A NETWORK MODELING

hvdraulicnetwo
1

To a novice, careful calibration

of a hydraulic network model may
be as daunting a task as climbing Mt. Everest.

Lindell E. Ormsbee
and Srinivasa Lingireddy

omputer models for analyzing

stribution systems have existed
ng this time, many advances
sophistication and applica-
d widespread use of micro-
e enabled water utilities and
atus and operations of exist -
ing systems and to investigate the effects of proposed
changes.1 The validity of these models, however,
depends largely on the
accuracy of the input data.
Although calibration should always be included in any hydraulic Before an actual distrib-
analysis, it is often neglected or done haphazardly. As a result, tion system may be mod-
inappropriate data may be used or data errors may be overlooked, led or simulated with a
so the resulting hydraulic model is of limited value. The novice omputer program, the
may see calibrating a hydraulic network model as a task as hysical system must be
daunting as climbing Mt. Everest. This article presents a seven-step -presented in a form /’
method for use in calibrating a hydraulic network model. The last le computer -qJ
lF’ B-
and most difficult step is microlevel calibration, which involves
the adjustment of demand loadings and pipe roughnesses unti ,- ,---- ~
/--. -’ .s .-
*PY
computed and observed field pressures or flow rates are withb c
reasonable agreement for various levels and extremes of .f-’
demand, pumping, and storage. Various explicit calibratio
algorithms have reduced the need for trial-and-error ; ,p
1. .
procedures and have improved the reliability of the i
resulting calibration. There remains little justificatior
for failing to develop good calibrated network
models prior to network analysis. OS

42 VOLUME 89. ISSUE 2 Copyright (C) 1997 American Water Works Association JOURNAL AWWA
 can analyze. This requires that the water distribution and initial water levels.
system first be represented by a node-link database (Fig- Physical data for pumps
ure 1). In this case, the links represent individual pipe sec- include either the value of
tions, and the nodes represent points in the system the average useful horse-
where two or more pipes (links) join or where water is power or data for use in
being input or withdrawn. describing the pump flow-
Data associated with each link include pipe iden- head characteristics curve.
tification number, pipe length, pipe diameter, and Data should be entered
pipe roughness. Data associated with each junction into the computer in a for-
node include junction identification number, junc- mat compatible with the
tion elevation, and junction demand. Although it selected computer model.
is recognized that water leaves the system in a time- After data have been
varying fashion through various service connec- assembled and encoded,
tions along the length of a pipe segment, it is gen- the associated model
erally acceptable in modeling to lump half of the parameters should then
demands along a line to the upstream node and the be estimated prior to ac-
other half of the demands to the tual model application. In
downstream node. general, the most un-
In addition to the network certain model parameters
pipe and node data, physi- include pipe roughness
cal data must be obtained and nodal demands. Be-
that describe all tanks, / cause of the difficulty of
reservoirs, pumps, and ’ obtaining economic and
valves. Physical data / reliable measurements
for tanks and reser- / ‘\
\ of these two parame-
voirs include in- / ters, final model val-
formation about 7. Micro c%bration ues are normally determined via model cal-
ibration-i.e., adjusting those model
,, parameters needed to produce results that
closely approximate actual observed con-
ditions as measured from field data. In
general, a network model calibration
effort should encompass seven basic steps
(illustrated at left) :
(1) Identify the intended use of
1-y the model.
(2) Determine initial estimates
\ of the model parameters.
(3) Collect calibration data.
\ \ (4) Evaluate the model
results.
(5) Perform the macro-
level calibration.
4. Evaluate model results
5*a (6) Perform the sensi-
/ \ tivity analysis.
I (7) Perform the mi-
c 0 3.Collect calibration data ; crolevel calibration.

