Optimal Pump Scheduling Strategies Accounting for

Background Leakages and Energy Cost

Luigi Berardi
Daniele B. Laucelli
Antonietta Simone
Orazio Giustolisi
Department of Civil Engineering Sciences and Architecture (DICAR)
Technical University of Bari
Bari, Italy
luigi.berardi@poliba.it, danielebiagio.laucelli@poliba.it, antonietta.simone@poliba.it, orazio.giustolisi@poliba.it

Abstract— Pumping optimization in water distribution networks
means to schedule the ON/OFF status of pumps over a typical
operating cycle, pursuing the minimum energy cost for pumping
and matching technical requirements, e.g. sufficient pressure to
satisfy customers’ water requests, null water deficit at tanks,
avoid complete emptying and overflows of tanks. In aged water
distribution networks, pump scheduling should also minimize
pressure-dependent leakages, entailing loss of water and energy,
as well as asset deterioration. Although pumps are usually
scheduled over time, controlling pump status by water level in
tanks provides a more robust strategy in face of uncertain water
demands. This work demonstrates that advanced hydraulic
modelling, enabling the simulation of pressure-dependent
background leakages and variable level tanks, allows optimizing
levels in tanks that control pumps reducing energy costs for
pumping and leakages, in a complex water distribution network.
Index Terms - Background Leakages, Energy consumption,
Pump scheduling, Water distribution networks.
I. INTRODUCTION
Energy saving is a crucial element of water distribution
networks (WDNs) operation. Even a small increase of
operational efficiency in pumping water over an operating
cycles can result into significant energy and cost savings for
water companies on annual basis [1][2]. Pumping optimization
is usually driven by electricity tariffs and hydraulic
requirements to satisfy customers’ water requests, both
varying over time during the operating cycle. As such, pumps
are typically switched on during low energy tariff hours
(usually overnight) to fill-up tanks, while limiting their
working during peak energy cost hours. In addition, pumping
optimization has to account for service requirements like
preserving the minimum level and avoid water deficit at tanks
over an operating cycle. For this reason, heuristic approaches,
that normally drive WDN operations, pursue conservative
solutions where pressure at nodes is always guaranteed while
water level in tanks is always maximized to preserve WDN
reliability [3]. Actually, it was demonstrated [4] that such
pumping strategy exacerbates pressure dependent background
leakages because it causes pressure increase (due to pumping)
during low water requests (i.e. higher pressure) hours. Vice
versa, pursuing the minimization of water loss volume besides
978-1-5386-3943-6/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
minimizing the energy for pumping would result into water
resource saving and asset deterioration delay. For this reason,
the cost of each cubic meter of water lost should include the
“environmental and indirect cost” value besides the mere tariff
of water supply service [5]. Optimal pump scheduling can be
performed using two possible strategies: (i) by programming
the ON/OFF status of pumps over time or (ii) by setting water
level in tanks that control pump status. Actually, tank levels
mirror the water mass balance through the WDN, thus being
more robust in face of uncertainties on WDN model boundary
conditions, actual customers’ water requests and spatial
distribution of pressure-dependent background leakages.
This contribution shows that advanced optimization
strategies allow to support optimal pump scheduling
accounting for all the above mentioned technical objectives
and constraints that would be difficult to achieve using
heuristic approaches. The C-Town WDN including
background leakages model [5] is used since is encompasses
11 pumps, whose status is controlled by water levels in 6 out
of 7 tanks. The advanced hydraulic model accounting for
pressure-dependent background leakages and robust
simulation of water levels in tanks is used to analyze WDN
status at each time step of one-week long operating cycle.
II. WDN HYDRAULIC MODEL
Pump scheduling needs the analysis of the hydraulic
system behavior over all time-steps of an operating cycle. This
analysis is performed through the extended period simulation
(EPS) of the WDN, which is intended as a sequence of steady-
state WDN model runs. During each time step ΔT the model
represents the emergent behavior of the WDN and the
abstraction of steady-state conditions assumes slow time-
varying boundary conditions such as demands, level of tanks,
status of valves, working points of pumps, etc., such that the
inertial and dynamic effects are considered negligible and not
included in the WDN model. The EPS allows to model the
changes over time of the required demands (volumes delivered
in ΔT), levels of tanks, status of pumps, status of valves, etc.,
which are obtained from the simulation at previous time step.
The time variable t is here assumed as the starting time of each
“snapshot” while its ending time is t+ΔT, which is the time
variable for the successive snapshot. The mathematical
formulation of the hydraulic model at time t, for a WDN
composed of np pipes, nn nodes and n0 reservoirs, is based on
(np+nn) energy and mass balance equations as in (1)
  H n (t ) 
  
