Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Having the results between the three alternatives of
NCF
,
NCI
and
NSI
similar, only the
values of the 3
rd
alternative, the one based on the two nodal categories with the closest
number of connections to the average number of connections, have been further compared to
the other parameters. Table 6.12 shows the network ranking for each of these, 1 being the
most connected, and 30 the least connected network. The shaded figures indicate equal
network ranking for three or more measures in either of the approaches, or four or more
measures in both approaches together.
Table 6.12
Connectivity ranking (1-highest, 30-lowest) per factor/index - case 30 nets (undirected)
Epanet NGI NCF3 NCF
avg
NCI3 NSI3 AGD
GD Deg
avg
BC
avg
Cc
avg
6
28
10
30
29
8
8
10
8
6
SN2
SN6
3
21
3
23
22
1
3
3
1
2
SN8
11
4
12
8
6
22
12
12
22
24
SN12
17
25
21
25
23
6
17
21
6
5
SN13
29
29
29
27
27
24
29
29
24
21
7
27
9
29
28
9
9
9
9
9
SN14
4
23
5
28
26
18
5
5
18
15
SN16
18
8
18
9
9
28
21
18
28
28
SN17
19
11
19
13
12
10
18
19
10
11
SN19
SN21
8
13
7
19
18
4
7
7
4
4
SN23
26
12
26
4
5
29
27
26
29
29
SN26
28
9
28
2
3
15
28
28
15
19
24
19
24
14
14
21
24
24
21
22
SN31
22
26
23
24
24
14
22
23
14
14
SN33
20
24
20
21
21
11
19
20
11
10
SN34
9
17
8
20
19
3
6
8
3
3
SN37
SN40
15
14
15
15
15
19
15
15
19
16
SN46
21
7
17
7
7
17
20
17
17
18
SN53
13
5
13
5
4
5
13
13
5
8
5
10
4
17
17
7
4
4
7
7
SN59
16
18
16
16
16
23
16
16
23
23
SN69
25
20
25
12
13
27
25
25
27
27
SN70
27
15
27
6
11
25
26
27
25
26
SN72
SN73
30
30
30
18
30
30
30
30
30
30
SN77
14
6
14
10
10
13
14
14
13
13
SN79
23
2
22
1
1
26
23
22
26
25
SN80
1
16
1
22
20
2
1
1
2
1
12
1
11
3
2
12
11
11
12
12
SN82
10
3
6
11
8
16
10
6
16
17
SN85
2
22
2
26
25
20
2
2
20
20
SN88
4 or m
o
re in
b
oth gr
o
ups, or
3 or m
o
re in
o
ne gro
u
p
The results show pretty much of inconsistency in both approaches, however to a lesser extent
of the Node XL results. The high correlation between the number of links and the values of
NGI
,
NCF
avg
,
DEG
avg
and
GD
, shown in Figures 6.11 and 6.12 is expected knowing that
these measures directly depend on number of links, as Equations 6.3, 6.8 and 6.13 show,
respectively. The correlation of other measures is (much) weaker, although the general trend
of increase/decrease is visible in all the cases. Moreover, the results in Table 6.12 show
somewhat erratic ranking, after comparing the two approaches. Nevertheless, a couple of
networks give impression that these measures describe the connectivity fairly well, but may
Search WWH ::
Custom Search