Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446

Genetic algorithm for optimization of water distribution systems

Indrani Gupta *, A. Gupta, P. Khanna
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur-440020, India

Received 20 January 1998; accepted 15 July 1998

Abstract

A methodology based on genetic algorithm has been developed for lower cost design of new, and augmentation of existing water
distribution networks. The results have been compared with those of non-linear programming technique through application to
several case studies. The genetic algorithm results in a lower cost solution. Parameters governing the convergence of the solutions
in non-linear and genetic algorithms are also discussed.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genetic algorithm; Optimization; Water distribution system; Non-linear programming

Software availability is well known that when diameters are assumed as the
Program title: GENE decision variables (DV), the constraints are implicit
Developers: Indrani Gupta, A. Gupta functions of the DV, the feasible region is non-convex,
and P. Khanna and the objective function is multimodal. Hence, con-
Contact address: National Environmental ventional optimization methods result in a local optimum
Engineering Research which is dependent on the starting point in the search
Institute, Nagpur-440020, process.
India The application of stochastic optimization techniques
Hardware: HP 9000/730 PA-RISC such as genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated annealing
Workstation under HP-UX to WDS optimization is of recent origin. Simpson et al.
8.07 multi-user operating (1994) have presented a methodology for finding the best
system cost alternative for pipe networks using a three operator
Source language: FORTRAN GA comprising reproduction, crossover and mutation.
An inherent problem in that the model is the large com-
putational time in comparison to the non-linear program-
ming techniques. Loganathan et al. (1995) proposed an
1. Introduction outer flow search inner optimization procedure to ident-
ify lower cost design solutions. In that approach each
Water distribution system (WDS) design belongs to a pipe network is subjected to an outer search scheme that
group of inherently intractable problems commonly selects alternative flow configurations in an attempt to
referred to as NP-hard (Templeman, 1982; Parker and find an optimal flow division among pipes. For each
Rardin, 1988). Essentially NP-hard means that a rigorous selected set of pipe flows a linear program is used to find
algorithm to find an optimum design using discrete the associated optimal pipe diameters and energy heads.
diameters is not a practical possibility. Several A new GA based methodology for optimal
researchers have reported algorithms for minimising the design/augmentation of pipe networks is described in
cost through the application of mathematical techniques, this paper. The methodology was compared with a non-
such as linear, non-linear or dynamic programming. It linear programming (NLP) technique based on interior
penalty function (IPF) with the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell
(DFP) method. The NLP technique was first evaluated
* Corresponding author. by application to a case study which has been previously

