Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by

Multiobjective Evolutionary Methods

Klebber T. M. Formiga
1
, Fazal H. Chaudhry
1
, Peter B. Cheung
1
and Luisa F. R.
Reis
1
1
So Carlos School of Engineering, University of So Paulo
Av. do Trabalhador So Carlense 400, C.P. 359, So Carlos - SP - Brazil 13560-250
{klebberformiga@uol.com.br fazal@sc.usp.br pcheung@bol.com.br fernanda@sc.usp.br}

Abstract. Determination of pipe diameters is the most important problem in
design of water supply networks. Several authors have focused on the methods
capable of sizing the network considering uncertainty and other important
aspects. This study presents an application of multiobjective decision making
techniques using evolutionary algorithms to generate a series of nondominated
solutions. The three objective functions considered here include investment
costs, entropy system and system demand supply ratio. The determination of
Pareto frontier employed the public domain library MOMHLib++ and a hybrid
hydraulic simulator based on the method of Nielsen. This technique is found to
be quite promising, the nondominated region being identified in a reasonably
small number of iterations.
1. Introduction
Water distribution networks are hydraulic systems consisting of components such
as: pipes, pumps, valves and reservoirs among others, in order to supply water in
desired quantity and quality within preestablished pressure limits. These systems can
be represented by a graph in which the nodes may symbolize points of consumption
or sources and the links are the pipes, pumps or valves.
The planning process of water supply networks, in general, consists of three steps:
definition of the layout, design of the components and the systems operation. This
paper deals with the design phase which has been the object of the study for more
than 30 years by researchers from various disciplines. One considers a water
distribution network composed of pipes, nodes and circuits where the topology and
topography are known, water supply is guaranteed by one or more sources and where
demands at various node points are assumed known. The classical design problem of
such systems involves finding the least cost network that meets the required demands
satisfying some constraints. Within this framework, various researchers developed
design procedures making use of different optimization methods such as Linear
Programming ([1], [2]), Nonlinear Programming ([3]-[4]), and Genetic Algorithms
([5]-[6]). The problem posed in these studies had as unknowns pipe diameters in
various links and constraints were placed on pressures.
2 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
The above design problem dealt with by classical optimization methods faces two
difficulties [7]: 1) the decision involves pipe diameters, pumps and valves
specification which are discrete in nature and must me chosen among sizes which are
commercially available; 2) any realistic formulation of the problem involves
nonlinear and nonconvex equations. Further, it is observed that the solutions obtained
by these methods may not be feasible in practice as they tend towards branching
networks, instead of looped network, choosing null pipe diameters and discharges.
In an effort to circumvent these difficulties, some researches ([8]-[11]) introduced
new constraints, such as reliability, into the design problems. The use of traditional
reliability measures as constraints in the optimization of networks, particularly those
of medium and large sizes, did not prove to be fruitful despite the added
computational complexity of exponential nature. In the search for a simple and
efficient reliability measure, heuristic concepts ([12]-[15]), such as the concept of
entropy of system, have been experimented with good results [15].
The traditional optimization problems look for a single optimal solution. However,
this search considering a single aspect of design may not be convenient for water
supply systems. For example, when one optimizes such a system, one obtains a least
cost configuration. However, there may be a layout with slightly higher cost but a
higher reliability. Thus, a more convenient solution may be non-optimal with respect
to cost but more advantageous with respect to other aspects.
An alternative is to consider this problem in the multiobjective framework wherein
the evolutionary techniques have differentiated themselves by their capacity to deal
with a variety of problems. This paper evaluates the use of multiobjective
evolutionary methods in the design of water supply systems.
2. Hydraulic Model
The hydraulic analysis of a pipe network determines two kinds of unknowns:
hydraulic heads at the nodes (h
i
) and discharges in various pipe reaches (q
j
). Let there
be a pipe network composed of n nodes, n
r
sources nodes (reservoirs and tanks) and m
pipes connecting the nodes. The hydraulic head loss, between two nodes i and j, can
be expressed as:

=
i i
1 , i
j
2 , i
j
q K h h
(1)
in which K
i
is the hydraulic resistance coefficient of link i, and is the exponent of
the head loss formula.
Mass conservation in the system is given by:
n 1 j 0 Q q a f
m
1 i
j i ij j
K = = =

=

(2)
where Q
j
= demand concentrated at the node j, a
ij
= 1 if the discharge is towards node
j, a
ij
= -1 if discharge is away from node j, and a
ij
= 0 if the nodes i and j are not
connected.
In the case of solution in terms of node heads, equation (2), can be written as:
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 3
( )
n 1 j 0 Q
K
h h
a f
m
1 i
j
/ 1
i
/ 1
1 , i
j
2 , i
j
ij j
K = =

=

=

(3)
The incidence matrix (m x n+nr) formed by the elements a
ij
can be divided in
two submatrices A (m x n) and A
r
(m x nr). The first matrix corresponds to the
interior nodes and the second to the source nodes.
The system of equations in (3) is nonlinear of order n. Iterative numerical methods
such as Newton-Raphson (N-R) or its variations can be employed to solve this system
for nodal heads.
2.1. Newton-Raphson Method
The N-R method for solution of nonlinear system of equations can be described as,
k k 1 k
X X X + =
+
(4)
in which X is the vector of variables x in iteration k and X
k
can be obtained from the
expression:
k k k
F X J = (5)
where the Jacobian matrix function is given by,
k
x x
i
i
k
x
f
J
=
)
`

=
(6)
The system for finding the hydraulic characteristics of the network can be
expressed as:
k k 1 k
H H H + =
+
(7)

The Jacobian of the function f in (3) is given by,
A C' A J
T
k
=
(8)
where,
(
(
(
(

/ 1
m
1
a
1
1 , m
j
2 , m
j
/ 1
2
1
a
1
1 , 2
j
2 , 2
j
/ 1
1
1
a
1
1 , 1
j
2 , 1
j
K
h h
1
, ,
K
h h
1
,
K
h h
1
diag C' K
(9)
Putting
C= C (10)
4 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
one obtains,
CA A
1
J
T
k

=
(11)
The vector F
k
is expressed mathematically as [16]:
] ) H A C(AH A Q [ F
r r k
T
k
+ + =
(12)
H
r
being the vector of reservoir elevations.
Thus the equation (7) becomes:
] ) h A C(Ah A [Q CA] A [ h h
r r k
T -1 T
k 1 k
+ + =
+

(13)
3. Objective Functions
This study considers three objectives, namely, the network cost, system entropy,
and the water supply capacity of the network. Water supply capacity was incorporated
into the problem to avoid any kind of constraint. In the order words, the constraints
are transformed into objectives.
3.1. Network Cost
The cost function includes expenses for the main hydraulic components of the
water distribution system. These are divided into: investment costs and operation
costs. The investment costs cover the acquisition costs and the costs of installation of
the pipes, pumps and reservoirs. The operation costs are expressed in terms of energy
consumption by motor-pumps. These costs are distributed along the useful life of the
network, thus requiring the use of present value factor.
This paper considers the minimization of investment costs expressed in terms of
diameters. Thus, the first objective function is:
(

= =

=
m
1 i
i i 1
L ) D ( CT Min ] Cost [ Min F

(14)
where Cost refers to the investment cost, CT(D)
i
express the unit cost associated with
the pipe reach i with diameter D
i
and L
i
is the length of reach i.
3.2. Entropy
The basic requirement of a looped water distribution network is that water demand
at a given node is met not only by a preferential path, but also through a number of
alternative paths directly connected to this node. Such paths would transport water in
different amounts to meet the nodal demands. However, in order to increase the
reliability of the network, it is desirable that this distribution of flow be as even as
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 5
possible. If the distribution were very uneven, the failure of a reach that supplies the
largest discharge to the node would cause a major impact on the water supply in the
network.
Consider a network of N nodes. Let the entropy (or redundancy) of node j be S
j
.
The axioms proposed by [17] that make possible the calculation of reliability of water
distribution system on the basis of entropy are:
1. S
j
will be a function of the discharge fractions X
1j
, X
2j
, X
3j
, ... X
n(j)j
, given that:
1 X
) j ( n
1 i
ij
=

=
(15)
where n(j) is the number of pipes that are incident on node j;
2. S
j
will be zero if n(j) is 1;
3. for given fixed number of nodes j, the redundancy will be maximum when the
discharges in the incident pipes are equal.
4. the value of S
j
is incremented by an increase in n(j) which implies that, for equal
discharges, redundancy can be increased by increasing the number of incident pipes.
There are many functions that help express entropy. However, we prefer the
definition in [17], given that it produced consistent results for different types of
networks (communication networks [17], electrical networks [18], hydraulic networks
[12] ). That expression for entropy is:

=
=
I
1 i
i i
) P ln( P
K
S

(16)
where K is an arbitrary positive constant generally taken to be 1, P
i
is a system
parameter and I is the number of subsystems.
This entropy function is the basis of all other functions used in the water supply
systems ([12]-[15]). It can be seen that this equation satisfies all the axioms.
To begin with, it is necessary to define the parameter P for the network. Let this
network be composed of N nodes which are its subsystems. For a given demand
pattern, let the ith pipe incident on node j transport discharge q
ij
then,
j
ij
ij
Q
q
X =
(17)
where Q
j
is the sum of n(j) discharges incident on node j.
The parameter X
ij
represents the relative contribution of pipe i to the total discharge
that passes through node j and serves as a measure of its relative capacity
incorporated in the entropy function. This measure is an indicator of the potential
contribution of a pipe to the systems possibility of meeting the extra demand
imposed by the failure of another pipe in this system. Thus, the entropy for the node j
can be written as:

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
) j ( n
1 i j
ij
j
ij
j
Q
q
ln
Q
q
S
(18)
6 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
Maximizing the function S
j
in equation (18) is equivalent to maximizing
redundancy at the node j because the highest value of S
j
will happen when all q
ij

values at j are equal, which is desirable discharge distribution. The expression for S
j

in equation (18) gives entropy of one node only. The development of entropy
equation for whole network follows similar procedure.
One might think that the entropy of a system is the sum of entropies at all the
nodes in the network. However, this description does not take into account the
discharge carried by given pipe in the general context because, in the event of a
failure, it is not just the pipes adjacent to the node that will be exacted. Thus, the
importance of a pipe with respect to the total discharge, and not just relative to the
discharges incident on the node, is relevant to the determination of network entropy.
Let Q
o
be the sum all the discharges incident on all the nodes of the network for a
given demand pattern. It is important to observe that the value of Q
o
shall be equal to
or greater than the total demand on the network (Q
T
), in view of the fact that a certain
portion of water circulates through more than one pipe. Thus, the parameter P used to
compute network entropy should be q
ij
/Q
o
. This definition leads to the following
expression for entropy of the system [12]:

= =
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
N
1 j
) j ( n
1 i o
ij
o
ij
o
j
Q
q
ln
Q
q
Q
Q
S
)

(19)
This expression can also be expressed as:

= =
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
N
1 j o
j
o
j
N
1 j
j
o
j
Q
Q
ln
Q
Q
S
Q
Q
S
)

(20)
Due to the presence of the logarithm, the entropy of the system presents very close
values. We opted for working with the exponential of the value of the entropy of the
network. Then, the second objective function will be:
(

=
S

2
e Max F
(21)
3.3. Demand Supply Ratio
The amount of water supplied by a given node depends upon the pressure at that
node. In order to establish a correspondence between pressure and demand, it is
necessary to determine a functional relationship between these two variables. The
description used for this purpose is that proposed by [19], and modified by [11], is as
follows.
min
j j
dem
j
h h se 0 Q < =
des
j j
min
j
j
1
min
j
des
j
min
j j req
j
dem
j
h h h se
h h
h h
Q Q
|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(22)
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 7
des
j j
req
j
dem
j
h h Q Q > = se
Here, Q
j
dem
is the demand met at node j, Q
j
req
is the demand required at the node j,
h
j
des
is the hydraulic head required at the node j to satisfy the demand completely, h
j
min

corresponds to the zero demand satisfaction and
j
is the exponent associated with the
nodal head set equal to 2.
On the basis of discharge supplied at the node, one can establish a function that
determines the failure in the system. Thus F
3
, the third objective function, is the
maximization of average demand supply ratio which was proposed by [10], as,
(
(

=

=
n
1 i
dem
j
req
j
3
Q
Q
n
1
Max F
(23)
4. Multiobjective Evolutionary Methods
The multiobjective evolutionary methods appeared in the middle of the 1980s
decade starting with the work of Schaffer [20]. Since then dozens of new such
methods have been proposed in the order to obtain the Pareto frontier for diverse
problems.
This study employs the method NSGAII - Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm - [21] based on elitism implementing the code developed by Andrzej
Jaskiewicz [22] in the MOMHLib++ - Multiobjective Methods Metaheuristic Library
for C++.
The crossover method BLX- [23], was used with crossover probability 1. The
Random Mutation [24] was adopted with rate of 5%.
5. The Problem
The NSGAII multiobjective method was applied to two test networks used in
literature. The first is a two-loop fictitious network [1], and the second is Hanoi-
Vietnam water distribution system [25]. These networks were chosen with the
purpose of evaluating the adaptation characteristics of networks of different sizes.
5.1. Example Problem 1 - Two-loop Network
This network was proposed by [1] who applied Linear Programming to find its
least cost solution. Later various authors ([2]-[7]) used this problem as a basis for
comparison of their formulations. This network is shown in Fig 1 and its hydraulic
data can be found in the original paper [1].

