As natural gas pipeline networks expand, the complexity of pipeline scheduling models increases, making feasibility analysis increasingly difficult. This study focuses on the feasibility analysis of optimization models for natural gas distribution network scheduling, considering it as a classification problem. Models grounded in traditional neural networks, parallel branch neural networks, and graph neural networks are developed and assessed. Two distinct scales of natural gas distribution networks are explored by collecting a limited dataset of sample cases to train and validate the proposed feasibility analysis models through empirical case studies. The results demonstrate that the parallel branch neural network exhibits superior predictive performance. In addition, this study introduces an innovative methodology for traceability diagnosis of infeasible cases, offering a practical framework for engineering applications.

1. [1] “International energy agency,” World Energy Outlook 2022, 2022.
2. [2] “Statista,” Countries with largest number of operational and planned natural gas pipe-lines worldwide as 2024.
3. [3] P. J. Wong and R. E. Larson, “Optimization of natural-gas pipeline systems via dynamic programming,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol.13, No.5, pp. 475-481, 1968. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1968.1098990
4. [4] P. B. Percell and M. J. Ryan, “Steady state optimization of gas pipeline network operation,” Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, 1987.
5. [5] C. M. Correa-Posada and P. Sanchez-Martan, “Gas network optimization: A comparison of piecewise linear models,” Optimization Online, 2014.
6. [6] S. Li, S. Chen, and Z. Zheng, “Intelligent indoor layout design based on interactive genetic and differential evolution algorithms,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.28, No.4, pp. 929-938, 2024. http://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2024.p0929
7. [7] C. Ratanavilisagul, “Modified ant colony optimization with route elimination and pheromone reset for multiple pickup and multiple delivery vehicle routing problem with time window,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.26, No.6, pp. 959-964, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2022.p0959
8. [8] D. Mahlke, A. Martin, and S. Moritz, “A simulated annealing algorithm for transient optimization in gas networks,” Math Meth Oper Res, Vol.66, pp. 99-115, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-006-0142-9
9. [9] Y. Dan and Z. Li, “Particle swarm optimization-based convolutional neural network for handwritten Chinese character recognition,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.27, No.2, pp. 165-172, 2023. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2023.p0165
10. [10] J. W. Chinneck, “Feasibility and infeasibility in optimization,” Springer, 2008.
11. [11] I. E. Grossmann, K. P. Halemane, and R. E. Swaney, “Optimization strategies for flexible chemical processes,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 439-462, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(83)80022-2
12. [12] Z. Wang and M. Ierapetritou, “A novel feasibility analysis method for black-box processes using a radial basis function adaptive sampling approach,” AIChE J., Vol.63, No.2, pp. 532-550, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15362
13. [13] L. S. Dias and M. G. Ierapetritou, “Data-driven feasibility analysis for the integration of planning and scheduling problems,” Optimization and Engineering, Vol.20, No.4, pp. 1029-1066, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-019-09459-w
14. [14] R. Han, “Feasible solution domain analysis of mixed-integer linear programming model for production scheduling,” Doctor thesis, Shandong University, 2010. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y1790213