PENCIL Publication of Physical Sciences and Engineering

Vol. 1(2):21-33
ISSN: 2408-7491
www.pencilacademicpress.org/pppse
(c)2015 PENCIL Academic Press

CIVIL ENGINEERING

Research

Improving water distribution network performance: A

comparative analysis
Terry Henshaw and Ify L. Nwaogazie*
Authors' Affiliation

ABSTRACT

Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Port Harcourt,
Nigeria.

Three computer software for simulating water distribution network

systems are demonstrated using the failed water distribution
network of Choba Park, University of Port Harcourt (Uniport). Two
networks are modeled as network 1 and network 2. Network 1 is a
theoretical problem solved using WASDIM software based on the
Hardy Cross method; WASDIMPRO software based on the Hardy Cross
method and EPANET- 2 based on the gradient method. Network 2 is a
model of Choba Park (Uniport) which demonstrates two options and
five cases. Results from network 1 are compared on the basis of
statistical method of test of significance and the law of conservation of
energy. For network 1, a comparison of WASDIM and WASDIMPRO
based on a 5% level of significance showed an estimated t-value of
0.4361, which is greater than the critical t-value of 2.78, indicating
that there is no significant difference between them. When WASDIM
and EPANET 2 were compared based on a 5% level of significance, an
estimated t-value of 2.879 which is greater than the critical t-value of
2.78 shows a significant difference between them. Results from
network 1 shows that the gradient method is more efficient than the
Hardy Cross method. EPANET-2 achieves 0% error in 5 iterations,
while WASDIM shows a very slow convergence achieving 11% error
after 7 iterations and 0.05% error after 1000 iterations. The Model of
the existing Choba network (option 2, case 2) shows that 15 m OHT
will be sufficient to improve the water distribution network and it
will take 11 h for the tank to get empty. Including water demand
pattern in the design (option2, case3) improves the time for water to
empty from 11 to 15 h. The OHT when positioned at the highest point
in Choba and modeled as option 1, case 1 shows that 10 m OHT was
sufficient and would take 11 h for water to empty. By including water
demand pattern, option 1, case 2 took 15 h for the OHT to get empty.
The Result for network 2 shows that the reason for the failed Choba
network is as a result of the insufficient over head tank (OHT) height.
It also gives the reason for the failure of the water distribution
network models (WASDIM, WASDIMPRO) based on the Hardy Cross
principles and further shows the gradient method as a more efficient
method to be used for design of water distribution network.

*Corresponding author.
E-mail: ify.nwaogazie@cohseuniport.com,
ifynwaogazie@yahoo.com.

Accepted: 20th March, 2015.

Published: 1st April, 2015.

Key words: Computer software, WASDIM, WASDIMPRO, EPANET-2, water distribution network Analysis, test of significance,
Choba - Uniport.

22. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

INTRODUCTION
Increasing complexities associated with water
distribution systems necessitated precise estimation of
flows and pressures in various parts of the system.
Solution of single pipe flow problem was no longer
adequate. Quest for methods that analyze (solve for
flows and pressures) for entire water distribution
network gave birth to the topic water distribution
network analysis or pipe network analysis.
The analysis of pipe networks has long been one of the
most computationally complex problems which
hydraulic engineers have to contend with. The basic
hydraulic equations describing the phenomena are nonlinear algebraic equations which cannot be solved
directly. Therefore all current numerical methods of
solution are iterative, that is, they start with an assumed,
approximate solution that is improved. These equations
are usually written in terms of the unknown flow rates in
the pipes, often referred to as LOOP equations.
Alternatively, they are expressed in terms of unknown
heads at junctions throughout the pipe system (node
equations). The most commonly used solution methods
are: Hardy Cross, Newton-Ralphson and Linear theory.
These algorithms and techniques which are currently in
use are employed in proprietary and commercial
software.
A considerable amount of published materials dealing
with pipe network analyses are available in literature, all
of which cannot be cited herein. However, some
principal contributions of historical interest will be cited.
Hardy Cross (1936) authored the original and classic
work titled Analysis of Flow in Networks of Conduits or
Conductors. In this study, only Closed Loop Networks
are considered with no pumps, and a method for solving
the loop equations based on adjusting flow rates to
individually balance each of the energy equations is
described. Hardy Cross also described a second method
for solving the node equations by adjusting the head at
each node so that the continuity equation is balanced.
A number of subsequent works have appeared which
further describe these methods or computer programs
utilizing these methods (Fietz, 1972; Chenoweth and
Crawford, 1974; Jeppson, 1977). Because the head
adjustments are computed independent of each other,
'Convergence' problems often arises in using the Hardy
Cross method. Subsequent efforts are needed following
Hardy Cross concentrated on developing methods to
improve convergence.
McPherson and Prasad (1965) presented the method
of equalizing storage. An empirical formula based upon
assumptions such as proportional loading is used in the
analysis. The validity of this formula has also been

