Genetic Algorithm Techniques For Calibrating Network Models
Genetic Algorithm Techniques For Calibrating Network Models
Genetic Algorithm Techniques For Calibrating Network Models
Report Number:95/12
1995
Abstract
Computer models for analysing pipe flows and pressures in water distribution networks are in widespread use throughout the world as essential tools for the efficient
operation and improvement of very complex systems. Models invariably incorporate a
number of unknown parameters, the values of which must be chosen so that the modelled performance matches as closely as possible that of the real network. The process
of calibration involves both expensive data collection and a complex parameter optimisation problem.
This report presents novel Genetic Algorithm based parameter calibration procedures
developed to match hydraulic model output with observed data sets.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................... II
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION ................................................................................................ 3
STANDARD CALIBRATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 5
GENETIC ALGORITHMS AND OPTIMIZATION.......................................................................... 7
GENETIC ALGORITHMS AND CALIBRATION ............................................................................................ 8
GA FOR CONTINUOUS PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................... 9
CASE STUDY....................................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................... 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 18
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A........................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix B........................................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. INITIAL ESTIMATES OF PIPE ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS .......................................................... 13
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS FOR DANES CASTLE .......................................... 11
FIGURE 2. NODE PRESSURE ERROR FOR THE THREE DEMAND CONDITIONS .............................................. 13
FIGURE 3. PIPE FLOW ERRORS FOR THE THREE DEMAND CONDITIONS ...................................................... 14
FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS ................................................................................. 15
ii
Introduction
The ability to model larger water distribution systems (WDS) has improved considerably during the past decade[3,16]. Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that design
and operation of such systems depend critically on the efficiency and accuracy of
mathematical models utilised to model the systems behaviour under a variety of conditions. Before a model is used, it must be adjusted to ensure that it will predict, with
reasonable accuracy, the behaviour of the system it models, i.e., it must be calibrated.
This is widely acknowledged by the research community and several studies on WDS
calibration have been published in the past two decades[4,13,19,30].
The problem of WDS model calibration, even if only for water quantity, (pressures
and flows) is highly complex due to the large number of parameters examined and
non-linear due to the flow equations. Several researchers have addressed this problem
developing methods to minimise the difference between the values of the observed
data and those computed by the network simulation model. These methods are based
on the use of analytical equations[30], simulation models[19], or optimisation techniques[13]. Techniques based on analytical models may be applied to very small networks or may alternatively require large network to be simplified by considering only
the skeleton network. Simulation techniques can handle larger networks but are generally restricted to a single loading condition. The most promising calibration procedures are based on optimisation. However, the success of current methods usually depends on linearizing assumptions or the unrealistic calculation of partial derivatives.
In addition, they are generally local optimisation procedures which tend to become
entrapped in local minima or suffer from numerical instabilities associated with matrix inversion.
Since models capable of simulating the hydraulic behaviour of pipe networks are
complex in terms of size, non-linearity, and discrete nature, the use of analytical
methods or classical optimization techniques requires many simplifications. These in
turn may cause unsatisfactory or unrealistic results. On the other hand, Genetic Algorithms, which belong to a class of stochastic optimisation techniques capable of dealing with complex, multi-modal and discontinuous functions, have the required robustness and efficiency as well as conceptual simplicity to handle the aforementioned
problems. Over the course of the last two decades these computer algorithms have
proved their usefulness in various domains of application[29]. Recently, they have been
applied to a broad spectrum of water resources problems[1,2,14,17,21,23,31,33].
The research described in this report combines theoretical and practical work in modelling (simulation) and Genetic Algorithms (optimisation) to develop novel, efficient
and robust calibration procedures and tools. It is believed that the availability of these
tools and an increased understanding of the data requirements for reliable model construction has great potential benefits. These include improved operation and more
purposeful monitoring of water supply systems, increased quality of supply and ultimately lower costs to water companies and consumers.
Mathematical Formulation
A distribution network may be viewed as a connected graph with arcs representing
pipes and nodes representing network elements like valves, pumps, reservoirs, demand points, etc. Two hydraulic variables are associated with network elements,
namely flows and heads. The following mathematical statement of the problem is presented for a general water distribution network. The equations of the network express
flow conservation at nodes and relations between head losses and heads for arcs:
= ci
(1)
hij = hi h j
(2)
j J (i )
ji
where J(i) is a set of nodes adjacent to node i, ci is the consumption at node i, qji is the
flow from node j to node i, hij is the head loss in the pipe connecting i and j and hi is
the head at node i. The head loss hij to friction associated with flow through a pipe
can be expressed in a general form as:
hij = Rij qij qij
n 1
(3)
where Rij and n (n > 1) depend on the flow resistance law selected. In this work the
Colebrook-White formula is used to calculate resistance coefficient Rij as a function of
the friction factor fij, the diameter dij of the pipe connecting i and j, flow qij and the
pipe length Lij:
(4)
The friction factor f is a function of the roughness of the pipe k, the diameter d, the
flow q through the pipe and the viscosity of the fluid (which is for this work considered constant).
For specified pipe characteristics, demand patterns and reservoir heads the system of
non-linear equations (1)-(4) has a unique solution defined by the flows and heads in
the whole network. There are several iterative techniques[11] available for solving the
above system which are incorporated into modern simulation tools[22, 34, 35]. These
tools allow network analysts to concentrate solely on building realistic representation
of the water distribution network thus enabling easier development of models. If input
data for the model are correct, then predicted pressures and flows will match observed
values. However, two main sources of problems are associated with data collection for
real networks: (a) not all input parameters are measured directly because of the expense of data collection; (b) even if it is possible to measure all parameters a certain
amount of inaccuracy will still be associated with readings in the field.
The basic aim of the inspection of supply, distribution records and maps is to select
network data which will justify their inclusion in the model. For example, pipes which
are below certain size are either ignored or grouped together and replaced by equivalent pipes. Since the demand for water is modelled to take place at nodes consumer
records and maps are inspected in order to enable allocation of the total demand to
network demand zones and finally to nodes. The demand allocation is aided by the
field measurement exercise which involves flow measurement of significant demands,
transfers to and from the network and from source works, pump stations and reservoirs. The key to meaningful calibration is having field measurements corresponding
to more than one flow rate. In addition to flows the exercise also entails pressure logging at as many key sites as possible, e.g. at pump stations, in known problem areas,
at large diameter pipes, etc.
