Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Genetic Algorithm for Optimization of Water Distribution Systems

Genetic Algorithm for Optimization of Water Distribution Systems

|Views: 331|Likes:
Published by bryesanggalang

More info:

Published by: bryesanggalang on Jan 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446
Genetic algorithm for optimization of water distribution systems
Indrani Gupta
, A. Gupta, P. Khanna
 National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur-440020, India
Received 20 January 1998; accepted 15 July 1998
A methodology based on genetic algorithm has been developed for lower cost design of new, and augmentation of existing waterdistribution networks. The results have been compared with those of non-linear programming technique through application toseveral case studies. The genetic algorithm results in a lower cost solution. Parameters governing the convergence of the solutionsin non-linear and genetic algorithms are also discussed.
1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Genetic algorithm; Optimization; Water distribution system; Non-linear programming
Software availability
Program title: GENEDevelopers: Indrani Gupta, A. Guptaand P. KhannaContact address: National EnvironmentalEngineering ResearchInstitute, Nagpur-440020,IndiaHardware: HP 9000/730 PA-RISCWorkstation under HP-UX8.07 multi-user operatingsystemSource language: FORTRAN
1. Introduction
Water distribution system (WDS) design belongs to agroup of inherently intractable problems commonlyreferred to as NP-hard (Templeman, 1982; Parker andRardin, 1988). Essentially NP-hard means that a rigorousalgorithm to find an optimum design using discretediameters is not a practical possibility. Severalresearchers have reported algorithms for minimising thecost through the application of mathematical techniques,such as linear, non-linear or dynamic programming. It
* Corresponding author.
1364-8152/99/$ - see front matter
1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S1364-8152(98)00089-9
is well known that when diameters are assumed as thedecision variables (DV), the constraints are implicitfunctions of the DV, the feasible region is non-convex,and the objective function is multimodal. Hence, con-ventional optimization methods result in a local optimumwhich is dependent on the starting point in the searchprocess.The application of stochastic optimization techniquessuch as genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated annealingto WDS optimization is of recent origin. Simpson et al.(1994) have presented a methodology for finding the bestcost alternative for pipe networks using a three operatorGA comprising reproduction, crossover and mutation.An inherent problem in that the model is the large com-putational time in comparison to the non-linear program-ming techniques. Loganathan et al. (1995) proposed anouter flow search inner optimization procedure to ident-ify lower cost design solutions. In that approach eachpipe network is subjected to an outer search scheme thatselects alternative flow configurations in an attempt tofind an optimal flow division among pipes. For eachselected set of pipe flows a linear program is used to findthe associated optimal pipe diameters and energy heads.A new GA based methodology for optimaldesign/augmentation of pipe networks is described inthis paper. The methodology was compared with a non-linear programming (NLP) technique based on interiorpenalty function (IPF) with the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell(DFP) method. The NLP technique was first evaluatedby application to a case study which has been previously
I. Gupta et al./Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446 
attempted by several researchers (Loganathan et al.,1995, 1990; Fujiwara et al., 1987; Quindry et al., 1979;Alperovits and Shamir, 1977). The optimal cost obtainedfrom the NLP technique was 0.57% higher than the sol-ution achieved by Loganathan et al. (1995). The sol-utions achieved by other researchers are 1.9–18.3%higher than the solution obtained by Loganathan et al.(1995).Further, a comparison between the results of the GAand NLP techniques for augmentation of several mediumsize networks showed that the GA in general provideda lower cost solution, than that obtained from the NLPtechnique. The hydraulic simulator ANALIS (Bassin etal., 1992) which is based on graph theory, was used inboth the NLP and GA solutions to calculate pressureheads, flows and velocities in the design of branched,looped and combined systems.
2. Deterministic optimization techniques
A number of investigators have dealt with the problemof optimization of WDS by applying mathematical pro-gramming techniques.Several researchers employed linear programming tooptimise a WDS. Principal approaches include those of Alperovits and Shamir (1977), Quindry et al. (1981) andKessler and Shamir (1989). The technique given by Alp-erovits and Shamir (1977) requires that a set of variables(pipe flows) be set to particular values before the linearprogramme can be formulated. Information availablefrom the solution of linear programming problem can beused to calculate a gradient which is then used to changepipe flows. Quindry et al. (1981) have decomposed thelooped network problem to branched systems. The limi-tation of such simplified solution has been critically dis-cussed by Templeman (1982). Kessler and Shamir(1989) also use linear programming gradient procedure.Several non-linear programming packages have beendeveloped for network design problems. These packagesinclude GRG2 (Lasdon and Waren, 1983), MINOS(Murtagh and Saunders, 1987), GINO (Liebman et al.,1986), and GAMS (Brooke et al., 1988) which are allbased on the generalised reduced gradient method. Chi-plunkar et al. (1986) presented an algorithm based oninterior penalty function (IPF) with the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell (DFP) method. Lansey and Mays (1989)used GRG2 to find the optimum design and to simulatepumps, tanks and multiple loading cases. Lansey et al.