.-. i;
,<A \@
i
‘i
p* * \
.I 6 \
4&b
2. Determine pBErameter
‘J
estiv3te.s G#

..a
1. Identify model use

FEBRUARY 1997 L.E. ORMSBEE ET AL 4.3

Identify intended Otzcewe cli’rlve i7Ttwsc i'iltlt/J, Eve~~~~~~~~~~i‘~t~i~ Determine model
use of the model SPt ilbi~lti tilf ii7Sk c’ftJE’1~;7ttiZitl~?
L i7tti.? parameter
Before calibrating a hy- estimates
i~l~~t~lltl~t~~itl~~ (7lLl’ e~l~i~~~jlt~jtt. At r11is (?vi:tf 1t’i’
draulic network model, it The second step in cal-
is important to first iden- ~~erel.~~ti~te ~.~~llt~lllt~l. ll’t’ 11~71’e ~~~~~~~~~it~i~~~~~ ibrating a hydraulic net-
tify its intended use (e.g., we treed I[? lyqit: tJiit.,i~JtLrtl~?~!. work model is to deter-
pipe sizing for master plan- ine initial estimates of
ning, operational studies, he primary model para-
design projects, rehabilita- neters. In most models,
tion studies, water quality ;ome degree of uncer-
studies) and the associated :ainty is associated with
type of hydraulic analysis several parameters-most
(steady-state versus ex- lotably pipe roughness
tended-period). Usually zoefficients and the de-
the type of analysis is nands to be assigned to
directly related to the in- :ach junction node.
tended use. For example, Pipe roughness val-
water quality and opera- res may be estimated
tional studies require an in two ways. Initial esti-
extended-period analysis, nates of pipe roughness
whereas some planning or Jalues may be obtained
design studies may be per- Ising average values
formed using a steady- ‘ram literature, or directly
state analysis. In the latter, the model predicts system from field measurements. Researchers and manu-
pressures and flows at an instant in time under a spe- facturers have developed tables that provide esti-
cific set of operating conditions and demands (e.g., mates of pipe roughness as a function of characteris-
average or maximum daily demands). This is analogous tics such as material, diameter, and age. Although
to photographing the system at a specific point in time. such tables may be useful for new pipes, their specific
In extended-period analysis, the model predicts system applicability to older pipes decreases significantly as
pressures and flows over an extended period (typi- the pipes age-possibly because of tuberculation,
cally 24 hours). This is analogous to developing a movie water chemistry, and so on. For this reason, initial
of the system performance. estimates of pipe roughness for pipes other than rel-
Both the intended use of the model and the asso- atively new ones should come directly from field test-
ciated type of analysis provide some guidance about ing. Even when new pipes are being used, it is help-
the type and quality of collected field data and the ful to verify the roughness values in the field, because
desired level of agreement between observed and the roughness coefficient used in the model may
predicted flows and pressures.2 Models for steady- actually be a composite of several secondary factors
state applications can be calibrated using multiple such as fitting losses and system skeletonization.
static flow and pressure observations collected at dif- To obtain initial estimates of pipe roughness
ferent times of day under varying operating condi- through field testing, it is best to divide the water
tions. On the other hand, models for extended-period distribution system into composite zones that con-
applications require field data collected over an tain pipes of like material and age (part A of Figure 2).
extended period (e.g., one to seven days). Next, several pipes of different diameters should be
In general, a higher level of model calibration is tested in each zone to obtain individual pipe rough-
required for water quality analysis or an operational ness estimates (part B of Figure 2) to construct a cus-
study than for a general planning study. For example, tomized roughness nomograph for the entire system
determining ground elevations using a topographic (part C of Figure 2). After the nomograph is con-
map may be adequate for one type of study, whereas structed, it can be used to assign values of pipe rough-
another type of study may require an actual field ness for the rest of the pipes in the system. This process
survey. Such considerations obviously influence the is illustrated in Figure 2.
methods used to collect the necessary model data Pipe roughness may be tested in the field by iso-
and the subsequent calibration steps. lating a straight section of pipe that contains three
fire hydrants (part A of Figure
As we aSSeMtt~IC nt i?Ll.wL-lltlzp,1Jlirqes shift 3). When the line has been
selected, pipe roughness may
fiiot7t the imp in fri?ilf of ~1slo t/Ii; rdrr~jc be estimated using one of two
bcforc US. WC ~-~7~~~fl4~~~1 txrmiw th /&mm methods:3 the parallel-pipe
method (part B of Figure 3) or
Ullti/ clt l&St 12’L’iltil’~ h’iltc’ii ~Jl1rObjCCtil’L’. the two-hydrant method (part C
With ~7711’ l~e~l,iji~lsset, lz’r’iyqi11 17f4rilitrllr. of Figure 3). In each method,
the length and diameter of the

