See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357575387

Optimal management of hydropower production: Case of Memve'ele

hydropower reservoir policy

Article  in  Energy Reports · January 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.047

CITATIONS READS

0 149

5 authors, including:

Daniel Eutyche Mbadjoun Wapet Salomé Ndjakomo Essiane

University of Yaounde I University of Douala/University of Yaounde I
13 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

René Wamkeue Patrick JUVET Gnetchejo

Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue University of Douala
113 PUBLICATIONS   1,695 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sizing optimisation of Hybrid PV Plant for rural areas View project

Gestion optimisée d'une centrale pv/diesel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Eutyche Mbadjoun Wapet on 09 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research Paper

Optimal management of hydropower production: Case of Memve’ele

hydropower reservoir policy
∗
Daniel Eutyche Mbadjoun Wapet, Ph.D. student a , , Salomé Ndjakomo Essiane a,b ,
René Wamkeue a,c , Dieudonné Bisso d , Patrick Juvet Gnetchejo e
a
Laboratory of Electrical Engineering, Mecatronic and Signal Treatment, National Advanced School of Engineering, University of Yaounde
1, Yaoundé, Cameroon
b
Higher Technical Teacher Training College of Ebolowa, University of Yaounde 1, Yaounde, Cameroon
c
Centre d’Excellence Africain en Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (CETIC), University of Yaounde 1, Cameroon
d
Department of Earth Science, University of Yaounde 1, Yaounde, Cameroon
e
Laboratory of Technologies and Applied Sciences, University of Douala, Douala, Cameroon