questioned by Adam (1961). Watanatada (1973)

presents a computer-based automatic design method
which, given a network configuration, will
simultaneously compute the pipe sizes and pumping
capacities that minimize the total cost, while satisfying
the demand requirements. Also, Martins and Peters
(1972) introduced the Newton-Raphson iteration
method to solve water distribution system problems.
This method had much improved Convergence
characteristics and forms the basis for more general
applications (Jeppson, 1977). Works of Williams (1973)
also discussed in details on the enhancement of
convergence of pipe network analysis.
In recent times, lots of works have been done in the
use of EPANET- 2 to improve water distribution
networks, but a comparison to quantify the actual
improvement EPANET-2 offers in the improvement over
the existing design is lacking in literature. The study of
Fabunmi (2010) demonstrates the use of EPANET-2 to
provide effective and reliable water distribution pipeline
network for University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
(UNAAB) campus. Also, a study by Ademiran and
Oyelowo (2013) demonstrate the use of EPANET-2 to
improve existing water distribution networks in the
University of Lagos (UNILAG).
However, the water distribution network in Choba
Park is inefficient and needs to be improved with better
options, so this gives the opportunity to compare and
evaluate the best method of water distribution analysis.
A selection of references considered relevant to this
work as it concerns hydraulics of water distribution
networks are Heafley and Lawson (1975), Lam and
Wolia (1972), Mays (1996;2001), Vance (1979), Shamie
(1974) and Wood (1981).
NETWORK SIMULATION
Conservation laws
The distribution of flows through a network under a
certain loading pattern must satisfy the conservations of
mass and energy. For incompressible fluids, the
conservation of mass is given as:

Qin Qout Qext

(1)

Where
Q in and Qout are the pipe flows in and out of the node,
respectively, and Qext is the external demand or supply
at the node.

23. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

For each primary loop, the conservation energy is the

sum of energy or head losses, hL, minus the energy gains
due to pumps, Hpumps around the loop must be equal to
zero:

hLij

i , jIp

Where:

=
j;
Ip
=
k
=
Jp
=
Hpump, k =
loop.

H pump, k 0 (2)

kJp

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hardy-Cross method
The energy equation for each loop in a water
distribution system must be written to take into account
the direction of flow according to Cross (1936) as in
Equation (3):
Qin, j nK p,i, j Qi, j Qi, j

Headloss in the pipe connecting nodes i and

Set of pipes in loop, p;

Number of pumps in loop, p;
Set of pumps in loop, p; and
Energy added by pump k contained in the

Where:

Study area
The study area is the Choba Park premises of the
University of Port Harcourt (Uniport for short, see Figure
1a). The University has three campuses within the radius
of 1.2 km namely Choba park, Abuja park and Delta park.
Each campus has an isolated water distribution network.
However, Choba park has a perimeter of 2,500 m, a land
area of 121 acres and houses four large blocks of hostels,
facilities of Engineering, Education, Agricultural science
and business centres that include banks, canteens and
photocopying outlets.
The perimeter of Choba is bounded by five coordinates
which makes it a polygon of five sides. Any of the five
coordinates such as 40 53 44N, 60 5424.65E is
sufficient to google the map of the study area. The
existing water distribution network of Choba park is
shown in Figure 1b with indications of the existing Over
Head Tank (OHT) position.

n 1

p ,i , j

K p ,i , j = coefficient for pipe connecting nodes i and j;

n = 2 for Darcy-Weisbach Equation; and
Qin, j = direction of flow.
The assumed flows, however, may not satisfy the
energy requirement given in Equation (3). Therefore, the
correction, Qi , j is made to all pipes in a particular
loop, p. To compute Q , Equation (4) is thus, presented:

Q p

p ,i , j

Qin, j

nK p ,i , j Qin, j 1

...................................(4)

Note that pipes with flows in the clockwise direction

n
have positive headloss term K p ,i , j Qi , j while it is of
negative value for flows in a counter clockwise direction.
The Hardy-Cross basically determines the Q p for
each loop separately. Then the flow for each pipe is
corrected using Equation (5):

Qi , j new Qi , j old

Project requirement and study plan

The major requirement of this study is to analyze and
report reasons for the failure of Choba water
distribution network, design working options and
recommend the best option which would replace or
improve the existing network.
Achieving this work involved field activities of testing
pressure drops at different points of the existing
network and carrying out a detailed survey to pinpoint
the lowest and highest points. Field works were
complimented with design simulators/methods which
gave the opportunity to select the best simulator for
designing a water distribution network.

0 (3)

pMp

(5)

Gradient method
The method is used to solve the flow continuity and
headloss equations that characterize the hydraulic state
of the pipe network at a given point in time and can be
termed a hybrid node-loop approach. Todini and Pilati
(1987) and Salgado et al. (1988) chose to call it the
"Gradient Method". Similar approaches have been
described by Hamam and Brameller (1971) (the "Hybrid
Method) and by Osiadacz (1987) (the "Newton LoopNode Method"). The only difference between these
methods is the way in which link flows are updated after

24. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Figure 1a. Choba Park Uniport, the study area; (b)

https://www.google.com/maps/@4.8960634,6.9077667,17.07z.

a new trial solution for nodal heads have been found.

Because Todini's approach is simpler, it was chosen for
use in the EPANET software.
The Gradient solution method begins with an initial
estimate of flow in each pipe that may not necessarily
satisfy flow continuity. At each iteration of the method,
new nodal heads are found by solving the matrix
Equation (6) (Luwis, 2000):
AH = F (6)
Where A = an (NxN) Jacobian matrix, H = an (Nxl) vector
of unknown nodal heads, and F = an (Nxl) vector of right
hand side terms. The diagonal elements of the Jacobian
matrix are:

Aij Pij (7)

j

Where Pij is the inverse derivative of the head loss in the

link between nodes, i and j with respect to flow. For
pipes:

Pij

1
nr Qij

n 1

2m Qij

Existing

water

distribution

network.

Qij ( NEW ) Qij (OLD) yij pij H i H j

Source

(9)

If the sum of absolute flow changes relative to the total

flow larger than a tolerance (e.g., 0.001), then Equations
(6) and (8) are solved once again. The flow update
formula (Equation 9) always results in flow continuity
around each node after the first iteration.
Computer Simulator
With the stress involved in manual computations;
computer simulators are developed to make work easier,
faster and more efficient. Works of Chan (1972),
Dillingham (1967), Donachie (1974), Robinson (1975),
Nwaogazie and Okoye (1994), and Lewis (2000) have
demonstrated different computer approaches to water
distribution network analysis. WASDIM, WASDIMPRO
and EPANET simulators are discussed in subsequent
sections
WASDIM Simulator

(8)

After new heads are computed by solving Equation (6),

new flows are found from Equation (9) (Luwis, 2000):

The WASDIM program is a computer software written in

FORTRAN IV, for water distribution network analysis
(Nwaogazie and Okoye, 1994). This program is based on
the conventional approaches of Darcy-Weisbachs
headloss computation and Von Karmans friction factor

25. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

for the turbulent flows. The model is a relaxation form of

the Hardy-Cross type permitting accurate computation
of the head losses and design flows in pipes of various
diameters. It has the advantage of solving both closed
and open loop networks.
Works of Anicho (2008) and Chattel (1995) have used
the WASDIM simulator in analyzing water distribution
networks.
WASDIMPRO Simulator
The WASDIMPRO program is a computer software
written in visual basic.net, for water distribution
network analysis for the purpose of this study. The only
difference between the WASDIM and WASDIMPRO
software is that of the programming language.
Visual Basic.net is a modern programming language
which is also an object-oriented program (OOP) and
event driven program. More recent releases of Visual
Basic continue to move it closer to a true object oriented
program.
In event driven model, programs are no longer
procedural; they do not follow a sequential logic. The
design programmer does not determine the sequence of
execution. Instead the user can press keys and events
occur, which triggers the basic procedures that have
been written.
EPANET- 2 Simulator
EPANET is a computer program that performs extended
period simulation of hydraulic and water quality
behavior within pressurized pipe networks. A network
consists of pipes, nodes (pipe junctions), pumps, valves
and storage tanks or reservoirs. EPANET tracks the flow
of water in each pipe, the pressure at each node, the
height of water in each tank, and the concentration of a
chemical species throughout the network during a
simulation period, comprised of multiple time steps. In
addition to chemical species, water age and source
tracing can also be simulated.
EPANET is designed to be a research tool for
improving our understanding of the movement and fate
of drinking water constituents within distribution
systems. It can be used for many different kinds of
applications in distribution systems analysis.
Sampling program design, hydraulic model calibration,
chlorine residual analysis, and consumer exposure
assessment are some- examples. EPANET can help
assess alternative management strategies for improving
water quality throughout a system.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Test of significant (t test)

Test of significance is a statistical tool used to give
decisions to an argument. The procedure involves
selecting a % of significance which is used to test the
argument. The final decision of any argument is tied to
the % of significance used.
For example, if a 5% level of significance is chosen in
designing a test of significance, then there are about 5
chances in 100 that you will reject the hypothesis when
it should be accepted, that is, we are about 95%
confident that we have made the right decision
(Nwaogazie, 2011). The t-statistic was adopted for this
work because of the number of data points, N=5.
Using statistical t-test for comparison of significant
difference with a null (H0) and alternative (H1)
hypotheses as stated:
Ho : all d = 0; there is no significant difference between
the two methods of solving water distribution
network; and
H1 : all d 0; there is a significant difference between
the two methods of solving water Distribution network.
This is a case of two tailed test by reason of the
alternative hypothesis. For the null hypothesis to be
accepted and alternative hypothesis rejected, the
estimated t-value from the data set (simulated results)
has to be less than the critical t value read off from the
percentile values of tp for distribution with a given
degree of freedom (). It is the reverse if the null
hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is
accepted.
Description of networks
The first network (Network 1) consist of a single loop
which is a theoretical example problem from Simon
(1981) to establish significant difference between the
new and existing method of solving water distribution
networks.
The second network which is that of Choba Park
(Network 2) consists of 4 major loops enclosing Choba
park, which shows a failed water network.
Network 1
Network 1 is solved with WASDIM, WASDIMPRO and
EPANET-2 for the purpose of comparison. The network
diagram for network 1 is shown in Figure 2 and input
data in Table 1.

26. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Figure 2. Pipe distribution for Network 1.

Table 1. Input data for Network 1.

S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6

Pipe- ID
1
2
3
4
5
6

Length(ft)
1000
1500
1200
1000
2000
1500

Diameter(in)
13
8
13
8
13
6

Figure 3. Flow diagram of EPARNET-2 Print out of Network 2 (OHT positioned at highest point).

Roughness
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005

27. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Table 2. Input data for Network 2.

S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Pipe ID
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
26
27

Length( m)
53.5
96.28
53.5
53.5
139.1
53.5
53.5
96.28
115.533
62.4
53.5
62.4
53.5
64.19
56.5
42.79
10
64.2
42.79

Diameter (m)
75
75
75
100
100
75
75
75
150
75
100
75
100
100
75
75
150
100
100

Roughness
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
120

Network 2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Network 2 was solved with EPANET- 2 using Hazen

Williams formula. It solved the network as options 1 and
2. Option 1 solved the network with the over head tank
(OHT) situated at the lowest point of the area (see Map
in Figure 1b) and option 2 solved the network with the
OHT situated at the highest point of the area (Figure 3).
The input data for this network were the pipe lengths,
diameters, elevations and water demand. The pipe types
were selected in accordance with the standards and this
resulted in using uPVC pipes except in areas on high
vibrations.
The demand of water was estimated based on the
World Health Organization demand (World Bank eLibrary, WBL, 2015) estimates and projected for a
design period of 20 years. Overtime, it has been
observed that with a geometric increase in population of
3% yearly, a 20 year design period, population will
increase by 55%, and in the same way the estimated
water demand will increase.
It was on this note that the estimated water demand
for Choba was projected. The demand pattern for the
different nodes were programmed and uploaded to the
program. Offices will not open till 8 am and as such,
EPANET-2 is programmed to start delivering water
based on demand to such nodes. Table 2 gives the
summary of input data.

