See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277911492

Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization of a High-Pressure Cross-Country

Natural Gas Pipeline: Application of an Ant Colony Optimization Technique

Article  in  Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · May 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000206

CITATIONS READS

22 344

2 authors, including:

Adarsh Ary
University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
16 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

optimizing city gas distribution of egypt pipeline network View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adarsh Ary on 11 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization of a High-Pressure
Cross-Country Natural Gas Pipeline: Application of an Ant
Colony Optimization Technique
Adarsh Kumar Arya 1 and Shrihari Honwad 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The process of natural gas transportation through cross-country pipelines, with intermittent repressurization with the help of
compressors that use part of the same gas for energy source, is a very interesting optimization problem that has attracted researchers.
In the present work, an 18-node network connecting a single source to a single delivery point has been selected for analysis. A steady-
state model, incorporating gas flow dynamics, compressor characteristics, and mass balance equations, has been developed. Ant colony
optimization, a comparatively new evolutionary technique in pipeline optimization, has been used for minimizing fuel consumption for
a fixed throughput. A comparison with a similar optimization tool, a solver of a general algebraic modeling system that extracts the principle
of generalized reduced gradient algorithm, indicates an improved solution in terms of fuel consumption minimization. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
PS.1949-1204.0000206. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ant colony optimization; Cross-country gas pipeline; Evolutionary optimization methods; Gas pipeline hydraulics.

Introduction compressors is therefore a very important problem. This paper dis-

Natural gas is a sweeter source of energy present in abundant
amounts (187.3 trillion cubic meters) (Dudley 2013). It is used
not only as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry, but also
as a fuel for domestic, transportation, and thermal power plants.
The efficient use of natural gas will help in reducing the release
of greenhouse gases in addition to yielding economic benefits.
Transportation of natural gas has been an area of major concern.
For ages, roads, rails, and sea have been important methods for
gas transportation. However, for very long distances, pipelines have
been considered as the most economic, effective, and safe mode of
transporting natural gas as compared to other transportation meth-
ods. The pipeline network system usually includes one or more
compressor stations. These stations may have one or several com-
pressors installed in series or parallel. When the gas moves in the
pipeline, pressure and energy are lost due to friction, elevation, etc.,
necessitating the need for recompression through the aid of com-
pressors. The energy requirement for running compressors is ob-
tained by the combustion of part of the natural gas that is being
transported. An estimated 3–5% of the total natural gas transported
through the pipeline is consumed in turbine-run compressors. The
literature reveals that even a 1% decrease in fuel consumption will
result in a savings of $5 million per year in the United States
alone (Carter 1996; Summing et al. 2000). Optimizing gas pipe-
line operations by minimizing the consumption of natural gas in
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, College of Engi-
neering Studies, Univ. of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Energy Acres,
Bidholi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248007, India (corresponding author).
E-mail: adarsharya79@gmail.com
2
Senior Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineer-
ing Studies, Univ. of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Energy Acres, Bidholi,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248007, India. E-mail: shrihari@ddn.upes.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 27, 2014; approved on
March 11, 2015; published online on May 18, 2015. Discussion period open
until October 18, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering
and Practice, © ASCE, ISSN 1949-1190/04015008(8)/$25.00.
cusses and evaluates the application of a relatively new evolution-
ary technique—namely, ant colony optimization—for minimizing
fuel consumption for a fixed throughput.
Existing Pipeline Optimization Methods
In gas pipeline optimization, techniques such as dynamic program-
ming (Jamshidifar et al. 2009; Grelli 1985; Osiadacz 1994; Ríos
Mercado et al. 2002), gradient search techniques (Rozer 2003;
Adeyanju and Oyekunle 2004; Bakhouya and Wolf 2008; Tabkhi
2007), and heuristic methods (Ferber et al. 1999; Conrado and
Rozer 2005; Uraikul and Chan 2004; Diana and Rozer 2002) have
been quite popular. However, the algorithms used in these tech-
niques have a major drawback of getting easily trapped in local
optima. Also, the solution obtained from these techniques depends
on the initial chosen solution, and these methods are not efficient in
handling discrete variables. To overcome the aforementioned draw-
back of classical methods, evolutionary methods are now becoming
popular. Evolutionary algorithms are stochastic search methods that
mimic either the natural biological evolution or the social behavior
of biological species. Genetic algorithm, differential evolution, and
particle swarm optimization are some of the evolutionary methods
that have been used in recent years for optimizing pipeline oper-
ations (Elbeltagi et al. 2005). These methods can be applied effi-
ciently at the places where heuristic solutions are not available or
have resulted in unsatisfactory results. The evolutionary methods
have the potential to hybridize with other methods such as the
weighted sum method, and have the robustness to handle dynamic
changes. These methods have the capability to solve problems
without an initial feasible solution. Ant colony is a comparatively
newer evolutionary method that is slowly gaining importance in the
field of optimization. The technique mimics the social behavior
of ants while searching for the shortest route between the nest
and the food source. The application of ant colony has been used
for optimizing pipe diameter (Mohajeri and Taffazzoli 2012) and
minimizing fuel cost in compressors (Chebouba et al. 2006).

