logo Netzschleuder network catalog, repository, and centrifuge

water_distribution_exeter — Water distribution networks (Exeter benchmarks)

Description

Water distribution networks used as benchmark problems for the design, expansion and operation of water supply systems, distributed as EPANET input files by the Centre for Water Systems of the University of Exeter. Nodes are junctions (pipe intersections and demand points), reservoirs (sources with a fixed head) and storage tanks, and a directed edge is a link (a pipe, pump or valve) between two nodes; the direction is that of the link's definition in the EPANET file (from its start to its end node), which for pipes is only the reference direction of the flow (water may flow either way), but is the flow direction for pumps, check-valve pipes and most valves. The networks are:

  • richmond and richmond_skeleton: the water distribution system of Richmond (Yorkshire Water, UK), as used in a study of operational optimization (K. van Zyl, Exeter, 2001); the skeleton version is a simplified schematic representation, not a hydraulically equivalent model.
  • exnet: EXNET, a large real network serving about 400,000 people, used for an expansion (reinforcement) benchmark of the Centre for Water Systems (one of its nodes has no links).
  • wolf_cordera_ranch: the network of the Wolf-Cordera Ranch development of Colorado Springs Utilities (USA).
  • d_town: D-Town, the network of the Battle of the Water Networks II (BWN-II) design competition (five district metered areas and a new zone).
  • anytown: Anytown, a classic synthetic expansion benchmark (Walski et al., 1987).
  • the networks of the two-objective design benchmarks of Wang et al. (2015), with their acronyms: two_reservoir (TRN, Gessler 1985), two_loop (TLN), bakryun (BAK), new_york_tunnels (NYT), blacksburg (BLA), hanoi (HAN), goyang (GOY), fossolo (FOS), pescara (PES), modena (MOD) and balerma (BIN, the Balerma irrigation network, Almería, Spain). The files of the expansion problems two_reservoir, new_york_tunnels and anytown include the candidate pipes of the design problem, i.e. new pipes and duplicates (parallel pipes) of existing pipes whose diameters are to be chosen, with a placeholder diameter of 0.0001 in the file (given here as NaN); these are marked by the edge property candidate (see below): in two_reservoir, the five new pipes (marked as new in the file) and the duplicates of three existing pipes, i.e. 8 of its 17 pipes (the Centre for Water Systems also distributed this network without the duplicates, as gessler1985.inp); in new_york_tunnels, a duplicate of each of the 21 tunnels (the version without duplicates, nytun.inp, is otherwise identical); in anytown, the six new pipes (marked as new in the file; the duplication of existing pipes, also part of the problem, is not represented). The other networks have no such property: two_loop and hanoi are designs of whole new networks, in which all pipes have the placeholder diameter; in bakryun, nine of the 58 pipes (six of them parallel to existing pipes) are new pipes to be sized, but they cannot be identified from the file, in which all pipes have diameters; in the remaining design benchmarks all pipes are sized, or have fixed diameters; and in exnet, the 567 existing pipes considered for duplication are tagged in comments of the file, but the duplicates themselves are not included.
  • bwsn_network_1 and bwsn_network_2: the two networks of the Battle of the Water Sensor Networks (BWSN, Ostfeld et al. 2008), a design competition for the placement of contamination warning sensors held at the 8th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium (Cincinnati, 2006), from the archive of the BWSN files distributed by the Centre for Water Systems ("Sensor Placement (BWSN)" on its benchmark page). Network 1 is a hypothetical network with 126 junctions, one reservoir, two tanks, 168 pipes, two pumps and eight valves; Network 2 is based on a real-world system (not identified) and has 12,523 junctions, two reservoirs, two tanks, 14,822 pipes, four pumps and five valves. (The same two networks are also distributed by the University of Kentucky in its "Battle of the Water Network Models" collection, under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license.)

Other files of the collection are not included: the modified and output versions of the Wolf-Cordera Ranch model (wolf-modified-fig.inp, wolf-output-fig.inp, bocika-output.inp) are the same network with 124 artificial tanks connected via flow control valves, added to simulate simultaneous fire flows, and differ among themselves only in pipe diameters; the EXNET file of the Pareto-front benchmarks (EXN.inp) is exnet with candidate duplicate pipes.

The networks have the following properties:

  • Nodes: name, the node ID in the EPANET file; type, "junction", "reservoir" or "tank"; elevation, the elevation of a junction or tank, or the (total) head of a reservoir; demand, the base demand of a junction (NaN for reservoirs and tanks); coordinates, the $(x, y)$ position of the node in the drawing of the network.
  • Edges: name, the link ID; type, "pipe", "check valve pipe", "pump" or "valve"; length, diameter and roughness of pipes (NaN for other links; diameter is also given for valves, and is NaN for candidate pipes); valve_type, the type of a valve (e.g. "PRV", "TCV"); candidate (only in two_reservoir, new_york_tunnels and anytown), true for the candidate pipes of the design problem (new or duplicate pipes, whose diameter is NaN, since the file gives only a placeholder), false for the existing links.
  • Graph: flow_units, the flow units of the file ("GPM", "CFS", "LPS", "CMH", ...). Following EPANET's conventions, with US flow units (GPM, CFS) lengths and elevations are in feet and diameters in inches, and with SI flow units (LPS, CMH) lengths and elevations are in meters and diameters in millimeters; demands are in the flow units.1

