Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/228528970
CITATIONS READS
71 435
3 authors, including:
Bryan W Karney
University of Toronto
433 PUBLICATIONS 3,612 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Bryan W Karney on 15 May 2014.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to optimize the preliminary selection, sizing and placement of hydraulic devices in a pipeline
system in order to control its transient response. A global optimal solution is sought using both genetic algorithm 共GA兲 and particle swarm
optimization 共PSO兲 approaches involving an unknown combination of hydraulic devices to cope effectively with water hammer condi-
tions. In this exploratory study, three simple objective functions are considered: 共1兲 to minimize the maximum head; 共2兲 to maximize the
minimum head; and 共3兲 to minimize the difference between the maximum head and minimum head in the system. Several case studies are
tested numerically using different protection strategies. This study shows that the integration of a GA or PSO with a transient analysis
technique can improve the search for hydraulic protection devices in a pipe network. This study also shows that the selection of an
optimum protection strategy is an integrated problem, involving consideration of loading conditions, device and system characteristics,
and protection strategy. Significantly, simpler transient control strategies are often found to perform better than more complex ones.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9496共2006兲132:1共44兲
CE Database subject headings: Optimization; Transients; Pipelines; Protective structures; Hydraulics.
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
tage of these evolutionary algorithms is their ability to find the written as:
global optimum. In essence, in GA and other evolutionary strate- momentum equation
gies, a population of potential solutions explores the search space
f pV兩V兩
simultaneously, exchanging information from the trials and often Vt + gHx + =0 共1兲
using only functional values 共i.e., not derivatives兲 of the objective 2D p
function. A new 共and somewhat related兲 optimization method to continuity equation
GA is also discussed and applied in this paper. This method is
called a particle swarm optimization 共PSO兲 approach, and it uses a2
Ht + Vx = 0 共2兲
a “swarm intelligence” 共SI兲 technique 共Kennedy and Eberhart g
1995; Shi and Eberhart 1998, 1999; Kennedy and Eberhart 2001兲.
in which H = H共x , t兲 = piezometric head; V = V共x , t兲 = fluid velocity;
In this technique, the population of potential solutions is called a
D p = inside pipe diameter; f p = Darcy– Weisbach friction factor;
“swarm” and it explores the search space rather like a flock of a = celerity of the shock wave; and g = acceleration due to gravity.
intelligent birds might search for food. As in the GA approach, To be compatible, x and V must be positive in the same direction.
there is a global exchange of information between the individuals. Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 are generally applicable if the flow is one dimen-
Both the GA and the PSO approaches are proving to be efficient sional, the conduit properties 共diameter, wave speed, temperature,
algorithms for solving hard optimization engineering problems. etc.兲 are constant, the convective and slope terms are small, and
In this research, the optimum selection of hydraulic devices the friction force can be approximated by the Darcy–Weisbach
for water hammer control in a water distribution system is con- formula for steady flow.
sidered. Before exploring the numerical simulation, some essen- The popular method of characteristics 共MOC兲 is a simple and
tial background relating to transient analysis and pipeline optimi- numerically efficient way of solving the unsteady flow equations
zation considering transients is briefly described. Both a GA and a 共Wylie and Streeter 1993兲. In essence, the MOC combines the
PSO approach are then used to obtain an optimal selection of momentum and continuity expressions to form the following
hydraulic devices taking into account water hammer events in the compatibility equation in discharge Q and head H
system. Reliability issues like pipe failure are not directly in-
R
cluded in this paper but rather the system hydraulics, relating to dH ± BdQ ± Q兩Q兩dx = 0 共3兲
the maximum and minimum pressure, are applied to represent the ⌬x
system’s performance. The paper shows not only that the proper in which B = a / gA p where A p = cross-sectional area of the pipe;
protection approach is important to relieve water hammer, but that and R = f p⌬x / 2gD pA2p. Eq. 共3兲 is valid only along the so-called C+
the selections of basic pipe properties such as wall thickness or and C− characteristic lines defined by dx / dt = ± a. To satisfy these
pressure rating are influenced by transient considerations 共see also characteristic relations, the x-t grid is usually chosen to ensure
Jung and Karney 2004兲. In other words, system operation and ⌬x = ± a⌬t. Once initial conditions and the space-time grid have
design form an integrated set of interdependencies. been specified, Eq. 共3兲 can be integrated along characteristic lines
共Karney and McInnis 1992; Wylie and Streeter 1993兲. This
procedure is the one numerically adopted in this paper.
