Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 23 (2008) 625635

Using Evolutionary Optimization Techniques

for Scheduling Water Pipe Renewal Considering
a Short Planning Horizon
Leila Dridi
National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, 1200 Montreal Road,
M20, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Marc Parizeau
Departement
de genie
electrique
et de genie
informatique, Universite Laval, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot,

Quebec
(Quebec),
Canada

Alain Mailhot & Jean-Pierre Villeneuve

Institut national de la recherche scientique, Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement (INRS-ETE),
490 rue de la Couronne, Quebec
(Quebec),
G1K 9A9, Canada

Abstract: The maintenance and management of underground infrastructures is a growing problem for a majority of municipalities. The maintenance costs are increasing while the financial resources of municipalities
remain limited. Water distribution system (WDS) managers therefore need tools to assist them in the elaboration of pipe renewal management plans. In this article, results of a newly developed strategy for pipe renewal based
on a cost function are presented. The strategy allows the
minimization of a cost function while also considering
hydraulic criterion. This strategy was tested on a short
planning horizon of five years. The pipe number to be
replaced and the optimal moment for renewal are identified using three different optimization techniques: IGA
(Island Genetic Algorithm), NPGA-2 (Niched Pareto
Genetic Algorithm 2), and NSGA-II (Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II). The proposed approach
has five distinctive features: (1) it is coupled with a flexible evolutionary framework that allows the user to select
To

whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alain

mailhot@ete.inrs.ca.


C

any type of operator for IGA or any kind of multiobjective genetic algorithm; (2) it uses the hydraulic simulator Epanet2.0 which allows steady state or dynamic
simulations; (3) it considers a probabilistic break model
to evaluate the structural deterioration of pipes; (4) it integrates a Bayesian approach for the estimation of the
pipe break model parameters that take into account the
influence of inherent uncertainties related to the quality
of data during the decision-making process; and (5) it
simulates the variation of the pipes roughness over the
years. The developed strategy/model is explained using
an example that allows us to elucidate its most important
components. Simulation experiments on a small network
(100 pipes) are presented. A comparison of three evolutionary algorithm results is provided. Tests showed that
IGA performs well, but for networks of larger sizes, we
recommend increasing the number of demes to reach better solutions. Higher quality results were achieved with
NSGA-II than NPGA-2 on differently sized networks.
We recommend the use the NSGA-II to optimize large
WDS. Future developments for this strategy are also
discussed.

2008 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA,
and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

626

Dridi, Parizeau, Mailhot & Villeneuve

1 INTRODUCTION
Distribution networks are constructed to satisfy the
needs of users and to ensure/provide fire protection.
The distributed water must be of good quality and supply a sufficient pressure. However, over the years, pipes
deteriorate, breaks become more and more frequent,
and certain networks fail to satisfy the required pressure. To improve a networks state, managers need tools
that allow them to make good decisions regarding when
it is essential to replace or rehabilitate network pipes,
taking into account the financial resources, which in
most cases are limited.
The objective of this article is to present and discuss optimization results of a new strategy/model for
pipe renewal that was tested to minimize total break repairs and replacement costs and to identify when and
which pipes need renewal. This strategy was tested using three evolutionary optimization algorithms to find
a solution to the problem. The first algorithm is IGA
(island genetic algorithm), which considers the fitness
value to be optimized to find the optimal solution (or
close to optimum). The advantage of the considered genetic algorithm (GA) is that the search process for the
best solution is realized on various subspaces. The second algorithm is the NPGA-2 (niched Pareto genetic
algorithm), a multiobjective technique which is an improved version of the NPGA first developed by Horn
et al. (1994) and tested by Erickson et al. (2001) in
ground water quality management. The last algorithm
is named NSGA-II (non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm), a multiobjective technique that is a revised
version of the NSGA developed by Srinivas and Deb
(1994). This version is more efficient computationally
than its predecessor.
The article is organized as follows. The following
section presents a brief literature review of the main
published works related to rehabilitation/replacement
problem. Section 3 presents the proposed renewal strategy applied on a short planning horizon. Section 4
presents the mathematical formulation of the problem.
Three evolutionary optimization techniques are presented in Section 5. Finally, the results are discussed
and the different techniques are analyzed and compared
considering a 100-pipe network.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The rehabilitation/replacement problem was previously
addressed at the pipe level by several authors. For example, Shamir and Howard (1979) were among the first
who presented a method to determine the optimal re-

placement time for a pipe. Kleiner et al. (1998a, 1998b)