© ASCE 04015008-1 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008

 The present paper discusses the application of ant colony for min-
imizing fuel consumption in compressors in a pipeline network for
gas transportation.
Formulation of the Problem
The optimization problem of minimizing fuel consumption, while
obeying all of the transport obligations which would be the con-
straints, needs to be considered. The following section looks at
the basic assumptions under which these are derived.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Assumptions
Following are the basic assumptions in deriving all of the
constraints:
1. Steady-state operation.
2. Balanced network (nodal material balances are satisfied).
3. Compressor stations including only centrifugal compressors.
The basic model is similar to the one used by Tabkhi (2007),
with modifications that are described in the following section.
The compressor network used in earlier work (Tabkhi 2007) has
been selected for comparison of results.
Network Description
Fig. 1 shows the gas pipeline network. The network consists of
three very long pipelines: the first one from the gas supply node
(N 0 ) to the compressor station 1 inlet node (N 1 ), the second from
the compressor station 1 outlet node (N 8 ) to the compressor station
2 inlet node (N 9 ), and the third from the compressor station 2 outlet
node (N 16 ) to the delivery node (N 17 ).
The two intermediate compressor stations operate to compen-
sate for pressure drop in pipelines. Each compressor station in-
cludes three parallel centrifugal compressors. At each station,
N2
N0 N1 N3
N4
N13
N16 N14
N17
N15
Fig. 1. Gas pipeline network
© ASCE
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008
there are six short pipe segments of very small length (as compared
to the three longest pipelines described earlier). These pipelines are
linked to the inlets and outlets of the compressors. Although the
length of these pipes is very small as compared to the long pipes,
their contribution to pressure drop cannot be neglected. A sche-
matic diagram of a turbo compressor used in the pipeline network
is shown in Fig. 2. The network system comprises one supply node
and one delivery node. N 0 is designated as the supply node and N 17
as the delivery node. The pressure at the supply node and delivery
node should be within
2% of the specified pressure (in this case,
60 Pa). The pipeline network consists of 18 pressure variables, one
at each node; 15 mass flow rate variables, one in each pipe arc; and
6 compressor speed and 6 fuel consumption variables, a pair of
variables for every compressor. A total of 45 decision variables
have been chosen. The nodewise list of pressure and mass flow rate
variables along with diameter and length of line segments is listed
in Table 1. The variables at the compressor node are listed in
Table 2.
Objective Function
Following is the general definition of minimizing an objective
function:
Minimize fðxÞ: where x ¼ ½x1; x2; x3; : : : ; xn  is the vector
containing optimization variables
subject to
gi ðxÞ ¼ 0 i ¼ 1; : : : ; m ðequality constraintsÞ
hj ðxÞ ≥ 0 j ¼ 1; : : : ; n ðinequality constraintsÞ
The objective function, as previously described, is subject to
equality and inequality constraints that will be discussed in the
proceeding sections.
C1 N5
C2 N6 N8
N7
C3
C4 N10
N11 N9
C5
C6 N12
04015008-2 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
 Derivation of Objective Function dEcv X  V2

