DISTRIBUTED GENETIC ALGORITHM MODEL ON NETWORK OF

PERSONAL COMPUTERS
By M. C. Balla1 and S. Lingireddy2

ABSTRACT: Despite recent advances in desktop computing power, certain civil engineering problems continue
to depend on supercomputers and powerful workstations. Although supercomputers and workstations helped in
field testing complicated mathematical models, there appears to be a significant gap in widespread technology
transfer to the industry. The sluggish progress in transfer of technology to the industry may be attributed to the
inability to implement these models on PCs coupled with high costs associated with supercomputers. The paper
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

reports results from an exploratory research that implemented a complicated optimization model based on a
distributed genetic algorithm on a network of PCs. PCs that formed the network were hardwired using 16bit
10Base-T Ethernet cards and were made accessible using Peer-to-Peer networking capability, which is a built-
in feature of Microsoft Windows 95/NT operating system. The inherent parallelism associated with genetic
algorithms coupled with relatively small data exchange between the computers resulted in a significant reduction
of computational time. The proposed generalized optimization framework, which can be adopted to model several
water resources related problems, is expected to accelerate the transfer of technology to the industry.

INTRODUCTION
There was a significant increase in desktop computing
power beginning in the early 1990s. Affordable PCs with sig-
nificant processing speed helped most civil engineering prob-
lems become less dependent on mainframe computers. Simul-
taneously, there has been a growing interest in developing new
or improved computational tools to solve complicated prob-
lems. However, because of these modern computational tools,
certain civil engineering problems continue to require large
computational requirements that cannot be realistically pro-
vided by even the most powerful desktop PCs. Unfortunately,
not every user has access to supercomputers or, in some cases,
even to powerful workstations. The drinking water supply in-
dustry is one such example, wherein lack of affordable com-
putational resources prevented optimal utilization of treated
water and electricity resources.
Past research concerning water supply systems has resulted
in abundant technology on optimal utilization of scarce re-
sources (Coulbeck et al. 1988a,b; Jowitt and Germanopoulos
1992; Ormsbee et al. 1992; Lingireddy 1994; Ormsbee and
Lansey 1994; Ormsbee and Lingireddy 1995a,b). However,
transfer of technology to the industry has been slow, due pri-
marily to a lack of affordable computational resources. Al-
though recent advances in desktop computational power have
encouraged even small water utilities to utilize simple com-
puter models, there appears to be a significant gap in available
and required desktop computational resources for widespread
utilization of advanced computer models. Optimal control of
water distribution systems and optimal calibration of distri-
bution network models are two problems where there is a need
for significant computational power.
A growing interest in the use of genetic algorithms (GAs)
for many engineering problems was witnessed in the 1980s
and 1990s. Several GA-based models for solving complex
civil engineering problems were proposed during this period
(Goldberg and Kuo 1987; Lingireddy 1994, 1996, 1998;
Ormsbee and Lingireddy 1995a, 1998; Sen et al. 1992). Al-
1
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY 40506-0281.
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Note. Editor: Sivand Lakmazaheri. Discussion open until December 1,
2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on March 8, 1999.
This paper is part of the Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
Vol. 14, No. 3, July, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0887-3801/00/0003-0199–
0205/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 20422.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000 / 199
though GAs are very robust and powerful in obtaining a good
optimal solution, the excessive computational time require-
ment (a characteristic of a GA) has been a serious hindrance
in applying this technology for large-scale real-life problems.
Lack of affordable computational power has significantly
slowed down the transfer of technology to the industry. This
prompted the researchers to look into the options of improving
the computational efficiency of the GA-based optimization
models. Distributed implementation of GAs on an affordable
network of PCs is one such option.
Parallel implementation of GAs is not a new concept. How-
ever, most efforts in the past have been focused at imple-
menting the GAs on supercomputers (Hung and Adeli 1994;
Lin et al. 1995; Foo et al. 1997), transputers (Fukuyama et al.
1996; Pollmeier et al. 1996; Oliveira et al. 1997; Yang et al.
1997), or a network of distributed computing workstations
(Davis et al. 1994; York et al. 1994; Areibi and Vannelli 1998;
Vatsa and Wedan 1999). These machines are either beyond the
reach of most water utilities or too complicated for the per-
sonnel in charge of the utilities’ computational resources. In
addition, most of the available literature on parallel computing
addresses noncivil engineering issues.
This paper reports results from a preliminary study that im-
plemented a GA-based calibration model on a network of PCs.
The focus of this article is on implementing the calibration
model on a network of PCs for distributed processing, and not
on details of the calibration model itself. The calibration model
is described primarily to show the necessity and usefulness of
distributed implementation of the model on a network of PCs.
The described approach is suitable to other GA-based com-
puter models as well. Specific examples in water resources
engineering areas that can benefit from this technology include
the efficient real-time operation of water distribution systems,
the optimal design of transient-pressure suppression devices,
and the optimal operation of multipurpose reservoirs.
CALIBRATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
MODELS
Network models play an important role in the day-to-day
operation of drinking water distribution systems. Recent en-
actment of the Safe Drinking Water Act further enhances the
importance of network models as they form the basis for water
quality modeling in pipe networks. Whereas network models
are indispensable for safe and efficient operation of water
distribution systems, the practical difficulties associated with
data collection introduce uncertainty in two major parame-
ters of a network model—pipe roughness coefficients and wa-