8 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
6
1000 m
1
0
0
0

m
1
0
0
0

m
1
0
0
0

m
1
0
0
0

m
1000 m
1000 m 1000 m
7
7
Legend:
Link
Node

Fig. 1. Two-loop network [1]
5.2. Example Problem 2 - Hanoi Network
The Hanoi Network presented in Fig.2 was studied by [25]. This is a medium size
network composed of 35 pipes and 32 nodes, including one reservoir. Its hydraulic
data are available in the above paper.
The original data limited the diameters to 1000 mm (40 in) size. This diameter is
considered insufficient to transport the design discharge of about 5.5 m/s, as velocity
in this pipe would be greater than 7 m/s, which is much higher than the usual
maximum tolerance of 3 m/s. Thus, the diameter upper bound of 2000 mm (80 in)
was used in this study.
5.3. Performance Measures
According to [26], at least two types of performance measures should be used in
the multiobjective analysis. The first measure considers the proximity of the
calculated solution to the Pareto region. The second evaluates the manner of
distribution of solutions along the Pareto frontier.
5.3.1 Measure of Proximity of Solutions to the Pareto Front. The method used for
this measure was proposed by [27]. This measure is well-suited to the comparison
between 2 sets of solutions. Expressed as C(A,B), it determines the proportion of
solutions of B that are dominated by the set A. It is given by,

Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 9
{ }
B
b a : A a | B b
) B , A ( C
p
= .
(24)
The value of C(A,B) shall be 1 if all the members of B are dominated by A and 0, if no
member of A dominates B. As the measure is not symmetrical, it follows that, in
majority of the cases, C(B,A)1- C(A,B), then, the calculation of both C(A,B) and
C(B,A) becomes necessary.
1
2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
13 14
16
15
17
18
19
20
22 27 28
2
1
29
30
30
31
23
24 25 26
21
32
3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 27 28
29 30
32
33
33
34
Legend:
Link
Node

Fig. 2. Hanoi Network [24]
5.3.2. Measure of Diversity among Non-Dominated Solutions. The measure of the
diversity of solutions, proposed by [28], is calculated on the basis of relative distance
between the solutions expressed as,
( )

=
=
B
1 i
2
i B
d d
B
1
S (25)
where d
i
is the lowest Euclidean distance from the nearest solution, d is the average of
d
i
values and |B| is the number of solutions in the set B.
10 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
6. Results
To study the influence of the population size and the number of generations on the
nondominated solutions, a 30-population set was generated by NSGAII method for
different populations sizes (50, 100, 250 and 500) and generations (50 and 100).
Table 1. Average run time (s) for various sizes of initial solutions and generations
Configuration Number of Initial
Solutions
Number of
Generations
Number of Solutions
Generated
Network 1 Network 2
1 50 50 2500 23 63
2 50 100 5000 46 112
3 100 50 5000 47 113
4 100 100 10000 89 202
5 250 50 12500 121 288
6 250 100 25000 233 521
7 500 50 25000 251 610
8 500 100 50000 488 1253
The average processing time for each type of generated set of solutions using an
AMD Athlon Dual 1800+ is presented in Table 1. The average run time per evaluated
individual was 0.009s for Two-loop network and 0.025s for Hanoi network showing a
nearly linear relation between number of solutions sought and processing time in both
networks.
In case of network in Example Problem 1, some solution results are similar to the
optimal values considering single objective F
1
only. Savic and Walters [7] found the
optimal value of $419.000, considering one diameter in a pipe reach, for F
3
=1. This
result corresponds to a low value of entropy (F
2
) of 5.13. For slightly higher solution
cost (F
1
), as compared to the above solution, a much higher value for F
2
is indicated,
as for example the solution: F
1
= $421.000 (only 0,5% higher) and F
2
= 5.84 (14%
higher).
Fig. 3 presents a set of nondominated solutions found for configuration #8. It is
seen that the relation between the functions F
1
and F
3
has a much concentrated
distribution of the solutions along the Pareto frontier as compared to the relations that
contain F
2
. This happens because F
1
and F
3
are directly proportional. In others works,
more expensive the network, greater is its tendency towards meeting demands.
However, entropy does present a similar relation to cost especially for its intermediate
values. One can also observe that for large capacity of demand satisfaction (F
3
), equal
to 1, entropy does not present large values which are of the order of 5.9. There is an
inverse relation between F
2
and F
3
for large values of F
2
.
In the Example Problem 2 (Fig. 4), one observes, in general, the same behavior as
above for Example Problem 1. However some differences can be noted as the
objective functions F
1
and F
3
, now show a much neater relationship among
themselves. Also, one can observe that as entropy, and consequently reliability
increases, the network becomes more expensive. Another important point is that the
maximum values of entropy now occur corresponding to the maximum demand
supply ratio.
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 11