¼ Qcv − W cv þ mi hi þ i þ g × zi
If dEcv =dt is the change in internal energy of the gas per unit time, dt 2
Qcv is the heat transfer to the control volume per unit time, W cv is X  V 2j

the work done on the system per unit time, V i and V j are the veloc- − m j hj þ þ g × zj ð1aÞ
2
ity of gas, hi and hj are the head, zi and zj are the elevations, and mi
and mj are the mass rate per second of gas, each being at the inlet
and outlet of the compressors, then the unsteady-state energy bal- Assumptions
ance equation on the control volume is 1. The process is at steady state, so dEcv =dt ¼ 0, and the mass
flow rate of gas at the inlet of the compressor and at the outlet
of the compressor remains same.
N.G. in Pipeline 2. The process is adiabatic, so Qcv ¼ 0.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3. Change in potential energy and kinetic energy is negligible.

Under the aforementioned assumptions, the unsteady-state
Natural Gas. Natural Gas ( energy balance Eq. (1a) reduces to

0 ¼ −W cv þ mj × ðhi − hj Þ ð1bÞ
Centrifugal
Air Combustion Turbine
Compressor Also, the compression process work is done on the constant
Compressor Expander
Chamber mass of gas. Therefore

W comp-ideal ¼ −W cv ¼ mj × ðhj − hi Þ ¼ mj × hij ð1cÞ

In the previous equation, hij , the isentropic head, is a function

Ambient Air Natural Gas (
of the ratio of discharge pressure and suction pressure. The equa-
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of turbo-compressor used in tion to obtain isentropic head will be explained in the subsequent
pipeline section. The total actual work required in compressing the gas is
obtained by dividing the ideal work by the isentropic efficiency

Table 1. Notation Used in Pipeline Network

Compressibility
Serial Arc joining Diameter of pipe Length of pipe factor of gas in Mass rate of gas in Velocity of gas in
number Node Pressure node N i − N j arc N i − N j arc N i − N j pipe arc N i − N j pipe arc N i − N j pipe arc N i − N j
1 N0 P0 N0 − N1 D1 ¼ 0.787 L1 ¼ 105 z1 m1 v1
2 N1 P1 N1 − N2 D2 ¼ 0.330 L2 ¼ 200 z2 m2 v2
3 N2 P2 N1 − N3 D3 ¼ 0.381 L3 ¼ 300 z3 m3 v3
4 N3 P3 N1 − N4 D4 ¼ 0.330 L4 ¼ 100 z4 m4 v4
5 N4 P4 N5 − N8 D5 ¼ 0.330 L5 ¼ 200 z5 m5 v5
6 N5 P5 N6 − N8 D6 ¼ 0.330 L6 ¼ 100 z6 m6 v6
7 N6 P6 N7 − N8 D7 ¼ 0.330 L7 ¼ 200 z7 m7 v7
8 N7 P7 N8 − N9 D8 ¼ 0.838 L8 ¼ 105 z8 m8 v8
9 N8 P8 N 9 − N 10 D9 ¼ 0.381 L9 ¼ 100 z9 m9 v9
10 N9 P9 N 9 − N 11 D10 ¼ 0.330 L10 ¼ 100 z10 m10 v10
11 N 10 P10 N 9 − N 12 D11 ¼ 0.432 L11 ¼ 100 z11 m11 v11
12 N 11 P11 N 13 − N 16 D12 ¼ 0.330 L12 ¼ 100 z12 m12 v12
13 N 12 P12 N 14 − N 16 D13 ¼ 0.330 L13 ¼ 400 z13 m13 v13
14 N 13 P13 N 15 − N 16 D14 ¼ 0.330 L14 ¼ 100 z14 m14 v14
15 N 14 P14 N 16 − N 17 D15 ¼ 0.889 L15 ¼ 105 z15 m15 v15
16 N 15 P15 — — — — — —
17 N 16 P16 — — — — — —
18 N 17 P17 — — — — — —