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205

 ter demand at nodes. The most economical way to avoid this
problem is to seek indirect estimates for these parameters
by resorting to a calibration process. Calibration of water dis-
tribution systems typically involves adjusting the uncertain pa-
rameters to match measured flow and pressure data collected
during a fire hydrant flow test with model predicted values.
Manual adjustment of uncertain parameters is highly ineffi-
cient and often unsuccessful. Use of optimization models is
considered appropriate for efficient calibration (Lingireddy and
Ormsbee 1998).
An optimization model typically comprises an objective
function that needs to be minimized/maximized subject to a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
set of constraints. In the present study, the objective function
is formulated to minimize the square of the difference between
observed and predicted values of pressures and flow rates.
Mathematically, the objective function (fitness function in ge-
netic algorithms terminology) may be expressed
冘 冘
I J
minimize Z = ␣ (P io ⫺ P ip)2 ⫹ ␤ (Q jo ⫺ Q jp)2
i=1 j=1
where P oi and P pi = observed and predicted pressures at node
i; Q oj and Q pj = observed and predicted flow rates through pipe
j; I and J = number of nodes and number of pipes for which
measurements were taken; and ␣ and ␤ = normalizing factors.
State variables P and Q are implicit functions of decision var-
iables—pipe roughness coefficients and nodal demands. The
objective function in (1) needs to be minimized subject to a
set of implicit system constraints and a set of explicit bound
constraints as follows.
Implicit System Constraints
The implicit system constraints include nodal conservation
of mass and conservation of energy. The nodal conservation
of mass requires that the sum of flows into or out of any
junction node i minus any external demand Di must be equal
to zero. For each junction node i this may be expressed
冘
Ni
Qj ⫺ Di = 0
j=1
where Ni = number of pipes connected to junction node i.
The conservation of energy constraint requires that the sum
of the line loss HL and the minor losses HM over any path or
loop k, minus any energy added to the liquid by a pump EP,
minus the difference in grade between two points of known
energy DE is equal to zero. For any loop or path k this may
be expressed
冘
Nk
(HLj ⫹ HMj ⫺ EPj) ⫺ DEk = 0
j=1
where Nk = number of pipes associated with loop or path k.
Herein, it should be emphasized that HLj, HMj, EPj, and DEk
are all nonlinear functions of the pipe discharge Q and pipe
roughness coefficients. For example, when the pipe roughness
is expressed in terms of the popular Hazen-William roughness
coefficient, the expression for line loss HL is given by
10.675LQ1.852
HL =
d1.852C 4.87
where L = length of pipe; d = diameter; and C = Hazen-Wil-
liam roughness coefficient.
Explicit Bound Constraints
The explicit bound constraints are used to set limits on the
explicit decision variables of the calibration problem. Nor-
200 / JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205
mally, the explicit decision variables will include the rough-
ness coefficient of each pipe or a group of pipes and the de-
mands at each node or a multiplication factor for a group of
nodes. For a given vector of pipe roughness coefficients C
these constraints can be expressed
Lc ⱕ C ⱕ Uc (5)
where Lc is lower bound; and Uc is upper bound on decision
variable C. Likewise for a given vector of nodal demands D,
these constraints can be expressed
LD ⱕ D ⱕ UD (6)
where LD is lower bound; and UD is upper bound on decision
variable D. Eqs. (1)–(6) constitute the optimization model for
the optimal calibration of a water distribution system.
The nonlinear nature of the objective function and some of
the constraints warrant the use of a nonlinear solution tech-
nique such as a gradient-based method or a GA-based method.
(1) A growing interest in adopting underlying principles of natural
biological processes into engineering design tools was wit-
nessed in the 1980s and 1990s, thereby increasing the robust-
ness and efficiency of design tools (Goldberg and Kuo 1987;
Lingireddy 1998). GAs are one such class of computational
tools developed to aid mathematical programming problems.
These tools attempt to mimic the mechanics of natural selec-
tion and genetics. In other words, GAs are a class of optimal
search techniques modeled after the process of natural selec-
tion, which performs a number of simultaneous searches in the
most promising regions of the decision space. Genetic opti-
mization offers a significant advantage over the traditional
nonlinear optimization approaches, in that it attempts to obtain
an optimal solution by continuing to evaluate multiple solution
vectors simultaneously. In addition, GA methods do not re-
quire gradient information. Further, genetic optimization meth-
ods employ probabilistic transition rules as opposed to deter-
ministic rules, which have the advantage of ensuring a robust
solution methodology. The present study adopted a GA-based
method because of its inherent advantage over a traditional
(2) gradient based method (Goldberg 1989).
Solution Technique
The use of a GA-based method assures that the explicit
bound constraints [(5) and (6)] are satisfied throughout the
optimization process (Lingireddy and Ormsbee 1998). There-
fore, the optimization model essentially reduces to (1)–(3).
Because (2) and (3) are constraints to the objective function
[(1)], (1)–(3) constitute a constrained optimization problem.
However, the solution based on a GA may only be applied to
(3) unconstrained optimization problems. One of the popular ways
of transforming a constrained optimization problem into an
unconstrained one is via the use of penalty functions (Lingi-
reddy and Elango 1989). In this approach, the objective func-
tion is augmented (penalized) with the appropriate penalty
functions calculated based on constraints that were not satis-
fied either explicitly or implicitly. However, the penalty func-
tion is zero when all constraints are satisfied. The present study
employs a bilevel solution approach in which the constraints
[(2) and (3)] are satisfied outside the optimization framework,
(4) consequently eliminating the need for the explicit transfor-
