optimal layout of sanitary sewer systems - semantic · pdf file5 et al. [27] used ga and tabu...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Layout and size optimization of sanitary sewer network using intelligent
ants
R. Moeinia, M. H. Afsharb
a (corresponding author) PhD Student, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of
Science and Technology, P.O. 16765-163, Narmak, Tehran, Iran, E-mail:
[email protected], Tel: 0098-9196201603, Fax: 0098-21-77240398.
b Associate professor, School of Civil Engineering & Enviro-hydroinformatic Center of
Excellence, Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. 16765-163, Narmak,
Tehran, Iran, E-mail : [email protected], Tel: 0098-21-77240097-, Fax: 0098-21-
77240398.
Abstract
The incremental solution building capability of ant algorithm is exploited in this paper for
the efficient layout and pipe size optimization of sanitary sewer network. Layout and pipe
size optimization of sewer networks requires that the pipe locations, pipe diameters and
pipe slopes are optimally determined. This problem is a highly constrained mixed-integer
nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem presenting a challenge even to the modern
heuristic search methods. In this paper, the Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (ACOA)
is equipped with a Tree Growing Algorithm (TGA) to efficiently solve the sewer network
layout and size optimization problem and its performance is compared with the
conventional application of the ACOA. The method is based on the assumption that a
2
base layout including all possible links of the network is available. The TGA is used to
construct feasible tree-like layouts out of the base layout defined for the sewer network,
while the ACOA is used to optimally determine the pipe diameters of the constructed
layout. An assumption of sewer flow at maximum allowable relative depth is made
allowing for the calculation of the optimal pipe slopes in the absence of any pump and
drop in the network. Two different formulations are, therefore, proposed and their
performances are tested against hypothetical problems. In the first formulation, ACOA is
used in a conventional manner for pipe size optimization while an ad-hoc engineering
concept for the layout determination. In the second formulation, however, ACOA
equipped with TGA is used to simultaneously determine both the layout and pipe sizes of
the network. Proposed formulations are used to solve three hypothetical test examples of
different scales and the results are presented and compared. The results indicate the
ability of the proposed method to optimally solve the problem of layout and size
determination of sewer networks.
Key works: Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm, Tree Growing Algorithm, sanitary
sewer network, layout, pipe size.
1. Introduction
Networks are an important part of any society. Physical networks such as gas pipelines,
sewer collection networks, water distribution systems, electricity and telecommunication
grids are only some examples of these networks. Construction of these networks is very
costly mainly due to cost of the large number of components they are composed of and
the operations required for their constructions. A relatively small change in the
3
component and construction cost of these networks, therefore, leads to a huge saving.
Considerable researches have been focused on developing useful optimization techniques
for optimal design of such networks in recent years.
The network design optimization problem has appeared in many fields of applications
and solved with various optimization methods. A general network design optimization
problem includes two sub-problems of design of optimal layout (location) and design of
optimal size of network components. These sub-problems are strongly coupled and,
therefore, can not be solve separately if an optimal solution to the whole problem is
required. Due to the complex nature of the problem, however, most of the research in the
field is carried out on either layout determination or component sizing [25]. Some
researchers have addressed the joint layout and size optimization of networks with a
particular emphasis on the water distribution networks. For example, Martin [28]
developed a Dynamic Programming (DP) model for the joint layout and pipe size
optimization of branched water distribution networks. Morgan and Goulter [30]
developed a model that used two linked Linear Programming (LP) sub-models to find
least-cost solution for the problem of optimal layout and size of looped water distribution
systems. Jabbari and Afshar [21] applied Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) for
layout and size optimization of a water supply line. Lejano [25] used MILP to
simultaneously solve the problem of optimal layout and pipe size design of a branching
water distribution system. Cembrowicz [12] combined Genetic Algorithm (GA) and LP
for water distribution network design optimization problem in which GA determined the
optimal layout and LP determined the least-cost pipe diameters. Hassanli and Dandy [19]
developed a GA model for layout and size optimization of a branched pipe networks.
4
Afshar [1] used Max–Min Ant System (MMAS) for joint layout and pipe size
optimization of pipe networks. Afshar and Marino [3] applied ACOA for layout
optimization of tree pipe networks. Afshar [5] applied GA for simultaneous layout and
pipe size optimization of looped water distribution networks. More recently, Afshar [7]
used ACOAs for the optimal layout and size design of the branched pipe networks.
Sanitary sewer network as one of the physical networks is essential structure of any urban
area. Urban areas without an effective sanitary sewer networks may encounter many
problems, such as public health threats and environmental damages. Having a suitable
and cost-effective sewer network is normally interpreted as finding solution for sewer
network design optimization problem that minimizes infrastructural cost, without
violating operational requirements. The cost of construction a sewer system can be
significantly reduced if the system configuration (layout), pipe diameters and pipe slopes
can be effectively optimized.
Most of the works for the optimal design of sewer networks, however, are restricted to
the optimal design of the component size. For example, Walsh and Brown [34],
Templeman and Walters [33], Yen et al. [36], Kulkarni and Khanna [24], Botrous et al.
[11] and Diogo et al. [15] used DP to solve sewer design optimization problem. Desher
and Davis [13] developed a model named Sanitary Sewer Design (SSD) to find the least
cost solution of a sanitary sewer network. Elimam et al. [16] developed a model that
combined LP and a heuristic approach for optimal design of large-scale storm water
networks. GA was used to find the least-cost solution for storm network design
optimization problem by Heaney et al. [20]. Swamee [32] solved the sewer line design
optimization problem by iterative application of the Lagrange-multiplier method. Liang
5
et al. [27] used GA and Tabu Search (TS) for optimal design of sewer networks. Guo [17]
proposed a sewer design model using Cellular Automata (CA) concept for the design of
storm sewers networks. Guo et al. [18] proposed a hybrid sewer design model by
combining GA and CA for sewer network design optimization problem. Afshar et al. [4]
applied GA for storm sewer design optimization problem. Afshar [6] proposed partially
constrained ACOA and applied it to storm sewer network design. Izquierdo et al. [23]
used Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm for optimal design of wastewater
collection networks. Pan and Kao [31] developed a model that combined a GA with a
Quadratic Programming (QP) model to solve sewer system design optimization problem.
Afshar [2] used Continuous Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (CACOA) for optimal
component sizing of storm sewer networks proposing constrained and unconstrained
approach.
Only a few researchers have addressed the problem of layout and in particular the joint
layout and size optimization of sewer networks. For example, Argaman et al. [10], Mays
and Wenzel [29] used DP for the optimal design of the gravity sewer network with a
single outlet using a simplifying assumption that for every pipe of the network the
direction of flow was fixed. Therefore, their methods are only suitable to very ideal cases
where natural topography is inclined in only one way to the outlet. Walters [35] also used
DP for layout and size optimization of the sewer networks which could be used to drain a
set of sources with fixed positions. Li and Matthew [26] proposed a nested approach for
the optimization of urban drainage systems in which a searching direction method used
for the layout determination and a Discrete Differential Dynamic Programming (DDDP)
for the optimal component sizing of any given layout, requiring very high computational
6
effort. Jang [22] used DDDP to develop a model for design of optimal layout of urban
storm sewer network neglecting the component sizing part of the problem. Recently,
Diogo and Graveto [14] developed a comprehensive enumeration model and a Simulated
Annealing (SA) model for the layout and component size optimization of sewer networks.
In this paper, the Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (ACOA) is equipped with a Tree
Growing Algorithm (TGA) to efficiently solve the sewer network layout and size
optimization problem and its performance is compared with the conventional application
of the ACOA. The method is based on the assumption that a base layout including all
possible links of the network is available. The TGA is used to construct feasible tree-like
layouts out of the base layout defined for the sewer network, while the ACOA is used to
optimally determine the pipe diameters of the constructed layout. An assumption of
sewer flow at maximum allowable relative depth is made allowing for the calculation of
the optimal pipe slopes in the absence of any pump and drop in the network. Two
different formulations are, therefore, proposed and their performances are tested against a
hypothetical problem. In the first formulation, ACOA is used in a conventional manner
for pipe size optimization while an ad-hoc engineering concept for the layout
determination. In the second formulation, however, ACOA equipped with TGA is used to
simultaneously determine both the layout and pipe sizes of the network. Proposed
formulations are used to solve three hypothetical test examples of different scales and the
results are presented and compared. The results indicate the ability of the proposed
method to optimally solve the problem of layout and size determination of sewer
networks.
