Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

Reliability of Water Transmission Systems

Alaa Hisham Naguib, Mohamed Hassan Abdel Razik, Mohamed Ali Fergala, Sherien Ali Elagroudy
Public Works Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Ain Shams University,
Cairo, Egypt

Abstract— Reliability of water transmission system is  Component reliability is defined as the probability that
generally ignored in design. A simplified methodology is a component has no failure during its life time.
developed for the assessment of water transmission systems
reliability. Design guidelines are introduced to improve system  Mechanical reliability, which measures the effect of
reliability. The simulation approach is used to calculate the water component failure on the system performance,
systems reliability. Results indicated that in order to achieve a mechanical reliability depends on both hydraulic
system target reliability of 99%, transmission pipelines with reliability and component reliability.
break rate exceeding 0.05 break/km/year and 1-day repair time
should be duplicated if longer than 73 km. Pumps with break  Network/System reliability, is the minimum mechanical
rate exceeding 3 break/year and 5-day repair time should have reliability of all system components.
standby capacity of at least 150%, 67% or 25% in case of 2, 3 or For example, a single supply pipeline would have zero
4 working pumps respectively. If the target reliability cannot be
hydraulic reliability but 97% mechanical reliability if its
achieved, then water storage at destination should be provided. A
design formula is proposed to calculate the required minimum
probability of failure is 3%. If there are many cases of failure,
storage. then the network reliability is defined as the minimum
mechanical reliability.
Keywords— Water Network, Reliability, Availability,
Mechanical Reliability, Hydraulic Reliability, Break Rate. II. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS APPROACHES
Over the last few decades, several methods have been
I. INTRODUCTION developed for the assessment of water systems reliability.
There are many definitions for water networks reliability in However, there is no widely accepted approach or
the literature: methodology introduced for water network reliability analysis.
Ostfeld [5] classified the approaches to assessment of water
 Kaufmann et al. [1] defined reliability as the systems reliability into three groups: analytical (connectivity),
probability that the system performs its specified tasks simulation (hydraulic) and heuristic (entropy) approaches.
under specified conditions during a specified time.
 Cullinane et al. [2] defined reliability as the ability of A. Analytical Approach
the system to provide service with an acceptable level Analytical approaches deal with the layout of water
of interruption in spite of abnormal conditions. distribution network, which is associated with the probability
that a given network keeps physically connected, given its
 Goulter et al. [3] defined reliability as the ability of the component reliabilities. These are the approaches linked to the
system to meet the demands that are placed on it where above-mentioned concepts of connectivity and reachability that
demands are specified in terms of amount of flows to are not based on hydraulic simulations. One of the methods
be supplied and the range of pressures at which those used to evaluate network reliability is the Minimum Cut Set
flow rates must be provided. Method, where cut set are defined as a set of failed elements
 Al-Zahrani et al. [4] defined reliability as the ability of whose failure cause the isolation of node/s from the system,
the network to deliver water to consumers in the without taking into consideration the effect of these failed
required quantity and quality at suitable pressure head. elements on the network or the condition of other elements.
In the current study, water supply system reliability is B. Simulation Approach
defined as ability of the system to supply the required demand
with sufficient pressure under normal and abnormal conditions. Simulation approaches deal with the hydraulic reliability
Normal conditions mean common operation with no failure of and availability. Thus, they analyses the hydraulic performance
any component of the network, while abnormal conditions of the network, i.e. a suppling of the required quantities and
mean the network operation with one or more components out qualities of water at adequate pressure to the appropriate
of service. Reliability is measured by a value from zero to locations at any given time. Therefore, these approaches rely
100% representing the ratio of hydraulic performance between heavily on hydraulic models and require very good information
abnormal and normal conditions. System reliability of 100% about the network layout and operation, including the records
means the system is fully functional under break of any system related to the component failures.
component. Goulter et al. [6] introduced a reliability method based on
The following definitions are adopted in the study: relationship between flow and pressure. If demand is met but at
reduced flow, then the network reliability decreases. Also, if
 Hydraulic reliability, which describes the performance the pressure satisfies the minimum required threshold value but
of the system to satisfy the required water demand. the demand is not satisfied then the network reliability

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 712

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

decreases. In case of both pressure and demand are not met the Parvizsedghy et al. [19] developed a model for assessment
network reliability is greatly reduced. of water pipelines deterioration. Deterioration factors were
divided into three main groups: physical, environmental, and
C. Heuristic Approach operational. The model showed that pipe age is the dominant
Heuristic approaches do not measure the performance of parameter for predicting the failure rates.
the water system directly they assess other attributes such as
energy or power used which are expected to have strong B. Probabilistic models
correlation with reliability, as another method for measuring Models that explicitly and quantitively consider most of the
network reliability. Many approaches have been developed covariates in the analysis which make these models more
such as Entropy-Based Method by K. Awamah et al. [7], general for estimating future breakage rates of water pipes.
Network Resilience by Prasad et al. [8], Performance Index by
Dziedzic et al. [9]. Cox [20] introduced a general form of the prediction
hazards model which is used to estimate the time to next
failure.
III. MODELLING OF COMPONENT FAILURE
Goulter et al. [21] and Su et al. [22] used Poisson
Component reliability, is defined as the probability that a probability distribution to determine the probability of failure
component has no failure during an interval from time 0 to of individual pipes.
time T [10]. It best describes non-repairable components,
where after failure they have to be replaced. But, in water Andreou et al. [23] developed a vector covariant hazard
networks most components are repairable, so component function during the analysis of their failure data, they observed
failure is best described as component availability. that the time intervals between first three consecutive failures
had an ascending order. After the third failure, these intervals
Availability (A) is the percentage of time where a seemed to be constant. So, the developed model was
component is functionally operating, while the component is characterized by two stages, the first stage where fewer breaks
considered Unavailable (U) when it is in failure or repair status take place and represented by the proportional hazard function,
[11]. and the second stage more frequent breaks which was
Pipe failure models are statistical models which use represented by a Poisson distribution model.
historical data of pipe failures to detect their failure patterns, Eisenbeis et al. [24] applied the accelerated lifetime model
then use these patterns to predict in probability of pipe failure for a number of failure histories in Norway and France. The
future. Statistical models can be classified into two main approach was to lengthen the pipe break history through
categories according to Kleiner et al. [12], Liu et al. [13] and creating a sample of pipe breaks by randomly selecting break
Scheidegger et al. [14]: dates that follow the shape of the survival function of the
general model. The author reported good predictions using this
A. Deterministic models method.
These models are developed from historical data of
Kleiner et al. [25] developed computer application
component failure in order to predict future failure rate (e.g.
I-WARP (Individual Water mAin Renewal Planner), which is
number of failures per year or failure rate or time to next
a tool to analyses the failure records of break patterns of
failure).
individual water pipelines. I-WARP is based on the assumption
Shamir et al. [15] used regression analysis to acquire a that breaks on an individual pipe occur as a non-homogeneous
break prediction model that relates a pipes breakage to the Poisson process.
exponent of its age. This model is used to forecast break rates
Scheidegger et al. [26] developed a model based on the
to group of homogenous pipes based on historical data.
assumptions that the time to the first failure is modeled by
Walski et al. [16] update the exponential model by adding Weibull distribution and all the successive failures are modeled
two factors to the model, the first factor is for the historical as exponential distribution. These assumptions result in an
previous breaks in the pipes based on that broken pipes are inflexible failure rate that cannot represent deterioration over
more likely to be broken again, the second factor is the effect time and is only partly manipulated by the previous failures.
of different diameter sizes in the break pattern.
Clark et al. [17] developed two regression models. The first IV. METHODOLOGY
model to predict the life time between installation and the first This study is concerned with the development of new
break, and the second model is to predict the number of breaks simplified approach to be incorporated in design to assess
after the first break, It was concluded that a pipe with early network reliability. Guidelines for improving the reliability of
failure will suffer more break event more than that pipe that has water supply systems are introduced which would assist
a late failure. designers and decision makers in water system planning.
Achim et al. [18] developed a new application of neural The target for the required mechanical reliability should be
networks ANN model for pipeline failure prediction. Results set for the design, on which the combination between the
show higher correlations with recorded data than other existing availability and the hydraulic reliability can be determined to
statistical models. The used database was large but was meet the required mechanical reliability. The methodology is
incomplete and not dependable. Factors affecting pipeline divided into seven steps as discussed below and described in
breakage were missing from the database. the flow chart presented in Figure 1.
Step 1: Define system data and cases of failure.

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 713

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

Step 2: Calculate Hydraulic Reliability.

Start
Step 3: Calculate Component Availability.
Step 4: Calculate Mechanical Reliability.
Step 5: Calculate Network Reliability.
Step‐1 Step‐1

Step 6: Improve Network Reliability. Pipe System Data Pump System Data

Step 7: Add water storage (if necessary).

A. Step 1: System Definition

Step‐2 Step‐3 Step‐2 Step‐3
The first step is to identify the water system components. A Hydraulic Component Hydraulic Component
typical water transmission system usually consists of pumps, Reliability Availability Reliability Availability

and transmission pipeline. Water storage tanks may be added at

destination to cover demand fluctuation and emergencies. The Step‐4 Step‐4

Base Scenario assumes no storage tank at destination and all Mechanical Mechanical
Reliability Reliability
system components are fully functional. Then cases
representing the failure of each component are identified which
are: failure of the transmission pipeline or failure of a working Step‐5

pump. Network
Reliability
Step‐6
Improve System
B. Step 2: Hydraulic Reliability Reliability

In water transmission systems, hydraulic reliability is

estimated as the percentage of flow delivered from source to No
Satisfy the Required Target
Network Reliability?
destination under abnormal conditions in relation to the
delivered flow under normal conditions. Eq. 1 represents the
hydraulic reliability of the system in case of one element is in Step‐7
Add Water
Yes

failure conditions. Storage

End

Figure 1 Adopted Methodology for Network Reliability Analysis

  

Where;
= Hydraulic Reliability.
n= number of working elements (pipes or pumps).   

For example, if two pipelines are working and one of them Where;
is out of service 50% of the flow will be delivered which
represents the hydraulic reliability. Also if there are three = Component Availability.
working pumps and one of them is out of service then 66.6% of
the flow will be delivered which represents the hydraulic = Probability of failure.
reliability in this case. The above calculated hydraulic λ = Break Rate (break. km-1. year-1) which depends on
reliability is approximate, and actual calculation through historical data
hydraulic analysis would result in slightly higher values.
L = Pipe length (km).
C. Step 3: Component Availability = Time of Repair in days.
In the current study deterministic models are used to
describe component availability for pipes and pumps, as
described below:
1) Pipes Availability
The probability of pipe failure is derived from the failure
rate (expressed as number of breaks per unit length of pipe per
unit time). Pipe availability depends on historical break data,
time to repair and pipeline length as presented in Eq. 2 and 3
and illustrated in Figure 2.

  

Figure 2 Pipes Availability

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 714

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

2) Pumps Availability  

Pumps availability depends on number of working pumps,
pump break rate, time to repair and percentage of standby Where;
pumps as presented in Eq. 4 and Eq. 5, as illustrated in
Figure 3. = Mechanical Reliability
= Hydraulic Reliability
= Component Availability
  
Pipes mechanical reliability depends on its length, break
rate, number of parallel lines and time of repair. Pumps
mechanical reliability depends on its number of working
  pumps, percentage if standby pumps, break rate and time of
repair. The mechanical reliability of the water supply system
can be determined, as shown in Figure 5.
Where;
= Pump Break Rate (break. year-1)
= Pump Break Rate Correction Factor, taking into
consideration the percentage of standby pumps. As the
percentage of standby pumps increases, the operation time
decreases, and pump break rate decreases by the factor F. For
example, in case of 2 working + 1 standby pump, the operation
time of each pump is reduced from 12 to 8 months per year;
and consequently, pump break rate decreases by 67%.

Figure 4 Mechanical Reliability of Water Supply System

E. Step 5: Network Reliability

The Network Reliability is defined as the minimum
mechanical reliability in the studied failure cases for the
system.

F. Step 6: Improve System Reliability

The mechanical reliability can be improved by upgrading
Figure 3 Pumps Availability one of the system components as illustrated below:
 Improving pipe reliability by:
D. Step 4: Mechanical Reliability
Mechanical Reliability depends on both hydraulic o adding pipes in parallel.
reliability and component availability. For example, if the o using pipes of higher-grade materials.
hydraulic reliability is dropped to 40% for 20% of the year,
mechanical reliability is estimated by the area under the curve o preventive maintenance of the system
in Figure 4 which is 88%, as expressed by Eq. 6. components.
 Improving pump reliability by:
o increasing number of working pumps.
o increasing the percentage of standby pumps.
o preventive maintenance of the system
components.
 Adding water storage to cover the system deficiency
during emergency periods.