mation of the constrained optimization problem into an un-
constrained problem. In the bilevel approach, (2) and (3) are
removed from the optimization model, solved using a hydrau-
lic simulation model, and the results are linked back to the
optimization model. Fig. 1 shows a schematic for the bilevel
approach. A brief description on the methodology that a GA
employs in obtaining an optimal solution is provided in the
following.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1. Bilevel Optimization Framework
In general, GAs start with a randomly generated set of de-
cision vectors referred to as population. With regard to net-
work model calibration, each decision vector comprises a set
of decision variables, which may include group roughness val-
ues and/or demand adjustment factors. Each decision variable
in the decision vector is coded as a binary number. With this
binary coding, the entire decision vector is reduced to a string
of binary numbers (i.e., 0 and 1). Such strings are analogous
to biological chromosomes. From the current set of decision
vectors, a subset of decision vectors is selected based on the
value of their fitness function (i.e., objective function). Once
this subpopulation of decision vectors is selected, a new pop-
ulation of decision vectors (i.e., offspring) is generated by per-
forming the sequential operations of crossover and mutation.
The crossover and mutation operations are performed on any
randomly chosen pair of strings from the set of already se-
lected best decision vectors. A detailed discussion on GA-
based optimization models may be found in Goldberg (1989)
and Lingireddy (1996, 1998).
NECESSITY FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING
Although genetic optimization models are more robust than
the conventional gradient-based nonlinear optimization mod-
els, they require a large number of function evaluations. If the
optimization model searches through 100 generations and if
each generation has a population of 30 decision vectors, then
the model has evaluated the objective function 3,000 times.
Calibration of water distribution systems usually involves the
simultaneous evaluation of several fire hydrant flow tests, thus
requiring many hydraulic simulation evaluations to evaluate
the objective function. Even a powerful simulation model such
as KYPIPE (Wood 1995) typically requires about 0.5 CPU
second for a distribution system of about 1,000 pipes on an
IBM compatible PC with a Pentium 133-MHz processor. If
the calibration exercise involves 10 hydrant flow tests, then
the optimization model uses the simulation model 30,000
times for 100 generations of search requiring a total CPU time
of about 4 h. Although this may not be a great concern for a
calibration exercise, it certainly is a serious drawback when
genetic optimization models are used for other purposes such
as real-time operation of water distribution systems.
Close observation of the proposed calibration model reveals
that it is highly amenable to distributed computing. Each gen-
eration of the genetic search comprises several decision vec-
tors (usually between 20 and 50) that need to be evaluated for
their objective functions independently. In serial computing,
the objective functions are evaluated considering one decision
vector at a time. In models based on GAs, the objective func-
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000 / 201
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205
tion evaluation is where most of the computational time is
expended. Although evaluation of objective functions requires
a great deal of data, most of the data remain unchanged from
one function evaluation to the next. The input variables that
change from one evaluation to the next are primarily the de-
cision variables, and the number of such variables is typically
<100 for most optimization models. For example, when cali-
brating a water distribution system comprising 10 groups of
pipes and 10 groups of demands, the number of decision var-
iables associated with each objective function evaluation is 20.
The objective function evaluations not only require negligible
amounts of variable input data, but they are also independent
of each other. That is, the output generated by one objective
function does not influence the output generated by another
objective function. Such independent computer operations
coupled with negligibly small amounts of input requirements
and output generated by the objective function make GAs
amenable to distributed computing. Some of the independent
operations may be performed on the other computers, leaving
the primary computer performing important tasks related to
the optimal genetic search. The external computers can pro-
vide essential information to the primary computer with a min-
imum of interruption.
In the case of the optimal calibration model, after the GA
generates the decision vectors, some of the decision vectors
may be transferred to other computers for distributed process-
ing. The results accumulated from all the processors in the
distributed computing network may then be used to generate
the next set of decision vectors through a genetic search. Such
an approach would speedup the genetic search process of iden-
tifying an optimal solution to a given problem. The process of
transmitting decision variables to external computers and re-
ceiving results from external computers may be automated if
the primary and external computers are networked. The pres-
ent study involved fabrication of a network of PCs, which was
then used to implement a GA-based optimization model as
explained next.
METHODOLOGY
Network of PCs
The network of PCs used for the present study was designed
based on Microsoft Windows 95/NT native peer-to-peer net-
working protocol. Contrary to a server-based network (such as
Novell Network), a Peer-to-Peer network does not demand a
dedicated server and sets no hierarchy among computers. This
is a major advantage of using a peer-to-peer network instead
of a server-based network. Absence of a designated server also
eliminates the requirement for more expensive components
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 2. Parallel Implementation of Optimal Calibration Model
such as a large hard disk space, extra memory (RAM), etc.
The only additional components required to build a peer-to-