also proposed an approach of long-term renewal planning applicable to small WDS (less than 20 pipes). Deterioration of structural integrity and hydraulic capacity of pipes were both considered. The study of Kim
and Mays (1994) differs from previous works because
it includes, in addition to replacement, rehabilitation
and break repair costs, a fourth cost function associated
with pumping, with the objective of minimizing the sum
of the four costs. In Europe, the CARE-W (computeraided rehabilitation of water networks) model was created within a European research project framework,
with the association of 10 research centers (Le Gauffre and Eisenbeis, 2004). This model includes five main
modules, linked with a database and data management
tools. The first module is for the evaluation of performance indicators related to network rehabilitation
(performance indicators). The second module includes
failure prediction tools for breaks and leaks (failure
forecasting). The third module is used to assess the hydraulic reliability of pipes in the network (water supply
reliability). The fourth module helps during the construction and comparison of different long-term management strategies (long-term rehabilitation planning).
Finally, the last module is dedicated to the multicriteria decision-making method for the construction of
an annual rehabilitation program (annual rehabilitation
planning).
The applications of GAs in science and engineering are growing. The variety of application is numerous and includes civil engineering-structural optimization, environmental engineering (Erickson et al., 2001),
and many other fields. In water distribution networks,
GAs are used to solve design problems (Dandy et al.,
1996; Walters et al., 1999; Vairavamoorthy and Ali,
2000; Savic and Walters, 2000; Wu et al., 2001), renewal
planning problems (Dandy and Engelhardt, 2001), and
pump scheduling problems (Savic et al., 1997).
The standard GA is an algorithm that first requires
the coding of all of the parameters of the optimization
problem in a finite length string. The principle of GA is
simple. It consists of the evolution of a population of individuals until a stop criterion. At first, an initial population of individuals (or solutions) is generated randomly.
Then, in each generation, individuals are selected; this
selection is based on an objective function called fitness.
Then, two other operators, crossover and mutation, are
applied to generate a new population of solutions. This
process is repeated until a stop criterion is satisfied. The
criterion most often used is a maximal number of generations. Generational GA first generates an initial population and then evaluates the fitness of all individuals.
Individuals are then randomly selected for reproduction

Using evolutionary optimization techniques

according to the survival principle of the most adapted.

The individuals children (or offspring) are created by
applying the following two genetic operators: crossover
and mutation. Those children are placed in a new population P(t) and will replace, in all or in part, the population of the previous generation. New populations of individuals are then going to succeed iteratively from one
generation (t) to the next generation (t + 1). The GA
described above is said to be generational because all
the children of the individuals generated are placed in a
population and will replace completely the population
of parents.
Dandy and Engelhardt (2001) used a GA with a single
objective to schedule the optimal pipe replacement in
Adelaides metropolitan network (Australia) composed
of 488 pipes. The only costs considered were replacement and break repair costs (direct and indirect costs).
Rahman et al. (2005) have provided an overview of the
existing social costs related to municipal infrastructure
construction, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
renewal. The objective of their report was to stress the
importance of considering social costs in the calculation
of total construction and maintenance costs of municipal infrastructure projects. Their study has shown that
social costs can account for up to 400% of construction
costs on certain projects.
Multiobjective approaches have also been suggested.
Halhal et al. (1997, 1999) used the structured messy genetic algorithm to solve this problem. Their approach is
based on the maximization of the benefit resulting from
the adoption of a solution and minimization of solution
costs, under the constraint of available budgets for the
improvement of the networks state. The total benefit
of one solution is the sum of four benefits weighted and
chosen by the user: hydraulic benefit, physical integrity
benefit, flexibility benefit, and quality benefit.

3 PROPOSED RENEWAL STRATEGY

The flowchart (Figure 1) summarizes various steps of
the proposed renewal strategy. The principle of the
renewal methodology developed consists of supposing
that one break model represents the break data available for the network considered (Weibul-Exponential
in our case). In reality, a preliminary stage is required
and consists of identifying the break model, which best
fits the available real data. The reader who is interested in this stage can consult an example of the work
done by Mailhot et al. (2000). The researchers developed a methodology based on survival analysis to model
the pipe structural deterioration for the municipality of

Chicoutimi (Quebec),
having a short-break history and

627

Real Data in water distribution system

Break
model X

Break
model Y

Break model Weibul-Expo

Identification of the Best
Break Model (BBM)

Prior
Distribution
of
parameters

Estimation of BBM
parameters with
Bayesian approach

Posterior
Distribution
of
parameters

Network objective function

Optimization with:
Island GA, NPGA-2 and NSGA-II
Best solutions : 1 st, 2 nd, etc.
Results visualization

Fig. 1. Flowchart of a short-term renewal strategy.

testing four various break models. Mailhot et al. (2000)

explained how it was possible to compare between two
break models, with the goal of identifying the most suitable and statistically significant model.
The following step consists of using a Bayesian approach to estimate parameters of a supposed break
model. The Bayesian approach is a theory, which is
based on Bayess theorem. This theorem allows passing from a prior distribution, to a new posterior distribution, which integrates all information included in the
observation data. The result is a distribution illustrating occurrence probability of various values for an unknown parameter, considering a prior distribution for
this unknown parameter and information contained in
real observations. Uncertainty in the modeling of the
pipes structural deterioration is explicitly introduced by
building this distribution. Then, the value, which corresponds to the maximum of the posterior distribution, is
used as an estimator for the unknown parameter. The
detailed description of the probabilistic break model
used in this work, developed by Mailhot et al. (2003),
and how parameters of this break model are estimated
by a Bayesian approach are outside the scope of this article, but can be found in Dridi (2006) or Dridi et al.
(2005). Once the parameters of the break model are

628

Dridi, Parizeau, Mailhot & Villeneuve

identified for each break order, a relation between parameters and break order is used to estimate other parameters with a higher order. All the parameters estimate the evolution of the average number of breaks
for every pipe in the network. This average number is
a function of the number of breaks recorded by each
pipe. The third stage shows whether it is economical to
renew a pipe or not. An objective function considering
repair costs and future replacement cost is used. The repair break function considered for each pipe depends on
the recorded breaks in the same pipe. At this stage, the
hydraulic component, which is also used for deterioration capacity, is also considered. Then, an optimization,
based on a 5-year interval to minimize cost function, is
run and best solutions are provided. The supposed planning horizon used in this study was equal 5 years to reflect a short horizon planning level. However, this interval can be modified easily.
To resolve the optimization problem, an evolutionary
technique was selected. The choice of genetic algorithm
variety as the technique of optimization was forced by
the fact that there were a large number of combinations
to estimate. For example, let us consider a case where
only two options are available: to replace or not to replace pipe. These two options give a total number of
combinations for a simple network with 100 pipes as
2100 , which is roughly 1.26 1030 combinations, which
is extremely large, especially if we expect to add a time
influence (replace first year, second year, third year,
etc.). Besides the fact that GA can resolve large problems, they are well adapted to resolve discrete, nonlinear problems, with or without constraint and they do not
require auxiliary calculations as derivative calculations.

