Multi-objective reservoir operation presents a number of critical challenges that must be overcome for efficient management of water resources. The inherent contradiction between several goals, such as satisfying irrigation demand and maximizing hydropower generation, is one of the major issues. Trade-offs and compromises must be carefully considered to balance these objectives. To solve this problem, a study was carried out to optimize the operation of multi-objective reservoirs with two primary goals: minimizing irrigation deficits and maximizing hydropower generation. This study employs the self-adaptive multipopulation multi-objective Jaya algorithm (SAMP-MOJA), an improved version of the Jaya algorithm, to construct an optimal Pareto Front utilizing an a priori approach. The performance of SAMP-MOJA is compared to that of other algorithms such as multi-objective particle swarm optimization, multi-objective invasive weed optimization, and multi-objective Jaya algorithm. The results of this study demonstrate that the hydropower generated by the developed model surpasses 80% of the actual generation. The study's findings will aid in designing the most effective Pareto front possible.

  • A multi-objective model is developed to balance irrigation deficiency and maximum hydropower generation.

  • An improved version of the Jaya algorithm has been implemented over multi-objective reservoir operation.

  • Self-adaptive optimization method is used in the reservoir operation.

  • Optimization of multi-objective reservoir operation is carried out using the metaheuristic method.

  • Developed model outperforms better in comparison to several other algorithms.

Reservoirs are frequently made to serve multiple purposes, including irrigation, power generation, flood control, industrial needs, and river transportation (Kumar & Yadav 2018; Sharma et al. 2021). Multi-objective reservoir operation poses several significant difficulties and challenges that need to be addressed for effective water resources management. The major difficulties and challenges in multi-objective reservoir operation include balancing conflicting objectives, managing variability and uncertainty in water availability, addressing ecological considerations and downstream water requirements, managing storage constraints and operational limitations, and efficiently handling the complexity of the system (Hu et al. 2021; Lai et al. 2021; Mirmehdi et al. 2023). In the past, traditional optimization methods such as linear programming (LP), nonlinear programming (NLP), and dynamic programing (DP) were used to address these problems. These techniques, however, have some limitations. For example, LP considers a linear problem, whereas NLP needs a convex problem and may struggle with high-dimensional problems. However, DP has high computational requirements, making it unsuitable for large-scale optimization problems (Bozorgi et al. 2017). Traditional optimization methods face challenges when dealing with multi-objective problems, as well as nondifferentiable, nonconvex, and discontinuous functions (Kumar et al. 2023).

In the late 1970s, heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques were developed as a means to overcome the limitations of conventional optimization techniques. These heuristic techniques have increased in popularity in solving complex optimization problems with increasing computing power. Various researchers have used these techniques in reservoir operation, such as ant colony optimization (ACO) (Soghrati & Moeini 2020), firefly algorithm (Bozorg-Haddad et al. 2017), shuffled frog leaping algorithm (Li et al. 2018), differential evolution (DE) (Civicioglu & Besdok 2013), harmony search (Ranjbar et al. 2021), bat algorithm (BA) (Ethteram et al. 2018), hybrid model of support vector regression and fruitfly optimization algorithm (Sun et al. 2021), and evolutionary algorithms (EAs) (Du et al. 2022). The challenge faced in applying these methods is the government control over the dams. For example, in India, the ministry has set priorities for the operation of reservoir. Water for irrigation, minimum ecological needs, and drinking and domestic needs is given equal and ‘high priority’ according to the National Water Policy of 2012. The water allocation for power generation comes after these. The solution to this issue varies from nation to nation (Singh et al. 2023). Based on the precipitations received by the region and the need for water, the specific made solution is not possible. The dams are constructed for the storage of water and its maximum utilization during drought years (Kumar & Yadav 2022; Sharma et al. 2023).

Reddy & Kumar (2007) used the elitist-mutated particle swarm optimization (PSO) to address the multi-objective Bhadra reservoir scheme to develop reservoir strategies. The suggested model can be effectively used to utilize the water resources present in a multi-crop irrigation reservoir in the most efficient manner. The cuckoo optimization algorithm (COA) and the imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) were used by Hosseini-Moghari et al. (2015) to solve the multireservoir system. These results suggest that COA and ICA perform more effectively than genetic algorithm (GA). COA, ICA, and GA objective functions had average values of 5.454, 6.461, and 6.869, respectively. For the purpose of controlling reservoir flooding at three Gorges reservoirs, Chen et al. (2017) used the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm III. Simulation's findings show that this approach can generate optimal, evenly distributed Pareto solutions. Afshar (2012) used adapted versions of PSO for the reservoir operation. The proposed algorithm can be extended to multireservoir systems and is not affected by the initial swarm or the swarming dimension. According to Ahmad et al. (2016), the application of ABC in optimizing reservoir operation resulted in more stable, effective, and quicker convergence compared to other methods, demonstrating its superiority. Trivedi & Shrivastava (2020) used elitism and different parameters for the PSO to evaluate the optimum operating policies of the reservoir. The model outperforms the other two heuristic approaches in terms of reliability, resilience, vulnerability indices, and root-mean-square error (RMSE) values.

Existing heuristic and metaheuristic optimization methods have some drawbacks despite their benefits. As per the existing literature, many evolutionary and swarm-based algorithms require parameter tuning (Niknam et al. 2012). These algorithms typically use two categories of parameters: algorithm-specific parameters and common control parameters. All population-based algorithms share common control parameters such as the number of iterations and population sizes. In this case, the population size refers to the total number of particles or the population that will be used to solve the problem, whereas the number of iterations denotes how many times the algorithm will execute to discover the optimal solution. Internal parameters are the parameters that are specific to the algorithm. Each algorithm has its own unique set of parameters, which must be fine-tuned before the algorithm is used. The performance of the algorithm may suffer from improper tuning of these parameters, and this raises the chances of getting caught up in the local optimum solution and increases processing time and cost (Zou et al. 2013). For instance, GA required fine-tuning of operation selection, crossover probability, and mutation probability. Inertia weight, cognitive, and social parameters are required by PSO. Crossover parameters and scaling factors needed to be tuned for DE. The number of accepted and tested solutions, the size of the hive, the queen's energy, and the initial speed are all requirements for honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO). Memory size tuning and pitch setting were necessary for harmony search (HS). The parameters scout, onlooker, and employed bees need to be tuned for ACB. Tuning is required for BA's essential parameters, including emission coefficient and wavelength. Several other algorithms have been developed and used for reservoir operations optimization, including the whale optimization algorithm, COA, improved BA, krill herd algorithm (Ehteram et al. 2017), ICA, and ACO, which also required the tuning of algorithm-specific parameters.

