Optimal design and operation of irrigation pumping stations using mathematical programming and Genetic Algorithm (GA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many water authorities worldwide, one of the greatest potential areas for energy savings is in pump selection and in the related effective scheduling of daily pump operations. The optimal control and operation of an irrigation pumping station is achieved here by first solving the nonlinear governing model using Lagrange Multipliers (LM) and then through Genetic Algorithm (GA) approach. Computation in both methods is driven by an objective function that includes operating and capital costs subject to various performance and hydraulic constraints. The LM approach first specifies the annual energy costs and minimizes the total cost for all sets of pumping stations; the method then selects the least-cost pumps from among the feasible sets. The GA model simultaneously determines the least total annual cost of the pump station and its operation. The solution includes the selection of pump type, capacity, and the number of units, as well as scheduling the operation of irrigation pumps that results in minimum design and operating cost for a set of water demand curves. Application of the two models to a real-world project shows not only considerable savings in cost and energy but also highlights the efficiency and ease of the GA approach for solving complex problems of this type.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".