Results from network 1

Based on the analysis, the detailed results are presented
in Table 3, and they comprise of the head or pressure at
each nodal junction.
Statistical comparison of results
The first significant test is between WASDIM and
WASDIMPRO after 7 iterations. From the simulated
results (Table 4) the standard error, Sd and the t-value
are obtained respectively and thus, the test of
significance is actualized. The details of the calculations
are as presented:
From the Table 2, d= Col.3 Col.4; F= dmean of di; N = No

of samples = 5; Mean of d (dmean) = = 5.333;

and 2 =

( )2

6.665

= 1168.0158; = 34.176; t =

= 15.284 = 0.4361

The number of degree of freedom (df), = N-1 = 4. By

reason of the alternative hypothesis, H1 we adopt a two
tail test. The critical value of t or t% sigf, df, for 5%

28. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Table 3. Results showing Pressure head for the three simulators.

Node number
1
2
3
4
5

WASDIMPRO
1000
922.76
755.86
904.5
750

WASDIM
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750

EPANET 2
1000
999.38
997.78
999.06
997.39

Table 4. T-test analysis between pressure heads for WASDIM and WASDIMPRO.

S/N (1)
1
2
3
4
5

Node No. (2)

1
2
3
4
5

WASDIMPRO (3)
1000
922.76
755.86
904.5
750

WASDIM (4)
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750

di(5)
0
19.74
-43.4
50.32
0
26.66

F^2(6)
44.422225
170.955625
2506.504225
1905.759025
44.422225
4672.063325

Table 5. t-test analysis between WASDIM and EPANET-2.

N/S
1
2
3
4
5

Node No. (2)

1
2
3
4
5

EPANET 2 (3)
1000
999.38
997.78
999.06
997.39

WASDIM (4)
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750

significance is t97.5, 4= 2.78. Given that t <t97.5, 4, the null

hypothesis is accepted.
Next is the second significant test between the
WASDIM and EPANET- 2 after 7 iterations (Table 5) and
the following calculations for standard error, Sp, and tvalue to facilitate t-test analysis:
From the Table 3; di= Col.3 Col.4; F= di-mean of d
(dmean); N = number of sample = 5; and Mean of d
(dmean)

= 137.43;

9113.1105; = 95.4626; t =

2 =

( 1 )2
1
137.43

= 47.7313 = 2.879

The number of degree of freedom (df), = N-1 = = 4

A two-tail test is adopted by reason of the alternative
hypothesis, H1. From standard textbook on statistics
(Nwaogazie, 2011) the value of t% sigf, df at 5%
significance is read off as t97.5,4 = 2.78. Given that t >
t97.5,4 the null hypothesis is rejected.
To further appreciate the computational efficiency of
WASDIM and EPANET-2, we apply the principle of

di(5)
0
96.36
198.52
144.88
247.39
687.15

F^2(6)
18887.0049
1686.7449
3731.9881
55.5025
12091.2016
36452.442

energy conservation which states that the sum of all

incoming flows must be equal to the sum of all out going
flows at a given node after a number of iterations.
Considering node 2 we performed the following
calculations:
i). For WASDIM after 7 iterations
incoming flow = 18.70 ft3/s
outgoing flow = (4.052 + 12.48) = 16.532 ft3/s
incoming flow outgoing flow
% Error = 11%
ii). For the EPANET -2 after 5 iterations
incoming flow = 19.0 ft3/s
outgoing flow = (7.07 + 11.93) = 19 ft3/s
incoming flow = outgoing flow
% Error = 0%
From the results of the foregoing energy balance
computations at Node 2, it is evident that after 7
iterations, WASDIM records an error of 11%, thus,
iteration continues, while at 5th iteration, EPANET

29. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Number of iteration versus % error for WASDIM simulator

12
12
10
10

% error

8
6

iteration versus
versus error
error for
for
iteration
WASDIM
WASDIM simulator
simulator

44
22
00
00

1000
500
500
1000
No. of iterations

1500
1500

No. of iterations

Figure 4. Number of Iteration versus %Error for WASDIM Simulator.

records an error of 0% and iteration is terminated. This

is basically so because of the methods the softwares are
based on. WASDIM is based on Hardy Cross method
which requires assumption of correct head values and
this turns out to lower its accuracy, while EPANET- 2 is
based on the gradient method which solves each node as
an equation using Matrix techniques.
Discussion of results for network 1
The test of significance between WASDIM and
WASDIMPro for which a 5% level of significance shows
that 95% confidence was selected, indicated an
acceptance of the null hypothesis because the calculated
t- value of 0.4361 was less than the critical t-value of
2.78. This result shows there is no significant difference
between the WASDIM and WASDIMPro softwares which
agrees with the fact that the WASDIMPro like the
WASDIM software uses Hardy Cross method of analysis.
The test of significance between the WASDIM and
EPANET for which a 5% level of significance was also
used indicated a rejection of the null hypothesis because
the calculated t-value of 2.879 is greater than the critical
t-value of 2.78.
This rejection shows a significant difference between
the two software but does not disclose the best of them.
The estimated error after each iteration process gives
the final judgment of which software is better. EPANET
software presents itself to be more efficient as the
estimated error after 5 iterations is 0%, while WASDIM
shows 11% error after 11 iterations and continues to
reduce until the accepted minimum of 0.05% after 1000

iterations (Figure 4). The WASDIM software shows a

very slow convergence which is one of the major issues
with the Hardy Cross method as discussed earlier.
Results for network 2
Based on the analysis, the detailed results are as
presented in Figures 5 and 6 and Tables 6 and 7, and
they comprise of the head or pressure at each nodal
junction with time. The time is varied for 12 h to observe
the behavior of the network if put to run. A summary of
the results gotten for the two options and 5 cases each
are shown in Table 7.
Discussion of results for network 2
Network 2 is the Choba Park and is represented in
Figures 1b and 3. Figure 1b shows the failed Choba
water distribution network and Figure 3 shows the
network of Choba with Over Head Tank (OHT)
positioned at the highest point. EPANET-2 was used to
model the existing Choba distribution network without a
water demand use pattern and results were summarized
as Option 2, case1.
The results show a negative pressure in the
distribution system which means the 10 m height
existing OHT was insufficient to supply water effectively
to the distribution of pipes. This was the existing
problem as water was unable to get to distances beyond
15 m from the OHT position. EPANET-2 was used to
remodel the system with the OHT height increased to 15
m, but maintaining the existing position without a water

30. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Pressure (m)

10

10

Pressure (m)

11

11

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Time (h)
Figure 5. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 3 for Network 2.

Pressure (m)

10

9.0

8.0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Time (h)
Figure 6. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 15 for Network 2.

demand use pattern and this was presented as option 2,

case 2. The results showed that 15 m OHT height would
be sufficient to effectively distribute water to all parts of
the network with an 11 h duration before the tank is
empty.
Option 2, case 2 was remodeled by including a water
demand use pattern and the result presented as Option
2, case 3. Results show an improvement in the duration
for tank to empty; it improves from 11 to 15 h. The
survey plan of Choba park shows the existing position of
the OHT as the lowest point. Epanet-2 remodels the
system using the new position of the OHT as the highest

point in Choba Park. Option 1, case 1 presents the results

of modeling Choba distribution network with OHT at the
highest point with no water demand use pattern
included. Results show that a 10 m OHT is sufficient with
11 h duration for the Tank to empty. EPANET-2 is used
to remodel the distribution network with the OHT at the
highest point with a water demand use pattern included
and results are presented as option 1, case 2. The results
show a 10 m OHT height with 15 h duration for tank to
be empty.
Most studies in literature have used EPANET-2 to
model only correction of failed water distribution

31. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Table 6. EPANET-2 output print out for Network 2.

