Optimal Design of Pumping Mains Considering

Pump Characteristics
P. S. Mahar 1 and R. P. Singh 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The total cost of a pumped water supply system includes the capital costs of the pipeline and pumping units, the replacement costs
of various components included, and the energy costs related to the system’s operation. The capital cost of pipeline and energy cost
are nonlinear functions of the pipe diameter. In addition, the pump characteristics, the replacement costs of components, and the escalating
energy costs are of a nonlinear nature. In this paper, a nonlinear optimization model is developed to design a pumping main for required
discharge, static head, pump characteristics, and economic parameters. The optimization model minimizes the total annual cost of the
pumping main and pump, satisfying the pump characteristic curve equations. The applicability of the developed model is demonstrated
with the help of a design example. The optimization model determines the optimal diameter of pumping main with pump efficiency
for a required discharge or optimal discharge range with pump efficiency for an available diameter. The optimization model shows the
effect of escalating costs of components and energy on the size of pumping main. Further, the model can also be used to determine the
optimal operating conditions for a new pumping system or to evaluate an existing pumping system. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204
.0000157. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Optimization model; Pumping main; Capital cost; Energy cost; Pump characteristic curves.

Introduction
Water supply systems consist of different components such as res-
ervoirs/tanks, pumps, pipeline, valves, and fittings. To meet the de-
mand of increasing population, the design of a new water supply
system or improvements to an existing one are important problems
for the designers. The general design problem of a water supply
system involves minimizing the overall cost of the system subject
to meeting the pressure and flow requirements. Conventionally, the
water supply systems have been designed by trial-and-error meth-
ods on the basis of engineering judgment. More efficient and ac-
curate optimization methods have been applied to design of water
supply systems during the last four decades, covering various as-
pects such as cost of pipe networks, energy costs, pumping oper-
ations, and pumping mains. Many researchers minimized the cost
of pipe networks using linear programming (Alperovits and Shamir
1977; Fujiwara et al. 1987), nonlinear programming (Shamir 1974;
Lansey and Mays 1989; Varma et al. 1997), and dynamic program-
ming (Liang 1971; Yang et al. 1975). Application of advanced tech-
niques of optimization like genetic algorithms (Tolson et al. 2004;
Prasad and Park 2004; Tu et al. 2005; Kadu et al. 2008; Krapivka
and Ostfeld 2009), ant colony optimization (Zecchin et al. 2007),
and differential evolution (Vasan and Simonovic 2010) have been
used to optimize the cost of pipe networks. A detailed description
of optimal design of pipelines for water supply systems is available
1
Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Dept., College of Technology,
GBPUA&T Pantnagar, 263 145, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand),
India (corresponding author). E-mail: pooransmahar@yahoo.co.in
2
Professor, Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Dept., College of
Technology, GBPUA&T Pantnagar, 263 145, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar
(Uttarakhand), India. E-mail: rajprasin1@rediffmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 4, 2012; approved on
August 7, 2013; published online on September 2, 2013. Discussion
period open until February 2, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Pipeline Systems
Engineering and Practice, © ASCE, ISSN 1949-1190/04013010(6)/
$25.00.
in Mays and Tung (1992), Lansey (2000), and Bhave (2003).
Lansey and Awumah (1994) minimized energy consumption costs
to determine optimal pump operation schedules for water distribu-
tion systems using dynamic programming. Ormsbee and Lansey
(1994) reviewed and discussed the optimal control methodologies
for water supply pumping systems considering the type of system,
the type of hydraulic model used, the type of demand model used,
the type of optimization method used, and the nature of resulting
optimal control policy.
In water supply systems, pumping mains transport water over
long distances to meet the required flow and pressure. As a water
supply system may be subjected to different loading conditions
(Mays 2004), the pump has to operate at different discharge, head,
and efficiency points. The discharge, head, and efficiency of a
pump are represented by its characteristic curves having a nonlinear
nature. The pump characteristic curves and the system head curve
can be used to select the size of a pumping main and proper oper-
ating range of the pump to result in the minimum energy cost with
maximum possible efficiency. This will help in minimizing the
overall cost of the water supply system. The cost minimization
of a pumping main has drawn little attention of researchers.
Swamee (1996, 2001) developed methodology for optimal design
of pumping mains using geometric programming. However, the
nonlinear pump characteristics were not included in the geometric
programming approach. In addition, the optimization models have
ignored the inclusion of escalation in the capital cost of the com-
ponents to be replaced and the energy cost that affects the design of
pipelines (Jensen 1981). The capital cost of discrete pipe sizes, the
operating characteristics of pumps, and the energy cost to overcome
the pipe friction are nonlinear in nature. Therefore, it will be more
appropriate to use a nonlinear programming model to select optimal
pipe size on the basis of replacement cost of the pump and its op-
erating characteristics for the required flow rate and pressure head.
This paper presents the application of a nonlinear programming
model for optimal design of a pumping main by considering
pump characteristics. The model considers capital investment
and replacement costs of the components and energy cost with

