IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,

475

VOL. AC-13, NO. 5, OCTOBER 1968

Optimization of Natural-Gas Pipeline Systems Via

DynamicProgramming

Abstract-The complexity and expense of operating natural-gas

pipeline systemshavemade
optimumoperation and planning of
increased interest to the natural-gas pipeline industries. Since the
by inoperations of natural-gas pipeline sytems are characterized
herent nonlinearities and numerous constraints, dynamic programming provides an extremely powerful method for optimizing such
application of dynamic prsystems. This papersummarizesthe
gramming techniques to solve optimization problems that occur in
the short-term(transient)terminaldistributionandlong-term
(steady-state) transmission of natural gas.

I . INTRODKCTIOX

flows of natural gas in pipelines for both transient and

steady-state conditions. The equation for compressor
horsepower is described and is shown to be a nonlinear
function of pressures and flows.
The short-term 24-hour optimization problem for a
single compressor station andlong pipeline is considered
in Section IV. The optimizationproblem is t o minimize
the compressor energy required to pump gas down the
pipeline to meet a known time-varying consumer demand for gas while meetinga minimum contracted outp u t pressure. The studiesof this section areof practical
interestsincethe24-hourtime-varyingconsumerdemand for gas affects mainly the operation of the compressors and pipeline just ahead of the delivery point;
forexample,
for thenetworkshowninFig.
1, the
transientsinthe
flow demand at thedeliverypoint;
would affect mainly the operationof compressor N , and
the rest of the network could be operated according to a
longer-term transmission policy.

ENAhIIC programming can beapplied to the

optimization problems that occur in the operation and planning of natural-gas pipeline systems. This paper summarizes the application
of dynamic
programmingtechniquesusedtosolveoptimization
problems that occur in the terminal distribution and
transmission of natural gas.
As natural-gaspipelinesystemshavegrownlarger
and more complex, the importance of optimum operaTRANSMISSION
DISTRIBUTION
tion and planning of these facilities has increased. T h e
investmentcostsandoperationexpenses
of pipeline
DEMAND
networks are so large that even small improvements in
POINT
system utilization can involve substantial amounts
of
Fig.
1 . Typical transmission and distribution network.
money. Also, the variables and constraints interact in
such a complicated manner that itis difficult to obtain
The long-term steady-state transmission problem is
an optimumoperating policyfor
otherthansimple
configurations usingan intuitive approach. Thus pothe considered in Section V for a long series connection of
tential benefits of using optimization techniques in thesenumerous compressors and pipelines. T h e problem is to
minimize the total compressor energy required to meet
problems are very great indeed.
The major reason dynamic programming
is attractive a specified steady-state flow of gas throughout the pipefor theseproblemsisthegenerality
of the problem line, pressure constraints along the pipe, and constraints
in compressor operation. T h e problem is essentially a
formulation to which i t applies. Nonlinearities in the
static optimization problem; however, it can be formusystem equations and performance criterion can easily
lated as a multistaged
decision problem and solved using
be handled, and constraints on both decision and state
dynamic programming.
variables introduce no difficulties.
The theory of dynamicprogrammingis
brieflyre11. DwAmc PROGRAYMIKG
viewed in the following section of this paper. The basic
hIost of the problems for which dynamic programdynamic programming functional equation is derived,
and the standard computational algorithm is described.ming has been used to obtain numerical solutions can
be formulated as deterministic discrete time-variational
Section I11 describes the basic nonlinear partial differential equations governing the behavior
of pressures and control problems [1]- [3]. The general caseof this problem is formulated as folloxs.

Manuscript received November 2, 1967; revised May 16, 1968.

The authors are with the Information and Control Laboratory,
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif.

[14.

This formulation was used for a special case of this problem in

IEEE TR-4NSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC

OCTOBER
CONTROL,

476

Given :

1) a systemdescribed
equation
x(k

+ 1)

bythenonlinear
=

F [ x ( k ) , u(k),k ]

\\.here
x =state vector, n dimensional
u =control vector, m dimensional
k =index for stagevariable
F = n dimensional vector functional;

1968

minimum
costthe that
equation
states
This
for state x
a t stage k is found by choosing the control that minidifference
mizes the sum of the cost to be paid at the present stage
and the minimum costin going to the end from the state
(1) a t stage k + l that results from applying this control.
The optimal control at state x and stage k , denoted as
uo(x, k ) , is directly obtained as the valueof u for which
the minimum in (7) is attained.
Since (7) determines I(x, k ) and u o ( x , k ) in terms of
I(x, k + l ) , i t must be solved backward in k . -As a terminal boundary condition,

2) a variational performance criterion

I(X,

IC) = min [~(x,u,K)].

