6 views

Uploaded by Mohamed O Shareif

Optimal Design of Water Distribution

- Quiz 5 Questions
- 09CE0B48d01
- 1 Introduction to Optimum Design.pdf
- lec1
- Lattice_Optimisation_Tutorial.pdf
- Course_outline_format_1_.docx
- Syllabus Department Elective
- GNU Linear Programming Kit: Reference Manual
- OTE Outotec ACT Eng Web
- IOSR Journals (wwww.iosrjournals.org)
- 17 Linear Programming
- Decision Making Techniques Ppt @ Mba Opreatiop Mgmt
- mp_DO
- Management Science Lecture Notes
- lec15
- Topo Buckling Seattle
- LPoverall
- Lecture 01B Formulation of LP Models
- Dynamics of Heat Exchangers
- Data Leakage Detection

You are on page 1of 15

NETWORK USING SHUFFLED COMPLEX EVOLUTION

Shie-Yui Liong1 and Md. Atiquzzaman1

ABSTRACT

EPANET, a widely used water distribution network simulation model, is used in this

study to deal with both the steady state and extended period simulation and is linked with

a powerful optimization algorithm, Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE). SCE deals with a

set of population of points and searches in all direction within the feasible space based

on objective function. In this present study, SCE is applied for the design of a cost

effective water distribution network. The findings of this study show that SCE is

computationally much faster when compared with other also widely used algorithms such

as GAs, Simulated Annealing, GLOBE and Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithms. Hence,

SCE is a potential alternative optimization algorithm to solve water distribution network

problems.

INTRODUCTION

Water distribution system, a hydraulic infrastructure consisting of elements such as pipes,

tanks, reservoirs, pumps, and valves etc., is crucial to provide water to the consumers.

Effective water supply system is of paramount importance in designing a new water

distribution network or in expanding the existing one. It is essential to investigate and

establish a reliable network ensuring adequate head. However, the optimal network

design is quite complicated due to nonlinear relationship between flow and head loss and

the presence of discrete variables, such as market pipe sizes (Kessler and Shamir, (1989);

Eiger et al. (1994); Dandy et at. (1996)). In addition, the objective function, which

represents the cost of the network, is also nonlinear and causes great difficulty in the

design optimization of the network. Researchers in recent years have focused on

probabilistic approach to overcome these difficulties (Savic and Walters, (1997); Abebe

and Solomatine, (1998); Cunha and Sousa, (1999); Eusuff and Lansey, (2003))

considering a combination of random and deterministic steps. Genetic Algorithms (GA),

Simulated Annealing (SA), GLOBE and Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithms (SFLA), are

the few widely used algorithms in this field of study.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the performance of shuffled complex

evolution (SCE; Duan et al. (1992)), in term of prediction accuracy and computation

speed, with GA and other widely used optimization algorithms.

1

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore

9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576

93

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

LITERATURE REVIEW

Researchers have been investigating cost of effective water distribution network with

various approaches such as linear, nonlinear, dynamic and mixed integer programming.

Alperovits and Shamir (1977) presented a linear programming gradient (LPG) in

optimizing water distribution network. Segmental length of pipe with differential

diameter was used as decision making variable. The LPG method was later further

improved by Kessler and Shamir (1989), for example. Kessler and Shamir (1989)

presented two stages LPG method. In the first stage, parts of the variables are kept

constant while other variables are solved by linear programming (LP). For a given set of

flows, the corresponding sets of heads are determined by LP. In the second step, search is

conducted based on the gradient of the objective function. Flows are modified according

to gradient of the objective functions. Eiger et al. (1994) used the same formulation of

Kessler and Shamir (1989) and solved the problem using a nonsmooth branch and bound

algorithms and duality theory. The algorithms are a combination of primal and dual

processes and stopped when the difference between the best solution and the global lower

bound is within a prescribed tolerance. Although the problem is nonlinear and the

gradient information may not be attained in many instances, they nevertheless solved the

problem by linearizing the formulation. This results in failure to reach the optimal

solution.