Table 2. Notation for Compressor Station

Serial Suction and Isentropic Rotational Fuel
number Compressor discahrge pressure head speed Efficiency consumption
1 C1 P2 − P5 h1 ω1 n1 mf1
2 C2 P3 − P6 h2 ω2 n2 mf2
3 C3 P4 − P7 h3 ω3 n3 mf3
4 C4 P10 − P13 h4 ω4 n4 mf4
5 C5 P11 − P14 h5 ω5 n5 mf5
6 C6 P12 − P15 h6 ω6 n6 mf6

© ASCE 04015008-3 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008

    
(nis ), driver efficiency (nd ), and mechanical efficiency (nm ). Hence, Qb × 24 × 3600 Pb
vi ¼ 14.7359 × 3 3 2
×
the total actual work required for compression of gas is ðDo × 10 − 2 × ti × 10 Þ Tb
 2   
10 102 102 zi × T
ðmj × hij Þ × × × ð1dÞ × ð11Þ
nis nd nm Pij × 102

Now, if H m is the lower heating value of gas and mf is the fuel

 
consumed in the compressor, then the total energy released from T Pij
combustion per unit time is zi ¼ 1 þ 0.257 − 0.533 × C × ð12Þ
T PC
H m × mf ð1eÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Equating Eqs. (1d) and (1e) yields the following Eq. (1f):
Equality Constraints
   2 
mj × hij 10 102 102 Eqs. (13)–(22) are the general mass balance equations that have
mf ¼ × × × ð1fÞ
Hm nis nd nm been obtained by applying the mass balance at each junction of
the pipeline network. Eq. (23) is the equation of motion applied
Minimizing fuel consumption in compressors for fixed through- to each pipeline segment (Tabkhi 2007). Eq. (24) is an isentropic
put is the objective of this paper head equation, and Eq. (25) is an isentropic efficiency equation.
X X mj × hij  Both Eqs. (23) and (24) are applicable to each of the six compres-
minfðmi ; Pi ; Pj Þ ¼ min mf ¼ sors used in gas pipeline network (Tabkhi 2007; Smith and Van
i;j∈Ac
Hm Ness 1998)
 2 
10 102 102
× × × ð1gÞ m1 ¼ m2 þ m3 þ m4 ð13Þ
nis nd nm

m2 ¼ mf1 þ m5 ð14Þ
Equations for Natural Gas Property Calculation
The following Eqs. (2)–(6) are the general equations used for cal- m3 ¼ mf2 þ m6 ð15Þ
culating the properties of natural gas—namely, average molecular
weight [Eq. (2)], critical temperature of natural gas [Eq. (3)], criti-
cal pressure of natural gas [Eq. (4)], heat content of gas mixture m4 ¼ mf3 þ m7 ð16Þ
[Eq. (5)], and isentropic exponent [Eq. (6)].
Similarly, density of natural gas [Eq. (7)], mass flow rate of gas
[Eq. (8)], average pressure of natural gas [Eq. (9)], friction factor m8 ¼ m5 þ m6 þ m7 ð17Þ
[Eq. (10)], velocity of gas in the pipeline [Eq. (11)], and compress-
ibility factor [Eq. (12)] are applicable to each pipe arc (Menon
m8 ¼ m9 þ m10 þ m11 ð18Þ
2005; Mohring et al. 2004):
M ¼ M 1 × y1 þ M 2 × y2 þ M 3 × y 3 ð2Þ
m9 ¼ mf4 þ m12 ð19Þ
T C ¼ T C1 × y1 þ T C2 × y2 þ T C3 × y3 ð3Þ
m10 ¼ mf5 þ m13 ð20Þ
PC ¼ PC1 × y1 þ PC2 × y2 þ PC3 × y3 ð4Þ
m11 ¼ mf6 þ m14 ð21Þ
Hm ¼ ðH1 × y1 × M 1 Þ þ ðH2 × y2 × M 2 Þ þ ðH3 × y3 × M 3 Þ
ð5Þ
m15 ¼ m12 þ m13 þ m14 ð22Þ
ðCp1 × y1 þ Cp2 × y2 þ Cp3 × y3 Þ
k¼ ð6Þ  
ðCp1 × y1 þ Cp2 × y2 þ Cp3 × y3 Þ − R
32 × m2i × zi × R × T × log10 Pi =Pj
P2i − P2j ¼
Pij × M π2 × D4i × M
ρi ¼ ð7Þ 16 × fi × zi × R × T × Li
Zi × R × T − ð23Þ
π2 × D5i × M
mi ¼ ρi × qi ð8Þ
Tabkhi (2007) calculated isentropic head (hij ) and compressor
    efficiency (nij ) using rotational speed. However, the authors feel
2 Pi × Pj
Pij ¼ × Pi þ P j − ð9Þ this model needs to be modified as Eqs. (24) and (25), using com-
3 Pi þ Pj pression ratio ðPj =Pi Þ
 −2      ðk−1Þ=k 
e zi × R × T k Pj
fi ¼ −2log10 ð10Þ hij ¼ × × −1 ð24Þ
3.71 × Di M k−1 Pi

