 29 360.00 360.00
29 600 400 100 0 30 129.23 129.33
30 300 400 100 0 31 69.23 69.23
31 200 400 100 0 32 35.80 35.80
32 300 400 100 0 33 170.77 170.77
33 200 400 100 0 34 45.03 45.03
34 100 400 100 0 35 14.97 14.97
35 300 400 100 0 36 74.97 74.97
36 100 400 100 0

As mentioned previously, unlike the Newton loop

fixed grade of 230 m. The results of this calculation with
the three PRVs found active took less than 2 seconds of
computing time on a Pentium II microcomputer. These are
given in Table 1, and it can be seen that they are in excel-
lent agreement with the published results of Boulos and
Wood.2 The network of Jeppson and Davis12 also was used
in this study and is shown in Figure 3. It contains 1 pump,
2 reservoirs, 2 globe valves, and 1 PRV, and its details are
given in Table 2. The results obtained are compared with
those of a well-known commercial code and are again in
excellent agreement.
method, the linear theory method does not require an ini-
tial balanced starting flow vector. However, it was found
that using an initial flow vector obtained by the method
described in Epp and Fowler8 employing a minimum
resistance spanning tree generally speeds up the conver-
gence process. When simulating networks that contain
PRVs, the use of such a starting flow vector may not lead to
a converged solution. This was the case with the network of
Jeppson and Davis,12 where the program did not converge
to a solution with the status of the valve oscillating between
open and active throughout the iterating process. A solution
 Steady-state analysis of water distribution networks 265

Fig. 2. Network of Boulos and Wood (1991).

Fig. 3. Network of Jeppson and Davis (1976).

was obtained, however, in nine iterations with a uniform Table 2a

flow vector of 1 liters, as suggested by Wood and Charles.21 Node loads for network of Jeppson
The reasons for nonconvergence are not clear, but the use and Davis (1976)
of a balanced initial flow distribution with zero chord flows
can be a serious source for an erroneous approximation of Node no. Demand (liters/s)
node pressures that are used to establish the status of the 1 30
valve, as described earlier. 2 80
In the algorithm described in subsection 2.4, it was sug- 3 50
gested that the status of PRVs be checked after the first iter- 5 80
ation using approximate values of pressures and flow rate
as decision variables. Calculations with tests started after
266 Khezzar, Harous & Benayoune

Table 2b
Data and results for network of Jeppson and Davis (1976)

Flow rates (liters/s)PRV closed Flow rates (liters/s) PRV active

Pipe Start End Length (m) Diam. (m) CH W OWN Commercial code OWN Commercial code

1 1 2 500.0 0.20 150 102.50 102.00 102.21 102.20

2 2 3 300.0 0.20 150 22.03 22.00 19.34 19.40
3 4 3 500.0 0.20 150 107.9 108.00 107.79 107.80
4 4 1 300.0 0.20 150 74.83 77.10 74.95 75.10
5 2 5 600.0 0.20 150 0.01 0.00 2.87 2.80
6 3 5 500.0 0.20 150 79.98 80.00 77.13 77.20
7 6 1 300.0 0.25 150 57.22 54.90 57.26 57.10
8 7 4 300.0 0.25 150 182.78 185.10 182.73 185.10

Table 2c
Pump characteristics, Jeppson and Davis (1976)

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Pump no. Q1 (liters/s) H 1 (m) Q2 (liters/s) H 2 (m) Q3 (liters/s) H 3 (m)

1 25 12.0 40 10.5 55 8.5

2 60 4.0 90 3.8 120 3.5

the first, second, and third iterations yielded the same solu- assuming zero chord flows may lead to convergence prob-
tion and surprisingly with the same number of iterations. lems, and it is suggested to use a uniform starting flow
This confirms that even though the valve status is decided vector.
using approximate values of nodal pressures, the algorithm
eventually converges to the solution. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the preceding tests, the pressure setting of all the
valves is substantially different from the pressure upstream Financial support provided by the Ministry of Electricity
of the PRV. The sensitivity of the algorithm to this pres- and Water in Oman and Sultan Qaboos University is grate-
sure difference also was considered by conducting simula- fully acknowledged.
tions with pressure-setting values for the valve that differed
only slightly from the pressure immediately upstream of it,
APPENDIX: NOMENCLATURE
and the correct solution always was obtained. This implies
that the algorithm is not sensitive to small differences A Node-incidence matrix
between the set valve pressure and the pressure upstream
Cf i Pipe friction coefficient
of it.
CH W Hazen-Williams coefficient
Di Pipe diameter (m)
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Kv Minor loss coefficient
ki Roughness size of pipe i (m)
An explicit and robust method of incorporating PRVs in
combination with the linear theory method was presented. L Loop-incidence matrix
The algorithm is general and can deal with networks that Li Pipe length (m)
are connected or not. It was found to be efficient and lr Number of real fundamental loops
reliable. The method makes direct use of dynamic stack- lp Number of pseudoloops
oriented data structures that support graph search opera-
n Number of junction nodes
tions. It is described in sufficient detail to be effectively
incorporated in a computer program. nf g Number of fixed-grade nodes
It also was found that the use of a balanced flow vec- P Pressure (N/m2 )
tor employing the minimum resistance spanning tree and p Number of pipes
 Steady-state analysis of water distribution networks
Qi Pipe flow rate (m3 /s)
qli Demand at junction i (m3 /s)
Ri Pipe resistance
Re Pipe Reynolds number
Pi Pressure drop in pipe i (Pa).
ρ Fluid density (kg/m3 )
REFERENCES
1. Andersen, J. H. & Powell, R. S., Simulation of water networks
containing controlling elements, Journal of Water Resources
Planing and Management, 125 (3) (1999), 162–9.
2. Boulos, P. F. & Wood, D. J., Explicit determination of net-
work parameters for improving water distribution system
performance, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Confer-
ence on Computer Methods in Water Resources, Marrakesh,
Morocco, Feb. 20–22, 1991.
3. Chandrashekar, M., Extended set of components in pipe net-
works, Journal of Hyraulics Division, 106 (HY1) (1980),
133–49.
4. Christofides, N., Graph Theory, Academic Press, New York,
1975.
5. Colebrook, C. F., Turbulent flow in pipes with particular ref-
erence to the transition region between the smooth and rough
pipes laws, Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineering,
(1938–39), 133–156.
6. Deo, N., Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and
Computer Science, Prentice-Hall, London, 1976.
7. Dijkstra, E. W., A note on two problems in connection with
graphs, Numerische Mathematics, 1 (1959), 269–71.
8. Epp, R. & Fowler, A. G., Efficient code for steady-state flows
in networks, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 96 (HY1)
(1970), 43–56.
9. Gessler, J., Analysis of pipe networks, in M. Chaudry &
V. Vevjevich (eds.), Closed Conduit Flow, Water Resources
Publications, Colorado, 1981, pp. 61–99.
267
10. Haaland, S. E., Simple and explicit formulas for the friction
factors in turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluids Engineering,
105 (1988), 89–90.
11. Jeppson, R. W., Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks, Ann
Arbor Science, Michigan, 1976.
12. Jeppson, R. W. & Davis, A. L., Pressure-reducing valves in
pipe network analyses, Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
102 (1976), 987–1002.
13. Kruskal, J. B., On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph
and the travelling salesman problem, Proceedings of the
American Mathematics Society, 7 (1956), 48–50.
14. Lansey, K. E. & Mays, L. W., Network simulation models, in
L. M. Mays (ed.), Reliability Analysis of Water Distribution
Systems, ASCE, New York, 1989, pp. 11–36.
15. Nielsen, H. B., Methods for analysing pipe networks, Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 115 (2) (1989), 139.
16. Osiadacz, A. J., Simulation and Analysis of Gas Networks,
Spon, London, 1987.
17. Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A. & Vetter-
ling, W. T., Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Sci-
entific Computing, Cambridge University Press, New York,
1989.
18. Prim, R. C., Shortest connection networks and some gen-
eralizations, Bell System Technical Journal, 36 (1957),
1389–1401.
19. Swamee, P. K. & Jain A. K., Explicit equations for pipe-flow
problems, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 102 (HYS)
(1976), 657–64.
20. Travers, K., The mesh method in gas network analysis, Gas
Journal, November 1, 1967, 167–74.
21. Wood, D. & Charles, C. A. O., Hydraulic network analysis
using linear theory, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 98
(1972), 1157–70.
22. Wood, D. & Funk, J. E., Hydraulic analysis of water distri-
bution systems, in E. Carbrera and F. Martinez (eds.), Water
Supply Systems: State of the Art and Future Trends, Compu-
tational Mechanics Publications, Boston, 1992.
23. Zigrang, D. J. & Sylvester, N. D., Explicit approximations to
the solution of Colebrook’s friction factor equation, AIChE
Journal, 28 (3) (1982), 514–5.