Comparison of Optimization Methods for Ground-Water Bioremediation
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 125, Issue 1
Abstract
This paper compares computational performance of eight optimization algorithms used to identify the most cost-effective policy for in situ bioremediation of contaminated ground water. Six of these methods have not previously been applied to optimization of groundwater remediation. Numerical results were obtained for bioremediation of three problems based on two aquifers with time-invariant or time-varying pumping rates. Three major classes of algorithms are considered in the comparison: evolutionary algorithms [binary-coded genetic algorithm (BIGA), real-coded genetic algorithm, and derandomized evolution strategy (DES)], direct search methods (Nelder-Mead simplex, modified simplex, and parallel directive search), and derivative-based optimization methods (implicit filtering for constrained optimization and successive approximation linear quadratic regulator). Based on the three problems considered, the successive approximation linear quadratic regulator is the fastest algorithm. No one algorithm was consistently the most accurate on all three problems. The DES displayed an impressive combination of speed and accuracy. The DES has the advantage that it does not require derivative information. The BIGA was much slower and less accurate than all the other algorithms on the two problems BIGA solved.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ahlfeld, D. P., Mulvey, J. M., Pinder, G. F., and Wood, E. F. ( 1988). “Contaminated groundwater remediation design using simulation, optimization, and sensitivity theory, 1, model development.” Water Resour. Res., 24(3), 431–441.
2.
Atwood, D. F., and Gorelick, S. M. ( 1985). “Hydraulic gradient control for groundwater contaminant control.” J. Hydrol., Amsterdam, 76, 85–106.
3.
Back, T., and Schwefel, H.-P. ( 1993). “An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization.” Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 1–23.
4.
Bertsekas, D. B. ( 1976). “On the Goldstein-Levitin-Polyak gradient projection method.” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 21, 174–184.
5.
Chang, L.-C., Shoemaker, C. A., and Liu, P. L.-F. ( 1992). “Optimal time-varying pumping rates for groundwater remediation: Application of a constrained optimal control algorithm.” Water Resour. Res., 28(12), 3157–3173.
6.
Chen, D. H., Saleem, Z., and Grace, D. W. ( 1986). “A new simplex procedure for function minimization.” Int. J. Modeling Simulation, 6(3), 81–85.
7.
Cieniawski, S. E., Eheart, J. W., and Ranjithan, S. ( 1995). “Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiobjective groundwater monitoring problem.” Water Resour. Res., 31(2), 399–409.
8.
Culver, T. B., and Shoemaker, C. A. ( 1992). “Dynamic optimal control for groundwater remediation with flexible management periods.” Water Resour. Res., 28(3), 629–641.
9.
Culver, T. B., and Shoemaker, C. A. ( 1993). “Optimal control for groundwater remediation by differential dynamic programming with quasi-Newton approximations.” Water Resour. Res., 29(4), 823–831.
10.
Culver, T. B., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1996). “Impact of treatment facility capital costs on dynamic optimal groundwater remediation.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE.
11.
Dennis J. E., and Torczon, V. ( 1991). “Direct search methods on parallel machine.” SIAM J. Optimization, 1(4), 448–474.
12.
Fogel, D. B. ( 1995). Evolutionary computation . IEEE Press, New York.
13.
Gilmore, P., and Kelley, C. T. ( 1995). “An implicit filtering algorithm for optimization of functions with many local minima.” SIAM J. Optimization, 5(2), 269–285.
14.
Goldberg, D. E. ( 1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
15.
Holland, J. H. ( 1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial system . University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
16.
Janikow, C., and Michalewicz, Z. ( 1991). “An experimental comparison of binary and floating point representations in genetic algorithms.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, 31–36.
17.
Karatzas, G. P., and Pinder, G. F. ( 1996). “The solution of groundwater quality management problems with a nonconvex feasible region using a cutting plane optimization technique.” Water Resour. Res., 32(4), 1091–1100.
18.
Mansfield, C. M., Shoemaker, C. A., and Liao, L.-Z. (1998). “Utilizing sparsity in time-varying optimal control of aquifer cleanup.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(1), 15–21.
19.
Marryott, R. A., Dougherty, D. E., and Stollar, R. L. ( 1993). “Optimal groundwater management: 2., Application of simulated annealing to a field-scale contamination site.” Water Resour. Res., 29(4), 847–860.
20.
McKinney D. C., and Lin, M.-D. ( 1994). “Genetic Algorithm solution of groundwater management models.” Water Resour. Res., 30(6), 1897–1906.
21.
McKinney D. C., and Lin, M.-D. ( 1995). “Approximation mixed-integer nonlinear programming methods for optimal aquifer remediation design.” Water Resour. Res., 31(3), 731–740.
22.
Minsker, B. S., and Shoemaker, C. A. ( 1996). “Differentiating a finite element biodegradation simulation model for optimal control.” Water Resour. Res., 32(1), 187–192.
23.
Minsker, B. S., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1998). “Dynamic optimal control of in-situ bioremediation of ground water.”J. Resour. Plng. Mgmt., ASCE, 124(3), 149–161.
24.
Nelder, J. A., and Mead, R. ( 1965). “A simplex method for function minimization.” Comp. J. , 7, 308–313.
25.
Ostermeier, A., Gawelczyk, A., and Hansen, N. ( 1994a). “A derandomized approach to self adaptation on evolution strategies.” Evolutionary Computation, 2(4), 369–380.
26.
Ostermeier, A., Gawelczyk, A., and Hansen, N. ( 1994b). “Self-size adaptation based on nonlocal use of selection information.” Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN III, Y. Davidor, H.-P. Schwefel, and R. Manner, eds., 189–198.
27.
Ritzel, B. J., and Eheart, J. W. ( 1994). “Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiple objective groundwater pollution contaminant problem.” Water Resour. Res., 30(5), 1589–1603.
28.
Rogers, L. L., and Dowla, F. U. ( 1994). “Optimization of groundwater remediation using artificial neural networks with parallel solute transport modeling.” Water Resour. Res., 30(2), 457–481.
29.
Schwefel, H.-P. ( 1981). Numerical optimization of computer models . Wiley, New York.
30.
Taylor, S. ( 1993). “Modeling enhanced In-situ biodegradation in groundwater: Model response to biological parameter uncertainty.” Proc., 1993 Groundwater Modeling Conf., International Groundwater Modeling Center, Golden, Colo.
31.
Wagner, B. J. ( 1995). “Sampling design methods for groundwater modeling under uncertainty.” Water Resour. Res., 31(10), 2581–2591.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 125 • Issue 1 • January 1999
Pages: 54 - 63
History
Received: Nov 25, 1996
Published online: Jan 1, 1999
Published in print: Jan 1999
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.