To overcome the issue of algorithm-specific parameters, Rao (2016) proposed the Jaya algorithm (JA), which eliminates the need for parameter tuning and reduces the user's workload. It is predicated on the idea of selecting the best option while avoiding the worst one (Rao et al. 2017). Rao et al. (2016) employed JA to enhance the micro-channel heat sink and discovered that it outperformed teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO) and MO EAs in terms of optimal solution and convergence. Rao & Keesari (2018) improved the planning of a wind farm using JA. According to the computational findings, JA outperformed other algorithms in terms of farm efficiency, total power generated, and cost per unit of electricity generated. Early JA users used it to address issues with water resources. Kumar & Yadav (2018) applied JA to a multireservoir operating system to maximize net benefits and found that JA outperformed in terms of global optimum solution and faster convergence. Kumar & Yadav (2020) found that JA outperformed TLBO, PSO, and DE for water release optimization in the Ukai reservoir. It was discovered that the JA had a faster rate of convergence than other algorithms. In the study by Chong et al. (2021), hedging-based JA was developed to achieve optimal reservoir operation. The outcomes demonstrated that, in terms of the best solution, the JA performed better than other algorithms. Kumar & Yadav (2019) used improved JA, i.e., elitist JA (EJA), to find an optimal crop pattern and found that the elitist JA was outperforming. When compared to elitist TLBO, it was found that EJA has a better and faster convergence property.

The difficulty comes with the population size, which necessitates a sensitivity analysis to determine the correct population size. The improved version of the self-adapting multipopulation Jaya algorithm (SAMP-JA) speeds up the process of determining the appropriate population size. Since the population is divided into various subpopulation groups, the search space is more diverse, reducing user burden. The objective is to segment the search space into various zones by allocating different subgroups. The effectiveness of the algorithm in this case depends on selecting numbers of subpopulation. This problem has been solved using self-adaptive. The algorithm's self-adaptation feature aids in successfully tracking the situation and adjusting the amount of subpopulations as the problem's environment changes, such as increasing or decreasing the number of subpopulations.

To solve the multi-objective reservoir operation problem, self-adaptive multipopulation multi-objective Jaya algorithm (SAMP-MOJA) was used for India's Ukai reservoir system. Ukai reservoir serves as a primary source for irrigation, domestic use, power generation, and flood control purposes. The goal of this study is to increase hydropower generation while minimizing irrigation deficits. Both objectives conflict with each other. To reduce the irrigation deficit, more water must be provided for irrigation purposes. However, plenty of storage capacity in the reservoir is necessary for maximizing hydropower output. The comparative analysis of SAMP-MOJA's efficiency is done by comparing it with other algorithms like MOJA, multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), and multi-objective invasive weed optimization (MOIWO). The study's findings will help in the development of an optimal Pareto front. The Pareto front obtained from the optimization process can guide decision-making and enable the selection of the optimal operating strategy that meets both objectives.

The vital contributions of this work are as follows:

  • Implement SAMP-MOJA that adapts to deciding the appropriate population size more quickly.

  • The performance of SAMP-MOJA is inspected using a multi-objective reservoir operation problem.

The research methodology used in this study is a quantitative approach that focuses on the optimization of the multi-objective reservoir operation with two primary objectives: minimizing irrigation deficits and maximizing hydropower production. The study utilized the SAMP-MOJA, an enhanced version of the JA, to develop an optimal Pareto Front with an a priori approach. Figure 1 explains the graphical depiction of research methodology as a flowchart diagram that presents a high-level view of the research procedure and presents the methodology's essential components in a clear and understandable manner.
Figure 1

The graphical representation of research methodology.

Figure 1

The graphical representation of research methodology.

Close modal

The research methodology consisted of the following steps:

  • (1)

    Problem formulation: The study identified the research problem, which is the effective management of multi-objective reservoir operation with competing goals. The problem was formulated into a mathematical model that can optimize the operation of the Ukai reservoir.

  • (2)

    Data collection: The study collected data related to the Ukai reservoir such as inflow, demand, storage capacity, and other relevant data required for the mathematical model.

  • (3)

    Model development: The mathematical model was developed using the collected data, incorporating the two primary objectives of minimizing irrigation deficits and maximizing hydropower production.

  • (4)

    Optimization method: In the study, the SAMP-MOJA algorithm is used to optimize the Ukai reservoir operation problem.

  • (5)

    Algorithm comparison: SAMP-MOJA's performance was compared to those of other algorithms such as MOIWO, MOPSO, and MOJA.

  • (6)

    Pareto front development: By utilizing an a priori approach, the study created an ideal Pareto Front utilizing the SAMP-MOJA algorithm.

  • (7)

    Performance evaluation: The performance of the developed model was evaluated using various performance indicators such as hydropower generated, reliability, vulnerability index, and error metrics.

  • (8)

    Result analysis: The results were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the developed model and based on that conclusions are drawn.

Self-adaptive multipopulation multi-objective Jaya algorithm

SAMP-MOJA, an innovative strategy that combines the advantages of the multi-objective optimization (MO) framework and the JA, is an adaptive multigroup strategy algorithm. The JA is a population-based optimization technique well renowned for its ease of use and potency in the treatment of single-objective optimization issues. However, users may find the manual adjustment of algorithm-specific parameters to be challenging and time consuming. This study's main contribution is the modification of the JA to deal with MO issues without the requirement for method-specific parameters. This adaption, known as SAMP-MOJA, enables the Ukai reservoir's multi-objective reservoir operation to be solved efficiently and effectively. The benefits of this adaptive technique are its ease of use, reduced user burden, and capacity to handle dependency relationships among decision variables. The following are the steps to run the SAMP-MOJA.
  • (i)

    Specify the optimal population size and number of iterations for the algorithm.