peer network are the network cards, connecting cables, and
preferably a network hub. Because a peer-to-peer networking
capability comes standard with the popular Microsoft Win-
dows 95/NT operating system, the cost of buying network
software was also eliminated.
The present study employed a ‘‘star’’ type topology in set-
ting up the computer network. Topology refers to the arrange-
ment or physical layout of computers, cables, and other com-
ponents in the network. If the computers are connected to
cable segments that branch out from a single point or hub, the
topology is known as a star. The advantage of star topology
is that if one of the computers or the cable that connects it to
the hub fails, only the failed computer will not be able to send
or receive network data. The rest of the network continues to
function normally. A 16bit 10Base-T Ethernet network inter-
face card was installed in each computer to be networked. This
was the only hardware modification needed for an ordinary
PC to make use of it in a network. The computers with Eth-
ernet cards were then connected in a star type topology using
standard 10Base-T connecting cables and a network hub. The
following section illustrates the implementation of the distrib-
uted calibration model on a network of N PCs. The network
of PCs hereinafter, will be referred to as the PCNet.
Implementation Strategy
Taking advantage of the built-in peer-to-peer networking ca-
pability of the Windows 95/NT operating system, one of the
PCs in PCNet was designated as a main-processor and the
remaining N-1 as sub-processors. The PCs designated as sub-
processors receive input (decision vectors) from the main-pro-
cessor, process the data (evaluate the objective function for
each decision vector), and transmit data back to the main-
processor. On the other hand, the PC designated as a main-
processor not only performs the genetic search to generate
decision vectors but may also evaluate objective function val-
ues for some of the decision vectors. In addition, the main-
processor sends the decision vectors to the sub-processors and
receives the output corresponding to those decision vectors
from the sub-processors. This process was automated by writ-
ing/reading information (decision vectors, objective function
values, etc.) to and from a few scratch files located either on
202 / JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205
the main-processor or on the sub-processors. It may be noted
that a preference was neither intended nor warranted when
designating a particular PC as a main-processor.
When the distributed calibration program is initialized on
the PCNet, all N computers read the basic data pertaining to
the distribution system model being calibrated and perform a
preliminary hydraulic analysis that initializes certain variables
for subsequent optimization runs. Next, the main-processor
randomly generates an initial set of decision vectors, retains
some of the decision vectors, and sends the remaining to the
sub-processors. The main-processor then evaluates the objec-
tive function values for the decision vectors that it retained.
At the same time, the sub-processors evaluate the objective
function values for the decision vectors provided by the main-
processor. After completing an objective function evaluation
for all the decision vectors, the sub-processors transmit the
objective function values back to the main-processor for fur-
ther processing. The main-processor, after evaluating its own
share of decision vectors, gathers the output provided by the
sub-processors and uses the collective information to produce
a new generation of decision vectors via crossover and mu-
tation operations. This process continues until a prespecified
convergence criterion has been satisfied. Fig. 2 illustrates the
above process in the form of a flowchart.
One issue that has not been completely explored yet is load
sharing; that is, how to split the decision vectors among the
computers in the PCNet? In other words, how many decision
vectors should be retained by the main-processor, and how
many decision vectors should be sent to each sub-processor in
the PCNet? The present study, however, divided the decision
vectors based on the processor’s speed of each computer while
allowing extra computational time to the main-processor to
perform the crucial crossover and mutation operations. More
information on load balancing issues and strategies may be
found in Vatsa and Wedan (1999) and Woo et al. (1997).
APPLICATIONS
Applicability and robustness of the proposed parallel opti-
mal calibration model is demonstrated by applying the model
to calibrate three different water distribution systems, A, B,
and C. The computer network fabricated for the present study,
PCNet, was composed of three PCs, X, Y, and Z. PC X had
a 166-MHz Pentium processor, and Y and Z had 133-MHz
 Pentium processors. The primary operating system on all three
machines was Microsoft Windows 95. Computer Y was des-
ignated as a main-processor and the remaining two as sub-
processors. Based on processing speed alone, computer X
(166-MHz) will get 38% of the decision vectors, while com-
puters Y (133-MHz) and Z (133-MHz) get 31% each. To make
allowance for the extra computational effort required by the
main-processor, the present study reduced the burden to the
main-processor (computer Y) by 4% and apportioned that
equally to the other computers. This resulted in 40, 27, and
33% share of decision vectors for the computers X, Y, and Z,
respectively. Although this division reduced waiting time for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
applying the calibration model. Pipelines in the network were
divided into four groups based on their pipe material and di-
ameter. A roughness value was designated for each group, and
all pipes in the group were assigned that roughness value (Ta-
ble 1). Fire flows were simulated making use of the KYPIPE
hydraulic simulation model, and the corresponding residual
pressures were noted. Table 2 shows the simulated data. As-
suming group roughness values as the unknown decision var-
iables, the calibration model was applied to predict them using
the simulated flow-pressure data (Table 2). The predictions
from a good calibration model should be close to the actual
roughness coefficients with which the flow-pressure data were