Chiplunkar et al. (1986). However, NLP also converges to local minima due to their

reliance on the initial solution and derivatives of the unconstrained objective function

(Gupta et. al. (1999)). Moreover, nonlinear algorithms perform on the basis of continuous

variables, pipe diameter for example. Available pipe diameters in the market are

definitely not continuous. Conversion of the assumed continuous diameters to the market

pipe sizes influences the optimal solution (Cunha and Sousa, (1999)).

Recently, researchers focus on stochastic optimization methods that deal with a set of

points simultaneously in its search for the global optimum. The search strategy is based

on the objective function. Simpson et al. (1994) used simple GA in which each

individual population is represented in a string of bits with identical length that encodes

one possible solution. All binary coded population of points (chromosomes) undergoes

three operations: selection, crossover and mutation operators. The simple GA was then

improved by Dandy et al. (1996) using the concept of variable power scaling of the

fitness function, an adjacency mutation operator, and gray codes. Savic and Walters

(1997) also used simple GA in conjunction with EPANET network solver. Instead of

using a single optimization algorithm, Abebe and Solomatine (1998) applied GLOBE

(Solomatine, (1995)) that comprises several search algorithms. They identified that very

few algorithms reach to optimal or near optimal solutions. Cunha and Sousa (1999)

introduced a random search algorithm (Simulated Annealing) that is based on the analogy

with the physical annealing process with Newton search method to solve the network

equations. Eusuff and Lansey (2003) proposed SFLA, a new meta-heuristic algorithm

works based on memetic evolution (transformation of frogs) and information exchange

among the population. Frogs which are the hosts of memes (consist of memotype like

94

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

gene in chromosome in GA) search the particle with highest amount of food in a swamp

by improving their memes.

Although the final solution was improved, Savic and Walters (1997), Cunha and Sousa

(1999), and Eusuff and Lansey (2003) required considerable computational effort.

PROPOSED SCHEME

In this study, an optimization algorithm, Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE; Duan et al.

(1992)), is applied and linked with EPANET (Rossman, (1993)) network solver to

identify the least cost of some water distribution pipe networks. The original SCE

algorithm is modified to accommodate higher number decision variables; and the

decision variables (pipe sizes) are converted to commercially available diameters in

determining the cost of the network.

The aim of the water distribution network design is to find the optimal pipe diameter for

each pipe in the network for a given layout, demand loading conditions, and an operation

policy. The model selects the optimal pipe sizes in the final network satisfying all

implicit constraints (e.g. conservations of mass and energy), and explicit constraints (e.g.

pressure head and design constraints). The hydraulic constraints, for example, deal with

hydraulic head at certain nodes to meet a specified minimum value. If the hydraulic head

constraint is violated, the penalty cost is added to the network cost. However, diameter

constraints enforce the evolutionary algorithms to select the trial solution within a pre-

defined limit. A hydraulic network solver handles the implicit constraints and

simultaneously evaluates the hydraulic performance of each trial solution that is a

member of population of points. The hydraulic information obtained from network solver

is then passed to the SCE for the computation of fitness of the design. The fitness of a

trial solution representing a pipe network design is based on the hydraulic performance of

the network. It consists of two parts: (1) network cost; and (2) penalty cost.

The network cost is calculated as the sum of the pipe costs where pipe costs are expressed

in terms of cost per unit length. Total network cost is computed as follows:

N (1)

C= c

K =1

K ( DK ) LK

where ck(Dk) = cost per unit length of the kth pipe with diameter Dk, Lk = length of the kth

pipe, and N = total number of pipes in the system.

The penalty cost is based on the degree of pressure head violation. The penalty functions

(Abebe and Solomatine (1998)) may be defined, for example, as

95

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

if the pressure is less than minimum limit and greater than zero; or

if the pressure is less than or equal to zero. In Equations (2) and (3), P is the penalty cost

coefficient, Cmax is the maximum possible cost that is calculated based on the largest

commercial pipe available, (Hmin- Hi) is the maximum pressure deficit, and C is the actual

network cost. The maximum pressure deficit is the difference between the required head

(Hmin) at each node and the head found after simulation (Hi). If the pressure head is

greater than the minimum required limit, no extra cost is charged to the network cost.

It should be noted that the penalty cost coefficient must be selected carefully to provide a

smooth transition from infeasible to feasible designs. The penalty factor should be such

that optimal near infeasible solution cost is slightly more than the optimal solution. The

value of this penalty factor differs from one problem to the other. As a result, trial and

error adjustment is needed.

The mathematical formulation of water distribution network can thus be stated as follows:

Subjected to:

where, Hi = pressure head at node i, H imin = minimum head required at the same node,

D(k) = decision variables (pipe sizes).

SCE works on the basis of four concepts: (1) combination of deterministic and

probabilistic approaches; (2) systematic evolution of a complex of points; (3) competitive

evolution; and (4) complex shuffling. The algorithm begins with a randomly selected

population of points from the feasible space. The points are sorted in order of increasing

criterion value so that the first point represents the smallest function value and the last

point represents the largest function value. The randomly generated initial population is

partitioned into several complexes. Each complex is allowed to evolve independently to

search the feasible domain in different directions. Each individual point in a complex has

the potential to participate in the process of reproducing new points. From each complex,

some points are selected to form a subcomplex, where the modified Nelder and Mead

Simplex Method (NMSM) (Nelder and Mead (1965)) is applied for global improvement.

The points of higher fitness values have higher chance of getting selected to generate

96

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

offspring. The NMSM performs reflection and inside contraction step to get a better fit

point. This new offspring replaces the point with the worst performance in the simplex.

The points in the evolved complexes are then pooled together and is sorted again,

shuffled, and finally reassigned to new complexes to enable information sharing. This

process is repeated until some stopping criteria are satisfied.

There are a series of SCE optimization parameters. They are:

n = number of parameters;

p = number of complexes (p 1);

pmin = minimum number of complexes required, if the number of complexes is allowed to

reduce as the optimization proceeds (1 pmin p)

m = number of points in each complexes in the initial population (m 2)

q = number of points in each sub-complex (1 q m)

= number of offspring generated by each sub-complex

= number of evolution steps allowed for each complex before complex shuffling

Population sizes = p x m.

SCE has two stopping criteria checked at each generation. The evaluation will stop when

one of the following criteria is arrived first:

1) The relative change in the objective function values within the last k, say 10-15

shuffling loops is less than a pre-specified tolerance;

A brief description of the steps in SCE algorithms for pipe network optimization is given

below (Figure 1):

populations represents a possible combination of pipe diameters.

2) Compute the network cost for each of the N solutions after converting the

randomly generated pipe sizes to the pipe sizes available in the market.

network and check the pressure at some nodes which are required to meet certain

nodal pressures. The maximum deficit of nodal pressure is noted.

4) Compute penalty cost, if the nodal head at any node is less than the required

minimum.

97

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

5) Calculate the total cost of the network. The total cost of the network is the sum of

the network cost and the penalty cost found in steps 2 and 4 respectively.

6) The total cost found in step 5 is used as the fitness value for each of the trial

network.

START

SCE

Generate Possible

Solutions

Optimum Solution

Obtained?

Yes Back to

No SCE

STOP Simulation Tool

(EPANET)

Output File

98

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

which briefly can be summarized as follows: (a) based on a triangular probability

distribution, q points are selected from the complex to construct sub-complex; (b)

the centroid of the sub-complex is computed excluding the worst point; (c) a new

point is generated by reflecting the worst point through the centroid of the sub-

complex within the feasible space. If this point is better than the worst point,

substitute the worst point. Otherwise, a contraction point is computed which is at

the halfway between the centroid and the worst point; (d) if the contraction point

is better than the worst point, replace the worst point. Otherwise, a random point

is generated within the feasible domain and the worst point is replaced by this

point; and (e) the steps (b) to (d) are repeated times, where 1 and steps (a) to

(d) are repeated times, where 1.

10) The evolved points from the complexes are combined into a single sample

population.

12) Stopping criteria is checked, if any of the convergence criteria is satisfied, the

process is terminated.

