Comparison of Five Evolutionary Algorithms for Calibration of Water Distribution Networks

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

2 Water engineering, agriculture faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan Province

3 Water engineering, faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan province

4 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction:
It is necessary to perform the model calibration process to effectively use hydraulic models and improve the performance of water distribution networks (WDNs) in the design and operation stages. Several methods are proposed for the calibration of WDNs including 1) trial-and-error procedure models; 2) explicit models or hydraulic simulation models; and 3) implicit models or optimization models.
Trial-and-error schemes were implemented to update unknown model parameters by solving the water network equations (Walski, 1983; Bhave, 1988). These models are only suitable for small problems due to the low convergence rate. Explicit models involve solving an extended set of continuity and head-loss equations in which the number of calibrated parameters are equal to the number of measurement parameters (Ormsbee and Wood, 1986; Boulos and Wood, 1990; Boulos and Ormsbee, 1991 and Ferreri et al., 1994). In implicit calibration methods, an objective function is formulated and solved by an optimization model. These methods have been investigated by a majority of the previous research (Kapelan et al., 2007; Dini and Tabesh, 2014; Do et al., 2016; Xie et al.; 2017). Recent and numerous studies indicate that evolutionary algorithms are efficient in solving complex and real-life WDNs.
In this paper, five optimization algorithms, gray wolf optimization (GWO), invasive weed optimization (IWO), the genetic algorithm (GA), the imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) and the simulated annealing algorithm (SA) are compared for the simultaneous calibration of pipe roughness coefficient and water demand coefficient in WDNs. For a closer look at the performance, these algorithms are evaluated in terms of two new criteria including, the success rate and the efficiency rate are used.
Methodology:
A brief description of each algorithm is presented. Evolutionary algorithms are combined with static and dynamic models of WDNs under EPANET software using a MATLAB code. The objective function is the minimization of the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between simulated nodal pressure and pipe flow and their corresponding measured values. The performance of these evolutionary algorithms are evaluated in terms of some criteria include statistical analysis, the optimum solution obtained, the number of objective function evaluations, the success rate, and the efficiency rate. The success rate represents the quality of the solution obtained for a specific problem and the efficiency rate indicates the performance of the algorithm and it is a neutral tool to compare the performance the different optimization algorithms applied to solve the same problem.
These EAs are applied to three popular standard mathematical benchmark functions including Sphere, Rastrigin and Rosenbrock, a benchmark water distribution network and a real-life network located in the north of Iran.
Results and discussion:
The performance of five optimization algorithms was assessed by applying several mathematical test functions and a benchmark and real WDNs. The results of the application to mathematical test functions show that in most cases GWO has the best performance. After that, the five algorithms applied to benchmark WDN. Results show that GWO outperformed the other algorithms in both the success rate and the efficiency rate. The success rate for the GWO, IWO GA, ICA and SA were 60%, 20 %, 20%, 0% and 0%, respectively. The efficiency rate for the GWO, IWO, GA, ICA and SA were 16.93, 4.37, 10.27, 0 and 0, respectively.
The GWO algorithm required fewer objective function evaluations to converge to the final solution. In contrast, the IWO algorithm required more objective function evaluations to reach the final solution.
For the real WDN, the objective function (MAPE) obtained from the GWO algorithm improved by about 23% , 30%, 9% and 41% compared to the two GA, IWO, ICA and SA algorithms, respectively.
The computational time is calculated by considering the average time for 10 computations. The comparison results indicated that the GWO had the least time consumption for all cases. This demonstrated the better performance of the GWO algorithm in searching all the problem space and its ability to avoid getting stuck in local optima. The results showed that early convergence in both GA, SA and IWO algorithms causes the optimization process to be incomplete.
Conclusion:
Calibration of a water distribution network is beneficial for the operation and control of the water system. In this paper,
simultaneous calibration of pipe roughness coefficient and water demand coefficient in WDNs was performed based on five evolutionary algorithms including The GWO, IWO, GA, ICA and SA. The performance of each algorithm is evaluated by using two new criteria including, the success rate and the efficiency rate. The success rate shows the quality of the solution obtained for a specific problem and the efficiency rate represents the performance of the algorithm. The results show that the GWO outperformed the other evolutionary algorithms in terms of the success rate, the efficiency rate, and the rapid convergence to the best solution.