G. Step 7: Add Water Storage

If the target minimum reliability cannot be achieved
through system upgrade, water storage at destination is
Figure 4 Calculation of Mechanical Reliability

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 715

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

required to increase the mechanical reliability of the system. Target Pipe Break Max. Length (km)
The required minimum storage can be estimated by Eq. 7 to Mechanical Rate
Reliability (break/km/ 1 Pipes 2 Pipes
Eq. 9. year) 1 Day 2 Days 1 Day 2 Days
Repair Repair Repair Repair
Time Time Time Time
  98% 0.05 146.0 73.0 292.0 146.0
0.10 73.0 36.5 146.0 73.0
Which can be simplified into Eq. 8 as follows. 0.20 36.5 18.3 73.0 36.5
97% 0.05 219.0 109.5 438.0 219.0
0.10 109.5 54.8 219.0 109.5
   0.20 54.8 27.4 109.5 54.8

Then the minimum storage is calculated by Eq. 9.

Figure 7 shows a graphical flow chart that can be used to
estimate the mechanical reliability of pipe in case of one single
transmission pipeline.

  

Where;
= required increase in mechanical reliability
= target mechanical reliability
= water network mechanical reliability
= hydraulic reliability
= target availability
= achieved availability
= Required Increase in System Availability
The required increase in system availability can be
achieved by storage to cover the system deficiency during
failure cases, so the required storage is determined based on the
estimated mean time to repair and the required increase in the
in the system availability.

V. DESIGN GUIDELINES
In order to incorporate the reliability analysis in design
process, the following approach is developed.
A. Pipes Reliability
To achieve the target mechanical reliability, pipes lengths,
break rate and number of parallel pipes are to be set as
identified in Table 1 and Figure 6.
Figure 5 Mechanical Reliability of Pipes
TABLE 1 MAXIMUM PIPE LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE TARGET MECHANICAL
RELIABILITY It can be concluded that in order to achieve system
Target Pipe Break Max. Length (km) reliability exceeding 99% at break rate of 0.05 break/km/year,
Mechanical Rate single pipe can be used for lengths up to 73 km considering a
Reliability (break/km/ 1 Pipes 2 Pipes 1-day repair time, and double pipe for lengths up to 146 km.
year) 1 Day 2 Days 1 Day 2 Days
Repair Repair Repair Repair B. Pumps Reliability
Time Time Time Time
To achieve a minimum target mechanical reliability,
99% 0.05 73.0 36.5 146.0 73.0
number of working and standby pumps and pump break rates
0.10 36.5 18.3 73.0 36.5 should comply with the values presented in Table 2 and
0.20 18.3 9.1 36.5 18.3 Figure 7.

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 716

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

TABLE 2 MINIMUM NUMBER OF STANDBY PUMPS TO ACHIEVE TARGET MECHANICAL RELIABILITY

Target Pumps Minimum Number Standby Pumps
Mechanical Break Rate
Reliability (break/year) 5 Days Repair Time 7 Days Repair Time

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Working Working Working Working Working Working Working Working
Pump Pumps Pumps Pumps Pump Pumps Pumps Pumps
99% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
3 3 2 1 4 3 2
5 4 3 6
98% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 0
5 2 1 0 3 2 1
97% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
5 2 1 0 0 2 1 0

than 1 break/year considering 5 days for repair time. So,

increasing the number of working elements reduces the effect
of component failure on the system reliability.

C. Water Storage
The required increase in network reliability can be achieved
by storage to cover the system deficiency during failure cases,
so the required storage is determined based on the required
increase in the in the network reliability, hydraulic reliability
and the number of breaks per year which can be obtained from
Figure 6 and Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the required storage time
to satisfy the required increase in network availability.

Figure 7 Mechanical Reliability of Pumps

It is concluded from Table 2 and Figure 7 that, to achieve

system reliability of at least 99% for 3 working pumps with at
Figure 8 Required Minimum Storage Time
least 2 standby pumps are required with break rate less than 3
break/year considering 5 days for repair time, if the break rate
exceeds 3 break/year then it is required to increase number of
working pumps or the standby pumps. The maximum
reliability that can be achieved by 1 working pump is 99% if
the standby pump is at least 100% and the break rate is less

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 717

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

VI. APPLICATION 1-day repair time, then the mechanical reliability will
be 98.9%.
A. Step 1 – System Definition
 Increasing the number of working pumps to be 3
A sample water supply system is prepared for illustration working pumps, then the mechanical reliability will be
purpose as shown in Figure 9. The system consists of: 98.3%.
 2 working pumps and 1 standby pump with break rate  Increase the number of standby pumps to be 2 standby
of 5 break/year and repair time of 5 days. pumps, then the mechanical reliability will be 98.3%.
 a single transmission pipe of length 80 km with the  Using pumps of higher quality and schedule preventive
break rate is 0.1 break/km/year and the repair time is 2 maintenance to reduce the pump break rate and repair
days. time, assumed to be 3 break/year and 2-day repair
 No water storage at destination. time, then the mechanical reliability will be 99.5%.