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Optimizing the production of electrical energy through the efficient management of reservoirs is one
Received 2 October 2021 of the major concerns in power supply. Then, optimization methods have been employed to solve the
Received in revised form 2 December 2021 problem of service continuity in a generation. Many reservoir management issues are indeed addressed
Accepted 14 December 2021
without achieving a desired solution in line with demand. The main motivation for state-of-the-art
Available online xxxx
technology is to develop robust and intelligent methods that enable strict compliance with production
Keywords: restrictions while meeting energy demand. This paper follows this perspective by proposing the water
Two constraint processing techniques supply and hydroelectric production through a hybrid method combining the differential evolution
Differential evolution and two constraints processing treatments (TCPT). The interest of the constraint method using here,
Reservoir including its superiority of feasible solutions (SF) and auto-adaptative penalty (AP) is its ability to
Constraint processing
overcome premature convergence and to obtain very accuracy near optimal solutions. AP technique
Management
improve by its ability process through tedious trial and error methods to select the best penalty
Optimization
coefficient during implementation. SF, for its part, is a technique for comparing unrealistic solutions on
the basis of the violation of global constraint aimed at pushing unrealistic solutions towards the feasible
region, while comparing two workable solutions on objective value improves the overall solution.
To compare the performance of the proposed hybrid method of optimization with the SF and AP
techniques as a constraint method, a series of experiments was firstly carried out using 25 well know
benchmark functions. The obtained results as opposed to the current hybrid method such as TCPT-
PSO, TCPT-ABC and TCPT-GA have exhibited the method’s superiority. Based on these performances,
we employed the proposed hybrid method to manage the water supply and hydroelectric production
of the Memve’ele reservoir. The application on the management of Memve’ele Reservoir demonstrates
its accuracy in providing a near-optimal solution on the order of 99.7% for 1945s, 1985s and 1988s of
demand during the seven hydrological years of the Ntem Valley with real mean square error (RMSE)
in order of 10−7 for water supply and hundredth for hydropower reservoir operation.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The management of the reservoir of a hydroelectric power
plant is a crucial concern, therefore, depends on the sustainability
of service and the satisfaction of demand. In other words, this
includes determining the amount of water to be turbinated to
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eutychedan@gmail.com (D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet),
salomendjakomo@gmail.com (S. Ndjakomo Essiane),
rene.wamkeue@hotmail.com (R. Wamkeue), dbisso2002@gmail.com (D. Bisso),
patrijuvet@gmail.com (P.J. Gnetchejo).
maximize production and the water stock available for future
horizons with specific objectives (Ahmad and Hossain, 2020;
Hidalgo et al., 2014; Wapet et al., 2020).
Efficient management of generation through renewable
sources such as solar, wind, hydro and biomass contributes to
the achievement of electricity coverage targets as shown by Lan
et al. (2021) by developing machine learning through the vector
support machine. In the same way, Zou et al. (2021) developed
a stochastic approach based on the unscented transform to cap-
ture the effects of uncertainties in optimal scheduling technical
decisions. In their work, the authors (Mohamed et al., 2021b,c,a)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.047
2352-4847/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Nomenclature Variables
U Global decision variable of optimization
Indices and sets
u1 , u2 , . . . , un Decision variable of optimization
i, j , k Equality function, inequality function Uk,0 Decision vecteur
index or particularity function index, Vk, W Donor/mutation vector
decision vector index Xk, W Offspring vector
t Index/set of time Dp Demand at time t
s Decision length vector Rp Release at time t
ω Population index ev ap_loss Evaporation loss
W Population index seepage_loss Seepage losses at time t
NP Overall size population hav al , hav al , hloss Aval, amont and loss level at time t
D Dimension of problem hp Net head at time t
Rk1, Rk2 and Rk3 Indicator of overall range Sp Storage capacity at time t
R Mutation or scale factor Pp Production power at time t
T Total search region Pd Demand power of production plan at
I Number of inequality constraints time t
J Number of equality constraints
jrand Natural length
CR Prefixed crossover rate
require the full contour of the problem at hand, they require
l, ei , fj Optimization functions as target, in-
little knowledge of the problem to be solved, they are not very
equality and equality respectively
sensitive to the shape or continuity of the Pareto front, they are
Ei Function of inequality constraints
easy to execute robustly and they can be used in a transient en-
vp Overall constraint violation vironment. Yoshioka (2020) propose a mathematical model with
O Final fitness value consideration of stochastic control problem to find a balanced
dv Distance value operation policy of hydropower without near the optimal release
pv Penlty value during the study horizon based on settings adequate parameters
G Index of vector group in his metaheuristic algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms during
the last decades have focused a lot on the integration of new
Parameters and constants techniques in the implementation of improved algorithms (Yang
δ Indulgence of equality constraints et al., 2019). These new evolutionary algorithms inspired by
ωp, i Weight parameter natural phenomena are used for solving reservoir water resource
Emax, i Upper violation value management problems.
Several works have benchmarked the performance of EA on
λ Parameter of feasible population
human-designed test functions with various mathematical prop-
ES Evolution strategies erties, such as discontinuous, non-differentiable, non-convex and
max ev al Maximum evolution multimodal (Storn and Price, 1997a; Suganthan et al., 2005; Liang
emin and emax Minimum and maximum value of the et al., 2018). The convenience of using EA to find Pareto optimums
objective function e and their effectiveness for highly complex test functions suggest
ri Quota of feasible individuals that EA will also be effective for complex real-world problems
Mp , Np Parameters of penalty value (Rahnamay Naeini et al., 2018). In addition, EA have been shown
umin , umax Parameters of decision vector to be effective and suitable, especially for solving multi-objective
p problems. In multi-objective optimization problems, EA consider
randk, j Random value enclosed by 0 and 1
Dp, max Maximal Demand all objectives simultaneously, without the user defining weights
for each objective, and the population-based search mechanism
NT Size of population
allows EA to generate a set of equally important solutions, called
Sp, min and Sp, max Value of extrema of reservoir capacity
non-dominated solutions (Deb, 2001), in a single run instead of
pow erp Maximal power of hydroelectric plant performing a series of separate runs (Abraham and Jain, 2005).
g Acceleration gravity Ehteram et al. (2021), Ren et al. (2021) use metaheuristic
a0 , a1 , a2 and a3 Coefficient of polynomial elevation of respectively seagull optimization algorithm and Wildebeest Herd
water Optimization for predicting optimal hydropower generation.
fp Plant factor These two approaches are not able to accurately assess the
ηp Efficiency of production sensitivity of random nature of problem exploration. Saadatpour
(2020) developed the evolutionary algorithm surrogate models in
a recursive adaptive framework to implement a multi-objective
optimization approach to improve reservoir outlet water qual-
treat the problem of electrical energy management from meta- ity, maximize water supply and power generation. Here the
heuristic approaches. Several metaheuristic techniques have been management rules for these three objectives are estimated us-
proposed for optimal reservoir management policies. However, ing a polynomial regression technique. The approach used here
the performance of each method depends on the nature of the reduces the computational time considerably and gives results
problem you are considering. Many metaheuristics also require of the modelling structure that are more accurate than other
various control parameters to be set for effectiveness. In fact, comparative approaches. The usefulness of the adaptive recursive
according to Bilal et al. (2020), evolutionary algorithms (EA) as technique allows for the identification of regions of space that
metaheuristic method have innumerable advantages: they do not should receive more training in the establishment of operating
1426
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 1. Flowchart of different stages of TCPT-DE.
rules for the selective harvesting scheme. Saadatpour et al. (2017)
highlight surrogate-based optimization techniques to reduce the
bottleneck of numerical hydrodynamic simulation models. These
adaptive and sequential surrogate models combined with the
