Discussion of "Simplified Pressure-Driven Analysis of Water Distribution Network and Resilience Estimation" by T. R. Neelakantan and K. Rohini.

A similar analysis is not applicable for Case Study 2 because the settings of the HT <math display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mi>H</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>j</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>min</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> ht values are 0 for both PSVs and emitters. Hence, the discussers used PSV settings of zero instead of the HT <math display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>H</mi><mi>j</mi><mrow><mi>min</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> ht values given in Table 2 of the original paper. The probable reason behind the authors' incorrect results for HT <math display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>n</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1.85</mn></mrow></math> ht and 1.5 is that the default value of 0.5 might have been used for the global emitter exponent. [Extracted from the article]