7
2. Sanitary Sewer System Design
Sanitary sewer system consists of sewer pipes, manholes, pumping stations, and other
appurtenances. The system is used to collect and transport wastewater by gravity from
house to wastewater treatment plants through pipes and manholes of the network. The
design of a sewer system consists of generating an adapted sanitary sewer network layout
that conforms to population served, street layout and local topography of the planning
area, and performing hydraulic design to find pipe sizes, excavation depths and other
hydraulic and design parameters of the specific layout. The problem of finding the best
layout and hydraulic design of sanitary sewer network is a complex task that cannot be
performed without using optimization techniques considering the vast number of
alternatives for the location of the pipes, their size and other components of the sewer
network. The design process of sewer system may be divided into two phases: (1)
Selection of optimal layout, (2) Optimal hydraulic design of the network components.
Determination of the location of pipes or layout of a sanitary sewer system is of great
importance because it serves as the foundation of the hydraulic design and, therefore,
influences the final cost of the network.
The problem of joint layout and component size determination of a sanitary sewer
network as a collection of pipes connected with manholes, here without any pump and
drop, can be mathematically defined as determining the pipe connections, diameter and
cover depth of each pipe such that the network construction cost is minimized:
M
m
mm
N
l
llpl hKEdKLCMinimize11
)(),( (1)
8
Where, C= cost function of sanitary sewer network; N= total number of sewer pipes; M=
total number of manholes; lL the length of pipe l (l=1,…., N); pK = the unit cost of
sewer pipe provision and installation defined as a function of its diameter (d1) and
average cover depth (l
E ); and mK = the cost of manhole construction as a function of
manhole height ( mh ).
Subject to the topological and hydraulic constraints as follows:
1- Cover depth: It is necessary to have adequate cover depth for sewer pipes for three
reasons: (1) To provide protection against imposed loads, particularly vehicle loads, (2)
To allow an adequate fall on house connections, and (3) To reduce the possibility of
cross-contamination of water mains by making sure that, wherever possible, sewer pipes
are located below water mains. Normally, these conditions are met by requiring that the
average cover depth of a sewer pipe be within a range defined by maximum and
minimum cover depth defined as:
NlEEE l ,.....,1maxmin (2)
Where, Emin= minimum cover depth of sewer pipe; Emax = maximum cover depth of
sewer pipe; l
E = average cover depth of sewer pipe l; and N = total number of network
pipes.
2- Sewer flow velocity: When designing a sewer network, it is important to ensure that
sewer pipes will be capable of conveying sewer flow with a velocity which does not
exceed the maximum allowable velocity to prevent pipe erosion. Also, the sewer flow
velocity should be greater than the self-cleaning velocity at least once a day to prevent
solids form being deposited on the bottom of the pipe. These constraints may be
formulated as:
9
NlVV
VV
cleanl
l
,.....,1*
max
(3)
Where, lV = flow velocity of pipe l at the design flow; *
lV = the maximum flow velocity
of pipe l at the beginning of the operation; Vclean= self-cleaning flow velocity of sewer;
and Vmax = maximum allowable flow velocity of sewer.
3- Minimum sewer pipe slope: Minimum slope should be considered for sewer pipe to
avoid adverse slope caused by inaccurate construction or settlement. This constraint may
be formulated as:
NlSSl ,.....,1min (4)
Where, lS = slope of the sewer pipe l; and minS = minimum sewer pipe slope which is
usually considered as a very small positive slope.
4- Maximum and minimum relative flow depth: These constraints are used to avoid
pressurized flow and deposition of the solids in the sewer pipes defined as:
Nld
y
l
,.....,1maxmin
(5)
Where, ld diameter of sewer pipe l; ly = sewer flow depth in pipe l; max = maximum
allowable relative flow depth; andmin = minimum allowable relative flow depth.
5- Commercial pipe diameters: The sewer pipe should be selected form a set of
commercially available sewer pipe diameters defined as:
Nld l ,.....,1d (6)
Where, ld diameter of sewer pipe l; and d = discrete set of commercially available
sewer pipe diameters.
10
6- partially-full pipe condition: Conduits that are used for conveying sewer flows are
designed to operate in partially-full pipe conditions to avoid pressurized flow condition.
Several equations are generally used to evaluate the hydraulic parameters of sewer
network. In this paper, Manning’s equation is used to find hydraulic parameters such as
velocity distribution defined as:
NlSRAn
Q llll ,.....,11
21
32
(7)
Where, lQ = discharge of sewer pipe l; lA = wetted cross section area of sewer pipe l;
lR = hydraulic radius of the sewer pipe l; n = Manning constant; and lS = slope of the
sewer pipe l.
7- Progressive pipe diameters: For each pipe, the leaving sewer pipe diameter can not
be smaller than anyone of the converging sewer pipes diameter defined as:
Nld ll ,.....,1 d (8)
Where, ld diameter of sewer pipe l; and dl = set of upstream pipe diameters of pipe l.
8- Branched layout: The sewer networks are designed such that the flow of the sewer in
the system is due to gravity requiring that the networks have a branched layout. For this,
information regarding the topography of the areas considered for design of the network
such as: layout of the streets, the wastewater treatment plants and existing subsystems are
collected and used to define the generic locations of the sewer network components.
Normally, definition of sewer network components leads to a connected undirected graph
often referred to as the base layout containing all possible looped and branched layout
configurations. The graph vertices (nodes) represent the fixed position manholes, outlet
11
locations or treatment plants while graph edges represent the sewer pipes excited between
manholes or manholes and outlets or wastewater treatment plants [14].
In the form of arborescent structure, the sewer pipe configuration should be branched
defined by a set of root nodes and a number of non-root nodes and edges located between
nodes. The root nodes represent the outlets or the treatment plants, the non-root nodes
represent the system manholes, and the edges define the pipes of the sewer network. In an
arborescent structure, only one edge leaves from each node. This limitation governs the
layout determination of sewer networks which can be mathematically defined as:
KjiXX jiij ,......,1,1 (9)
KiXiN
j
ij ,.....,111
(10)
Where, ijX a binary variable with a value of 1 for each pipe l with a flow direction
from node i to node j and zero otherwise; iN the number of pipe connected to node i
and K= the total number of nodes.
This constraint has to be augmented with the continuity requirement at each node i of the
network defined as:
KiQXQXii N
j
lijl
N
j
ji ,.....,1011
(11)
Where, lQ the discharge of pipe l considered between node i and node j.
The sewer network design problem formulated above is clearly a Mixed Integer
Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) which can not be solved using conventional method.
The complexity of the problem is mostly due to the constraints 9 to 11 requiring a
systematic and efficient method to enforce them if an optimal solution is required.
12
3. Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (ACOA)
In the ACOA a colony of artificial ants cooperate to find good solutions to discrete
optimization problems. Application of the ACOA to any combinatorial optimization
problem requires that the problem can be projected on a graph [8]. Consider a graph G =
(D,L,C) in which D= n21 d,....,d,d is the set of decision points at which some decisions
are to be made, L= ijl is the set of options j=1, 2,…,J at each of the decision points
i=1,2,…,n and finally C= ijc is the set of costs associated with options L=
ijl . The
components of sets D and L may be constrained if required. A solution is found by
constructing a path on the problem graph.
The basic steps of the ACOA may be defined as follows [8]:
1- The total number of ants, m, in the colony is chosen and the amount of pheromone trail
on all options L= ijl are initialized to some proper value.
2- Starting from an arbitrary or pre-selected decision point i, ant k is required to build a
solution by selecting from available options using the following transition rule:
J
j
ijij
ijij
ij
t
ttkp
1
][)]([
][)]([),(
(12)
Where, ),( tkpij = the probability that the ant k selects option j of the ith decision point,
ijl , at iteration t; )t(ij = the concentration of pheromone on option ijl at iteration t;
)(1
ijij c is the heuristic value representing the local cost of choosing option j at point i,
and and are two parameters that control the relative weight of pheromone trail and
13
heuristic value referred to as pheromone and heuristic sensitivity parameters, respectively.
