Evaluation the Operational Performance of Water Supply Network in a Selected Neighborhood in Karbala City, Iraq

Ali Adnan Abd; Riyadh Jasim Mohammed Al-Saadi; Jabbar H. Al-Baidhani

doi:10.2478/cee-2026-0041

Evaluation the Operational Performance of Water Supply Network in a Selected Neighborhood in Karbala City, Iraq

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Volume 22 (2026): Issue 2 (June 2026)

By: Ali Adnan Abd, Riyadh Jasim Mohammed Al-Saadi and Jabbar H. Al-Baidhani

Open Access

|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Location and Arial map of Muhandisin Al-Nidal neighborhood, Karbala City: a) Map of Karbala governorate location; (b) Arial map of Muhandisin Al-Nidal neighborhood

Arial map of water distribution network layout

Pressure measurement: a) Device used to measure water pressure; b) Location of measured points

Flowrate measurements: a) Wall-mount ultrasonic flow meter (Eurosonic 2000) device; b) Location of measured points

Table 1:

Calibration results using C=140: simulated vs observed water pressure with absolute and percentage error

Number of points	Junction	Observed pressure [psi]	Simulated pressure [psi]	Absolute pressure difference [psi]	Percentage error [%]
1	J-25	9.485	9.36	0.125	1.318
2	J-26	8.16	7.12	1.04	12.745
3	J-24	8.975	9.25	0.275	3.064
4	J-38	7.925	5.4	2.525	31.861
5	J-1	1.7	1.63	0.07	4.118
6	J-13	4.1	4.9	0.8	19.512
7	J-190	6.25	6.31	0.06	0.960
8	J-229	6.75	6.98	0.23	3.407
9	J-223	7	6.95	0.05	0.714
10	J-216	6.75	6.51	0.24	3.556
11	J-123	6	6.25	0.25	4.167
12	J-170	7.5	7.01	0.49	6.533
13	J-113	4	4.17	0.17	4.250
14	J-95	3.6	3.57	0.03	0.833
15	J-92	2.85	3.04	0.19	6.667
16	J-51	3.7	3.89	0.19	5.135
17	J-77	4	4.11	0.11	2.750
Average Error					6.56

Table 2.

Calibration Results using C=140: simulated vs observed Demand with absolute and percentage error.

Number of points	Pipe	Observed demand [m³/h]	Simulated demand [m³/h]	Absolute demand difference [m³/h]	Percentage error [%]
2	P-49	34.718	30.708	4.01	0.116
3	P-24	32.47	32.752	0.282	0.009
4	P-36	12.16	12.191	0.031	0.003
5	P-25	2.082	2	0.082	0.039
6	P-13	11.232	9.566	1.666	0.148
7	P-279	1.8	2.126	0.326	0.181
8	P-108	4.528	4.818	0.29	0.064
9	P-307	1.1379	1.08	0.0579	0.051
10	P-101	3.998	4.06	0.062	0.016
11	P-77	1.389	1.441	0.052	0.037
12	P-86	9.6016	8.696	0.9056	0.094
13	P-72	0.439	0.45	0.011	0.025
14	P-204	0.451	0.435	0.016	0.035
15	P-64	3.94	3.067	0.873	0.222
16	P-52	1.421	1.463	0.042	0.030
17	P-155	0.0697	0.077	0.0073	0.105
Average Error					7.338

Table 3:

Correlation coefficient (R) and root mean square error (RMSE) between observed and simulated values of water pressure and demand for C=140

Parameter	Percentage Error %	RMSE	R
Water pressure	6.56	0.7165	0.9492
Demand	7.338	1.1382	0.9964

Table 4:

Validation results using C=140: simulated vs observed water pressure with absolute and percentage error