the main-processor and sub-processors in sending/receiving
data, further investigation is warranted in automating this pro-
cess so that there will be a minimum unwanted waiting time
for the main-processor and sub-processors. The calibration
model based on a bilevel optimization framework developed
in this study was installed on all three computers in the PCNet.
First, the calibration model running stand-alone on individ-
ual computers was applied to calibrate the distribution sys-
tems. The corresponding computational times were then com-
pared to those required when the model implemented on
PCNet was applied for calibration. The three water distribution
systems employed differed in size and complexity. Distribution
system A was composed of 52 pipes, system B was composed
of 435 pipes, and system C was composed of 850 pipes (Figs.
3, 4, and 5). System A represents a highly skeletonized model
of an existing water distribution system. Systems B and C
represent existing water distribution systems, one serving a
rural community and the other serving a suburban community,
respectively.
The calibration exercise as applied to distribution system A
is described in detail whereas the others follow the procedure.
For distribution system A, being an example network model,
the data required for calibration (such as hydrant flow rates
and corresponding residual pressures) were simulated prior to
simulated. Upper and lower bounds were imposed on group
roughness coefficients as listed in Table 1. Group roughness
values to be predicted by the calibration program that were
already known did not have any influence on the optional
search process other than in setting the upper and lower
bounds. The calibration model was designated to have 30 de-
cision vectors in each generation.
First, the calibration model, running on one computer at a
time (i.e., all 30 decision vectors were processed by a single
computer), was applied to obtain the roughness coefficients of
the distribution system. The roughness coefficients predicted
by the calibration model are presented in Table 1. As expected,
each run resulted in identical group roughness predictions after
going through 35 generations of genetic research. Residual
pressures computed by the calibration model are presented in