Transient Analysis of Pipeline Systems There are many applications of transient analysis in pipeline
systems. One of them is to estimate the worst-case events in the
A transient event disturbs the flow of water in a pipeline system water distribution system, which is often the starting point of a
transient study. If the protection strategy is well designed, the
and causes a short-term imbalance in the steady state flow equa-
combination of various transient events that creates the pressure
tions. This imbalance can only be accommodated within confines
force will dissipate; conversely, if poorly conceived, it could harm
of a pressurized flow system through the dramatic but subtle
or significantly damage the water distribution system. The tran-
forces of fluid compressibility and pipe extension. But, as water is
sient model can simulate the transient events in the pipeline sys-
not easily compressed, significant pressure forces result: pressures
tem and keep track of which set of conditions is worst from the
that are quickly established and rapidly propagate to other por-
point of view of the system’s transient response 共Filion and
tions of the system, communicating to them information about Karney 2002; Karney 2003兲.
change in flow and pressure. Through a complex process of pres-
sure and flow adjustments, the transient waves gradually decay
and the system gradually evolves to a more steady state. How- Optimization of Pipeline Systems
ever, the precise way the system comes into this new equilibrium,
often in a convoluted and jerking manner, is one that is sensitive Pipeline systems abound throughout the world and vary tremen-
to many of the physical characteristics of the system. Of course, dously in form, function, complexity, and cost. They are used to
this background is routine and well known. So too is the fact that transport a wide variety of fluids and slurries and may be subject
these transient events can be significant, with flow adjustments to radically different operating environments. It is not surprising
sometimes creating pressure changes that are large enough to then that a host of optimization techniques, some general and
fracture or weaken the pipe or its supports. Yet these events have others specific, have evolved in order to achieve economy of de-
consequences that are often forgotten or too little appreciated sign, construction, operation, and maintenance of these systems.
共Karney 2003兲. It would be difficult to list comprehensively all the methods em-
Two equations, a momentum equation and a relation of mass ployed to find near-optimal solutions to pipeline problems, but
conservation, are generally used to model transient flow in closed these methods range from linear and dynamic programming to the
conduits 共Wylie and Streeter 1993; Ghidaoui 2004兲. If x is dis- use of GAs. As representative researches, Anperovits and Shamir
tance along the centerline of the conduit, t is time, and partial 共1977兲 applied linear programming and Lansey and Mays 共1989兲
derivatives are represented as subscripts, these equations can be suggested using nonlinear programming to optimize component
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
sizing and the operational decisions arising in water distribution index; t = time index; j = location of surge protection devices;
systems. Simpson et al. 共1994兲 compared a GA approach to both k = size of the devices; S = available sizes of the devices; and
complete enumeration and nonlinear programming in the context L = available locations to install the devices, which are all nodes
of pipeline optimization. except the location of tanks and demands in the case study. Two
However, for the current purpose it suffices to say that most of hyperbolic partial differential equations in Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 are
the pipeline optimization methodology has been concerned with subject to initial conditions in Eq. 共8兲 and boundary conditions in
the optimization of systems under steady or nearly steady flow Eq. 共9兲, where C1, C2, and C3 = constants. Initial conditions are
conditions. Popular techniques have been used extensively in nu- typically taken as steady. Simple boundary conditions of constant-
merous variant forms to great advantage on the most complex of level reservoir and demand can be constant head and flow, respec-
systems but an obvious potential disadvantage to many methods tively, but combined relationships between H and Q are general
is that they may disregard operating conditions that are crucial to for most boundaries.
system integrity, safety, and performance. Moreover, the steady or
nearly steady techniques leave the critical choice of pipe wall
thickness 共that so largely influences the cost and strength of a Evolutionary Approaches to Optimization
pipeline兲 to an afterthought, or at best a suboptimization problem.