  • (ii)

    Determine the initial solutions that lie within the variables bounds.

  • (iii)

    Split the sample into m groups, where m is initially set to 2, and then update it based on the function's value.

  • (iv)

    Choose the finest and the worst solutions from the group of population for the next iteration.

  • (v)
    Each subpopulation modifies its outcome using the following equation:
    (1)
  • Here, the finest and worst answers are represented by and, respectively, and the most recent solution is . The terms and assist the algorithm in moving toward the best solution and preventing the worst solution, respectively. The values of and are randomly selected from [0,1].

  • (vi)

    Compare the objective function values of the original solution and the updated solution. If the updated solution is improved than the original one, then m is increased by 1 (i.e., ), which allows for greater search area exploration. Or m is reduced by 1, i.e., , which aids in the exploration of the search space. In this case, .

  • (vii)

    It involves checking if the maximum number of generations has been reached. If it has, the cycle terminates, otherwise, it continues to run. Any duplicate solutions are replaced by freshly generated solutions to maintain diversity. Figure 2 shows the SAMP-MOJA flowchart.

Figure 2

Flowchart of SAMP Jaya algorithm.

Figure 2

Flowchart of SAMP Jaya algorithm.

Close modal

For more information on JA, refer to the study by Venkata Rao (2016), invasive weed optimization algorithm (IWO) can be learned from Karimkashi & Kishk (2010), and PSO details are available in the study by Eberhart & Kennedy (1995).

Multi-objective optimization

MO is a technique used for solving decision-making problems that involve optimizing multiple objective functions simultaneously. Unlike single-objective optimization, which aims to find the best solution for a single objective, MO seeks to identify a set of trade-off solutions that offer the best balance between conflicting objectives. When there is no single optimal option and decisions must be made by considering the trade-offs between many goals, this approach is especially beneficial. A set of points in the objective space known as the ‘Pareto frontier’ represents the best trade-off solutions that cannot be improved without surrendering another objective in a MO problem.

Using an a priori strategy, the multi-objective function was reduced to a single-objective function. This was achieved by allocating suitable weights to each objective. If the weights of the objectives are simply added together, the target with the largest functional value takes precedence over the others. The functions are normalized to prevent this. For instance, if and represent minimization objectives of the same type, then the combined function can be expressed as Equation (2) (Rao et al. 2019):
(2)
In this case, is the combined function, while and are the objective functions' minimal values when run independently. If the objective functions and belong to different classes, such as minimization and maximization, then Equation (2) is modified as shown in Equation (3):
(3)
where is the maximum value generated when is executed independently. The weights and are allocated to the objective functions and , respectively, and their sum must equal 1.

Statistical efficiency

The statistical efficiency indicators listed in the following subsections were used to assess the efficacy of EAs for optimal reservoir operation.

Root-mean-square error

The RMSE is a commonly used measure of the difference between anticipated and actual values from a model or estimator. It is calculated as the square root of the mean of squared differences between the predicted and actual values. RMSE gives a measure of how much error there is between two datasets. The smaller the value of RMSE, the better the model fits the data during :
(4)
where and are the demand and released water, respectively, in million cubic meters ().

Mean absolute error

Mean absolute error (MAE) is a metric that measures the difference between expected and actual values in a dataset. It calculates the average magnitude of the errors in a set of predictions, without considering their direction. It is calculated as the average of the absolute differences between the predicted and actual values for all observations in the dataset. The smaller the value of MAE, the better the model can predict the response variable:
(5)

Performance evaluation indicators

The following evaluation indicators are used to determine EAs' capacity for optimal reservoir operation.

Reliability index

The reliability index is a measure of the reliability of a system. It is a numerical value that quantifies the ability of a system to perform its intended function under specified conditions over a given period (Ehteram et al. 2018):
(6)
where the reliability index is denoted by . A higher percentage for the indicator is preferable.

Vulnerability index

It is recommended to have a lower percentage for this index because it measures how frequently the system will fail (Ehteram et al. 2018):
(7)
where is the vulnerability index and i is the total time period, i.e., .
The Ukai dam has been chosen for the current study. Ukai Dam is a masonry dam located on the Tapi River in the Indian state of Gujarat. The dam is located about 96 km from the city of Surat and provides water for irrigation and hydropower generation. The dam was constructed in 1972 and has a height of 68 m and a length of 1,460 m. It is one of India's largest dams and provides drinking water and irrigation to the surrounding communities. The dam also houses a hydroelectric power station, which creates electricity for the surrounding area. In addition to its practical uses, the Ukai Dam is a popular tourist destination and attracts visitors from all over India. Figure 3 is a study area index map that provides a visual overview of the Tapi basin and its cultivable command area. Figure 3(a) depicts India with the Tapi basin highlighted. The Tapi basin is a significant watershed area that covers Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. The Tapi river runs through this basin, providing vital water to the region's agriculture and industries. Figure 3(b) zooms into the Tapi catchment area to show the river's path and tributaries. The positions of three irrigation canals are depicted in Figure 3(c). The Ukai left bank main canal (ULBMC) is the first canal to branch straight from the Ukai dam. The Kakrapar right bank main canal (KRBMC) and Kakrapar left bank main canal (KLBMC) originate at the Kakrapar weir, which is located 29 km downstream of the Ukai dam. The Ukai right bank main canal, which divides from the KRBMC, is also shown in Figure 3(c). Figure 4 shows the line map of the study area. The dam has two outflows: the main dam and a branch canal known as the ULBMC.
Figure 3

The index map of the study area: (a) map of India highlighting the Tapi basin, (b) map of the Tapi catchment area, and (c) map of the cultivable command area.

Figure 3

The index map of the study area: (a) map of India highlighting the Tapi basin, (b) map of the Tapi catchment area, and (c) map of the cultivable command area.

Close modal
Figure 4

Line map of the study area.

Figure 4

Line map of the study area.