  1. Description obtained in part from the ICON project. ↩

Tags
Technological Weighted Spatial Metadata
Citation
  • A. Yazdani, P. Jeffrey, "Complex network analysis of water distribution systems." Chaos 21(1), 016111 (2011) 10.1063/1.3540339 Sci-Hub
  • Q. Wang, M. Guidolin, D. Savic, Z. Kapelan, "Two-objective design of benchmark problems of a water distribution system via MOEAs: Towards the best-known approximation of the true Pareto front." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 141(3), 04014060 (2015) 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000460 Sci-Hub
  • A. Ostfeld et al., "The Battle of the Water Sensor Networks (BWSN): A Design Challenge for Engineers and Algorithms." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 134(6), 556-568 (2008) 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:6(556) Sci-Hub
Upstream URL OK
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914223105/http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/engineering/research/cws/resources/benchmarks/design-resiliance-pareto-fronts/summary-of-benchmark-problems/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140108061328/http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/engineering/research/cws/resources/benchmarks/
Networks
Tip: click on a column header to sort the list, or hover over it for a description.
Column legend
$\left<k\right>$
Mean degree
$\sigma_k$
Standard deviation of the degrees
$\lambda_h$
Largest eigenvalue of the Hashimoto (non-backtracking) matrix
$\tau$
Random walk mixing time
$r$
Degree assortativity
$c$
Global clustering coefficient
$\oslash$
(Pseudo-) diameter
$S$
Relative size of the largest component
NPs
Node properties
EPs
Edge properties
Name Nodes Edges $\left<k\right>$ $\sigma_k$ $\lambda_h$ $\tau$ $r$ $c$ $\oslash$ $S$ Kind Mode NPs EPs gt GraphML GML csv
richmond 872 957 1.10 0.79 1.81 16419.46 -0.10 0.04 135 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 18 KiB 23 KiB 22 KiB 24 KiB
richmond_skeleton 48 51 1.06 0.63 1.30 195.82 -0.06 0.00 24 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 4 KiB 5 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
exnet 1,894 2,467 1.30 1.16 2.40 2305.63 -0.08 0.05 54 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 48 KiB 66 KiB 64 KiB 64 KiB
wolf_cordera_ranch 1,786 1,995 1.12 1.04 1.80 4153.76 0.03 0.00 69 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 32 KiB 45 KiB 43 KiB 50 KiB
d_town 407 459 1.13 0.79 1.70 3430.92 -0.14 0.03 66 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 17 KiB 21 KiB 20 KiB 20 KiB
anytown 25 46 1.84 1.67 3.49 9.75 0.12 0.30 7 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type candidate 3 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
two_reservoir 12 17 1.42 1.07 1.49 4.56 -0.36 0.00 6 1.00 Directed Bipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type candidate 3 KiB 4 KiB 3 KiB 3 KiB
two_loop 7 8 1.14 0.70 1.35 2.20 -0.33 0.00 4 1.00 Directed Bipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 3 KiB 3 KiB 3 KiB 3 KiB
bakryun 36 58 1.61 1.16 2.21 23.11 0.33 0.07 12 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
new_york_tunnels 20 42 2.10 1.25 1.15 16.64 0.13 0.00 9 1.00 Directed Bipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type candidate 3 KiB 4 KiB 3 KiB 4 KiB
blacksburg 31 35 1.13 0.91 1.43 23.36 -0.29 0.05 9 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
hanoi 32 34 1.06 0.60 1.18 31.87 0.00 0.00 13 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 3 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
goyang 23 31 1.35 0.86 1.85 24.94 -0.04 0.05 9 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 3 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
fossolo 37 58 1.57 0.53 2.21 13.06 -0.07 0.02 8 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 4 KiB 5 KiB 4 KiB 4 KiB
pescara 71 99 1.39 0.75 2.14 312.74 0.11 0.08 20 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 5 KiB 6 KiB 5 KiB 5 KiB
modena 272 317 1.17 0.65 1.69 245.56 -0.03 0.01 38 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 9 KiB 12 KiB 11 KiB 11 KiB
balerma 447 454 1.02 0.82 1.13 2925.23 -0.10 0.00 60 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 11 KiB 14 KiB 13 KiB 14 KiB
bwsn_network_1 129 178 1.38 0.68 1.93 361.62 0.25 0.06 25 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 7 KiB 8 KiB 8 KiB 8 KiB
bwsn_network_2 12,527 14,831 1.18 0.78 2.07 107248.72 0.18 0.02 297 1.00 Directed Unipartite name type elevation demand coordinates name type length diameter roughness valve_type 282 KiB 443 KiB 419 KiB 446 KiB