3- Once the option at the current decision point is selected, the ant k moves to the next
decision point and a solution is incrementally created by the ant k as it moves from one
decision point to the next one. This procedure is repeated until all decision points of the
problem are covered and a complete trial solution,k)( , is constructed by the ant k.
4- The cost, k)(f , of the trial solution is calculated.
5- Steps 2 to 4 are repeated for all ants leading to the generation of m trial solutions and
calculation of the corresponding costs referred to as an iteration.
6- At the end of each iteration, the amount of pheromone on each and every of the
options are updated using the solutions created at the current iteration. In this work, only
the ant which has produced the best solution of the iteration is allowed to contribute to
pheromone change as follows [8]:
)t()1t( ijij best
ij (13)
Where, )1t(ij = the amount of pheromone trail on option ijl at iteration t+1; )t(ij =
the concentration of pheromone on option ijl at iteration t; )10( = the coefficient
representing the pheromone evaporation and best
ij = the change in pheromone
concentration associated with option ijl defined as:
otherwise 0
ant best theby chosen isj option if )(f
Rbestbest
ij (14)
Where, best)(f = the cost of the solution produced by the best ant and R = a quantity
related to the pheromone trail called pheromone reward factor.
14
7- The process defined by steps 2 to 6 is continued until the iteration counter reaches its
maximum value defined by the user or some other convergence criterion is met.
Premature convergence to sub-optimal solutions is an issue that can be experienced by all
ACOAs, especially those that use an 'elitist' strategy of pheromone updating as defined in
Eq. 13. To overcome this problem the Max-Min ant system (MMAS) is used here [8] in
which the pheromone trail intensities are bounded within a maximum and minimum
values as follows [8]:
)(1
1max bestf
R
(15)
).(
))(1.(/1
/1
max
min n
bestavg
n
best
pJ
p
(16)
Where, min , max represent the lower and upper limit on the pheromone trail strength,
respectively; bestp = the probability that the best solution is constructed again; Javg = the
average number of options available at decision points of the problem; and n = the
number of decision points as defined earlier.
4. Layout and size optimization of sanitary sewer network by ACOA
Formulation of the sanitary sewer network design as an optimization problem by ACOA
requires that the problem is defined as a graph. The graph used for the application of
ACOAs consists of a set of nodes referred to as decision points and edges referred to as
options available at each decision points. The problem graph is very much dependant on
the decision variables selected for the problem. In the absence of pumps and drops,
different sets of decision variables such as pipe slopes, pipe diameters or nodal elevations
15
of the sewer can be used to define a network with known layout. Here the pipe diameters
of the base layout are considered as the decision variables of the component sizing
problem leading to an easy definition of the problem graph. An assumption of sewer flow
at maximum allowable relative depth is also made allowing for the calculation of the
optimal pipe slopes in the absence of any pump and drop in the network.
Having addressed the pipe sizing side of the problem, a question remains as how to
determine the optimal layout of the network. Here an ACOA equipped with a TGA,
referred to as ACOA-TGA, is used in which the TGA guides the ants to create the
required tree structure of the network when deciding on the pipe sizing aspect of the
problem. Furthermore, a conventional application of the ACOA is also suggested for
comparison purpose in which the layout of the network is decided upon after pipe sizing
side of the problem is fully addressed.
4.1. Conventional Application of ACOA
In this formulation, the pipes of base layout are taken as decision points of the graph. The
options available at each decision point are, therefore, represented by finite number of
commercially available sewer pipe diameters. In this formulation each ant is required to
select one option (diameter) from the set of available options (commercial diameters) for
each pipe. The graph representation of the problem for the application of ACOA is shown
in Figure 1, where bold small lines represent the components of options (pipe diameters,
j=1,…..J) at each decision point i (i=1,…..n), dashed lines represent the potential
components of the solution at each decision point i, and finally the bold lines represent a
trial solution on the graph constructed by an arbitrary ant.
16
The layout of the network is decided upon once each ant constructed a trial solution. An
ad-hoc method based on engineering judgment is used to define the layout of the network
with pre-defined pipe diameters as follows:
1. Attribute an integer number to each node of the network, referred to as the rank of
the node, defined by the minimum number of pipes between the current node and
the root note. Starting from the root node with a zero rank, all nodes connected to
the root node are ranked one. The process is continued by attributing a rank to each
node defined as the minimum of the rank of the nodes connected to the current node
plus one, until all nodes are covered.
2. The flow direction at each pipe of the network is defined from the node of higher
rank to the node of lower rank. For pipes with the nodes of the same rank, the flow
direction is decided upon randomly.
3. Starting from the root node and moving towards the nodes of highest rank, the
nodes are checked for the number of leaving pipes. If more than one pipe leaves
from each node, the pipe with largest diameter is considered as the one leaving from
node and connection of other pipes to this node is cut to recover the tree structure of
the layout. A dummy node is then considered at adjacency of the node to indicate
the cut. Finally, by application this formulation the directed tree-like layout is
constructed from the base layout of sewer network with kwon pipe diameters and
other parameters can be calculated for this directed tree-like layout.
Figure 2 schematically shows the process of layout determination out of a typical base
layout in which the circles represent the network nodes, the bold circle represents the
root node, the lines represent the pipes, the numbers in brackets represent the nodal
17
rankings and the numbers in the parenthesis represent the pipe diameters determined by
ants.
Having determined the pipe diameters and the layout of a trial sewer network, the
remaining task is to determine the average cover depth of each sewer pipe. For this, an
assumption of sewer flow at maximum allowable relative depth, as indicated in Eq. 5
bymax , is made allowing for the calculation of nodal cover depths of the network
considering the fixed elevation of the root node. Calculation of the average cover depth
of the cut pipes, however, requires that the cover depth of the dummy nodes introduced
upstream of the cut pipes are also calculated. Two different methods are used here for the
calculation of dummy nodes cover depth. In the first method, referred to hereafter as
ACOA1, the cover depths of dummy nodes are computed by the assumption of sewer
flow at maximum allowable relative depth in the cut pipes while in the second method,
referred to as ACOA2, the cover depths of the dummy nodes are taken equal to the
minimum allowable cover depth.
4.2. Proposed intelligent ACOA-TGA method
In the second formulation named ACOA-TGA, incremental solution building capability
of ACOA is used to simultaneously construct tree-like feasible layouts out of the base
layout while determining the pipe sizes. In this approach, the TGA is responsible to keep
the ants’ options limited to forming tree layouts while the ACOA determines the pipe
sizes. This concept has already been used by Afshar and Marino [3] for layout
optimization of tree pipe networks. In this formulation, the nodes of the base layout are
taken as decision points of the graph and the options available at each decision point is
18
defined by the aggregation of the commercially available diameters for all the pipes
which can contribute to a tree-like layout which is defined by TGA at each decision
point. In this formulation, therefore, the number of options at each decision point is
determined by the decisions already taken up to the decision point under consideration.
This is in contrast to the conventional application of ACOA in which the pipes of the
base layout was taken as the decision point with fixed number of options equal to the
number of the commercially available diameters.
While in the conventional ACOA, each ant can start the solution construction, pipe size
determination, from an arbitrary decision point, in ACOA-TGA each ant starts from the
root node and makes a decision before moving to the next decision point. The options
available to the ants at each decision point are determined by the TGA, and the decision
made by the ants determines which decision point to move to. The role of the TGA is to
define the edges of the base layout which can contribute to a tree layout. A tabu list is
then created for the ant which includes all potential diameters of the edges already
defined by the TGA. Any decision of the ant by choosing one diameter from the tabu list
will lead to simultaneous definition of the pipe to be included in the tree layout and its
diameter. This process is continued until all decision points of the problem, base layout
nodes, are covered.