© ASCE 04015008-4 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008

  ðk−1Þ=k
Pj
−1
Pi
nij ¼  ðn
Pj p −1Þ=np
Pi −1
Inequality Constraints
Eq. (26) represents the pressure limits of the gas in pipeline seg-
ments. Eq. (27) gives the upper limit of velocity of gas in pipelines.
Eq. (28) gives the limit of flow rate at the suction side of the
compressor to avoid choking in compressors. Eq. (29) gives the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lower and upper limit of the rotational velocity of the compres-
sors (Tabkhi 2007). Eqs. (26) and (27) are applicable to each pipe
arc, and Eqs. (28) and (29) are applicable to each of the six
compressors:
2 × ti × S × E × F × T 0
1 < Pi <
Di
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
z ×R×T
vi ≤ vei where vei ¼ 122 i
Pij × M
   ðkþ1Þ=2×ðk−1Þ
π 2 2
qimax< × Di × ci ×
4 kþ1
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k × zi × R × T
where ci ¼
M thors have chosen to save the three best ants out of five and improve
166.7 < wi < 450
The objective is to minimize the sum of mf0 s [Eq. (1g)], subject
to equality constraints [Eqs. (13)–(25)] and inequality constraints
[Eqs. (26)–(29)]. Various properties of the gas are evaluated from
Eqs. (2)–(6).
Model Validations
The model differs from the earlier model (Tabkhi 2007), as it con-
siders isentropic head and efficiency as a function of discharge
and suction pressure at the compressors instead of rotational speed.
Further, in the present work, rotational speed has been considered
as the action variable. The model is validated using pressure and
mass flow rate values of the generalized reduced gradient method
(GRG) (Tabkhi 2007) to calculate the fuel consumed in each com-
pressor. These values are compared with fuel consumed in the ear-
lier case (Tabkhi 2007) in Table 3. The closeness of both numbers,
as seen in Table 3, establishes the utility of the current model.
Ant Colony Optimization
Ant colony optimization (ACO) is a nature-inspired optimization
algorithm where populations of ants share some information to
achieve the shortest path. While searching for food, biological ants
first start to explore the area around their nest. If an ant succeeds in
finding food, it returns back to the nest, laying down a chemical
pheromone trail to mark the path. This pheromone trail attracts
other ants to follow the same path, thus enabling them in finding
the same food source. The basic idea of ant colony algorithms is to
mimic this biological behavior with artificial ants, which randomly
search at first and then use some pheromone-like parameter to ex-
plore the search domain defined by an optimization problem
(Dorigo and Stützle 2004). In the present work, a pheromone triplet
consisting of (1) the probability of a particular ant to be chosen,
© ASCE
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008
Table 3. Prediction of Fuel Consumption for Comparison of GRG Model
with ACO Model (Using np ¼ 1.313)
ð25Þ
Serial number Compressor number Tabkhi model Present model
1 Compressor 1 0.18 0.1887
2 Compressor 2 0.19 0.1917
