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

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

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

Calibration results using C=140: simulated vs observed water pressure

Calibration results using C=140: simulated vs observed demand

Validation results using C=140: simulated vs observed water pressure

Validation results using C=140: simulated vs observed demand

Illustrating the fluctuations of pressure values across the network

Illustrating the fluctuations of velocity values across the water distribution network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2026-0041 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6512 | 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,

Political economics,

Economic theory, systems and structures,

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:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

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

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

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

Flow velocity range in the water distribution network pipes

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

The percentage distribution of pressure ranges within the water distribution network

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

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

Paradigm

My account