4.6 Article

A method for the multi-objective optimization of the operation of natural gas pipeline networks considering supply reliability and operation efficiency

期刊

COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.106584

关键词

Natural gas pipeline network; Multi-objective optimization; Supply reliability; Power demand; NSGA-II algorithm

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51904316]
  2. China University of Petroleum, Beijing [01JB20188428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reliable gas supply for minimum risk of supply shortage and minimum power demand for low energy cost are two fundamental objectives of natural gas pipeline networks. In this paper, a multi-objective optimization method is developed to trade-off reliability and power demand in the decision process. In the optimization, the steady state behavior of the natural gas pipeline networks is considered, but the uncertainties of the supply conditions and customer consumptions are accounted for. The multi-objective optimization regards finding operational strategies that minimize power demand and risk of gas supply shortage. To quantify the probability of supply interruption in pipeline networks, a novel limit function is introduced based on the mass conservation equation. Then, the risk of interruption is calculated by combining the probability of interruption and its consequences, measured in utility terms. The multiobjective optimization problem is solved by the NSGA-II algorithm and its effectiveness is tested on two typical pipeline networks, i.e., a tree-topology network and a loop-topology network. The results show that the developed optimization model is able to find solutions which effectively compromise the need of minimizing gas supply shortage risk and reducing power demand. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to analyze the impact of demand uncertainties on the optimization results. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据