Multi-Objective Optimization of Large Pipeline Networks Using Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents application of Genetic Algorithm (GA) methodologies to multi-objective optimization of two complex gas pipeline networks to achieve specific operational objectives. The first network contains 10 compressor stations resulting in 20 decision variables and an optimization space of 6.3 × 1029 cases. The second system contains 25 compressor stations resulting in 54 decision variables and an optimization space of 1.85 × 1078 cases. Compressor stations generally included multiple unit sites, where the compressor characteristics of each unit is taken into account constraining the solution by the surge and stonewall limits, maximum and minimum speeds and maximum power available. A key challenge to the optimization of such large systems is the number of constraints and associated penalty functions, selection of the GA operators such as crossover, mutation, selection criteria and elitism, as well as the population size and number of generations. The paper discusses the approach taken to arrive at optimal values for these parameters for large gas pipeline networks. Examples for two-objective optimizations, referred to as Pareto fronts, include maximum throughput and minimum fuel, as well as, minimum linepack and maximum throughput in typical linepack/throughput/fuel envelopes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".