Despite this general neglect, a few optimization approaches
Evolutionary computation 共EC兲 algorithms provide solutions to
have considered transients. Laine and Karney 共1997兲 applied an
many hard optimization problems that are difficult to solve using
optimization scheme for a simple pipeline connecting a pump and
the traditional gradient based methods, as their nature may imply
a storage reservoir. A complete enumeration scheme as well as a
discontinuities of the search space, nondifferentiable objective
probabilistic selection procedure was incorporated with both tran-
functions, imprecise arguments, and function values 共Back et al.
sient and steady state analysis. Lingireddy et al. 共2000兲 show that
1997兲. The main advantage of these algorithms is the usage of a
a surge tank design model obtains an optimal set of decision
population of potential solutions that explore the search space
variables while satisfying a specified set of pressure constraints.
simultaneously, exchanging information among alternatives, and
The model was developed based on a bilevel optimization frame-
using only function values of the objective function. The EC al-
work and it employs a genetic algorithm in minimizing a nonlin-
gorithms often make it possible to provide global solutions to
ear objective function. The impact of transient conditions on the
many hard optimization problems.
question of diameter selection was considered in Jung and Karney
共2004兲.
Given a network system and a set of specified demands at Genetic Algorithm Approach
nodes, the optimal design of surge protection devices is defined
here by the set of devices which results in either maximizing the Probably the most well known and widely applied EC paradigm
minimum head or minimizing the maximum head. In order to take is the GA. According to GA theory, genetic operators, inspired by
both objectives into account, the goal of minimizing the differ- biological DNA evolution procedures, cause a population of so-
ence between the maximum head and minimum head is also se- lutions to evolve from it and thereby to explore the search space
lectively applied. The overall optimization problem can be stated efficiently. The GA approach does not require certain restrictive
mathematically as follows where one of the following three conditions 共e.g., continuity, differentiability to the second order,
objective functions is selected: etc.兲, properties that can seldom be guaranteed for water distribu-
tion problems, particularly under transient states.
min Hmax共i, j,k,t兲 共4兲 Since 1990, a number of researchers have applied the GA
where ∀i, ∀t technique to distribution system optimization problems. Rela-
tively comprehensive approaches for the use of genetic algorithm
max Hmin共i, j,k,t兲 共5兲 for steady state pipe network optimization have been developed
共Goldberg 1989; Simpson et al. 1994; Dandy et al. 1996;
where ∀i, ∀t
Montesinos et al. 1999兲. The specific goal of this paper is to
min兩Hmax共i, j,k,t兲 − Hmin共i, j,k,t兲兩 共6兲 develop a more comprehensive hydraulic devices optimization
model using GA, considering transient conditions.
where ∀i, ∀t subject to the governing transient Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲
and a set of algebraic constraints:
Particle Swarm Approach
H*min共i兲 艋 H共i,t兲 艋 H*max共i兲 共7兲
In the last decade, the research field of SI has arisen 共Kennedy
H共i,t兲 = C1, Q共i,t兲 = C2 共8兲 and Eberhart 1995兲. The SI argues that intelligent cognition de-
rives from the interaction of individuals in a social environment
where t = 0, ∀i
and that the main ideas of sociocognition can be effectively ap-
f共H共i,t兲,Q共i,t兲兲 = C3 , 共9兲 plied to develop stable and efficient algorithms for optimization
tasks 共Kennedy and Eberhart 2001兲.
where t ⬎ 0, i = boundary nodes The PSO technique is a SI technique developed by Kennedy
j苸L 共10兲 and Eberhart 共1995兲 and is mainly used for continuous optimiza-
tion tasks. In this technique, the population of potential solutions
共a “swarm”兲 explores the search space by simulating the move-
k苸S 共11兲
ment of a flock of birds searching for food. There is a global
where Hmax and Hmin = maximum and minimum predicted heads; exchange of information among all individuals or “particles,” and
H*max and H*min = maximum permissible heads 共say representing each particle can profit from the discoveries of the rest of the
pipe ratings or health concerns for negative pressures兲; i = node swarm. The PSO has been shown to be efficient in solving hard
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
optimization problems and engineering applications, including
neural network training and Human Tremor analysis 共Kennedy
and Eberhart 2001兲.