Calibration performed using modern simulation packages commences when input data
including an initial estimate of the roughness values of all pipes is entered into the
model. The model is then analysed and the results compared with the field test measurements. Calibrations of this type proceed based on a tedious and time-consuming
trial-and-error procedure where the parameter values are adjusted based on the hydraulic results and the hydraulic analysis is repeated. This iterative process continues
until some stated operating specifications are satisfied or no viable change in input
parameters which improves agreement between observed and predicted values can be
found. In the latter case, the possibility of modelling anomalies, such as reduced pipe
(5)
The analogy with nature is established by the creation within a computer of a set of
solutions called a population. Each individual in a population is represented by a set
of parameter values which completely describe a solution. These are encoded into
chromosomes, which are, in essence, sets of character strings analogous to the chromosomes found in DNA. Standard GAs (SGAs) use a binary alphabet (characters may
be 0s or 1s) to form chromosomes[9]. For example a two-parameter solution
x = (x1,x2) may be represented as an 8-bit binary chromosome: 1001 0011 (i.e., 4 bits
per parameter, x1 = 1001, x2 = 0011). In that particular form the algorithm requires an
additional mapping from bitstrings to real-valued parameters.
The initial population of solutions, which is usually chosen at random, is allowed to
evolve over a number of generations. At each generation, a measure (fitness) of how
good each chromosome is with respect to the objective function is calculated. This is
achieved by simply decoding binary strings into parameter values, substituting them
into the objective function and computing the value of the objective function for each
of the chromosomes. Next, based on their fitness values individuals are selected from
the population and recombined, producing offspring which will comprise the next
generation. This is the recombination operation, which is generally referred to as
crossover because of the way that genetic material crosses over from one chromosome
to another. For example, if two chromosomes are x = (x1,x2) = 1111 1111 and
y = (y1,y2) = 0000 0000, the two offspring may be z = 1100 0000 and w = 0011 1111.
The probability that a chromosome from the original population will be reproduced
into the new generation is dependent on its fitness value. Fit individuals will have
higher probability of being selected than less fit ones. Hence, the new population will
have more of the better solutions. Mutation also plays a role in the reproduction phase,
though it is not the dominant role, as is popularly believed, in the process of evolution.
In SGAs mutation randomly alters each bit (also called gene) with a small probability.
For example, if the original chromosome is x = (x1,x2) = 1111 1111, the same chromosome after mutation may be x = 1110 1111.
In essence, Genetic Algorithms rely on the collective learning process within a population of individuals, each of which represents a search point in the space of potential
solutions. They draw their power from the theoretical principle of implicit parallelism[9]. This principle enables highly fit solution structures (schemata) to receive increased numbers of offspring in successive generations and thus lead to better solutions.
Genetic Algorithms and Calibration
In recent years, many researchers have begun to investigate the use of evolution based
computer methods for calibration of various hydraulic/hydrologic models. Wang[33]
investigated the use of GAs combined with fine-tuning by a local search method for
calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model. Models were calibrated by minimizing the residual variance defined as the sum of square of differences between
computed and observed discharges.
Duan et al.[6] introduced the shuffled complex evolution method for a similar problem by hybridising a genetic algorithm with the Simplex search method. The objective
function used was the mean daily square root of the difference between the observed
flows and simulated flows.
Babovic et al.[1] used GA and the hydrodynamic MOUSE package to fit Manning
numbers to pipes while Mohan and Lucks[17] reported on use of GAs for estimating
parameter values of some linear and non-linear flow routing and water quality prediction models.
Most of those studies[1,17,33] used the GA formulation with binary representation
requiring an additional decoding procedure from bitstrings to real-valued parameters
8
being calibrated. This representation has several advantages over other encodings[5].
It is simple to create and manipulate, it is theoretically tractable, and it is widely applicable since very many problems can be encoded in binary strings. The mapping
from a binary string to a parameter can be accomplished in many different ways but
the precision of the mapping is limited to
x max x min
2n
(6)
where xmin and xmax are the lower and upper bounds on parameter x and n is the length
of the bitstring representing parameter x. To construct a multi-parameter coding one
can concatenate several bitstrings into a single chromosome representing a set of parameters. However, when dealing with a large number of parameters requiring high
accuracy representation, a solution chromosome becomes increasingly long and the
power of the GA search diminishes.
(7)
where xi or yi are chosen with some probability of crossover pc. In addition to this, an
operator suitable for continuous parameter optimization may be used. Namely, average crossover[5] takes two chromosomes and produces one offspring that is the result
of averaging the corresponding parameters of two parental chromosomes
zi =
xi + yi
2
(8)
Other crossover operators like extended intermediate recombination and extended line
recombination [18] can also be used.
The mutation operator has been investigated for binary domains by many authors [8]
and there have been many suggestions on how often it should be applied to a chromosome. The authors are of the opinion that that the mutation rate should be inversely
proportional to the number of bits in the chromosome as suggested by Mhlenbein
and Schlierkamp-Voosen[18]. However, an operator analogous to binary mutation,
but suitable for continuous parameter optimization must be used since simple bit inversion is not possible with the floating-point representation.
An obvious way to mutate a real-valued parameter x is to randomly select a number
that falls within parameter limits xm[xmin, xmax]. Alternatively, the new parameter
may be given by
xm = x + z
(9)
where z is a number in the mutation range interval. This range can be a constant value
throughout the evolution process or it may be a function of the generation number. By
exploiting an analogy with annealing processes the range should become smaller with
the evolution process approaching final stages.
10
Case Study
The proposed algorithm is used to provide a calibrated network model for the Danes
Castle Zone of Exeter City (Devon, UK). This network was chosen for the study because it provides a complex calibration problem to solve and because the necessary
input and output data were readily available. Namely, the network model for this zone
was already built in 1991 when South West Water Services Limited (SWW) commissioned Ewan Associates to develop the model [7].
DANES CASTLE
PUMPS
PYNES WATER
TREATMENT
WORKS
500mm delivery
main
6" meter and
strainer
Legend
meter
18"
main
6"
12"
waste
district
18" dedicated
pumping main
10"
DANES CASTLE
SERVICE RESERVOIR
12"
10" into
distribution
18" into
distribution
10"
10"
12"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
16"
10"
8"
9"
6"
11
main directly to the Danes Castle service reservoir and via a 12 pumping main directly into distribution.