44 VOLUME 89, ISSUE 2 JOURNAL AWWA

test pipe are first determined. Then the pipe is isolated, mental mass balance cal-
and the flow and pressure drop are measured either culations for the distribu-
through the use of a differential pressure gauge or tion system. The resulting
by using two separate pressure gauges. Pipe roughness set of temporal demand
can then be approximated by a direct application of factors can then be fine-
either the Hazen-Williams equation or the Darcy- tuned through subse-
Weisbach equation. quent model calibration.
Nodal demand distribution must be assigned.
The second major parameter determined in calibra- Collect calibration
tion analysis is the average (steady-state analysis) or data
temporally varying (extended-period analysis) After model parame-
demand to be assigned to each junction node. Initial ters have been estimated,
average estimates of nodal demands can be obtained the accuracy of the model
by identifying a region of influence associated with parameters can be as-
each junction node, identifying the types of demand sessed. This is done by
units in the service area, and multiplying the number executing the model
of each type by an associated demand factor. Alter- using the estimated para-
natively, the estimate can be obtained by first identi- meter values and ob-
fying the area associated with each type of land use served boundary condi- As we beg% oztr
in the service area and then multiplying the area of tions and then comparing ascent, we attempt
each type by an associated demand factor. the model results with the tc?estimate the best
In either case, the sum of these products is an results from actual field
estimate of the demand at the junction node. observations. Data from route to reach our
Although in theory the first approach should be more fire flow tests, pump sta- immediate objective.
accurate, the latter approach is more expedient. Esti- tion flowmeter readings, 1~ so doimq we must
mates of unit demand factors are available from water or tank telemetry data are
resource handbooks and textbooks.4 most commonly used in remain jlexible in
Time-varying estimates of model demands for use such tests. oTder to adapt to
in extended-period analysis can be made in one of two Fire flow tests are use- cllangitq conditions.
ways, depending on the structure of the hydraulic ful for collecting discharge
model. Some models allow the user to subdivide the and pressure data. Such
demands at each junction node into different use cat- tests are conducted using
egories, which can then be modified separately over both a normal pressure gauge (for measuring static
time using demand factors for water use categories. and dynamic heads) and a pitot gauge (for calculat-
Other models require an aggregate-use category for ing discharge). For a fire flow test, at least two
each node. In the latter case, spatial-temporal varia- hydrants are first selected. One is identified as the
tions of nodal demands are obtained by lumping pressure or residual hydrant, and the other is the
nodes of a given type into separate groups, which flow hydrant.
can then be modified uniformly using nodal demand To obtain sufficient data for a model calibration, it
factors. Initial estimates of either water use category is important that data from several fire flow tests be
demand factors or nodal demand factors can be collected. It is also important that the associated sys-
obtained by examining historical meter records for tem boundary condition data be collected before each
various water use categories and by performing incre- test is conducted. This includes information on tank
levels, pump status, and so on. For ade-
quate model calibration, the difference
between the static and dynamic pressure
readings as measured from the residual
hydrant should be at least 5 psi (10.2 in.
Hg) with a preferable drop of 20 psi (40.7
in. Hg).5 If the discharge hydrant does
not allow sufficient discharge to cause
such a drop, it may be necessary to iden-
tify, instrument, and open additional dis-
charge hydrants.
In addition to static test data, data
collected over an extended period of
time (at least 24 hours and up to seven
days) can be useful for calibrating net-
work models. The most common type
of data are those for flow rate, tank
water level, and pressure. Depending on