Figure 3(b) shows the graphical representation of the proposed ACOA-TGA method for
the typical problem of Figure 3(a), in which the circles represent the network nodes, the
bold circles represent the decision points of the ACOA, the numbers in the circles
represent the node numbers, the numbers in the parenthesis indicate the pipe numbering,
Dl represent the set of available commercial diameters to be used for pipe l, and the
19
brackets represent the options available to the ant at each decision point to form a tree
layout, and the bold Dl indicates that a diameter from Dl is chosen by ant leading to the
inclusion of pipe l in the tree under construction. This would automatically define the
other node of pipe l as the next decision point. Any path on the problem graph shown in
Figure 3(b) represents a tree layout out of the base layout shown in Figure 3(a)
represented by the links of bold Dls on the path. For example the path (1-2-3-5-4) on the
graph represents a tree layout composed of links (1,3,4,5) while the path (1-2-4-3-5)
denotes another tree layout composed of links (1,5,2,4). It should be note, however, there
might be some different paths on the graph Figure 3(b) which correspond to the same tree
layout but different solution due to probably different sizes selected for the pipes.
The ACOA-TGA is easily implemented using four vectors B, A, AA, and T in which B=
the set of nodes contained within the growing tree; A= the set of edges, pipes, within the
growing tree; AA= the set of edges adjacent to the growing tree; and T= the tabu list
containing the options available to the ants at each decision point. Starting from the root
node Root-Node.
1- Initialize B= [Root-Node], A= [ ], and AA= [edges in the base graph connected to
root node].
2- Form the tabu list T as the aggregation of all available diameters for the components
of AA.
3- Let the ant chose a diameter, d, at random from T.
4- Determine to which edge, a, of AA the chosen diameter, d, belong and set A=A+ [a].
5- Identify the other node of edge a as the newly connected node i and set B=B+ [i].
20
6- Identify edges connected to node i in the base graph and update AA by removing
edge a and any newly infeasible edges, and adding any of the edges connected to node
i that are feasible candidates to form a tree layout. AA now contains all feasible
choices for the next edge of the tree. The feasibility of the edges is determined by the
condition that each node of the network is visited once and only once.
7- Repeat from (2) until AA is empty.
It should be noted that the vector AA acts as the tabu list for the ants which is updated at
each decision point of the problem. This process is repeated for all ants in the colony at
each iteration of the optimization algorithm.
The process defined above leads to the construction of a spanning tree network with
known diameters. The resulting network, however, does not contain some of the pipes in
the looped base layout. To complete the construction of a tree-like network containing all
pipes of the base layout, the connection of the edges which are absent in the constructed
layout are cut at the node of higher rank and included in the constructed spanning tree to
form the final network layout. It should be remarked that rank of the network nodes is
defined here in a manner different from the one used in the conventional application of
ACOA. In ACOA-TGA, the rank of each node is defined as the minimum number of
pipes between the root node and the current node in the constructed spanning tree layout
rather than the base layout which is easily calculated during the solution construction.
The resulting network will obviously be a tree-like network containing all pipes of the
base layout.
The next step in the construction of a trial solution is to define the nodal cover depths of
the resulting network. For this, an assumption of sewer flow at maximum relative depth
21
is made allowing for the calculation of pipe slopes of the spanning tree using the fixed
elevation of the root node. The calculated pipe slopes are in turn used to calculate the
cover depth for all nodes of the network except for the dummy nodes introduced at the
cut positions since the cut pipe diameters are not known yet. A minimum cover depth is
considered for the dummy nodes upstream of the cut pipes from which the diameters of
the cut pipes are calculated. Different methods can be employed to calculate the cut pipe
diameters using the known slope of these pipes. Here the cut pipe diameters are
calculated such that all the constraints defined by Eq. (3), (5) and (6) are fully satisfied, if
possible.
The proposed formulations generate a directed tree-like layout out of the base layout as
defined earlier. Calculation of the nodal cover depths for each of the algorithms, as
defined before, requires that the pipe slopes are known. Calculation of the pipe slopes
using the assumption of maximum relative depth requires that the design discharge of
each pipe is first determined. For every directed tree-like layout constructed, the design
discharge of the pipes in the resulting network can be calculated using continuity
equation, direction of the flow in each pipe, and the local discharge of the pipes. The
local discharge is calculated using the service population of each pipe at the end of the
design period, the average water consumption per person per day, and the return factor.
It should be noted that the trial solutions obtained by the application of the proposed
formulations may violate some of the constraints of problem. To encourage the ants to
make decision leading to feasible solutions, a higher cost is associated to the solutions
that violate the problem constraints defined by Eqs. (2) to (11). This may be done via the
22
use of a penalty method in which the total cost of the problem is considered as the sum of
the problem cost and a penalty cost as:
G
g
gpp CSVFF1
(17)
Where, Fp = penalized objective function; F = original objective function defined by
Eq.1; gCSV = a measure of the violation of constraint g; G= total number of constraints
and p = the penalty constant assumed large enough so that any infeasible solution has a
total cost greater than that of any feasible solution. The penalized term in Eq. (17) will be
zero for feasible solutions.
5. Results and Discussions
Performance of the proposed algorithms is now tested against three hypothetical test
examples of sanitary sewer network design. The networks required for three quadrangle
zones with the size of 200 (meter) * 200 (meter), 400 (meter) * 400 (meter) and 800
(meter) * 800 (meter) are used to test the efficiency of the proposed methods. The
population of the area is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the area with the value
of 2500 and 4000 person per hectare at the beginning and the end of the design period,
respectively. The average water consumption per person per day at the beginning and the
end of the design period is taken as 250)*( capday
lit . The coefficients of the maximum and
minimum sewer flow rate are assumed to be constant and equal to 2.8 and 0.6,
respectively. Note that the simplifying assumption of constant coefficients of the
maximum and minimum sewer flow rate does not affect the generality of the proposed
algorithm since it only affect the design flow rate for each pipe of a given layout. The
23
return factor used for calculation the sewer discharge of area is assumed to be 0.8. The
geometry of the area along with the ground elevation at the benchmark point is shown in
Figure 4 in which a uniform decrease of the ground elevation from upstream to the
location of the wastewater treatment plants and from the center to the right and left of the
zone is assumed. Three different base layouts are considered with increasing scales to
assess the ability of the proposed methods to solve small, medium and large scale sewer
network design problems. The first test example is considered to have 9 nodes and 12
edges while the second test example has 25 nodes and 40 edges and finally the third test
example has 81 nodes and 144 edges as shown in Figure 5(a) to 5(c). All the networks are
supposed to deliver the collected sewer to two treatment plant of fixed elevation located
at the bottom corner of the area. The set of diameters ranging from 100 mm up to 1500
mm with an interval of 50 mm from 100 mm to 1000 mm and an interval of 100 mm
from 1000 mm to 1500 mm is used as the set of commercially available pipe diameters
for all the pipes. The pipes lengths of three networks are assumed to be constant and
equal to 100 meter. Since the test examples are hypothetical, the numerical values of the
other parameters used to solve the problems are taken from other similar works such as
those by Afshar et al. [9] and by Diogo and Graveto [14] as follows: Manning
coefficient, n = 0.015; Maximum cover depth, Emax = 10 (meter); Minimum cover depth,
Emin = 2.5 (meter); Maximum relative flow depth, max = 0.83; Minimum relative flow
depth,min =0.1; Self-cleaning sewer flow velocity, Vclean = 0.75(
sm ); and Maximum
sewer flow velocity, Vmax = 6 (s
m ).
Here the following explicit relation is used for the pipe installation and manhole costs
which are a modified form of the one used in Afshar et al. [9]:
24
mm
lll
d
p
hK
dEEeK l
46.41
437.0012.093.1047.153.143.3
(18)
Three test examples are solved using proposed formulations using MMAS and the result
are presented and compared. A set of preliminary runs are first conducted to find the
proper values of MMAS parameters for each test example as shown in Table 1. The
results are obtained using 500, 1000 and 2000 iterations and colony size of 50, 100, 200
amounting to 25000, 100000 and 400,000 function evaluations for test example I, II and
III, respectively.