FIG. 5. Schematic for Distribution System C

FIG. 3. Schematic for Distribution System A TABLE 1. Group Roughness Coefficients for Distribution Sys-
tem A
Roughness Coefficients

Used for Calibration

Bounds Calibrated
Number obtaining
Group of pipes simulated Individual
number in group dataa Upper Lower computers PCNet
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 10 118 125 100 119 119
2 25 72 85 60 72 72
3 10 89 110 75 89 89
4 7 102 110 90 98 98
a
As found in Table 2.
FIG. 4. Schematic for Distribution System B

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000 / 203

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205

 TABLE 2. Simulated and Calibrated Flow/Pressure Values for Distribution System A

Tank Levels Residual Pressure (psi)

Calibrated
Simulated fire
Simulation hydrant flow Demand multiplication Tank A Tank B Individual
number (gal./min) factor (ft) (ft) Simulated computers PCNet
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 1,500 1.20 1,090 1,090 41.7 41.7 41.7
2 1,200 1.50 1,110 1,110 33.4 33.2 33.2
3 1,300 0.50 1,090 1,090 23.7 23.6 23.6
4 1,500 1.00 1,080 1,080 21.7 21.6 21.6
5 1,400 0.75 1,100 1,090 29.1 29.3 29.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 gal/min = 0.0631 L/s

TABLE 3. Summary of Computational Time Requirements DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Computational Time (s) As evident from Table 3, significant reduction in computa-
Distribution Distribution Distribution tional time may be achieved by implementing the optimal cal-
PC(s) system A system B system C ibration model on a network of PCs. Furthermore, the reduc-
(1) (2) (3) (4) tion in computational time is more significant when calibrating
X (166-MHz) 70.96 1,404.67 1,940.00 large distribution systems. It may be noted that the number of
Y (133-MHz) 89.31 1,756.46 2,473.82 data items transferred across the network during the optimi-
Z (133-MHz) 89.00 1,730.95 2,455.72 zation process is small and remains practically at that level
PCNet 35.15 638.24 851.78 irrespective of the network size. However, large distribution
systems require more computational time per hydraulic sim-
ulation compared to smaller systems. A typical calibration run,
Table 2 and are very close to the simulated values, implying based on a genetic optimization model, requires several hun-
a good calibration. Table 3 shows the computational time dred of such hydraulic simulations. Therefore, the use of
needed by individual computers. PCNet to calibrate larger distribution systems results in sig-
Subsequently, the calibration model running on PCNet was nificant gains in computational time. It may be of interest to
applied to calibrate distribution system A. The decision vectors some of the readers to know how fast a distribution system
were divided in the ratio of 40:27:33 (X:Y:Z) that resulted in may be calibrated making use of PCNet compared to a single
12 decision vectors for sub-processor X, 8 decision vectors for PC. Table 4 shows the computational advantage (CA), defined
main-processor Y, and 10 decision vectors for sub-processor as a measure of quickness, in calibrating distribution systems
Z. Because there are four decision variables (group roughness of different sizes. If TP is time required to calibrate a distri-
coefficients) in each decision vector, the number of values (real bution system on PCNet and TI is time required to calibrate
numbers) provided by the main-processor to sub-processor X the same distribution system using one of the computers that
as input is 48. Similarly, the number of values provided by formed the PCNet, CA may be computed as follows:
the main-processor to sub-processor Z as input is 40, Sub- TI
processors X and Z, upon receiving the decision vector data, CA = ⭈ 100 (7)
evaluate the corresponding objective function values. This in- TP
volves performing hydraulic simulation of the distribution sys- The average CA for distribution system C (large system) was
tem [solution to (2) and (3)] five times per decision vector 269%, indicating that the calibration process was 2.69 times
(one for each fire flow reading). That is, sub-processor X upon faster on PCNet compared to individual PCs. The average CA
receiving data from the main-processor performs 60 (12 times for distribution system A (small system) was only 236%. How-
5) hydraulic simulations on distribution system A before re- ever, the necessity for distributed processing is more when
turning the objective function values to the main-processor. dealing with large distribution systems, and a higher CA for
Upon completion, the sub-processors X and Z return 12 and such systems is an added advantage.
10 objective function values, respectively, to the main-proces- Although the authors have used a calibration model to dem-
sor. Clearly, the time required for data exchange is small com- onstrate the efficacy of the PCNet, the underlying GA frame-
pared to the time required in evaluating the objective func- work is what is responsible for the gain in computational ef-
tions. In addition, the time required for data exchange may ficiency. Any other optimization model based on GAs, in
practically remain the same irrespective of the size of the water which the function evaluation takes most of the computational
distribution system being calibrated. The resulting group time, can make use of the advantages offered by PCNet. GAs
roughness coefficients are presented in Table 1. As expected, may be used advantageously to develop efficient optimization
these values are the same as those predicted by the individual
computers. Similarly, residual pressures obtained by the par- TABLE 4. CA of Using PCNet Compared to Individual Com-
allel calibration model (Table 2) are the same as those obtained puters
by the individual computers. Time taken by PCNet to calibrate
PC that was CA (%)
distribution system A is shown in Table 3. This process was
repeated for the other two distribution systems, B and C. Table compared to Distribution Distribution Distribution
3 summarizes the corresponding computational time require- network system A system B system C
ments. In all these cases, a probability of crossover of 0.6, a (1) (2) (3) (4)
probability of mutation of 0.03, and a gene length of 5 were X (166-MHz) 201 220 228
employed. Based on a sensitivity analysis, these values were Y (133-MHz) 254 275 290
Z (133-MHz) 253 271 288
found to give better results for hydraulic network calibration Average 236 255 269
problems (Lingireddy and Ormsbee 1998).
204 / JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205