1364-8152/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 4 - 8 1 5 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 8 9 - 9
438 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446
attempted by several researchers (Loganathan et al.,
1995, 1990; Fujiwara et al., 1987; Quindry et al., 1979;
Alperovits and Shamir, 1977). The optimal cost obtained
from the NLP technique was 0.57% higher than the sol-
ution achieved by Loganathan et al. (1995). The sol-
utions achieved by other researchers are 1.9–18.3%
higher than the solution obtained by Loganathan et al.
(1995).
Further, a comparison between the results of the GA
and NLP techniques for augmentation of several medium
size networks showed that the GA in general provided
a lower cost solution, than that obtained from the NLP
technique. The hydraulic simulator ANALIS (Bassin et
al., 1992) which is based on graph theory, was used in
both the NLP and GA solutions to calculate pressure
heads, flows and velocities in the design of branched,
looped and combined systems.
2. Deterministic optimization techniques
A number of investigators have dealt with the problem
of optimization of WDS by applying mathematical pro-
gramming techniques.
Several researchers employed linear programming to
optimise a WDS. Principal approaches include those of
Alperovits and Shamir (1977), Quindry et al. (1981) and
Kessler and Shamir (1989). The technique given by Alp-
erovits and Shamir (1977) requires that a set of variables
(pipe flows) be set to particular values before the linear
programme can be formulated. Information available
from the solution of linear programming problem can be
used to calculate a gradient which is then used to change
pipe flows. Quindry et al. (1981) have decomposed the
looped network problem to branched systems. The limi-
tation of such simplified solution has been critically dis-
cussed by Templeman (1982). Kessler and Shamir
(1989) also use linear programming gradient procedure.
Several non-linear programming packages have been
developed for network design problems. These packages
include GRG2 (Lasdon and Waren, 1983), MINOS
(Murtagh and Saunders, 1987), GINO (Liebman et al.,
1986), and GAMS (Brooke et al., 1988) which are all
based on the generalised reduced gradient method. Chi-
plunkar et al. (1986) presented an algorithm based on
interior penalty function (IPF) with the Davidon-
Fletcher-Powell (DFP) method. Lansey and Mays (1989)
used GRG2 to find the optimum design and to simulate
pumps, tanks and multiple loading cases. Lansey et al.
(1989) considered uncertainty in nodal demands, Hazen-
Williams coefficients and minimum nodal heads, and
developed a methodology for optimal design with
recourse to chance constrained optimization. Duan et al.
(1990) extended the work of Lansey and Mays (1989)
further and developed a model that (i) identifies the num-
bers and locations of pumps and tanks by implicit enu-
meration, (ii) uses GRG2 to find optimum pipe sizes for
the pump and tank layout specified in (i), and (iii) uses
a separate model to compute various measures of sys-
tem reliability.
Gupta et al. (1993) developed the software package
WATDIS based on IPF and DFP methods. In that
approach the problem was formulated as a cost minimiz-
ation problem wherein the objective function F(x) com-
prised the cost of power and annualised cost of pipes,
pumps, and reservoirs satisfying the hydraulic loop laws
with constraints on minimum diameter and residual
head. The non-linear non-convex problem was converted
to an unconstrained problem by appending the con-
straints to the objective function through penalty and
weighting factors using the IPF method. An independent
weighting factor was assigned to each constraint in order
to ensure the normalisation required by the significantly
different contributions of diameter, reservoir height, and
residual head constraints to the unconstrained objective
function.
Recently, Loganathan et al. (1995) presented a design
heuristic for global cost minima design. That method
was used to solve a standard eight pipe problem, each
pipe being 1000 m long with a Hazen Williams coef-
ficient of 130. The pipe sizes and associated costs used
in the study are presented in Table 1. By assuming a
minimum diameter of 1 inch and minimum flow con-
straint of 1 m3/hour the method identified a design for
the network costing US $405 301.
The same problem with the same minimum diameter
and flow constraints was solved by the authors
employing WATDIS. Since the single cost equation was
of exponential form and did not show a good fit (the
coefficient of determination ⫽ 0.932), a piecewise linear
function was used to represent the cost. The optimal cost
obtained employing WATDIS is $407 625 which is the
actual cost of the network finally calculated from cost
of pipes per unit length. This is 0.57% higher than the
one reported by Loganathan et al. (1995). The details of
the pipe cost and solution are presented in Fig. 1, and
Tables 1–4. The cost of the same network as determined
in a number of other methods in previous studies is
Table 1
Pipe sizes and associated costs
Diameter Unit cost Diameter Unit cost
(in.) (US$/m) (in.) (US$/m)
1 2 12 50
2 5 14 60
3 8 16 90
4 11 18 130
6 16 20 170
8 23 22 300
10 32 24 550
Note: 1 in. ⫽ 25.4 mm
 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446 439

Fig. 1. Optimal looped network.

