Water scarcity throughout the world has led to major difficulties and complexities in managing water demands. These challenges gravitate towards the development of efficient methods for optimal reservoir operation. The present study aims to introduce a hybrid approach which integrates Invasive Weed Optimization (IWO) and Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA), with an objective to minimize the deficits for Indira Sagar Reservoir (ISR), India. To prevail over the limitations of the Weed Optimization Algorithm (WOA) and CSA, a critical comparison has been made in the study. The hybrid approach has improved the performance by 5 and 9% as compared to WOA and CSA, respectively. For the reservoir system, the Cv for 10 random runs was computed to be 0.0303 using the hybrid model, whereas for WOA and CSA, Cv was 0.22034 and 0.30698, respectively. Based on the performance measuring indices, results revealed that the hybrid model is more reliable and sustainable with the minimum error between release and demand. In addition, results reveal that the deficits have been reduced by 62% on average for the considered study period using the hybrid approach. Therefore, the results show that the proposed hybrid model has considerable potential to be used as an optimizer for complex reservoir operation problems.

  • A hybrid approach (HIWCSA) has been applied to a reservoir system for deriving optimal operating policies.

  • The analysis of the study implies that the proposed method HIWCSA is performing better than the standard models.

  • Critical comparison and evaluation of the applied methods have been carried out on the basis of benchmark function and performance-measuring indices.

Owing to the ceaseless growing demand for water and emerging climate change, recent years have driven researchers to search for judicious methods of water resources systems. This has led to water shortages which makes it vital to distribute the deficits optimally during the non-monsoon periods.

In the last decades, numerous researchers have applied various evolutionary algorithms and mathematical models to optimize reservoir operation systems. Various studies using mathematical models have been successfully reviewed by Jacovkis et al. (1989), Vedula & Mohan (1990), Kumar & Baliarsingh (2003), Arunkumar & Jothiprakash (2012) and Heydari et al. (2015). These studies used linear programming (LP), dynamic programming (DP), and non-linear programming (NLP) as the basic models for reservoir operation optimization which also had their own limitations such as LP could not be used for non-linear optimization problems, NLP needs large computational storage and time while DP has the limitations of the curse of dimensionality.

Keeping in view the above limitations and requirements, researchers adopted different heuristic and evolutionary algorithms like Fuzzy Logic (Esogbue & Liu 2006), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) (Jalali et al. 2007), Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) (Chaves & Chang 2008), Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Cheng et al. 2008), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) (Reddy & Nagesh Kumar 2007), Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA) (Yang & Deb 2009), and Weed Optimization Algorithm (WOA) (Mehrabian & Lucas 2006).

An extensive review of different evolutionary algorithms was carried out by Ahmad et al. (2014) and Rani & Moreira (2010), discussing various optimization modelling approaches. However, each of the above discussed algorithms exhibit different kinds of problems like premature convergence, unstable convergence rate, complex programming or getting trapped in local optima (Karami et al. 2019). Therefore, a need arose to look for new hybrid approaches to solve optimization problems. The hybrid approach aids in overcoming the deficiency of individual algorithms so that the algorithms complement each other giving better solutions to the problem. CSA and Invasive Weed Optimization (IWO) are both new heuristic algorithms for finding optimal solutions in the given search space.

CSA has been recently developed as one of the latest nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithms and is proving to be potentially more efficient than other evolutionary algorithms. There have been only a few studies based on the Cuckoo Search (CS) model for reservoir operation. Yasar (2016) developed a CS model-based solution for the generation of optimal rule curves and it was revealed that the CS model improved the operation of the system and increased the energy production. Later, Rath et al. (2017) used the CSA to develop optimal crop planning strategies for maximizing net benefits. Furthermore, different variants of the CS model were also studied extensively by Salgotra et al. (2018). Various modified versions of the CS model were adopted for improving the exploration and exploitation properties of the model.

Another efficient optimization technique, WOA, have been recently encountered its applications in reservoir operation optimization. Asgari et al. (2016) introduced WOA for continuous and discrete time formulation for reservoir operation and compared it with classic LP, NLP methods, and GA. The results showed that WOA gave a superior performance to that of the other methods with faster convergence. Another application of WOA was presented by Azizipour et al. (2016). The authors applied a novel evolutionary algorithm named IWO for the reservoir operation of hydropower systems. The results showed that IWO performed more efficiently and effectively for single and multi-reservoir systems than PSO and GA. Later, Ehteram et al. (2018) introduced an improved weed algorithm for minimizing irrigation deficits for reservoir optimization and suggested that the model has the potential to solve complex problems related to water resources management.

Turning to the issue of hybrid approaches, many researchers presented hybrid algorithms of different evolutionary algorithms. Khaddor et al. (2021) presented the effect of dam construction on flood management using the Gumbel law and the HEC-HMS rainfall–runoff process and the results showed better performance of the models. Sutopo et al. (2022) analyzed the effect of spillway width on outflow and flow elevation for probable maximum flood (PMF) using the Hershfield equation indicating that spillway crest width should be smaller for large storage volume. Mamidala & Sanampudi (2021) proposed a multi-document temporal summarization (MDTS) technique which generates a summary of related events from multiple documents and compared the performance with PSO, CS models.

Many current researchers reveal that better success rates can be attained in the context of convergence and precision by the combination of IWO and CSA models. Ho et al. (2015) presented a hybrid model combining harmony search and incremental dynamic programming for reservoir planning and optimization. Another contribution was made by Zhang et al. (2016), in which IWO and CS algorithms were combined with their respective features and compared with the basic IWO algorithm. The results showed that the hybrid approach could be successfully used as a fast and global optimization model. Later, Karami et al. (2019) introduced another hybrid approach combining a gravitational search algorithm and PSO for minimizing water supply deficiencies which in conclusion was considered a potential method for optimizing reservoir operation. Another hybrid approach by Lai et al. (2021) involved a whale optimization algorithm and levy flight distribution (LFWOA) for optimal reservoir operation. The authors found that LFWOA was superior to other meta-heuristic algorithms. Besides the optimal operation of dams, hybrid models have also been used in forecasting the discharge capacity of inflatable dams by Zheng et al. (2021). The authors used a hybrid model of PSO and GA and compared the results with other hybrid models based on statistical indicators. Furthermore, Hu et al. (2021) presented other soft computing and machine learning algorithms to determine the overflow capacity of a curved labyrinth. The authors used the Least-Square Support Vector Machine-Bat Algorithm (LSSVM-BA) and analyzed that the LSSVM-BA model signified the best prediction accuracy.