There are many variants of the PSO technique. In this paper, a
version of the algorithm derived by adding an inertial weight to
the original PSO dynamics has been used 共Shi and Eberhart
1998兲. Assuming that the search space is D-dimensional, we de-
note by Xi = 共xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xiD兲 the position of the ith particle of the
swarm and by Pi = 共pi1 , pi2 , . . . , piD兲 its historically best position in
the search space. Let g be the index of the best particle in the
swarm and Vi = 共vi1 , vi2 , . . . , viD兲 the velocity 共position change兲 of
the ith particle. The swarm is manipulated according to the equa-
tions as follows:
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Network Data
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Diameter Darcy–Weisbach Wave speed
number node node 共m兲 共m兲 friction factor 共m/s兲
1 1 2 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
2 2 3 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
3 3 4 400 0.5 0.04 1,000
4 4 5 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
5 5 6 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
6 2 7 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
7 7 8 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
8 3 8 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
9 3 9 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
10 9 10 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
11 10 11 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
12 4 11 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
13 9 14 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
14 11 14 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
15 14 15 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
16 15 16 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
17 15 17 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
18 7 12 400 0.5 0.04 1,000
19 8 13 400 0.5 0.04 1,000
20 12 13 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
21 12 18 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
22 13 20 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
23 18 19 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
24 19 20 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
25 20 21 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
26 19 22 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
27 18 23 200 0.5 0.04 1,000
28 21 22 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
29 22 23 100 0.5 0.04 1,000
Case 1: Two Surge Tanks 81.5 m 共a 35.8 m increase兲. Not surprisingly, given the small
search size, the solution converges rapidly to the final answer.
The relatively simple problem of sitting two surge tanks to relieve
the water hammer is first considered. The diameter of each surge
tank is 3 m and the length, Darcy friction factor, and diameter of Case 2: One Surge Tank and One Pressure Relief
an assumed connector pipe are 30 m, 0.04, and 0.1 m, respec- Valve
tively. The decision variables of GA and PSO are the locations of
two surge tanks. The objective function of GA and PSO is to Although effective, the tanks considered in Case 1 are expensive,
minimize the maximum head 关Fig. 3共a兲兴 and, in a second run, to and it is often cheaper to use pressure relief valves 共PRVs兲. The
maximize the minimum head 关Fig. 3共b兲兴 in the system. Although basic pipe system is the same as Case 1 except that one surge tank
the size of the search space is small enough to allow complete and one PRV replace the two surge tanks. The explicit algorithm
enumeration, this problem is optimized using both GA and PSO of PRV is derived from a general hydraulic element called an
for consistency with all case studies 共Cases 1–6兲. After only nine external energy dissipator 共Karney and McInnis 1992兲. The PRV
iterations, both GA and PSO solutions show the same result that operation or activation head is set at 180 m, the full opening area
the optimal locations of two surge tanks for both objectives are of PRV is 0.01 m2, and the opening and closing time are 2 and
Nodes 21 and 22, and the minimized maximum head is 252.8 m 30 s, respectively. The decision variables of GA and PSO are
共a 25.3 m improvement兲 and the maximized minimum head is simply the locations of one surge tank and one PRV. After only
ten iterations, the GA and PSO solutions again show the same
result that the optimal locations of the PRV and surge tank to
minimize the maximum head are Nodes 22 and 13, and the mini-
mized maximum head is 229.5 m. The optimal locations of the
PRV and surge tank to maximize the minimum head are Nodes 22
and 18, and the maximized minimum head is 76.2 m. Figs. 3共a
and b兲 show the convergence when minimizing the maximum
head and when maximizing the minimum head in the system for
Cases 1 and 2. Interestingly, the PRV is more efficient for mini-