Table 2 Table 3
Pipe details for optimal solution Nodal details

Pipe Node Length Diameter Flow Headloss Status Node no. Ground Residual Hydraulic Demand
No (m) (in) (lps) (m) level head grade (lps)
(m) (m)
From To
1 R 210.00 00.00 210.00 ⫺ 311.1111
1 1 2 1000.00 18 311.111 6.756 N 2 D 150.00 53.24 203.24 27.7778
2 2 3 210.72 12 102.215 1.305 N 3 D 160.00 30.06 190.06 27.7778
789.28 10 102.215 11.881 NS 4 D 155.00 43.57 198.57 33.3333
3 2 4 932.17 16 181.118 4.104 N 5 D 150.00 30.04 180.04 75.0000
67.83 14 181.118 0.572 NS 6 D 165.00 30.11 195.11 91.6667
4 4 5 57.55 2 0.277 0.039 N 7 D 160.00 30.09 190.09 55.5556
942.45 1 0.277 18.486 NS
5 4 6 836.22 16 147.508 2.517 N Legend: R, Reservoir location; D, Demand node
163.78 14 147.508 0.945 NS
6 6 7 989.13 10 55.841 4.860 N
10.87 8 55.841 0.158 NS judged to be fairly good in comparison to that of other
7 3 5 899.81 10 74.438 7.529 N
100.19 8 74.438 2.485 NS algorithms reported in the literature. The WATDIS was
8 7 5 535.81 2 0.286 0.381 N thus considered an adequate basis for evaluation of the
464.19 1 0.286 9.663 NS GA described in this paper.
Legend: N, New pipe; NS, New pipe in series with the previous pipe
3. Overview of genetic algorithms
$412 931 (Loganathan et al., 1990), $415 271 (Fujiwara
et al., 1987), $441 522 (Quindry et al., 1979), and GAs are nature based stochastic computational tech-
$479 525 (Alperovits and Shamir, 1977). These costs are niques. The major advantages of these algorithms are
1.9%, 2.5%, 8.9% and 18.3% higher respectively than their broad applicability, flexibility and their ability to
the cost of $405 301 achieved by Loganathan et al. find optimal or near optimal solutions with relatively
(1995). Accordingly, the performance of WATDIS was modest computational requirements. GAs, pioneered by
440 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446
Table 4
Summary of new pipe lines
Pipe Dia Total length Cost
(in.) (m) (dollars)
1 1406.6 2813.3
2 593.4 2966.8
8 111.1 2554.4
10 2678.2 85703.0
12 210.7 10536.0
14 231.6 13896.6
16 1768.4 159155.1
18 1000.0 130000.0
Total cost: US$407 625
Holland (1975), have proven useful in a variety of search
and optimization problems in engineering, science and
commerce (Goldberg, 1989). The algorithms are based
on the principle of the survival of the fittest which tries
to retain genetic information from generation to gener-
ation. GAs work with a rich database of population and
simultaneously climb many peaks in parallel during the
search so that the probability of being trapped in a local
minimum is reduced significantly.
To implement a GA, a population of initial solutions
must first be generated randomly or heuristically. GA is
an iterative process where each iteration has two steps,
the evaluation step and the generation step. In the evalu-
ation step, fitness of the individual which is a measure
of the quality of a candidate is determined. The gener-
ation step includes a selection operator and a modifi-
cation operator. Two individuals (parents) are chosen
from the population using a scheme which favours the
fitter individuals. The two selected parents, are recom-
bined to form two children, typically using the mech-
anism of crossover. The crossover operator exchanges
a sub-string of the codes of the parents at a randomly
determined point or points. Mutation is applied to each
child individually after crossover with a small prob-
ability typically between 0.1–0.2. A mutation operator
may then randomly change some of the values of the
genes constituting an individual.
4. GA based pipe network optimization
GAs typically require problem system states to be rep-
resented as strings called chromosomes. For example, if
eight different pipe sizes are available then a binary sub-
string of three bits is used to represent the options. This
process requires that the binary coding be converted to
discrete pipe diameters when evaluating the cost of the
network. However in the GA based methodology
described in this paper it was considered unnecessary
to represent the solution as a chromosome to avoid the
conversion of binary coding to discrete pipe sizes.
The technique developed in this research involves the
following steps for least cost design/augmentation of
WDS.
1. Read the network data, cost data, required minimum
residual head, probability of mutation, population
size of solutions (range 50–350), maximum no. of
generations (MG, range 10–30), penalty factor
(range 0.9–1.0 million), tolerance (range 5–10 m),
average head-loss per unit length (HL), maximum
no. of iterations for diameter adjustment (MI), mini-
mum desirable velocity in a pipe (MV).
2. Generate the population of initial solutions using
random number generator. The network is stratified
into upper, middle and lower diameter sets. This
stratification of the network is based on the judge-
ment of the design engineer. For example, the pipes
which are located at the nodes most distant from the
source are grouped into lower dimensional sizes.
The lower diameter set may consist of 50, 80, 100,
125 and 150 mm which helps in pruning the search
space and facilitating faster convergence to the opti-
mum.
3. Counter 1 ⫽ 1.
4. For all solutions of the population carry out the fol-
lowing:
(i) Counter 2 ⫽ 1.
(ii) For designing a new network go to step (iii).
In the case of augmentation of an existing net-
work combine the existing diameter set with
new parallel lines to obtain equivalent pipe
diameters. Assuming the coefficient of rough-
ness of the equivalent pipe to be the same as
that of the new pipe, the diameter of the com-
bined pipe is given as D ⫽ [CR2/CR1 * Dold ␣
⫹ Dnew ␣ ] ␤ where, ␣ is 4.8099/1.8099; ␤ is
1.8099/4.8099; CR2, CR1 are the coefficients of
roughness for old and new pipes respectively;
