assessing the impact of alternative pipe groupings on multi-objective water distribution network...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing the Impact of Alternative Pipe Groupings on
Multi-Objective Water Distribution Network
Masoud Asadzadeh
Bryan Tolson
OutlineOutline
ObjectivesProblem DescriptionCalibration Problem SetupOptimization AlgorithmsNumerical ExperimentResults and DiscussionMain Findings
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 2
ObjectivesObjectives
• Assessing the impact of reducing the number of decision variables on the quality of model calibration results
• Comparing PA-DDS and ε-NSGAII across a range of computational budgets
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 3
Problem DescriptionProblem Description
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 4
DMA1
DMA2
DMA3
DMA4
DMA5
The problem is simplified from the Battle 2010 and needs the Calibration of:Roughness Coefficients of 429 pipes (there could be some partially closed pipes in DMA2)Demand Pattern Multipliers of 5 DMAs
Source
Pumping Station S1
Tank T1
T7
T2
T3
T5 T4
T6
S2
S4
S5
S3
The perfect EPANET2 input file and perfect observed data are taken from Ostfeld et al. (in press).
Pipes and DPMs are grouped:
1. Full Calibration Model with 3232 decision variables:a) Pipes in each DMA are grouped based on their size + 3 groups of pipes to
make the partially closed pipes identifiable 2727 Decision Variables
b) Each DMA has its own DPM 55 Decision Variables
2. Reduced Calibration Model with 77 decision variables:a) Pipes are grouped based on their age 3 groups of pipes to make the partially
closed pipes identifiable 66 Decision Variable
b) All DMAs has the same DPM 11 Decision Variable
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 5
Calibration Problem SetupCalibration Problem Setup
Calibration Problem Setup Calibration Problem Setup (cont’d)
EPANET2 toolkit and a MATLAB code are linked to:a) Modify the EPANET2 input file by changing pipe roughness coefficients
and demand pattern multipliers based on decision variable values of each solution
b) Simulate the modified input file
c) Return the desired simulated data points for:1. Tank levels and Pumping Station flows at the end of Hour1
2. Static Pressure
3. Fire Flow Test (FFT) Pressure
4. FFT flow
d) Objective functions are :1. SSRE Hour1
2. SSRE FFT
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 6
Optimization Algorithm: Pareto Archive Optimization Algorithm: Pareto Archive Dynamically Dimensioned Search Dynamically Dimensioned Search
(Asadzadeh and Tolson 2009)
Perturb current ND solution
Update ND solutions
Continue?STOP
New solution is ND?
Pick the New solution
Pick a ND solution
Initialize starting solutions
YYNN
Create ND-solution set
YYNN
7
Optimization Algorithm: Optimization Algorithm: εε-NSGAII-NSGAII(Kollat and Reed 2005)
8
• A variant of NSGAII with a modified solution archiving scheme:– Discretize the objective space into grid cells with the size of
epsilon (ε)– Archives at most a single solution in each grid cell– Archives a new solution only if it:
• Dominates a previously archived solutions or • Corresponds to a vacant grid cell
Numerical Experiment & Numerical Experiment & Results ComparisonResults Comparison
• Apply PA-DDS and ε-NSGAII to both full and reduced calibration problems:– With limited (1,0001,000) and large (10,00010,000) computational Budgets– In multiple independent trials (1010)
• Compare the aggregated results of reduced and full models
• Compare PA-DDS and ε-NSGAII in both limited and large computational budgets
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 9
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
SS
RE
Hou
r 1
SSRE Fire Flow Test
Full C-Town
Reduced C-Town
Comparing Final Calibration Results of Comparing Final Calibration Results of Full and Reduced Models Full and Reduced Models (aggregated tradeoffs after 220,000 solution evaluaitons)
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 10
Hour 1Hour 1 Tank Levels (m) Pumping Flow (lps)Data Point T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5Measured 2.82 0.72 3.51 2.76 1.56 5.46 2.99 192 33 48 35 30
Sim. (Full Model) 2.82 0.72 3.51 2.76 1.571.57 5.45 2.99 192 33 48 35 30
Sim. (Reduced Model) 2.802.80 0.730.73 3.503.50 2.842.84 1.571.57 5.405.40 2.932.93 188188 33 48 3636 30
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 11
Static Pressure (m)Static Pressure (m) DMA1 DMA2 DMA3 DMA4 DMA5
Measured 65 66 64 62 24 77 95 85 70 75 87 80 27Sim. (Full Model) 65 66 64 62 2323 77 95 85 70 75 87 80 27Sim. (Reduced Model) 65 66 64 6161 2323 77 95 85 70 75 8686 7777 27
Comparing Final Calibration Results of Comparing Final Calibration Results of Full and Reduced ModelsFull and Reduced Models
(Detailed Evaluation of Selected Solutions)
FFT Flow (lps)FFT Flow (lps) DMA1 DMA2 DMA3 DMA4 DMA5
Measured 247 228 58 50 54 28 48 12 34 38 37 45Sim. (Full Model) 249 228 58 50 54 28 48 12 34 38 37 45Sim. (Reduced Model) 241241 222222 5959 4949 5353 28 4949 12 3636 38 3838 45
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 12
FFT Pressure (m)FFT Pressure (m) DMA1 DMA2 DMA3 DMA4 DMA5
Measured 50 51 48 49 12 53 65 55 39 63 58 58 22Sim. (Full Model) 50 51 48 49 12 53 65 55 39 63 58 58 22Sim. (Reduced Model) 4949 51 48 49 12 5252 6464 5454 39 6161 58 58 22
Comparing Final Calibration Results of Comparing Final Calibration Results of Full and Reduced ModelsFull and Reduced Models
(Detailed Evaluation of Selected Solutions cont’d)
Comparing Calibration Problem DifficultyComparing Calibration Problem Difficulty
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 13
0
0.0025
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
SS
RE
Hou
r1
SSRE Fire Flow Test
A) Full C-Town Calibration ProblemPA-DDS_10000eNSGAII_10000PA-DDS_1000eNSGAII_1000
0
0.0025
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
SS
RE
Hou
r1
SSRE Fire Flow Test
B) Reduced C-Town Calibration ProblemPA-DDS_10000
eNSGAII_10000
PA-DDS_1000
eNSGAII_1000
Comparing MO Algorithm PerformanceComparing MO Algorithm Performance
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 14
0
0.0025
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
SS
RE
Hou
r1
SSRE Fire Flow Test
A) PA-DDSFull 10000Reduced 10000Full 1000Reduced 1000
0
0.0025
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
SS
RE
Hou
r1
SSRE Fire Flow Test
B) eNSGAIIFull 10000Reduced 10000Full 1000Reduced 1000
Main Findings
• Reducing the number of decision variables would:– Make the calibration problem easier to solve– Reduce the quality of calibrated model significantly
• Both optimization algorithms found high quality results of the full model even with limited budget, but PA-DDS performed slightly better
It is recommended to not reduce the number of decision variables only due to the limited computational budget.
Also, if a stochastic optimization algorithm is used, it is recommended to have multiple optimization trials and aggregate the results.
WDSA2012, Adelaide, South Australia, Sept. 24-27 15