Table 2 shows the results of 10 runs carried out using different randomly generated initial
guess for the test examples along with the scaled standard deviation, standard deviation
of the final solution costs produced in ten runs scaled by the average solution cost, and
the number of feasible final solutions obtained on a 3 GHZ Pentium PC and CPU. It is
clearly seen from Table 2 that all measures of the quality of the final solutions such as the
minimum cost, maximum coat, average cost, and the scaled standard deviation
representing the sensitivity of the method to initial guesses are improved when using
ACOA-TGA compared to other formulations in which the layout is created in an ad-hoc
manner. It is particularly seen that the number of final feasible solution created by the
ACOA-TGA is always greater than those of ACOAs in which an ad-hoc engineering
concept is used for layout determination. It is worth noting that ACOA2 has been able to
outperform the ACOA1 regarding the quality of the solution and the number of final
feasible solutions due to the fact that solution constructed by the ACOA2 will never be
infeasible regarding the minimum nodal cover depth leading to smaller search space for
the method. In fact, ACOA2 has been able to produce near-optimal solutions for all three
25
cases while being outperformed by the ACOA-TGA regarding the number of final
feasible solutions.
It is worth noting that based on the allowable considered cover depths, [1, 10], the
manhole heights of the final design obtained by ACOA-TGA vary from 3.4 (meter) to 7
(meter), from 2.6 (meter) to 7 (meter) and from 2.6 (meter) to 9.2 (meter) for test
example I, II and III, respectively. The reason for such large manhole depths is twofold:
First, the operational cost of the network including the maintenance of the manholes is
not considered in this work and the optimization is carried our only based on the
construction cost. Second, the manhole cost defined in Eq. (18) apparently constitutes a
small part of the total cost as evident from the final solutions. For example, the manhole
costs of the final design obtained by ACOA-TGA are about 1871.3, 4935.3 and 16361.8
for test example I, II and III, respectively, which are about 7%, 5% and 4% of the total
cost values.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the optimal tree-like layout for the test examples I, II and III,
respectively, obtained using ACOA-TGA. Tables 3, 4 and 5 show the optimal
characteristics of the networks obtained for test example I, II and III, respectively, using
ACOA-TGA. Figure 9 shows convergence curves of the minimum solution costs
obtained in ten runs using proposed methods for test example II indicating superior
performance of the ACOA-TGA compared to other algorithms. First, the solution cost of
ACOA-TGA method remains lower than those of other method during the evolution
process leading to lower cost final solution. Second, the ACOA-TGA solutions become
feasible earlier than those of other algorithms indicated by the fact that the ACOA-TGA
convergence curve appear to the left of the other curves.
26
Finally, it is worth noting that although the test examples considered are symmetric,
however, no use of symmetry has been made to solve these problems. The asymmetrical
cases can, therefore, be easily considered and solved in the same manner without any
special arrangements.
6. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, two different ACOA was proposed for the efficient layout and pipe size
determination of sanitary sewer network out of a base layout including all possible links
of the network is available. In the first formulation, ACOA was used in a conventional
manner for pipe size optimization while an ad-hoc engineering concept was used for the
layout determination. In the second formulation, ACOA equipped with TGA was used to
simultaneously determine both the layout and pipe sizes of the network. The TGA was
used to construct feasible tree-like layouts out of the base layout defined for the sewer
network, while the ACOA was used to optimally determine the pipe diameters of the
constructed layout. Proposed formulations were used to solve a hypothetical test example
considered of different scales and the results were presented and compared. The results
indicated the ability of the proposed methods and in particular the ACOA-TGA approach
to optimally solve the problem of layout and size determination of sewer networks. While
all proposed algorithms showed good performance in solving the problems under
consideration, the ACOA-TGA algorithm was shown to produce better results and to be
less sensitive to the randomly generated initial guess required to start the solution process
represented by the scaled standard deviation of the solutions produced in ten different
runs. Furthermore, the proposed ACOA-TGA method was shown to enjoy higher success
27
rate indicated by the number of final feasible solution in particular for the problems of
larger scale.
References
[1] Afshar MH. Application of a max–min ant system to joint layout and size
optimization of pipe networks. Engineering Optimization 2006;38(3):299–317.
[2] Afshar MH. A parameter free Continuous Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for the
optimal design of storm sewer networks: Constrained and unconstrained approach.
Advances in Engineering Software 2010;41:188–195.
[3] Afshar MH, Marino MA. Application of an ant algorithm for layout optimization of
tree networks. Engineering Optimization 2006;38(3):353–369.
[4] Afshar MH, Afshar A, Marino MA, Darbandi AAS. Hydrograph-based storm sewer
design optimization by genetic algorithm. Canadian Journal civil Engineering
2006;33(3):310–325.
[5] Afshar MH. Evaluation of Selection Algorithms for Simultaneous Layout and Pipe
Size Optimization of Water Distribution Networks. Scientia Iranica 2007;14(1):23-32.
[6] Afshar MH. Partially constrained ant colony optimization algorithm for the solution
of constrained optimization problems: Application to storm water network design.
Advances in Water Resources 2007;30(4):954–965.
[7] Afshar MH. Layout and size optimization of tree-like pipe networks by incremental
solution building ants. Canadian Journal civil Engineering 2008;35:129-139.
28
[8] Afshar MH, Moeini R. Partially and Fully Constrained Ant Algorithms for the
Optimal Solution of Large Scale Reservoir Operation problems. J. Water Resource
Management 2008; 22(1):1835-1857.
[9] Afshar MH, Shahidi M, Rohania M, Sargolzaei M. Application of cellular automata
to sewer network optimization problems. Scientia Iranica. Transactions A: Civil
Engineering 2011; 18 (3): 304–312.
[10] Argaman Y, Shamir U, Spivak E. Design of Optimal Sewerage Systems. Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division 1973;99(5):703-716.
[11] Botrous A, El-Hattab I, Dahab M. Design of wastewater collection networks using
dynamic programming optimization technique. In: ASCE Nat. Conf. on Environmental
and pipeline Engineering, Kansas City, MO, United States; 2000. p. 503–512.
[12] Cembrowicz RG. Evolution strategies and genetic algorithms in water supply and
waste water systems design. In: Water Resources and Distribution, edited by Blain W.R.
et al., Southampton, United Kingdom; 1994. p. 27-39.
[13] Desher DP, Davis PK. Designing sanitary sewers with microcomputers. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 1986;112(6): 993–1007.
[14] Diogo AF, Graveto VM. Optimal Layout of Sewer Systems: A Deterministic versus
a Stochastic Model, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 2006;132(9):927-943.
[15] Diogo AF, Walters GA, de Sousa ER, Graveto VM. Three-dimensional optimization
of urban drainage systems. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
2000;15(6):409-426.
[16] Elimam AA, Charalambous C, Ghobrial FH. Optimum design of large sewer
networks. J Environ Engineering 1989;115(6):1171–89.
29
[17] Guo Y. Sewer Network Optimal Design Based on Cellular Automata Principles. In:
2005 XXXI IAHR Congress, Seoul, Korea; 2005. p. 6582-6593.
[18] Guo Y, Walters GA, Khu ST, Keedwell E. Optimal Design of Sewer Networks using
hybrid cellular automata and genetic algorithm. In: IWA World Water Congress, Beijing,
China; 2006.
[19] Hassanli AM, Dandy GC. Optimal layout and hydraulic design of branched
networks using genetic algorithms. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 2005;21(1):55-62.
[20] Heaney JP, Wright LT, Sample D, Field R, Fan CY. Innovative methods for the
optimization of gravity storm sewer design. In: 8th international conference on urban
storm drainage, Sydney, Australia; 1999. p. 1896–903.
[21] Jabbari I, Afshar A. Optimum layout and design of a water supply line. Hydraulic
Information Management 2002;52:397-407.
[22] Jang SH. Urban Storm Sewer Optimal Layout Design Model by DDDP Technique,
In: 2006 Asia Oceania Geosciences Society, AOGS 2006, Singapore; 2006.
[23] Izquierdo J, Montalvo I, Perez R, Fuertes VS. Design optimization of wastewater
collection networks by PSO. Computers and Mathematics with Applications
2008;56(3):777-784.
[24] Kulkarni VS, Khanna P. Pumped wastewater collection systems optimization. J
Environ Engineering 1985;111(5):589–601.