particle swarm optimization algorithm, are employed to find
optimal reservoir operational strategies. Then, the most efficient
and accurate adaptive substitution model is applied to derive the
optimal long-term reservoir operational strategy in the selective
withdrawal scheme.
For the management of the Meimeh reservoir, Saadatpour
(2020) developed a hybrid approach to improve the downstream
water demand and mitigate the violation of totally dissolved
solids at the reservoir outlet. This involved proposing a self-
adaptive surrogate WQSM (artificial neural network and adap-
tive water quality simulation model) integrated with the hybrid
NSGA-II_AMOSA (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-
II_Archived Multi-Objective Simulated Annealing) algorithm as an
optimal and robust solution to reduce the computational load
of the optimization implementation. This methodology helped
to define the optimal reservoir operation strategies to improve
1427
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
downstream water demand satisfaction and mitigate the viola-
tion of totally dissolved solids at the reservoir outlet.
The results show that the new Multi-Objective with Princi-
pal Component Analysis and Crowding Distance Operator (MO-
SPD) algorithm used in Yang et al. (2015) demonstrated the
best and most consistent performance compared to the other
algorithms on the test problems. The newly developed algorithm
(MOSPD) is then applied to the CTA reservoir release problem
during the snowmelt season in 1998 (wet year), 2000 (normal
year) and 2001 (dry year). The more extensive and convergent
non-dominated solutions of MOSPD provide decision makers with
better operational alternatives to effectively manage CTA reser-
voirs in response to different climates, especially drought, which
has become increasingly severe and frequent in California. The
limitation of this approach is the non sensitivity of the demand
target generation.
These above optimization mentioned methods suffered of
right search space and accuracy solutions. Despite the most
adequation in optimization, evolutionary algorithms cannot gain
always the right optimal solution in some problems. For im-
proving the performance of evolutionary algorithms, they can
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. Results of test functions implementation according of TCPT-DE approach.
use ensemble of constraints techniques in addition to near the
optimal solution of reservoir scheduling (Hu et al., 2019; Po-
lakova, 2017; Trivedi et al., 2017). The ensemble of constraints
techniques introduces the sensitivity of expect solutions in re-
spect of problem non linearity and accuracy. That is why it is
necessary to introduce a constraint technique as ensemble of
constraint handling techniques (auto-adaptative penalty and su-
periority feasible solutions) to solve this limitation. In general, the
1428
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
penalty function techniques add an additional term to the original
objective function to penalize infeasible individuals for violating
any constraint. The auto-adaptative penalty adjust themselves
according the information coming from the population. But, an
additional mechanism for keep constant diversity is necessary
to reject local optima (Coello Coello, 2002). Penalty functions
are usually used because of its simplicity. Haddad et al. (2015)
followed by repair methods that modify infeasible individuals
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
into feasible ones and methods which reject exploring the infeasi-
ble space completely. There are almost no optimization methods
using the superiority of feasible solutions constraint treatment
technique. Yet the latter has a significant impact on the accuracy
of the solutions required in optimization. Indeed, it provides a
comparison technique to evaluate the solution spaces, either by
pushing the infeasible solutions into the feasible space or by
improving the overall solution.
According to the literature, the combination of ensemble of
constraint handling techniques implemented with evolutionary
1429
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
attempt global optima solution with a short simulation period
than evolutionary and individual constraint handling technique
(Hu et al., 2019). However, it can be showed that some others fac-
tors (construction of optimization problem, selection of algorithm
search and parametrization) may improve evolutionary algorithm
solution as well. In fact, researchers will benefit to evaluate their
approach and make sure that this attempt good contribution
in comparative view against other methods. Current research
aims to assess and improve the capabilities of the combination
of evolutionary and ensemble of constraint-handling technique
algorithm to solve the reservoir operation optimization problem.
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
All the papers mentioned above use static penalty function
methods, or promptly discard members of the population that
cause violations of constraints. In particular, the penalty function
approach is responsive to the choice of penalty coefficient. On the
other hand, a low penalty coefficient will overuse the infeasible
area, which delays the process of finding a feasible solution and
may converge to an infeasible solution early on. Moreover, a
high penalty coefficient may not be able to correctly scan the
infeasible region, leading to premature convergence (Mallipeddi
et al., 2012). The second technique involves deleting members of
1430
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
infeasible populations, which will cause the algorithm to restrict
exploration and development areas all along the search deal. This
case occurred when taking system safety constraints with an
increase in the determination of maximum load limits for certain
power systems in some publications using the genetic algorithm
(GA), fuzzy logic and chaotic PSO cited in Biswas et al. (2018).
However, the last constraint processing approach is still untested.
In this study, the advantages of feasible solutions, auto-adaptive
penalty technique and the combination of these two constraint
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
processing techniques (TCPT) are employed in reservoir manage-
ment cases with differential evolution as the fundamental search
algorithm (Mallipeddi et al., 2012; Mallipeddi and Suganthan,
2010a). The constraint processing method or TCPT allows trans-
forming constrained optimization problems into unconstrained
optimization problems according to Kale and Kulkarni (2021),
hence its choice in our study. The competence of TCPT approach
was evaluated, and the results were statistically compared and
1431
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
studied minutiously. Interestingly, the issue of reservoir man-
agement has equality and inequality constraints. The equation
constraint is the continuity equation, where the reservoir storage
on the second day is equal to the sum of the water stock on the
day and the natural inflow minus the water withdrawal (mixed
water and total water loss). Unequal constraints on generator
capacity, allowable limits on reservoir capacity, the amount of
water drawn from the reservoir, the height of upstream and
downstream. The superiority of the feasible solution (SF) and
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
auto-adaptive penalty (AP) techniques of constraint handling are
different depending on the way they use inequality constraints
(Hu et al., 2019). The interest for choosing TCPT is to evaluate
the competence of two constraint processing techniques through
a combination algorithm (i.e. TCPT), because on some problems,
but not all problems, one technique may be better than the
other. The task of TCPT is to apply these two approaches and
obtain even if it is not the best result, it is close to the result
1432
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
obtained through a composition technique, rather than the user
finding the best method of the two in a specific problem. In the
present case of hydropower reservoir management, the advanced
constraint processing (CP) approach has been prosperously em-
ployed in reservoir management problems. This paper discusses
the optimization of water supply and hydropower reservoir op-
eration functions through a comparative study with other hybrid
methods using TCPT. Contrary of recent different works done
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
on reservoir management in relation to evolutionary algorithms
and constraint handling techniques, this paper develops a hybrid
approach to overcome the difficulty of adjusting the search space
according to the complexity of the problem through a weight
assignment to ensure the complete exploration of all solution
domains. Through the latest research on water supply and hy-
dropower reservoirs found in the literature, the simulation results
is compared, and constraint violations is strictly checked.
1433
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
2. Formulation of the reservoir management problem
2.1. Formulation of the problem of water-supply and hydropower
operation
2.1.1. Model of the reservoir management problem Memve’ele hy-
droelectric project
The Memve’ele hydropower plant like any hydraulic develop-
ment works to improve the supply of electric power. As such,
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 2. (continued).