FEBRUARY 1997 L.E. ORMSBEE ET AL 45

 As wc coizlifllic our i.!iillh lip tllc u!~~liillLiiu, assess model accuracy.
wc If&c i’fzi’c1~’.siwiri~ l~ui ii/?/i/r2 ri+tir fdi’11 fi’u, Using water quality data,
the travel times predicted
Sb”‘j !,S.‘J/ j,rJ::\ ;v;*;i[’ i:‘i;. ‘j[L; i’:>,l ,‘I ,:;;::‘;:;.: ;!/‘*li{>‘ by the model are compared
j01i7.11cy L’illl ili~I‘ip &?I2 rI7c I”t’il67blil’lv ill iJilL’l1piIt with the corresponding
we p 211ii’ observed values in an
attempt to assess model
accuracy.
the level of instrumentation and telemetry, much of Model accuracy may be evaluated using various
the data may already be collected as part of normal criteria. The most common criteria are absolute pres-
operations. For example, many systems collect and sure difference (measured in pounds per square inch
record tank levels and average pump station dis- [inches of mercury]) or relative pressure difference
charges on an hourly basis. (measured as the ratio of the absolute pressure dif-
These data are especially useful in verifying the dis- ference to the average pressure difference across the
tribution of demands among the various junction system). A relative pressure difference criterion is
nodes. If such data are available, they should be usually preferred. For simulations over extended peri-
checked for accuracy before they are used for cali- ods, comparisons are made between the predicted
bration. If such data are not readily available, the and observed flow rates, pressures, and tank water
modeler may have to install temporary pressure levels. Depending on the application, a maximum-
gauges or flowmeters to obtain them. In the absence state variable (i.e., pressure grade, water level, flow
of flowmeters in lines to tanks, inflow or discharge rate) deviation between 5 and 10 percent is generally
flow rates can be inferred from incremental readings regarded as satisfactory,
of the tank level. Deviations between results of the model applica-
In recent years, both conservative and non- tion and the field observations may be caused by sev-
conservative constituents have been used as tracers era1 factors, including:
to determine the travel time l erroneous model parame-
through various parts of a water ters (pipe roughness values and
distribution system.6 The most nodal demand distribution),
common type of tracer for such l erroneous network data
applications is fluoride. By con- (pipe diameters, lengths, and
trolling the injection rate at a so on),
source (typically the water treat- l incorrect network geom-
ment plant), a pulse can be etry (pipes connected to the
induced into the flow and mon- wrong nodes),
itored elsewhere in the system. l incorrect pressure zone
The relative travel time of the boundary definitions,
pulse from the source to the l errors in boundary condl-
sampling point can be mea- tions (i.e., incorrect pressure-
sured. The measured travel time regulating valve settings, tank
provides another data point for water levels, pump curves, and
use in calibrating a hydraulic so on),
network model. l errors in historical op-
erating records (i.e., pumps
Evaluate model results starting and stopping at incor-
Using fire flow data, the model rect times),
simulates the discharge from one l measurement equipment
or more fire hydrants by assigning errors (i.e., pressure gauges not
the observed hydrant flows as properly calibrated), and
nodal demands in the model. Pre- l measurement error (i.e.,
dicted flows and pressures are reading the wrong values from
then compared with the corre- measurement instruments).
sponding observed values in an The last two sources of errors
attempt to assessmodel accuracy. can be eliminated or at least
Using telemetry data, the model minimized by developing and
simulates operating conditions implementing a careful data col-
(i.e., the variation of tank water lection effort. Elimination of the
levels and system pressures) for remaining errors will frequently
the day the field data were col- require the iterative application
lected. The predicted tank water of the last three steps of the
levels are then compared with the model calibration process-
observed values in an attempt to macrolevel calibration, sensitiv-

46 VOLUME 89, ISSUE 2 JOURNAL AWWA

ity analysis, and microlevel
calibration. Each of these steps
is described in the following
sections.