RESERVOIR

(210)

(160,100)

{2, 1000} (150,100) {1, 1000}

3 2 1

(150,270) 5 4 (155,120)

{4, 1000}

(160,200) 7 6

(165,330)

{6, 1000}

{PIPE ID , LENGTH}

(ELEVATION , DEMAND)

99

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

The first network, Figure 2, is a two looped simple network presented by Alperovits and

Shamir (1977) consists of 8 pipes (each 1000 m long with Hazen-Williams C value of

130), 7 nodes and a single reservoir. The minimum pressure requirements are 30 m for

each node. Fourteen different pipe diameters are available commercially, Table 1. SCE

explores within the boundary of pipe diameters, minimum 1in (25.4mm) and maximum

24in (609.6 mm). The values of SCE parameters for this case study are: p = 4, pmin = 2, m

= 20, q =10, = 1, = 20, total population = p x m = 80. Ten runs are performed using

different initial seed values. Figure 3 shows the variation of network cost with different

initial seed values. It could be seen that obtained each optimal solution from each seed

value satisfies pressure constraints applied to all nodes. Table 2 lists the optimal network

solutions, total network cost, number of function evaluations, and the run time. The

pressure at each node is shown in Table 3. Figure 4 depicts the reducing network cost

with the increasing evaluation number.

430000

420000

410000

400000

Cost ($)

390000

380000

370000

360000

350000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Different Seed Number

Although the least cost ($419,000) resulting from SCE is the same as that obtained in

Savic and Walters (1997), Abebe and Solomatine (1998), Cunha and Sousa (1999), and

Eusuff and Lansey (2003), SCE found this optimal solution significantly faster than their

counterparts. SCE converges only after 1091 evaluations with a total CPU time of 18 sec

[Pentium 4 (Processor 1.79 GHz, RAM 512 MB)]. The average number of evaluations

and computational time are 1345 and 23 sec respectively.

100

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

1600000

1400000

1200000

1000000

Cost ($)

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

1 201 401 601 801 1001 1201

Evaluation Number

(in) (mm) (Units)

1 25.4 2

2 50.8 5

3 76.2 8

4 101.6 11

6 152.4 16

8 203.2 23

10 254.0 32

12 304.8 50

14 355.6 60

16 406.4 90

18 457.2 130

20 508.0 170

22 558.8 300

24 609.6 550

101

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

Pipe Diameter

(in)

Pipe

Savic and Walters Abebe and Cunha and Eusuff and Shuffled

Number

(1997) Solomatine Sousa Lansey Complex

(1998) (1999) (2003) Evolution

GA1 GA2 (SCE)

1 18 20 18 18 18 18

2 10 10 10 10 10 10

3 16 16 16 16 16 16

4 4 1 4 4 4 4

5 16 14 16 16 16 16

6 10 10 10 10 10 10

7 10 10 10 10 10 10

8 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cost ($) 419,000 420,000 419,000 419,000 419,000 419,000

FEN1 65,000 65,000 1,373 25,000 11,323 1,091

Run Time 10 min 10 min 7 min 40 sec / 18 sec

1

Function Evaluation Number

(m)

2 53.25

3 30.46

4 43.45

5 33.81

6 30.44

7 30.55

A second water distribution network in Hanoi, Vietnam, is considered in this study. The

network (Fujiware and Khang, (1990)), Figure 5, consists of one reservoir (node 1), 31

demand nodes and 34 pipes. The minimum pressure head required at each node is 30 m.

The cost of commercially available pipe sizes (12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40; in inches) was

calculated using the equation (Fujiwara and Khang, (1990)):

The values of parameters used to solve this problem are: p =10, pmin = 10, m =30, q =15,

= 1, =30, and the total population = p x m = 300. Ten runs are performed with

different initial seed values. The results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows the

solutions obtained by other researchers as well.