the management of its reservoir is a growing concern given the Sp,min ≤ Sp (t ) ≤ Sp,max (3)
periods when the quantity of water in the reservoir is tight. It
has two reservoirs, namely the main reservoir and the buffer Rp,min ≤ Rp (t ) ≤ Rp,max (4)
or loading reservoir. The formulation of the Memve’ele buffer Where ev ap_loss is the evaporation of water from the reservoir
reservoir problem target function can be defined analogously of in million cubic meters and seepage_loss is seepage loss in million
literature work (Bozorg Haddad et al., 2009; Afshar et al., 2015; cubic meters in reservoir. (2) is water balance equation as main
Asadieh and Afshar, 2019): continuity constraint. (3) and (4) are explicit lower and upper
bounds on reservoir volume stock and reservoir release.
NT ( )2 For maximum exploitation of the buffer reservoir of our
∑ Dp (t ) − Rp (t )
MinimiseF = (1) Memve’ele power plant, the expression of the optimal problem
Dp,max stated as:
t =1
NT ( )2
under constraints:
∑ pd − pp (t )
MinimiseF = (5)
pow erp
t =1
S (t + 1) = Sp (t ) + Ip (t )
Where pd is power demand stored in megawatts (MW), pp is
− Rp (t ) + ev ap_loss (t ) + seepage_loss (t )
( )
(2) power at the time t and power as capacitor of power plant.
1434
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 2. (continued).

The expression of the power produced during the operation of due to friction in the penstock and the wheel and ηturboalternator as
the plant may be written as follows: efficiency of turboalternator.
[ (
hn (t )
) ] The relationship between the forebay elevation of the water
p (t ) = min ρ × g × ηturboalternator × Rp (t ) × , powerp
( )
(6) and the storage volume in this reservoir is:
1000

Where hn denotes the net head of the Memve’ele power plant hamont = a0 + a1 × S (t ) + a2 × S (t )2 + a3 S (t )3 (8)
whose expression is:
2.2. Constraints processing techniques
hn = hamont − hav al − hloss (7)

where hamont is the elevation of water in the forebay basin, hav al Since evolutionary algorithms (EA) are inherently random,
is the height of water in the downstream basin, hloss is the loss unrealistic solutions should not be rejected unrealistically. When
1435
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
used in combination with compatible evolutionary algorithms,
appropriate constraint handling methods can make the search
process develop in the overall best direction, which can be
achieved using the status present in the infeasible solution. In
the methods of managing constraints approaches, the most com-
monly used is the static penalty, which includes adding a penalty
to the infeasible solution’s ability to violate constraints. Although
1436
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
simple and easy to implement, the competence of the static
penalty approach is highly dependent on the penalty factor and
must be improved through trial and error. Indeed, there are fewer
constraints management methods that can be used with evolu-
tionary algorithms that have been proposed, and they are sum-
marized as follows. Generally, a constrained optimization prob-
lem comprising n parameters could be translated into a nonlinear
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 2. (continued).

programming problem of the following form (Qin et al., 2009;
Mallipeddi and Suganthan, 2010b; Qin et al., 2009; Mallipeddi
and Suganthan, 2010a):
Minimization: l (U ) , U = (u1 , u2 , . . . , un ) and U ∈ T
decision variable vector U. u1 , u2 , . . . , un are decision variable
value of an optimization problem.
The equality constraint is transformed into the inequality con-
straint, so the total constraint is expressed by the following
(9) formula:

ei (U ) ≤ 0, i = 1, . . . , I
{
under constraint: (10)
fj (U ) = 0, j = I + 1, . . . , J
where T is the total search region, I is the among of inequality
constraints and (J − I ) is the among of equality constraints. (9)
is the target function l of an optimization problem with global
1437
max [ei (U ) , 0] , i = 1, . . . , I
{
Ei (X ) = (11)
max [|fi (U )| − δ, 0] , i = I + 1, . . . , J
Where δ is the indulgence of equality constraints set. The target
function l (U ) must be underestimated so that the optimal solu-
tion allowed in the treatment satisfies the inequality constraints
Ei (U ). For an infeasible solution, the overall constraint violation
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 2. (continued).

