Hierarchical Flood Operation Rules Optimization Using Multi-Objective Cultured Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition
- 70 Downloads
The operation of a reservoir system for flood resources utilization is a complex problem as it involves many variables, a large number of constraints and multiple objectives. In this paper, a new algorithm named multi-objective cultured evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOCEA/D) is proposed for optimizing the hierarchical flood operation rules (HFORs) with four objectives: upstream flood control, downstream flood control, power generation and navigation. The performance of MOCEA/D is validated through some well-known benchmark problems. On achieving satisfactory performance, MOCEA/D is applied to a case study of HFORs optimization for Three Gorges Project (TGP). The experimental results show that MOCEA/D obtains a uniform non-dominated schemes set. The optimized HFORs can improve the power generation and navigation rate as much as possible under the premise of ensuring flood control safety for small and medium floods (smaller than 1% frequency flood). The obtained results show that MOCEA/D can be a viable alternative for generating multi-objective HFORs for water resources planning and management.
KeywordsOperation rules Flood resources utilization Multi-objective optimization Decomposition approach Cultural algorithm
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 91647114, No. 51779013, 51479075), the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (2017CFB613), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (HUST: 2016YXZD047), and special thanks are given to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their constructive comments.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cutter SL, Ismail-Zadeh A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker DN, Briceño S, Gupta H, Holloway A, Johnston D, McBean GA, Ogawa Y, Paton D, Porio E, Silbereisen RK, Takeuchi K, Valsecchi GB, Vogel C, Wu G (2015) Global risks: Pool knowledge to stem losses from disasters. Nature 522(7556):277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fonseca CM and Fleming PJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation discussion and generalization. In: Forrest S (ed) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo, California, pp 416–423. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
- Renfrew A. C (1994) “Dynamic Modeling in Archaeology: What, When, and Where?” Dynamical Modeling and the Study of Change in Archaeology, S. E. van der Leeuw, ed., Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
- Reynolds RG (1994) An Introduction to Cultural Algorithms. In: Sebalk AVF (ed) Proceedings of the 3th annual conference on evolution programming. World Scientific, River Edge, pp 131–136Google Scholar
- Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):721–731Google Scholar
- Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) SPEA2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. Paper presented at the Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Gloriastrasse 35, CH-8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar