Naming conventions and documentation for distribution system modeling

Abstract

Water distribution system computer models are increasingly used as a critical part of designing and operating water systems. Although many water utilities have such models, their usefulness is often greatly reduced by poor naming conventions used during model development. In many cases, once a model leaves the model developer, it cannot be determined when it was last updated nor what its purpose was without extensive and costly rework. Despite the benefits of a systematic naming convention, including improving communication between developers and users, very little literature exists on model-naming conventions, model management, and documentation. This article explores systematic naming conventions in hydraulic modeling on the basis of a review of more than 1,000 models. A framework for naming model files, scenarios, data sets, network elements, and model development process documentation is provided.ater utilities today grapple with many issues that carry heavy financial and other resource constraints. AWWA's 2006 State of the Industry Report identifies some of these constraints as infrastructure, regulatory factors, business factors, and source water supply/protection (Runge & M unn, 2006). This leads to a " perfect storm" -a convergence of several factors that translate into higher costs for supplying drinking water service (Parmelee, 2006). Any improvement that would alleviate this perfect storm by translating into cost savings and improved efficiency would benefit water utilities. An example of an area with room for such improvement, which may not be immediately obvious to many water professionals, is water system hydraulic modeling. Water distribution system hydraulic models are increasingly used as a critical part of designing and operating water distribution systems capable of serving communities reliably, efficiently, and safely (Boulos et al, 2004;Walski et al, 2003). Yet these models are not without their problems.In the authors' experience, key issues identified in more than 1,000 hydraulic models primarily include that the initial naming of model files, scenarios, data sets, and hydraulic elements by the model developer is often done without enough thought about the next user. The next person using the model might not be the model developer and, if steps aren't taken during development to make naming conventions clear, he or she may spend a significant amount of time deciphering the work done by the developer. In addition, the next user's level of expertise may be less than the model developer's, and thus he or she may not understand well W 2008