 models for many of the optimal control problems in the water
resources field (e.g., pump scheduling in water distribution
systems, ground-water pumping, and multipurpose reservoirs).
Successful implementation for such models on PC networks
for distributed processing will significantly reduce the com-
putational time, thus facilitating a rapid transfer of technology.
The simplicity associated with setting up of a network of PCs
as described in the paper encourages the utilities to embrace
this technology without hesitation. Although preliminary re-
sults from this study are highly encouraging, further study is
warranted to investigate the performance of the models when
implemented on a network comprising more than three PCs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 10/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In this context, it may be worthwhile exploring the viability
of a custom-built PC with multiple motherboards that accesses
(read/write) data from a single hard drive in place of a network
of several PCs.
CONCLUSIONS
There are several mathematical models in the field of water
resources engineering that require expensive computational
hardware such as super computers or powerful workstations.
Lack of affordable computational power has hampered transfer
of technology from research level to the industry. The present
study demonstrates that a mathematical model based on a GA
implemented on a network of PCs may significantly reduce
the computational requirements. The study employed a net-
work of three PCs that were networked using the built-in Peer-
to-Peer networking protocol of the popular Microsoft Win-
dows 95/NT operating system. One of the applications,
involving calibration of a 850-pipe distribution system, shows
that the calibration process could be 2.70 times faster when
implemented on a network comprising three PCs compared to
using a single computer. Although the study focused on an
optimal calibration model based on a GA, the proposed opti-
mization framework may easily be adapted to many other wa-
ter resources engineering problems.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Areibi, S., and Vannelli, A. (1998). ‘‘Distributed advanced search tech-
niques for circuit partitioning.’’ Proc., 11th Can. Conf. on Electr. and
Comp. Engrg., IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., Vol. 2, 553–556.
Coulbeck, B., Brdys, M., Orr, C., and Rance, J. (1988a). ‘‘A hierarchial
approach to optimized control of water distribution systems: Part I.
Decomposition.’’ J. Optimal Control Applications and Methods, 9, 51–
61.
Coulbeck, B., Brdys, M., Orr, C., and Rance, J. (1988b). ‘‘A hierarchial
approach to optimized control of water distribution systems: Part II.
Lower level algorithm.’’ J. Optimal Control Applications and Methods,
9, 109–126.
Davis, M., Liu, L., and Elias, J. G. (1994). ‘‘VLSI circuit synthesis using
a parallel genetic algorithm.’’ Proc., IEEE Conf. Evol. Comput., Vol.
1, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., 104–109.
Foo, H. Y., Song, J., Zhuang, W., Esbensen, H. K., and Ernst, S. (1997).
‘‘Implementation of a parallel genetic algorithm for floorplan optimi-
zation on IBM SP2.’’ Proc., 2nd Conf. High Perf. Computing on the
Information Superhighway, HPC Asia ’97, IEEE, Los Alamitos, Calif.,
456–459.
Fukuyama, Y., Nakanishi, Y., and Chiang, H. (1996). ‘‘Parallel genetic
algorithm for generation expansion planning.’’ Int. J. Eng. Intell. Syst.
Electric Eng. Commun., 4(1), 49–56.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / JULY 2000 / 205
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2000, 14(3): 199-205
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and
machine learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Goldberg, D. E., and Kuo, C. H. (1987). ‘‘Genetic algorithms in pipeline
optimization.’’ J. Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 1(2), 128–141.
Hung, S. L., and Adeli, H. (1994). ‘‘Parallel genetic/neural network learn-