Dold, Dnew are the diameters of old and new
pipes respectively derived from modified
Hazen-Williams formula (Jain et al., 1978).
(iii) Invoke the hydraulic analysis subroutine
ANALIS (Bassin et al., 1992) to compute
flow, velocity and residual head.
(iv) Increase the pipe diameter to the next upper
commercial diameter size if the head-loss head
per unit length > HL. Reduce the size to the
next lower commercial diameter size if velo-
city ⬍ MV and such that the absolute value
of (total no of increments-total number of
reductions) ⬍ 4.
(v) Repeat steps (ii) and (iii). If the solution is
(a) In-feasible but was feasible earlier restore
the original solution and go to step 5
(b) Feasible then store the solution.
(vi) Increment Counter 2.
 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446
(vii) If Counter 2 is less than MI, go to step (ii)
otherwise go to step 5.
5. Store the solutions in the set of new populations for
which the residual heads at the nodes are greater
than the desired residual head tolerance. This step
helps reduce the number of hydraulic analyses
required.
6. Evaluate cost of the solutions in the new population
and store the feasible solution having the mini-
mum cost.
7. Increment Counter 1.
8. If Counter 1 is more than MG go to step 15
9. If a solution does not satisfy the minimum residual
head constraint, evaluate a penalty cost as the pro-
duct of the penalty factor and head violated at the
critical node. In the present study the penalty factor
has been taken between 0.9–1.0 million per meter
of head.
10. Compute the total cost as the sum of network cost
and penalty cost.
11. Compute the fitness for each solution as f ⫽
1/total cost.
12. Perform crossover of solutions of the new popu-
lation taken two at a time based on their fitness
values as described earlier to produce two offspring.
13. Mutate each offspring based on the mutation rate.
14. The offspring constitute the new population. Go to
step 4.
15. Write the stored solution set for each generation and
write network details for the best solution.
The above algorithm is an improvement of the method-
ology presented by Simpson et al. (1994) as evident in
the following:
1. The set of solutions is stored in discrete pipe sizes
and not in binary alphabet as is usual in a GA. The
decoding required to calculate the fitness for each set
of solutions is therefore avoided. The simple ideas of
crossover and mutation are applied to the discrete
pipe diameters directly.
2. The network is stratified into a number of groups of
pipe sizes for generation of the initial population of
solutions. This process helps in reducing the number
of redundant solutions.
3. The solutions which are within tolerable limits are
placed in the set of new solutions there by reducing
the total number of hydraulic analyses.
4. The set of solutions are modified by velocity and
average head loss adjustments which helps in bring-
ing rationality to the solutions.
The maximum size of the distribution system that can
be designed using the software is 200 pipes, 175 nodes,
and 2 reservoirs. The software can handle a maximum
population of 200 solutions and 30 generations. Incorpo-
rating these limitations the size of the executable pro-
gram is 122.8 KB. The software can be easily modified
441
to design larger systems by re-dimensioning the vari-
ables in the program.
5. Comparison of GA and NLP-IPF based
techniques
GA and NLP based techniques are powerful tools
which have been effectively applied to water distribution
system optimization problems. The effectiveness of the
techniques with respect to convergence relies on the
adaptation of inherent features and properties of the dis-
tribution system in the problem formulation. Both the
techniques require few parameter adjustments through
trial and error to obtain the best solution. The fitness
function is most crucial aspect of any GA. Other
important parameters include the size of the population
of solutions, the strategy for the stratification of solution
space in more than one set of diameters, tolerance level,
mutation rate, and penalty factor. In the case of the NLP
with IPF, the parameters which control convergence rate
include the penalty parameter in the unconstrained
objective function and its subsequent values, and the step
length in the finite difference scheme. In this research,
following advantages and disadvantages of GAs and
NLPs were observed:
5.1. Advantages of the GA over the NLP technique
GA deals with a population of solutions which are
spread over the solution space. It simultaneously climbs
many peaks in parallel during the search so that the prob-
ability of trapping into a local minimum is reduced con-
siderably. In case of NLP technique, the solution is
highly dependent on the initial solution and it converges
always to a local minimum based on the initial solution.
The GA uses discrete pipe diameters for generation
of each solution set while in NLP technique, the diam-
eters are generated as real numbers requiring further
rounding to commercial sizes. The process often con-
verts the solution away from optimum particularly for
large size networks even after rounding using pro-
fessional judgement.
The GA uses a more rational fitness function to select
the members of the next generation while the NLP relies
on derivatives of the unconstrained objective function.
5.2. Advantages of the NLP over the GA technique
NLP converges much faster particularly for medium
and large size networks as compared to GA.
It is possible to incorporate additional techniques in
the NLP for example splitting of link in two sections
with next lower and upper commercially available diam-
eter sizes such that their combined hydraulic character-
442 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446