Fig. 3. Scatter-matrix of a generated set of nondominated solutions after 100 generations in
Example Problem 1 starting with an initial set of 500 individuals.
The difference in the behavior of entropy in the two problems is due to different
degrees of redundancy in the two networks, given that the network in Example
Problem 2 has higher number of loops and, at the same time, has greater capacity to
face pipe failures.
The results of comparison of generated solutions in terms of the measure of
proximity to the nondominated frontier are presented in Fig. 5 as Boxplots. The
middle line represents the medium value and the upper and lower edges of the
rectangles indicate the upper and lower quartiles, respectively, of the distribution of
solutions. The upperworst and lowerworst lines indicate the maximum and the
minimum values in the sample.
The results in Fig. 5 show that, in Example Problem 1, the initial population size
has greater importance than the number of generation. This is obvious when one
compares C values of the solutions for the same number of evaluations (2x3 and 6x7).
This happens due to the fact that, in generation 50, the population presents higher
degree of maturation because when one doubles the number of generations, there is
no significant evolution of the solutions. This becomes evident when one compares
the solutions obtained with the same population size.
12 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.

Fig. 4. Scatter-matrix of a generated set of nondominated solutions after 100 generations in
Example Problem 2 starting with an initial set of 500 individuals.
In Example Problem 2, one observes (Fig. 6) that the number of generations is as
important a factor as the population size, as shown clearly in the comparison of
configurations 6 and 7. Nearly half of the final solutions of the sets 7 are dominated at
least by one solution of the sets 6. Once again, it is observed that the degree of
evolution of the population is relevant. The 50th generations in Hanoi network
problem, are not sufficiently mature as can be seen from the comparison of the
solutions corresponding to initial population sizes and different number of
generations.
The measure of performance for the problems under study points to a more
predictable behavior. It is seen that the initial population size has greater importance
for the diversity of the final population.
7. Conclusions
This paper employs an elitist multiobjective evolutionary method (NSGAII) for the
determination of the nondominated region, considering the objectives of
minimizations of hydraulic network costs and maximization of entropy and capacity
of network to meet water demand. The MOMHLib++ Library of Andrzej Jaskiewicz
and a hydraulic simulator based on the method of Nielsen [16] were used to model the
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 13
multiobjective problem for two classic literature networks: a two-loop network and
the Hanoi network.


Fig. 5. Values of the metric C(A,B) for different initial population and generation sizes. The
solution A and B refer to the solutions along the rows and columns respectively.