102

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

12 12

13

11

11

10

33 32

34 25

26 27 28 15 14 13 9

31 26 27 16 15 14 10 9

16

32 8

25 17

17 8

30 24 18

7

18

7

31 24 19

19 6

30 29 23 20 3 4 5

29 28 23 20 3 4 5 6

21 2

21 2

RESERVOIR

22 100 m

22

1

The final network cost ($6.22 million) obtained by SCE requires 25,402 function

evaluations and a CPU time of only 11 minutes. Although Savic and Walters (1997)

obtained a slightly smaller network cost ($6.073 million), the resulting pressure heads at

nodes 13 and 30 does not meet the head constraints (Table 5); also their CPU time is

relatively very high (3 hr). Abebe and Solomatine (1998) used GA and ACCOL to solve

the problem; their solutions are certainly not optimal compared to results from their

counterparts. The solution by Cunha and Sousa (1999) is indeed the optimal ($6.056

million) among the results shown in Table 4. The drawbacks are, (1) the pressure head

requirement at nodes 13, 16, 17, 27, 29 and 30 is not met (Eusuff and Lansey, (2003));

and (2) they require a much higher number of function evaluations and, hence, longer

CPU time.

CONCLUSION

Optimal water distribution network design is a complex task. Various search algorithms

have been proposed and attempted. Main concerns are to achieve the optimal solution

with the minimum design cost and, at the same time, satisfies required minimum pressure

head at certain demand nodes and can use only commercially available pipe sizes.

SCE (Duan et al. (1992)), has been coupled with the widely used water distribution

network software, EPANET, and applied to water distribution network designs. Two

networks are considered. Comparisons between the performance of SCE and those

103

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

SFLA, SA) were conducted. Overall, the study shows that SCE yields categorically

better performance in term of optimal network design cost and/or computational speed.

Pipe

Number Savic and Walters Abebe and Solomatine Cunha and Shuffled

(1997) (1998) Sousa Complex

GA1 GA2 GA ACCOL (1999) Evolution

(SCE)

1 40 40 40 40 40 40

2 40 40 40 40 40 40

3 40 40 40 40 40 40

4 40 40 40 40 40 40

5 40 40 30 40 40 40

6 40 40 40 30 40 40

7 40 40 40 40 40 40

8 40 40 30 40 40 30

9 40 30 30 24 40 30

10 30 30 30 40 30 30

11 24 30 30 30 24 30

12 24 24 30 40 24 24

13 20 16 16 16 20 16

14 16 16 24 16 16 12

15 12 12 30 30 12 12

16 12 16 30 12 12 24

17 16 20 30 20 16 30

18 20 24 40 24 20 30

19 20 24 40 30 20 30

20 40 40 40 40 40 40

21 20 20 20 30 20 20

22 12 12 20 30 12 12

23 40 40 30 40 40 30

24 30 30 16 40 30 30

25 30 30 20 40 30 24

26 20 20 12 24 20 12

27 12 12 24 30 12 20

28 12 12 20 12 12 24

29 16 16 24 16 16 16

30 16 16 30 40 12 16

31 12 12 30 16 12 12

32 12 12 30 20 16 16

33 16 16 30 30 16 20

34 20 20 12 24 24 24

Cost($ mill) 6.073 6.195 7.0 7.8 6.056 6.22

FEN / / 16,910 3,055 53,000 25,402

Run Time 3 hr 3 hr 1 hr15min 15 min 2 hr 11 min

104

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

Nodal Pressure

Node (m)

Number Savic and Walters Abebe and Cunha Shuffled

(1997) Solomatine and Complex

(1998) Sousa Evolution

(1999) (SCE)