Node ID
Junc 7
Junc 8
Junc 9
Junc 11
Junc 12
Junc 14
Junc 16
Junc 18
Junc 4
Junc 13
Junc 15
Junc 17
Resvr 2
Tank 1

Demand
LPS
0.40
O.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.38
0.01
0.08
0.01
-88.88
87.92

Head
M
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.50
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.48
10.49
10.50
10.49
-150.00
10.50

Pressure
M
8.49
8.39
8.69
8.50
8.59
8.39
8.59
8.99
8.68
8.79
8.30
8.39
0.00
0.50

Table 7. Summary of results from Network 2.

Pump characteristics
Head (m) Flow (m3/s)

OHT
(m)

Filling
time (h)

Time to
empty (h)

Size of
OHT (m)

Overhead tank is placed at a

high point without a demand
pattern

10

11

D=6m
H=3m

150

135

Option 1,
case 2

Overhead tank is placed at a

high point with a demand
pattern

10

15

D=6m
H=3m

150

135

Option 2,
case 1

Overhead tank is placed at a

low point without a demand
pattern

10

Option 2,
case 2

Overhead tank is placed at a

low point without a demand
pattern

15

11

D=6m
H=3m

150

135

Option 2,
case 3

Overhead tank is placed at a

low point with a demand
pattern

15

15

D=6m
H=3m

150

135

S/N

Item

Description

Option 1,
case 1

networks and this has failed to demonstrate its

capabilities in tracing the exact faults in network
failures. In this study, EPANET-2 has been used to model
the failed water distribution network system of Choba
and the reason for its failure is attributed to insufficient
OHT height and positioning of OHT on the lowest point.
It is always important to search the highest spot for
OHT in designing a water distribution network as this is
one of the factors which always results in the least cost

NEGATIVE PRESSURE IN SYSTEM

design (Watanatada, 1973). In most cases, Engineers try

to give excuses for locating OHT at low point, one of the
popular excuses is that of savings on drilling cost when
ground water serves as a source of water supply, but
Garg (1994) in his research has put it to us that the
water table is a reflection of the earth surface, which
indirectly means that, the level at which a driller meets
water on the hill top with reference to the earth surface
is relatively the same level the driller will meet water on

32. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

the low land with reference to the earth surface and this
he says is a case of 70 in 100. EPANET-2 print-out of
pressure distributions at Nodes 3 and 15 (See Figure 3
on Network diagram) are plotted as shown in Figures 5
and 6, respectively. The abscissa indicates the time
frame to fill the OHT and equally empties it at the point
of interest. The best network for Choba park is Option 1,
case 2 (OHT height of 10m at the highest point) and this
would save up to 5 m of the OHT height when compared
with option 2, case 3 which is the perfect working
network if the OHT is place on the lowest point of Choba
park (OHT height of 15 m at lowest point).
CONCLUSION
The results presented in this study show the following
conclusions:
1. WASDIM and WASDIMPro are not significantly
different because they are operated with the same
principle (Hardy-Cross method)
2. WASDIM and EPANET-2 can be used to model simple
networks with relatively flat terrains but WASDIM has a
very slow rate of convergence compared to EPANET.
3. The water distribution Network of Choba is a failure
because of the insufficient OHT height of 10 m provided
and positioned on the lowest point in Choba park.
4. EPANET-2 can handle time dependent analysis of
water distribution network showing important features
like time for water to fill and empty the over head tank
(OHT}.
5. The best water distribution network design for Choba
would be to position the OHT on the highest point in
Choba park and provide a 10 m height for the OHT.
REFERENCES
Adam, R. W. (1961). Distribution Analysis by Electronic
Computer, Institution of Engineers, London, pp. 415-426.
Adenrian, A. E., and Oyelowo, M. A. (2013). An EPANET analysis
of water distribution network of the University of Lagos,
Nigeria. J. Eng. Res., 18(2).
Simon, L. A. (1981). Practical Hydraulics, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., pp. 92-94.
Anicho, C. U. (2008). Developing Supply Scheme for
Oromerueziegbu Village in Port Harcourt City Local
Government Rivers State, Final Year Project of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of Port Harcourt.
Chan, F. L., and Wolla, M. L. (1972). Computer Analysis of Water
Distribution System: Part I Formulation of Equations, ASCE,
98(HY2):335-343.
Chattel Associates (1995). Water Supply Rehabilitation Study of
Kidney Island; A Consultancy Report for Shell Petroleum
Development Company (SPDC), by Chattel Associates Nigeria
Limited, Port Harcourt.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)

Chenoweth, H., and Crawford, C. (1974). Pipe Network Analysis.