(8)

U
X

J =

JIlx(k), u ( k ) , k1

(2)

I I I. BASICEQLATIOYS
FOR PIPELINES
X K D COMPRESSORS

k=O

where

J = total cost
I = incremental cost at stage k ;
3) constraints
(3)

I n this paper the following two equations are assumed

to govern thedynamicrelationship
of pressures and
flow of gas along a pipeline. These equations are derived from the law of conservation
of mass and Newtons
secondlaw [ 6 ] , [lo]:?
ap

= -

at

where

ap?

X ( k ) =set of admissible states at stagek

E ( x , k ) =set of admissible controls at state x,

-=

ax

stage k ;

- C2Q2

(Newtons second law)

(9)

(10)

where

4) an initial state

t =time

x(0) = c.

x =spatial
variable
P = pressure
Q =f l o ~ v

( 3

Find :
The
sequence u(o), . * u ( K ) such
in (2) is minimized subject to the system equation ( l ) ,
theconstraintequations
(3) and (4),andtheinitial
condition (5).
The dynamic programming solution to the preceding
problem is obtainedby using aniterativefunctional
equation that determines the optimal control
foran)
admissible state at any stage. This equationis in terms
of the minimum cost function, n-hich can be defined for
all x E X and all k , k = O , 1, . .
K , as
9

I(x, k) =

aQ
an:

C1- (conservation of mass)

{ 5ZMA,

min

UCj),jl}

(6)

,=I:

U (j!

j=k.k+I,...,K

where

Cl,

c2 =constants
dependent
on
the

Equation (9) is derived from the lawof conservation of

mass and expresses the fact that the net mass rate of
flow out of a differential volume offluid is equal to the
timerateofdecreaseofmasswithinthedifferential
volume.
Equation
(10) is derived
from
Newtons
second law which states fora gas that the netforce acting on a differential volume is equalto the time rate of
change of momentum within the volume plus the net
momentum flux leaving the volume. In
(10) the time
rate of change of momentum within the volume is assumed tobe small relativeto the other terms. The above
equations can be combined into single
a
partial differential that is in the form of a nonlinear heat equation [8] :

x(R) = x.

aP
ITsing Bellmans principle of optimality [1]-[3], the
iterative equation becomes

physical
charac-

teristics of the pipeline.

-[dc2 I aP?/ar I ]

_.-

at

p 2

l!?

azp?

-.

ax?

(11)

WONG .4ND LARSON:

OPTIMIZATION

OF N-4TURAL-GAS PIPELINE
SYSTEMS

The above partial differential equation is solved

by
evaluating the dependent variables at discrete values
of
t and x, and then making finite difference approximations to the various derivatives. This leads to the solution of a set of difference equations in t and x. There
exist many types of finite difference approximations t o
the preceding nonlinear heat equation, and many ways
to solve these setsof difference equations once they have
been obtained [SI.
Insteadystate,thetimederivativesare
all zero,
and (9) and (10) reduce to

where

477

the minimization of compressor energy is best accomplished by anticipating the packing prior to an increase
in demand, or by meeting the demand a t each instant
with output pressure a t its minimum acceptable value.
In the following, the optimization problem is described
and results for a typical line are given.

B. Outline of the PIoblenz

T h e basic pressure and flow equations used for the
dynamic programming study were based on an explicit
model [ 8 ] .T h e model and thebasic equations are shown
in Table I.
T o cast the equations in Table I into the standard
control context, the following designations are made:3
1) state vector contains the two internal pressures

constant.

I n the following optimization studies, the cost function to be minimized is taken to be either compressor
2) control variable is input flow Q l ( t ) ;
energy or compressor horsepower. Under the assumption 3) Q3(t),the output flow, is set equal to demandflow
of adiabatic compression, the compressor horsepower re(assumed known).
quired to pump gas down
apipelineisgiven
by the
14:ith the above designations, the equations of the gas
following equation 161, [7], [ l l ] :
pipeline given in Table I can be transformed into the
following nonlinear vector difference equation :
TABLE I
TWO-CELL
MODELAND BASICEQUATIOXS

where
Q = flow through the compressor

P D =discharge (output) pressure

PS = suction (input) pressure
A , B , and R are
constants
dependent

on the

compressor.
IV. DYKAYIC
OPTIMIZATIOX
OF x SIKGLE

COMPRESSOR,
SIKGLE
PIPELTXE
A . Introduction
In this section, the solution to the optimization
of
flow under transient conditions in a single gas pipeline
controlled by asinglecompressor
is obtained by dynamic programming, and results are given for a typical
gaspipeline. T h e problemunderconsiderationisthe
minimization of compressor energy required to deliver
a known time-varying consumer demand for gasat the
output of the pipeline while meeting a minimum contracted output pressure. The transient effects of timevaryingconsumerdemand
for gasaffectmainly
the where
operation of the compressor and pipeline just ahead of
Pl(t)=input pressure (psi)
thedeliverypoint.Forthisreason,thedynamicop@(t)=input flow (mmcfd)
Pn(t),P&) = internal pressures (psi)
timization of a single compressor and single pipeline is
Q z ( f ) =internal flow (mmcfd)
of practical interest.
P4(t)=output pressure (psi)
At = time increment in minutes
The purpose of the dynamic programming optimization studyis to establish general procedures by studying
the optimal control policies for a spectrum of demand
3 The equations given in Table I are the simplest finite difference
whether approximation to (9) and (10).
curves. In particular, it must be established

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, OCTOBER 1968

478

P(1

+ 4t)

f [ P ( t ) ,Q l ( t ) ] ,

5 t 5 T.

.-

(15)

The above equation gives the dynamical prescription

for obtainingtheinternalpressures
at time t+At,
[ P ( t + A t ) ] , from the internal pressures at time t , [ P ( t ) ] ,
andtheinput
flow Ql(t), withtheoutput
flow Q3(t)
known. I t should be noted that once P ( t ) , Ql(t), and
Q 3 ( t ) are specified, the other pipeline variables, Pl(t),
Qz(t), and P4(t), are completely determined by the relations given in Table I.
In this study it is assumed that the gaspipeline system described by (15) is to be operated such that energy
of the compressor forcing gas through the pipeline
is
minimized. The optimization is carried out subject to
the restrictions that the flow demand is met and that
the pressure at the delivery point is greater than contract pressure. The optimal solution yields the time sequence of input flows Ql(t); O< t < T such that compressor energy is minimized, demand
is satisfied, and
contract pressure is met.

PRESSURE

fn

8:oo

CONTRACT

8 :40

920

1o:oo

1040

Ib20

TIME

Fig. 2. Dynamicprogrammingsolution-step

up.

C. Results

In this subsection the dynamic programming solution

to various demand curves for a sample gas pipeline are
given. The various parametersfor a sample pipeline are
listed in Table 11.
TABLE I1

TIME

L1hx-BP A U 5 T E R S
Length
diameter Inside
Molecular weight
factor
Friction
(nominal)
Average temperature
Average pressure

Cl

c2

Fig. 3. Dynamic programming s o l u t i o n s t e p down.

15.95 miles
1.63 feet
20.30
0.01028

j30.7"R
640.3 psia
113.414
22.631 X

T h e compressor is assumed t o be a reciprocal compressor,andtheexpressionforcompressorenergyin

kilowatt-hours is given by
8:oo

8:40

1o:m

920

10:40

1120

TIME

Fig. 4. Dynamic programming solutionstep up and step down.

where PD (discharge pressure) is identified as Pl(t),P S

(suction pressure) is assumed to be a known constant
equal to 375 psi [see (13)], and At is the time increment give an indication of the type of control policy required
by a more general demand curve. The results are shown
in minutes.
in
Figs. 2, 3, and 4.
T h e followingthreetypes
of demandcurveswere
I t is seen that in all three cases P,(t) was close to the
studied:
minimum contract pressure of 450 psia. Consequently,
1) step up;
for the examples given,a near-optimum policy for mini2) step down; and
mizing compressor energy (16) is to operate thepipeline
3) step up and step down.
so t h a t a t each instant of time the demand is just met,
and the output pressure is as close to contract pressure
Since demand curves can be considered
to be composed of the above three elements, it
is felt that the as possible. Implementationof this near-optimum policy
dynamic programming solution of these three cases will can easily be performed in real time.

V. STEADY-STATE
OPTIMIZATION
OF A LONG
TRAKSMISSIOS
PIPELIKE
WITH COMPRESSORS
I N SERIES

is given by (13), repeated here with subscripts:

A . Introduction

i=l,...,N
In contrast to thecompressors and pipelines near the
T h e problem to beconsidered is the determination of
deliverypoint,alongtransmissionpipelinecangenpreserally be consideredto operate under essentially steady- the optimum steady-state suction and discharge
state conditions. In this section the
problem of mini- sures for each compressor t h a t minimizes the total compressor horsepower. The above optimization is carried
mizing the cost of operatingalonggas-transmission
out subject to the constraints that the steady-state
flow
pipeline in steady state with numerous compressor stations in series is considered.
Alore specifically, an op- Qiis specified along each section of the pipe, the maxierating policy for thecompressors
is desired t h a t mum compression ratio of each compressor is not exceeded,themaximumandminimumpressuresalong
minimizes thetotal compressorhorsepowerexpended
while delivering the specified steady-state flow of gas, each section of the pipe are notexceeded, and the initial
input pressure P i , = P S I is specified. This optimization
meeting constraints in pressure along the pipeline and
following
meeting constraints on the operating characteristics of problemcanbecompactlywritteninthe
manner.
the compressors.
T h e problem is essentially a static optimization prob- Minimize by choice of P D ; and Psi the total comlem. However, i t can be formulated as
a multistaged de- pressor energy5
cision problem and solved using dynamic programming.
The computational requirements of the dynamic-programming solution are modest and can easily be implemented on line in real time.
subject to the following constraints:

B. Outline of the Problem

1) steady-state flow is specified,

A symbolic representation of a long gas-transmission

pipeline with N compressor stations in series is shown in
Fig. 5 where
Qi=steady-state flow of gas in the ith section of
pipe ( m m ~ f d ) ~
P s i =suction (input) pressure into the compressor
ith
(Psi)
P D i =discharge (output) pressure out of t h e i t hcompressor (psi).
POUT

PIN

PDi? - PS;+12= KiQi2 i

N compressor stations in series (steady state).

- , AT;

(20)

2) maximum compression ratio is met,

3) pressure constraints in each pipe section are met,6

4) initial input pressure is specified

Pin = PSI

Fig. 5.

= 1, 2,

constant.

C. Multistaged Decision Process

Although the preceding problem

is essentially a static
optimization problem, it can be formulated as a multiThe steady-state relation between the pressures and
staged decision process in which a sequence of decisions
flows in each sectionof the pipe are assumed to be given
is made. More specifically, the problem may be viewed
by the Weymouth formula
a s successively choosing the pressure settings, starting
PDi? - psi+12
= KQ.2
i = 1, . . . Y 4 7 (17) from thefirstcompressorandprogressingtowardthe
N t h compressor.
where Ki is determined by the characteristics
of the ith
T o facilitate the discussion, the problem will be resection of pipe [7]. This equation follows immediately formulated in the usual state-variable notation. In parfrom (12). T h e horsepowerrequired of the ith compressor to compress the gas at a given rate of gas flow
6 Actually (19) is the expression for total horsepower; however,
1

4 The flows may vary in each pipe section since, in many cases,
gas is tapped off the transmission line t o provide fuel for the compressor.

since the system is operating in steady state, the total compressor

energy over a given time periodis proportional to the totalcompressorhorsepower.
6 Note that PS,v+~~P,,t.
Setting Psmin=
Pout
CONTRACT implies
that Pout2Pout
CONTRACT.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
OCTOBER
CONTROL,
AUTOMATIC

480

ticular, a stage variable, state variables, control (decision)variables,andstate-transitionequations

will be
identified.

Stage variable:

i = 1 , 2 , . . * , -V , X + l
(ordering of the compressor stations).

State variables:

x;A Psi?

= 1,

2,

. . . , -1: :IF + 1
9

(suction pressure squared).

(24)

Control variables:

u;&PDi2 - Psi2

1, 2,

. , -J7
'

(difference of squared suction and discharge pressure).

(25)

State-transition equations:

~ ; + l=

U;

- KiQi2

1, 2,

. . . , :I-.

(26)

1968

D. Illustrative Example
T o illustrate the approach, consider a line with the
characteristics shown in Table 111. I t is noted that extremely large pressure drops occur in sections 3 and 9
(see Ks and K g ) ,the sixth compressor is approximately
tn-o-thirds as efficient as the other compressors (see Ab
and Bs), the maximum pressure constraints in pipesections 5 and 7 are lower than in the other sections (see
P5 and Pi
and
the
maximum
compression
ratios
forcompressors4
and 7 are,respectively,lowerand
higher than the other compressors
(see Slmax
and Simax).
I t is assumed that the initial input
flow into the first
compressor is 600 mmcfd, and approximately 0.5 percent of the total gas flow through the compressoris
tapped off the transmission line to provide fuel for the
compressor.
Fig. 6 shows the operatingpolicy for an initial input
pressure of 500 psi. T h e following is a detailed analysis
of the operating policy for this particular example.

T h e problem can then be formulated as the optimiza- 1)

tion of a multistage decisionprocess.Specifically,
the
problem is the following.
2)
Jfinimize by choice of the control sequence ( z L ~ ] ~ ~
the cost
3)

Compressor 1 islimited bythemaximum

compression ratio.
Compressors 2 and 3 are limited by the maximum
~pressure constraint.
Compressors 4 and 5 are limited by the maximum
compression ratio.
4) Compressor 6 is used only to partial capacity since
its operation is inefficient.

(27)

Z(r;, ?4i, i)
i=l

subject to the constraints:

Xi+l

= f ( x i , uj, i)

1, 2,

. ,N
*

TABLE 111

zil = Pin2initial condition

xi E X ( i ) state constraint
ui E [:(xi, i) control constraint,

(28)

ZC~,

(Z i,

ZC~,

2:) E Qi

i)

x(i>
U(Zi,

i)

X;

Ai

xi:

?I

(xi
Zbi)Ri"

pf-1 m i n
2

I X i I P;-I maxi

= { a i : Pimin- xi

R:

~i

215.8
215.8
215.8
215.8
323.7
215.8
215.8
215.8
215.8
215.8

- Bi]

- K;Qi'

~i

K~

1 0.800 10.217
110.922
10.217
3 ; 1.870
0.217

where the following identifications

made:
are

Z(Z;,

CHARACTERISTICS FOR A SaMPLE

8 1.030
1.950
10 1.040

0.217
0.217
9
0.217

~i

213.9
213.9
213.9
213.9
213.9
320.8
213.9
213.9
213.9
213.9

TRAWSMISSION
LINE

Pirnin

500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0

1000.0 1 . 6 597.0
1000.0 1 . 6 594.0
1000.0 1.5 591.0
1000.0 1.3 588.1
900.0 1.6 582.2
10GO.O 1.6
1582.2
900.0
1.75
579.3
1000.0 1 . 5 576.4
1000.0 1 . 6 573.5
1000.0 1.6 570.7

iI l1

5 2bi 5 P?irnar- si

and 0

5 ui I xi(SfmaX
- l ) }.

I t is to be emphasized that
one-dimensional dynamicprogrammingproblems of thetype described above
are very easy to implement and
offer no problems as far
as computer storage or computation time is concerned.
The inequality constraints can be easily handled and
actually reduce the computational requirements of dynamic programming. In addition, when a solution is obtained for a given steady-state flow, the optimal solution
for all input pressuresPi,is obtained. Thisallows a determination of the sensitivity of the optimal solution
ures
the
al
to
respect
with
Pi,.

4
5
6
7
8
9
COMPRESSOR STATIONS

Fig. 6. Suction and discharge pressures for ten

compressors In series.

WONG

mi

LARSON: OPTIMIZATION OF NATURAL-GAS

PIPELIPIT

5) Compressor 7, 8, and 9 are limited by the maximum pressure constraint.

6) Compressor 10 is used to insure that Poutis at the
minimum pressure.

SYSTEMS

481

Peter J. Wong (S67-$167) was born in

Los Angeles, Calif., on December 10,
1940. He received the B.S. and MS. de-

grees from the University of California,

Berkeley,
in
1963
and 1964, respectively, and the Ph.D.degree from Stanford
University,
Stanford,
Calif., in
1967, all in electrical engineering.
VI. CONCLCSIONS
From 1964 to 1967, hewasaReI n this paper it has been shoxn that dynamic prosearch A4ssistant inthe Systems Theory
Laboratory of Stanford University. At
gramming can be applied to optimization problems that
present, he is a Postdoctoral Research
occur in the natural-gas pipeline industry. Extremely
4ssociate with the Department of Engeneral system equations and performance criteria can
gineering Economic Systems, Stanford University, and is employed
Menlo Park, Calif.His
be handled, multiple constraints of a wide variety pre- part-time by Stanford Research Institute,
current research interests include thecomputationalaspects
of
sent no difficulties, and an absolute optimum solution
dynamicprogramming andtheapplication
of optimizationtechis obtained.
niques to natural-gas pipeline systems, railroad systems, and defense
T h e two problems discussed at length in Sections 11, allocation problems.
Dr. Wong is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi. and
and V illustrate the varying nature
of problems that can Sigma
Xi.

be solved. T h e first was the dynamic optimization of a

single
compressor
and single
pipeline
combination,
which is physically located just ahead of the consumer
delivery point. The second was the static optimization
of
a long series combination of compressors and pipelines
required to transmit gas from the source
wells to the
region of consumer delivery.
REFERENCES
[ I ] R.Bellman, Dymnzic Progranznzing. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1957.
[2] -,
Adaptive ControlProcesses.
Princeton, X. J.: Princeton
University Press, 1961.
[3] R. Bellman and S. Dreyfus, AppliedDyzawzir Programlmiltg.
Princeton, K.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962.
[1]R. E. Iarson, StateItzciententDylzam.ic
Pi.ograntnting. NenYork: American Elsevier Publishing- Comuanv.< . Inc.. 1967.
(51 -,
Computational aspects of dqnamic programming, 1967
IEEE I~zternatlCoxa. Rec., pt. 3, March 1967.
161 E. H. Bate?, H. R. Courts, and K. W . Hannah, Dynamic a p
proach to gas-pipelineanalysis, Oil and Gas J., pp. 65-78,
December 18, 1961.
[7] D. L. Katz et al., Handbook of Satural Gas Engin.eerizg. KenYork: McGraw-Hill,1959.
[8] R. D. Richtmyer, Diffeieme M e t h d s f o v Iqzitial Value Problems.
K e a York: Interscience, 1957, pp. 89-120.
[9! F. B.Hildebrand, Idroductzon to Xzmericai Analysis. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1956, pp. 91-99.
[lo] A . H. Shapiro, The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow, vol. 1.New York: Ronald Press, 1953.
1111 0. IV. Eshbach, Handbook of Engineer(tzgFundamentals.
New
York: Wiley, 1936.
[12] R. Aris, R. Bellman, and R. I$!aba,
Some optimization problems in chemical engineerrng, Cltemical Engrg. Symp. Ser., vol.
56, no. 31, 1960.

Robert E. Larson (S58-MJ66) was born

in Stockton, Calif., on September 19,
1938. He received the S.B. degree from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, in 1960, and the k1.S. and
and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University,Stanford, Calif., in1961 and
1964, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
Prior to 1964, he was employed by
the IBM Corporation,Poughkeepsie,
K. Y., and Hughes Aircraft Company,
Culver City, Calif. From 1964 to 1968,
he was with the Information and Control Laboratory
of Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif. Since June, 1968, he has been
with the Systems Division of IVolf Management Services, Palo Alto,
Calif., where he has been concerned with applications of control and
estimationtheoryandwithcomputationalaspects
of dynamic
programming. Hehas publishedseveralpapersondynamicprogramming and other
topics in control theory, andis the authorof the
book, StateIfzcrementDy~um2.c Progpanznring (AmericanElsevier
Publishing Company, 1968).
Dr. Larson is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, Eta Kappa
Xu, and the Xmerican Association for the Advancement of Science.
His paper, Dynamic Programming withReducedComputational
Requirements, won the 1965 IEEE G-AC Best Paper Award. He
also received the 1968 Donald P. Eckman Award from AACC for
outstanding contributions to the automatic control field. He is currently Chairman of the Discrete Systems Committee of the IEEE
G-AC.