Constraint Handling for Genetic Algorithms in Optimal Remediation Design
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126, Issue 3
Abstract
There often is difficulty enforcing the given constraints when applying a genetic algorithm (a flexible stochastic search method) to optimal ground-water remediation design problems. This paper compares two methods for constraint handling within the genetic algorithm framework. The first method, the additive penalty method (APM), is a commonly used penalty function approach in which a penalty cost proportional to the total constraints violation is added to the objective function. The second method, the multiplicative penalty method (MPM), multiplies the objective function by a factor proportional to the total constraints violation. The APM and MPM, using constant and generation-varying constraint weights, are applied to two pump-and-treat design examples. Overall, the application of the APM resulted in infeasible solutions with small-to-moderate total constraints violations. With the MPM, a set of feasible and near-optimal policies was readily identified for both examples. Additionally, the MPM converges to the solution faster than the APM. These results demonstrate that the MPM is a robust method, capable of finding feasible and optimal or near-optimal solutions while using a range of weights.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ahlfeld, D. P., and Hill, E. H., III. (1996). “The sensitivity of remedial strategies to design criteria.” Ground Water, 34(2), 341–348.
2.
Ahlfeld, D. P., Page, R. H., and Pinder, G. F. (1995). “Optimal ground-water remediation methods applied to a Superfund site: From formulation to implementation.” Ground Water, 33(1), 58–70.
3.
Ahlfeld, D. P., and Sprong, M. P. (1998). “Presence of nonconvexity in groundwater concentration response function.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(1), 8–14.
4.
Atwood, D. F., and Gorelick, S. M. (1985). “Hydraulic gradient control for groundwater contaminant removal.” J. Hydro., Amsterdam, 76, 85–106.
5.
Carlson, S. E. (1995). “A general method for handling constraints in genetic algorithms.” Proc., Joint Conf. on Information Sci., 663– 667; also available from 〈http://vlead.mech.virginia.edu/publications/paper2.ps〉.
6.
Carlson, S. E., Shonkwiler, R., Sani, A. F., and Aral, M. M. ( 1996). “Annealing a genetic algorithm over constraints.” Available from 〈http://vlead.mech.virginia.edu/publications/paper1.ps〉.
7.
Chan Hilton, A. B., and Culver, T. B. (1998). “Groundwater bioremediation optimization using genetic algorithms.” Proc., 25th Annu. Conf. on Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., Water Resour. and the Urban Environment, E. D. Loucks, ed., ASCE, Reston, Va, 633–638.
8.
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.
9.
Culver, T. B., Earles, T. A., and Gray, J. P. (1996). “Numerical modeling of in situ bioremediation with sorption kinetics.” U.S. Army Res. Ofc., Rep. No. DAAL03-91-C-0034, TCN95-066, U. S. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss.
10.
Culver, T. B., and Shenk, G. W. (1998). “Dynamic optimal groundwater remediation by granular activated carbon.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(1), 59–64.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Culver, T. B., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1997). “Dynamic optimal ground-water reclamation with treatment capital costs.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 123(1), 23(1), 23–29.
14.
Fiacco, A. V., and McCormick, G. P. (1968). Nonlinear programming: Sequential unconstrained minimization techniques. Wiley, New York.
15.
Fletcher, R. (1987). Practical methods of optimization. Wiley, Chichester, Great Britain.
16.
Gailey, R. (1999). “Application of mixed-integer linear programming techniques for water supply wellfield management and plume containment at a California EPA site.” Proc., 26th Annu. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt. Conf., ASCE, Reston, Va.
17.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
18.
Huang, C., and Mayer, A. S. (1997). “Pump-and-treat optimization using well locations and pumping rates as decision variables.” Water Resour. Res., 33(5), 1001–1012.
19.
Levine, D. ( 1996). Users guide to the PGAPack parallel genetic algorithm library, ANL-951/18, available from 〈ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/pgapack/pgapack.tar.Z〉.
20.
McKinney, D. C., and Lin, M.-D. (1994). “Genetic algorithm solution of groundwater management models.” Water Resour. Res., 33(6), 1897–1906.
21.
McKinney, D. C., and Lin, M.-D. (1995). “Approximate mixed-integer nonlinear programming methods for optimal aquifer remediation design.” Water Resour. Res., 31(3), 731–740.
22.
McKinney, D. C., and Lin, M.-D. (1996). “Pump-and-treat ground-water remediation system optimization.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 122(2), 128–136.
23.
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.
24.
Nishikawa, T. (1998). “Water-resources optimization model for Santa Barbara, California.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(5), 252–263.
25.
Pinder, G. F., Ahlfeld, D. P., and Page, R. H. (1995). “Cleanup solution—Conflict resolution.” Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 65(3), 59–61.
26.
Rao, S. S. (1996). Engineering optimization—Theory and practice. Wiley, New York.
27.
Ritzel, B. J., Eheart, J. W., and Ranjithan, S. (1994). “Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiple objective groundwater pollution containment problem.” Water Resour. Res., 30(5), 1589–1603.
28.
Rizzo, D. M., and Dougherty, D. E. (1996). “Design optimization for multiple management period groundwater remediation.” Water Resour. Res., 32(8), 2549–2561.
29.
Rogers, L. L., Dowla, F. U., and Johnson, V. M. (1995). “Optimal field-scale groundwater remediation using neural networks and genetic algorithm.” Envir. Sci. and Technol., 29(5), 1145–1155.
30.
Wagner, B. J. (1995). “Recent advances in simulation-optimization groundwater management modeling.” Rev. of Geophysics, Supplement, July, 1021–1028.
31.
Wang, M., and Zheng, C. (1997). “Optimal remediation policy selection under general conditions.” Ground Water, 35(5), 757–764.
32.
Wang, M., and Zheng, C. (1998). “Application of genetic algorithms and simulated annealing in groundwater management: Formulation and comparison.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assn., 34(3), 519–530.
33.
Yoon, J.-H., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1996). “Applications of SALQR and evolutionary algorithms to optimization of groundwater bioremediation.” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in Water Resour., Part 1, Vol. 1, 383–389.
34.
Yoon, J.-H., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1999). “Comparison of optimization methods for ground-water bioremediation.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 125(1), 54–63.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126 • Issue 3 • May 2000
Pages: 128 - 137
History
Received: May 1, 1998
Published online: May 1, 2000
Published in print: May 2000
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.