378 European Journal of Operational Research 35 (1988) 378-381

North-Holland

Theory and Methodology

Balancing hydraulic turbine runners:

A quadratic assignment problem
Gilbert LAPORTE and Hrl~ne MERCURE
l~cole des Hautes F,tudes Commerciales de Montrdal, 5255 avenue Decelles, Montreal H 3 T 1 V6, Canada.

Abstract: Hydraulic turbine runners are used in electricity generation. These consist of a cylinder around
which are welded, at regular spacings, a n u m b e r of blades whose weights differ slightly. It is desired to
locate the blades around the cylinder in order to minimize the distance between the center of mass of the
blades and the geometric center of the cylinder. The problem can be formulated as a quadratic assignment
problem. It is solved by adapting an interchange algorithm devised by Or for the travelling salesman
problem. Computational results are reported.

1. Introduction were between 14 to 18 blades in each turbine

In a recent paper, Mosevich (1986) described
the problem of balancing hydraulic turbine runners
and presented an algorithm which consisted of
selecting the best of a large number of randomly
generated solutions. In this article, we reexamine
the problem from a different angle and show that
it is a quadratic assignment problem (QAP). We
then present a solution procedure based on Or's
algorithm (1976) which outperforms, in a series of
computer tests, that of Mosevich.
2. The problem
We first summarize the problem. A hydraulic
turbine runner consists of a cylinder, around which
are welded, at regular spacings, a number of blades.
In the application considered by Mosevich, there
runner. These blades weighed around 38000 lbs
each, but weight deviations could be as large as
+5%. The problem consists of determining the
location of the blades around the cylinder so as to
minimize the distance between the center of mass
of the blades and the geometric center of the
cylinder. As in Mosevich, we make three assump-
tions in order to model the problem: (i) blade
mass is proportional to thickness; (ii) the centers
of mass of all blades lie in a common plane, and
(iii) around a circle whose center coincides with
the axis of the runner. The problem can then be
solved in two dimensions: the cylinder is replaced
by a circle centered at the origin and the blades by
weights to be positioned at regular intervals around
the circle.
3. The model

In order to formulate the problem, we intro-

This work was supported by the Canadian National Sciences duce the following notation:
and Engineering Research Council (grant A4747). Thanks are
due to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments. n : the number of blades;
Received December 1986; revised May 1987 M i : the mass of blade i;

0377-2217/88/$3.50 © 1988, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

 G. Laporte, H. Mercure / Balancing hydraulic turbine runners 379

r : the radius of the circle around which the change algorithms (see Burkard and Stratmann
blades are positioned; (1978) for a survey) and more recently, simulated
0j= 2 ~ ( j - 1)/n ( j = 1 , . . . , n): the angles at annealing (see, for example, Burkard and Rendl
which the blades are positioned; (1984)). Most of these methods are inspired from
x;j : a binary variable equal to 1 if and only if Lin's r-opt algorithms (1985) for the travelling
blade i is positioned at angle 0j; salesman problem (TSP). An initial assignment is
X = ( X l l , X12 . . . . , x , , ) : a feasible solution; gradually improved (or worsened with some prob-
(X(x), Y(x)): the coordinates of the center of ability in the case of simulated annealing) by
mass associated with a feasible solution x. making permutations of elements taken r at a time
These coordinates are defined by: until no further improvement is possible. The time
complexity of an iteration in an r-opt algorithm is
X( x ) --- "-~ E M i r cos Ojxij, O(nr). Or has proposed an O(n 2) exchange al-
i=1 j=l gorithm (Or-opt) for the TSP which, according to
Golden and Stewart (1985), produces solutions
Y ( x ) = -~ ~ Mir sin Ojxij. which are just as good as those generated by a
t=l j=l 3-opt algorithm. Like r-opt procedures, it is very
The problem consists of minimizing the following flexible and can be used for just about any type of
objective: assignment problem (i.e. minimize a function of x,
subject to (2), (3), and (4)). We now describe the
f(x) = [X2(x) + y2(x)]1/2. (1) adaptation of Or's algorithm to our problem.
An assignment will be represented by a circular
This is equivalent to minimizing [Mf(x)/r] 2. The permutation (i 1, i 2..... i n, il) where ij denotes the
objective then becomes: element (blade) assigned to position j (angle 0j).
n H n T/ In what follows, i9 should be interpreted as
Minimize E E }-". E M, Mk(C°S Oj cos 0; ij(mod n )"
/=1 j=l k=l ;=1

+ sin 0j sin O;)xijxk;. Step O. Consider a randomly generated permu-

tation. Set t = 1.
This expression can be simplified and the problem Step 1. Remove from the permutation the tri-
formulated as a QAP (LaMer, 1963): plet of consecutive elements (i,, it+l, it+2) and
tentatively insert it between all n - 3 pairs of
(P) Minimize E E M, Mk consecutive elements of the remaining permuta-
i=1 j=l k=l 1=1 tion.
× cos(O, - ot) x,jxk,, - If a tentative insertion decreases the objective
function, implement it immediately, thus defining
subject to a new initial permutation. Set t = 1 and repeat this
?/
step.
E Xij = 1 (j = 1..... n), (2)
- If no tentative insertion decreases the objec-
i=1
tt
tive function, increase t by 1. If t = n + 1, go to
£ xij = 1 (i = 1 . . . . . n), (3) the next step. If t < n + 1, repeat this step.
j=l Step 2. Proceed as in Step 1, by considering this
time pairs of consecutive elements.
x ; j = 0 or 1 (i, j = 1 . . . . . n). (4)
Step 3. Proceed as in Step 1, by now moving
only one element at a time.
Step 4. Print the last permutation obtained.
4. T h e algorithm
Stop.
QAP's with general cost functions are, unfor-
tunately, very difficult to solve by exact methods
5. Computational results
(see the recent survey by Finke et al. (1987)). An
efficient heuristic procedure is called for. The most Or's algorithm and the random search method
common heuristics in use include classical ex- proposed by Mosevich were compared on 245
380 G. Laporte, H. Mercure / Balancinghydraulic turbine runners