GA1 GA2 GA ACCOL

1 100 100 100 100 100 100

2 97.14 97.14 97.14 97.14 97.14 97.14

3 61.63 61.63 61.67 61.67 61.63 61.67

4 56.83 57.26 58.59 57.68 56.82 57.54

5 50.89 51.86 54.82 52.75 50.86 52.43

6 44.62 46.21 39.45 47.65 44.57 47.13

7 43.14 44.91 38.65 42.95 43.10 45.92

8 41.38 43.40 37.87 41.68 41.33 44.55

9 39.97 42.23 35.65 40.70 39.91 40.27

10 38.93 38.79 34.28 32.46 38.86 37.24

11 37.37 37.23 32.72 32.08 37.30 35.68

12 33.94 36.07 31.56 30.92 33.87 34.52

13 29.72 *

31.86 30.13 30.56 29.66 *

30.32

14 35.06 33.19 36.36 30.55 34.94 34.08

15 33.07 32.90 37.17 30.69 32.88 34.08

16 30.15 33.01 37.63 30.74 29.79* 36.13

17 30.24 40.73 48.11 46.16 29.95 *

48.64

18 43.91 51.13 58.62 54.41 43.81 54.00

19 55.53 58.03 60.64 60.58 55.49 59.07

20 50.39 50.63 53.87 49.23 50.43 53.62

21 41.03 41.28 44.48 47.92 41.07 44.27

22 35.86 36.11 44.05 47.86 35.90 39.11

23 44.15 44.61 39.83 41.96 44.24 38.79

24 38.84 39.54 30.51 40.18 38.50 36.37

25 35.48 36.40 30.50 38.95 34.79 33.16

26 31.46 32.93 32.14 36.01 30.87 33.44

27 30.03 32.18 32.62 35.93 29.59 *

34.38

28 35.43 36.02 33.52 36.47 38.60 32.64

29 30.67 31.38 31.46 36.45 29.64* 30.05

30 29.65 *

30.47 30.44 36.54 29.90* 30.10

31 30.12 30.95 30.39 36.64 30.18 30.35

32 31.36 32.24 30.17 36.76 32.64 31.09

*

Infeassible solution (pressure less than 30) when EPANET network solver was used.

REFERENCES

Abebe, A.J. and Solomatine, D.P. (1998). Application of global optimization to the design

of pipe networks. 3rd International Conferences on Hydroinformatics, Copenhagen,

Denmark, pp. 989-996.

105

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

Water Resources Research, Vol. 13(6), pp. 885-900.

Chiplunkar, A.V., Mehndiratta, S.L. and Khanna, P. (1986) Looped water distribution

system optimization for single loading., Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 112,

No. 2, pp. 265-279.

Cunha, M.D.C., and Sousa, J. (1999). Water Distribution Network Design Optimization:

Simulated Annealing Approach. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,

Vol. 125, No. 4, pp.215-221.

Dandy, G.C., Simpson A.R., and Murphy L.J. (1996). An improved genetic algorithm for

pipe network optimization. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No 2, pp. 449-458.

Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. (1992). Effective and efficient global optimization

for conceptual rainfall-runoff models., Water Resources Research, Vol. 28, No.4, pp.

1015-1031.

Eiger, G., Shamir, U., and Ben-Tal A. (1994). Optimal design of water distribution

networks., Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 2637-2646.

Design Using the Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm. Journal of Water Resources Planning

and Management, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp. 210-225

design of looped water distribution networks. Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, No. 4,

pp. 539-549.

Gupta, I., Gupta, A., and Khanna, P. (1999). Genetic algorithm for optimization of water

distribution systems. , Environmental Modelling & software Vol.-4, pp. 437-446.

Kessler, A. and Shamir, U.(1989). Analysis of the linear programming gradient method for

optimal design of water supply networks., Water Resources Research, Vol. 25, No.7, pp.

1469-1480.

Nelder, J.A. and Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization.,

Computer Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 308-313.

Quindry, G.E., Brill, E.D., and Liebman, J.C. (1981). Optimization of looped water

distribution systems., Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107,

No. 4, pp. 665-679.

Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,Ohio.

106

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

Vol. 44 Issue 1 2004

Savic, D.A. and Walters, G.A. (1997). Genetic algorithms for least-cost design of water

distribution networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol.

123, No. 2, pp. 67-77.

Simpson, A.R., Dandy, G.C., and Murphy, L.J. (1994). Genetic algorithms compared to

other techniques for pipe optimization. Journal of Water Resources Planning and

Management, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 423-443.

Solomatine, D.P. (1995). The use of global random search methods for models

calibration., Proc. XXVIth congress of the IAHR, London.