The present study focuses on optimizing a multi-objective reservoir operation problem based on a hybrid approach combining IWO and CSA, to maximize hydropower generation and minimize irrigation deficits. The novelty of the present study lies in the application of the hybrid approach, namely, the Hybrid Invasive Weed Cuckoo Search Algorithm (HIWCSA) for multi-objective reservoir operation. The hybrid algorithm has been tested on benchmark functions and the results are then compared with basic WOA and CSA models to evaluate the performance of the proposed hybrid model. The novel contribution of the present work is the integration of two meta-heuristic models, namely IWO and CSA to enhance the efficiency and capability of the models used in previous publications. The major contributions of the present study are:

  • Improved and faster convergence rate for the hybrid approach.

  • Attainment of improved precision and better function values as compared to the traditional algorithms.

In a previous publication (Trivedi & Shrivastava 2020), the standard PSO model was used with two enhancement models, namely EMMOPSO and TVEMMOPSO, considered a hybrid approach of different meta-heuristic models, although the study area and problem formulation are similar. In Trivedi & Shrivastava (2022), the study area considered was different and the parameters used in CSA were varied whereas in the present work, the comparison has been made with standard CSA with no parametric variation. Besides, in the previous work, only a single objective function was used and in the present work, multi-objective function has been used and therefore sensitivity analysis was done on all the parameters again to validate them based on different objective functions. The sensitivity analysis of the parameters of all the models has been discussed in the results section, in detail.

Based on the literature review, the present study focuses on application of the hybrid approach to optimise multi-objective reservoir (ISR) and evaluating the efficiency of the HIWCSA model by comparing it with the standard WOA and CSA models. The models are discussed as follows:

Cuckoo Search Algorithm

CSA was first developed by Yang & Deb (2009) and is a meta-heuristic algorithm inspired by the cuckoo species. The algorithm uses important features of cuckoo species which evolve with the host bird species by laying an egg in the nest of the host bird. Each egg will represent a vector solution and each nest can have only one egg. High-quality eggs are carried over to the next generations. Available host nests are fixed and the host birds discover the cuckoo egg with some probability pa.

New nests are generated from randomly selected nests using Levy distribution, L(λ) as described in the following equation.
formula
(1)
where is the randomly generated solution by levy flight; is the randomly selected nest within the given range; is the step length; is the new best solution.
Levy distribution is a fat-tailed distribution with infinite mean and variance, which enables the CS process to perform large-scale explorations and local exploitation simultaneously, and thus increases overall exploitation ability using longer step size or step length as described in the following equation.
formula
(2)
where u and v are random numbers generated based on normal distribution; β is the scale factor.
With some probability pa, new nest solutions are compared and the best nest is recorded and used for the next generations as described in the following equation.
formula
(3)
formula
(4)
where rand () is a random number generator between 0 and 1; K is the local step size matrix; P1 and P2 are permutation functions.

Eventually, the existing and new nest solutions are compared and the best nest is recorded and used for the next generations. The process of discovery and generation of new nests is repeated until maximum iterations are reached.

Weed Optimization Algorithm

A common phenomenon in agriculture inspired the IWO, first introduced by Mehrabian & Lucas (2006). The IWO technique was inspired by the behaviour of the growth of weeds which grow spontaneously and can be harmful to farms. The characteristic of weed to adapt easily to any change in condition and new environments is favourable for the optimization process. The algorithm is simple but has been shown to be effective in converging to optimal solutions by employing basic properties, e.g., seeding, growth, and competition, in a weed colony. To simulate the behaviour of a weed, initially population Pi of the weed is randomly spread in a search space. On the basis of the quality of the weeds produced, i.e., parent weeds, seeds are generated with a given maximum (NoSmax) and minimum (NoSmin) range for a number of seeds to be produced. The number of seeds generated are calculated using the following equation:
formula
(5)
where is the number of seeds generated; is the ith objective function value; and are the minimum and maximum values of the objective function, respectively.

The production of seeds is explained as follows:

Randomness is now incorporated into the algorithm by spreading the seeds produced above randomly with normal distribution and variable standard deviation. The standard deviation is varied between a specified maximum and minimum value which is obtained by using Equation (6).
formula
(6)
where is the standard deviation of iteration i; is the maximum iteration; is the number of current iterations; is the standard deviation at the initial level; is the standard deviation at the final level; m is the modulus of non-linearity.

The number of weeds that could survive is limited to Pm, i.e., maximum population. Plants with lower fitness go for the next iteration to produce seeds and others are eliminated. At this stage, unsuitable weeds are abandoned until optimal criteria are achieved.

Hybrid model (HIWCSA)

Based on the key features of both the models, WOA and CSA, it can be concluded that each model has its own different optimization approach. The WOA model enables the search process to explore and diversify more efficiently while CSA offers a strong global search ability as it uses levy distribution for the search process. The key features of both models are integrated by introducing the levy flight concept of CS in the update process of the WOA model, improving the searchability and introducing mutation factor in the standard WOA model to modify the solutions for better global exploration. After elimination, the updated solutions are further modified using a mutating factor Sr as explained in Equation (7). The levy flight concept is introduced in the hybrid model based on Equation (8).
formula
(7)
where is the new updated population, randn() is the normally distributed random number; is the mutation factor.
formula
(8)
formula
where Pl is the updated population using levy flight distribution; is the step length of levy distribution; u and v are random numbers generated based on normal distribution; β is the scale factor.
The mechanism of the hybrid model is explained in the flowchart in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Flowchart for HIWCSA.

Figure 1

Flowchart for HIWCSA.