The skeleton of the network is given in Figure 1, while the full network used in the
original calibration exercise [7] and subsequently in this study consists of 197 nodes
and 242 elements (see Appendix A for the input data). Of the 197 nodes, one is a
fixed-head reservoir (at treatment works) and one is the Danes Castle service reservoir. Of the 242 network elements, two are pumps and three are modelled as throttling
valves. In 1991, the Danes Castle reservoir was known to be in poor condition and it
was reconstructed in 1992/93.
In order to monitor leakage, five waste districts have been set up as shown in Figure 1.
These zones were serving between 1559 and 4498 properties each. Information obtained from these zones were used for demand calculations.
A 48 hour field test was undertaken between 13th and 15th August 1991. Flows were
monitored into or within the system at 15 locations while pressures were monitored at
23 locations including the water level variation at Danes Castle service reservoir and
the pump suction and delivery pressures at Pynes Treatment Works.
Three loading conditions were considered in the analysis:
(a) Peak demand - at 10:00h on the 13th of August.
(b) Average demand - at 16:00h on the 13th of August (see Appendix A).
(c) Minimum (night) demand - at 03:30h on the 13th of August.
The calibration process adopted and carried out by Ewan Associates comprised of the
following tasks:
(1) to match the total system flows;
(2) to assess the predicted and observed total pressures for each snapshot and make
reasoned adjustments to pipe roughness coefficients; and
(3) to report model anomalies.
Initially theoretical roughness values from standard hydraulic tables [10] were adopted
for various materials as in Table 1. Steps (2) and (3) were carried out through a trialand-error procedure based on the consultants experience and knowledge of the system. The results of the calibration[7] in terms of prediction errors, are presented in
Figure 2 and Figure 3.
12
k value (mm)
Cast Iron
6.00
Asbestos Cement
0.15
Good
Ductile Iron
0.15
Good
PVC
0.10
Good
Relined Mains
0.15
Good
It should be noted that the pressure logger at node 5050 failed for the minimum demand loading condition (peak in Figure 2). Resulting pipe roughness coefficients are
given in Appendix B (second row, under the heading Ewan). There were numerous
modelling anomalies reported by Ewan Associates [7] which were not resolved at the
time since they warranted additional investigation work. The anomalies were mainly
caused by flow restrictions (throttling) in particular pipes which may have occurred
because of pipe tuberculation, internal pipe corrosion or even because the situation in
4.00
3.00
Minimum demand
2.00
Peak demand
Average demand
1.00
0.00
-1.00
Node
Figure 2. Node pressure error for the three demand conditions [7]
13
PYP5S
PYP5D
7016
6029
6025
5133
5131
5100
5085
5075
5062
5050
5049
5012
4025
4010
3081
3077
3060
3030
3011
-3.00
PYC4
-2.00
the network had changed since the mains geographic plan was made. Without further
investigation these problems were solved by assigning high k (roughness) values to
those pipes (e.g., pipes 3, 10, 12, 16, etc.).
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
Minimum demand
-4.00
Peak demand
Average demand
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
5
65
73
118
125
137
158
162
198
207
208
209
217
220
237
Pipe No.
Figure 3. Pipe flow errors for the three demand conditions [7]
Although the number of parameters to be estimated cannot exceed the number of total
observations available for all the loading conditions, the solutions obtained using the
GA technique are based on fitting friction factor values to each of the pipes. This assumption was used for several reasons:
(a) to demonstrate model capabilities to deal with a large number of variables;
(b) to obtain an initial grouping of pipes in absence of detailed knowledge of the age
and the service condition of pipes;
(c) to investigate how different and unrealistic solutions can result from attempting to
acquire more information from collected data than is available.
Once consistent results have been obtained, groups of pipe with similar friction values
can be identified and the GA can be restarted again. Starting from an initial grouping
of pipes based only on nominal pipe diameters may introduce initial bias and prevent
realistic solutions from being found.
The objective function used in this work is:
14
f ( x ) = p1 ( Hio Hip ) 2 + p2 (Q oj Q jp ) 2
i
(10)
where, p1,2 are normalising coefficients, and Hio and Hip are the observed and predicted heads at node i, respectively, and Q oj and Q jp are the observed and predicted
flows through the pipe j.
Since GAs are stochastic-search techniques, solutions obtained running the program
with different random seed values used to initialise the evolution process may be different. Therefore, several GA runs were necessary to ensure that the solutions identified were of good quality. Figure 4 shows results, in terms of sums of squared errors
for both pressure heads and flows in the network, obtained by the original calibration
study [7] and the 10 GA runs.
180.00
160.00
SSD - Q
140.00
SSD -H*
SSD
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
GA10
GA9
GA8
GA7
GA6
GA5
GA4
GA3
GA2
GA1
Ewan
0.00
Model
values
for
calibration
parameters
were
initially
restricted
to
kmin k kmax. Resulting roughness values obtained by the GA are presented in Appendix B (under the heading kmax=20 mm). However, results obtained in the original
15
study and the GA results indicate that better calibration results may have been obtained if higher roughness values were used. The table in Appendix B shows results
obtained for kmax = 60 mm.
16
Conclusions
Various complex problems that arise in hydraulics and water resources in general have
been solved using evolution-based programs and their hybrids. The applications of
these techniques yield remarkable results with respect to the number of possible solutions an engineer may be faced with when dealing with the design and management of
hydraulic systems. This report describes the development of a nonlinear optimization
model for pipe network calibration. The model developed is based on GAs but departs
from classical GAs in its representation. The use of floating-point representation enables calibration of a large number of unknown parameters without compromising accuracy and precision of the solutions.
The capabilities of the developed model are ascertained using data of an actual water
distribution network. The results obtained by applying the developed model to the
Danes Castle network (Exeter, Devon) clearly show the advantages over trial-anderror procedures used to match hydraulic model output with observed data sets. The
efficiency of the procedure is tested by running the model several times with different
seed values for the random number generator. Each GA run produced a solution better
(with respect to the objective function used in this work) than the original study. The
high level of agreement between the results of different runs also demonstrates the
robustness of the procedure.
With respect to other optimization or analytical models, the GA-based calibration
tool: (a) is easier to use because it does not need complex mathematical apparatus to
evaluate partial derivatives or to invert matrices; (b) can handle larger networks, several loading conditions and a larger number of calibration parameters; and (c) permits
easy incorporation of additional parameter types (pipe diameters, demands, etc.) and
constraints into the optimization process.