107

- Quiz 5 QuestionsUploaded byChun Yu Poon
- 09CE0B48d01Uploaded bystvictoria1
- 1 Introduction to Optimum Design.pdfUploaded byAugusto De La Cruz Camayo
- lec1Uploaded byPeerayot Sanposh
- Lattice_Optimisation_Tutorial.pdfUploaded byvovanpedenko
- Course_outline_format_1_.docxUploaded byArun Rana
- Syllabus Department ElectiveUploaded byPramesh Kumar
- GNU Linear Programming Kit: Reference ManualUploaded byWhite909
- OTE Outotec ACT Eng WebUploaded byIsaac Sanchez
- IOSR Journals (wwww.iosrjournals.org)Uploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- 17 Linear ProgrammingUploaded byharryworld
- Decision Making Techniques Ppt @ Mba Opreatiop MgmtUploaded byBabasab Patil (Karrisatte)
- mp_DOUploaded bycacacoco
- Management Science Lecture NotesUploaded byAbhijit Pathak
- lec15Uploaded byDeepak Sakkari
- Topo Buckling SeattleUploaded byjausingchi
- LPoverallUploaded byTanmay Belavadi
- Lecture 01B Formulation of LP ModelsUploaded byIsza Marie N. Socorin
- Dynamics of Heat ExchangersUploaded byerhandtm
- Data Leakage DetectionUploaded bykrishnaone
- TransportationUploaded byMimi
- Optimum Use of Anti 00 KrumUploaded bygirithik14
- lpp or.pptxUploaded byYatin Chauhan
- NLP 2016 IntroUploaded byLibyaFlower
- mmmmcsUploaded byMaharaja Girsang
- Dynamic Econ ProgrammeUploaded bysimao_sabrosa7794
- LP07 Big M Formulation (1)Uploaded byafjkjchhghgfbf
- Or IntroductionUploaded bysmsmba
- 10.1007@s12667-017-0254-8Uploaded bypouyan
- 2012 - 11 Ship Machinery COSSMOS.pdfUploaded byteriax

- Ansys_RigidUploaded byAshok
- Report_Daniel Arciniega_119206.pdfUploaded byDann Arciniega
- Robust Statistical Pearson Correlation Diagnostics for Bitcoin Exchange Rate with Trading Volume: An Analysis of High Frequency Data in High Volatility EnvironmentUploaded byIjaems Journal
- casting simulation from internetUploaded byWan Arif
- C Zone HardwareUploaded byNurul Alisha Zulaikha Azmi
- Syllabus of Punjab State Co Operative Bank IT OfficerUploaded bySarbjit Singh
- input devices presentationUploaded bykashikamahajan1993
- Readme v4B.2.docxUploaded byOsarieme Osakue
- Islandmagee Community News, Spring 2013Uploaded byBrian James Best
- Attestation ofattes Documents - Non SaudiUploaded byMuhammad Mustafa
- TOUH SCREEN TECHNOLOGY.pdfUploaded byKodad Centre
- Time Analysis With Most TechniqueUploaded byShubhamOmer
- Garmin G600CockpitReferenceGuideUploaded byAndre Peli
- EC6103-Computer Communication NetworksUploaded bySanjay Sinha
- Mmm SolutionsUploaded byJack Mcgrath
- G FORCE Instruction Manual 23Uploaded byEsar Rodriguez Hilario
- Cybercrime Prevention Act.pdfUploaded byMarjelLaygo
- Measure for MeasureUploaded byAbraham Farfán C
- Software Defined Networking for TelecomUploaded byMouadSama
- "Performance Improvement of VOD System by Policy Based Traffic Handle" - Soumen KanrarUploaded bykanrar
- phylayer_simuUploaded bymykeenzo5658
- CAVSP_Checklist.pdfUploaded byjcmendez506
- MK52 Calculator UM English USAUploaded byWalter Hugo Fernández
- TTV v. IRS, Litigation Hold – Preservation of Responsive EvidenceUploaded byTrue The Vote
- 840C_BAUploaded bykarvainen
- Demand Estimation WorksheetUploaded byRasyid Romadhony
- Negotiated Data Solutions v. Apple et. al.Uploaded byPriorSmart
- 0478_s15_qp_11_2Uploaded bymastermido524
- 00 - Course Introduction(2)Uploaded byKobe Thuy
- Mbed StandaloneUploaded byboseji