istics are the same as that of the non-commercial diam-
eter.
6. Case study
In order to establish the efficacy of GA based algor-
ithm in comparison with NLP technique several net-
works were optimized employing both the techniques.
Fig. 2 delineates network 1. This network consists of
38 pipes (30 existing and 8 new) and 23 nodes including
21 demand nodes. Water is supplied through a reservoir
of 20 m height at node no. 8. Constraints on minimum
nodal pressure and pipe diameter are 12 and 0.08 m
respectively. The coefficients of roughness for old and
new pipes are 0.7 and 0.9 respectively in the modified
Hazen-Williams equation (Jain et al., 1978). The terrain
is flat with little variation in relative elevation. The initial
starting solution for the NLP algorithm is the best alter-
native out of five attempted solutions. Application of this
optimization algorithm resulted in a solution in terms
of continuous diameters which has been rounded off to
commercial diameters. The population size of the sol-
utions used for the GA based algorithm is 200. In the

Fig. 2. Network diagram for case study 1.

 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446 443

present work subroutine ran2 from Numerical Recipes
(1992) which is based on the method of L’Eeuyer (1988)
has been used for generation of random numbers. The
pipe details of the best solutions obtained through GA
and NLP techniques are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
Diameters of pipes to be placed in parallel to existing
pipes and new pipe lines are given in column 5 while
the flow and headloss in each pipe is given in columns
6 and 7. Nodal details and comparison of the pipe cost
for the optimal solutions are presented in Tables 7 and
8. The CPU times for network 1 were 6 minutes 40
seconds and 2 minutes and 10 seconds respectively for
GA and NLP based techniques. The least cost solution
obtained with the GA and NLP techniques are Indian
Rs. 2,301,330 (1US $ ⫽ 43.5 Indian Rs.) and
2 485 690 respectively.
Network 2 represents an alternate problem to network
1 with same network structure having significantly dif-

Table 5
Pipe details of optimal solution for the case study network-1 employing GA

Pipe no. Node Length (m) Diameter (mm) Flow (lps) Headloss (m) Status

From To

1 2 1 400 80 3.4084 4.954 O

2 3 2 300 125 3.5449 0.466 O
3 3 4 450 125 4.5319 1.091 O
4 4 5 400 80 3.2815 4.625 O
5 1 6 200 80 0.0433 0.001 O
6 7 2 350 100 3.9342 1.921 O
7 8 3 350 150 13.4472 2.528 O
8 9 4 350 100 2.6559 0.944 O
9 10 5 350 80 1.7098 1.244 O
10 7 6 400 100 7.3922 6.876 O
11 9 10 400 125 10.3529 4.325 O
12 11 6 220 80 3.5223 2.892 O
13 7 12 280 150 15.3784 2.578 O
14 14 9 280 150 5.3645 0.383 O
15 10 15 280 125 0.9377 0.039 O
16 14 15 400 100 6.0240 4.748 O
17 11 16 450 80 1.3952 1.107 O
18 12 16 450 80 2.1951 2.513 O
19 15 19 380 80 1.4814 1.042 O
20 8 7 300 150 9.1183 1.072 O
200 25.1820 1.072 NP
21 8 9 390 150 13.0697 2.675 O
22 8 13 280 200 11.6166 0.389 O
350 66.0862 0.389 NP
23 12 11 390 100 3.1193 1.407 O
150 11.7808 1.407 NP
24 13 12 310 125 10.1977 3.262 O
25 13 14 380 125 6.7662 1.903 O
200 30.3353 1.903 NP
26 13 17 370 125 4.8921 1.030 O
200 21.9332 1.030 NP
27 14 18 370 100 4.5619 2.655 O
125 10.6128 2.655 NP
28 17 16 500 80 2.9420 4.745 O
29 17 18 480 80 2.5547 3.528 O
100 5.9432 3.528 NP
30 18 19 400 80 2.6466 3.134 O
100 6.1570 3.134 NP
31 17 14 520 80 1.4524 0.873 N
32 16 20 280 100 6.5322 2.442 N
33 17 21 290 100 10.1888 5.654 N
34 18 22 290 100 6.3678 2.415 N
35 19 23 290 100 3.7745 0.937 N
36 21 20 510 80 2.0036 1.532 N
37 21 22 370 100 1.7211 0.289 N
38 22 23 410 80 2.3598 1.656 N