Fig. 2. Optimization of hydraulic device in pipeline system mizing the maximum head than the surge tank. This is likely due
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 4. Evolution procedure for Cases 3, 4, and 5
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 6. Head trace at Node 21 共Cases 4 and 5兲 Fig. 7. Head trace at Node 21 with slow transient 共Case 6兲
In order to explore the impact of valve size on the transient re- Outcomes and Discussion
sponse, two PRVs with variable valve sizes are considered in this
test. Four possible PRV sizes are assumed 共0.005, 0.01, 0.015, Surge analysis is a complex topic and no attempt has been made
and 0.02 m2兲. The decision variables of GA and PSO are the here to be comprehensive. A more global and comprehensive ap-
locations and sizes of two PRVs. The objective function of GA proach would couple an economic evaluation of the protection
and PSO is to minimize the difference between the maximum system 共considering capital and operating costs兲 with an eco-
head and minimum head in the system; the resulting minimum nomic assessment of system performance 共taking into account the
difference is 166.4 m 共Fig. 4兲, a better outcome than that of Case cost of high and low pressures兲. Moreover, it would involve a
4. Both the GA and PSO approaches achieve the same solution, more complete range of surge protection strategies. The optimi-
specifically that the locations of PRVs are Node 20 with 0.005 m2 zation for a pipeline system may ultimately consider the transient
valve area and Node 22 with 0.01 m2 valve area and the maxi- characteristics 共operation speed兲 and system characteristics 共sys-
mum and minimum heads are 230.6 and 64.2 m, respectively. The tem topography, pipe size, material, and thickness兲, as well as
head trace at Node 21 in Fig. 6 shows, not surprisingly, that not transient protection devices. At present such an approach is diffi-
only is the transient with surge control devices improved from the cult since decision parameters are challenging to evaluate and
no protection case, but that the response for both the optimized enumerate as they cover a vast range of approaches. In this paper,
location and size of surge control devices 共Case 5兲 is better than although the case studies are limited to the transient protection
that for the optimized location only 共Case 4兲. devices and operation speed of transient event, they do suggest
certain tendencies.
Table 2 summarizes the surge control devices, objective func-
Case 6: Two Large Pressure Relief Valves and Two
tions, optimization method, converging iteration to the best solu-
Small Pressure Relief Valves with Milder Transient
tion, optimal locations, maximum, and minimum heads for each
Event
case study. The selection of hydraulic devices is clearly sensitive
One of the challenges of surge analysis, and indeed of many to the specific transient event assumed. Interestingly, some hy-
designs, is to select an appropriate design event 共or events兲. Up draulic devices actually deteriorate the water hammer response.
until now, we have used a simple and quite severe surge loading Several specific observations arise from the case study.
associated with simultaneously and suddenly arresting demand. 1. Various kinds of objective functions can be targeted for spe-
What impact would it make if this initiating event were better cific purposes. In this paper, three kinds of objective func-
controlled? This hints of the kind of impact a well-trained opera- tions are used: 共1兲 to minimize the maximum head; 共2兲 to
tor might have on the system, and thus points to the possibility of maximize the minimum head; and 共3兲 to minimize the differ-
external control of transient loading. ence between the maximum head and minimum head in the
The test condition is still the same as in Case 4 except that a system. In the case study, the objective functions to minimize
slower closing of the valve at Node 23 in 3 s is chosen to char- the maximum head and to maximize the minimum head pre-
acterize the transient performance of the system. The maximum dict a similar optimal location for hydraulic devices. There-
and minimum head without four PRVs are 194.7 m at 2.8 s 共Node fore, the objective function to minimize the difference be-
23兲 and 114.8 m at 6.0 s 共Node 21兲. The objective function of GA tween the maximum head and minimum head would
and PSO is to minimize the difference between the maximum and sometimes be a more logical selection to consider. Signifi-
minimum heads in the system and the minimum difference is cantly, at least in this case, any one of these choices effec-
74.3 m. After 50 iterations, GA and PSO show the same result, tively targets the transient envelope of the response and thus
namely that the optimal location of four PRVs is Node 22 with produces similar outcomes and decisions in the test system.