Where: N: Total number of pipes in the network; j: Pipe

index; CTot ( j; Tf ( j) | k( j)): Cost function for the pipe j;
T f (j): Replacement time for pipe j; k(j): Total number
of breaks recorded by pipe j, at present time;
CTot ( j; Tf ( j) | k( j))

Cr ( j)( j)
Cb( j)
=
+
(1 + R)(Ti ( j)ta )
(1 + R)(Tf ( j)ta )
i=1
k( j)

 Cb( j)M(t 1, t | k( j); t  )

if k( j) = 0
(1 + R)(tta )


Tf ( j)

(2)

t=t +1

Cr ( j) = 1.1D( j)1.15

(3)

Cb( j) = 16.5D( j)1.15

(4)

Where: C r (j): Replacement unit cost for the pipe j($/m);

C b (j): Unit repair cost for the pipe j ($/break); D(j): Diameter of the pipe j(mm); (j): Length of the pipe j(m);
R: Annual discount rate; t a : Discounted time for costs;
T i (j): Break occurrence time for ith break of pipe j; t :
Present time; M(t 1, t | k( j); t  ): Average number of
breaks for the pipe j during year (t 1);


ke0 + ak[t t0 ( j)]
t > t  (5)
C j (t) = 18 37.2 log10
D( j)


ke0 + ak[t Tf ( j)]
t > Tf ( j)
C j (t) = 18 37.2 log10
D( j)
(6)
Pipes
Pipes


Q( j, t)in
Q(k, t)out = Demnode ,
j=1

k=1

node {1, . . . , MaxNode}

Hm = 0,

j {1, . . . , MaxLoop}

(7)
(8)

mLoop j

4 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
OF THE PROBLEM
The proposed algorithm has the goal of minimizing a cost function, including a break repair term
and a replacement term for all pipes in the network
(Equation (1)). We supposed that the present time is t ,
with an annual step and a planning horizon of 5 years.
Thus, each pipe in the network can be replaced between (t + 1) and (t + t), for the first and last
years, respectively. We supposed in this model that the
whole break history in the network is known. By considering a discrete notation, the optimization problem
(minimization) of cost is formulated with Equations (1)
to (11):

Min

N

j=1

[CTot ( j; Tf ( j) | k( j))]

10.67( j)
Q( j, t)1.852 ;
D( j)4.87 C j (t)1.852

H( j, t) =

(1)

j {1, . . . , N}
H(node,t) H

min

(9)

(node, t) node {1, . . . , MaxNode}

(10)

Penalty =


max

t
(t=t  +1,t  +5)

max

node
(node=1,MaxNode)

[max(0, Hmin (node) H(node, t))]

(11)
Where: C j (t): HazenWilliams coefficient for pipe j; a k :
Roughness rate growth (m/year); ke 0 : Initial roughness
of pipe j(mm); Q(j, t): Flow in pipe j at time t; Dem node :
Demand node; H(node, t): Pressure head; H min (node,
t): Minimal required pressure; H(j, t): Head losses;
Penalty: Pressure penalty function.

Using evolutionary optimization techniques

The cost function (Equation (2)) for a pipe having

recorded breaks (k(j) = 0), contains a first term for replacement during year T f (j), a second term for break
repair k(j) undergone by the pipe at present time t ,
and a third term for future break repairs estimated
from the average number of breaks between present
time and replacement time M(t 1, t | k( j); t  ). Calculation details of this last term can be found in Mailhot
et al. (2003) or Dridi (2006). For a pipe having recorded
no breaks (k(j) = 0), the average number of breaks,
M(t 1, t | k( j) = 0; t  ) for the annual interval, is supposed to be zero and the cost function for this pipe has
only one term for replacement at T f (j). Equations (3)
and (4) identified, respectively, the unit replacement
cost and the unit repair cost of each break. The
unit repair cost is supposed to be a function of pipe
diameter.
To take into account the variation of the Hazen
Willians coefficient over the years, one of the roughness
prediction equations developed by Sharp and Walski
(1988), and used by Kleiner et al. (1998a), is considered.
Equation (5) gives the calculation example of this coefficient for a pipe installed at t 0 (j). If the pipe is replaced
at T f (j), Equation (6) is used to calculate the Hazen
Williams coefficient after replacement. As any temporal variation of this coefficient can create a pressure
variation at network nodes, Equations (7) to (9) (mass,
energy conservation, and head losses) are used each
year for verification. The minimal pressure constraint
(Equation (10)) must be checked for all nodes of the
network except the source node. A penalty function defined by Equation (11) is used to check the solution and
calculations of this function are clarified in the following section. Notice that all tests were realized by considering as a hydraulic constraint, the maximum deficit
pressure, but the user can specify any other constraint
without disturbing the structure of this algorithm.