O, Existing pipe; N, New pipe; NP, New and parallel pipe

444 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446

Table 6
Pipe details of the optimal solution for the case study network-1 employing non-linear programming

Pipe no. Node Length (m) Diameter (mm) Flow (lps) Headloss (m) Status

From To

1 2 1 400 80 3.13 4.253 O

2 3 2 300 125 6.04 1.223 O
3 3 4 450 125 2.55 0.386 O
4 4 5 400 80 3.42 4.996 O
5 6 1 200 80 0.23 0.019 O
6 7 2 350 100 1.16 0.212 O
7 8 3 350 150 13.96 2.706 O
8 9 4 350 100 2.09 0.612 O
100 2.69 0.612 NP
9 10 5 350 80 1.57 1.062 O
10 7 6 400 100 5.81 4.445 O
80 4.13 4.445 NP
11 9 10 400 125 10.64 4.546 O
12 11 6 220 80 1.25 0.446 O
13 7 12 280 150 3.81 0.206 O
14 9 14 280 150 7.81 0.756 O
15 10 15 280 125 1.37 0.078 O
16 14 15 400 100 5.38 3.868 O
17 16 11 450 80 2.00 2.132 O
18 12 16 450 80 1.75 1.662 O
19 15 19 380 80 1.27 0.787 O
20 8 7 300 150 18.12 3.717 O
80 4.38 3.717 NP
21 8 9 390 150 12.53 2.480 O
150 16.12 2.480 NP
22 8 13 280 200 22.07 1.242 O
250 51.34 1.242 NP
23 12 11 390 100 5.40 3.794 O
80 3.83 3.794 NP
24 13 12 310 125 9.15 2.681 O
100 6.50 2.681 NP
25 13 14 380 125 6.94 1.994 O
150 14.49 1.994 NP
26 13 17 370 125 5.97 1.477 O
200 26.77 1.477 NP
27 14 18 370 100 3.89 1.995 O
125 9.06 1.995 NP
28 17 16 500 80 2.23 2.866 O
100 5.18 2.866 NP
29 17 18 480 80 2.12 2.511 O
125 8.91 2.511 NP
30 18 19 400 80 2.42 2.661 O
100 5.62 2.661 NP
31 17 14 520 80 1.09 0.516 N
32 16 20 280 100 7.15 2.875 N
33 17 21 290 100 9.47 4.954 N
34 18 22 290 100 7.44 3.201 N
35 19 23 290 80 2.80 1.598 N
36 21 20 510 80 1.39 0.787 N
37 21 22 370 80 1.62 0.758 N
38 22 23 410 100 3.33 1.058 N

O, Existing pipe; N, New pipe; NP, New and parallel pipe

ferent demand pattern. The GA and NLP solutions optimized employing GA and NLP techniques. Table 9
resulted in Indian Rs. 2.99 million and 3.006 million summarizes the details of these networks and optimal
respectively. Networks 3 and 4 were optimized similarly costs. Out of these six sets of solutions except for the
while networks 5 and 6 are two other different networks case of network 3, all optimal costs obtained through
 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446 445

Table 7
Nodal details of optimal solution for case study network-1 employing GA and NLP techniques

