Automated Skeletonization Techniques

White Paper Series: No.2, Rev. 1 Document Number: 020022

Date of Publication: 4-29-02

Condition Of Use Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitations of Liability

This white paper is provided by Haestad Methods, Inc. (HMI) on an as-is basis with no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the document or the information, content, or materials in the document including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or any warranty otherwise arising out of any proposal, specification or sample. You expressly agree that your use of this document is at your sole risk. Information in this document is subject to change without notice. The information contained in this document represents the current view of HMI on the issues discussed as of the date of publication.

Copyright/Trademark/Patents
HMI may have patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this document. The furnishing of this white paper does not give you the license to these HMI patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property. All content included in this white paper is the property of HMI or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. Complying with all applicable copyright laws is your responsibility. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of HMI. Brands and names not owned by Haestad Methods or its subsidiaries that appear in this white paper are the property of their respective owners.

Contact Us
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA Voice: +1-203-755-1666 Fax: +1-203-579-1488 Email: info@haestad.com Internet: www.haestad.com
z 2002 Haestad Methods, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Importance of Skeletonization

Skeletonization is the process of selecting for inclusion in a water distribution model only the parts of the hydraulic network that have a significant impact on the behavior of the system. The portions of the network that are not modeled are not ignored; rather, the effects that these elements contribute to the system are accounted for within the parts of the system that are included in the model. When creating a water distribution model, including each individual service connection, valve, and every one of the numerous other elements that make up the actual network would be a huge undertaking for larger systems. A fully realized water distribution model can be an enormously complex network consisting of thousands of discrete elements, and not all of these elements are necessary for every application of the model. When elements that are extraneous to the desired purpose are present, the efficiency, usability, and focus of the model can be substantially impacted, and calculation and display refresh times can be seriously impaired. In addition to the logistics of creating and maintaining a model that employs little or no skeletonization, there is another reason that this level of detail is unnecessary depending on the application to which the model is being applied, incorporating all of these elements in the model has no significant impact on the accuracy of the results that are generated. Different levels of skeletonization are appropriate depending on the intended use of the model. For an energy cost analysis, a higher degree of skeletonization is preferable; for fire flow and water quality analysis, minimal skeletonization is called for. This means that multiple models are required for different applications. Because of this necessity, various automated skeletonization techniques have been developed to assist with the skeletonization process. Skeletonization Example The following series of diagrams illustrate various levels of skeletonization that can be applied. The diagram below shows a network subdivision before any skeletonization has been performed.

As you can see, there is a junction at each service tap and a pipe and node at each house for a total of 48 junctions and 47 pipes within this subdivision. To perform a low level of skeletonization, the nodes at each house could be removed along with the connecting pipes that tie in to the service line. The demands at each house would be moved to the corresponding service tap. The resulting network would now look like this:

There are now 19 junctions and 18 pipes in the subdivision. The demands that were assigned to the junctions that were removed are moved to the nearest upstream junction. The only information that has been lost is the data at the service connections that were removed. A further level of skeletonization is possible if we remove the service taps and model only the ends and intersections of the main pipes. In this case, re-allocating the demands is a bit more complex. The most accurate approximation can be obtained by associating the demands with the junction that is closest to the original demand junction (as determined by following the service pipe). In the following diagram, these service areas are marked with a dotted line.

To fully skeletonize this subdivision, the pipes and junctions that serve the subdivision can be removed, and the demands can be assigned to the point where the branch connects to the rest of the network, as shown in the following diagram:

As can be seen by this example, numerous levels of skeletonization can be applied; determining the extent of the skeletonization depends on the purpose of the model. At each progressive level of skeletonization, more elements are removed, thus the amount of available information is decreased. Deciding whether this information is necessary to the intended use of the model dictates the point at which the model is optimally skeletonized.

Common Automated Skeletonization Techniques

The following are descriptions of the skeletonization techniques that have been employed to achieve a level of automation of the skeletonization process. Generally, a combination of these techniques proves to be more effective than any one on its own; a process that utilizes all of them would be ideal. Data Scrubbing Data Scrubbing is the simplest, and generally the first, step of the skeletonization process. In fact, some automated skeletonizers rely entirely on this reduction technique. Data Scrubbing basically consists of simply removing all pipes that meet user-specified criteria such as diameter, roughness, or other attributes. Criteria combinations can also be applied, such as Remove all 2 inch pipes that are less than 200 feet in length. This step of Skeletonization is especially useful when the model has been created from GIS data, since GIS maps generally contain much more information than is necessary for the hydraulic model. Examples of elements that are commonly included in GIS maps but not necessarily in the distribution model are service connections and isolation valves. Removing these elements generally has a negligible impact on the accuracy of the model, depending on the application for which the model is being used. The primary drawback of this type of skeletonization is that there is no network awareness involved. No consideration of the hydraulic effects of a pipes removal is taken into account, so there is a large potential for errors to be made by inadvertent pipe removal or by causing network disconnections. Branch Trimming Branch Trimming is the process of removing short dead-end links and their corresponding junctions. Since pipes and junctions are removed by this process, criteria for both types of element are specified by the user. An important element of this skeletonization type is the reallocation of demands that are associated with junctions that are removed. The demand associated with a dead-end junction is assigned to the junction at the beginning of the branch. Branch trimming is a recursive process; as dead-end pipes and junctions are removed, other junctions and pipes can become the new dead-ends if they meet the trimming criteria, these elements may also be removed. The user specifies whether this process continues until all applicable branches have been trimmed or if the process should stop after a specified number of trimming levels. Branch Trimming is an effective skeletonization technique; dead-end junctions with no loading have no effect on the model, and dead end junctions that do have demands are accounted for at the point through which this flow would pass anyway (without skeletonization), so the hydraulic behavior of the network as a whole is unaffected. The only situation that presents a drawback to this type of skeletonization is the obvious one; information and results cannot be obtained from non-existent elements. During water quality or fire flow analysis, information on these trimmed elements may be desired but unavailable. Again,

having multiple models utilizing various levels of skeletonization is the solution to this potential drawback. Series Pipe Removal Series Pipe Removal, also known as Intermediate Node Removal or Pipe Merging, is the next skeletonization technique. It works by removing nodes that have only two adjacent pipes and merging these pipes into a single one. As with Branch Trimming, any demands associated with the junctions being removed must be reallocated to nearby nodes, and generally a number of strategies for this allocation can be specified. An Evenly Distributed strategy simply divides the demand equally between the two end nodes of the newly merged pipe. A Distance Weighted technique divides the demands between the two end nodes based on their proximity to the node being removed. These strategies can be somewhat limiting, and maintaining an acceptable level of network hydraulic precision while removing nodes and merging pipes is made more difficult with this restrictive range of choices. Other criteria are also used to set the allowable tolerances for relative differences in the attributes of adjacent pipes and nodes. For example, an important consideration is the elevation difference between nodes along a pipe-merge candidate. If the junctions mark critical elevation information, this elevation (and by extension, pressure) data would be lost if this node attribute is not accounted for when the pipes are merged. Another set of criteria would include pipe attributes. This information is needed to prevent pipes that are too different (as defined by the tolerance settings) hydraulically from being merged. This additional check is a two-edged sword - it is important to compare certain pipe attributes before merging them to ensure that the hydraulic behavior will approximate the conditions before the merge; however, requiring that pipes have exactly matching criteria limits the number of elements that could potentially be removed, thus reducing the level of skeletonization that is possible. In other words, although it is desirable for potential pipe merge candidates to have similar hydraulic attributes, substantial skeletonization is difficult to achieve if there are even very slight variances between the hydraulic attributes of these pipes, since an exact match is required. This process is, however, very good at merging pipes whose adjacent nodes have no demand and who have exactly the same attributes. Removing all of these zero-demand junctions and merging the corresponding pipes has no effect on the models hydraulics.