J. Am. Waterworks Assoc., Jan. pp.20-31.
Choba
map.
Goggle
map,
https://www.google.com/maps/@4.8960634,6.9077667,17.07
z.
Cross, H. (1936). Analysis of Flow in Networks of Conduits or
Conductor, Bulletin No. 286, University of Illinois Engineering
Experimentation Station, Urbana, III., pp. 1151-1160.
Dillingham, J. H. (1967). Computer Analysis of Water Distribution
Systems, Water and Sewage Works, Parts 1-5, Jan. May, pp.
30-42.
Donachie, R. P. (1974). Digital Program for Water Network
Analysis, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY3, pp. 393-403.
Fabunmi, A. (2010). Design of an improved water distribution
network for University of Agriculture Abeokuta (UNAAB)
Campus., Unpublished desertation of Department of
Agriculture Abeokuta, Federal University of Agriculture
Abeokuta,www.unaab.edu.ng/ugproject/2010bcfabunmiao.pdf.
Fietz, T. R. (1972). Steady flow in pipe networks by the simple
loop method, Water Research Laboratory Report No. 130,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Oct., pp. 6273.
Heafley, A. H., and Lawson, J. D. (1975). Analysis of Water
Distribution Networks, Proceedings of the Fifth Manitoba
Conference on Numerical Mathematics, University of Manitoba,
Oct., pp. 45-71.
Jeppson, R. W. (1977). Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks, Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science,. pp. 81-89.
Lam, C. F., and Wolia, M. L. (1972). Computer Analysis of Water
Distribution Systems: Part II Numerical Solution, ASCE,
98(HY3):447-458.
Luwis, A. R. (2000). EPANET-2 user manual, Water Supply and
Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research
Laboratory Cincinnati, p. 200.
Martin, D. W., and Peters, G. (1963). The Application of Newtons
Method to Network Analysis by Digital Computer. J. Inst. Water
Eng., 17:115-129.
Mays, L. W. (1996): Water Resources Handbook, New York:
McGraw-Hill Publishers. pp. 1801-18044.
Mays, L. W. (2001): Water Resources Engineering, 1st Edition.
New York, McGraw-Hill Publishers, pp. 409-469.
Mcpherson, M. B., and Prasad, R. (1965). Power Consumption for
Equalizing Storage operating options, Paper presented at the
85th Annual Conference AWWA, Portland Oregon.
Nwaogazie, I. L., and Okoye, D. (1994). Computer-Aided Water
Supply Piping Network Design Model (WASDIM), Nigerian
Society of Engineers, Technical Transactions, 29(4):28-49.
Nwaogzie, I. L. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Science and
Engineering practice, 3rd edition, published by De-Adroit
Innovation, Enugu, Nigeria.
Robinson, P. M., and Rossum, J. R. (1975). Program
Documentation for Hydraulic Network Analysis Computer
Program, California: Water Service Company, June, pp. 105116.
Shamir, Ur (1974). Optimal Design and Operation Water
Distribution Systems Water Res., Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 27-36.
the 17-03-2015
Vance, C. L. (1979). Optimal Design of Water Distribution
Network. J. Hydraulic Div., ASCE, 105(HY1):113-114.
Watanatada, T. (1973). Least-Cost Design of Water Distribution
Systems, ASCE, 98(HY9):131-137.
Williams, G. N. (1973). Enhancement of Convergence of Pipe

33. PENCIL Pub. Phys. Sci. Eng.

Network Solutions, ASCE, 99(HY7):1057-1067.

Wood, D. J., and Rayes, A. M. (1981). Reliability of Algorithms for
Pipe Network Analysis, ASCE, 107(HY10):1145-1161.
World Bank e-Library, WBL (2015). Water demand from World
health
organization,
(WHO).
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1093/wbro/ikp016
?journalcode=wbro). Accessed on the 17-03-2015.

Henshaw and Nwaogazie (2015)