Number of points	Junction	Observed pressure [psi]	Simulated pressure [psi]	Absolute pressure difference [psi]	Percentage error [%]
1	J-25	9.45	9.36	0.09	0.952
2	J-26	8	7.13	0.87	10.875
3	J-24	8.98	9.26	0.28	3.118
4	J-38	7.85	5.42	2.43	30.955
5	J-1	1.58	1.64	0.06	3.797
6	J-13	4.4	4.91	0.51	11.591
7	J-190	6.28	6.32	0.04	0.637
8	J-229	6.8	6.99	0.19	2.794
9	J-223	6.85	6.97	0.12	1.752
10	J-216	6.65	6.53	0.12	1.805
11	J-123	6.2	6.26	0.06	0.968
12	J-170	7.5	7.02	0.48	6.400
13	J-113	3.85	4.19	0.34	8.831
14	J-95	3.5	3.59	0.09	2.571
15	J-92	2.85	3.42	0.57	20.000
16	J-51	3.7	3.9	0.2	5.405
17	J-77	4.3	4.13	0.17	3.953
Average Error					6.85

Table 5:

Validation results using C=140: simulated vs observed Demand with absolute and percentage error

Number of points	Pipe	Observed demand [m³/h]	Simulated demand [m³/h]	Absolute demand difference [m³/h]	Percentage error [%]
2	P-49	33.624	30.21	3.414	0.102
3	P-24	32.133	32.234	0.101	0.003
4	P-36	11.76	10.948	0.812	0.069
5	P-25	1.899	1.968	0.069	0.036
6	P-13	10.465	9.413	1.052	0.101
7	P-279	1.96	2.092	0.132	0.067
8	P-108	4.226	4.739	0.513	0.121
9	P-307	1.235	1.062	0.173	0.140
10	P-101	4.05	3.996	0.054	0.013
11	P-77	1.391	1.418	0.027	0.019
12	P-86	9.018	8.544	0.474	0.053
13	P-72	0.42	0.443	0.023	0.055
14	P-204	0.437	0.428	0.009	0.021
15	P-64	3.95	3.017	0.933	0.236
16	P-52	1.45	1.44	0.01	0.007
17	P-155	0.0751	0.076	0.0009	0.012
Average Error					6.595

Table 6:

Validation coefficient (R) and root mean square error (RMSE) between observed and simulated values of water pressure and demand for C=140

Parameter	Percentage Error [%]	RMSE	R
Pressure	6.85	0.679	0.953
Demand	6.595	0.963	0.997

Table 7:

The percentage distribution of pressure ranges within the water distribution network

Pressure Range [psi]	Number of Junctions	Percentage of Total [%]
1 – 4	22	9.13
4 – 6	115	47.72
6 – 8	100	41.49
8 – 9.4	4	1.66
Total	241	100

Illustrating the fluctuations of pressure values across the network

Table 8:

Flow velocity range in the water distribution network pipes

Flow velocity range [m/s]	Percentage of pipe length [%]
< 0.01	28.91
0.01 – 0.1	62.32
0.1 – 0.2	4.22
0.2 – 0.3	3.48
0.3 – 0.4	0.0
0.4–0.5	0.0
0.5–0.6	1.07

Illustrating the fluctuations of velocity values across the water distribution network

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2026-0041 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6512 (formerly 1336-5835) | Journal ISSN: 1336-5835

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 703 - 717

Submitted on: Sep 2, 2025

Accepted on: Oct 7, 2025

Published on: Jun 19, 2026

Published by: University of Žilina

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

Water Network,

WaterGEMS,

Hydraulic simulation,

Network calibration,

Pressure analysis,

Flow velocity

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Industries,

Environmental management

© 2026 Ali Adnan Abd, Riyadh Jasim Mohammed Al-Saadi, Jabbar H. Al-Baidhani, published by University of Žilina
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 22 (2026): Issue 2 (June 2026)

Evaluation the Operational Performance of Water Supply Network in a Selected Neighborhood in Karbala City, Iraq

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Table 1:

Figure 6:

Table 2.

Figure 7:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Figure 8:

Table 5:

Figure 9:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Figure 10:

Table 8:

Figure 11:

Paradigm

My account