is the weighted average of all constraints, which is defined as: constraints. We present concise information concerning the two
∑m constraint management techniques for reservoir management
ωp,i (Ei (U )) problems.
vp (U ) = i=1
∑m (12)
i=1 ωp,i
A brief integration of the two constraints management tech-
( ) niques used to train the TCPT is defined below:
where ωp,i = E 1 mean the weight parameter, Emax,i mean the
max,i
upper violation value of the constraint Ei (U ) registered so far. 2.2.1. Superiority of feasible solutions (SF )
Inside algorithm, ωi is implemented at E 1 and the contribution According to the notion around SF (Deb, 2000), the solution Ui
max,i
of balancing all constraints to the problem will be different in is taken bigger than the solution Uj when:
the evolution process, regardless of the numerical range of all (i) Ui is feasible while Uj is not.
1438
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
(ii) Ui and Uj are together feasible and Ui have a smaller goal value
(in a minimization situation) than Ui .
(iii) Neither Ui nor Uj is feasible, but the overall constraint viola-
tion vp (Ui ) calculated by Ui using (iii) is smaller.
Therefore, in SF, it is always considered that feasible is better
than impossible one. Compare two infeasible solutions that relied
only on their overall constraint violations, and confront two infea-
sible solutions that relied only on their objective function values.
The confrontation of unrealizable solutions relied on violating the
global constraint plans to push the unrealizable solution to the
1439
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
feasible area, while the confrontation of two realizable solutions
based on the target value evaluates the global solution. Therefore,
in the first stage, it is not possible to choose a solution with
a low degree of overall constraint violation. In stage 2, first,
select all realizable solutions, and then select the unrealizable
solution with a lower degree of overall constraint violation. In
stage 3, only those realizable solutions with the best objective
value are chosen. Mainly using the SF comparison introduced
above, a simple multi-member evolution strategy is proposed
(Mezura-Montes and Coello, 2005). The main features of simple
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 2. (continued).

Fig. 3. Curves of natural inflows into the Memve’ele reservoir.

multimembered evolution strategy (SMES) are:
• A simple popular mechanism similar to (1 +λ)-ES, allowing
for infeasible solutions for the remaining population (λ as an
individual inside a feasible population and ES as Evolution
Strategies)
• Portfolio reorganization; and
• Reduce the scale of the initial stage and the adaptive penalty
of ES
Inside a simple multi-member evolution strategy, the selection
process of the three evolution stages is the same as that in SF, but
the best infeasible individual (the infeasible individual associated
with the smallest constraint and the best target value) is retained
by adopting a diversity mechanism (Mallipeddi and Suganthan,
2010b).
Therefore, in SF, always consider feasible rather than infeasi-
ble. Only compare two infeasible solutions based on the violation
of the global constraint, and compare two infeasible solutions
based only on their objective function values. The purpose of
comparing infeasible solutions based on global constraint viola-
tion consists to push the infeasible solution to the feasible region,
and the confrontation of two feasible solutions based on the
target value improves the global solution.

1440
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 4. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 1945; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE
simulation result in relation to the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of
the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE algorithm for 1945.