5 EVOLUTIONARY OPTIMIZATION
TECHNIQUES TESTED
The evolutionary optimization techniques used are all
integrated to Openbeagle framework (Beagle Engine is
an Advanced Genetic Learning Environment) written
in C ++ by Gagne and Parizeau (2004). This framework was linked to the hydraulic simulator Epanet2.0
(Rossman, 2000) for hydraulic steady-state analysis.
This framework was used because it presents several
advantages. For example, it allows the integration of
the operator to minimize or maximize the objective
function without modifying the form of the function to
be optimized. Another advantage is that the user can
choose various operators (selection, crossover, etc.) as

629

well as the evolution process of generations. During our

tests, we used the generational IGA and the multiobjective genetic algorithms NPGA-2 and NSGA-II. In
both multiobjective applications (NPGA-2 and NSGAII), the hydraulic penalty function (Equation (11)) is
then considered as the second objective.
5.1 Island genetic algorithm
Instead of using a single population, IGA uses a set of
small subpopulations (called demes), which evolve separately. With this isolation, every island can evolve with
its own parameters, in different directions and toward
different solutions. In this kind of GA, a certain number of individuals can migrate from one subpopulation
to the nearest subpopulation. The island that evolves toward a local optimum or which converged prematurely
can be helped by arrival of one or several individual migrants. The individuals selected for migration can stay
in their island and only a copy is sent to the nearest island, or those individuals are sent directly to the nearby
island. According to Ryan (1995), selection of individual migrants can be made in two ways. The first one is
stochastic; the advantage of this method is the higher
variety of individuals who can result from it. The second method consists of selecting individuals who, according to their fitness values, are the most successful, to
copy them to other islands, and this method can create
`
a more direct evolution than the first method. CantuPaz (2000) tested other configurations, for example: the
best migrants replace the worst, the migrants selected
randomly replace the worst, and the best migrants replace migrants selected randomly. The choice of individual migrants transferred from one deme to another
and the individuals replaced in every deme can influence the selection pressure. Configurations that select
migrant individuals or replace them according to their
fitness, direct them towards an accelerated convergence.
The advantage of this GA is that search processing for
the best solution is realized in parallel, in various subresearch spaces. This characteristic results in the generation of several solutions, which can be very useful,
especially in the case of multimodal functions. The second advantage is that a premature convergence in each
island can be avoided by copying individuals from one
island to another rather than sending them to the nearest island. The effect is that there is no loss in the quality of individuals, even when those individuals will have
to mate with other individuals with less quality. Island
GA requires specifying, in addition to the parameters
of a standard GA, the following parameters: number
of demes, migration frequency of individuals, and the
number of individuals who migrate each time. In our
case, we have considered a generational IGA with a

630

Dridi, Parizeau, Mailhot & Villeneuve

tournament selection and one point crossover because

all results obtained were acceptable. In every deme, the
GA is carried out sequentially. Demes can exchange information from time to time by allowing certain individuals to migrate from one subpopulation to another one
according to certain topology.
5.2 NPGA-2
A solution is called dominated if there are other solutions, which can be identified and can give better values
for each objective. In the NPGA, two individuals randomly chosen are compared against a subset from the
entire population. If one of them is dominated (by the
individuals randomly chosen from the population) and
the other is not, then the nondominated individual wins.
When both competitors are either dominated or nondominated, so that there is a tie, the result of the tournament is decided through fitness sharing (Coello Coello
et al., 2002). Although this algorithm produced good results in some applications, it was improved by Erickson
et al. (2001). The authors proposed the NPGA-2, which
uses the Pareto ranking principle: a group of individuals is randomly selected from the population. If there
is a single candidate with the lowest rank (less dominated), then this candidate will be the chosen individual of the tournament and is selected for reproduction.
If there is no winner, none of the candidates are preferred and a tie is realized. As in the previous version,
the continuously updated fitness sharing is carried out.
The niche radius value is chosen by the user at an estimation of the minimal separation expected between
the goal solutions. The niche count, which indicates the
number of individuals belonging to a particular niche,
is also used. The niche counts are calculated using individuals in the partially filled next generation population
rather than from the current generation population. To
determine a good niche count, the values of objective
functions need to be scaled to equal ranges; the following function was used in our test to realize comparison
with the second multiobjective algorithm (NSGA-II).
The cost function selected was reduced between 0 and 1,
which will also help to choose an adequate niche radius
value:
F1
(12)
F1 =
500000
where F1 is the adjusted value of the first objective cost
function F 1 .
5.3 NSGA-II
In NSGA-II, an initial population of parents of size N
and a population of children of the same size are assem-

bled to compose a new population (Deb et al., 2002).

Then, the new population of size (2 N) is sorted according to nondomination criterion to identify the various fronts F 1 , F 2 , and so on. Best individuals will be
members of the first fronts. The new parent population
(P t+1 ) is formed, by adding solutions from the first front
(first front F 1 , second front F 2 , etc.) until the size exceeds N. If the number of individuals in (P t+1 ) is lower
than (N), a crowding procedure is applied to the first
following front, (F i ), not included in (P t+1 ). The purpose of this operator is to insert the best (N |Pt +1 |)
individuals missing in the population (P t+1 ). These individuals of the front are used to calculate the crowding distance between two close solutions. Once individuals belonging to the population (P t+1 ) are identified,
a new child population (Qt +1 ) is created. The process
continues, from one generation to the next, until the
termination criterion is reached. The crowding distance
of solution (i) measures the current density of solutions
around this solution. This distance is calculated according to the perimeter formed by points closest to (i) for
each objective. Once this distance is calculated, it will
then proceed to choose missing individuals to fill the
population of size N. Between two solutions with differing nondomination fronts, the solution with the lower
front is preferred. Otherwise, if both solutions belong
to the same front, the solution that is located in the area
where the solution density is lowest (less crowded) is
preferred. This algorithm is considered very effective
because it uses an elitist approach, which allows recording of the best-founded solutions during previous generations. It also uses a selection procedure based on a
faster nondominance process, which does not require
any adjustment parameter or sharing factor, and it uses
a comparison operator based on crowding distance
calculation.