Close modal

Data analysis

The basic data used in the present study include monthly inflows, demand patterns, and details of the ISR. The monthly inflow data were collected from the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) office, Indore, MP. The data from 2009 to 2015 were acquired for experimenting with the models discussed in the work. The monthly demand data were generated from the cropping pattern and hydropower demand data acquired from the NCA Office, Indore, MP, the NVDA Office Indore, and the NHDC Office, Khandwa district.

Stepwise procedure for data processing:

  • With the given inflow and demand data, a continuity equation was applied for all the years to identify the deficit months, i.e., months in which demands were not met successfully.

  • Storage greater than the live storage was considered as spill for months to be analyzed.

  • The identified deficit months in step 1 were then considered as inputs for all the models discussed in the study to obtain optimal release policies.

  • The models were then run using MATLAB for all the years considered and all the developed models.

  • Based on the results, certain performance measuring indices were also obtained for critical comparison of all the models.

The process of analysing the data is also explained in Figure 2:
Figure 2

Flowchart for data processing and methodology.

Figure 2

Flowchart for data processing and methodology.

Close modal
Indira Sagar project (ISP) is situated 10 km from the village Punasa in Khandwa district, Madhya Pradesh. It is a multipurpose reservoir on the river Narmada with an installed capacity of 1,000 MW and an annual irrigation of 2.65 × 105 ha on a culturable command area of 1.23 × 105 ha. The total catchment area at the dam site is 61,642 km2. The power house consists of eight turbines each having a capacity of 125 MW. ISP is the mother project for the downstream projects on the Narmada basin with 12,200 MCM as the gross storage capacity. The basic data used in the study include monthly inflows and demands acquired from the NCA office, NVDA office, Indore and NHDC office, Khandwa, for the period 2009–2015. Figure 3 shows the map of the ISR. The main characteristics of the dam are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Salient features of dam

CharacteristicsISR
Type of dam Gravity 
Height (m) 92 
Length (m) 653 
Total capacity (MCM) 12,200 
Spillway capacity (m3/s) 83,400 
Full reservoir level (m) 262.13 
CharacteristicsISR
Type of dam Gravity 
Height (m) 92 
Length (m) 653 
Total capacity (MCM) 12,200 
Spillway capacity (m3/s) 83,400 
Full reservoir level (m) 262.13 
Figure 3

Location map of ISR.

Figure 3

Location map of ISR.

Close modal

Problem formulation

The objective functions to minimize the deficits in fulfilling irrigation and hydropower demands are as follows:
formula
formula
where is the total release in time t (MCM); is the total demand during time t (MCM); is the maximum energy produced (MKWH); is the coefficient of power production; is the hydropower release for the month t (MCM); is the head of hydropower plant (m).
formula
formula
Mass conservation equation for the reservoir is as follows:
formula
where represents the reservoir storage at time t; represents the monthly inflow at time t; represents the monthly release at time t.
The inequality equations for storage and release constraints are as follows:
formula
formula
formula
where represents the minimum storage at time t; represents the maximum storage at time t; and represents the reservoir storage at time t + 1; represents monthly demand at time t.
For ISSR
formula

Considering the above-mentioned constraints, the mass conservation equation was used to analyze the deficit months annually using the monthly inflow and demand data for all the years. The deficit months were those in which demand could not be completely met. The analyzed data was then used to run the proposed algorithms, HIWCSA, WOA and CSA, in MATLAB 9.4.0 version to determine the optimal operational policies for the considered period which were compared to evaluate the efficiency of the hybrid approach to those of the standard algorithms.

Stepwise procedure

The modeling of the reservoir system based on the hybrid algorithm (HIWCSA) is as follows:
  • The basic decision variable is the amount of water released which represents the generation of random population in the hybrid model.

  • The reservoir storages have been determined based on the state continuity equation. The months in which demands were not satisfied were considered as the deficit months to be optimized by the proposed model.

  • The storage and release values are then compared with the constraint values.

  • The objective function is then determined and analyzed by the model for better solutions.

  • The population is then allowed to reproduce seeds within a given range based on the equation.

  • The produced seeds are then spread randomly with a varying standard deviation to introduce stochastic nature in the model based on Equation (6).

  • The solutions with low fitness values are excluded and updated for the next iteration.

  • The updated solutions are further modified by introducing the concept of CSA along with levy flight distribution based on Figure 4.

  • The model is then checked for end criteria either by a maximum number of iterations or the optimal solution obtained.

Figure 4

Level of reproduction for each plant with respect to fitness.

Figure 4

Level of reproduction for each plant with respect to fitness.

Close modal

Model application in benchmark test functions

In order to validate and evaluate the efficiency of the developed model, HIWCSA, for reservoir operation problems, a set of basic benchmark functions were considered as discussed in the following. The performance of the proposed model based on those functions was then compared with WOA and CSA models. The mathematical functions used for testing the models are as follows:

Sphere function

It is a continuous unimodal function which is evaluated using a range between [−5.12, 5.12] and is mathematically expressed as:
formula

where i is the dimension, i.e., number of variables.

Rastrigin function

It is a multimodal function which is difficult to solve as it has numerous local minima and thus there are higher chances of the optimal solution being trapped in local minima. The mathematical expression of the function within the given domain [−5.12, 5.12] is:
formula
where A = 10, i is the dimension.

Ackley function

It is a multimodal function commonly used for evaluating metaheuristic algorithms with numerous local minima and one global optimum. The mathematical expression is written as:
formula
where i is the dimension and x [−30,30].

Considering the benchmark functions discussed above, the models were tested on all the functions. For the optimization of the functions, the number of iterations used was 100 for two variables and all other parameters were the same as those used for the real time optimization models.