[25] Lejano RP. Optimizing the layout and design of branched pipeline water distribution
systems. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 2006;20:125–137.
[26] Li G, Matthew RGS. New approach for optimization of urban drainage systems.
ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering 1990;116(5): 927-944.
30
[27] Liang LY, Thompson RG, Young DM. Optimising the design of sewer networks
using genetic algorithms and tabu search. Engineering Construction Architectural
Management 2004;11(2):101–112.
[28] Martin W. Optimal design of water conveyance systems. J. of the Hydraulics Div.
1980;106(9):1415-1432.
[29] Mays LW, Wenzel HG. Optimal Design of Multilevel Branching Sewer Systems.
Water Resource Research 1976;12(5):913–917.
[30] Morgan DR, Goulter IC. Least cost layout and design of looped water distribution
systems. In: Ninth Int. Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment
Control, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 1982. p. 27-30.
[31] Pan TC, Kao JJ. GA-QP Model to Optimize Sewer System Design. Journal of
environmental engineering 2009;135(1):17-24.
[32] Swamee PK. Design of Sewer Line. Journal of Environmental Engineering
2001;127(9):776-781.
[33] Templeman AB, Walters GA. Optimal design of storm water drainage networks for
roads. In: Inst. of Civil Engineers, London, 1979;67:573-587.
[34] Walsh S, Brown LC. Least cost method for sewer design. J. Environmental
Engineering Division 1973;99(3):333–345.
[35] Walters GA. The design of the optimal layout for a sewer network. Engineering
Optimization 1985;9(1):37-50.
[36] Yen BC, Cheng ST, Jun BH, Voohees ML, Wenzel HG. Illinois least cost sewer
system design model. User’s guide, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Texas at Austin, 1984.
31
Figure1. Problem graph used for ACOA1 or ACOA2.
Figure2. Different steps of construction tree-like layout for typical base layout using
ACOA1 or ACOA2.
(a) Typical Base layout (b) Diameter determination
(c) Nodal ranking (d) Cut determination
(400)
(300)
(250)
(200)
(250)
[0]
[1] [1]
[2] [2]
(350)
(400)
(300)
(250)
(200)
(250)
(350) (400)
(250)
(200)
(250)
(350)
(300)
d1 d… j=1
2
J-1
di dn
J
32
Figure 3. Graph representation of the typical problem for ACOA-TGA.
2 3
1
(3)
(1) (2)
(4) (5)
(6)
(a) Typical Base layout
4
1
2
3
3
4
2
5
d1
4 5
4
3
5
5
4
2
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
2
d2 d3 d4 d5
[D1, D2]
[D1, D2]
[D1, D3, D4]
[D1, D3, D4]
[D2, D3, D5]
[D2, D3, D5]
[D2, D3, D6]
[D2, D3, D6]
[D1, D3, D6]
[D1, D3, D6]
[D1, D3, D5]
[D2, D3, D4]
[D5, D6]
[D5, D6]
[D4, D5]
[D4, D5]
[D4, D6]
[D4, D6]
[D4, D6] [D4, D5]
[D4, D5] [D5, D6]
(b) Graph representation
5
33
Figure 4. Geometry of the areas used for three test examples.
W.T.P W.T.P
1000
S=2% S=2%
S=2%
S=2%
W.T.P W.T.P
W.T.P W.T.P
34
Figure 5. Base layouts of three proposed test examples.
W.T.P W.T.P
[2] [1] [4] [3]
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
[11] [10] [13] [12]
[20] [19] [22] [21]
[29] [28] [31] [30]
[38] [37] [40] [39]
[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
[32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
1 3 2 4 5
6 8 7 9 10
11 13 12 14 15
16 18 17 19 20
21 23 22 24 25
5(b): Test example (II)
W.T.P W.T.P
1 3 2 4 5 7 6 8 9
10 12 11 13 14 16 15 17 18
19 21 20 22 23 25 24 26 27
28 30 29 31
32 34 33
35 36
37 39 38 40 41 43 42 44 45
46 48 47 49 50 52 51 53 54
55
0 57 56 58 59 61 60 62 63
64 66 65 67 68 70 69 71 72
73 75 74 76 77 79 78 80 81
[2] [1] [4] [3] [6] [5] [8] [7]
[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
[19] [18] [21] [20] [23] [22] [25] [24]
[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
[36] [35] [38] [37] [40] [39] [42] [41]
[43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]
[53] [52] [55] [54] [57] [56] [59] [58]
[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]
[70] [69] [72] [71] [74] [73] [76] [75]
[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
[87] [86] [89] [88] [91] [90] [93] [92]
[94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]
[104] [103] [106] [105] [108] [107] [110] [109]
[138] [137] [140] [139] [142] [141] [144] [143]
[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]
[121] [120] [123] [122] [125] [124] [127] [126]
[128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]
5(c): Test example (III)
W.T.P W.T.P
[2] [1]
[3] [4] [5]
[7] [6]
[12] [11]
[8] [9] [10]
1
2
3
4 6 5
7 9 8
5(a): Test example (I)
35
Figure 6. Optimal tree-like layout of test example I obtained using ACOA-TGA.
Figure 7. Optimal tree-like layout of test example II obtained using ACOA-TGA.
W.T.P W.T.P
[2] [1] [4] [3]
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
[11] [10] [13] [12]
[20] [19] [22] [21]
[29] [28] [31] [30]
[38] [37] [40] [39]
[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
[32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
1 3 2 4 5
6 8 7 9 10
11 13 12 14 15
16 18 19 20
21 23 22 24 25
17
W.T.P W.T.P
[2] [1]
[3] [4] [5]
[7] [6]
[12] [11]
[8] [9] [10]
1
2
3
4 6 5
7 9 8
36
Figure 8. Optimal tree-like layout of test example III obtained using ACOA-TGA.
85000
90000
95000
100000
105000
110000
115000
120000
125000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Function evaluations
cost
valu
e
ACOA1ACOA2ACOA -TGA
Figure 9. Variation of minimum solution cost values of test example II using ACOA1,
ACOA2 and ACOA-TGA.
W.T.P W.T.P
1 3 2 4 5 7 6 8 9
10 12 11 13 14 16 15 17 18
19 21 20 22 23 25 24 26 27
28 30 29 31
32 34 33
35 36
37 39 38 40 41 43 42 44 45
46 48 47 49 50 52 51 53 54
55
0 57 56 58 59 61 60 62 63
66 65 67 68 70 69 71 72
73 75 74 76 77
79 78
80 81
[2] [1] [4] [3] [6] [5] [8] [7]
[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
[19] [18] [21] [20] [23] [22] [25] [24]
[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
[36] [35] [38] [37] [40] [39] [42] [41]
[43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]
[53] [52] [55] [54] [57] [56] [59] [58]
[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]
[70] [69] [72] [71] [74] [73] [76] [75]
[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
[87] [86] [89] [88] [91] [90] [93] [92]
[94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]
[104] [103] [106] [105] [108] [107] [110] [109]
[138] [137] [140] [139] [142] [141] [144] [143]
[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]
[121] [120] [123] [122] [125] [124] [127] [126]
[128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]
64
[136]
37
Table 1: values of MMAS parameters. test
example iteration ant
bestp
I 500 50 1 0.2 0.95 0.3 II 1000 100 1 0.2 0.95 0.3 III 2000 200 1 0.2 0.95 0.3
Table 2: Maximum, minimum and average solution cost values over 10 runs obtained
using proposed methods.
test
example Formulation
Cost value Scaled
Standard
deviation
No. of runs with
final feasible
solution Minimum Maximum Average
I
ACOA1 25053.4 25869.5 25298.2 0.0156 10
ACOA2 24693.2 29770.2 25680.6 0.0650 10
ACOA-TGA 24514.9 25290.5 24722.4 0.0120 10
II ACOA1 93166.7 155536 100080 0.1948 9
ACOA2 90602.2 95358.7 93141.3 0.0180 10
ACOA-TGA 89568.3 94425.8 91951.1 0.0173 10
III ACOA1 420544 9360800 3184060 1.3341 6
ACOA2 402695 6433280 1300630 1.5208 7
ACOA-TGA 397563 830097 461305 0.2831 9
Table 3: Characteristics of the optimal network obtained by ACOA-TGA (Example I).
pipe No.
