Single-objective deterministic versus multi-objective stochastic water network design: Practical considerations for the water industry

The strategy in single-objective deterministic water network design is to size and locate components to minimize capital cost and meet future peak demands at or above a minimum pressure. Increasingly, practitioners are turning to multi-objective stochastic design to balance the minimum-cost objective with hydraulic performance objectives. The aim of the current paper is to review single-objective deterministic and multi-objective stochastic network design and discuss practical considerations concerning their advantages and disadvantages of relevance to water industry professionals and practitioners. Key differences in data and computational requirements, comprehensiveness of analysis, and decision flexibility between the two approaches are illustrated with a complex, hypothetical network example. A Monte-Carlo simulation program was used to solve the multi-objective stochastic problem and generate a set of Pareto or near-Pareto solutions with pipe cost ranging between $9.3 and $17.4 million and hydraulic robustness ranging between 65.8 and 96.4 per cent. Results indicated a non-linear relationship between pipe cost and robustness typical of many systems and that a large premium must be paid to achieve marginal improvements in robustness beyond a value of 90 per cent. The MCS program was run for 30.6 h to test the hypothetical network against a broad range of demands to ensure a high level of hydraulic robustness. The Pareto curve allows the decision maker the opportunity to quickly assess trade-offs between pipe cost and robustness.

[1]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Least-Cost Design of Water Distribution Networks , 1997 .

[2]  Zoran Kapelan,et al.  An Efficient Sampling-Based Approach for the Robust Rehabilitation of Water Distribution Systems Under Correlated Nodal Demands , 2005 .

[3]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Evolutionary multi-objective optimization of the design and operation of water distribution network: total cost vs. reliability vs. water quality , 2006 .

[4]  Ezio Todini,et al.  Looped water distribution networks design using a resilience index based heuristic approach , 2000 .

[5]  Bryan W. Karney,et al.  Stochastic Design of Water Distribution Systems with Expected Annual Damages , 2007 .

[6]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Trade-off between Total Cost and Reliability for Anytown Water Distribution Network , 2005 .

[7]  Thomas M. Walski,et al.  The Wrong Paradigm—Why Water Distribution Optimization Doesn't Work , 2001 .

[8]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Fuzzy Rules for Hydraulic Reliability-Based Design and Operation of Water Distribution Systems , 2005 .

[9]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization for the Least-Cost Design of Water Distribution System Under Correlated Uncertain Parameters , 2005 .

[10]  Zoran Kapelan,et al.  Least-Cost Design of Water Distribution Networks under Demand Uncertainty , 2005 .

[11]  E. Downey Brill,et al.  Optimization of Looped Water Distribution Systems , 1981 .

[12]  Z Kapelan,et al.  Risk- and robustness-based solutions to a multi-objective water distribution system rehabilitation problem under uncertainty . , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  Larry W. Mays,et al.  Water Distribution System Design Under Uncertainties , 1989 .

[14]  I. C. Goulter,et al.  An integrated approach to the layout and design of water distribution networks , 1985 .

[15]  Larry W. Mays,et al.  Battle of the network models: Epilogue , 1987 .

[16]  G. V. Loganathan,et al.  Pipe Network Optimization , 1998 .

[17]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation: NSGA-II , 2000, PPSN.

[18]  D. Aklog,et al.  Reliability-based optimal design of water distribution networks , 2003 .