The results of all presented *ΔQ* methods (*A*, *B*, *C* and *D*) are compared to the results obtained using the EPANET2 hydraulic solver *(R)*. The first tests of the *ΔQ* method implementation, including all variations (*A*, *B*, *C* and *D*) were run on the NYT network. These different approaches share the same modified FBN (Figure 5(b)). There are two loops in the network: the larger loop 1 contains a reservoir along with the nodes numbered from 2 to 15, while loop 2 has nodes 11, 9, 16 and 20. The location of the split is arbitrary and inconsequential. Loop 1 was split in the proximity of node 6 where a new node 6′ is introduced as a start node for the downstream pipe. Loop 2 was split close to node 20, with the new node 20′ being generated. Flow corrections for loops 1 and 2, *ΔQ _{1}* and

Table 2

GA optimization algorithm . | Fitness function f [10^{6} $]
. | CPU time t [s]
. | Speedup factor [-] . |
---|---|---|---|

EPANET2 DLL (R) | 38.6 | 390 | / |

Upgraded ΔQ (A) | 38.6 | 18.5 | 21.1 |

Fixed ΔQ (B) | 40.2 | 5 | 78.0 |

Variable ΔQ (C) | 39.8 | 5.5 | 70.9 |

Fixed iteration ΔQ (D) | 39.0 | 18.4 | 21.2 |

GA optimization algorithm . | Fitness function f [10^{6} $]
. | CPU time t [s]
. | Speedup factor [-] . |
---|---|---|---|

EPANET2 DLL (R) | 38.6 | 390 | / |

Upgraded ΔQ (A) | 38.6 | 18.5 | 21.1 |

Fixed ΔQ (B) | 40.2 | 5 | 78.0 |

Variable ΔQ (C) | 39.8 | 5.5 | 70.9 |

Fixed iteration ΔQ (D) | 39.0 | 18.4 | 21.2 |

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.