© ASCE 04013010-1 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010

 escalating cost factors. Optimal diameter of the pumping main,
optimal discharge range, and optimal operating conditions for a
pumping system can be obtained from the solution of the
optimization model.
Theoretical Considerations
The total cost of a pumped water supply system includes the capital
costs of pipeline, pumping unit, and their replacement costs; energy
cost to operate the pump; and maintenance and repair costs of the
components. The water treatment cost, cost to transfer among water
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cost of Pumping Unit
The capital cost of the pumping unit varies with discharge and
pressure head. The relationship among discharge, pressure head,
and efficiency of a centrifugal pump is generally expressed in
the form of its characteristic curves (Church and Lal 1973; Punmia
et al. 2010). The characteristic curves are plotted with the help
of performance test data of the pumps supplied by the pump
manufacturers. Using the manufacturer’s data, the head-capacity
curve for the pump can be represented in a polynomial form as
(Lal 1995)

H ¼ a0 þ a1 Q þ a2 Q 2 ð6Þ
treatment plants, and cost of water losses are also included in the
total cost of the water supply system (Kanakoudis and Tolikas where H = pump head (m); Q = pump discharge (L=s); and a0 , a1 ,
2003). The maintenance and repair costs are generally considered and a2 = constants. Similarly the efficiency-capacity curve for the
as a percentage of the capital cost of the system or omitted from the pump can be represented as
cost analysis, as their effect will be common for selecting compo-
nents from different alternatives. Kanakoudis and Tolikas (2001) η ¼ b0 þ b1 Q þ b2 Q2 ð7Þ
calculated optimum replacement time for pipes of a water network
using present value method of analysis. Kanakoudis (2004) intro- where η = efficiency of the pump, (percent); and b0 , b1 , b2 = con-
duced a methodology for preventive maintenance schedule/policy stants. The efficiency of the pump is calculated as
of water supply networks. Kanakoudis and Tolikas (2004) devel-
100QH
oped a methodology that analyzes the possible preventive mainte- η¼ ð8Þ
nance actions in a water supply system. These studies used 75BHP
technicoeconomic analysis that takes into account all kinds of costs
where BHP = brake horsepower. The capital cost of the pump can
for repair and replacement of trouble causing parts of a network.
be represented as (Bhave 2003)
Bhave (2003) has described and applied present worth method,
annual cost method, benefit cost ratio method, and rate of return 73.5QHCu
method for economic analysis of a water supply system. The Cp ¼ ð9Þ
75η
methodology presented in this study uses the annual cost method
(James and Lee 1971) of life-cycle cost analysis. where Cp = capital cost of the pump (Rs); and Cu = cost of pump-
ing unit (Rs=kW). Because the life of the pump is less than that of
the pipeline, the replacement cost of the pump with escalating rate
Pipeline Cost during the project life can be calculated (Jensen 1981) as