ing algorithm for MIMD shared memory machines.’’ IEEE Trans. Neu-
ral Networks, 5(6), 900–909.
Jowitt, P. W., and Germanopoulos, G. (1992). ‘‘Optimal pump scheduling
in water-supply networks.’’ J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE,
118(4), 406–422.
Lin, J., Bartal, Y., and Uhrig, R. E. (1995). ‘‘Predicting the severity of
nuclear power plant transients using nearest neighbors modeling opti-
mized by genetic algorithms on a parallel computer.’’ Nuclear Technol.,
111(1), 46–62.
Lingireddy, S. (1994). ‘‘Genetic algorithms in groundwater manage-
ment.’’ 1994 Nat. Conf. on Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Reston, Va.
Lingireddy, S. (1996). ‘‘Optimal land grading based on genetic algo-
rithms.’’ J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 122(4), 183–188.
Lingireddy, S. (1998). ‘‘Aquifer parameter estimation using genetic al-
gorithms and neural networks.’’ Civ. Engrg. Sys., 15, 125–144.
Lingireddy, S., and Elango, K. (1989). ‘‘Optimal design of water distri-
bution networks with head-dependent outflows using augmented La-
grangian functions.’’ J. Instn. of Engrs., Envir. Engrg. Div., India,
73(EN 2), 27–33.
Lingireddy, S., and Ormsbee, L. E. (1998). ‘‘Neural networks in optimal
calibration of water distribution systems.’’ Artificial neural networks
for civil engineers: Advanced features and applications, I. Flood and
N. Kartam, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 277, 53–76.
Oliveira, V., Pina, A., and Proenca, A. (1997). ‘‘Parallel genetic algo-
rithms in a networked workstation environment.’’ Applications of high
performance computing in engineering, Santiago de Compostela,
Spain.
Ormsbee, L. E., Chase, D. V., and Lingireddy, S. (1992). ‘‘Optimal op-
eration of water distribution systems.’’ Final Rep., National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Ormsbee, L. E., and Lansey, K. E. (1994). ‘‘Optimal control of water-
supply pumping systems.’’ J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE,
120(2), 237–252.
Ormsbee, L. E., and Lingireddy, S. (1995a). ‘‘Optimal control of water
supply pumping systems using genetic algorithms and artificial neural
networks.’’ Int. Fedn. for Automatic Control Symp. on Large Scale Sys.,
’95, Elsevier Science, Inc., London.
Ormsbee, L. E., and Lingireddy, S. (1995b). ‘‘Nonlinear heuristic for
pump operations.’’ J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 121(4),
302–309.
Pollmeier, K., Burrows, C. R., and Edge, K. A. (1996). ‘‘Mapping of
large scale fluid power system simulations on a distributed memory
parallel computer using genetic algorithms.’’ Fluid Syst. Technol. Div.
Publ., ASME, New York, 3, 83–91.
Sen, M. K., Gupta, A. D., Stoffa, P. L., Lake, L. W., and Pope, G. A.
(1992). ‘‘Stochastic reservoir modeling using simulated annealing and
genetic algorithm.’’ Proc., 1992 SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. and Exhibition.
Vatsa, V. N., and Wedan, B. W. (1999). ‘‘Parallelization of a multiblock
flow code: An engineering implementation.’’ Comp. and Fluids, 28(4),
603–614.
Woo, S., Yang, S., Kim, S., and Han, T. (1997). ‘‘Task scheduling in
distributed computing systems with a genetic algorithm.’’ Proc., 2nd
Conf. High Perf. Computing on the Information Superhighway, HPC
Asia ’97, IEEE, Los Alamitos, Calif., 301–305.
Wood, D. J. (1995). KYPIPE hydraulic network analysis software, user’s
manual, Civil Engineering Software Center, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Ky.
Yang, H., Yang, P., and Huang, C. (1997). ‘‘Parallel genetic algorithm
approach to solving the unit commitment problem: Implementation on
the transputer networks.’’ IEEE Trans. Power Sys., 12(2), 661–668.
York, T. A., Patrick, D., Stinchcombe, J., Szolkowski, M. S., Tyrell, S.
G., and Green, P. R. (1994). ‘‘SPARC-GAP: A parallel genetic algo-
rithm processing platform.’’ IEE Colloquium on High Perf. Applica-
tions of Parallel Arch., IEE, Stevenage, U.K., No. 26.