4.2 Article

Fuzzy credibility-constrained quadratic optimization for booster chlorination of the water distribution system under uncertainty

期刊

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/aqua.2022.010

关键词

booster cost; credibility level; optimization; water distribution system; weight coefficients

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20191147]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To address the issue of chlorine concentration in water distribution systems, this study proposes a fuzzy credibility-constrained quadratic programming model incorporating credibility levels and weight coefficients. The model is applied to two systems and shows that booster cost is inversely related to credibility level and weight coefficient. These findings provide useful insights for decision-making in disinfection injection under conditions of fuzzy uncertainty.
To keep chlorine concentration at acceptable levels, chlorine is usually injected into the water distribution system (WDS). To protect the health of human beings, the chlorine concentration at consumers' nodes should be kept at appropriate levels. However, these levels are difficult to determine due to the presence of fuzzy uncertainties. To deal with fuzziness at both sides of the constraints in the optimization model of booster chlorination, we propose a fuzzy credibility-constrained quadratic programming (FCCQP) model with a consideration of credibility levels and weight coefficients. The proposed model is applied to two WDSs to obtain the booster cost under uncertain conditions. The results indicate that the booster cost increases with the credibility level for lower chlorine concentration zeta(L). In addition, the booster cost decreases with the weight coefficient W. The booster cost function curves along with the variation of weight coefficients are concave and convex for scenario 1 and scenario 2, respectively. These results can help managers to make informed decisions on disinfection injection under conditions of fuzzy uncertainties.

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

4.2
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