(1989) considered uncertainty in nodal demands, Hazen-Williams coefficients and minimum nodal heads, anddeveloped a methodology for optimal design withrecourse to chance constrained optimization. Duan et al.(1990) extended the work of Lansey and Mays (1989)further and developed a model that (i) identifies the num-bers and locations of pumps and tanks by implicit enu-meration, (ii) uses GRG2 to find optimum pipe sizes forthe pump and tank layout specified in (i), and (iii) usesa separate model to compute various measures of sys-tem reliability.Gupta et al. (1993) developed the software packageWATDIS based on IPF and DFP methods. In thatapproach the problem was formulated as a cost minimiz-ation problem wherein the objective function F(x) com-prised the cost of power and annualised cost of pipes,pumps, and reservoirs satisfying the hydraulic loop lawswith constraints on minimum diameter and residualhead. The non-linear non-convex problem was convertedto an unconstrained problem by appending the con-straints to the objective function through penalty andweighting factors using the IPF method. An independentweighting factor was assigned to each constraint in orderto ensure the normalisation required by the significantlydifferent contributions of diameter, reservoir height, andresidual head constraints to the unconstrained objectivefunction.Recently, Loganathan et al. (1995) presented a designheuristic for global cost minima design. That methodwas used to solve a standard eight pipe problem, eachpipe being 1000 m long with a Hazen Williams coef-ficient of 130. The pipe sizes and associated costs usedin the study are presented in Table 1. By assuming aminimum diameter of 1 inch and minimum flow con-straint of 1 m
 /hour the method identified a design forthe network costing US $405 301.The same problem with the same minimum diameterand ow constraints was solved by the authorsemploying WATDIS. Since the single cost equation wasof exponential form and did not show a good fit (thecoefficient of determination
0.932), a piecewise linearfunction was used to represent the cost. The optimal costobtained employing WATDIS is $407 625 which is theactual cost of the network finally calculated from costof pipes per unit length. This is 0.57% higher than theone reported by Loganathan et al. (1995). The details of the pipe cost and solution are presented in Fig. 1, andTables 1–4. The cost of the same network as determinedin a number of other methods in previous studies is
Table 1Pipe sizes and associated costsDiameter Unit cost Diameter Unit cost(in.) (US$/m) (in.) (US$/m)1 2 12 502 5 14 603 8 16 904 11 18 1306 16 20 1708 23 22 30010 32 24 550Note: 1 in.
25.4 mm
 I. Gupta et al./Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–44
Fig. 1. Optimal looped network.Table 2Pipe details for optimal solutionPipe Node Length Diameter Flow Headloss StatusNo (m) (in) (lps) (m)From To1 1 2 1000.00 18 311.111 6.756 N2 2 3 210.72 12 102.215 1.305 N789.28 10 102.215 11.881 NS3 2 4 932.17 16 181.118 4.104 N67.83 14 181.118 0.572 NS4 4 5 57.55 2 0.277 0.039 N942.45 1 0.277 18.486 NS5 4 6 836.22 16 147.508 2.517 N163.78 14 147.508 0.945 NS6 6 7 989.13 10 55.841 4.860 N10.87 8 55.841 0.158 NS7 3 5 899.81 10 74.438 7.529 N100.19 8 74.438 2.485 NS8 7 5 535.81 2 0.286 0.381 N464.19 1 0.286 9.663 NSLegend: N, New pipe; NS, New pipe in series with the previous pipe
$412 931 (Loganathan et al., 1990), $415 271 (Fujiwaraet al., 1987), $441 522 (Quindry et al., 1979), and$479 525 (Alperovits and Shamir, 1977). These costs are1.9%, 2.5%, 8.9% and 18.3% higher respectively thanthe cost of $405 301 achieved by Loganathan et al.(1995). Accordingly, the performance of WATDIS was
Table 3Nodal detailsNode no. Ground Residual Hydraulic Demandlevel head grade (lps)(m) (m)1 R 210.00 00.00 210.00
311.11112 D 150.00 53.24 203.24 27.77783 D 160.00 30.06 190.06 27.77784 D 155.00 43.57 198.57 33.33335 D 150.00 30.04 180.04 75.00006 D 165.00 30.11 195.11 91.66677 D 160.00 30.09 190.09 55.5556Legend: R, Reservoir location; D, Demand node
 judged to be fairly good in comparison to that of otheralgorithms reported in the literature. The WATDIS wasthus considered an adequate basis for evaluation of theGA described in this paper.
3. Overview of genetic algorithms
GAs are nature based stochastic computational tech-niques. The major advantages of these algorithms aretheir broad applicability, flexibility and their ability tofind optimal or near optimal solutions with relativelymodest computational requirements. GAs, pioneered by

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jomach Jonathan MC Chibuye added this note
thanks for the help
Srs Alahmed added this note
Percyes_Civilunh liked this
umanathrp liked this
Bhanu Chander liked this
Eshe2a liked this
Harsha liked this
Harsha liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->