Fig. 6. Values of the measure of diversity of the nondominated solutions for different initial
population and generation sizes.
It was found that the two-loop network problem shows greater sensitivity to the
evolutionary parameter of initial population size, whereas the Hanoi network problem
is more sensitive to the number of generations. Thus it is concluded that the number
of generations is important to a certain point where there is no significant change in
14 Klebber T. M. Formiga et al.
the Pareto frontier. When the number of generations reaches this point, the initial
population size becomes more relevant.
In order to obtain satisfactory results using multiobjective evolutionary methods
for water distribution networks, it is important to choose appropriate size of initial
populations and the number of generations necessary for arriving at a stable Pareto
frontier.
Acknowledgements
The present paper has resulted from current research grant Tools for the Rational
and Optimized Use of Urban Water (CT-HIDRO 01/2001 - 550070/200-8) funded
by Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq). The authors wish to express their
gratitude also to FAPESP and CAPES for concession of scholarships to the first and
third authors of this work, respectively. We are grateful to anonymous reviewers from
EMO 2003 whose comments greatly improved the manuscript.
References
1. Alperovits, E., Shamir, U.: Design of Optimal Water Distribution Systems. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 13, No 6 (1977) 885-900
2. Quindry, G., Brill, E.D., Liebman, J.C.: Optimization of Looped Distribution Systems.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, No 4 (1981) 665-679
3. Morgan, D.R., Goulter, I.C.: Optimal urban water distribution design. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 21, No 5 (1985) 642-652
4. Formiga, K.T.M.: Looped Network Optimization by Nonlinear Programming. Masters
Thesis. Federal University of Paraiba. Campina Grande, Brazil (1999)
5. Simpson, A. : Genetic Algorithms Compared to Other Techniques for Pipe Optimization.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Managament, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1994) 423-443
6. Savic, D.A., Walters, G.A.: Genetic Algorithms for Least-Cost of Water Distribution
Networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol. 123, No 2
(1997) 67-77
7. Eiger, G., Shamir, U., Ben-Tal, A.: Optimal Design of Water Distribution Networks. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 30, No 9 (1994) 2637-2646
8. Bhave, P.R.: Node Flow Analysis of Water Distribution Systems. Journal of Transport
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, No 4 (1981) 457-467
9. Jowitt, P.W., Xu, C.: Predicting Pipe Failure Effects in Water Distribution Networks. Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol. 119, No 1 (1993) 18-31
10. Fujiwara, O., Li, J.: Reliability Analysis of Water Distribution Networks in Consideration
of Equity, Redistribution, and Pressure Dependent Demand. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 34, No 7 (1998) 1843-1850
11. Tanyimboh, T.T., Tabesh, M., Burrows, R.: Appraisal of Source Head Methods for
Calculating Reliability of Water Distribution Networks. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol. 127, No 4. (2001) 206-213
12. Awmah, K., Goulter, I., Bhatt, S.K.: Entropy-Based Redundancy Measures in Water
Distribution Design. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No 5 (1991) 595-
614
Optimal Design of Water Distribution System by Multiobjective Evolutionary
Methods 15
13. Tanyimboh, T.T., Templeman, A..B.: Maximum Entropy Flows for Single-Source
Network. Engineering Optimization, Vol. 22 (1993) 49-63
14. Walters, G.A: Discussion on: Maximum Entropy Flows for Single-Source Network.
Engineering Optimization, Vol. 25 (1995) 155-163
15. Tanyimboh, T.T., Templeman, A.B.: A Quantified Assessment of Relationship Between the
Reliability and Entropy of Water Distribution Systems. Engineering Optimization, Vol. 33
(2000) 179-199
16. Nielsen, H.B.: Methods for Analyzing Pipe Networks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 125, No 2 (1989) 139-157
17. Shannon, C.: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal,
Vol. 27, No 3 (1948) 379-423, 623-659
18. Kapur, J.N.: Twenty-five years of maximum entropy. Journal of Mathematical Physics
Science. Vol. 17, No 2 (1983) 103-156.
19. Chandapillai, J.: Realistic Simulation of Water Distribution System. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No 2 (1991) 258-263
20. Schafer, J.D.: Some Experiments in Machine Learning Using Vector Evaluated Genetic
Algorithms. Ph. D. Thesis. Vanderbuilt University. Nashville, TN (1984)
21. Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.: A Fast Elitist Multiobjective genetic
Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II. In: Proceedings of the Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature VI, (2000) 849-858
22. Jaszkiewicz, A. Multiobjective Methods Metaheuristic Library for C++. http://www-
idss.cs.put.poznan.pl/~jaszkiewicz/MOMHLIB/
23. Eshelman, L.J., Schaffer J.D.: Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm and Interval-Schemata. In:
Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2, (1991) 187-202
24. Michalewicz, Z.: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Berlin
Springer-Verlag. Berlin (1992)
25. Fujiwara O., Tung, D.B.: A Two-Phase Decomposition Method for Optimal Design of
Looped Water Distribution Networks. Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, No 4 (1990) 539-
549
26. Deb, K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Willey &
Sons. Chichester, England (2001)
27. Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms:
Empirical Results. Evolutionary Computation Journal, Vol. 8, No 2 (2000) 125-128
28. Schott, J.R.: Fault Tolerant Design Using Multi-Criteria Genetic Algorithms. Masters
Thesis. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA (1995)