Evaluation criteria

Certain performance measuring indices and statistical indices have been used in the present study to evaluate the performance of the proposed model (Srdjevic & Srdjevic 2017). The following indices were used:

Performance measuring indices

Reliability index (α) – This index signifies the ability of the model to supply water based on the ratio of the amount of water released to the amount required and is mathematically expressed as:
formula
(9)
where represents monthly release at time t, represents monthly demand at time t.
Resilience index (δ) – This index signifies its measure of recovery from failure and is in the form of a water storage indicator.
formula
(10)
where λ is the ratio of reservoir yield to mean annual inflow; is the coefficient of variation of inflows.
Vulnerability index (γ) – This index signifies the probability of damage of an event based on the ratio of annual water deficit events to amount of water required.
formula
(11)
Sustainability index (Sui) – This index combines the three indices mentioned above and is expressed as (Sharma et al. 2014)
formula
(12)
where d is the demand required.
Shortage index (Shi) – This index signifies the annual rate of water shortage based on the ratio of the annual deficit of water to the designed supply of water annually (Chou et al. 2020), for N number of years. It is expressed as:
formula
(13)

Statistical indices

In the present study, two statistical indices were used for the performance evaluation of the models (Dang et al. 2020), namely, Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Transformed Root Mean Square Error (TRMSE).

The MAPE is discussed as follows:
formula
(14)
where is the demand and is the release, for ith duration.
The TRMSE is discussed as follows:
formula
(15)
where are the release and demand values as per the expression , = 0.3, which scales down Q, i.e., release/demand.
formula
formula

The hybrid model proposed in the present study is demonstrated through the ISR project using the HIWCSA model and compared with standard WOA and CSA models using MATLAB software. In the model, the input was the monthly inflow and demand for the deficit months to be optimized for ISR. The models were run to obtain outputs as the annual reduced deficits and monthly release pattern for years considered to be the deficit. In the years 2011, 2012, and 2013, there was sufficient rainfall and so they were not considered for optimization.

Sensitivity analysis and model parameters of all the algorithms

The optimization process of the algorithm is greatly affected by the initial random parameters of the respective algorithm. Therefore, it becomes essential to measure the parameter values accurately which is achieved by analysing the effect of a wide range of values of a particular parameter on the objective function value. In the present study, the objective is to minimize the deficit, so the parameter value which gives the minimum objective function value will be considered as the best value.

The model parameters have been selected or assumed based on previous works done by Yasar (2016) and Asgari et al. (2016), for CSA and WOA, respectively. After selecting the parameters, trial and error for all the parameters of the models was carried out to validate the optimality of the parameter values. A thorough analysis of the parameters was done based on the sensitivity analysis and then the values of the parameters were adopted to carry out reservoir operations using the models. Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the validation of the parameter's sensitivity to fitness values. As can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, parameters converge after a certain value and shows not much variation in the fitness value indicating the need to adopt that value of the parameter for the respective model. In Figure 5, for nest size and the number of iterations, the fitness value converged or showed not much variation at 25 and 100, respectively for the CSA model. The other three parameters Sl, β, and pa were validated at 0.75, 1.5, and 0.25, respectively for the CSA model. In Figure 6(a), the fitness value did not vary much after 500 iterations for both WOA and HIWCSA models. In Figure 6(b), Sl converged quite early at a value of 0.01 as compared to the value of Sl for the CSA model, i.e., 0.75, owing to the hybridization of the models. Although, it is clear from Figure 6(c) that β converged at the same value as that for the CSA model, i.e., 1.5 and so it can be concluded that the effect of hybridization of both the models on β is not very significant. In Figure 6(d), there is little variation in the fitness values with respect to the Sr values and therefore Sr is adopted to be 0.5 as there is a slight convergence after this value. Hence, all the parameter values discussed above were adopted for the respective models and then the models were run to obtain the optimal releases.
Figure 5

Sensitivity analysis of CSA parameters.

Figure 5

Sensitivity analysis of CSA parameters.

Close modal
Figure 6

Sensitivity analysis of HIWCSA parameters.

Figure 6

Sensitivity analysis of HIWCSA parameters.

Close modal

To further validate the selected parameters, another sensitivity analysis was performed, presented in Tables 24. For the hybrid model, a different set of parameters has been considered in a combination of the initial and maximum population (Pi and Pm), the minimum and maximum number of seeds (NoSmin and NoSmax) and initial and final standard deviation (σi and σf). Random combinations of these parameters were run to analyze the results precisely. In Tables 2,3 and 4, the values in bold indicate the minimum objective function value for corresponding parameter of all the models. The minimum objective function value is 0.01 at Pi = 10 & Pm = 30 which indicates the best value for the objective function, as the objective is to minimise the deficits. Similarly, for the minimum and maximum number of seeds, the best objective function value is 0.01 at NoSmin = 0 and NoSmax = 5 combinations. The optimal number of iterations obtained is 500 with a mutation factor value of 0.5 giving the lowest value of the objective function. Finally, the minimum and maximum values of the standard deviation are taken as 0.01 and 2 with the lowest objective function value as 0.012. Other parameters and β were optimized at 0.01 and 1.5, respectively as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Sensitivity analysis for hybrid algorithm, HIWCSA

PiPmOFimaxOFNoSminNoSmaxOFσiσfOFSrOFOFβOF
10 0.062 100 1.33 0.674 0.01 0.708 0.1 0.017 0.01 0.011 0.5 0.02 
30 0.024 200 0.92 0.083 0.01 0.012 0.3 0.016 0.02 0.017 1.0 0.033 
10 15 0.029 300 0.429 0.01 0.01 0.018 0.5 0.012 0.015 0.014 1.3 0.43 
10 30 0.01 400 0.212 0.029 0.01 0.055 0.7 0.018 0.005 0.02 1.5 0.011 
10 0.37 500 0.013 0.22 0.02 1.6 0.9 0.68 0.05 0.34 1.7 0.75 
15 0.34 600 0.018 0.08 0.02 0.04 1.1 0.66 0.10 0.35 1.9 0.78 
15 25 0.29 700 0.029 0.07 0.04 1.4 1.3 0.65 0.25 0.36 2.0 0.017 
15 30 0.28 800 0.054 0.03 0.04 0.03 1.5 0.64 0.50 0.34 2.2 0.81 
PiPmOFimaxOFNoSminNoSmaxOFσiσfOFSrOFOFβOF
10 0.062 100 1.33 0.674 0.01 0.708 0.1 0.017 0.01 0.011 0.5 0.02 
30 0.024 200 0.92 0.083 0.01 0.012 0.3 0.016 0.02 0.017 1.0 0.033 
10 15 0.029 300 0.429 0.01 0.01 0.018 0.5 0.012 0.015 0.014 1.3 0.43 
10 30 0.01 400 0.212 0.029 0.01 0.055 0.7 0.018 0.005 0.02 1.5 0.011 
10 0.37 500 0.013 0.22 0.02 1.6 0.9 0.68 0.05 0.34 1.7 0.75 
15 0.34 600 0.018 0.08 0.02 0.04 1.1 0.66 0.10 0.35 1.9 0.78 
15 25 0.29 700 0.029 0.07 0.04 1.4 1.3 0.65 0.25 0.36 2.0 0.017 
15 30 0.28 800 0.054 0.03 0.04 0.03 1.5 0.64 0.50 0.34 2.2 0.81 

The values in bold indicate the minimum objective function value for corresponding parameter of all the models.