A Q
 pp p ( t ) + A pn    = − A p 0 H 0 ( t − ΔT ) + H pump
p (t )
  ΔH 0 ( t ) 
 Qmax
  Vn ( H n ( t ) , t )   
    0n 
  Δ T    where ηmax = maximum pump efficiency. The hydraulic
    
 A Q (t ) − 
 =  
 np p   

  V H ( t ) , t + Ω ΔH ( t )   V ext ( t ) 
  0( n ) 0 0   0 
  ΔT  ΔT 
   
where, Qp = [np,1] column vector of unknown pipe flow rates
varying over time t; Hn = [nn,1] column vector of unknown
nodal heads varying over time t; H0 = [n0,1] column vector of
known nodal heads of reservoirs varying over time t; Hppump =
[np,1] column vector of static heads of pump systems installed
along pipes (if any) varying over time t when pumps are
controlled (by states or by tank levels); Vn = [nn,1] column
vector of volumes of water withdrawals in the nodes varying
over time t; Apn = ATnp and Ap0 = topological incidence sub-
matrices of size [np, nn] and [np, n0], respectively, derived from
the general topological matrix Āpn=[Apn ¦ Ap0] of size [np,
nn+n0]; AppQp = [np,1] column vector of pipe head losses
containing the terms of internal head losses of pump systems,
minor head losses and evenly distributed head losses.
A. Generalized WDN model for variable level tanks
In classical WDN hydraulic models, the analysis of tank
level variations is performed in two steps, i.e., the mass
balance at tanks is performed to update the tank levels outside
the simulation runs. This might cause instability troubles when
the tanks are close to each other and/or the flow paths among
them are characterized by low hydraulic resistances. The
generalized WDN model [6] was proved to overcome such
instabilities integrating the mass balance at tank nodes and
their level variations within the hydraulic model formulation,
including also possible external feeding pipes. Each snapshot
at time t in (1) is arranged to have a mass balance equation for
each tank node among the unknowns, ΔH0(t) = H0(t) - H0ini(t)
= H0(t) - H0(t-ΔT), representing the variation of tank levels
during ΔT. Ω0 is a column vector of the cross sectional areas
of cylindrical tanks. Then, the generalized WDN model
represents a steady-state model of a WDN with varying tank
volumes Ω0ΔH0(t) in ΔT.
B. Pumps
The curve of a pump installed on the kth pipe is
implemented in the model using equation (2)
  Qk ( t ) 
ck
Δ H ( t ) = ±ωk2 ( t )  H kpump − rk  