Node no. Gr. level (m) Peak demand (l/s) Residual head (m) Residual head (m)
employing GA employing NLP

1 D 101.45 3.365 12.60 12.37

2 D 101.00 4.071 18.01 17.07
3 D 102.00 5.370 17.47 17.29
4 D 101.50 3.906 16.88 17.41
5 D 101.75 4.991 12.01 12.16
6 D 100.50 10.958 13.55 13.34
7 D 101.40 7.595 19.53 16.88
8 R 102.00 ⫺ 138.520 20.00 20.00
9 D 100.90 5.425 18.43 18.62
10 D 101.25 7.705 13.75 13.72
11 D 102.00 9.983 14.94 12.28
12 D 100.80 8.481 17.55 17.28
13 D 101.40 3.578 20.21 19.36
14 D 101.70 11.991 18.01 17.06
15 D 101.50 5.480 13.46 13.40
16 D 101.80 0.000 14.04 14.61
17 D 101.30 3.744 19.28 17.98
18 D 100.95 8.501 16.10 15.82
19 D 100.00 6.510 13.92 14.11
20 D 101.00 8.536 12.39 12.54
21 D 100.00 6.464 14.93 14.33
22 D 100.50 5.729 14.14 13.07
23 D 100.50 6.134 12.48 12.01

R: Reservoir location; D, Demand node

Table 8
Comparison of cost of new pipe lines in GA and NLP based techniques for case study network-1

Pipe dia. (mm) Unit cost Length of pipe in m using Cost of pipe in Rs.
(Indian Rs./m)

GA NLP GA NLP

80 228 1440 2780 328320 633840

100 278 2400 2830 667200 786740
125 336 370 850 124320 285600

Total costs (Indian Rs.): 2 301 330; 2,485,690

Note: 1US$ ⫽ 43.5 Indian Rs.

Table 9
Network details and comparison of optimal design costs employing GA and NLP techniques for various case studies

Network no. No. of pipes No. of Total pipe Total Coeff. of friction Optimal* cost (million)
node length (m) demand
(lps)

Total New Old New GA NLP

1 38 30 23 13,820 138.5 0.70 0.90 2.301 2.486

2 38 30 23 13,820 155.9 0.65 0.85 2.991 3.006
3 52 30 31 18,385 218.8 0.70 0.90 5.374 5.332
4 52 30 31 18,385 200.5 0.65 0.85 5.140 5.154
5 28 23 18 10,210 107.7 0.65 0.85 1.622 1.742
6 13 8 11 24,136 145.0 0.65 0.85 28.244 28.364