Table 3

Sensitivity analysis for standard WOA

PiPmOFimaxOFNoSminNoSmaxOFσiσfOF
10 0.116 100 1.45 0.846 0.01 0.918 
30 0.05 300 0.464 0.147 0.01 0.047 
10 15 0.071 500 0.045 0.047 0.01 0.05 
10 30 0.045 700 0.047 0.051 0.01 0.054 
PiPmOFimaxOFNoSminNoSmaxOFσiσfOF
10 0.116 100 1.45 0.846 0.01 0.918 
30 0.05 300 0.464 0.147 0.01 0.047 
10 15 0.071 500 0.045 0.047 0.01 0.05 
10 30 0.045 700 0.047 0.051 0.01 0.054 

The values in bold indicate the minimum objective function value for corresponding parameter of all the models.

Table 4

Sensitivity analysis for standard CSA

iterOFpaOFOFβOF
50 0.159 0.1 0.168 0.25 0.179 0.5 0.199 
100 0.11 0.15 0.137 0.5 0.188 1.0 0.169 
150 0.144 0.2 0.212 0.75 0.1 1.5 0.119 
200 0.141 0.25 0.105 0.133 2.0 0.157 
iterOFpaOFOFβOF
50 0.159 0.1 0.168 0.25 0.179 0.5 0.199 
100 0.11 0.15 0.137 0.5 0.188 1.0 0.169 
150 0.144 0.2 0.212 0.75 0.1 1.5 0.119 
200 0.141 0.25 0.105 0.133 2.0 0.157 

The values in bold indicate the minimum objective function value for corresponding parameter of all the models.

Similarly, sensitivity analysis values were obtained for standard WOA also with the same parametric values as those of the HIWCSA model, as shown in Table 3.

For CSA, the number of iterations was optimized at 100 and details of other parameters are also shown in Table 4.

Based on the sensitivity analysis performed above, Table 5 represents the parameter values of all the models. The common parameters of WOA and HIWCSA models are the same except for Sr, and β, which are added in the hybrid model.

Table 5

Model parameters for different algorithms

ModelParameterValue
CSA Number of iterations, iter 100 
Number of nests 25 
Discovery probability, pa 0.25 
step size,  0.75 
Scale parameter, β 1.5 
WOA Pi, Initial population 10 
Pm, Maximum population 30 
imax, Maximum number of iterations 500 
NoSmax, Maximum number of seeds 
NoSmin, Minimum number of seeds 
m, modulation of non-linearity 
σi, Initial standard deviation 
σf, Final standard deviation 0.01 
HIWCSA Mutation factor, Sr 0.5 
step size,  0.01 
Scale parameter, β 1.5 
ModelParameterValue
CSA Number of iterations, iter 100 
Number of nests 25 
Discovery probability, pa 0.25 
step size,  0.75 
Scale parameter, β 1.5 
WOA Pi, Initial population 10 
Pm, Maximum population 30 
imax, Maximum number of iterations 500 
NoSmax, Maximum number of seeds 
NoSmin, Minimum number of seeds 
m, modulation of non-linearity 
σi, Initial standard deviation 
σf, Final standard deviation 0.01 
HIWCSA Mutation factor, Sr 0.5 
step size,  0.01 
Scale parameter, β 1.5 

Analysis of benchmark test functions for all the algorithms

To evaluate the efficacy of the hybrid model, all the algorithms were first tested on some mathematical test functions and then on the real case study. Sphere, Ackley and Rastrigin functions have been used in the present study to analyze the performance of the models. Table 6 shows the optimal function values and their statistical parameters for different mathematical functions for all the models. It can be concluded that the hybrid model has outperformed the standard WOA model as well as the CSA model significantly. The HIWCSA model has optimized the solutions in a better way by converging them to global optima, i.e., 0, precisely in Ackley and Rastrigin functions for almost all the runs. In the WOA model, there were only a few runs in which global optima was achieved while for other runs, the model has performed better than CSA.

Table 6

Statistical measures of different functions from random runs of all the algorithms

Test FunctionModel
CSAWOAHIWCSA
Sphere Function value 3.81628 × 10-19 1.00 × 10-32 6.18 × 10-42 
8.31628 × 10-19 3.63 × 10-32 8.92 × 10-43 
4.41628 × 10-19 1.63 × 10-32 3.63 × 10-42 
2.61628 × 10-19 1.28 × 10-31 1.63 × 10-42 
1.21628 × 10-19 1.93 × 10-31 5.28 × 10-42 
Mean 4.07628 × 10-19 7.67 × 10-42 3.52 × 10-42 
SD 2.66796 × 10-19 8.04 × 10-32 2.27 × 10-42 
Ackley Function value 1.86282 × 10-5 3.50 × 10-15 
6.56282 × 10-5 
7.66282 × 10-5 
7.96282 × 10-5 
3.56282 × 10-5 
Mean 5.52282 × 10-5 7.00 × 10-16 
SD 2.6857 × 10-5 1.40 × 10-15 
Rastrigin Function value 1.71628 × 10-14 
4.41628 × 10-13 
2.91628 × 10-13 
4.61628 × 10-13 
3.11628 × 10-13 
Mean 3.04735 × 10-13 
SD 1.58917 × 10-13 
Test FunctionModel
CSAWOAHIWCSA
Sphere Function value 3.81628 × 10-19 1.00 × 10-32 6.18 × 10-42 
8.31628 × 10-19 3.63 × 10-32 8.92 × 10-43 
4.41628 × 10-19 1.63 × 10-32 3.63 × 10-42 
2.61628 × 10-19 1.28 × 10-31 1.63 × 10-42 
1.21628 × 10-19 1.93 × 10-31 5.28 × 10-42 
Mean 4.07628 × 10-19 7.67 × 10-42 3.52 × 10-42 
SD 2.66796 × 10-19 8.04 × 10-32 2.27 × 10-42 
Ackley Function value 1.86282 × 10-5 3.50 × 10-15 
6.56282 × 10-5 
7.66282 × 10-5 
7.96282 × 10-5 
3.56282 × 10-5 
Mean 5.52282 × 10-5 7.00 × 10-16 
SD 2.6857 × 10-5 1.40 × 10-15 
Rastrigin Function value 1.71628 × 10-14 
4.41628 × 10-13 
2.91628 × 10-13 
4.61628 × 10-13 
3.11628 × 10-13 
Mean 3.04735 × 10-13 
SD 1.58917 × 10-13 