Although commercial pipes are available in discrete sizes, the ð1 þ rÞn1

Cpr ¼ Cp ð10Þ
diameter of a pumping main can be treated as a continuous variable ð1 þ iÞn1
in optimization problems. Therefore, the capital cost per unit length
of pipes can be represented by a nonlinear function of diameter as where Cpr = replacement cost of the pump (Rs); r = decimal equiv-
(Bhave 2003) alent escalation rate in capital cost of the pump; and n1 = life of the
pump (year). The total annual cost of the pump can be calculated as
I c ¼ adb ð1Þ
F2 ¼ ðCp þ Cpr ÞCr ð11Þ
where I c = initial capital cost of the pipeline (Rs=m, Rs designates
the Indian currency i.e., rupee); a and b = constants; and d = where F2 = total annual cost of the pump (Rs). Eq. (11) can be
diameter of pipeline (mm). The annual capital cost of the pumping expressed as
main can be obtained as (Jensen 1981) K 2 QH
F2 ¼ ð12Þ
F1 ¼ Cr I c L ð2Þ η

where K 2 = constant which can be calculated as

where F1 = annual capital cost of the pumping main (Rs); L =
length of the pumping main (m); and Cr = capital recovery factor  
73.5Cu ð1 þ rÞn1
(dimensionless), which can be calculated as K2 ¼ 1þ Cr ð13Þ
75 ð1 þ iÞn1
ið1 þ iÞn
Cr ¼ ð3Þ
ð1 þ iÞn − 1
Energy Cost
where i = decimal equivalent annual interest rate; and n = life of the
The annual energy cost for overcoming frictional head loss in the
pumping main (year). Eqs. (1) and (2) can be combined to relate
pumping main can be calculated as (Mahar and Singh 2001)
annual capital cost with diameter as
73.5Q × t × Ce × H s × Ea
F1 ¼ K 1 db ð4Þ Ec ¼ ð14Þ
75η
where K 1 = constant, which can be calculated as
where Ec = annual energy cost (Rs); t = annual use (h); Ce = cost
K 1 ¼ aCr L ð5Þ of electricity (Rs=kW · h); Hs = system head requirement (m); and

© ASCE 04013010-2 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010

 Ea = escalating energy cost factor. The system head requirement min · T c ¼ F1 þ F2 þ Ec ð21Þ
can be calculated as
The first two constraints related to the pump characteristics are
Hs ¼ hst þ hf þ hm ð15Þ represented by Eqs. (6) and (7).
Further, to meet the pressure head requirement by the pump, the
where hst = static head (m); hf = frictional head loss in the total constraint can be written as
length of the pipe (m); and hm = the minor head loss (m). The value
of hf can be calculated using the Hazen-Williams equation as H ≥ Hs ð22Þ
 1.852
Q
hf ¼ 1.212 × 1010 d−4.87 L ð16Þ
C Design Example and Discussion

where C = Hazen-Williams coefficient for pipe material. The value A design example is presented to show the applicability of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of Ea can be calculated as (Jensen 1981) developed nonlinear optimization model. The following subsec-
   tions describe the design example, its optimal solution, and related
ð1 þ eÞn − ð1 þ iÞn i discussion.
Ea ¼ ð17Þ
ð1 þ eÞ − ð1 þ iÞ ð1 þ iÞn − 1

where e = decimal equivalent annual rate of energy cost increase Design Example
(here, e is not equal to i). Eqs. (14)–(17) can be combined to relate In a water supply system, a centrifugal pump has to supply water
the annual energy cost with diameter as through a pumping main having a length of 1,000 m. The optimal
QH s diameter of the pumping main and the optimal operating conditions
Ec ¼ K 3 ð18Þ of the pump were designed using the following data:
η
• Design period = 30 years;
where K 3 = constant that can be calculated as • Daily pumping hours = 16;
• Static head = 5 m;
73.5 × t × Ce × Ea • Expected pump life = 15 years;
K3 ¼ ð19Þ
75 • Cost of pumping unit = Rs 6,000=kW;
• Cost of energy = Rs 2.5=kW · h;
Total Cost • Interest rate = 7%;
• Escalation rate for fixed and energy costs = 5%;
The total annual cost of the pumping main with pump can be
• Hazen-Williams coefficient = 115; and
represented as
• Minor loss = 10% of the friction head loss.
T c ¼ F 1 þ F 2 þ Ec ð20Þ The available diameters of CI pipes and their unit cost for the
pumping main are given in Table 1 as applicable in Uttarakhand
where T c = total annual cost of the pumping main including pump. Drinking Water Resources Development & Construction Nigam,
Dehradun (Uttarakhand), India for 2003. Table 2 includes the data
related to the pump characteristics (Punmia et al. 2010).
Optimization Model

As the diameter of the pumping main increases, the capital cost Solution
increases and the energy cost to overcome the frictional head loss
The given data were used to calculate the annual costs and
decreases. The diameter that will result in the minimum cost can be
other parameters required for use in the formulated nonlinear
easily obtained if the pump has to run at peak efficiency (Bhave
2003). Because head, efficiency, and discharge of a pump are in-
terrelated, any change in the demand or static head of the supply Table 1. Unit Capital Cost of Available C I Pipe Sizes
system may significantly affect the efficiency of the pump, and Pipe diameter (mm) Cost per unit length (Rs=m)
hence the energy consumption. Further, in actual practice the pump
may not run at fixed efficiency for the required discharge because 150 655.00
of varying demands. Therefore, it is important to determine the 200 960.00
250 1,290.00
range of efficiency for optimal operation of the pump to result
300 1,660.00
in the minimum total cost of the system for the required discharge 350 2,095.00
and pressure head. 400 2,550.00
The cost functions of the pumping main with pump are nonlin- 450 3,080.00
ear [Eqs. (4), (12), and (18)]. The relationship between the head,
efficiency, and discharge of the pump and system head requirement
are also nonlinear in nature [Eqs. (6), (7), and (15)]. Therefore, a Table 2. Pump Characteristics Data
nonlinear optimization model is required to obtain the diameter of
the pumping main and optimal operating conditions of the pump Discharge (L=s) Head (m) Efficiency (%)
to result in the minimum value of the total cost of the system. 0 20 0
The objective of the optimization model is to obtain the optimal 8 18.6 48
diameter of the pumping main and operating conditions of the 16 16.7 69
pump, which can be achieved by minimizing the total annual cost 24 14 75
of the system given by Eq. (20) with constraints related to pump 32 10.9 70
characteristics and system head requirements. The objective func- 40 7.4 60
48 3.6 47
tion can be written as

© ASCE 04013010-3 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010

 optimization model. For the data in Table 1, the constants of Eq. (1) Table 4. Optimal Solution for Different Values of Discharge without
were obtained by fitting a power curve using Excel as a ¼ 0.5649 Escalated Costs at a Static Head of 5 m
and b ¼ 1.404, for I c in Rs=m and d in mm. Using Eq. (2) the value Optimal Pump System Optimal
of Cr was obtained as 0.080586; and using Eq. (5), the value of Discharge diameter Efficiency head head annual
K 1 was obtained as 45.52325934. The constants of Eq. (6) were (L=s) (mm) (%) (m) (m) cost (Rs)
obtained by using Excel as a0 ¼ 20.083, a1 ¼ −0.1598, and 10 142.8 47.7 18.1 9.6 79,617
a2 ¼ −0.0039. Similarly, the constants of Eq. (7) were obtained 15 164.8 61.7 16.8 9.9 96,052
by using Excel as b0 ¼ 6.2381, b1 ¼ 5.0446, and b2 ¼ −0.0897. 20 183.6 71.3 15.3 9.9 111,324
Using Eq. (13), the value of K 2 was obtained as 830.888. Using 25 201.0 76.3 13.7 9.8 126,788
Eq. (19), the value of K 3 was found as 24,919.227. 30 218.0 76.8 11.8 9.5 143,567
The head-discharge and efficiency-discharge characteristics of 35 235.9 72.9 9.7 9.1 163,136
the pump represented by Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively were written
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as two different constraints. The constraint related to system head

requirement represented by Eq. (22) was written by combining
Eqs. (15) and (16). Thus, the objective function and constraints
after substituting the values of the respective constants were
obtained as
830.888QH 24919.23QH s
min T c ¼ 45.5233d1.404 þ þ ð23Þ
η η
subject to
H ¼ 20:083 − 0:1598Q − 0:0039Q2 ð24Þ
η ¼ 6:2381 þ 5:0446Q − 0:0897Q2 ð25Þ
Hs ¼ 5 þ 0:203462 × 1010 Q1.852 d−4.87 ð26Þ
H ≥ Hs ð27Þ
Optimal Design
The optimization model formulated according to Eqs. (23)–(27)
was solved using LINGO 8.0 software (LINDO Systems Inc.
2003) in demo mode for a static head of 5 m and escalation rate
of 5% (both in the fixed and energy costs). Discharge was used as
an input to the model. For different values of discharge within the
pump capacity, the optimal values of diameter, efficiency of pump,
pressure head of the pump, and total annual cost of the system were
obtained as given in Table 3. The model results in optimal diameter
for any required discharge available within the pump characteristics
range. For discharge of 45 L=s, no feasible solution was obtained.
This is because of constraints represented by Eq. (27), in which the
value of Hs becomes greater than H with the available pipe sizes.
From Table 3 it can be seen that for a discharge of 30 L=s, the
optimal diameter of 238.3 mm is resulting at the peak efficiency
of 76.8%.
To see the effect of cost escalation on the optimal solution, the
optimization model was again solved considering no escalation.
The optimal solutions for the case without escalation are presented
in Table 4. Comparing the results of Tables 3 and 4, it can be ob-
served that lower values of the optimal diameter and optimal cost
are obtained without considering escalation in capital and energy
costs. The actual annual cost for optimal diameters obtained with
cost escalation will be the same as optimal cost given in Table 3.
However, because of increases in the capital and energy costs dur-
ing the project life, the actual annual cost for diameters obtained in
Table 4 will be different than the optimal cost. Therefore, by con-
sidering the escalation rate of 5% in capital and energy costs in
Eq. (23), the actual annual costs were calculated for the optimal
diameters from Table 4. The calculated values of actual annual
costs are plotted in Fig. 1 and compared with optimal annual costs
from Table 3. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the optimal annual cost
for pipe diameters obtained by considering the cost escalation is
slightly lower than the actual annual cost for diameters obtained
without considering the cost escalation. However, the difference
in cost may be important for larger lengths of the pumping main
and a higher escalation rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the se-
lection of smaller diameters obtained without considering the cost
escalation will actually be uneconomical during the project life.
Effect of Static Head on Optimal Solution
To see the effect of static head on optimal solution, the model was
solved for a higher static head of 15 m. The results are given in
Table 5. Comparing the results given in Tables 3 and 5, it can
be observed that the values of efficiency and head of the pump
are the same for static heads of 5 and 15 m. The optimal diameters
are bigger for higher values of discharge and static head. The
system head and optimal cost are higher for static head of
15 m. Further, with a static head of 15 m, no optimal solution
was obtained for discharge of 22 L=s and higher because of lower
available head to meet frictional head loss.

Table 3. Optimal Solution for Different Values of Discharge with

Escalated Costs at a Static Head of 5 m
Optimal Pump System Optimal
Discharge diameter Efficiency head head annual
(L=s) (mm) (%) (m) (m) cost (Rs)
10 156.0 47.7 18.1 8.0 99,659
15 180.0 61.7 16.8 8.2 119,753
20 200.6 71.3 15.3 8.2 138,709
25 219.6 76.3 13.7 8.1 158,283
30 238.3 76.8 11.8 7.9 180,027 Fig. 1. Comparison of actual annual cost for optimal diameters with
35 257.7 72.9 9.7 7.7 206,096 and without escalation

© ASCE 04013010-4 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010

 Table 5. Optimal Solution for Different Values of Discharge with the optimal diameter with discharge range and corresponding effi-
Escalated Costs at a Static Head of 15 m ciency range for a particular pump. The model can also be used to
Optimal Pump System Optimal evaluate existing pumping systems to predict optimum time to re-
Discharge diameter Efficiency head head annual pair or replace the pump. Further, the model can be used for select-
(L=s) (mm) (%) (m) (m) cost (Rs) ing a pump to result in the optimal operating conditions for required
10 156.0 47.7 18.1 18.0 151,885 values of pipe diameter, discharge, and pressure. The consideration
15 202 61.7 16.8 16.8 183,812 of escalating costs in the optimization model will result in proper
20 320 71.3 15.3 15.3 260,903 selection of optimal diameter. The presented optimization model
22 No solution will be useful for water supply and irrigation engineers.

Notation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The following symbols are used in this paper:

a = constant;
a0 = constant;
a1 = constant;
a2 = constant;
BHP = brake horsepower;
b = constant;
b0 = constant;
b1 = constant;
b2 = constant;
Fig. 2. Discharge range for optimal diameters C = Hazen-Williams coefficient for pipe material;
Ce = cost of electricity (Rs=kW · h);
Cp = capital cost of the pump (Rs);
Optimal Operating Range Cpr = replacement cost of the pump (Rs);
Cr = capital recovery factor (dimensionless);
Because of the availability of pipe in discrete sizes, the optimal Cu = cost of pumping unit (Rs=kW);
diameters obtained in Tables 3 and 5 were rounded to the next d = diameter of pipeline (mm);
higher available pipe sizes. The model was further solved to deter- e = decimal equivalent annual rate of energy cost increase;
mine the optimal discharge range using the rounded pipe sizes for Ea = escalating energy cost factor;
both of the values of the static head. The optimal discharge range Ec = annual energy cost (Rs);
for the rounded pipe sizes are shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen from F1 = annual capital cost of the pumping main (Rs);
Fig, 2 that the discharge range for an optimal diameter is reduced F2 = total annual cost of the pump (Rs);
for both static heads at higher discharge. Further, it can be seen H = pump head (m);
from Table 3 and Fig. 2 that the peak efficiency lying in the dis- Hs = system head (m);
charge range of 20–35 L=s is covered under a pipe diameter of hf = frictional head loss in the total length of the pipe (m);
250 mm for a static head of 5 m. Similarly, Table 5 and Fig. 2 hm = minor head loss (m);
can be used to decide the optimal diameter and discharge range hst = static head (m);
at the best efficiency for a static head of 15 m. By solving the opti- i = decimal equivalent annual interest rate;
mization model, the exact value of the peak efficiency was obtained I c = initial capital cost of the pipeline (Rs=m);
as 72.4% for a discharge value of 20.81 L=s in a pipe of 450-mm K 1 = constant;
diameter, which is the highest available pipe size. However, in this K 2 = constant;
case the peak efficiency lies in a very narrow discharge range, K 3 = constant;
i.e., 20.655–20.81 L=s. L = length of the pumping main (m);
n = life of the pumping main (year);
n1 = life of the pump (year);
Q = pump discharge (L=s);
Conclusions r = decimal equivalent escalation rate in capital cost of the
In water supply systems, optimization techniques have been mostly pump;
applied to minimize the cost of water distribution networks. Opti- t = annual use (h);
T c = total annual cost of the pumping main including pump;
mal design of the pumping main considering the nonlinear nature
η = efficiency of the pump (percent); and
of pump characteristic curves will minimize the overall cost of a
Rs = Indian currency i.e., rupee.
water supply system. Hence, a nonlinear optimization model is de-
veloped to select the optimal diameter of a pumping main from a set
of available pipe sizes considering pump characteristics for any re-
quired value of discharge, static head, and economic parameters. References
The model minimizes the total annual cost of the pumping main
Alperovits, E., and Shamir, U. (1977). “Design of optimal water distribu-
and pump, including escalation in the capital and energy costs. tion system.” Water Resour. Res., 13(6), 885–900.
The nonlinear pump characteristic curves are included as con- Bhave, P. R. (2003). Optimal design of water distribution networks, Narosa
straints in the optimization model. The optimization model obtains Publishing House, New Delhi, India.
optimal discharge range and corresponding efficiency range for any Church, A. H., and Lal, J. (1973). Centrifugal pumps and blowers,
available diameter. The developed model will be helpful to select Metropolitan Book Company, Delhi, India.

© ASCE 04013010-5 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010

 Fujiwara, O., Jenchaimahakoon, B., and Edirisinghe, N. C. P. (1987). “A
modified linear programming gradient method for optimal design of
looped water distribution networks.” Water Resour. Res., 23(6),
977–982.
James, L. D., and Lee, R. R. (1971). Economics of water resources
planning, Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
Jensen, M. E. (1981). Design and operation of farm irrigation system,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Kadu, M. S., Gupta, R., and Bhave, P. R. (2008). “Optimal design of water
networks using a modified genetic algorithm with reduction in search
space.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 134(2), 147–160.
Kanakoudis, V. K. (2004). “Vulnerability based management of water
resources systems.” J. Hydroinf., 6(2), 133–156.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kanakoudis, V. K., and Tolikas, D. K. (2001). “The role of leaks and breaks
in water networks: Technical and economical solutions.” J. Water
SRT—AQUA, 50(5), 301–311.
Kanakoudis, V. K., and Tolikas, D. K. (2003). “Estimating the daily
operating cost of a water supply system—Numerical and graphical
approach.” 30th IAHR CONGRESS, Theme B: Urban and Rural Water
Systems for Sustainable Development, Int. Association for Hydro-
Environment Engineering and Research, Thessaloniki, Greece,
515–523.
Kanakoudis, V. K., and Tolikas, D. K. (2004). “Assessing the performance
level of a water system.” Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus, 4(4–5), 307–318.
Krapivka, A., and Ostfeld, A. (2009). “Coupled genetic algorithm—Linear
programming scheme for least-cost pipe sizing of water-distribution
systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 135(4), 298–302.
Lal, J. (1995). Hydraulic machines (including fluidics), Metropolitan Book
Company, New Delhi, India.
Lansey, K. E. (2000). “Optimal design of water distribution systems.”
Chapter 7, Water distribution systems handbook, L. Mays, ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lansey, K. E., and Awumah, K. (1994). “Optimal pump operations consid-
ering pump switches.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 120(1),
17–35.
Lansey, K. E., and Mays, L. W. (1989). “Optimization model for water
distribution system design.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(10), 1401–1418.
Liang, T. (1971). “Design conduit system by dynamic programming.”
J. Hydraul. Div., 97(3), 383–393.
© ASCE 04013010-6
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2014, 5(1): 04013010
LINDO Systems, Inc. (2003). Demo LINGO, Release 8.0, Chicago.
Mahar, P. S., and Singh, R. P. (2001). “Selection of sprinkler lateral for
shorter life cycle.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 127(5), 277–280.
Mays, L. W. (2004). Water resources engineering, Wiley, New York.
Mays, L. W., and Tung, Y.-K. (1992). Hydrosystems engineering and
management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ormsbee, L. E., and Lansey, K. E. (1994). “Optimal control of water
supply pumping systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 120(2),
237–252.
Prasad, T. D., and Park, N.-S. (2004). “Multi objective genetic algorithms
for design of water distribution networks.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage., 130(1), 73–82.
Punmia, B. C., Jain, A. K., and Jain, A. K. (2010). Water supply engineer-
ing, Laxmi Publications, New Delhi, India.
Shamir, U. (1974). “Optimal design and operation of water distribution
systems.” Water Resour. Res., 10(1), 27–36.
Swamee, P. K. (1996). “Design of multistage pumping main.” J. Transp.
Eng., 122(1), 1–4.
Swamee, P. K. (2001). “Optimal design of pumping mains.” J. Transp.
Eng., 127(3), 264–267.
Tolson, B. A., Maier, H. R., Simpson, A. R., and Lence, B. J. (2004).
“Genetic algorithms for reliability-based optimization of water distribu-
tion systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 130(1), 63–72.
Tu, M.-Y., Tsai, F. T.-C., and Yeh, W. W.-G. (2005). “Optimization of water
distribution and water quality by hybrid genetic algorithm.” J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manage., 131(6), 431–440.
Varma, K. V. K., Narasimhan, S., and Bhallamudi, S. M. (1997). “Optimal
design of water distribution systems using an NLP method.” J. Environ.
Eng., 123(4), 381–388.
Vasan, A., and Simonovic, S. P. (2010). “Optimization of water distribution
network design using differential evolution.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage., 136(2), 279–287.
Yang, K.-P., Liang, T., and Wu, I.-P. (1975). “Design of conduit system
with diverging branches.” J. Hydraul. Div., 101(1), 167–188.
Zecchin, A. C., Maier, H. R., Simpson, A. R., Leonard, M., and Nixon, J. B.
(2007). “Ant colony optimization applied to water distribution system
design: Comparative study of five algorithms.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage., 133(1), 87–92.
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.