G. Step 7 – Add Water Storage

The network reliability can be improved by adding water
storage at destination. The minimum required storage time can
be determined from Figure 8 or by substituting in Eq. 8 & 9, as
follows:
 To achieve network reliability of 98%, then the
Figure 6 Sample Water Supply System required minimum storage is 1.1 day.
 To achieve network reliability of 99%, then the
B. Step 2 – Hydraulic Reliability required minimum storage is 1.6 day.
The hydraulic reliability for each failure case is calculated  To achieve network reliability of 100%, then the
by substituting in Eq. 1. required minimum storage is 2 days, which is the
 For pipe failure case, the hydraulic reliability is 0%. minimum repair time of the system.

 For pump failure case, the hydraulic reliability is 50%. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Reliability of water transmission system is in general
C. Step 3 – Component Availability
overlooked in design. A simplified 7-step approach is
 The pipe availability is 95.6%, calculated by developed for the assessment of water transmission systems
substituting in Eq. 2 & 3 or from Figure 6. reliability, as follows:
 The pump availability is 95.4%, calculated by Step 1: Define system data and cases of failure. The system
substituting in Eq. 4 & 5 or from Figure 7. data are:

D. Step 4 – Mechanical Reliability  For pipes: number of pipes in parallel, length, break
rate and repair time.
The mechanical reliability for each failure case is calculated
by substituting in Eq. 6.  For Pumps: number of working pumps, number of
standby pumps, break rate and repair time.
 For pipe failure case, the mechanical reliability is
95.6% or using Figure 6. Step 2: Calculate Hydraulic Reliability.
 For pump failure case, the mechanical reliability is Step 3: Calculate Component Availability.
97.7% or using Figure 7. Step 4: Calculate Mechanical Reliability.

E. Step 5 – Network Reliability Step 5: Calculate Network Reliability.

Then the network reliability of the water supply system is Step 6: Improve Network Reliability, by:
the minimum of both failure cases which is the pipe failure
case with mechanical reliability 95.6%.  adding pipes in parallel.
 increasing number of working pumps or standby
F. Step 6 – System Improvement pumps.
To upgrade the water supply system to improve the  reducing the break rate by preventive maintenance of
network reliability, the following means can be adopted: the system components or using high quality of pipe
 Add a parallel pipe, then the mechanical reliability will materials and pumps.
be 97.8%. Step 7: Add water storage (if necessary).
 Using pipes of more resistant material and schedule  If target reliability cannot be achieved then water
preventive maintenance to reduce the pipe break rate storage can be added at destination to cover the system
and repair time, assumed to be 0.05 break/km/year and

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 718

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 09, September-2019

deficiency during emergency periods, a design formula Water Education, Delft Univ. of Technology, ISBN 978-0-415-62116-8,
is proposed to calculate the required minimum storage. Delft, the Netherlands, 2012.
[11] L. Mays and Y.-K. Tung, "Hydrosystems Engineering and Management,"
Design guidelines to improve system reliability are McGraw-Hill Book. Co. ISBN 0-07-041146-8, New York, US, 1992.
introduced. In order to achieve a target minimum system
reliability, the following design elements can be calculated: [12] Y. Kleiner and B. Rajani, "Comprehensive review of structural
deterioration of water mains : statistical models," Urban Water, vol. 3, pp.
 The maximum length of transmission pipelines. 131-150, 2001.
[13] Z. Liu, Y. Kleiner, B. Rajani, L. Wang and W. Condit, "Condition
 The minimum number of standby pumps. Assessment Technologies for Water Transmission and Distribution
Systems," Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., 2012.
 The minimum required storage at destination.
[14] A. Scheidegger, J. P. Leitao and L. Scholten, "Statistical failure models
The proposed methodology is illustrated by a sample case for water distribution pipes - a review from a unified perspective," Water
study as follows: Research, vol. 83, pp. 237-247, 2015.