  ωk ( t ) 
where: ΔH = dynamic head varying over time t; ωk = speed
factor, not varying over time t in this study; Hkpump = static
head (elements of Hppump in (1)); rk and ck = parameters of
internal head loss. Moreover, the model account for efficiency
varying pump efficiency as in (3)
1
4η 4η  H pump  c
η = − 2max Q 2 + max Q with Qmax =   (3)
Qmax  r 
(1)
model herein also allows any kind of devices usually installed
into a WDN, such as directional or control valves, parallel
pipes, flow control valves, etc.
C. Pressure-driven analysis
It is worth noting that the model in (1) entails the pressure-
driven analysis (PDA), where water outflows Vn(Hn(t),t)
represents the superimposition of various pressure-dependent
water demand components under normal working conditions
including [7][8]: orifices controlled by customers;
free/uncontrolled orifices (e.g. sprinkler working for a given
time interval); and uncontrolled diffuse background leakages
depending on pipe material and pressure. In more details, the
background leakage model adopted in this work is that
proposed in Germanopoulos [9], as in (4), although other
models can be easily introduced
Vk leaks ( t )  β L Pαk ( t ) Pk , mean ( t ) > 0
=  k k k , mean (4)
ΔT  0 Pk , mean ( t ) < 0
where Vkleaks = volume of the background leakages along the
kth pipe varying over time with mean pipe pressure Pk,mean; αk
and βk are model parameters mainly depending on pipe
deterioration and material, whose assessment is part of the
calibration of the model, which is out of the scopes of this
work. Pressure heads drive the solution (Qp(t), Hn(t), ΔH0(t))
of the system in (1), providing also the outlet water volumes
(Vn(t)). This modelling approach is different from the classic
demand-driven analysis, implemented in few WDN models
(e.g. EPANET2), which is based on the assumption of fixed
demands, i.e. fixed outlet volumes. Indeed, such assumption
would not allow reliable analyses for WDN operational
purposes like pump scheduling, where pressure are likely to
affect each water demand components and mass balance at
tanks driving pumps.
III. OPTIMAL PUMP SCHEDULING
Pumping optimization can be performed by setting optimal
level in tanks controlling the pump status or by scheduling
optimal ON/OFF status over time. The control by time is the
mostly adopted because it is easily referable to the time
pattern of energy tariffs, thus facilitating the assessment of
pumping costs. Nonetheless pump scheduling by time are
 unavoidably affected by the assumptions about time varying
 (2)
demands that are adopted in the WDN model and are not

 flexible with respect to abnormal increase/reduction of water
outflows. For this reason this paper account for pump
scheduling by setting the optimal water levels in tanks including the constraints as a conflictual objective function
controlling each pump. makes the pump scheduling a multi-objective optimization
problem with the twofold advantage of promoting the
A. Pumping optimization problem exploration of the search space without neglecting potentially
Following the discussion in the introduction section, the good solutions, and the possibility to get multiple solutions
pumping optimization should pursue the minimization of representing different trade-offs between total operational cost
energy costs for pumping as well as the minimization of and technically viable alternatives [4].
background leakage volume over an operating cycle, which
generally spans over one-day or one-week. In addition, the B. Optimization strategy
optimization problem should match technical constraints From an optimization standpoint the problem of
entailing supply service requirements (i.e. minimum pressures optimizing the level of tanks controlling pumps requires a
for a correct service at demand nodes), reliability (i.e. significant computational burden since the hydraulic system
minimum level to be preserved at tanks), water overflows (i.e. behavior needs to be predicted for all the states of an operating
maximum level of tanks) and deficit in global mass balance in cycle and the number of possible operational solutions is large
each tank at the end of the operating cycle. The pumping even for few pumps and tanks. For this reason, various
optimization problem is formulated herein as in (5): optimization techniques have been applied to the operational
optimization problem, including linear programming,
nonlinear programming, dynamic programming, fuzzy logic,
 PDA model (EPS) ∀t = 0, ΔT , 2 × ΔT ,  , T × ΔT nonlinear heuristic optimization, flexible constraint