Close modal

There are two power plants at the Ukai reservoir. The first power plant, which has been in operation since 1974 and has a capacity of 300 MW, is located on the main dam. The second power plant on ULBMC, known as the ULBMC mini-station, was built in 1988 and has a 5 MW capacity. Together, these two power plants contribute significantly to the region's power supply. The Ukai reservoir inflow box plot is shown in Figure S1 (Supplementary Material). It can be noted that during the monsoon periods, the maximum inflow is observed, and in September, the peak inflow is observed. The mean, minimum, and maximum are nearly the same during the nonmonsoon months, which demonstrates that the data are normally distributed. The reservoir depends entirely on the inflow of the monsoon. Thus, to fulfil demand during nonmonsoon periods, water storage is essential. Table 1 presents the Ukai basin silent features. The data required for this study were collected from the Ukai division and the Surat irrigation department. For the analysis, the following data were used:

  • Monthly inflows from the reservoir from 1972 to 2016

  • Monthly storage capacity from 1972 to 2016

  • Monthly discharge from 1976 to 2016

  • Irrigation demand for all canal releases, cultivable command areas, and generated power from 1976 to 2016

  • Monthly evaporation rates from 1972 to 2016

  • Reservoir areas from 1972 to 2016

  • Industrial demands and domestic demands from 1990 to 2016

Table 1

Silent features of the basin

FeaturesReadings
Geographical location 72°33′ to 78°17′ E longitude 
20°9′ to 22° N latitude 
Average rainfall 820.07 mm 
Highest elevation 1,556 
Highest dam Ukai 
Number of irrigation projects Major, 13, medium, 68 
No of watersheds 100 
No of flood forecasting site 
No of villages 9,443 
No of subbasin 
Road width on the spillway 6.706 m 
Catchment area at Ukai 62,225 km2 
Type of spillway Radial 
Top of dam 111.252 m 
FeaturesReadings
Geographical location 72°33′ to 78°17′ E longitude 
20°9′ to 22° N latitude 
Average rainfall 820.07 mm 
Highest elevation 1,556 
Highest dam Ukai 
Number of irrigation projects Major, 13, medium, 68 
No of watersheds 100 
No of flood forecasting site 
No of villages 9,443 
No of subbasin 
Road width on the spillway 6.706 m 
Catchment area at Ukai 62,225 km2 
Type of spillway Radial 
Top of dam 111.252 m 

This section focuses on reservoir operations with multiple objectives. The research aims to reduce irrigation shortfalls while increasing hydropower generation. These objectives are conflicting. The following are the objectives.

Minimize annual irrigation deficiency

Minimizing the annual sum of square deficits for irrigation demands refers to finding the optimal solution for water allocation in irrigation systems to meet the demands while minimizing the shortfall, or deficit, in water supply. By minimizing the sum of the square of the deficits, the solution aims to reduce the magnitude of the disparities in water supply and demand:
(8)
where (, , and ) and (, , and ) are the irrigation demands and releases in million cubic meters for the ULBMC, KLBMC, and KRBMC, respectively, at time ().

Maximize the production of hydropower

Maximizing the annual hydropower generation refers to finding the optimal solution for water management in a hydropower system to generate the maximum amount of electricity in a year. A flow of at a height of produces 9,810 of power (Vedula & Mujumdar 2006). In general, p power is calculated as follows:
(9)
(10)
where is the discharge in cubic meter per second, is the head in meters, p is power in watts, is water density (1,000 kg/m3), and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2).
Equations (11) and (12) can be used to determine the total number of kilowatt-hours of energy produced during period :
(11)
(12)
where P is the annualized total energy production expressed in kilowatt-hours, represents the head in m and represents the total release in million cubic meters.
To maximize the hydropower supply to the Ukai dam, Equation (12) is changed into Equation (13):
(13)
where is the release in million cubic meters from the river bed turbine for time t, and is the plant efficiency. and express the river bed turbines and ULBMC net head at time t. The following constraints are applied to the objectives.

Continuity constraints

Continuity constraints in a reservoir refer to the balance between the inflow and outflow of water into and out of the reservoir. The objective of these constraints is to maintain the continuity of water supply for various purposes such as irrigation, and hydropower generation, while ensuring that the water level in the reservoir does not exceed its maximum capacity or fall below its minimum operating level. The continuity constraints consider the available water resources, water demand, and the capacity of the reservoir to regulate the flow of water. This is mathematically given by:
(14)
where represents the amount of water stored in a reservoir in million cubic meters at the start of period t. represents the amount of water stored in the reservoir at the end of period t. refers to the volume of water inflow into the reservoir during period t in million cubic meters. represents the amount of water that evaporates from the reservoir during period t in million cubic meters. represents the spill overflow during period t in million cubic meters.

Evaporation constraints

Evaporation constraints in a reservoir refer to the limitations on the amount of water that can be lost due to evaporation. The differences between precipitation and evaporation on the reservoir surface are algebraically distinguished by the losses in most models. In comparison to other factors, other losses, like leakage from the reservoir's bottom, are regarded as minor. The evaporation losses are computed, according to Equation (15):
(15)
(16)
where and are the reservoir surface evaporation losses in million cubic meters and reservoir evaporation in millimeters, respectively, during time t; and represent reservoir areas in at t and , respectively.

Storage constraints

The storage constraints are placed on the maximum and minimum volume of water permissible for storage within the reservoir at any given time. These constraints are established to ensure the safety and stability of the dam, as well as to prevent overextraction and water scarcity. The storage constraints are defined based on the maximum and minimum operating levels of the reservoir, which consider the capacity of the dam, the likelihood of flooding, and the need for water for various purposes, such as irrigation, hydropower generation, and domestic use:
(17)
where and are the maximum and minimum storage capacities during period t in million cubic meters.