Figures 7(a)–7(c) represent the convergence curves obtained for the mathematical test functions for all the models. The figure shows that the HIWCSA has converged to minimum global optima value and at earlier iterations as compared to the other two models.
Figure 7

Convergence curves for different mathematical functions for all the algorithms.

Figure 7

Convergence curves for different mathematical functions for all the algorithms.

Close modal

Analysis of random results of all the algorithms

Table 7 represents the results of ten random runs of all the models for the formulated problem. As can be seen in Table 7, the coefficient of variation for HIWCSA is lower than the other two models with a value of 0.0303 while for WOA and CSA the values are 0.22034 and 0.30698, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that HIWCSA is more reliable with a low Cv.

Table 7

Ten random results for all the algorithms for ISR

RunCSAWOAHIWCSA
0.194 0.061 0.032 
0.111 0.061 0.033 
0.126 0.081 0.016 
0.157 0.07 0.023 
0.223 0.078 0.02 
0.215 0.045 0.029 
0.223 0.045 0.03 
0.299 0.045 0.038 
0.299 0.045 0.034 
10 0.301 0.058 0.009 
Best 0.111 0.045 0.009 
Worst 0.301 0.081 0.038 
Average 0.215 0.059 0.264 
Standard deviation 0.066 0.013 0.008 
Coefficient of variation 0.30698 0.22034 0.0303 
RunCSAWOAHIWCSA
0.194 0.061 0.032 
0.111 0.061 0.033 
0.126 0.081 0.016 
0.157 0.07 0.023 
0.223 0.078 0.02 
0.215 0.045 0.029 
0.223 0.045 0.03 
0.299 0.045 0.038 
0.299 0.045 0.034 
10 0.301 0.058 0.009 
Best 0.111 0.045 0.009 
Worst 0.301 0.081 0.038 
Average 0.215 0.059 0.264 
Standard deviation 0.066 0.013 0.008 
Coefficient of variation 0.30698 0.22034 0.0303 

Analysis of reduced deficits for ISR

Figure 8 shows the annual reduced deficits obtained for the considered years; 2009–2010, 2010–2011, and 2014–2015, for all the algorithms. In all the years, the HIWCSA model has produced better results than the other two models. The average percentage of deficit obtained using HIWCSA for the entire period is 63%, while for WOA and CSA, the percentage is 58 and 54%. It can thus be concluded that the HIWCSA model has improved its performance by 5 and 9% as compared to WOA and CSA models, respectively. The annual irrigation and hydropower deficits obtained by the releases for the considered period have been reduced by 1,778 MCM, 1,000 MCM, and 1,610 MCM for the corresponding years by using the HIWCSA model in comparison to the CSA model. Hence, it can also be concluded that by optimal management of available water, a greater amount of water can be saved and provided to the users even in non-monsoon months. Based on these results, HIWCSA can be considered superior to the other two models for optimizing complex reservoir systems.
Figure 8

Comparison of deficits for all the algorithms.

Figure 8

Comparison of deficits for all the algorithms.

Close modal

Analysis of release pattern for ISR

Figures 911 show the volume of water released monthly for irrigation and hydropower demands for ISR for the years 2009–2010, 2010–2011 and 2014–2015, respectively, obtained using all the evolutionary algorithms. As can be seen in the figures, there is more variation in hydropower releases using all the models for all the years than the irrigation releases as hydropower demands are also more. The figures show that the hybrid model gave more efficient releases for both irrigation and hydropower demand than the WOA and CSA models. Also, there is not much variation in releases obtained by WOA and CSA models but there is more variation in releases obtained by HIWCSA due to the incorporation of key features of both the models. It can be concluded that HIECSA model has shown an improvement of about 6 and 16% as compared to WOA and CSA models, respectively, while WOA has shown about 8% improvement in comparison to CSA. Overall, it can be noticed from Figures 9 to 11 that there has been an improvement in release values of hydropower demand for all the years than the irrigation demands, being less. However, there is a slight improvement in irrigation releases for non-monsoon months in 2009–2010 and very little difference can be seen in the years 2010 and 2014. The optimal releases for all the years are capable of supplying the irrigation and hydropower for the downstream users even in the months March to June, as much less inflow is available, these being the non-monsoon months, which was otherwise not possible with the state continuity equation. Figures 911 thus demonstrate that releases were managed throughout the year optimally to meet the demands in non-monsoon months also, by using the meta-heuristic models. Hence, it can be said that the hybridization of key features of both WOA and CSA algorithms has improved the performance of the hybrid model to a significant extent.
Figure 9

Monthly release pattern for 2009–2010.

Figure 9

Monthly release pattern for 2009–2010.

Close modal
Figure 10

Monthly release pattern for 2010–2011.

Figure 10

Monthly release pattern for 2010–2011.

Close modal
Figure 11

Monthly release pattern for 2014–2015.

Figure 11

Monthly release pattern for 2014–2015.