*Indian Rupees
Note: 1US$ ⫽ 43.5 Indian Rs.
446 I. Gupta et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 14 (1999) 437–446
GA technique were found to be lower than those
obtained through NLP technique.
7. Conclusions
The paper presents the applicability of genetic algor-
ithm in the design of water distribution systems. The
algorithm has been compared with a NLP technique with
IPF method which was found to be fairly efficient in
comparison to the techniques presented thus far in the
literature. The solution set obtained from GA and NLP
techniques for several medium size networks showed
that GA provides a better solution in general, in compari-
son with that obtained with the NLP technique. The dif-
ferences in costs, however, is marginal which shows
both the techniques are efficient.
The convergence of GA was considerably improved
by providing initial information on network stratifi-
cation. Generation of initial feasible solution, as required
in NLP technique, is avoided in GA. Considerable
efforts are needed to generate separate initial solutions
to try acceptable number of trials in NLP methodology
in order to ensure optimality particularly in case of larger
networks. Trials in GA are made by providing different
seeds which does not require elaborate computations in
generating a feasible solution. NLP technique also
requires rounding of pipe diameters to the available com-
mercial sizes while GA selects discrete diameters. For
identical problem dimensions of pipes (200), nodes (175)
and reservoirs (2), the size of the executable programs
for GA and NLP techniques are 122.8 and 126.9 KB
respectively.
Experience, however, indicates that both the tech-
niques warrant several trials to obtain the best solution.
The GA requires the trials in order to try out different
seeds as well as initial guess on network stratification
while the NLP requires different initial solutions from
which to begin the search for the optimum. Generation
of information on network stratification is significantly
easier in comparison with generation of initial solutions.
As a result, GA provides a convenient technique in per-
forming more trials in comparison with NLP technique
in order to obtain cost effective design of water distri-
bution systems.
References
Alperovits, A., Shamir, U., 1977. Design of optimal water distribution
systems. Water Resour. Res. 13 (6), 885–900.
Bassin, J.K., Gupta, I., Gupta, A., 1992. Graph theoretic Approach to
the Analysis of Water Distribution System. J. Indian Water Works
Assoc. 24 (3), 269–276.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A., 1988. GAMS: a user’s guide.
The Scientific Press, Redwood City, California, U.S.A.
Chiplunkar, A.V., Mehndiratta, S.L., Khanna, P., 1986. Looped water
distribution system optimization for single loading. J. Envir. Engrg.
ASCE 112 (2), 264–279.
Duan, N., Mays, L.W., Lansey, K.E., 1990. Optimal reliability based
design of pumping and distribution systems. J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE
116 (2), 249–268.
Fujiwara, O., Jenchaimahakoon, B., Edirisinghe, N.C.P., 1987. A
modified linear programming gradient method for optimal design
of looped water distribution networks. Water Resour. Res. 23 (6),
977–982.
Gupta, I., Bassin, J.K., Gupta, A., Khanna, P., 1993. Optimization of
water distribution system. Environmental Software 8, 101–113.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and
Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Holland, J.H., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Uni-
versity of Michigan Press, ANN Arbor.
Jain, A.K., Mohan, D.M., Khanna, P., 1978. Modified Hazen Williams
Formula. J. Envir. Engr. Div. ASCE 104 (EE1), 137–146.
Kessler, A., Shamir, U., 1989. Analysis of the linear programming
gradient method for optimal design of water supply networks.
Water Resour. Res. 25 (7), 1469–1480.
Lasdon, L.S., Waren, A., 1983. GRG2: a user’s guide. Department of
General Business, University of General Business, University of
Texas, Austin, Texas.
Lansey, K.E., Mays, L.W., 1989. Optimization model for water distri-
bution system design. J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE 115 (10), 1401–1418.
Lansey, K.Y., Duan, N., Mays, L.W., Tung, Y.K., 1989. Water distri-
bution system under uncertainties. J. Water Resour. Plg. and Mgt.,
ASCE 115 (5), 630–644.
Liebman, J.S., Lasdon, L., Scrage, L., Waren, A., 1986. Modeling and
Optimization with GINO. The Scientific Press, Palo Alto, Califor-
nia.
Loganathan, G.V., Greene, J.J., Ahn, T.J., 1995. Design heuristic for
globally minimum cost water distribution systems. J. Water Resour.
Plg. and Mgt., ASCE 121 (2), 182–192.
Loganathan, G.V., Sherali, H.D., Shah, M.P., 1990. A two phase net-
work design heuristic for the minimum cost water distribution sys-
tems under a reliability constraint. Engrg. Optim. 15 (4), 311–336.
L’Eeuyer P., 1988. Communications of the ACM, vol 31, pp. 742-774
Murtagh, B.A., Saunders, M.A., 1987. MINOS 5.1 User’s Guide. Sys-
tems Optimization Laboratory, Department of Operations Research,
Stanford, California.
Numerical Recipes, 1992. Cambridge University Press, IInd ed.
Parker R.D., Rardin R.L., 1988. Discrete optimizations, United King-
dom Edition published by Academic Press, Inc (London) Ltd.
Quindry, G.E., Brill, E.D., Liebman, J.C., 1979. Comments on design
of optimal water distribution systems by E. Alperovits and U.
Shamir. Water Resour. Res. 15 (6), 1651–1654.
Quindry, G.E., Brill, E.D., Liebman, J.C., 1981. Optimization of
looped water distribution systems. J. Envir. Engrg. Div., ASCE 107
(4), 665–679.
Simpson, R.A., Dandy, G.C., Laurence, J.M., 1994. Genetic algorithms
compared to other techniques for pipe optimization. J. Water
Resour. Plg. and Mgt., ASCE 120 (4), 423–443.
Templeman, A.B., 1982. Discussion of Optimization of Looped Water
Distribution Systems, by G.E. Quindry, E.D. Brill, and J.C. Lieb-
man, J. Envir. Engr. Div. ASCE, vol. 108, No. EE3, pp. 599–602.