Maximum constraints on power production

Maximum power production constraints refer to the limitations or restrictions on the maximum amount of power that can be generated by a power generation system. The amount of power produced at any point in time t must be less than or the same as the peak power output:
(18)
(19)
where is the maximum output of riverbed turbines and is the maximum power produced at the ULBMC, during the time t, expressed in kilowatt-hours. The correlation between the water head and the reservoir's storage capacity is shown in Equation (20). There are actually a number of elements that affect the water head in a reservoir despite the appearance that is exclusively influenced by storage capacity. One of the criteria that influences the water head () in Equation (20) is storage capacity (). To determine the water head, there are other factors and bases besides this one. The equation also takes into account the complex relationship between storage capacity and water head by including additional coefficients (, , , , and ). These coefficients reflect the reservoir's numerous hydraulic and geometric features, including its size, shape, and terrain, which affect the head–discharge relationship. These coefficients allow the formula to account for the reservoir system's nonlinear behavior and give a more accurate depiction of the water head as a function of storage capacity:
(20)
where , , , , and are the storage height coefficients.

Constrictions on canal capacity

At any time interval , the highest carrying capacity cannot ever be more than the canal carrying capacity. Equations (21)–(23) are used to express the releases from the dam to the canal in million cubic meters:
(21)
(22)
(23)
where , , and are, respectively, the maximum canal carrying capacities in KRBMC, KLBMC, and ULBMC.

Overflow restrictions

To ensure that more water can spill out, there should be an overflow condition in place. If the overflow condition is not specified, the models will cause water to escape even though there is less storage space:
(24)
where , is the highest storing capacity measured in million cubic meters.

Constrictions on irrigation releases

Irrigation release should be less than or equal to maximum irrigation demand and more than or equal to lowest irrigation demand:
(25)
(26)
(27)
where , , , , and represent the minimum and maximum irrigation demands for ULBMC, KLBMC, and KRBMC, respectively, for period t.

Water downstream releases

Water downstream releases are an important aspect of water management and can have significant impacts on downstream ecosystems and human communities. The releases must always be more than or equal to the minimal downriver need at any time:
(28)
where is the minimal river downstream discharge in million cubic meters required to meet the domestic needs, industrial needs, and aquatic quality over time t.

A multi-objective model was developed to reduce irrigation deficits while maximizing hydropower generation. The weight for minimizing irrigation deficits is taken as , while the weight for maximizing hydropower generation is . To generate the Pareto front, the values of and were changed in a predetermined order. In each attempt, a single optimal solution will be found, and the value of each objective will be calculated (Afshar et al. 2009). A SAMP-MOJA was implemented for the monthly time step to solve the Ukai multi-objective reservoir operation. The proposed method's effectiveness is compared with the MOJA, MOPSO, and MOIWO. The algorithms were written in MATLAB R2014b software.

Weights

In this study, five models were developed based on the combination of and . Since irrigation is the main purpose of the dam, irrigation is weighted more. So, for the irrigation, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% were chosen randomly. The combinations of weights are as follows: ; ; ; ; and . To apply the aforementioned models, average monthly input into a reservoir measured over 45 years for every calendar month (from 1972 to 2016) is used.

The sensitivities analysis has been carried out using a variety of combinations of common control parameters, including population size (e.g., 25, 50, 75, and 100). The performance of algorithms was analyzed over the course of 10 independent runs. The evaluation criteria are the termination criteria which are: functional evaluation = population size × iteration number. It was discovered that all algorithms significantly improved for population's size 50, and SAMP-MOJA has done much better for population's size 100. For IWO, the initial and final standard deviations were set as 0.6 and 0.001, respectively. The lowest and highest numbers of seeds were preserved at 0 and 3, respectively, and the modulation index was kept at 2. The PSO's internal parameters were set to 1, 1.3, and 2.0 for the inertia weight, cognitive parameter, and social parameter, respectively. The values of internal parameters were acquired using sensitivity analysis. For SAMP-MOJA and MOJA, there were no inner parameters available.

To ensure that the reservoir's storage constraint is met, the static penalty is applied. The penalty is , and penalty parameter. The penalty functions are expressed in Equations (29) and (30), which represent the penalty functions:
(29)
(30)
The penalty was applied in relation to the primary goal. The penalty parameter is the amount of the applied penalty, and the penalty function is dependent on the various constraints that were violated. The modified objective is written as Equation (31). A positive sign indicates that this violation has been added to the objective function:
(31)

Pareto-optimal solution

Figures 58 show the Pareto-optimal solution reported by SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, MOPSO, and MOIWO. Ten independent runs were performed to verify the performance, and the best one was selected as per the literature. From the figures, better Pareto-optimal solutions for SAMP-MOJA and MOJA were noted compared to MOPSO and MOIWO. Table 2 presents the optimal solution obtained for different algorithms with different weights combinations. It has been observed that when the weight of is increased, the value of the objective function has decreased since it was a minimization problem. When the weight of decreases, the value of the objective function increases. Similarly, when is increased, the value of the objective function has been increased because it was a maximization problem. From Table 2, the SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, MOPSO, and MOIWO, for model-5, maximum power generation were 1,036.842, 1,002.268, 976.010, and 822.571 MkWh respectively, and minimum irrigation deficiencywere , , 1,296.01, and Mm3, respectively. For model 4, maximum power generation were 1,032.225, 999.702, 924.437, and 802.157 MkWh, respectively, and minimum irrigation deficiency , , 371.448, and , respectively. It can be shown that the results obtained using SAMP-MOJA is better for each model in comparison with the results suggested by MOJA, multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPOS), and MOIWO in terms of both the objectives.
Table 2

Optimal outcome as determined by different algorithms

AlgorithmWeightsMaximum power generation ()Minimum irrigation deficiency
SAMP-MOJA  1,002.446  
 1,014.489  
 1,029.389  
 1,032.225  
 1,036.842  
MOJA  978.724  
 981.671  
 998.509  
 999.702  
 1,002.268  
MOPSO  905.214 145.677 
 919.324 173.469 
 924.437 367.408 
 957.103 371.448 
 976.010 1,296.01 
MOIWO  793.079  
 794.543  
 796.345  
 802.157  
 822.571  
AlgorithmWeightsMaximum power generation ()Minimum irrigation deficiency
SAMP-MOJA  1,002.446  
 1,014.489  
 1,029.389  
 1,032.225  
 1,036.842  
MOJA  978.724  
 981.671  
 998.509  
 999.702  
 1,002.268  
MOPSO  905.214 145.677 
 919.324 173.469 
 924.437 367.408 
 957.103 371.448 
 976.010 1,296.01 
MOIWO  793.079  
 794.543  
 796.345  
 802.157  
 822.571  

Note: Bold values indicate the optimal results.