 To achieve system reliability exceeding 99% at break [15] U. Shamir and C. Howard, "An Analytic Approach to Scheduling Pipe
Replacement," Jornal of AWWA, no. 71, pp. 248-258, 1979.
rate of 0.05 break/km/year, and 1-day repair time, a
single pipe can be used for lengths up to 73 km. [16] T. M. Walski and A. Pelliccia, "Economic Analysis of Water Main,"
Journal of AWWA, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 140-147, 1982.
 To achieve system reliability of at least 99% pumps [17] R. M. Clark, C. L. Stafford and J. A. Goodrich, "Water Distribution
with break rate exceeding 3 break/year and 5-day Systems: A Spatial and Cost Evaluation," Journal of Water Resources
repair time should have standby capacity of at least Planning and Management, vol. 108, no. WR3, pp. 243-256, October
150%, 67% or 25% in case of 2, 3 or 4 working pumps 1982.
respectively. [18] D. Achim, F. Ghotb and K. J. McManus, "Prediction of Water Pipe Asset
Life Using Neural Networks," ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 26-30, 2007.
REFERENCES
[19] L. Parvizsedghy, I. Gkounti, A. S. T. Zayed, M. Alsharqawi, H. E.
[1] A. Kaufmann, D. Grouchko and R. Croun, "Mathematical models for the Chanati, M. El-Abbasy and F. Mosleh, "Deterioration Assessment Models
study of the reliability of systems," Academic,, New York, US, 1977. for Water Pipelines," International Journal of Civil and Environmental
[2] M. Cullinane, K. Lansey and L. Mays, "Optimization availability-based Engineering, vol. 11, no. 7, 2017.
design of water distribution networks," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, [20] D. R. Cox, "Regression Models and Life Tables," Journal of Royal
vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 420-441, 1992. Statistic Society, vol. 34, no. B, pp. 187-220, 1972.
[3] I. Goulter, "Analytical and simulation models for reliability analysis in [21] I. C. Goulter and A. V. Coals, "Quantitative Approaches to Reliability
water distribution systems," In: Cabrera E, Vela A (eds) Improving Assessment in Pipe Networks," Journal of Transportation Engineering,
efficiency and reliability in water distribution systems. Kluwer Academic vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 287-301, 1986.
Publishers, 1995.
[22] Y. C. Su, L. W. Mays, N. Duan and K. E. Lansey, "Reliability based
[4] M. A. Al-Zahrani and J. L. Syed, "Evaluation of municipal water optimization model for water distribution systems," Journal of Hydraulic
distribution system reliability using minimum cut-set method," Journal of Engineering., vol. 114, no. 12, pp. 1539-1556, 1987.
King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 67-81,
2005. [23] S. A. Andreou, D. H. Marks and R. M. Clark, "A new methodology for
modelling break failure patterns in deteriorating water distribution
[5] A. Ostfeld, "Reliability analysis of water distribution systems," Journal of systems: Theory," Advance in Water Resources, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 2-10,
Hydroinformatics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 281-294, 2004. 1987.
[6] Goulter, "Analytical and simulation models for reliability analysis in [24] P. Eisenbeis, J. Rostum and Y. Le Gat, "Statical Models for assessing the
water distribution systems," Kluwer Academic Publishers, Valencia, technical state of water networks - Some European experience," in AWWA
Spain, 1995. Annual Conference, Chicago, 1999.
[7] K. Awumah, I. Goulter and S. K. Bhatt, "Entropy-based redundancy [25] Y. Kleiner and B. Rajani, "I-WARP: Individual water mAin renewal
measures in water-distribution networks," Journal of Hydraulic planner," Drinking Water Engineering and Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 71-
Engineering,, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 595-614, 1991. 77, 2010.
[8] Prasad, T. Devi and Park, Nam-Sik, "Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms [26] A. Scheidegger, L. Scholten, M. Maurer and P. Reichert, "Extension of
for Design of Water Distribution Networks," Journal of Water Resources pipe failure models to consider the absence of data from replaced pipes,"
Planning and Management, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 73-82, 2004. Water Research, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 3696-3705, 2013.
[9] Dziedzic, Rebecca and Karney, Bryan W., "Performance Index for Water
Distribution Networks under Multiple Loading Conditions," Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, vol. 142, no. 1, 2016.
[10] N. Trifunovic, "Pattern Recognition For Reliability Assessment Of Water
Distribution Networks," Ph.D. dissertation, UNESCO-IHE Institute for

IJERTV8IS090231 www.ijert.org 719

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)