one small PRV only and the maximum head and minimum head Objectives could also be set to minimize various cost func-
are 184.2 and 109.9 m, respectively. Fig. 7 shows the head traces tions that treat pressure violations as penalty terms
at Node 21 with no surge control device and one small PRV. They 2. As optimization methods, GA and PSO are applied to mini-
show a more gradual and smooth head increase compared with mize the maximum head and maximize the minimum head in
the sudden valve closure; but the one with an optimized PRV the pipeline system. Both programs are population-based sto-
shows a further attenuated response, indicating the more con- chastic optimization approaches and show similar evolution
trolled nature of the system’s reaction. in their quest to obtain the optimal location, size, and number
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. Summary of Case Studies
Maximum Minimum
Objective Number to Optimal location head head
Case Protection function Method convergencea 共node兲 共m兲 共m兲
None 共rapid transient兲 278.0 45.7
1 Two surge tanks Minimum Hmax GA 3 21, 22 252.8 81.5
PSO 9
Maximum Hmin GA 3 21, 22 252.8 81.5
PSO 6
2 One surge tank, Minimum Hmax GA 2 22 共PRV兲 229.5 72.5
one PRV PSO 10 13 共surge tank兲
Maximum Hmin GA 7 22 共PRV兲 231.7 76.2
PSO 6 18 共surge tank兲
3 Three PRVs Minimum GA 3 21 234.2 63.7
Hmax − Hmin PSO 22 共one PRV only兲
4 Two large PRVs, Minimum GA 4 22 229.3 55.6
two small PRVs Hmax − Hmin 共one large PRV only兲
PSO 30 21, 22 234.4 65.0
共two small PRVs only兲
5 Two PRVs Minimum GA 10 20共0.005 m2兲 230.6 64.2
共variable size兲 Hmax − Hmin PSO 9 22共0.01 m2兲
of hydraulic devices. In order to use consistent parameters water quality problem. Selecting both the optimal number
for all case studies, the population size and the number of and size of hydraulic devices is crucial to creating the best
iterations for both GA and PSO are fixed at 20 and 50. The water hammer protection.
corresponding number of evaluations is greater than the total 5. Not surprisingly, the case study shows that the selection of
numbers of combinations for Cases 1 and 2; thus Fig. 3 hydraulic devices to prevent water hammer is sensitive to the
shows rapid convergence within 3–10 iterations 共60–200 nature of the transient condition or loading considered. If a
evaluations兲. After 50 iterations, both approaches show the fixed number of devices are forced into the solution, such as
same optimal result except for Case 4. In this one case, the by using a given number of relief valves, the transient re-
GA shows a minimum difference of 173.7 m with one large sponse often deteriorates.
PRV 共0.02 m2兲 while the PSO solution shows a slightly bet- 6. Overall, it is clear that a suitable selection of hydraulic de-
ter result of 169.4 m with two small PRVs 共0.005 m2兲 only. It vices is crucial if water hammer pressure is to be effectively
is difficult to say generally which approach performs better controlled.
because each optimization method has its own characteristics
with different operators; however, when the same population
size and number of iterations are applied in the case studies,
the PSO has tended to discover a better solution, although
Conclusions
with slower convergence, than the GA approach.
3. After several iterations, Fig. 4 of Cases 3 and 4 shows that This paper optimizes the selection and location of hydraulic pro-
the minimum fitness decreases rapidly by about 20 m. This tection devices considering transients in water distribution net-
behavior suggests a high sensitivity to the “location” gene, works. The evolutionary approaches of genetic algorithm and par-
and thus that an improper location of hydraulic devices could ticle swarm optimization are used as optimization methods to
be useless or even harmful to the transient response. Clearly obtain the location, size, and number of hydraulic devices in a
this locational sensitivity represents a challenging criterion pipeline system. Both optimization programs, inspired by natural
when facing a range of forcing events in complex systems. evolution and adaptation, show excellent performance for solving
4. In Cases 3 and 4, having more PRVs actually caused a more moderately complex real-world problems. In this application,
severe minimum head in the system; having only one PRV at both approaches show similar evolution histories and optimal re-
the ideal location showed superior protection for water ham- sults. A set of case studies shows that reckless installation of
mer in this system. Particularly, Cases 5 and 6 showed that a protection devices can be ineffective for relieving water hammer
large PRV is sometimes worse than a small one, since the events, and may even degrade system response. The proper size,
valve operation itself could deteriorate the system’s response. location, and number of hydraulic devices to prevent water ham-
These studies show an ill-advised hydraulic protection sys- mer are highly dependent on the transient condition and the spe-
tem itself could cause negative pressures and thus is capable cific characteristics of the system being considered. The optimal
of introducing contamination into a pipeline, thus creating a selection of hydraulic devices is not only crucial to system per-
Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
formance and reliability, but also effective in decreasing costs. Karim, M. R., Abbaszadegan, M., and Lechevallier, M. 共2003兲. “Potential
Even though evolutionary approaches show excellent perfor- for pathogen intrusion during pressure transient.” J. Am. Water Works
mance for reasonably complicated systems, they also have several Assoc., 95共5兲, 134–146.