Figure 5

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by SAMP-MOJA.

Figure 5

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by SAMP-MOJA.

Close modal
Figure 6

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOJA.

Figure 6

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOJA.

Close modal
Figure 7

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOPSO.

Figure 7

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOPSO.

Close modal
Figure 8

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOIWO.

Figure 8

Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MOIWO.

Close modal

Convergence plot by different algorithms

The convergence rates of the different algorithms for models 1–5 over 100,000 iterations are shown in Figure S2–S6 (Supplementary Material). The convergence rates of the various algorithms up to 30,000 iterations are shown in Figures 913. The y-axis shows the combined objective function solutions, and the x-axis shows the number of iterations, or how many times the algorithm has run. It has been observed that SAMP-MOJA and MOJA converge to an optimal solution faster and more rapidly than MOPOS and MOIWO. MOPSO had a better performance than MOIWO. The MOIWO convergence rate was very slow compared to SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, and MOPSO. The average times to run the models were 15–16 min for all SAMP-MOJA. For all MOJA, the models took an average of 16–17 min to run. For all MOPSO and MOIWO, the models took 2021 min to run on average.
Figure 9

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Figure 9

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Close modal
Figure 10

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Figure 10

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Close modal
Figure 11

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Figure 11

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Close modal
Figure 12

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Figure 12

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Close modal
Figure 13

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Figure 13

Combine objective function: convergence of weights .

Close modal
Figure 14 demonstrates the comparison between model hydropower generation and actual data in megakilowatt-hours. The y-axis is the hydropower generation in megakilowatt-hours, and the x-axis is the actual yearly hydropower generation and results of the models. The models were named in the short form in the graph as SAMP-JA1 to SAMP-JA5 for the SAMP-MOJA (model 1) to SAMP-MOJA (model 5). For other algorithms, similar abbreviations are used. The SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, and MOPSO have been observed to perform better than 80% of the actual generation. But for the years 1981, 1983, 1988, 1989, and 1990, the actual power generation was higher as compared to the models, this is due to the large inflow into the dam.
Figure 14

Actual data versus slgorithms results of hydropower generation.

Figure 14

Actual data versus slgorithms results of hydropower generation.

Close modal

Statistical efficient parameters

The results of water demand and release for irrigation based on various error indices for various algorithms are shown in Table 3. The RMSEs for SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, MOIWO and MOPSO for model 5 were , , , and 10.39 Mm3, respectively. RMSE values acquired by SAMP-MOJA and MOJA were found to be smaller for all weights compared to MOIWO and MOPSO. The MAEs for SAMP-MOJA, MOJA, MOIWO, and MOPSO calculated for model 5 were , , , and 4.12 Mm3, respectively. SAMP-MOJA had a comparatively small MAE than MOJA, MOIWO, and MOPSO.

Table 3

Results of various algorithms based on RMSE and MAE

Error indexModelsWeightsSAMP-MOJAMOJAMOPSOMOIWO
RMSE (Mm3Model 1    3.48  
Model 2    3.80  
Model 3    5.53  
Model 4    5.56  
Model 5    10.39  
MAE (Mm3Model 1    3.79  
Model 2    4.34  
Model 3    5.46  
Model 4    5.32  
Model 5    4.12  
Error indexModelsWeightsSAMP-MOJAMOJAMOPSOMOIWO
RMSE (Mm3Model 1    3.48  
Model 2    3.80  
Model 3    5.53  
Model 4    5.56  
Model 5    10.39  
MAE (Mm3Model 1    3.79  
Model 2    4.34  
Model 3    5.46  
Model 4    5.32  
Model 5    4.12  

Performance evaluation measures

The results of water demand and releases for irrigation based on various performance metrics for various algorithms are shown in Table 4. In comparison to MOPOS, the reliability index scores for SAMP-MOJA and MOJA are greater, indicating improved irrigation water delivery and optimal reservoir operation. The lower vulnerability index value of SAMP-MOJA also shows that the severity of the failure is smaller than that of MOPSO, MOJA, and MOIWO. The reservoir operation using SAMP-MOJA can, therefore, better prevent water shortage crises compared to MOPSO and MOIWO.

Table 4

Results of different algorithms based on performance indicators

Performance index (%)ModelsWeightsSAMP-MOJAMOJAMO PSOMO IWO
Reliability index Model 1  100 100 99.26 99.99 
Model 2  100 100 99.15 99.99 
Model 3  99.99 99.99 98.93 99.99 
Model 4  99.99 99.99 98.96 99.99 
Model 5  99.99 99.99 99.19 99.97 
Vulnerability index Model 1    3.81  
Model 2    6.99  
Model 3    8.61  
Model 4    8.34  
Model 5    33.24  
Performance index (%)ModelsWeightsSAMP-MOJAMOJAMO PSOMO IWO
Reliability index Model 1  100 100 99.26 99.99 
Model 2  100 100 99.15 99.99 
Model 3  99.99 99.99 98.93 99.99 
Model 4  99.99 99.99 98.96 99.99 
Model 5  99.99 99.99 99.19 99.97 
Vulnerability index Model 1    3.81  
Model 2    6.99  
Model 3    8.61  
Model 4    8.34  
Model 5    33.24  

