Pipe Routing Algorithm
Pipe Routing Algorithm
1 Introduction
Hard pipe route design problems arise when equipment (such as pumps, boilers,
and so on) need to be multiply interconnected by
uid or gas-carrying pipes in
such a way as to satisfy various constraints and objectives, such as to avoid obstacles, avoid undue pressure variations, enable easy maintenance, and minimise
material cost, while of course satisfying the required interconnections. Pipe route
design is one of the most important steps involved in the design of large-scale
engineering plant such as ships, power plants, chemical plants, and so on. In
practice, the process mainly relies on human experts and their associated experience, since the range and complexity of the constraints tends to dissuade
attempts at automation.
In most industrial design practice, the locations of the various pieces of equipment involved are determined in advance. Given these locations, a Piping and
Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) is prepared, which species the connections
which must be made. For example, gure 1, in combination with a list of required
connections (such as E1-nozzle1 connects to E2-nozzle7, E4-nozzle5 connects to
E4nozzle7, and so on . . . ), constitutes a P&ID.
A designer is then given the job of laying out the pipe routes in accordance
with the P&ID, while meeting several other constraints and objectives as mentioned above. Designers' skill and experience tends to lead to routing designs
10
9
O15
O20
E3
7
CONTROL ROOM
7
6
9
8 7
E1
2
1
O12
6 5
E5
4 O16
PUMP
TANK
8
9
O11
O17
O18
10
11
1 2
O2
O1
3
O3
9
O4
7
O6
O13
10
E4
TANK
11
1
O14
O19
O7
6
O8
4
7 E2
8
RESERVOIR
9
1
2
3
O9
O10
O5
10
Overview The remainder of this paper is set out as follows. Section 2 describes
the pipe routing design problem in more detail, and sets out the chromosome
representation used. Test problems, experiments, and results are then presented
in section 3, and then a concluding discussion appears in section 4.
Pump
Steiner Point 1
A
Tank
Steiner
Point 0
B
Obstacle 4
Route 1_1
Route 2_2
Obstacle 9
Start
Route 2_1
Route 1_2
Route 3_2
Route 3_1
Obstacle 1
End
Route B
Steiner 1
Route E
Route D
Route A
Route C
Possible routes
Steiner 0
End
Evaluation
Merging Total pipe length is calculated as the sum of each pipe connection
minus the amount of duplicate pipe length. Duplicate pipe length is the total
length of spatially coincident pipe sections that can in practice be run as a
single pipe. This typically occurs when pipe routes for dierent connections represented in the chromosome coincide in direction of
ow in addition to location.
For example, in Figure 5, a combination of routes B and C is preferred to other
combinations, since this will reduce the total pipe length most. Note that the
fact that pipes can be merged in this way is what stops the pipe-route design
problem addressed here from being able to be trivially decomposed into optimising individual connections. Such pipe-merging becomes more and more necessary
with larger installations.
B
Co
nn
Co
ec
tio
ion
n2
ect
nn
Equipment 1
Equipment 2
D
Equipment 3
Simplication At this stage, it may be possible to make several simplications
in the pipe route so far, as a result of opportunities which may have arisen mainly
from obstacle avoidance. Certain common example candidates for simplication
are shown in gure 6. The pipe-route is checked for such opportunities and the
simplications are made.
1
==>
3
4
5
Channel reduction
6
==>
2
7
Bay reduction
==>
Point reduction
3 Experiments
We investigated the use of GAs [7], SA [8], and stochastic hillclimbing (SH) on
each of the test problems. In the following subsections we brie
y overview the
experimental setup, and summarise the results.
Test Problems Three moderately sized test problems were developed, consisting of 20, 30, and 40 connections respectively. Figure 1 has already shown
the layout for the 20-connection problem, and 7 shows the optimal pipe route,
which we know since the solution space in this case was small enough to allow an
exhaustive search. Full details of all test problems are freely available from the
authors, and a web-site is currently being prepared to disseminate these details
more accessibly.
:::
Experimental Setup Unless otherwise stated, each individual trial of an algorithm ran for a maximum of 5,000 evaluations. This is a rather modest gure, but
we felt it important to seek good performance in such a relatively small space of
time since pipe-route design optimisation problems can necessitate rather complex evaluation functions, as noted in section 2.
Standard SH was employed (random starting point; continually seek new
mutants, replace current with new only if new is better or equal to current),
using simple single-gene mutation as the neighbourhood operator. That is, a
mutation step consisted of choosing a gene at random, and
ipping its value.
SA used the same neighbourhood operator, and a simple geometric cooling
schedule with starting temperature, number of iterations per temperature step,
and nal temperature set respectively at 30 the number of connections in the
problem, 50, and 0.001. These parameters arose as a fairly robust set following
much time consuming preliminary experimentation with dierent SA setups.
The GA used steady-sate reproduction, rank-based selection (as in [9], uniform crossover, a population size of 50, and the same mutation operator as SH
and SA.
Results Table 1 summarises results for trials on the 20, 30, and 40 connections
test problems. 10 trials each were made with each method, and the table records,
in column order, the best (minimum) result over the 10 trials, the worst result,
the mean result over the trials, and the number of trials (out of 10) in which an
optimal (known, in the 20-connections case) pipe-route design was found. In the
SH
SA
GA
SH
SA
GA
SH
SA
GA
4 Discussion
This initial foray into the use of GAs on pipe-route design problems appears
to show great promise. Commercial security considerations unfortunately made
it prohibitively hard to compare GA results with human expert results on real
problem examples as yet. However, we can at least report here the fact that a GA
was able to fairly reliably nd the global optimum solution in a case where the
global optimum was known (the 20-connections case), and that the GA appears
signicantly superior to either SA or SH on this problem in larger test cases.
References
1. Kang Soo Kim. Personal communication with Kang Soo Kim, Executive director
in the DAEWOO Heavy Industry Co., Seoul, Korea, August 1994.
2. Jens Lienig and Holder Brandt. An evolutionary algorithm for the routing of multichip modules. In Manner Davidor, Schwefel, editor, Parallel Problem Solving from
Nature { PPSN III, pages 588{597. Springer-Verlag, 1994.
3. Dragan A. Savic and Godfrey A. Walters. Genetic operations and constraint handling for pipe network optimization. In Proceedings of the AISB workshop. AISB,
1994.
4. J. Hesser, R. Maenner, and O. Stucky. Optimization of Steiner trees using Genetic
Algorithms. In D. Schaer, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 231{236. International Conference on Genetic
Algorithms, 1989.
5. Josep L. Ganley and James P. Cohoon. Optimal Rectilinear Steiner Tree Routing
in the Presence of Obstacles. IEEE Transactions of Computer-Aided Design of
Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1993.
6. Frank M. White. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, second edition,
1986.
7. David E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms: in Search, Optimization & Machine Learning. Addison Wesley, 1989.
8. P. J. M. van Laarhoven and E. H. L. Aarts. Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987.
9. Darrell Whitley. The genitor algorithm and selection pressure: Why rank-based
allocation of reproductive trial is best. In D. Schaer, editor, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. International Conference
on Genetic Algorithms, 1989.
This article was processed using the LATEX macro package with LLNCS style