5.4 Solution encoded

For all the applications, the coding used has a fixed
length; all pipes in the network are represented. The solution representation uses two numbers for all pipes in
the network. The first number represents the decision
variable for replacement coded with 1 bit equal to 1
if a pipe is replaced, and 0 if no replacement is made.
The second number represents a replacement time, if
the time varies between 1 and 5, a minimum of 3 bits
is necessary to code all possibilities. This coding allows
considering in future works, intervals of 7 years. This solution representation was chosen because it allows the
identification, at each interval tested, a variable number
of replaced pipes. The Gray code is used for decoding
of all the solutions.

Using evolutionary optimization techniques

Table 1
Generational island GA parameters

5.5 Fitness evaluation

6 APPLICATIONS
The application of the developed strategy is illustrated
with a hypothetical WDS. The complete data set can be
consulted in the study by Dridi (2006). This network has
one single reservoir and 100 pipes; the minimal required
pressure at each node is fixed to 20 m.
6.1 IGA results and influence of the penalty
function coefficient
The first test was realized with a break history over a
period of 40 years and, regardless of a penalty function,
with the goal being to check the influence of the parameters of IGA. By using value parameters of Table 1, the

Deme number
Deme size
Migration interval
Migrants size (5%)
Tournament size
Crossover probability
Individual mutation probability
Bit mutation probability
Maximum of generations

5
200
10
10
4
0.30
1.00
0.01
500

best fit obtained was $202,785. To validate the quality

of an optimal solution and the influence of a number
of parameters on convergence toward the best solution,
a sensibility analysis was realized. For example, tournament size was modified while other parameters were
maintained at their initial values (see Table 1). Figure 2
illustrates the obtained results when considering a tournament of 2, 3, 4, and 10 individuals. In every case,
we observed that the fitness function value decreased
when the generation number increased. Figure 2 indicates that for the same maximal number of generations,
the test realized with a tournament selection of two individuals gave a fitness value of $202,838 while the other
three tests carried out with, respectively three, four, and
10 individuals gave the same result ($202,785), with the
best function also obtained. As could be expected, if
the number of individuals who participate in the tournament is small, the selection pressure is small and the
convergence is slow. To have the best solution while
maintaining a minimal value of tournament size (2), it
will be necessary to increase the size of demes, or number of demes, or the maximal number of generations.
Increasing one of those cited parameters has however, a
consequence, an increased calculation time. With break
data over this period, the best GA solution suggested replacing four pipes between the 41st and 45th year: pipes
16, 28, and 63 at the 41st year and pipe 96 at the 44th
207 000
Fitness function

The cost of each decision is estimated by using the cost

function identified by Equation (1). For the evaluation
of a penalty function (Equation (11)), hydraulic characteristics of the pipe selected for replacement are modified for the year identified by the solution. For the
first year, if a decision is to replace a pipe, the Hazen
Williams coefficient of this pipe is modified by that of
a new pipe, having the same diameter, and Equation
(6) is used. On the other hand, if a decision does not
identify replacement for this pipe, the roughness coefficient for this year is calculated by using Equation (5).
A steady-state hydraulic simulation is then run to estimate the pressure at network nodes. If the pressure calculated is lower than the pressure required at any node,
a pressure deficit is calculated for this node. Then, the
maximal pressure deficit for this year, representing the
maximum deficit on all nodes, is estimated. This process is realized for all 5 years, and then a penalty function representing the maximum amplitude of pressure
deficit for all years is evaluated. Once a penalty function of a solution is estimated, the cost function for a
solution proposed by the GA can be estimated considering the cost of the network and the penalty function.
The cost function of each solution in the population is
estimated. The process of the GA is repeated; the new
populations replace the older ones, until the maximal
number of generations is reached. In the end, the best
solutions of all generations are identified: 1st, 2nd, and
so on. The best solution is chosen and the number of
pipes replaced and the corresponding replacement time
is identified. Because the GA does not guarantee the location of the global minimum of fitness function, several
tests are realized with various initial population initializations and sensibility analyses to the GAs parameters
are undertaken.

631

10
4

205 500

3
2

204 000

202 500
0

100

200
300
Generation

400

500

Fig. 2. Tournament size influence on the convergence toward

a best solution.