Discussion

The developed multi-objective reservoir operation helped in reducing irrigation deficiencies by supplying irrigation water and maximized hydropower generation by taking into account reservoir operational constraints. The optimal Pareto front has been developed based on the weights of priorities. The optimal Pareto front can be used to make decisions and operate the reservoir as a multi-objective in the desired alternative priorities. The reservoir has varying inflows every year. Some years are dry, while some may be wet years. The alternatives proposed with different weights are helpful in such conditions. For example, for the dry year and less storage in the reservoir alternative with a higher weight for irrigation may be preferred over an alternative with higher hydropower weights. It is also observed that the hydropower generated by the developed model outperforms 80% of the actual generation. The developed model has a better reservoir storage policy and can supply more water for irrigation to produce more crop yield. The optimal release of water results in less irrigation deficits, which also contributes to hydropower. More hydropower can be generated if more water is released by the bed, but the deficiencies in ULBMC irrigation increase and the surplus water enters the ocean. Higher levels of weight are assigned to irrigation in the objective function so that irrigation deficits are minimized first, and then hydropower is maximized. The best optimal solution should satisfy both objectives. SAMP-MOJA performs admirably in both areas, contributing to lower irrigation deficits and increased hydropower generation. More importantly, the proposed SAMP-MOJA method requires less CPU time. Moreover, SAMP-MOJA and MOJA involve only common controlling parameters compared with MOIWO and MOPSO where both algorithm-specific and common controlling parameters are present. In particular, the operational policies of the SAMP-MOJA are superior to those of the MOJA, MOIWO, and MOPSO. Finally, it is recommended that the SAMP-MOJA can be used to solve MO problems as an efficient alternative technique.

The useful advice and insights could be provided to parties involved in the planning and decision-making processes for energy and water management. The findings help to build effective and sustainable water allocation methods that ensure optimal exploitation of water resources while taking into account the needs of various sectors and ecosystems.

  • (a)

    Water management strategies: The multi-objective reservoir operating model that has been built provides important information about water management tactics for the Ukai reservoir. The model offers decision-makers a variety of optimal options based on various weighting combinations while taking into account the dual goals of avoiding irrigation deficits and optimizing hydropower generation. By using this information, reservoir managers may allocate water more effectively, meet agricultural needs, and increase hydropower output all while guaranteeing resource efficiency.

  • (b)

    Reservoir operation optimization: The study's findings show how the SAMP-MOJA algorithm can be used to achieve optimal reservoir operating. The model aids reservoir managers in creating operation strategies that balance water supply, storage, and hydropower generation by including a variety of constraints, including continuity, evaporation, storage, power production, canal capacity, and downstream discharges. The model's use by reservoir managers can increase the effectiveness of water release schedules, which will increase the amount of water available for irrigation, hydropower production, and downstream ecosystems.

  • (c)

    Drought and water scarcity management: In areas that are prone to drought, the proposed model's capacity to reduce irrigation deficits is very beneficial. By effectively allocating water resources during dry spells, the model's optimal solutions can help manage circumstances where there is a shortage of water. While taking into account the available water storage, inflow, and environmental limits, decision-makers can prioritize the requirement for irrigation. This can assist environmentally friendly water management techniques and lessen the negative effects of droughts on agriculture.

  • (d)

    Renewable energy planning: The significance of renewable energy sources is shown by the study's emphasis on maximizing hydropower generation. The model assists in determining the best release techniques to maximize hydropower production while taking environmental constraints into account by optimizing reservoir operations. Planning and policy decisions relating to renewable energy can be influenced by this information, helping to create a more sustainable and dependable energy mix.

Limitations and future directions of the study

Limitations of the study

  • (a)

    The suggested model is specific to the Ukai reservoir; the findings might not be directly applicable to other reservoir systems with different properties. To validate the concept in various geographic contexts, more study is required.

  • (b)

    The analysis uses a fixed set of input data from 1972 to 2016, which might not take future changes in the climate and patterns of water consumption into consideration. The model's robustness would be improved by incorporating recent data and taking climate change scenarios into account.

Future directions

  • (a)

    The generalizability and scalability of the developed model could be better understood by investigating how it might be applied to other reservoirs and water management systems.

  • (b)

    Researching the financial aspects of reservoir operation, such as cost–benefit analysis and the value of ecosystem services, will help us gain a deeper understanding of the trade-offs between irrigation and hydropower production.

  • (c)

    Addressing the socioeconomic effects of reservoir operation, especially those on nearby populations and downstream ecosystems, would aid in the creation of management plans that are more environmentally and socially responsible.

In this study, an a priori approach was used to develop a Pareto-optimal solution for the multi-objective reservoir operation of the Ukai reservoir. To overcome algorithm-specific parameters, the improved version of JA was used, which does not require any algorithm-specific parameters to tune, and therefore, the user's burden gets reduced. The improved version of SAMP-JA helps in deciding the appropriate population size more quickly. The performances of SAMP-MOJA were compared with MOJA, MOPSO, and MOIWO. The findings clearly indicate SAMP-MOJA's superiority over the other algorithms. In chosen weights, the SAMP-MOJA convergence was better than other algorithms. SAMP-MOJA model has minimum RMSE and MAE. SAMP-MOJA's increased reliability and low vulnerability index value show better irrigation water supply and less failure severity. The SAMP-MOJA algorithm's main advantages are that it is relatively easy to implement, requiring only common controlling parameters to be adjusted, and that it can handle interdependence relationships among decision variables effectively, producing quick and effective Pareto-optimal solutions. The vulnerability index value shows better irrigation water supply and less failure severity. Finally, SAMP-MOJA was found to be outperforming MOJA, MOPOS, and MOIWO.

No funds, grants, or other support were received.