min { f1 (Tariff , Energy ,Water Losses )} satisfaction and genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms (GA)
 was proved to not require simplifications in the problem
min { f 2 ( Constraints )} formulation, having a significant advantage in finding a near
with (5) global optimal solution compared to other optimization
T × ΔT m np T
methods [4].
f1 =   E ( t ) × ΔT × T ( t ) + C V
pu f w k
leaks
(P
k , mean (t ) , t )
t = 0 pu =1 k =1 t = 0
TABLE I. CODING OF DECISION VARIABLES IN GA
f 2 = (1 + Vdeficit )(1 + nPdeficit ) (1 + nVmin )(1 + nVmax )
Device Pump 1 … Pump m
Controlling
where PDA model (EPS) stands for the generalized WDN Tank x … Tank s
tank
model in (1) for each t = 0, ΔT, …, T×ΔT with T = number of Water level
switch ON switch OFF
…
switch ON switch OFF
EPS model snapshots of the operating cycle; ΔT = time below above below above
GA string 2 4 … 3 5.5
interval of the real hydraulic system snapshot in hours. Indeed,
water losses are generally larger during night as the leakages TABLE II. EXAMPLE OF CANDIDATE VALUES OF DECISION VARIABLES
increase with pressure, while the pumping cost is generally
lower during the night as the tariff is lower. Thus, the main Pump Candidate water level in controlling tanks
driver of both phenomena are the lower requests of water and 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.50 1.75 2
…
energy by customers. Therefore, PDA as in (1) is mandatory m 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
to correctly consider the volume of water losses due to
leakages in the WDN.
Table 1 exemplifies the coding of decision variables (i.e.
The objective function f2 includes the technical constraints water level in controlling tanks) in the GA. Table 2 reports an
in terms of: Vdeficit = sum of volume deficit at tanks at the end example of candidate values for each decision variable. It is
of the operating cycle; nPdeficit= number of simulation worth noting that continuous coding (real numbers) of the
snapshots showing some nodes with pressure lower that the levels is possible, but the advantage of the discrete coding
pressure for correct service Piser; nVmin number of snapshot the (integer numbers) is the search space reduction and the
water level in tanks falls below the minimum allowed; nVmax robustness of the solution with respect to quick level
number of snapshot the water level in tanks exceed the variations (provided that a good step size is selected) and
maximum allowed (overflow). The objective function f2 measurement errors. Although the selection of the tank
includes the electric power Epu (in kWh) as in (6), depending controlling each pump can be also part of the solution, it is
on pump efficiency η as computed in (3): known a priori based on WDN hydraulic scheme. In addition,
the same tank can control multiple pumps, each with a set of
9.806 ⋅ Δ H pu ( t ) Q pu ( t ) control levels. The same strategy also applies to other control
E pu ( t ) = (6) devices like controlled gate valves.
η
IV. CASE STUDY
pu = subscript of the puth pump; m = number of pumps; and Tf
= tariff cost/kWh varying over time t; Cw = cost of the non- The C-Town WDN, as in the Battle for Background
revenue water per cubic meter, it accounts for the both the Leakage Assessment in Water Networks [5], is used herein to
value of water and the environmental and indirect costs related demonstrate the pumping optimization strategy. Network data
to water losses; k = subscript of the kth pipe. As such, function and modelling details are reported in the referenced work,
f2 is expected to increase as f1 decreases. The approach of
while Fig. 1 shows network layout where the icon of pumps
(“PM”) are filled with the same color of the controlling tanks.