disadvantages including an often-noted slow final convergence. Karney, B. W. 共2003兲. “Future challenges in the design and modeling of
However, one of the desirable characteristics of the evolutionary water distribution systems.” Proc., Pumps, Electromechanical
computational approaches is that they are easy to hybridize with Devices and Systems (PEDS) 2003 Conf., Valencia, Spain.
other optimization strategies. Quick convergence of a local search Karney, B. W., and McInnis, D. 共1992兲. “Efficient calculation of transient
method would help to increase the overall convergence speed of flow in simple pipe networks.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118共7兲, 1014–1030.
the evolutionary computation. Hybridization of evolutionary com- Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. C. 共1995兲. “Particle swarm optimization.”
putation with local search methods is an attractive subject for Proc., 4th IEEE Int. Conf. on Neural Networks, Piscataway, N.J.,
future work. 1942–1948.
Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. C. 共2001兲. Swarm intelligence, Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco.
References Laine, D. A., and Karney, B. W. 共1997兲. “Transient analysis and optimi-
zation in pipeline—a numerical exploration.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on
Anperovits, E., and Shamir, U. 共1977兲. “Design of optimal water distri- Water Pipeline Systems, Hague, Netherlands, 281–296.
bution systems.” Water Resour. Res., 13共6兲, 885–900. Lansey, K. E., and Mays, L. W. 共1989兲. “Optimization model for water
Back, T., Fogel, D. B., Michalewicz, Z., and Baeck, T. 共1997兲. Handbook distribution system design.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 115共10兲, 1401–1418.
Lingireddy, S., Funk, J. E., and Wang, H. 共2000兲. “Genetic algorithms in
of evolutionary computation, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol,
Philadelphia. optimizing transient suppression devices.” Proc., 2000 Joint Conf. on
Boulos, P. F., Lansey, K. E., and Karney, B. W. 共2004兲. Comprehensive Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and
water distribution systems analysis handbook for engineers and plan- Management, ASCE, Reston, Va.
ners, MWH SOFT, Inc., Pasadena, Calif. Montesinos, P., Garcia-Guzman, A., and Ayuso, J. L. 共1999兲. “Water dis-
Carroll, D. L. 共1999兲. “FORTRAN genetic algorithm driver.” 具http:// tribution network optimization using a modified genetic algorithm.”
cuaerospace.com/carroll/ga.html典. Water Resour. Res., 35共11兲, 3467–3473.
Dandy, G. C., Simpson, A. R., and Murphy, L. J. 共1996兲. “An improved Shi, Y. H., and Eberhart, R. C. 共1998兲. “A modified particle swarm
genetic algorithm for pipe network optimization.” Water Resour. Res., optimizer.” Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. on Evolutionary Computation,
32共2兲, 449–458. Piscataway, N.J., 69–73.
Filion, Y. R., and Karney, B. W. 共2002兲. “Extended-period analysis with
Shi, Y. H., and Eberhart, R. C. 共1999兲. “Empirical study of particle swarm
a transient model.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 128共6兲, 616–624.
Ghidaoui, M. S. 共2004兲. “On the fundamental equations of water optimization.” Proc., 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation,
hammer.” Urban Water, 1共2兲, 71–83. Piscataway, N.J., 1945–1950.
Goldberg, D. E. 共1989兲. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and Simpson, A. R., Dandy, G. C., and Murphy, L. J. 共1994兲. “Genetic algo-
machine learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. rithms compared to other techniques for pipe optimization.” J. Water
Jung, B. S., and Karney, B. W. 共2004兲. “Fluid transients and pipeline Resour. Plan. Manage., 120共4兲, 423–443.
optimization using GA and PSO: The diameter connection.” Urban Wylie, E. B., and Streeter, V. L. 共1993兲. Fluid transients in systems,
Water, 1共2兲, 167–176. Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
View publication stats Downloaded 13 Feb 2009 to 128.100.14.31. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright