Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:13:38.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Braess's paradox and power-law nonlinearities in networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Bruce Calvert  and
Grant Keady
Bruce Calvert
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Grant Keady
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6009
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We study flows in physical networks with a potential function defined over the nodes and a flow defined over the arcs. The networks have the further property that the flow on an arc a is a given increasing function of the difference in potential between its initial and terminal node. An example is the equilibrium flow in water-supply pipe networks where the potential is the head and the Hazen-Williams rule gives the flow as a numerical factor ka times the head difference to a power s > 0 (and s ≅ 0.54). In the pipe-network problem with Hazen-Williams nonlinearities, having the same s > 0 on each arc, given the consumptions and supplies, the power usage is a decreasing function of the conductivity factors ka. There is also a converse to this. Approximately stated, it is: if every relationship between flow and head difference is not a power law, with the same s on each arc, given at least 6 pipes, one can arrange (lengths of) them so that Braess's paradox occurs, i.e. one can increase the conductivity of an individual pipe yet require more power to maintain the same consumptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The ANZIAM Journal , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , July 1993 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 1993

References

[1] Bertsekas, D. P., Hosein, P. A. and Tseng, P., “Relaxation methods for network flow problems with convex arc costs”, SIAM J. Control Optim. 25 (1987) 1219–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Braess, D., “Über ein Paradoxen aus der Verkehrsplanung”, Unternehmensforschung 12 (1968) 256–268.Google Scholar
[3] Brebbia, C. A. and Ferrante, A. J., Computational hydraulics (Butterworth, London, 1983).Google Scholar
[4] Broughan, K. A. and Keady, G., “Numlink and Naglink: links to the NAG library from SENAC and Macsyma”, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Symbolic and Numeric Computation (ed. Apiola, H.), (Research Reports series of Computing Centre of Helsinki University, 1991) 19–34.Google Scholar
[5] Broughan, K. A., Keady, G., Robb, T. D., Richardson, M. G. and Dewar, M. C., “Some symbolic computing links to the NAG numeric library”, S1GSAM Bull. 25 (3) (1991) 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Calvert, B., “When T-accretive implies accretive”, Houston J. Math. 14 (1988) 1–9.Google Scholar
[7] Calvert, B. and Fitzpatrick, S., “Nonexpansive projections onto two-dimensional subspaces of Banach spaces”, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 37 (1988) 149–160.Google Scholar
[8] Cohen, J. E. and Horowitz, P., “Paradoxical behaviour of mechanical and electrical networks”, Nature 352 (1991) 699–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Collins, M., Cooper, R., Helgason, J., Kennington, J. and LeBlanc, L., “Solving the pipe network analysis problem using optimization techniques”, Mgmt. Sci. 24 (1978) 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Dembo, R. S., Mulvey, J. M. and Zenios, S. A., “Large scale nonlinear network models and their application”, Oper. Res. 37 (1989) 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Duffin, R. J., “Nonlinear networks Ila”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 53 (1947) 963–971.Google Scholar
[12] Duffin, R. J., “Nonlinear networks Ilb”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc 54 (1948) 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Duffin, R. J., “Topology of series-parallel networks”, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 10 (1965) 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Fisk, C., “More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem”, Transportation Res. 13B (1979) 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Keady, G., “SENAC and other symbolic front ends for subsequent numeric computation”, Mathematics Research Reports Parts I–IV, University of Waikato, 1991.Google Scholar
[16] Leblanc, L., “An algorithm for the discrete network design problem”, Transportation Sci. 9 (1975) 183–199.Google Scholar
[17] Melvin, H. M., “On concavity of resistance functions”, J. Appl. Phys. 27 (1956) 658–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Murchland, J. D., “Braess's paradox of traffic flow”, Transportation Res. 4 (1970) 391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Riordan, J. and Shannon, C. E., “The number of two-terminal series-parallel networks”, J. Math. and Phys. 21 (1942) 83–93.Google Scholar
[20] Rockafellar, R. T., Conjugate duality and optimization (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Rockafellar, R. T., Network flows and monotropic optimisation (Wiley, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
[22] Shannon, C. E. and Hagelbarger, D. W., “Concavity of resistance functions”, J. Applied Physics 27 (1956) 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Toint, P., “La modélisation du transport”, La Recherche 235 (1991) 1026–1038.Google Scholar