3 Compressor 3 0.19 0.1923
4 Compressor 4 0.06 0.0587
5 Compressor 5 0.07 0.0612
6 Compressor 6 0.06 0.0586
Total fuel consumed 0.75 0.7512
(2) the mean value of fuel consumption, and (3) the standard
deviation between the best ant and worst ant has been used for
guiding the next generation of ants to find the optima (Schlueter
2012). The algorithm of ant colony optimization is illustrated in
ð26Þ the appendix.
The computational tests were performed on a personal computer
with Intel Core (Intel Corporation, California) 2.4-GHz CPU/2-GB
RAM. Coding was done in MATLAB R 2010 package. The feasible
ð27Þ
solution was obtained in a run of 65 s.
Results and Discussion
The evolutionary method generates a number of solutions from
ð28Þ which the best solutions are saved in the solution matrix. The au-
solutions with subsequent iterations. The solutions are compared
ð29Þ with the solutions obtained from GRG (Tabkhi 2007), and are
shown in Figs. 3–8.
The pressure values at each node are the most important vari-
ables, as they determine compressor functioning and hence fuel
consumption. The optimal pressures obtained using ant colony op-
timization at various nodes are compared with those obtained by
the GRG method (Tabkhi 2007) in Fig. 3. It is evident from the
figure that, despite the pressures being within the bounds of
60
2%, the suction pressures in the authors’ solution in both com-
pressors are lower than that obtained using the generalized gradient
technique. However, the delivery pressure at the outlet of the sec-
ond compressor is higher as obtained using ACO. As expected, this
gives a higher delivery pressure at the delivery station. This is
clearly evident in Fig. 3. As both the suction and delivery pressures
obtained by ACO are different from those obtained by GRG, the
compression ratios would be different, as would be the fuel con-
sumptions in the compressors. However, before comparing the fuel
consumptions, it is necessary to compare other aspects of the
solution—namely, the amount of gas throughput of the pipe network,
the rotational speeds of compressors, the isentropic heads across the
compressors, and the isentropic efficiencies of the compressors.
Comparison of the gas throughput of ACO with GRG (Tabkhi
2007), as shown in Fig. 4, clearly indicates that ACO results not
only comply with the throughput requirement, but are marginally
higher.
The rotational speeds of various compressors are compared in
Fig. 5. ACO rotational speeds are higher than those of GRG
(Tabkhi 2007) in the second compressor station, whereas at the first
station, they are closer. The ACO rotational speeds are not only
higher than GRG rotational speeds, but the rotational speeds for
each of the compressors are different. This must be because the
mass flow rate through each of the compressors is different. This
result gives a natural heuristic angle indicating a need for a different
operating condition for each compressor at a station.
04015008-5 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Pressure at nodes as obtained using GRG and ACO