2.2.2. Auto-adaptive penalty (AP) e (X ) − emin

Auto-adaptive penalty (Farmani and Wright, 2003; Tessema e" (X ) = (14)
and Yen, 2006) is an improved version of static penalty. In adap- emax − emin
tive sanctions, two sanctions are added to each unachievable among of feasible indiv iduals
ri = (15)
individual to identify the best unachievable individual in the population size
actual population. The degree of aggravated punishment is in-
Where v (U ) is the overall constraint violation defined in formula
spected by the amount of achievable individuals being in the
(12), and emax and emin are the upper and lower values of the
combined population. If the number of achievable individuals is
target function e" (U ) in the actual mixed population. The value
small, higher fines will be imposed on individuals who fail to
of the penalty is written as pv (U ) = (1 − ri ) Mp (U ) + ri Np (U )
achieve a higher degree of violation. Conversely, if the amount
with
of achievable individuals is very large, unachievable individuals
0, if
{
with high fitness values will increase their fitness values with ri = 0
Mp (U ) = (16)
a small loss. These two penalties will allow the algorithm to vp (U ) , moreov er
switch between searching for a more feasible solution and deter-
0, si U is a indiv idual feasible
{
mining the best solution anywhere in the search process. Unlike Np (U ) = (17)
static penalty, auto-adaptive penalty does not recommend any e" (U ) , if U is a indiv idual unfeasible
parameter adjustment. According to the final classification of the Eq. (13) to Eq. (17) are used to improve the AP technique in ad-
population, the final fitness value is O (U ) = dv (U ) + pv (U ), justment of solution zone by choosing correct penalty according
where dv (U ) is the distance value and pv (X ) is the penalty value. this constraint problem formulation.
The distance value is estimated as:
2.2.3. Set of constraint management techniques
v (U ) , if
{
ri = 0
dv (U ) =
√ ]2 ∞ (13) Generally, in terms of the relationship between the achievable
e (U ) + [v (U )]2 , moreov er
[
" search space and the entire search space, and the multimodality
1441
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 5. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 1988; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE
simulation result in relation to the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of
the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE algorithm for 1988.

and nature of the constraint function, each constraint optimiza-
tion problem is unique. When solving a specific problem, even
if the evolutionary algorithm is random, even if the same algo-
rithm is used, the evolution path may be different in different
running processes. In the same order, the research technique
has gone from different stages at every specific’s point in time.
Therefore, it depends on many factors as the relationship around
the feasible search space and the entire search region, the mul-
timodality of the problem, the nature of the equality/inequality
constraints, the differential evolution of choices, and the global
exploration/local development stage of the deposit Algorithms
of constraint management methods may be effective at differ-
ent stages of the search process. Due to the strong interaction
between these factors and the randomness of evolutionary algo-
rithms, it is most difficult to find which constraint management
method uses a given EA to solve a given problem at a specific evo-
lution stage. Based on these observations, the TCPT (Mallipeddi
and Suganthan, 2010a) was developed to closely gain from con-
straint management methods, the characteristics of the problem
to be solved, the differential evolution algorithm chosen, the
exploration and development stage of the research process.
2.2.4. Differential evolution
The notion of evolution in biology focuses on the ability of
individuals to adapt to environmental changes. The most able
are retained through processes such as natural selection, repro-
duction, mutation, competition, symbiosis or immigration. Evo-
lutionary algorithms use a population of individuals governed by
the operators translating these mechanisms. The choice and the
order in which these operators occur has given rise to several evo-
lutionary algorithms. For example, combinations, mutations and
selections have given rise to the genetic algorithm (GA), genetic
programming (with a different representation of the individual
in relation to the GA), evolutionary programming (simulating
phenotypic adaptive behaviour), evolutionary strategies (simulat-
ing evolutionary rules or evolutionary evolution) and differential
evolution. To this list we can add the optimization based on
biogeography, which simulates the geographical distribution of
species through migration and emigration. Co-evolution funded
on the evolution of two populations (i.e. two different objective
functions) in a symbiotic (cooperation) or predator–prey (com-
petition) relationship represents another class of evolutionary

1442
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 6. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 2000; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE
simulation result in relation to the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of
the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE algorithm for 2000.