Keywords


Asadzadeh, M., Tolson, B.A. and McKillop, R. (2010). A two stage optimization approach for calibrating water distribution systems. In: Water Distribution Systems Analysis 2010, pp. 1682-1694.
Bhave, P.R. (1988). Calibrating water distribution network models. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 114(1), 120-136.
Boulos, P.F. and Ormsbee, L.E. (1991). Explicit network calibration for multiple loading conditions. Civil Engineering Systems, 8(3), 153-160.
Boulos, P.F. and Wood, D.J. (1990). Explicit calculation of pipe-network parameters. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 116(11), 1329-1344.
Cesario, A.L. and Davis, J.O. (1984). Calibrating water system models. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 76(7), 66-69.
Cheng, M.Y. and Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 139, 98-112.
Cheng, W. and He, Z. (2011). Calibration of nodal demand in water distribution systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 137(1), 31-40.
Dini, M. and Tabesh, M. (2014). A new method for simultaneous calibration of demand pattern and Hazen-Williams coefficients in water distribution systems. Water Resources Management, 28(7), 2021-2034.
Do, N.C., Simpson, A.R., Deuerlein, J.W. and Piller, O. (2016). Calibration of water demand multipliers in water distribution systems using genetic algorithms. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(11), 04016044.
El-Ghandour, H.A. and Elbeltagi, E. (2018). Comparison of five evolutionary algorithms for optimization of water distribution networks. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 32(1), 04017066.
Ferreri, G.B., Napoli, E. and Tumbiolo, A. (1994). Calibration of roughness in water distribution networks. In Proc. 2nd International Conference on Water Pipeline Systems, Vol. 1, 379-396.
Giustolisi, O., Laucelli, D. and Colombo, A.F. (2009). Deterministic versus stochastic design of water distribution networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 135(2), 117-127.
Goldberg, D.E. and Holland, J.H. (1988). Genetic algorithms and machine learning.
Jaćimović, N., Stamenić, M., Kolendić, P., Đorđević, D., Radanov, B. and Vladić, L. (2015). A novel method for the inclusion of pipe roughness in the Hazen-Williams equation. FME Transactions, 43(1), 35-39.
Kapelan, Z.S., Savic, D.A. and Walters, G.A. (2007). Calibration of water distribution hydraulic models using a Bayesian-type procedure. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 133(8), 927-936.
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D. and Vecchi, M.P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Journal of Science, 220, 671-680.
Koppel, T. and Vassiljev, A. (2009). Calibration of a model of an operational water distribution system containing pipes of different age. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(8), 659-664.
Mehrabian, A.R. and Lucas, C. (2006). A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired from weed colonization. Ecological informatics, 1(4), 355-366.
Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S.M. and Lewis, A. (2014). Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in engineering software, 69, 46-61.
Moghaddam, A., Rezaei, H., Ziaei, A. and Behzadian, K. (2019). The Application of Optimal Management System of Water Distribution Networks in the Calibration Process, 13(1), 89-100. (In Persian)
Mora-Melia, D., Iglesias-Rey, P.L., Martinez-Solano, F.J. and Ballesteros-Perez, P. (2015). Efficiency of evolutionary algorithms in water network pipe sizing. Water resources management, 29(13), 4817-4831.
Mousavi, S.M.R., Khoisheh, M., Ghamgsar, A. and Qalandari, M.J. (2016). Classification of sonar data using gray wolf optimization algorithm. Electronic Industries Quarterly, 7(1), 45-62. (In Persian)
Ormsbee, L.E. (1989). Implicit network calibration. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 115(2), 243-257.
Ormsbee, L.E. and Wood, D.J. (1986). Explicit pipe network calibration. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 112(2), 166-182.
Rajan, C.C.A. (2010). A solution to the economic dispatch using EP based SA algorithm on large scale power system. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 32(6), 583-591.
Sabbaghpour, S., Naghashzadehgan, M., Javaherdeh, K. and Haddad, O.B. (2012). HBMO algorithm for calibrating water distribution network of Langarud city. Water Science and Technology, 65(9), 1564-1569.
Sanz, G. and Pérez, R. (2015). Sensitivity analysis for sampling design and demand calibration in water distribution networks using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 141(10), 04015020.
Savic, D.A., Kapelan, Z.S., and Jonkergouw, P.M. (2009). Quo vadis water distribution model calibration?. Urban Water Journal, 6(1), 3-22.
Walski, T.M. (1983a). Technique for calibrating network models. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 109(4), 360-372.
Walski, T.M. (1983b). Using water distribution system models. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 75(2), 58-63.
Wéber, R. and Hős, C. (2020). Efficient technique for pipe roughness calibration and sensor placement for water distribution systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 146(1), 04019070.
Xie, X., Zhang, H. and Hou, D. (2017). Bayesian approach for joint estimation of demand and roughness in water distribution systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(8), 04017034.
Zanfei, A., Menapace, A., Santopietro, S. and Righetti, M. (2020). Calibration Procedure for Water Distribution Systems: Comparison among Hydraulic Models. Water, 12(5), 1421.
Zeinolabedini Rezaabad, M., Ghazanfari, S. and Salajegheh, M. (2020). ANFIS modeling with ICA, BBO, TLBO, and IWO optimization algorithms and sensitivity analysis for predicting daily reference evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 25(8), 04020038.
  • Receive Date: 13 July 2021
  • Revise Date: 11 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 December 2021
  • First Publish Date: 26 December 2021