Dridi, Parizeau, Mailhot & Villeneuve

25
Pressure at node 58 (m)

year in this example. To validate the results obtained

with the IGA, another numerical method was used to
calculate, for each pipe of the network, the cost function for the 5 years. The minimum of the cost function, if it exists, over the 5 years indicates the optimal
year for replacement. Then the number of pipes identified for replacement is calculated to indicate how many
pipes are replaced during this interval. For the validation, different tests were realized considering different
break histories (30 to 75 years) and two different networks. The comparison was satisfactory. Both methods
identified the same number of pipes and times for the
replacement. However, this validation method did not
work when a hydraulic constraint was considered.
The second test was realized on another interval with
a break history of 30 years and considering the influence of a minimal pressure constraint. Each solution
proposed by the GA is now checked with the hydraulic
simulator to make sure that pressures in all nodes are
higher than the required minimal pressure. A solution
that does not satisfy this condition is not discarded from
the population of individuals, but its fitness is penalized. During all the tests, the coefficient of the penalty
function was chosen to keep the same order between
cost and penalty functions. By considering a minimal
pressure of 20 m, simulation results showed that the
best fitness was $281,220, this value corresponds to replacement of pipe number 94 at the 32nd year. This result was obtained by considering parameters of Table 1
and a maximal number of 1,000 generations. To increase
pressure at the most critical node, results showed that
it was essential to replace the 94th pipe even if it did
not record any breaks. From a practical point of view,
the option to replace a pipe must be considered only
when its structural state is in a poor condition, and the
option for rehabilitation needs to be considered before
this, because, in most cases, municipalities do not have
sufficient financial resources to renew pipes and therefore take action only when there is an emergency. In
further work, integration of different options for rehabilitation will need to be considered as a decision
variable.
Other sensibility analyses were realized to evaluate
the influence of the penalty function coefficient on the
final solution. The results showed that for a small coefficient (1,000), the solution obtained is not feasible because the pressure obtained at the most critical node is
lower than 20 m during 2 years. This solution suggested
replacing pipe number 83 at the 33rd year. For a higher
coefficient (100,000), pressures at each node for all years
are more than the 20 m head specified. It seems clear
that the penalty function coefficient has a large impact
on the solution obtained by the GA as illustrated by
Figure 3.

Solution without hydraulic constraint

Solution with hydaulic constraint (kp=100,000)
Required minimum pressure (20m)
Solution with hydraulic constraint (kp=1,000)

24
23
22
21
20
19
18
30

31

32

Year

33

34

35

Fig. 3. Weight influence of the hydraulic penalty with an

island genetic algorithm.

6.2 NSGA-II
Parameters of NSGA-II used are: population size =
1,000; crossover probability = 0.50; mutation probability = 0.50; bit mutation probability = 0.01; and maximum of generation = 500. Figure 4 illustrates the total number of nondominated solutions, as well as the
cost value of the network (Equation (1)) and the maximal deficit pressure value over years (Equation (11)).
It is interesting to note that the first solution is identical to that found with IGA with no hydraulic constraint
and the 6th solution is like that obtained with the approach considering the hydraulic constraint, by imposing a minimal pressure of 20 m. The results indicate that
six solutions were identified, five proposed to replace
one pipe to increase the pressures at the most critical
node. The first solution had the cheapest cost and the
last one had the most expensive cost function but insures that all nodes had the required minimal pressure
of 20 m. Because all solutions suggest the replacement
of one 100 mm pipe, the total replacement cost of each
solution is equal to $21,947.
6.3 Comparison NPGA-2 and NSGA-II
Before beginning, a sensibility analysis of maximum
generation number had been made. Then, this number

Maximum pressure deficit

(m)

632

1,0
0,8

NSGA-II (500
generations)

0,6

NPGA 2 (radius = 0,50,

500 generations)

0,4

NPGA 2 (radius = 0,10,

500 generations)

0,2

NPGA 2 (radius = 0,05,

500 generations)

0,0
280 800

281 000

281 200

281 400

Total cost ($)

Fig. 4. NPGA-2 and NSGA-II nondominated solutions.

Using evolutionary optimization techniques

was fixed to 500 generations. For the NPGA-2, we used

Equation (12) for the first objective and for the second
objective; the same equation was used because the maximum pressure deficit value was bounded between 0 and
1. Figure 4 presents, for a maximal number of 500 generations, the nondominated solutions obtained with the
NSGA-II as well as the results of three tests made with
NPGA-2, considering a tournament with four individuals and niche radius value of 0.05, 0.10, and 0.50. It
was noticed that solutions of NPGA-2 depend strongly
on the niche radius value. The advantage of this multiobjective approach is to allow for the identification of
both solutions found with the mono-objective approach
(solution with and without hydraulic criteria), as well as
several other solutions in a single test. The superiority
of the NSGA-II was demonstrated with tests realized on
other networks of different sizes. With this network size
(100 pipes), run time did not exceed 15 minutes. For another network size (250 pipes), run time was evaluated
to 4 seconds per generation (4 hours). This time is negligible compared to the 5 years horizon planning. Notice
that each network size has its own parameters (maximum of generations, population size, required minimal
pressure, etc.). However, other improvements can be
easily done to reduce the run time.
6.4 Discussion
The first aim of this application is to present three different methods to generate a renewal planning in WDS
and to test which of them generates the best result and
could be recommended to optimize a real system of
large size. Our tests showed that in term of solution
identification (replacement time and pipe number), the
first algorithm (IGA) performs well when no penalty
function coefficient is considered. As the size of the
network grows (250 pipes), the performance decreases.
The user (decision maker for example) needs to increase the number of demes to reach a good solution.
Additionally, the results obtained using IGA, considering the penalty coefficient, are highly dependent on the
choice of this coefficient. This algorithm will necessitate
more time to calibrate this coefficient when real distribution systems are considered. Letting the user choose
this factor is not an entirely suitable process from a practical point of view. The second (NPGA-2) and third
(NSGA-II) algorithms are more advantageous than the
first because they provide several different solutions.
For a large system, this procedure cannot be enumerated manually due to the very large amount of possible solutions. These two algorithms simplify the task of
the decision maker. The results showed that both algorithms gave slightly different Pareto fronts (Figure 4).
However, the third algorithm (NSGA-II) is recom-

633

mended for larger systems because the decision maker

has few parameters to adjust compared to NPGA-2.
The developed strategy showed the efficiency of using evolutionary algorithms to resolve problems of pipe
renewal planning in WDS while considering short horizon planning. This strategy was developed considering
that we have a complete break data history of 30 years
(and up). For other real systems, different break models could be integrated and then the user can select
the most suitable model that fits best with the available real data. Different random break histories have
been used to test this strategy. With each history, the
number of pipes replaced, the corresponding time of
replacement and the number of pipe breaks recorded
prior to replacement are specified. In all cases tested,
the results showed that replaced pipes were those with
the largest number of breaks. For a longer break history, replacement occurs when the pipes have reached
a critical number of breaks (after 8 to 10 pipe breaks
for the network tested). This strategy allows the consideration of the specified break model, a variable number of replaced pipes that could reduce costs but also
the estimated cost of new pipes. From a practical point
of view, this strategy can be useful and helpful to any
decision maker. Such strategies answer to the following
questions: Which pipe needs renewal? When should
the renewal be done? and How much will each solution cost? After identifying a Pareto front, the decision
maker can easily evaluate each solution and propose
the most suitable considering, for example, other practical aspects of the network. This strategy was limited
to replacement; however, the coding used can be tested
to consider the option of rehabilitation as a decision
variable.
Perhaps the test problem seems simple. However, it
is very important to test the behavior of such strategies
on a hypothetical system. This step will help to evaluate the performance of each evolutionary algorithm,
and the best algorithm can be recommended for a larger
system. If the test results with a simple benchmark are
satisfactory, it can be simple to jump to a real and more
complex system. We are conscious that real problems
will need more validation tests.
6.5 Future development
The developed strategy was limited within this framework to only two criteria. However, the modular structure of this algorithm allows us to easily include other
indicators. Indeed, three other components can be integrated. A first module representing node demand variation and uncertainty related to estimation of those values in the long-term planning, especially for networks
that are expected to new supply areas. A second module

634

Dridi, Parizeau, Mailhot & Villeneuve

that takes into account the diameter variation for the

replaced pipe because it is supposed that all replaced
pipes have the same diameter and that the material is
the same as the previous one. However, this module
also has to take into account the practical aspects of
maximum velocity. Finally, a third module allows the
comparison, from a practical point of view, of two almost equal solutions. For example, suppose we have
two adjacent solutions, the first optimal solution suggests replacing two pipes several kilometers apart at a
cost C1 and the second best solution suggests replacing two nearby pipes with a slightly higher cost C2. Although the cost of the optimum solution is lower than
the second solution, it is more advantageous to choose
the second solution because, from a practical point of
view, having replacement work on nearby sites reduces
the indirect costs. The choice of an appropriate solution
can also depend on several other criteria, which depend
for example on road repair. Other criteria must therefore be considered, for example, the possibility of realizing other work at the same time, such as work on
other sewer systems or during road repairs. The algorithm was developed so that other rehabilitation options
for renewal or a function to minimize cost energy can be
included.
Finally, the developed algorithm was tested on a simple hypothetical network, which includes only pipes and
one reservoir. In future, it would be interesting to study
a more complex network with storage tanks and pumps
that are closer to real networks. Testing other categories
of evolutionary algorithms as evolution strategies and
analyzing their performance on other distribution networks (larger in size), is also suggested.

lutions. The NPGA-2 results showed that the niche radius value could affect the quality of the nondominated
solutions. The comparison of NPGA-2 with NSGA-II
showed that the latter could give better nondominated
solutions, thus a better quality of Pareto front. We recommend the use of NSGA-II to optimize a large WDS,
because few parameters need to be adjusted with this
algorithm and its performance is better.
The results confirm that using optimization techniques based on evolutionary algorithms as genetic algorithm could be useful to solve scheduling pipe renewal problems in WDS and that such a renewal model
can be useful to assist any decision maker when evaluating different options to improve their systems. Future work is needed to apply this approach to larger
and more realistic systems. This algorithm can be easily expanded to integrate other modules. Future applications will, however, take time because the most important factor in such strategies is the process of data
collection, which takes a lot of time, energy, and money
to organize all the information into a format that is easy
to use.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this article reflects the results of
the research work of the first author for his Ph.D. thesis. The authors are grateful to reviewer Karen Cossitt
for the suggestions in improving this article. The authors
wish to thank the five reviewers and the editor for providing valuable comments.
REFERENCES

7 CONCLUSION
The objective of this article was to present results of
a new strategy developed on a short planning horizon that allows the identification of which pipes need
to be replaced and the optimal time for replacement
by testing three different evolutionary algorithms: an
IGA, NPGA-2, and NSGA-II. The generational IGA
used gave satisfying results for identification of best solutions. However, the results depend on coefficient of
the penalty function. During sensibility analysis, it was
established that the number of individuals who participate in the tournament selection can also have a
large influence on the convergence toward the best solution. Tests conducted on other networks (less than
250 pipes) showed also that the IGA used performs
well, but for larger sized networks we recommend increasing the number of demes (more than 10 demes
with 500 individuals in each deme) to reach better so-

`
Cantu-Paz,
E. (2000), Efficient and Accurate Parallel Genetic
Algorithms, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 162 p.
Coello Coello, Carlos A., Van Veldhuizen, D. A. & Lamont,
G. B. (2002), Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving MultiObjective Problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New
York, 576 p.
Dandy, G. C. & Engelhardt, M. (2001), Optimal scheduling of
water pipe replacement using genetic algorithms, Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(4), 214
23.
Dandy, G. C., Simpson, A. R. & Murphy, L. J. (1996), An
improved genetic algorithm for pipe network optimization,
Water Resources Research, 32(2), 44958.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. & Meyarivan, T. (2002), A
fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2),
18297.