This research does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Ahmad
A.
,
Razali
S. F. M.
,
Mohamed
Z. S.
&
El-shafie
A.
2016
The application of artificial bee colony and gravitational search algorithm in reservoir optimization
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
7
),
2497
2516
.
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Garousi-Nejad
I.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2017
Extended multi-objective firefly algorithm for hydropower energy generation
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics
19
(
5
),
734
751
.
Bozorgi
A.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Rajabi
M.-M.
,
Latifi
M.
&
Chu
X.
2017
Applications of the anarchic society optimization (ASO) algorithm for optimizing operations of single and continuous multi-reservoir systems
.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology – Aqua
66 (7), 556–573.
jws2017137
.
Chen
C.
,
Yuan
Y.
&
Yuan
X.
2017
An improved NSGA-III algorithm for reservoir flood control operation
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
14
),
4469
4483
.
Chong
K. L.
,
Lai
S. H.
,
Ahmed
A. N.
,
Wan Jaafar
W. Z.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2021
Optimization of hydropower reservoir operation based on hedging policy using Jaya algorithm
.
Applied Soft Computing
106
,
107325
.
Civicioglu
P.
&
Besdok
E.
2013
A conceptual comparison of the Cuckoo-search, particle swarm optimization, differential evolution and artificial bee colony algorithms
.
Artificial Intelligence Review 39, 315–346
.
Du
K.
,
Xiao
B.
,
Song
Z.
,
Xu
Y.
,
Tang
Z.
,
Xu
W.
&
Duan
H.
2022
A novel self-adaptation and sorting selection-based differential evolutionary algorithm applied to water distribution system optimization
.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua
71
(
9
),
1068
1082
.
Eberhart
R.
&
Kennedy
J.
1995
A new optimizer using particle swarm theory
. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science
. Nagoya Japón. IEEE Service Center Piscataway, NJ, pp.
39
43
.
Ehteram
M.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Karami
H.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Emami
M.
,
Binti Othman
F.
,
Amini
Z.
,
Kisi
O.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2017
Fast convergence optimization model for single and multi-purposes reservoirs using hybrid algorithm
.
Advanced Engineering Informatics
32
,
287
298
.
Ethteram
M.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Karami
H.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Deo
R.
,
Othman
F. B.
,
Chau
K. w.
,
Sarkamaryan
S.
,
Singh
V. P.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2018
Bat algorithm for dam–reservoir operation
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
77
(
13
),
1
15
.
Hosseini-Moghari
S. M.
,
Morovati
R.
,
Moghadas
M.
&
Araghinejad
S.
2015
Optimum operation of reservoir using two evolutionary algorithms: Imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) and cuckoo optimization algorithm (COA)
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
10
),
3749
3769
.
Hu
Z.
,
Karami
H.
,
Rezaei
A.
,
DadrasAjirlou
Y.
,
Piran
M. J.
,
Band
S. S.
,
Chau
K.-W.
&
Mosavi
A.
2021
Using soft computing and machine learning algorithms to predict the discharge coefficient of curved labyrinth overflows
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
15
(
1
),
1002
1015
.
Karimkashi
S.
&
Kishk
A. A.
2010
Invasive weed optimization and its features in electromagnetics
.
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation
58
(
4
),
1269
1278
.
Kumar
V.
&
Yadav
S. M.
2019
Optimization of cropping patterns using Elitist-Jaya and Elitist-TLBO algorithms
.
Water Resources Management
33
(
5
),
1817
1833
.
Kumar
V.
&
Yadav
S. M.
2020
Optimization of water releases from ukai reservoir using jaya algorithm
. In:
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
(Venkata Rao, R. & Taler, J., eds), Vol.
949
.
Springer
,
Singapore
, pp. 323–336.
Kumar
V.
,
Sharma
K. V.
,
Caloiero
T.
,
Mehta
D. J.
&
Singh
K.
2023
Comprehensive overview of flood modeling approaches: A review of recent advances
.
Hydrology
10
(
7
),
141
.
Lai
V.
,
Huang
Y. F.
,
Koo
C. H.
,
Ahmed
A. N.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2021
Optimization of reservoir operation at Klang Gate Dam utilizing a whale optimization algorithm and a Lévy flight and distribution enhancement technique
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
15
(
1
),
1682
1702
.
Li
R.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Li
A.
,
Yu
S.
&
Ji
C.
2018
An improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm and its application in the optimization of cascade reservoir operation
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
63
(
15–16
),
2020
2034
.
Mirmehdi
M.
,
Shourian
M.
&
Sharafati
A.
2023
Adaptive operation of a reservoir in climate change condition: A case study of Maroon Dam in Iran
.
AQUA – Water Infrastructure, Ecosystems and Society
72 (7), 1249–1268.
Niknam
T.
,
Azizipanah-Abarghooee
R.
&
Rasoul Narimani
M.
2012
A new multi objective optimization approach based on TLBO for location of automatic voltage regulators in distribution systems
.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
25
(
8
),
1577
1588
.
Rao, R. V. 2016 Jaya: A simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 7 (1), 19–34.
Rao
R. V.
&
Keesari
H. S.
2018
Multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya algorithm for optimization of wind farm layout
.
Applied Soft Computing Journal
71
,
800
815
.
Rao
R. V.
,
More
K. C.
,
Taler
J.
&
Ocłoń
P.
2016
Dimensional optimization of a micro-channel heat sink using Jaya algorithm
.
Applied Thermal Engineering
103
,
572
582
.
Rao
R. V.
,
Rai
D. P.
&
Balic
J.
2017
A multi-objective algorithm for optimization of modern machining processes
.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
61
(
August 2015
),
103
125
.
Sharma
K. V.
,
Khandelwal
S.
&
Kaul
N.
2021
Principal component based fusion of land surface temperature (LST) and panchromatic (PAN) images
.
Spatial Information Research
29
(
1
),
31
42
.
Sharma
K. V.
,
Kumar
V.
,
Singh
K.
&
Mehta
D. J.
2023
LANDSAT 8 LST pan sharpening using novel principal component based downscaling model
.
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment
30
(
November 2022
),
100963
.
Singh
K.
,
Singh
B.
,
Sihag
P.
,
Kumar
V.
&
Sharma
K. V.
2023
Development and application of modeling techniques to estimate the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (in press).
Sun
X.
,
Bi
Y.
,
Karami
H.
,
Naini
S.
,
Band
S. S.
&
Mosavi
A.
2021
Hybrid model of support vector regression and fruitfly optimization algorithm for predicting ski-jump spillway scour geometry
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
15
(
1
),
272
291
.
Vedula
S.
&
Mujumdar
P. P.
2006
Water Resource Systems Modelling Techniques and Analysis
.
Venkata Rao
R.
2016
Jaya: A simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems
.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations
7
(
1
),
19
34
.
Zou
F.
,
Wang
L.
,
Hei
X.
,
Chen
D.
&
Wang
B.
2013
Multi-objective optimization using teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm
.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
26
(
4
),
1291
1300
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data