Close modal

Analysis of results based on performance measuring indices

For the performance evaluation of the models, certain performance and statistical measuring indices have been used in the present study for the reservoir operation of ISR. Table 8 represents different indices used for all the algorithms. As can be seen in Table 8, the volumetric reliability index is high for HIWCSA at 63% than the other two models, WOA and CSA at 59 and 54%, respectively, signifying that HIWCSA meets the demands in a better way than other models. As the vulnerability index signifies the failure of an event, therefore it can be seen that the HIWCSA model produced a low value at 37% which is 4 and 9% lower than WOA and CSA models, respectively. This indicates that for the HIWCSA model, the intensity of failure was less than that for the other two models, WOA and CSA, and the reservoir system would face more deficit.

Table 8

Performance-measuring indices for all the algorithms for ISR

ModelReliability (%)Vulnerability (%)ResilienceSustainability indexShortage indexMAPE (%)TRMSE
CSA 54 46 0.028 0.008 4.06 47 7.1 
WOA 59 41 0.058 0.02 3.65 42 6.2 
HIWCSA 63 37 0.081 0.032 3.3 38 5.6 
ModelReliability (%)Vulnerability (%)ResilienceSustainability indexShortage indexMAPE (%)TRMSE
CSA 54 46 0.028 0.008 4.06 47 7.1 
WOA 59 41 0.058 0.02 3.65 42 6.2 
HIWCSA 63 37 0.081 0.032 3.3 38 5.6 

Turning to the resilience index, HIWCSA shows a higher value of 0.081 than WOA and CSA models, indicating that the HIWCSA model has a higher probability of recovering from failure and met the demands more frequently than the other two models. Similarly, the hybrid model performs better with regard to the sustainability index and shortage index with values of 0.032 and 3.3, respectively. These results show that the hybrid model is more sustainable and has the lowest value of shortage index as compared to WOA and CSA models.

The MAPE has been used to validate the algorithms used in the study for accuracy. A lower error value signifies higher accuracy, as can be seen in Table 8, indicating that better accuracy is obtained in operating the reservoir using the hybrid model. Furthermore, HIWCSA shows a lower value for MAPE and TRMSE indices in Table 8 as compared to WOA and CSA models, at 38% and 5.6, respectively, signifying minimum error for HIWCSA between release and demand.

Analysis of results based on convergence curves

Figures 12(a)–12(c) show the convergence curves obtained for the considered years for all the algorithms. As can be seen in the figure, CSA shows a premature convergence at about the 17th iteration on average, with a higher function value. In case of WOA and HIWCSA models, the convergence has improved significantly showing a smooth and steady curve, although with a greater number of iterations, owing to the fact of more randomization in the standard WOA model. In HIWCSA, due to the incorporation of levy distribution, there is a better balance between exploration and exploitation of the global and local search process which is improving the steady convergence with a better function value. As can be seen in Figure 12, after 150 iterations the HIWCSA model had converged while WOA converges at 200 iterations indicating that the HIWCSA model has faster convergence with a lower function value. However, there is no significant difference in convergence for the years 2009–2010.
Figure 12

Convergence curves for all the algorithms for ISR.

Figure 12

Convergence curves for all the algorithms for ISR.

Close modal

The present study focused on operating a multi-reservoir system, i.e., ISR for deriving optimal operational policies using a novel hybrid approach, the HIWCSA model, and a critical comparison has been made with the standard WOA and CSA models based on the results obtained.

The hybrid model was first tested on benchmark functions and proved to converge in a better way, achieving the global optima. Then, the models were run on the real-time reservoir operation problem and it can be concluded that the hybrid model improved the overall performance of the reservoir system as compared to the other two models with better convergence and lower function values.

The main purpose of the study was to minimize the deficits annually for the considered years. The results showed that the deficits were reduced by 59, 66, and 62% for the years 2009–2010, 2010–2011 and 2014–2015, respectively, using HIWCSA compared to the other two models. For performance evaluation of the models, certain indices were also estimated which showed that the HIWCSA model produced better results than the other two models in terms of reliability, vulnerability, resilience, shortage index, sustainability index, MAPE, and TRMSE.

The limitations in the present study could be overcome by using a large amount of data sets regarding all the variables used in the study. It is suggested that a more critical comparison of the proposed hybrid approach with other meta-heuristic models and/or hybrid models could improve the optimization study with reference to the convergence rate and precision of the algorithms. It can hence be concluded that the proposed hybrid approach (HIWCSA) has significant potential to optimize a range of complex reservoir systems. Thus, the future direction of the study could be forecasting inflows with growing demands for optimal reservoir operation.

The authors have given consent and approval for manuscript submission

All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Methodology development, application and data analysis was done by M.T. Data collection and conceptualization was done by R.K.S. Draft preparation and review were done by M.T.

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Ahmad
A.
,
El-Shafie
A.
,
Razali
S. F. M.
&
Mohamad
Z. S.
2014
Reservoir optimization in water resources: a review
.
Water Resources Management
28
(
11
),
3391
3405
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0700-5
.
Arunkumar
R.
&
Jothiprakash
V.
2012
Optimal reservoir operation for hydropower generation using non-linear programming model
.
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A
93
(
2
),
111
120
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-012-0013-8
.
Asgari
H. R.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
,
Pazoki
M.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2016
Weed optimization algorithm for optimal reservoir operation
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
142
(
2
),
04015055
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000963
.
Azizipour
M.
,
Ghalenoei
V.
,
Afshar
M. H.
&
Solis
S. S.
2016
Optimal operation of hydropower reservoir systems using weed optimization algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
11
),
3995
4009
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1407-6
.
Chaves
P.
&
Chang
F. J.
2008
Intelligent reservoir operation system based on evolving artificial neural networks
.
Advances in Water Resources
31
(
6
),
926
936
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.03.002
.
Cheng
C. T.
,
Wang
W. C.
,
Xu
D. M.
&
Chau
K. W.
2008
Optimizing hydropower reservoir operation using hybrid genetic algorithm and chaos
.
Water Resources Management
22
(
7
),
895
909
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9200-1
.
Chou
F. N. F.
,
Linh
N. T. T.
&
Wu
C. W.
2020
Optimizing the management strategies of a multi-purpose multi-reservoir system in Vietnam
.
Water
12
(
4
),
938
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12040938
.
Dang
T. D.
,
Chowdhury
A. F. M.
&
Galelli
S.
2020
On the representation of water reservoir storage and operations in large-scale hydrological models: implications on model parameterization and climate change impact assessments
.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
24
(
1
),
397
416
.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-397-2020, 2020
.
Ehteram
M.
,
Singh
V. P.
,
Karami
H.
,
Hosseini
K.
,
Dianatikhah
M.
,
Hossain
M.
,
Chow
M. F.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2018
Irrigation management based on reservoir operation with an improved weed algorithm
.
Water
10
(
9
),
1267
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091267
.
Esogbue
A. O.
&
Liu
B.
2006
Reservoir operations optimization via fuzzy criterion decision processes
.
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making
5
(
3
),
289
305
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-006-0015-y
.
Heydari
M.
,
Othman
F.
,
Qaderi
K.
,
Noori
M.
&
Pasa
A.
2015
Introduction to linear programming as a popular tool in optimal reservoir operation, a review
.
Advances in Environmental Biology
9
(
3
),
906
917
.
Ho
V. H.
,
Kougias
I.
&
Kim
J. H.
2015
Reservoir operation using hybrid optimization algorithms
.
Global NEST Journal
17
(
1
),
103
117
.
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
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2021.1934546
.
Jacovkis
P. M.
,
Gradowczyk
H.
,
Freisztav
A. M.
&
Tabak
E. G.
1989
A linear programming approach to water-resources optimization
.
Zeitschrift für Operations Research
33
(
5
),
341
362
.
Jalali
M. R.
,
Afshar
A.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2007
Multi-reservoir Operation by Adaptive Pheromone re-Initiated ant Colony Optimization Algorithm
.
Karami
H.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Jahangiri
A.
,
Ehteram
M.
,
Kisi
O.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2019
Multi-reservoir system optimization based on hybrid gravitational algorithm to minimize water-supply deficiencies
.
Water Resources Management
33
(
8
),
2741
2760
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02238-3
.
Khaddor
I.
,
Achab
M.
,
Soumali
M. R.
,
Benjbara
A.
&
Alaoui
A. H.
2021
The impact of the construction of a dam on flood management
.
Civil Engineering Journal
7
(
2
),
343
356
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2021-03091658
.
Kumar
D. N.
&
Baliarsingh
F.
2003
Folded dynamic programming for optimal operation of multireservoir system
.
Water Resources Management
17
(
5
),
337
353
.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025894500491
.
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
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2021.1982777
.
Mamidala
K. K.
&
Sanampudi
S. K.
2021
A novel framework for multi-document temporal summarization (mdts)
.
Emerging Science Journal
5
(
2
),
184
190
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-01268
.
Mehrabian
A. R.
&
Lucas
C.
2006
A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired from weed colonization
.
Ecological Informatics
1
(
4
),
355
366
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2006.07.003
.
Rani
D.
&
Moreira
M. M.
2010
Simulation–optimization modeling: a survey and potential application in reservoir systems operation
.
Water Resources Management
24
(
6
),
1107
1138
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9488-0
.
Rath
A.
,
Biswal
S.
,
Samantaray
S.
&
Swain
P. C.
2017
Derivation of optimal cropping pattern in part of Hirakud command using Cuckoo search
. In
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
, vol.
225
(
1
).
IOP Publishing
, p.
012068
.
Reddy
M. J.
&
Nagesh Kumar
D.
2007
Multi-objective particle swarm optimization for generating optimal trade-offs in reservoir operation
.
Hydrological Processes: An International Journal
21
(
21
),
2897
2909
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6507
.
Salgotra
R.
,
Singh
U.
&
Saha
S.
2018
New cuckoo search algorithms with enhanced exploration and exploitation properties
.
Expert Systems with Applications
95
,
384
420
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.044
.
Sharma
P. J.
,
Patel
P. L.
&
Jothiprakash
V.
2014
Performance evaluation of a multipurpose reservoir using simulation models for different scenarios
. In
Proc., of HYDRO–2014 International Conference
.
Srdjevic
Z.
&
Srdjevic
B.
2017
An extension of the sustainability index definition in water resources planning and management
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
5
),
1695
1712
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1609-6
.
Sutopo
Y.
,
Utomo
K. S.
&
Tinov
N.
2022
The effects of spillway width on outflow discharge and flow elevation for the probable maximum flood (PMF)
.
Civil Engineering Journal
8
(
4
),
723
733
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-04-08
.
Trivedi
M.
&
Shrivastava
R.
2020
Derivation and performance evaluation of optimal operating policies for a reservoir using a novel PSO with elitism and variational parameters
.
Urban Water Journal
17
(
9
),
774
784
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2020.1823431
.
Trivedi
M.
&
Shrivastava
R. K.
2022
Optimal reservoir operation using parametric elitist cuckoo search algorithm
. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management
.
Thomas Telford Ltd
, pp.
1
19
.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jwama.21.00057
Vedula
S.
&
Mohan
S.
1990
Real-time multipurpose reservoir operation: a case study
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
35
(
4
),
447
462
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626669009492445
.
Yang
X. S.
&
Deb
S.
2009
Cuckoo search via Lévy flights
. In:
2009 World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC)
.
Ieee
, pp.
210
214
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NABIC.2009.5393690
Yasar
M.
2016
Optimization of reservoir operation using cuckoo search algorithm: example of Adiguzel Dam, Denizli, Turkey
.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
2016
.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1316038
Zhang
X.
,
Wang
X.
,
Cui
G.
&
Niu
Y.
2016
A Hybrid IWO Algorithm Based on Lévy Flight
. In
International Conference on Bio-Inspired Computing: Theories and Applications
.
Springer
,
Singapore
, pp.
141
150
.
Zheng
W.
,
Band
S. S.
,
Karami
H.
,
Karimi
S.
,
Samadianfard
S.
,
Shadkani
S.
,
Chau
K. W.
&
Mosavi
A. H.
2021
Forecasting the discharge capacity of inflatable rubber dams using hybrid machine learning models
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
15
(
1
),
1761
1774
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2021.1976280
.
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/).