Node No. Cover Depth (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V (m/s) Up Down Up Down
1 2* 1 2.500 4.500 0.00648 100 0.040 0.574 1.389
2 2 3 5.545 4.500 0.0324 200 0.010 0.830 1.162
3 4 1 3.666 4.500 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
4 5 2 4.712 5.545 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
5 6 3 5.125 4.500 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
6 5* 4 2.500 3.666 0.01296 150 0.032 0.487 1.516
7 5* 6 2.500 5.125 0.01296 150 0.046 0.437 1.745
8 7* 4 2.500 3.666 0.00648 100 0.032 0.619 1.268
9 8* 5 2.500 4.712 0.01296 150 0.042 0.449 1.686
10 9 6 5.531 5.125 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
11 7 8 3.283 6.823 0.00648 100 0.015 0.830 0.930
12 8 9 6.823 5.531 0.01296 150 0.007 0.830 0.827
Note: *k is the dummy node considered at the adjacency of node k representing the upstream node of cut
pipe l.
38
Table 4: Characteristics of the optimal network obtained by ACOA-TGA (Example II).
pipe No.
Manhole No. Cover Depths (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V(m/s) Up Down Up Down
1 2 1 5.375 4.500 0.10368 300 0.011 0.830 1.653
2 3* 2 2.500 5.375 0.00648 100 0.049 0.540 1.498
3 3 4 5.101 4.056 0.0324 200 0.010 0.830 1.162
4 4 5 4.056 4.500 0.05184 200 0.024 0.830 1.860
5 6 1 3.526 4.500 0.10368 250 0.030 0.830 2.381
6 7 2 5.099 5.375 0.09072 250 0.023 0.830 2.083
7 8 3 4.268 5.101 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
8 9* 4 2.500 4.056 0.01296 150 0.036 0.471 1.584
9 10 5 5.388 4.500 0.15552 350 0.011 0.830 1.822
10 7* 6 2.500 3.526 0.01296 150 0.030 0.494 1.491
11 8* 7 2.500 5.099 0.01296 150 0.046 0.438 1.742
12 8* 9 2.500 3.569 0.01296 150 0.031 0.492 1.499
13 9 10 3.569 5.388 0.0648 200 0.038 0.830 2.325
14 11 6 3.563 3.526 0.08424 250 0.020 0.830 1.934
15 12 7 3.280 5.099 0.0648 200 0.038 0.830 2.325
16 13* 8 2.500 4.268 0.01296 150 0.038 0.463 1.618
17 14 9 4.195 3.569 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
18 15 10 5.425 5.388 0.08424 250 0.020 0.830 1.934
19 12* 11 2.500 3.563 0.01296 150 0.031 0.492 1.498
20 13 12 3.905 3.280 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
21 13* 14 2.500 4.195 0.01296 150 0.037 0.466 1.606
22 14* 15 2.500 5.425 0.01296 150 0.049 0.430 1.786
23 16 11 4.402 3.563 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
24 17* 12 2.500 3.280 0.01296 150 0.028 0.506 1.444
25 18 13 3.072 3.905 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
26 19* 14 2.500 4.195 0.01296 150 0.037 0.466 1.606
27 20 15 6.263 5.425 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
28 17 16 4.530 4.402 0.04536 200 0.019 0.830 1.627
29 18* 17 2.500 4.530 0.01296 150 0.040 0.455 1.659
30 18* 19 2.500 6.889 0.01296 100 0.064 0.813 1.895
31 19 20 6.889 6.263 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
32 21 16 5.693 4.402 0.01296 150 0.007 0.830 0.827
33 22 17 4.936 4.530 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
34 23* 18 2.500 3.072 0.01296 150 0.026 0.518 1.403
35 24* 19 2.500 6.889 0.01296 100 0.064 0.813 1.895
36 25 20 6.669 6.263 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
37 22* 21 2.500 5.693 0.00648 100 0.052 0.530 1.535
38 23* 22 2.500 4.936 0.00648 100 0.044 0.556 1.445
39 23 24 2.971 2.511 0.00648 100 0.015 0.830 0.930
40 24 25 2.511 6.669 0.01296 100 0.062 0.830 1.860
Note: *k is the dummy node considered at the adjacency of node k representing the upstream node of cut
pipe l.
39
Table 5: Characteristics of the optimal network obtained by ACOA-TGA (Example III).
pipe No.
Node No. Cover Depths (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V(m/s) Up Down Up Down
1 2 1 4.827 4.500 0.07776 250 0.017 0.830 1.785
2 3 2 3.734 4.827 0.05832 200 0.031 0.830 2.092
3 4 3 4.359 3.734 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
4 5 4 4.765 4.359 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
5 5* 6 2.500 3.629 0.00648 100 0.031 0.622 1.262
6 6 7 3.629 4.463 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
7 7 8 4.463 5.077 0.0972 250 0.026 0.830 2.232
8 8 9 5.077 4.500 0.11664 300 0.014 0.830 1.860
9 10 1 4.087 4.500 0.76464 550 0.024 0.830 3.627
10 11* 2 2.500 4.827 0.01296 150 0.043 0.445 1.703
11 12* 3 2.500 3.734 0.01296 150 0.032 0.484 1.529
12 13* 4 2.500 4.359 0.01296 150 0.039 0.460 1.632
13 14* 5 2.500 4.765 0.01296 150 0.043 0.447 1.694
14 15* 6 2.500 3.629 0.01296 150 0.031 0.489 1.510
15 16 7 2.644 4.463 0.0648 200 0.038 0.830 2.325
16 17* 8 2.500 5.077 0.01296 150 0.046 0.439 1.739
17 18 9 3.139 4.500 0.69984 600 0.034 0.571 4.196
18 11 10 4.330 4.087 0.1296 300 0.018 0.830 2.066
19 12 11 3.356 4.330 0.10368 250 0.030 0.830 2.381
20 13 12 3.683 3.356 0.07776 250 0.017 0.830 1.785
21 14 13 2.850 3.683 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
22 14* 15 2.500 3.270 0.01296 150 0.028 0.507 1.442
23 15 16 3.270 2.644 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
24 16* 17 2.500 3.765 0.01296 150 0.033 0.483 1.534
25 17 18 3.765 3.139 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
26 19 10 4.456 4.087 0.62856 550 0.016 0.830 2.982
27 20* 11 2.500 4.330 0.01296 150 0.038 0.461 1.628
28 21* 12 2.500 3.356 0.01296 150 0.029 0.502 1.459
29 22 13 4.309 3.683 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
30 23* 14 2.500 2.850 0.01296 150 0.023 0.532 1.356
31 24* 15 2.500 3.270 0.01296 150 0.028 0.507 1.442
32 25* 16 2.500 2.644 0.01296 150 0.021 0.547 1.309
33 26* 17 2.500 3.765 0.01296 150 0.033 0.483 1.534
34 27 18 4.028 3.139 0.65448 600 0.011 0.830 2.609
35 20 19 5.033 4.456 0.11664 300 0.014 0.830 1.860
36 21 20 6.172 5.033 0.09072 300 0.009 0.830 1.447
37 22* 21 2.500 6.172 0.01296 150 0.057 0.413 1.881
38 23* 22 2.500 4.309 0.01296 150 0.038 0.462 1.624
39 23 24 4.226 4.670 0.05184 200 0.024 0.830 1.860
40 24 25 4.670 4.342 0.07776 250 0.017 0.830 1.785
41 25 26 4.342 3.467 0.10368 300 0.011 0.830 1.653
42 26 27 3.467 4.028 0.33696 500 0.026 0.534 3.161
40
Table 5: (continued.) pipe No.