Haestad Methods Skelebrator

The preceding section described skeletonization strategies or steps that are commonly used by automated skeletonizers, as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with each one. This section discusses Haestad Methods Skelebrator process, and how the various disadvantages are remedied or minimized. Data Scrubbing The first step that Skelebrator performs is Data Scrubbing. The main drawback of standard Data Scrubbing procedures is that, as mentioned previously, they have no awareness of the effects that removing elements from the model will have on the calculated hydraulics. This can easily cause network disconnections and lead to a decrease in the accuracy of the simulated network behavior. Skelebrator eliminates the possibility of inadvertent network disconnections caused by the Data Scrubbing technique. This is accomplished by utilizing a sophisticated network walking

algorithm. This algorithm marks pipes as Safe to be removed if the removal of the pipe so marked would not invalidate, or disconnect, the network. For a pipe to be removed, it must: 1) meet the user-specified removal criteria, 2) be marked Safe for Removal, and 3) not be marked as Non-Removable by the user. This added intelligence protects the models integrity by eliminating the possibility of inadvertently introducing catastrophic errors during the model reduction process. This innovation is not available in other automated skeletonization applications; a likely result of performing skeletonization without this intelligent safety net is the invalidation of the network caused by the removal of elements that are critical to the performance and accuracy of the model. At the very least, verifying that no important elements have been removed during this skeletonization step and re-creating any elements that have been erroneously removed can be a lengthy and error-prone process. These considerations are addressed automatically and transparently by the Skelebrators advanced network walking algorithm. Branch Trimming Branch Trimming is a fundamental skeletonization technique; the improvements that Skelebrator brings to the table are primarily a matter of flexibility, efficiency, and usability. The Branch Trimming method utilized by other automated skeletonization applications allows a limited range of removal criteria; in some cases, just elevation and length. Workarounds are required if another removal criteria is desired, resulting in more steps to obtain the desired results. Conversely, Skelebrator innately provides a wide range of removal criteria, increasing the scope of this skeletonization step and eliminating the need for inefficient manual workarounds. The following diagrams illustrate the results of branch trimming. Before Branch Trimming

After One Branch Trimming Iteration

After Two Branch Trimming Iterations (Branch is Completely Removed)

Series Pipe Removal Next, the Series Pipe Removal technique is applied. Two basic drawbacks were mentioned previously: First, the demand reallocation strategies normally available for this step are not comprehensive enough, limiting the user to choosing from an even demand distribution or a distance-weighted one. This limitation can hinder the users ability to maintain an acceptable level of hydraulic parity. To overcome this limitation, Skelebrator provides a greater range of demand reallocation strategies, including: Equally Distributed, Proportional to Existing Loads (at the ends of the new pipe), Proportional to Coalesced Pipe Attributes, and User Defined Ratio. Evenly Distributed, again, divides the demand equally between the two end nodes of the newly merged pipe. The Proportional to Existing Loads divides demand based on the amount of demand already associated with the end nodes. The Proportional to Coalesced Pipe Attributes strategy provides the Distance-Weighted option, and allows other pipe attributes to be weighting factors as well. (For example, roughness or material) The User Defined Ratio option is self-explanatory. These additional choices allow the proper simulation of a wider range of hydraulic behaviors. Second, (and more important) this technique is effective because it allows the user to specify tolerances that determine if the pipes to be merged are similar enough that combining them into a single pipe will not significantly impact the hydraulic behavior of the network. However, this criteria-based process can also reduce the number of elements that are removed during the skeletonization, because the attribute values of the potential merge candidates must match exactly. Before Series Pipe Removal (Exact Match Pipes)

After Series Pipe Removal (Exact Match Pipes)

To counter the restrictive nature of enforcing an exact match between pipe merge candidate attributes, a unique Hydraulic Equivalency feature has been developed. This feature works by determining the combination of pipe attributes that will most closely mimic the hydraulic behavior of the pipes to be merged, and applying these attributes to the newly merged pipe. By generating an equivalent pipe from two non-identical pipes, the number of possible removal candidates (and thus, the potential level of skeletonization) is greatly increased. This Hydraulic Equivalency feature is integral to the application of a high degree of effective skeletonization, the goal of which is the removal of as many elements as possible without significantly impacting the accuracy of the model. Only Skelebrator implements this concept of hydraulic equivalency, breaking the barrier that is raised by other skeletonizers that only allow exactly matched pipes to be merged by this process. Before Series Pipe Removal (Different Diameters)

After Series Pipe Removal (Using Skelebrators Hydraulic Equivalency feature)

Parallel Pipe Removal Parallel Pipe Removal is the process of combining pipes that share the same two end nodes into a single hydraulically equivalent pipe. This skeletonization strategy relies on the Hydraulic Equivalency feature described above, and is therefore not available with other automated skeletonizers. To merge parallel pipes, the user specifies which of the two pipes is the dominant one. The length of the dominant pipe becomes the length of the merged pipe, as does either the diameter or the roughness value of the dominant pipe. The user specifies which of the two attributes to retain (diameter or roughness) and the program determines what the value of the other attribute should be in order to maintain hydraulic equivalence. For example, the dominant pipe has a diameter of 10 inches and a C factor of 120; one of these values is retained. The pipe that will be removed has a diameter of 6 inches and a C factor of 120. If the 10-inch diameter value is retained, the program performs hydraulic equivalence calculations to determine what the roughness of the new pipe should be in order to account for the additional carrying capacity of the parallel pipe that is being removed. Because this skeletonization method removes only pipes and accounts for the effect of the pipes that are removed, the network hydraulics remain intact while increasing the overall potential for a higher level of skeletonization.

Before Parallel Pipe Removal

After Parallel Pipe Removal

Other Skelebrator Features In addition to the advancements discussed in the previous section, Skelebrator offers numerous other features that improve the flexibility and ease-of-use of the skeletonization process. The Drawing Review option allows you to preview the effects that a given skeletonization step, or method, will have on the model. This important tool can assist the modeler in finding potential problems with the reduced model before a single element is removed from it. When skeletonization is performed and accepted, the results are saved to a new model, rather than overwriting the current one. Before skeletonization is begun or between steps, the user has the ability to manually mark any junctions or pipes as Non-Removable. Any pipes marked in this way will always be preserved by the Skelebrator, even if the elements meet the removal criteria of the skeletonization process in question. This option provides the modeler with an additional level of control as well as improving the flexibility of the process. The ability of the Skelebrator to preserve network integrity by not removing elements that would cause the network to be invalidated is an important timesaving feature that can prevent this common error from happening. There may be circumstances, however, when the user does not want or need this additional check, so this option can be switched off. For the utmost control over the skeletonization process, the user can also perform a Manual Skeletonization. This feature allows the user to step through each individual removal candidate. The element can then be removed or marked to be excluded from the skeletonization.

Conclusion
With the overwhelming amount of data now available to the water distribution modeler, some degree of skeletonization is appropriate for practically every model, although the extent of the skeletonization varies widely depending on the intended purpose of the model. In light of this, it has become desirable to maintain multiple models of the same system, each for use in different types of analysis and design. A model that has been minimally skeletonized serves as a water quality and fire flow analysis model, while energy cost estimating is performed using a model with a higher degree of skeletonization. Creating a number of reduced models with varying levels of skeletonization can be a lengthy and tedious process, which is where the automated techniques described above demonstrate their value. To ensure that the skeletonization process produces a reduced model with the minimum

number of elements that is necessary for the intended application while simultaneously maintaining an accurate simulation of network behavior, the automated skeletonization routine must be flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of conditions. Skelebrator provides an unmatched level of flexibility, providing numerous demand reallocation and element removal strategies. It alone amongst automated skeletonizers maximizes the potential level of skeletonization by introducing the concept of Hydraulic Equivalence, eliminating the limitation posed by exact attribute matching requirements. Another distinction is the advanced Network Walking algorithm employed by Skelebrator, which ensures that your model remains connected and valid, thereby greatly reducing the possibility for inadvertant element removal errors. These features, and others such as the Drawing Review and Manual Skeletonization, greatly expedite and simplify the process of generating multiple, special-purpose water distribution models, each skeletonized to the optimal level for their intended purpose.