Table 1
Basic statistics on the algorithms
Number of RLrN1 (Or-opt) RUN2 (random) RUN3 (random)
blades n F1 ITR1 T1 F2 ITR2 T2 F3 ITR3 T3
10 0.525 4860 6.2 0.711 4860 7.8 0.699 3379 6.2
12 0.015 7478 11.2 0.042 7478 14.3 0.043 5236 11.2
14 0.010 10815 18.9 0.031 10815 24.3 0.042 7634 18.9
16 0.005 14034 27.6 0.019 14034 35.9 0.024 9891 27.6
18 0.006 17816 39.3 0.021 17816 51.7 0.018 12557 39.3
20 0.004 22886 55.0 0.009 22886 72.8 0.015 16106 55.0
22 0.002 27610 73.1 0.014 27610 97.8 0.018 19434 73.1

problems generated as follows. Seven values of n
were selected (n = 10, 12 . . . . . 22) and for each of
these values, 35 problems were generated. In each
problem, the values of M i were distributed accord-
ing to a normal distribution with a mean of 100
and a standard deviation of 5 / 3 , so that most
M / s would fall within + 5% of the mean.
In RtrN1, these problems were solved by Or's
algorithm, starting with 10 r a n d o m l y generated
permutations. The total number of function
evaluations (ITR1), the C P U time (T1) and the
best function value obtained ( F 1 ) were then noted.
In RUN2, the r a n d o m search algorithm was
executed until ITR1 solutions were produced. The
C P U time (T2) and the best function value ( F 2 )
were recorded. Finally in RUN3, r a n d o m solutions
were generated until the CPU time reached the
value T1. Again, the n u m b e r of solutions examined
(ITR3) and the best function value ( F 3 ) were
computed. These results are reported in Tables 1
and 2. All times are C P U seconds on a CYBER
173.
Table 1 provides basic statistics on the
algorithms. All entries represent average values
over the 35 problems solved for each value of n.
The results confirm the superiority of the pro-
posed algorithm. In all cases, F1 is less than both
F 2 and F3. The value of T1 is always less than
that of T2 and ITR3 < ITR1. This last result is due,
we believe, to the fact that the r a n d o m n u m b e r
calls are relatively time consuming.
Table 2 contains comparative statistics. The
first (resp. fourth) colunm represents the propor-
tion of problems for which F1 was less than F2
(resp. F3). The remaining columns give the ratios
of the corresponding values of Table 1. It can be
seen that the Or-opt algorithm provides the best
solution in most problems. The relative superiority
of F1 is measured by the two ratios F 1 / F 2 and
F 1 / F 3 . The ratio T 1 / T 2 tends to decrease with
increasing values of n whereas for a given running
time, the Or-opt algorithm enables approximately
40% more function evaluations to be carried out
than the r a n d o m search approach.
6. C o n c l u s i o n
These observations lead us to conclude that
Or's algorithm dominates the r a n d o m search pro-
cedure. Better results may be obtained by devoting
more effort to the generation of an initial permu-

Table 2
Comparative statistics on the algorithms
Number of PROOF1 < F2) F1 T1 PROP(F1< F3) F1 ITR1
blades n F2 T2 F3 ITR3
10 0.63 0.74 0.79 0.71 0.75 1.44
12 0.63 0.46 0.78 0.74 0.45 1.43
14 0.80 0.31 0.78 0.86 0.23 1.42
16 0.77 0.27 0.77 0.77 0.21 1.42
18 0.80 0.32 0.76 0.77 0.37 1.42
20 0.74 0.52 0.75 0.71 0.30 1.42
22 0.86 0.16 0.75 0.91 0.12 1.42
 G. Laporte, H. Mercure / Balancing hydraulic turbine runners
tation a n d b y using Or's algorithm as a post-
processor (as did G o l d e n a n d Stewart for the
TSP). A similar a p p r o a c h m a y also yield a n effi-
cient heuristic for the QAP.
References
Burkard, R.E., and Rendl, F. (1984), "A thermodynamically
motivated simulation in procedure for combinatorial opti-
mization problems," European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 17, 169-174.
Burkard, R.E., and Stratmann, K.-H. (1978), "Numerical in-
vestigations on quadratic assignment problems", Naval Re-
search Logistics Quarterly 25, 129-148.
381
Finke, G., Burkard, R.E. and Rendl, F. (1987), "Quadratic
assignment problems", in: S. Martello et al. (Eds.), Surveys
in Combinatorial Optimization, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
61-82.
Golden, B.L., and Stewart, W. (1985), "Empirical analysis of
heuristics", in: E.L. Lawler et al. (Eds.), The Traveling
Salesman Problem, Wiley. New York, 207-250.
Lawler, E.L. (1963) "The quadratic assignment problem",
Management Science 9, 586-599.
Lin, S. (1965), "Computer solutions of the traveling salesman
problem", Bell System Technical Journal 44, 2245-2269.
Mosevich, J. (1986), "Balancing hydraulic turbine runners--A
discrete combinatorial optimization problem", European
Journal of Operational Research 26, 202-204.
Or, I. (1976), "Traveling salesman-type combinatorial prob-
lems and their relation to the logistics of blood banking,
Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.