Perform macrolevel
calibration
If one (or more) of the
measured state variable val-
ues is different from the mod-
eled values by an amount
deemed excessive (i.e, greater
than 30 percent), the cause
for the difference probably
extends beyond errors in the
estimates for either pipe
roughness values or nodal
demands. Possible causes for
such differences are many but
may include closed or partly
closed valves, inaccurate
pump curves or tank teleme-
try data, incorrect pipe diam-
eters or lengths, incorrect net-
work geometry, and incorrect
pressure zone boundaries.7
The only way to ade-
quately address such macro-
level errors is to systematically
review the data associated
with the model and compare
them with the field data to
ensure accuracy. In most cases,
some data will be less reliable
than other data. This observa-
tion provides a logical place to
start in an attempt to identify
the problem. Model sensitivity
analysis provides another
means of identifying the
source of discrepancy. Poten-
tial errors in pump curves can
sometimes be minimized by
simulating the pumps with
negative inflows set equal to
observed pump discharges.8 parameters for subsequent fine-tuning through mi-
crolevel calibration.
Perform sensitivity analysis
Before attempting a microlevel calibration, it is Perform microlevel model calibration
helpful to perform a sensitivity analysis of the model After model results and field observations are in
to help identify the most likely source of model reasonable agreement, a microlevel model calibration
error. This can be accomplished by varying the model should be performed. The parameters to be adjusted
parameters by different amounts and then measur- during this final phase of calibration are pipe rough-
ing the associated effect. For example, many cur- ness and nodal demands. In many cases it may be
rent network models have as an analysis option the useful to break the microlevel calibration into two
capability to make multiple simulations, in which steps: steady-state calibration and extended-period
global adjustment factors can be applied to pipe calibration. In a steady-state calibration, the model
roughness values or nodal demand values. By exam- parameters are adjusted to match pressures and flow
ining such results, the user can begin to identify rates associated with multiple static observations.
which parameters have the most significant impact Fire flow tests are the normal source for such data.
on the model results and thereby identify potential In an extended-period calibration, the model para-

FEBRUARY 1997 L.E. ORMSBEE ET AL 47

 We have reached a
dead end. Our early
optimism has turned
to frustratiou and
disappointment. At
this point we do the
only thing we cau.
We retrace our steps
until a more
acceptable path
appear,s. As we begin
our temporary
descent a un)lsteriom
figure appears and
passes. Was it
Sherlock Holmes
or Hardy Cross?

meters are adjusted to

match time-varying pres-
sures and flows as well as
tank water level trajecto-
ries. In most cases, the steady-state calibration is
more sensitive to changes in pipe roughness, whereas
the extended-period calibration is more sensitive to
changes in the distribution of demands. One poten-
tial calibration strategy would be to first fine-tune
the pipe roughness parameter values using the results
from fire flow tests and then try to fine-tune the dis-
tribution of demands using data about flow, pres-
sure, and water-level telemetry.
Historically, most attempts at model calibration
have employed an empirical or trial-and-error
approach, which can prove to be extremely time-
consuming and frustrating for most water systems.
The level of frustration will, of course, depend some-
what on the expertise of the modeler, the size of the
system, and the quantity and quality of the field data.
Some of the frustration can be minimized by break-
ing complicated systems into smaller parts and then
calibrating the model parameters using an incre-
mental approach. Calibration of multitank systems
can sometimes be facilitated by collecting multiple
data sets with all but one of the tanks closed.8
Several researchers have proposed different algo-
rithms for use in automatically calibrating hydraulic
network models. Most of these techniques have been
restricted to steady-state calibration. These tech-
niques have been based on the use of analytical
equations,9 simulation models, la-la and optimiza-
tion methods.i4is
Analytical approaches require simplification.
Techniques based on analytical equations generally
require significant simplification of the network