Figure 1. C-Town layout

Figure 2. Energy cost pattern

According to the original problem statement, it is assumed

that water losses cost 2 €/m3, which includes the value of
water as well as the environmental and indirect costs due to
leakages. Fig. 2 shows the pattern of energy cost over a one-
week (i.e. 168 hours) long operating cycle. From hydraulic
standpoint optimal pumping should guarantee at least 20m of
pressure at nodes with non-null customers’ demand, none of
the tanks should empty during the operating cycle and the
water levels in tanks at the end of the operating cycle should
be larger than the initial one. Differently from the original
problem statement, it is assumed herein that no pipes are
replaced/closed, no pressure reduction valves are installed and
Figure 3. Performances of pumping strategies: (A-B-C-D) on annual
the original volumes of tanks is not changed. Fig. 3 shows the basis; (E) on one-week operating cycle
performance of some solutions of the optimization problem in
(5), sorted in descending order by total annual cost (Fig.1. A). Indeed, moving from solution n.1 to solution n.24 is
Although energy cost (Fig.1. B) and pumping energy (Fig.1. possible to save more than 30,000 m3 on annual basis, saving
C) show the same decreasing trend as the total cost, solution also money for its abstraction, treatment and pumping, before
with similar costs (e.g. 11, 12 and 13) might result into reaching the WDN. Nonetheless, not all the solutions reported
different pumping energy consumption. This is due to the in Fig.1 are actually feasible. In fact, although all of them
variability of energy costs during the one-week operating match the constraint on pressure for a correct service and do
cycle, which results into similar solutions entailing quite not violate the constraint on minimum and maximum level in
different pumping policies. Fig.1 (D) shows that pumping the tanks, they show some volume deficit at the end of the
optimization, besides saving energy (and money) to run operating cycle (Fig.1 E). In more details, the black bars
pumps, allows to save large water volumes. represents solutions with pressure deficit exceeding 35m3 on
weekly basis, while all the others solutions results into an
average deficit lower than 5m3 per day, which is acceptable
from technical point of view, considering the conservative
assumptions usually adopted on customers’ demands and
pressure for correct service. Based on the analysis of results,
solution n. 19 (in red in Fig. 3) could be recommended since it
entails the minimum cost for energy and the minimum volume
of non-revenue water with technically negligible volume
deficit at tanks. Fig. 4 reports the pattern of pump status and
relevant power over 168 hour of operating cycle. It is worth
noting that higher pumping energy are not necessarily spent at
minimum energy cost hours due to the simultaneous
minimization of water losses. All the test are performed using
the WDNetXL [10] Management module, which integrate the
pressure-driven simulation of all water demand components,
permitting also the explicit modelling of background leakages
as diffuse outflows from pipes and the generalized WDN
model. In particular, this module allows the optimal pumping
based on either scheduling pump status at each ΔT or
identifying tank levels controlling pumps.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The complexity of pumping optimization problem stems
from the need of matching correct service requirements while
minimizing the overall operational cost, which should account
for both costs of energy and indirect costs of water losses.
This contribution demonstrate the application of a pumping
optimization strategy where the decision variables are the
water level in tanks controlling pump status in a complex
WDN. The proposed approach permits to analyze and
compare various technically feasible solutions entailing
different energy costs for pumping and volumes of water
losses. The integration of an advanced WDN hydraulic model
including pressure-driven modeling of customers’ water
demand, background leakages and robust simulation of water
level at tank is of key importance to get reliable decision
support for water utilities.
Figure 4. Pumping pattern for Solution n.19
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partly funded by “Fondo di Sviluppo e
Coesione 2007-2013 – APQ Ricerca Regione Puglia
“Programma regionale a sostegno della specializzazione
intelligente e della sostenibilità sociale ed ambientale -
FutureInResearch”.
REFERENCES
[1] P.W. Jowitt, and G. Germanopoulos, “Optimal pump scheduling in
water-supply networks,” J. Water Res. Plan. Manage., vol. 118, pp.
406-422, 1992.
[2] K.E. Lansey, and K. Awumah, “Optimal pump operations considering
pump switches,” J. Water Res. Plan. Manage., vol. 120, pp. 17-35,
1994.
[3] J.M. Wagner, U. Shamir, and D.H. Marks, “Water distribution
reliability: simulation methods,” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., vol.
114, pp. 276-294, 1988
[4] O. Giustolisi, D. Laucelli, L. Berardi, “Operational optimization: Water
Losses vs. Energy Costs”, J. of Hydraul. Eng., ASCE. 139(4), pp. 410–
423, 2013.
[5] O. Giustolisi, L. Berardi, D. Laucelli, D. Savic, T. Walski, B. Brunone,
“Battle of Background Leakage Assessment for Water Networks
(BBLAWN) at WDSA Conference 2014”, Procedia Eng., vol. 89, pp.
4-12, 2014.
[6] O. Giustolisi, L. Berardi, and D.B. Laucelli, “Generalizing WDN
simulation models to variable tank levels,” J. Hydroinf., vol. 12, pp.
562-573, March 2012.
[7] O. Giustolisi, and T.M. Walski, “A Demand Components in Water
Distribution Network Analysis,” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., vol.
138, pp. 356 -367, April 2012.
[8] O. Giustolisi, D.A. Savic, and Z. Kapelan, “Pressure-driven demand
and leakage simulation for water distribution networks,” J. Hydraul.
Eng., vol. 134, pp. 626-635, 2008.
[9] G. Germanopoulos, “A technical note on the inclusion of pressure
dependent demand and leakage terms in water supply network models,”
Civil Eng. Syst., vol. 2, pp. 171–179, 1985.
[10] O. Giustolisi, D. Savic, L. Berardi, D. Laucelli, “An Excel-based
solution to bring water distribution network analysis closer to users”, in
Proc. 2011 Computer and Control in Water Industry (CCWI) Conf.,
September 5-7, Exeter, UK, D.A..Savic, Z. Kapelan, D. Butler (Eds)
vol. 3, pp. 805-810.