Node No. Cover Depths (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V(m/s) Up Down Up Down
43 28 19 4.703 4.456 0.50544 500 0.018 0.830 2.901
44 29* 20 2.500 5.033 0.01296 150 0.045 0.440 1.732
45 30 21 7.010 6.172 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
46 31* 22 2.500 4.309 0.01296 150 0.038 0.462 1.624
47 32 23 4.851 4.226 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
48 33* 24 2.500 4.670 0.01296 150 0.042 0.450 1.680
49 34* 25 2.500 4.342 0.01296 150 0.038 0.461 1.630
50 35 26 5.134 3.467 0.22032 500 0.003 0.830 1.265
51 36 27 3.846 4.028 0.31104 450 0.022 0.639 2.897
52 29 28 5.039 4.703 0.49248 500 0.017 0.830 2.827
53 30* 29 2.500 5.039 0.01296 150 0.045 0.440 1.733
54 31 30 2.634 7.010 0.03888 150 0.064 0.830 2.480
55 32* 31 2.500 2.634 0.01296 150 0.021 0.548 1.307
56 32* 33 2.500 8.050 0.01296 100 0.075 0.751 2.049
57 33 34 8.050 6.675 0.11664 350 0.006 0.830 1.366
58 34 35 6.675 5.134 0.14256 400 0.005 0.830 1.279
59 35* 36 2.500 3.846 0.01296 150 0.033 0.479 1.548
60 37* 28 2.500 4.703 0.00648 100 0.042 0.565 1.416
61 38 29 5.546 5.039 0.46656 500 0.015 0.830 2.678
62 39* 30 2.500 7.010 0.01296 100 0.065 0.805 1.913
63 40* 31 2.500 2.634 0.01296 150 0.021 0.548 1.307
64 41 32 4.017 4.851 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
65 42 33 2.565 8.050 0.09072 250 0.075 0.534 3.404
66 43* 34 2.500 6.675 0.01296 100 0.062 0.829 1.863
67 44 35 3.315 5.134 0.0648 200 0.038 0.830 2.325
68 45 36 3.928 3.846 0.2916 450 0.019 0.639 2.716
69 37 38 2.826 5.546 0.324 500 0.007 0.830 1.860
70 39 38 6.122 5.546 0.11664 300 0.014 0.830 1.860
71 40 39 5.846 6.122 0.09072 250 0.023 0.830 2.083
72 41* 40 2.500 5.846 0.01296 150 0.053 0.420 1.841
73 41* 42 2.500 2.565 0.01296 150 0.021 0.554 1.291
74 42* 43 2.500 3.940 0.01296 150 0.034 0.476 1.564
75 43 44 3.940 3.315 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
76 44* 45 2.500 3.928 0.01296 150 0.034 0.476 1.562
77 46 37 4.162 2.826 0.31104 500 0.007 0.830 1.785
78 47* 38 2.500 5.546 0.01296 150 0.050 0.427 1.802
79 48* 39 2.500 6.122 0.01296 150 0.056 0.414 1.875
80 49 40 6.684 5.846 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
81 50* 41 2.500 4.017 0.01296 150 0.035 0.473 1.577
82 51 42 3.404 2.565 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
83 52* 43 2.500 3.940 0.01296 150 0.034 0.476 1.564
84 53* 44 2.500 3.315 0.01296 150 0.028 0.504 1.451
85 54 45 5.036 3.928 0.27216 450 0.009 0.830 1.929
86 47 46 5.227 4.162 0.27864 450 0.009 0.830 1.975
41
Table 5: (continued.) pipe No.
Node No. Cover Depths (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V(m/s) Up Down Up Down
87 48 47 6.810 5.227 0.13608 400 0.004 0.830 1.221
88 48* 49 2.500 6.684 0.01296 150 0.022 0.544 1.318
89 50 49 5.850 6.684 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
90 50* 51 2.500 3.404 0.01296 150 0.029 0.500 1.468
91 51* 52 2.500 4.118 0.01296 150 0.036 0.469 1.594
92 52 53 4.118 2.815 0.12312 350 0.007 0.830 1.442
93 53 54 2.815 5.036 0.20088 350 0.042 0.599 3.339
94 55 46 3.328 4.162 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
95 56 47 5.470 5.227 0.1296 300 0.018 0.830 2.066
96 57 48 8.113 6.810 0.12312 350 0.007 0.830 1.442
97 58* 49 2.500 6.684 0.01296 100 0.062 0.828 1.864
98 59* 50 2.500 5.850 0.01296 150 0.054 0.420 1.841
99 60 51 4.029 3.404 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
100 61 52 5.129 4.118 0.0972 300 0.010 0.830 1.550
101 62 53 3.653 2.815 0.0648 250 0.012 0.830 1.488
102 63 54 3.218 5.036 0.0648 200 0.038 0.830 2.325
103 56* 55 2.500 3.328 0.01296 150 0.028 0.504 1.454
104 57* 56 2.500 5.470 0.01296 150 0.050 0.429 1.792
105 58 57 7.499 8.113 0.0972 300 0.026 0.571 2.331
106 59 58 8.967 7.499 0.07128 300 0.005 0.830 1.137
107 59* 60 2.500 4.029 0.01296 150 0.035 0.472 1.579
108 60* 61 2.500 5.129 0.01296 150 0.046 0.437 1.746
109 61* 62 2.500 3.653 0.01296 150 0.032 0.488 1.514
110 62* 63 2.500 3.218 0.01296 150 0.027 0.510 1.432
111 64* 55 2.500 3.328 0.00648 100 0.028 0.644 1.213
112 65 56 6.346 5.470 0.10368 300 0.011 0.830 1.653
113 66* 57 2.500 8.113 0.01296 100 0.076 0.748 2.056
114 67* 58 2.500 7.499 0.01296 100 0.070 0.777 1.980
115 68 59 7.874 8.967 0.05832 200 0.031 0.830 2.092
116 69* 60 2.500 4.029 0.01296 150 0.035 0.472 1.579
117 70 61 2.509 5.129 0.07128 200 0.046 0.830 2.557
118 71 62 4.278 3.653 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
119 72 63 3.347 3.218 0.04536 200 0.019 0.830 1.627
120 64 65 2.752 6.346 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
121 66 65 6.971 6.346 0.03888 200 0.014 0.830 1.395
122 67* 66 2.500 6.971 0.01296 100 0.065 0.808 1.907
123 67* 68 2.500 7.874 0.01296 150 0.034 0.478 1.553
124 68* 69 2.500 2.638 0.01296 150 0.021 0.548 1.308
125 69 70 2.638 2.509 0.04536 200 0.019 0.830 1.627
126 70* 71 2.500 4.278 0.01296 150 0.038 0.463 1.620
127 71* 72 2.500 3.347 0.01296 150 0.028 0.503 1.457
128 73 64 3.212 2.752 0.00648 100 0.015 0.830 0.930
129 74 65 7.391 6.346 0.0324 200 0.010 0.830 1.162
130 75* 66 2.500 6.971 0.01296 100 0.065 0.808 1.907
42
Table 5: (continued.) pipe No.
Node No. Cover Depths (m) Design flow (m3/s)
Diameter (mm)
Slope y/d V(m/s) Up Down Up Down
131 67 76 2.617 5.326 0.01296 150 0.007 0.830 0.827
132 77 68 8.920 7.874 0.0324 200 0.010 0.830 1.162
133 78 69 3.044 2.638 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
134 79* 70 2.500 2.509 0.01296 150 0.020 0.559 1.277
135 80* 71 2.500 4.278 0.01296 150 0.038 0.463 1.620
136 81 72 2.513 3.347 0.02592 150 0.028 0.830 1.653
137 73* 74 2.500 7.391 0.00648 100 0.029 0.639 1.223
138 75 74 3.233 7.391 0.01296 100 0.062 0.830 1.860
139 76* 75 2.500 3.233 0.00648 100 0.027 0.652 1.196
140 76 77 5.326 8.920 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
141 77* 78 2.500 3.044 0.00648 100 0.025 0.668 1.162
142 78* 79 2.500 4.210 0.00648 100 0.037 0.588 1.349
143 79 80 4.210 2.919 0.01296 150 0.007 0.830 0.827
144 80 81 2.919 2.513 0.01944 150 0.016 0.830 1.240
Note: *k is the dummy node considered at the adjacency of node k representing the upstream node of cut
pipe l.