48 VOLUME 89, ISSUE 2 JOURNAL AWWA

through skeletonization and the use of equivalent addition, genetic opti-
pipes; thus the techniques may only elicit approxi- mization methods do not
mately correct results. Conversely, both simulation require gradient informa-
and optimization approaches take advantage of using tion. Finally, genetic opti-
a complete model and thus can be expected to yield mization methods employ
better results. probabilistic transition
Simulation approaches add equations. Simu- rules as opposed to deter-
lation techniques are based on the idea of solving for ministic rules, which has
one or more calibration factors by adding one or more the advantage of ensur-
network equations. The additional equations are used ing a robust solution
to define an additional observed boundary condition methodology.
(such as a fire flow discharge head). By adding an Oili- COil~idt?llil7
extra equation, the researcher can explicitly deter- Future trends noted 11d.siiwi~izsd il!m~~
mine an additional unknown. With the advent and
The primary disadvantage of the simulation -LIY’~~Imr altitiide.
use of nonlinear opti-
approaches is that they can only handle one set of mization, it is possible to Howevel; our
boundary conditions at a time. For example, apply- achieve some success in ultimate goal
ing a simulation approach to a system with three dif- microlevel calibration. Of
ferent sets of observations (all obtained under differ- course, the level of suc- remains hidden in
ent boundary conditions-i.e., tank levels, pump cess depends greatly on the clouds. At this
status, and so on) elicits three different results. the degree to which point we look for
Attempts to obtain a single calibration result will sources of macrolevel cal-
require one of two application strategies: a sequential ibration errors have first solid footiftg among
approach or an average approach. been eliminated or at least the icy ‘terruces.
In the sequential approach, the system is subdi- significantly reduced. Which path will
vided into multiple zones whose number will corre- Although these later
spond to the number of sets of boundary conditions. sources of errors may not bring us Josest to
In this case, the first set of observations is used to be as readily identified our final goal?
obtain calibration factors for the first zone. These fac- with conventional opti-
tors are then fixed, another set of factors is deter- mization techniques, it
mined for the second zone, and so on. In the average may be possible to develop prescriptive tools for these
approach, final calibration factors are obtained by problems using expert system technology. In this
averaging the calibration factors for each of the indi- case, general calibration rules could be developed
vidual calibration applications. from an experiential database that could then be used
Optimization approach is alternative to simu- by other modelers in an attempt to identify the most
lation. The primary alternative to the simulation likely source of model error for a given set of system
approach is the optimization approach. In this characteristics and operating conditions. Such a sys-
approach, the calibration problem is formulated as a tem could also be linked with a graphical interface and
nonlinear optimization problem consisting of a non- a network model to provide an interactive environ-
linear objective function subject to both linear and ment for use in model calibration.
nonlinear equality and inequality constraints.16 In recent years, advocacy has increased for the
Recently, researchers have begun to investigate use of both geographic information system (GIS)
the use of genetic optimization for solving such com- technology and supervisory control and data acqui-
plex nonlinear optimization problems.18 Genetic sition (SCADA) system data based in model calibra-
optimization offers a significant advantage over more tion. GIS technology provides an efficient way to link
traditional optimization approaches in that it attempts customer billing records with network model com-
to obtain an optimal solution by continuing to eval- ponents for use in assigning initial estimates of nodal
uate multiple solution vectors simultaneously. In demands.19 Such technology also provides a graph-

We establish our last camp. Our goai is within reach. What

ctic shall we employ in the final assault on the summit-a more
ethodical approach around the southern face or a rapid ascent
7 the mfamiliar northern slope? For a moment our thoughts
!ce back in time before the availability of modern equipment
and bottled oxygen where inexperienced climbers could be Lfound
wander+q near the summit with a glaTed look of total confusiovz.
I. 5L1j’?:‘<3i,”
iji?l:,* ;;I;: * ,.l..i i’i’t’! make it?

