Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Systems engineers are equipped to design complex networked systems such as infrastructures. A key goal is cost minimization over a vast solution space. However, finding a minimum-cost system while comprehensively satisfying different stakeholders is challenging and lacks proper methodological support. Stakeholders often employ their own expert estimations for lack of suitable decision-support methods. In these settings, systems engineers typically require mid-fidelity, easy-to-use methods. We present a rigorous method that quickly finds minimum-cost solutions for networks with multiple sources and sinks, focusing on pipeline topology, length, and capacity. It can serve as a discussion tool in multiactor design processes, to demarcate the design space, indicate sources of uncertainty, and provoke further analyses, different designs, or contractual negotiations. It is applicable to a wide variety of cases, including many prominent infrastructures needed to mitigate CO. We prove that the optimal layout is a minimum-cost Gilbert tree, and develop a heuristic based on the Gilbert-Melzak method. We demonstrate the method's efficacy for a case set regarding solution quality, computational time, and scalability. We also show its efficiency and usefulness for systems engineers in real-world settings. Systems engineers can use the generated cost-optimal system designs to benchmark any design changes in real-world negotiation processes. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2020 | 10.1002/sys.21492 | SYSTEMS ENGINEERING |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
cost minimization,decision support method,multiactor network design,multisource multisink,network design,system architecting | Design space,Economics,Heuristic,Network planning and design,Industrial engineering,Minification,Finance,Negotiation,Scalability | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
23.0 | 1.0 | 1098-1241 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 0 |
Authors | ||
3 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petra W. Heijnen | 1 | 6 | 6.14 |
| Emile J. L. Chappin | 2 | 6 | 4.43 |
| Paulien M. Herder | 3 | 38 | 11.10 |