Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 337–354 | Cite as

Hierarchical Flood Operation Rules Optimization Using Multi-Objective Cultured Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition

  • Yongqi Liu
  • Hui QinEmail author
  • Li Mo
  • Yongqiang Wang
  • Duan Chen
  • Shusen Pang
  • Xingli Yin
Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Operation rules Flood resources utilization Multi-objective optimization Decomposition approach Cultural algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Baltar AM, Fontane DG (2008) Use of Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization in Water Resources Management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 134(3):257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen L, McPhee J, Yeh WWG (2007) A diversified multiobjective GA for optimizing reservoir rule curves. Adv Water Resour 30(5):1082–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coello CAC, Becerra RL (2004) Efficient evolutionary optimization through the use of a cultural algorithm. Eng Optim 36(2):219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: A new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8:631–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization. In: Abraham A, Jain L, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems With Box Constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18:577–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding W, Zhang C, Peng Y, Zeng R, Zhou H, Cai X (2015) An analytical framework for flood water conservation considering forecast uncertainty and acceptable risk. Water Resour Res 51(6):4702–4726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Jia B, Simonovic SP, Zhong P, Yu Z (2016) A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System. Water Resour Manag 30(10):3363–3387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karamouz M, Houck MH (1982) Annual and monthly reservoir operating rules generated by deterministic optimization. Water Resour Res 18(5):1337–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Landa Becerra R, Coello CAC (2006) Cultured differential evolution for constrained optimization. Comput Method Appl M 195(33–36):4303–4322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu Y, Ye L, Qin H, Hong X, Ye J, Yin X (2018) Monthly streamflow forecasting based on hidden Markov model and Gaussian Mixture Regression. J Hydrol 561:146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marien JL, Damázio JM, Costa FS (1994) Building flood control rule curves for multipurpose multireservoir systems using controllability conditions. Water Resour Res 30(4):1135–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Needham JT, Watkins DW, Lund JR, Nanda SK (2000) Linear Programming for Flood Control in the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers. J Water Resour Plan Manag 126(3):118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qin H, Zhou J, Lu Y, Li Y, Zhang Y (2010) Multi-objective Cultured Differential Evolution for Generating Optimal Trade-offs in Reservoir Flood Control Operation. Water Resour Manag 24(11):2611–2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reddy MJ, Kumar DN (2006) Optimal Reservoir Operation Using Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm. Water Resour Manag 20(6):861–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution - A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wei C, Hsu N (2009) Optimal tree-based release rules for real-time flood control operations on a multipurpose multireservoir system. J Hydrol 365(3–4):213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yeh WWG (1985) Reservoir Management and Operations Models: A State-of-the-Art Review. Water Resour Res 21(12):1797–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang J, Liu P, Wang H, Lei X, Zhou Y (2015) A Bayesian model averaging method for the derivation of reservoir operating rules. J Hydrol 528:276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):721–731Google Scholar
  26. Zhou Y, Guo S, Xu C, Liu P, Qin H (2015) Deriving joint optimal refill rules for cascade reservoirs with multi-objective evaluation. J Hydrol 524:166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Hydropower and Information EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Changjiang River Scientific Research InstituteWuhanChina
  3. 3.Three Gorges Cascade Dispatch and Communication CenterYichangChina

Personalised recommendations