Fig. 6. Isentropic head of compressors as obtained using ACO
and GRG

Fig. 4. Mass flow rate in pipe arc as obtained using GRG and ACO

Fig. 7. Isentropic efficiency of compressors using ACO and GRG

The implications of different speeds and different mass flow

rates on compressor heads would be interesting to compare. This
has been done in Fig. 6. As anticipated, ACO heads are the median
of the heads for the GRG solution. Heads of station 1 and those of
station 2 are closer to each other in value, unlike the GRG solution,
where station 1 has much higher heads as compared to station 2.
Apparently, this puts a question mark on the efficiency of the com-
pressors, and these have been compared in Fig. 7, where it is clearly
seen that the ACO efficiencies are consistently higher than GRG
efficiencies and are almost the same for each of the compressors.
Having seen so much operational improvement, it should come as
no surprise that fuel consumption in the ACO solution is lower than
that in GRG (Tabkhi 2007), as seen from Fig. 8.
In economic terms, this reduction would save US$352,076.58
Fig. 5. Comparison of rotational speed as obtained using ACO and GRG
per year, assuming the cost of natural gas per kilogram is US$0.74.

© ASCE 04015008-6 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008

 Step 5: Use evolutionary operator to generate next generation of
ants. The ant having a higher weight factor is the ant to be com-
pared with the new generation of ants. The ants giving better results
are compared with the previous ant with the highest weight factor.
The three best ants are to be kept in the solution matrix, whereas
others have to be discarded.
Step 6: Evaluate the new generation for fitness. Keep the better
ants (nbest ) in the solution matrix and discard the worse ants.
Step 7: Repeat steps 3–6 until stopping criteria have been
satisfied.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

AC = compressor arc;
D = diameter of pipeline (m);
E = efficiency of pipeline;
F = factor of safety;
Fig. 8. Fuel consumption in compressors as obtained using ACO f = friction factor (dimensionless);
and GRG H m = heat content of gas mixture (J=kg);
h = isentropic head across compressors (kJ=kg);
k = isentropic exponent;
L = length of pipe segment (m);
Conclusion M = molecular weight (kg=mol);
m = mass flow rate in pipe arc (kg=s);
In the present work, a pipeline network simulation model has been
mf = mass of fuel consumed in compressors (kg=s);
developed, which incorporates gas flow dynamics, compressor
nd = driver efficiency;
characteristics, and mass balance equations. For a fixed throughput
ni = adiabatic or isentropic efficiency;
and same gas pipeline network, the ACO technique has been com-
nis = isentropic efficiency;
pared with the GRG technique (Tabkhi 2007) for optimal fuel con-
nm = mechanical efficiency;
sumption. The model used is a variation from the earlier model
np = polytropic exponent;
(Tabkhi 2007), but has been validated to give very similar results.
P = pressure (Pa);
This model has been used for the optimization of fuel consumption
Pb = base pressure (Pa);
for a fixed throughput using the ant colony technique. Comparison
Pc = critical pressure (Pa);
reveals that the fuel savings is improved by 0.015 kg=s, resulting in
Pi = suction pressure at compressor (Pa);
a further savings of approximately US$350,000 per year. The op-
Pij = average pressure in pipe segment, ij (Pa);
erational improvement is also evidenced through comparison of ef-
Pj = discharge pressure of compressor (Pa);
ficiency of compressors. An unforced heuristic solution is also seen
Qb = volumetric flow rate of gas measured under standard
to be forming where the mass flow rates and rotational speeds in
conditions (m3 =s);
each of the three parallel compressors are different, while maintain- q = volumetric flow rate (m3 =s);
ing high efficiencies. The improvement of the optimal solution by R = gas constant (m3 · kPa=kmol · K);
the ACO technique demonstrates the capability of the model used S = specified minimum yield stress (pascal);
and the technique. The usefulness of the optimization technique for T = temperature (K);
multiobjective optimization needs further investigation. T 0 = temperature dearation factor;
T b = base temperature (K);
T c = critical temperature (K);
Appendix. Ant Colony Algorithm ti = thickness of pipeline (m);
v = velocity of gas in pipelines (m=s);
(Stopping criteria: maximum time, specified objective function y = mole fraction of individual component in gas mixture;
value, number of evaluations) z = compressibility factor; and
Step 1: Initiate first generation of ants. ω = rotational speed of compressor (rps).
Step 2: Select ant population size containing ðx; yÞ1 ;
ðx; yÞ2 ; ðx; yÞ3 ; : : : ; ðx; yÞn , number of individuals. The population
of ants remains the same throughout in each iteration.
Step 3: Select number of best solution (nbest ) using fitness Supplemental Data
function. These best solutions are to be kept in a solution matrix.
Tables S1–S13 are available online in the ASCE Library (http://
Step 4: Construct pheromone triplet that guides the ant to search
www.ascelibrary.com).
for optima.
Pheromone triplet contains:
1. Weighted factor: gives the probability of a particular ant to be
References
chosen.
2. Mean value: based on the ant that has a higher probability to be Adeyanju, O. A., and Oyekunle, L. O. (2004). “Optimization of natural gas
chosen. transportation in pipelines.” Petroleum and Gas Engineering Program,
3. Deviation: based on the best and worst ants. Univ. of Logos, Nigeria.

© ASCE 04015008-7 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008

 Bakhouya, B., and Wolf, D. (2008). “Solving gas transmission problems by
taking compressors into account.” HECEcole de Gestiondel’Université
de Liege (ULG), Dunkerque, France.
Carter, R. G. (1996). “Compressor station optimization: Computational
accuracy and speed.” 28th Annual Meeting of Pipeline Simulation
Interest Group, Pennwell Publishing, OK.
Chebouba, A., Yalaoui, F., Amodeo, L., Smati, A., and Tairi, A. (2006). “A
new method to minimize fuel consumption of gas pipeline using ant
colony optimization algorithms.” Proc., 2006 Int. Conf. on Service
Systems and Service Management, IEEE, New York.
Conrado, B. S., and Rozer, M. (2005). A hybrid meta-heuristic approach
for natural gas pipeline network optimization, Springer, Berlin.
Diana, C. Z., and Rozer, M. (2002). “A MINLP model for a minimizing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fuel consumption on natural gas pipeline networks.” Memoriasdel XI
Congreso Latino Iberoamericano de Investigación de Operaciones
(CLAIO), Springer.
Dorigo, M., and Stützle, T. (2004). Ant colony optimization, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Dudley, B. (2013). “BP statistical reviews of world energy.” 〈http://www.bp
.com/statistical review〉.
Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., and Grierson, D. (2005). “Comparison among
five evolutionary based optimization algorithm.” Adv. Eng. Inform.,
19(1), 43–53.
Ferber, E., Philip, P., William, B., and Ujjal, V. (1999). “CNGT installs
fuel minimization system to reduce operating cost.” Pipeline and Gas
Industry, 97–102.
Grelli, G. J. (1985). “Implementing an optimization program for a natural
gas transmission pipeline.” Pipeline Simulation Interest Group,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Jamshidifar, A., Torbati, H. M., and Kazemian, M. (2009). “GTNOpS,
an agent-based optimization software for gas transmission network.”
24th World Gas Conf., Argentina.
© ASCE 04015008-8
View publication stats J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2016, 7(1): 04015008
MATLAB R 2010 version 7.10.0.499 [Computer software]. Natick, MA,
Mathworks.
Menon, E. S. (2005). Gas pipeline hydraulics, CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Mohajeri, I., and Taffazzoli, R. (2012). “Optimization of tree-structured
gas distribution network using ant colony optimization: A case study.”
IJE Trans. A: Basics, 25(2), 141–156.
Mohring, J., Hoffmann, J., Halfmann, T., Zemitis, A., Basso, G., and
Lagoni, P. (2004). “Automated model reduction of complex gas pipeline
networks.” Proc., 36th Annual Meeting of Pipeline Simulation Interest
Group, Palm Springs, CA.
Osiadacz, A. J. (1994). “Dynamic optimization of high pressure gas
networks using hierarchical systems theory.” 26th annual meeting of
Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, San Diego.
Ríos Mercado, R., Wu, S., Scott, L., and Boyd, E. (2002). “A reduction
technique for natural gas transmission network optimization problems.”
Ann. Oper. Res., 117(1), 217–234.
Rozer, M. (2003). “Efficient operation of natural gas pipeline networks.”
Computational Finding of High Quality Solutions, Int. Applied
Business Research Conf., AccessEcon.
Schlueter, M. (2012). “Nonlinear mixed integer based optimization
technique for space application.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Birmingham,
England.
Smith, J., and Van Ness, H. (1998). Introduction to chemical engineering
thermodynamics, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore.
Summing, W., Rios-Mercado, R. Z., Boyd, E. A., and Scott, L. R. (2000).
“Model relaxation for the fuel minimization of steady state gas pipeline
networks.” Math. Comput. Model., 31(2–3), 197–200.
Tabkhi, F. (2007). “Optimization of gas transmission networks.” Ph.D.
thesis, Grenoble Institute of Technology (INP), Grenoble, France.
Uraikul, V., and Chan, C. W. (2004). “A mixed- integer optimization
model for compressor selection in natural gas pipeline network system
operations.” J. Environ. Inform., 3(1), 33–41.
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.