It can be anticipated that the number of applications in this area will steadily grow
since GAs are not only effective, they are also easily realisable due to the conceptual
simplicity of the basic mechanisms. Their potential is even greater when parallel
forms of the algorithms can be developed and executed in low-cost multiprocessor
computing systems.
17
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council, grant GR/J09796. We are also grateful to Ewan Associates for providing us
with the report for the original calibration study and to South West Water Ltd. for
providing us with the data for the Danes Castle network.
References
1. Babovic, V., Larsen, L.C. and Z. Wu, (1994), Calibrating Hydrodynamic Models
by Means of Simulated Evolution, Hydroinformatics 94.
2. Cieniawski, S.E., Eheart, J.W. and Ranjithan, S., (1995), Using Genetic Algorithms to Solve a Multiobjective Groundwater Monitoring Problem, Water Resources Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, 399-409.
3. Coulbeck, B. (ed.), (1993), Integrated Computer Applications in Water Supply,
Proc. of the International Conference on Integrated Computer Applications for
Water Supply and Distribution, Research Studies Press, Taunton, UK.
4. Data, R.S.N., and Sridharan, K., (1994), Parameter Estimation in WaterDistribution Systems by Least Squares, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management Div., ASCE, 120(4), 405-421.
5. Davis, L., (1991), Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
6. Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V.K., (1994), Optimal Use of the SCE-UA
Global Optimization Method for Calibrating Watershed Models, Journal of Hydrology, 158, 265-284.
7. Ewan Associates, (1991), Network Analysis Report for the Danes Castle Zone of
Exeter City, Vol. I, November 1991, p.29.
8. Goldberg, D.E., (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine
Learning, Addison-Weley, Reading, MA.
9. Holland H. J. , (1975), Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
18
10. Hydraulic Research Wallingford, (1983), Tables for the hydraulic design of pipes
and sewers (fourth edition), Hydraulic Research Station Ltd.
11. Jeppson, R.W., (1983), Analysis of flow in pipe networks, Ann Arbor Science,
Michigan.
12. Khomsi, D., G.A. Walters, A.R.D. Thorley and D. Ouazar, (1996), A Reliability
Tester for Water Distribution Systems, Journal Computing in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, 10(1), 10-19.
13. Lansey, K.E., and Basnet, C., (1991), Parameter Estimation for Water Distribution
Networks, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management Div., ASCE,
117(1), 126-144.
14. McKinney, D.C. and Lin, M-D., (1994), Genetic Algorithm Solution of Groundwater Management Models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, 18971906.
15. Michalewicz, Z. , (1992), Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolutionary
Programs, Springer-Verlag.
16. Miller, D. (edt.), Water Pipeline Systems, Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Water Pipeline Systems, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London,
UK, 1994.
17. Mohan, S. and Loucks, D.P., (1995), Genetic Algorithms for Estimating Model
Parameters, in M.F. Domenica (ed.) Integrated Water Resources Planning for the
21st Century, ASCE, New York, pp.460-463.
18. Mhlenbein, H. and D. Schlierkamp-Voosen, (1993), Predictive Models for the
Breeder Genetic Algorithm, I. Continuous Parameter Optimization, Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 25-49.
19. Rahal, C.M., Sterling, M.J.H., and Coulbeck, B., (1980), Parameter Tuning for
Simulation Models of Water Distribution Networks, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part
2, 69, pp. 751-762.
20. Rechenberg, I., (1973), Evolutionsstrategie, Frommann-Holzboog, Problemata 15.
19
21. Ritzel, B.J., Eheart, J.W. and Ranjithan, S., (1994), Using Genetic Algorithms to
Solve a Multiple Objective Groundwater Pollution Containment Problem, Water
Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1589-1603.
22. Rossman, L.A., (1993), The EPANET water quality model, in Coulbeck, B. (ed.),
Integrated Computer Applications in Water Supply, Vol. 2, Research Studies
Press, Taunton, Somerset, pp. 79-93.
23. Savic, D.A. and G.A. Walters, (1995), An Evolution Program for Optimal Pressure
Regulation in Water Distribution Networks, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 24, No.
3, pp. 197-219.
24. Savic, D.A. and G.A. Walters, (1995), Genetic Operators and Constraint Handling
for Pipe Network Optimization, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 993,
Evolutionary Computing, Fogarty,T.C. (ed.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 154-165.
25. Savic, D.A., G.A. Walters and J. Knezevic, (1995), Optimal Opportunistic
Maintenance Policy Using Genetic Algorithms, 1: Formulation, Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 34-49.
26. Savic, D.A., G.A. Walters and J. Knezevic, (1995), Optimal OpportunisticMaintenance Policy Using Genetic Algorithms, 2: Analysis, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 25-34.
27. Savic, D.A. and G.A. Walters, (1995), Place of Evolution Programs in Pipe Network
Optimization, Integrated Water Resources Planning for the 21st Century, M.F. Domenica (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, pp. 592-595.
28. Savic, D.A. and G.A. Walters, (1994), Evolution Programs in Optimal Design of
Hydraulic Networks, in Adaptive Computing in Engineering Design and Control
94, edited by I.C. Parmee, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, pp. 146-150.
29. Savic, D.A. and G.A. Walters, (1994), Genetic Algorithms and Evolution Programs for Decision Support, Proceedings of an International Symposium on Advances in Logistics, edited by J. Knezevic, University of Exeter, United Kingdom,
pp. 72-80.
30. Walski, T.M., (1983), Technique for Calibrating Network Models, Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management Div., ASCE, 109(4), 360-372.
20
31. Walters, G.A. and Lohbeck, T.K., (1993), Optimal layout of tree networks using
genetic algorithms, Engineering Optimization, 22, pp.27-48.
32. Walters, G.A. and D.A. Savic, (1994), Optimal Design of Water Systems Using Genetic Algorithms and Other Evolution Programs, Keynote paper in Hydraulic Engineering Software V Vol. 1: Water Resources and Distribution, edited by W.R. Blain
and K.L. Katsifarakis, Computational Mechanics Publications, pp.19-26.
33. Wang, Q.J., (1991), The Genetic Algorithm and its Application to Calibrating
Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 27, No. 9,
2467-2471.
34. Wood, D.J., (1980), Computer Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks Including Extended Period Simulations, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky (Revised 1986).
35. WRc Engineering, (1989), WATNET, Analysis and Simulation of Water Networks
and a Guide to the WATNET3 Computer Program, Swindon, UK.
21
Appendix A
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
3000
10.4
0.438211
3001
8.38
3002
7.92
3003
10.06
1.704568
3004
8.7
1.842017
3010
1.267655
3011
18.99
0.641376
3015
8.23
3020
12.8
1.154087
3025
22
0.428796
3026
23.7
1.154466
3027
24.49
3030
24.49
3035
23
0.125274
3040
12.19
2.166761
3041
20.97
3045
12.19
3050
12.19
0.122498
3051
0.419707
3052
0.082232
3053
0.079397
3054
0.028356
3060
6.07
0.532309
3061
0.04537
3062
6.4
0.079397
3063
6.4
0.053876
3064
6.4
3070
9.67
0.325956
3071
9.67
0.098264
3072
9.5
0.102082
3073
6.4
0.039698
3074
9.5
3075
6.4
0.04537
22
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
3076
5.7
0.065219
3077
5.25
0.412519
3080
10.5
0.318678
3081
9.08
0.324231
3082
3083
19.81
0.290322
3084
19.81
0.706857
3085
11.89
0.276816
3090
0.393162
3095
6.68
4000
7.5
1.932201
4010
6.89
1.334978
4015
7.32
0.686687
4016
0.50752
4020
7.62
0.732494
4021
0.548623
4022
0.443823
4023
4025
6.83
0.395239
4030
6.53
0.457622
5000
21
0.399252
5005
22.19
0.345727
5010
15.5
0.10029
5012
14.19
0.166443
5015
14.63
0.258059
5020
16.15
0.334326
5021
26
0.254054
5025
14.33
0.305591
5030
14.33
5035
12.19
0.431554
5040
32.31
0.702543
5045
40
5049
43.79
5050
43.68
5060
39.5
0.532204
5062
39.586
0.508377
23
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
5065
36.25
0.86899
5070
9.8
0.857269
5075
8.41
5080
10.36
0.288257
5085
12.93
5090
39.56
1.148491
5095
38.5
5100
27.43
0.502038
5105
28
1.447096
5110
28
5115
18
1.574201
5120
26
0.697161
5125
13.41
0.767554
5130
9.14
0.220817
5131
29.78
5133
33.08
5135
8.53
5140
7.92
0.766705
5200
54.89
5205
55.21
5210
46
5215
43
5216
43
5220
43
5225
44.5
5226
44.5
5230
33.4
0.331111
5235
38
0.256451
5240
37
0.862208
5241
37
5245
34.5
5246
34.5
5247
34.5
5300
54.89
5301
54.89
5303
55.21
24
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
5305
34.7
5310
34.7
5315
41
0.295332
5320
41
5325
41
0.099179
5326
34.16
0.102082
6000
24.5
0.250994
6005
24.3
0.108573
6010
21.79
1.408546
6015
19.5
0.340329
6016
19.5
6020
15
6025
19.86
1.228856
6024
19.86
6026
28
0.163063
6027
28
0.146429
6028
21.3
0.303642
6029
28.35
0.072383
6030
21.3
0.170721
6035
21
0.098955
6040
21
0.056042
6041
20.42
0.764201
6042
8.84
0.530838
6043
21.03
0.238455
6045
16.03
1.318714
6050
10.03
0.078609
6054
10
6055
10
1.069331
6060
9.5
6061
7000
19.51
-0.35878
7005
19.2
0.380454
7010
19.2
0.568682
7009
19.2
7011
17.1
0.81789
7015
19.2
0.068484
25
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
7014
19.2
7016
21.74
0.800935
7017
25
1.021349
7018
25
0.461837
7020
18.38
7021
18.38
0.22786
8000
10.4
8002
15
0.02
8004
15.24
8006
15.24
8008
34.444
8100
8104
61.3
8106
61.3
8110
61.3
8112
61.3
8114
7.5
1.93
8116
7.5
1.93
8118
60.01
8122
60.01
8124
34.44
8130
15
8140
6.72
4.15
8150
16
8160
36
8200
16
8202
16
8204
16
8206
16
8208
15.8
8210
27.1
0.103681
8212
20
8214
18.26
8216
15.8
8218
17.18
8220
17
26
Nodes
ID
Elevation
Demand
(m)
(l/s)
8222
17.17
8224
17.19
8226
17
8228
17.17
8230
16
8232
16
8234
16
8236
16.5
8238
13.78
8240
13.93
8300
34.44
1.79
8310
12
1.87
8312
8.53
8314
7.5
8316
17.5
0.28
8318
9.75
8320
2.27
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
3000
3001
110
203
1.5
3000
3002
100
300
0.5
3000
3010
290
254
70
3000
3010
290
102
10
3000
8000
10
254
10
3002
8314
315
300
0.5
3003
3004
410
100
3003
3020
130
300
0.5
3003
8314
420
300
0.5
10
3010
3011
590
102
80
11
3010
3015
500
152
20
12
3010
3020
760
305
70
13
3015
8314
10
152
20
14
3020
3025
300
152
1.5
27
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
15
3020
3030
360
305
60
16
3020
3035
420
229
100
17
3025
3026
180
152
1.5
18
3025
3027
190
152
1.5
19
3030
3035
75
305
30
20
3030
3040
1170
406
20
21
3040
3041
200
229
1.5
22
3040
3045
200
229
35
23
3045
3050
30
152
35
24
3045
3060
520
229
45
25
3050
3051
720
152
35
26
3050
3070
440
152
40
27
3051
3052
190
152
10
28
3051
3052
190
102
10
29
3052
3053
105
102
10
30
3052
3063
330
152
10
31
3053
3054
200
150
10
32
3053
3064
315
152
10
33
3060
3061
50
152
10
34
3060
3063
405
152
10
35
3061
3062
315
152
10
36
3061
3073
320
152
30
37
3062
3063
200
152
10
38
3062
3076
405
152
10
39
3063
3064
150
102
10
40
3070
3080
110
152
30
41
3070
8318
100
152
10
42
3071
3072
295
152
10
43
3071
3072
305
152
10
44
3071
8318
10
152
10
45
3072
3073
185
152
35
46
3072
3074
190
152
35
47
3072
3077
300
152
40
48
3073
3075
100
152
10
49
3074
3075
185
152
10
50
3074
3076
150
152
10
28
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
51
3075
3076
295
152
10
52
3076
8114
95
152
90
53
3077
8100
1250
180
0.05
54
3077
8100
1210
180
0.05
55
3077
8116
490
152
40
56
3080
3081
295
102
10
57
3080
3085
105
152
25
58
3081
3082
85
76
59
3082
3083
405
150
0.1
60
3083
3084
100
76
61
3084
3085
250
102
62
3085
3090
375
152
20
63
3090
3095
1015
152
20
64
4000
4010
300
152
1.5
65
4000
8314
50
102
30
66
4010
4015
160
152
67
4015
4016
505
102
68
4015
4020
105
152
69
4020
4021
185
152
1.2
70
4020
4025
310
152
1.2
71
4021
4022
40
152
1.2
72
4021
4023
40
152
1.2
73
4023
8312
100
150
1.2
74
4025
4030
370
152
1.2
75
4030
8140
300
152
1.2
76
5000
5005
385
305
40
77
5000
8216
190
305
40
78
5005
5010
400
305
40
79
5010
5012
95
305
40
80
5010
8150
20
152
81
5012
5015
395
305
40
82
5015
5020
100
305
650
83
5015
5025
695
254
55
84
5020
5021
205
305
650
85
5020
8002
152
1.5
86
5021
8104
1090
305
650
29
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
87
5025
5030
40
150
25
88
5025
5050
505
254
60
89
5025
5070
950
254
40
90
5030
5035
100
150
20
91
5035
5040
300
150
0.1
92
5035
8310
50
152
0.1
93
5040
5045
315
150
0.1
94
5040
5065
360
150
0.1
95
5045
5050
150
457
12
96
5045
5060
30
254
13
97
5045
5226
500
305
98
5049
8110
270
457
99
5049
8206
3000
457
0.75
100
5050
5200
125
457
101
5060
5062
245
254
13
102
5062
5095
400
254
103
5070
5075
180
254
40
104
5075
5080
200
254
105
5075
5125
380
150
10
106
5080
5085
45
254
107
5080
5130
195
300
0.5
108
5080
8000
100
381
10
109
5085
5090
400
152
0.5
110
5090
5095
110
178
111
5090
5100
240
152
112
5095
5100
200
102
113
5100
5105
170
150
114
5105
5110
50
150
115
5110
5115
90
150
116
5110
5125
305
152
0.5
117
5110
5125
265
254
0.3
118
5110
5131
650
254
0.1
119
5115
5120
705
102
120
5120
5241
400
102
121
5125
5130
125
254
0.1
122
5130
5135
100
300
0.5
30
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
123
5131
5133
20
305
0.1
124
5131
5226
820
305
1.5
125
5133
5235
350
305
0.1
126
5135
5140
215
150
127
5135
8312
105
300
0.5
128
5200
5205
490
254
129
5200
5300
457
130
5205
5210
190
254
131
5210
5215
40
254
132
5215
5216
290
150
133
5215
5220
40
254
134
5220
5225
340
203
135
5220
5320
15
203
136
5225
5226
10
152
137
5225
5230
290
203
55
138
5225
5325
100
203
139
5230
5235
350
203
55
140
5235
5240
350
305
141
5235
5241
400
203
142
5240
5245
600
305
0.5
143
5241
8160
150
203
144
5245
5246
10
203
0.5
145
5245
8008
10
254
146
5245
8300
185
305
0.5
147
5247
8124
10
203
0.5
148
5300
5301
10
457
149
5300
5305
610
254
150
5301
5303
405
152
151
5301
8118
457
152
5305
5310
100
254
153
5310
5315
40
254
154
5315
5320
25
203
155
5320
5325
100
203
120
156
5325
5326
300
152
157
6000
6005
300
152
158
6000
8160
395
152
31
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
159
6005
6010
535
152
160
6010
6015
480
152
10
161
6010
6016
400
254
40
162
6010
8008
525
254
1.5
163
6015
6016
152
1.5
164
6015
8004
102
25
165
6015
8006
102
166
6015
8130
315
102
10
167
6015
8316
55
102
10
168
6016
6020
400
254
40
169
6020
6025
320
203
40
170
6025
6024
152
10
171
6025
6026
300
150
60
172
6025
6035
605
203
10
173
6024
6030
45
102
10
174
6024
8130
500
102
10
175
6026
6027
70
102
60
176
6027
6028
255
102
60
177
6027
6029
200
102
60
178
6028
6029
300
102
60
179
6028
6030
80
102
60
180
6030
6035
485
102
1.5
181
6035
6040
90
203
1.5
182
6035
6043
125
102
1.5
183
6040
6041
45
102
1.5
184
6040
6045
420
152
1.5
185
6041
6042
495
102
1.5
186
6041
6045
400
102
1.5
187
6042
8320
300
102
1.5
188
6043
6054
1000
102
1.5
189
6045
6050
300
102
1.5
190
6045
6050
320
152
1.5
191
6050
6054
110
152
1.5
192
6050
6055
215
102
1.5
193
6054
6055
100
152
1.5
194
6055
6060
575
150
1.5
32
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
195
6060
6061
150
150
1.5
196
7000
7005
420
152
197
7000
7014
130
152
198
7000
8124
450
203
199
7005
7010
60
102
200
7010
7011
605
102
201
7010
7016
275
102
202
7009
7014
245
102
203
7015
7016
100
102
10
204
7015
7017
385
102
10
205
7016
7018
300
102
206
7016
7021
500
80
207
7017
8004
300
102
15
208
7018
8006
300
102
209
7020
8130
360
80
80
210
8000
8312
125
300
0.1
211
9000
8106
305
212
8104
8106
305
213
9000
8112
457
214
8110
8112
457
215
8114
8116
102
1.5
216
8118
8122
457
217
8120
8122
457
218
8200
8204
152
0.1
219
8200
8238
500
457
220
8202
8216
305
221
8204
8240
500
457
5.5
222
8208
8210
410
102
223
8208
8216
10
102
224
8210
8212
195
102
225
8210
8214
830
102
226
8218
8220
500
227
8220
8226
500
228
8220
8236
500
229
8222
8242
500
230
8224
8226
500
33
Pipes
ID
Length
Diameter
(m)
(mm)
(mm)
231
8228
8242
500
232
8230
8232
450
233
8230
8234
450
234
8230
8236
130
500
235
8232
8234
450
236
8234
8238
25
457
237
8234
8240
25
457
243
8102
8120
500
1E-07
244
8108
8120
500
1E-07
34
Appendix B
Roughness Values (mm)
kmax = 20 mm
kmax = 60 mm
Pipe Ewan
No.
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
Run
Run
Run Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run Run
GA
70.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 59.9 59.9
10.0
10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.9 20.0 59.9 59.8 55.9 59.3 59.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5 19.8 19.9 19.8 19.9 19.7 59.7 59.7 59.3 59.7 60.0
0.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 59.9 59.9 60.0
10
80.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 23.7 23.9 25.0 23.9 24.9
11
20.0 19.6 18.8 19.9 18.3 18.6 56.2 59.7 59.6 58.5 49.9
12
70.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 59.9 59.9 59.8 59.9 59.9
13
20.0
14
1.5
7.6 15.6
5.4
15
60.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 59.9 59.9 59.9 60.0
16
100.0 19.9 19.9 19.8 19.9 19.8 59.7 59.9 59.7 60.0 59.8
17
1.5
7.2
5.1
18
1.5
6.3
6.2
9.0
19
30.0 17.6 17.7 18.3 16.0 10.9 50.8 57.8 47.6 52.6 52.8
20
21
1.5
3.9
6.5
6.6 10.7
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.5
22
0.9
0.6
0.1
23
8.0
5.6 30.4
24
45.0
0.0
0.0
25
35.0 18.1 18.4 18.8 19.0 17.3 46.0 47.9 15.5 30.6 42.9
26
27
28
10.0
7.9
8.3
8.8 11.7
5.7
2.6
8.9
5.9
0.5
0.1
6.2
0.1
0.8
0.0
8.2
35
29
7.5 19.5
30
10.0
3.6
6.0 17.2
8.1 14.9
31
10.0
32
10.0 11.5 15.2 16.4 10.6 13.2 37.5 19.0 32.9 41.6 28.0
33
34
10.0 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.5 18.9 56.7 59.2 53.8 55.4 52.5
35
10.0 17.4 16.7 18.6 17.6 18.3 57.2 57.2 36.1 56.1 52.6
36
30.0 19.9 19.9 20.0 20.0 19.7 55.6 58.8 31.5 24.1 29.7
37
38
39
10.0
9.2 10.3
40
30.0
6.2
2.5
41
42
10.0
0.9
8.5
4.5
1.0
4.9
5.9 26.7
43
10.0
2.6
0.7
0.9
3.4
5.1
4.1 12.8
44
10.0
3.0
5.3
5.1
7.7
45
35.0 19.7 19.2 19.4 18.9 19.3 44.7 42.2 42.1 47.9 57.1
46
35.0 14.6 15.8 17.6 17.9 15.2 37.4 45.7 53.3 46.8 51.9
47
40.0 19.7 19.3 19.7 18.8 19.9 47.0 35.0 48.7 35.1 35.1
48
10.0 19.0 19.7 15.6 18.5 16.3 41.8 40.5 27.3 24.2 56.3
49
50
10.0 11.0
51
10.0
52
4.0 16.6
6.0
7.4
7.8
7.3 37.9
6.0 14.2
9.7
0.6
1.5
7.6 54.6
4.4
3.9
0.2
1.2
1.7
9.3
7.4 49.9
8.8 16.1 13.6 13.2 10.1 30.6 42.9 44.0 35.3 37.1
53
0.1
6.3 10.3
54
0.1 14.3
8.4
3.1
4.9
55
40.0 18.1 19.1 18.8 18.8 19.6 57.8 53.3 54.8 58.3 58.6
56
10.0 14.0
57
25.0
58
6.6
6.8
8.9
1.0
6.4
4.1
59
0.1
60
1.0
8.5
61
1.0
5.2
5.4
4.3
7.1
3.4
0.5
0.7
6.8
2.9 13.8
62
9.3
3.7
63
20.0
4.5
64
65
7.9 13.8
1.0
1.5 19.5 19.6 19.4 19.2 19.7 59.8 59.5 59.2 60.0 59.7
30.0
6.8
3.5
4.5
5.2
4.0
0.0
36
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
66
1.0 18.7 18.1 19.5 16.5 15.3 59.8 59.2 59.1 59.8 59.4
67
1.0
68
1.0 19.4 19.1 19.7 19.5 19.8 59.8 59.7 59.8 60.0 60.0
69
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.2
1.1
1.6
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
70
1.2
2.7
4.3
3.5
3.4
4.0
3.3
4.4
3.5
3.0
4.0
71
1.2
6.0 10.8
7.1
72
1.2
1.1
5.8
3.8
2.0
0.4
2.6
1.8
5.2
8.0
2.2
73
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.7
74
1.2
75
2.8 10.5
8.4 11.6
5.4 15.6
76
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 59.9 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
77
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
78
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
79
40.0 19.9 20.0 19.9 19.9 19.9 59.6 59.9 60.0 59.8 59.9
80
1.0
9.4
7.3
81
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
82
650.0 19.7 19.7 19.5 19.9 19.7 59.6 59.8 59.8 59.2 59.9
83
55.0 18.5 18.6 18.3 18.7 18.9 16.3 16.8 16.5 16.5 16.3
84
650.0 19.9 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 59.9 59.9 59.8 59.9 59.9
85
86
5.0
650.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
87
25.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
88
60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
89
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 54.7 43.0 58.4 59.1 48.5
90
20.0 11.5
91
0.1 12.8
9.1
92
0.1
8.0 13.1
93
0.1 13.1
4.5
94
4.7
6.2
8.5
95
96
0.0 16.7
0.1 30.2
4.8 25.8
97
2.0
98
1.0 19.3 18.2 16.0 19.9 19.1 42.6 21.3 28.4 16.6 43.2
99
0.8
3.5
0.2
0.0
2.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
100
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101
102
7.9
8.1
8.5
8.1
8.6
0.1
13.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 31.1 45.6 28.2 28.7 28.1
4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
37
6.1 12.1
2.4
6.5
103
40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 59.9 59.7 59.9 59.7
104
5.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 59.9 60.0 59.9 60.0
105
10.0 20.0 20.0 19.9 19.9 19.8 59.7 59.6 59.7 59.4 59.9
106
1.0 18.8 19.5 19.9 19.6 19.5 60.0 60.0 59.9 60.0 59.7
107
0.5
108
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0 20.0 20.0 19.9 20.0 20.0 59.9 59.8 58.1 59.0 59.8
109
110
111
4.0 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 20.0 50.7 30.0 38.0 56.0 59.5
112
0.0
0.1
113
1.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 59.9 59.8
5.8
114
1.0 19.9 20.0 19.8 19.9 19.8 59.8 59.9 59.0 59.7 59.9
115
3.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.7
3.7
0.4
0.5
2.2
3.0
1.7
116
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
117
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118
9.7
9.5
8.6
8.1
6.7
119
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
121
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
122
0.5 17.1 17.7 16.3 17.9 19.3 59.5 59.8 59.6 57.4 59.7
123
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
125
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
126
7.7
127
0.5
128
5.4
129
2.0
0.0
0.0
130
2.0 19.7 16.4 17.6 14.6 18.2 38.8 38.3 25.6 29.0 21.4
131
132
2.0 11.9
5.5 19.8
133
2.0 11.2
134
2.0
1.0
135
136
2.0
0.0
137
138
139
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0 11.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
55.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.1 30.5 22.6 24.1 37.0
1.0 19.8 19.4 19.7 19.6 19.7
0.6
7.6
0.1 40.4
4.5
55.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 57.0 47.7 57.0 53.8 48.6
38
140
1.0 17.6
8.5
5.1
4.8
7.6
1.0 10.9
0.2
0.0
5.2
141
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
142
0.5
143
5.0 19.0 14.2 16.1 17.0 18.7 44.0 59.9 58.3 59.4 59.5
144
0.5
145
1.0 10.0 10.9 13.7 12.8 15.0 58.7 56.3 59.4 51.5 58.6
146
0.5
6.1 10.2
147
0.5
9.7
7.6
7.1
148
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
149
4.5
3.6
0.2
6.6
0.7
150
1.0
6.9
2.5
8.0
4.6
151
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
152
1.0 16.4 14.8 14.4 18.1 14.4 39.5 50.0 21.6 35.1
1.9
153
1.0 10.0
3.3
154
155
9.8 18.7
9.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4 42.4
0.1
156
1.0
5.8 10.0
157
3.0
2.4
158
159
3.0
0.0
0.1
2.6 14.2
2.9 11.1
0.0
0.1
8.1 15.2
0.0
0.0
8.5 37.4
0.0 32.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
160
9.1 14.8
161
40.0
7.1 14.5
8.5
1.4 18.5
1.7
2.9
162
1.5
2.7
0.2
5.0
2.0
1.1
0.3
1.2
1.8
0.4
163
1.5
1.3
1.8
2.6
2.4
5.0
1.9 13.0
5.0 14.4
1.1
6.4 13.0
7.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
164
165
25.0 12.4
1.0
0.3
0.3
7.3
2.8
0.3
2.8
0.8
3.5
166
10.0 18.8 19.4 18.8 19.1 18.0 10.9 38.4 21.7 30.5 58.6
167
10.0
168
169
40.0 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.7 37.0 33.8 20.6 33.5 16.5
170
10.0
171
60.0 19.5 17.3 17.0 15.7 17.3 46.9 54.7 52.5 54.0 13.2
172
10.0 17.4 18.8 16.8 16.3 18.4 23.5 23.4 48.4 46.1 37.5
173
10.0 19.1 19.1 17.9 18.8 17.5 56.9 56.0 46.1 22.9 48.3
174
175
60.0 16.7 17.5 15.9 19.2 15.6 49.9 44.1 51.9 53.9 43.6
176
5.8 15.7
2.5
9.6
7.2
7.0 13.0
9.1
1.1 35.9
8.1
5.9 23.2
39
7.9 17.5
6.6 21.5
2.5
177
178
60.0
6.3
0.2
5.8
2.2
0.9
7.0
5.9
2.3 20.1
3.3
179
60.0
6.4
6.3
5.1
3.2
2.6
1.7 22.9
6.4 32.2
8.3
180
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
181
1.5
2.3
7.1 13.6
182
8.1
183
1.5
6.5 10.8
7.8
184
1.5 14.6
185
1.5
9.7
186
1.5 11.5
187
1.5
6.0
1.6
188
1.5
5.5
189
1.5
7.4
7.8 10.5
190
1.5
3.5 12.2
191
7.4
4.4
5.0
8.5
5.5
4.2
6.6
1.5
4.4
192
1.5
3.5 13.1
193
194
1.5 10.1
9.6
195
1.5
4.8
7.4
196
1.0 15.8
197
1.0 14.4
198
1.0
2.0 11.0
7.6
199
5.8
200
1.0
5.2
5.6
201
3.0 19.6 19.2 18.3 19.2 19.1 31.8 44.4 57.7 58.2 59.5
202
1.0
203
10.0
3.1
6.1
6.5
6.9
204
10.0
4.4 12.9
9.4
4.9
9.2
6.1
2.8
8.0
5.1
3.1
205
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
206
1.0
6.7 14.9
9.4
8.8
207
15.0
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.1
4.8
7.7
8.7
5.3
4.8
5.1
208
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
209
80.0
4.2 16.5
7.4
5.8
210
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
211
1.0 14.8 17.2 11.8 19.3 16.6 49.7 58.2 56.4 57.7 57.4
212
1.0
8.2
213
1.0
8.1
6.3
9.7
7.5
1.2
9.7
6.9 15.9
8.6 12.4
1.0
7.2
6.7
9.2 11.7
2.2
2.1
2.9
1.0
0.5
40
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
5.1 30.8
1.0
4.9
214
1.0
6.7
215
216
4.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
217
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
218
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
219
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.0
220
1.0
8.7
221
5.5
2.5
0.6
0.6
1.8
222
1.0 13.3
8.9
8.4
223
224
1.0 11.4
6.3
225
5.4
7.5
5.8 36.4
226
1.0 10.0
3.5
227
1.0 12.6
8.7 17.4
228
1.0 12.6
0.2
229
230
1.0
8.8
231
1.0
5.0
8.9 13.6
9.9
232
1.0
7.5
2.4
0.0 59.8
1.7 59.9
233
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
234
1.0 18.0
2.9
0.0 60.0
0.0 60.0
235
1.0
7.8
4.6
0.3 59.6
0.2 59.6
236
1.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
237
5.0
1.0
5.6 18.6
0.0
9.7
9.4 10.6
8.2
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.9 59.4
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
3.3
41
0.3 59.3
1.0
2.5 59.6
9.5
2.8
1.0