Dridi, L. (2006), Developpement

et validation dune approche

de remplacement des conduites pour les reseaux

deau
potable, Ph.D. thesis, Institut National de la Recherche Sci
entifique, Centre Eau Terre et Environnement, Quebec,
Canada (in French).

Using evolutionary optimization techniques

Dridi, L., Mailhot, A., Parizeau, M. & Villeneuve, J.-P. (2005),

A strategy for optimal replacement of water pipes integrating structural and hydraulic indicators based on a statistical
water pipe break model, in Proceeding, Eight Intern Conf.
on Computing and Control for the Water Industry, D. A.
Savic, G. A. Walters, R. King, and S.-T. Khu (eds.), University of Exeter, UK, 6570.
Erickson, M., Mayer, A. & Horn, J. (2001), The Niched Pareto
Genetic Algorithm 2 Applied to the Design of Groundwater Remediation Systems, in Proceedings, First International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, E. Zitzler, K. Deb, L. Thiele, C. A. Coello Coello,
and D. Corne (eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Springer-Verlag, 68195.
C. & Parizeau, M. (2004), Open BEAGLE, a Versatile
Gagne,
EC Framework (Open BEAGLE, Beagle Engine Is an Advanced Genetic Learning Environment), Report, University
Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Halhal, D., Walters, G. A., Ouazar, D. & Savic, D. A. (1997),
Water network rehabilitation with structured messy genetic
algorithm, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 123(3), 13746.
Halhal, D., Walters, G. A., Savic, D. A. & Ouazar, D. (1999),
Scheduling of water distribution system rehabilitation using
structured messy genetic algorithm, Evolutionary Computation, 7(3), 31129.
Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N. & Goldberg, D. E. (1994), A niched
Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization, in
Proceedings, First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, 8287.
Kim, J. H. & Mays, L. W. (1994), Optimal rehabilitation model
for water distribution systems, Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 120(5), 67492.
Kleiner, Y., Adams, B. J. & Rogers, J. S. (1998a), Long-term
planning methodology for water distribution system rehabilitation, Water Resources Research, 34(8), 203951.
Kleiner, Y., Adams, B. J. & Rogers, J. S. (1998b), Selection
and scheduling of rehabilitation alternatives for water distribution systems, Water Resources Research, 34(8), 2053
61.
Le Gauffre, P. & Eisenbeis, P. (2004), Gestion patrimoniale des infrastructures : de nouveaux outils daide a` la

decision,
Dix-septi`emes entretiens Jacques Cartier. Colloque
Eau potable et technologies environnementales : enjeux
internationaux, Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement

Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Quebec,

Canada, 115.

635

J.-F. & Villeneuve, J.-P.

Mailhot, A., Pelletier, G., Noel,
(2000), Modeling the evolution of the structural state of water pipe networks with brief recorded pipe break histories:
Methodology and application, Water Resources Research,
36(10), 305362.
Mailhot, A., Poulin, A. & Villeneuve, J.-P. (2003), Optimal replacement of water pipes, Water Resources Research, 39(5),
1136, doi:10.1029/2002WR001904.
Rahman, S., Vanier, D. J. & Newton, L. (2005), Municipal Infrastructure Investment PlanningSocial Cost Considerations for Municipal Infrastructure Management. NRCCNRC, report B-5123.8, 20 p.
Rossman, L. A. (2000), EPANET 2 users manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Ryan, C. (1995), Niche and species formation in genetic algorithms, in Practical Handbook of Genetic Algorithms: Applications, vol. 1, Lance Chambers, editor, 57
74.
Savic, D. A. & Walters, G. A. (2000), Genetic algorithm optimization for design and management of water systems,
in Proceedings, the 2nd ASMO/ISSMO Conference on Engineering Design Optimization, J. Sienz Swansea (eds.),
Wales, UK, 20510.
Savic, D. A., Walters, G. A. & Schwab, M. (1997), Multiobjective genetic algorithms for pump scheduling in water supply, in AISB International Workshop on Evolutionary Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1305, Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, pp. 22736.
Shamir, U. & Howard, C. D. D. (1979), An analytic approach
to scheduling pipe replacement, Journal of American Water
Works Association, 71, 24858.
Sharp, W. W. & Walski, T. M. (1988), Predicting internal
roughness in water mains, Journal of AWWA, 80, 3440.
Srinivas, N. & Deb, K. (1994), Multiobjective optimization
using non-dominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evolutionary Computation, 2(3), 22148.
Vairavamoorthy, K. & Ali, M. (2000), Optimal design of water distribution systems using genetic algorithm, ComputerAided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(5), 374
82.
Walters, G. A., Halhal, D., Savic, D. A. & Ouazar, D. (1999),
Improved design of Anytown distribution network using
structured messy genetic algorithms, Urban Water, 1, 23
38.
Wu, Z. Y., Boulos, P. F., Orr, C. H. & Ro, J. J. (2001), Using genetic algorithms to rehabilitate distribution systems,
Journal of American Water Works Association, 93(11), 74
85.