FEBRUARY 1997 L.E. ORMSBEE ET AL 49

 ical environment for ex- 9. WALSKI, T.M. Technique for Calibrating Network
amining the network Models. Jour. ASCE-Water Resources Planning d
database for errors. Mgmt., 109:4:360 (1983).
One of the more inter- 10. RAHAL, C.M.; STERLING, M.J.H; 6- COULBECK, B.
esting possibilities with Parameter Tuning for Simulation Models of
regard to network model Water Distribution Networks. Proc. 1980 Insti-
calibration is the develop- tution of Civil Engrs., London.
ment and implementation 11. GOFMAN, E. 6 RODEH, M. Loop Equations With
of an on-line network Unknown Pipe Characteristics. ASCE Jour.-
So, what are you model through linkage of Hydraulics Div., 107:9:1047 (1981).
waiting for? Climb the model with an on-line 12. ORMSBEE, L.E. 6 WOOD, D.J. Explicit Pipe Net-
that mountain! SCADA system. Such a work Calibration. Jour. ASCE-Water Resources
configuration provides the Planning &Mgmt., 112:2:166 (1986).
possibility for a continu- 13. BOULOS, P. 6 ORMSBEE, L. Explicit Network Cali-
ing calibration effort, in bration for Multiple Loading Conditions. Civil
which the model is continually updated as additional Engrg. Systems, 8:153 (1991).
data are collected through the SCADA system.20 14. MEREDITH, D.D. Use of Optimization in Calibrat-
ing Water Distribution Models. Proc. 1983 ASCE
Summary and conclusion Spring Convention, Philadelphia.
Network model calibration should always be per- 15. COIJLBECK, B. An Application of Hierarchial Opti-
formed before any network analysis planning and mization in Calibration of Large-scale Water Net-
design study. A seven-step methodology for network works. Optimal Control Applications and Methods,
model calibration has been proposed. Historically, 6:31 (1984).
one of the most difficult steps in the process has been 16. ORMSBEE, L.E. Implicit Pipe Network Calibration.
the final adjustment of pipe roughness values and Jour. ASCE-Water Resources Planning 8 Mgmt.,
nodal demands through the process of microlevel 115:2:243 (1989).
calibration. With the advent of recent computer tech- 17. LANSEY, K. 6 BASNET, C. Parameter Estimation
nology it is now possible to achieve good model cal- for Water Distribution Networks. Jour. ASCE-
ibration with a reasonable level of success. As a result, Water Resources Planning 6’ Mgmt., 117: 1: 126
there remains little justification for failing to develop (1991).
good calibrated network models before conducting 18. LINGIREDDY, S. 6 ORMSBEE, L.E. Hydraulic Net-
network analysis. It is expected that future develop- work Calibration Using Genetic Optimization.
ments and applications of both GIS and SCADA tech- (Unpubl.)
nology will lead to even more efficient tools. 19. BASFORD, C. 6 SEVIER, C. Automating the Main-
tenance of a Hydraulic Network Model Demand
References Database Utilizing GIS and Customer Billing
1. ORMSBEE, L.E.; CHASE, D.V.; 6 GRAYMAN, W. Net- Records. Proc. 1995 AWWA Computer Conf.,
work Modeling for Small Water Distribution Sys- Norfolk, Va.
tems. Proc. 1992 AWWA Computer Conf., 20. SCHULTE, A.M. 6 MALM, A.P. Integrating Hy-
Nashville, Tenn. draulic Modeling and SCADA Systems for Sys-
2. WALSKI, T.M. Standards for Model Calibration. tem Planning and Control. Jour. AWWA, 85:7:62
Proc. 1995 AWWA Computer Conf., Norfolk, Va. (1993).
3. W&SKI, T.M. Analysis of Water Distribution Systems.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York ( 1984). About the authors: Lindell E.
4. CESARIO, L. Modeling, Analysis, and Design of Ormsbee is associate director of the
Water Distribution Systems. AWWA, Denver Kentucky Water Resources Research
(1995). Institute and professor of civil engi-
5. WALSKI, T.M. Case Study: Pipe Network Calibra- neering at the University of Ken-
tion Issues. ASCE Jour.-Water Resources Planning tucky, South Limestone, Lexington,
andMgmt., 112:2:238 (1986). KY 40506-0281. For 13 years he has
6. KENNEDY, M.; SARIKELLE, S.; 6 SURAVALLOP, K. been conducting research into the
Travel-Time Calibrations in Water Distribution design, analysis, and operation of
Systems. Proc. 1991 AWWARP-USEPA Conf. on water L*LJI,IUHIIVII systems. Ormsbee’s research has resulted
Water Quality Modeling in Water Distribution in numerous publications and computer programs. In
Systems, Cincinnati. 1995 he was chair of the AWWA Computer Conference. He
7. WALSKI, T.M. Sherlock Holmes Meets Hardy- holds a BS degree from the University of Kentucky, an
Cross, or Model Calibration in Austin, Texas. MS from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
Jour. AWWA, 82:3:34 (1990). versity in Blacksburg, Va., and a PhD from Purdue Uni-
8. CRUICKSHANK, J.R. 6 LONG, S.J. Calibrating Com- versity in West Lafayette, Ind. Srinivasa Lingireddy is an
puter Model of Distribution Systems. Proc. 1992 assistant professor of civil engineering at the University of
AWWA Computer Conf.. Nashville, Tenn. Kentucky.

50 VOLUME 89, ISSUE 2 JOURNAL AWWA