algorithm. In this paper, we have chosen to present differential the kth decision vector is as follows:
evolution.
p
Differential Evolution (DE) was originally developed by Storn Uk,0 (j) = umin (j) + randk,j [0, 1] × [umax (j) − umin (j)] (18)
and Price in 1997 (Storn and Price, 1997b). The concept is inspired
by genetic algorithms and uses a special combination operator. p
where randk,j [0, 1] is a random value enclosed by 0 and 1; j =
Differential Evolution Combination takes into account the ge-
1, 2, . . . , s where s is the decision length vector.
ometric differences between randomly drawn solution vectors
• Transfiguration
(hence the origin of its name). In the initial method, there is a
Secondly, procedure, the DE mutation operator forms a
progressive update of the solutions at each iteration. The algo-
donor/mutation vector Vk,G correlates to each member of the
rithm of the differential evolution will be the subject of our study
current population or target vector (the ‘‘W’’ index specifies
in order to search for optimal solutions to the management of the
the parameter of the W-th population). The mutation scheme
reservoir. In fact, like other population-based metaheuristics, we
employed here is DE /randp /1:
begin from a randomly generated population of a defined number
of parents. The qualities of the solutions are improved through ( )
the objective function. Then, the optimization loop begins by Vk,W = URk1,W + R URk2,W − URk3,W (19)
repeating the steps of the solution refinement process. Here are
some of the steps: The indicators Rk1, 2 and Rk3 eliminate each other and are chosen
• Initialization at random from the overall range. The scale factor (transfigu-
The DE optimization method initializes the generation of po- ration) R is a positive control parameter to scale the difference
tential solutions by attributing random values to each decision vector.
vector in the generation. This strategy must give values within the • Crossover
possible range of decision variables (enclosed by the maximum The donor vector combines its elements with the target vector
and minimum values). The initialization of the jth component of U
[ k,W and exchanges to build the ] test/offspring vector Xk,W =
Xk,W (1) , Xk,W (2) , . . . , Xk,W (s) . The binomial relationship is
1443
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 1945 of hydroelectric operation
of Memve’ele reservoir; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the
losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE
algorithm for 1945.
used here, and whenever the randomly generated number be-
tween 0 and 1 is less than or equal to the preset crossover rate,
the procedure applies to each variable.
For a component, the applied procedure is presented as:
Vk,G (j) if j = jrand or randk,j [0, 1] ≤ CR
{
Xk,G (j) =
Uk,G (j) moreov er , w here j = 1, . . . , s
Where jrand is a natural length chosen at random from {1, 2, . . . , s}.
The new offspring vector Uk,W is tested and compared with
the parent vector Uk,W relied on the target function value and
constraint violation. This case applying only to one constraint
management approach to the problem, the sequence of feasible
solutions between the offspring and the parent vector and the
operation of the infeasible solutions are regulated with estab-
lished rules by the constraint management method, that is, the
superior feasible solution (SF) or the auto-adaptive penalty (AP)
described in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Using meta-heuristics to solve the
complexity of the actual problems of reservoir management may
take a lot of time and execution resources to find the appropriate
constraint management method through trial and error to find
the best parameters for the control variables. The TCPT method
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
can be used to save the computational time required to find
a suitable constraint management method. The two constraint
management techniques described in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are associ-
ated with differential evolution (DE) (Storn and Price, 1997b) as
the fundamental search algorithm. In TCPT, every constraint man-
agement approach has its specific population and parameters,
(20) which can form offspring for improvement. The parent generation
of a specific constraint management method not only competes
with its offspring population but also competes with the offspring
population of other constraint management methods. Therefore,
the offspring produced by a particular constraint management
method may be rejected by its population but may be accepted by
the population of other constraint management methods. There-
fore, in TCPT, every function call is effectively used, making it
useful for computationally expensive target/constraint functions.
In TCPT, if a specific constraint management approach is most
suitable for a given problem and research method at a certain
point in the research process, the offspring populations given by
the population of the constraint management method will control
other generations and integrate other generations. The generation
becomes the parents of offspring. Therefore, TCPT is responsi-
1444
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 8. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 1988 of hydroelectric operation
of Memve’ele reservoir; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result concerning the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the
losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE
algorithm for 1988.

ble for selecting the best constraint management approach and
adjusting the values of related parameters for specific or highly
non-linear problems.
Table 1 summarizes the steps involved in TCPT-DE. Fig. 1
shows a flowchart of the basic steps of the algorithm. After vali-
dating and verifying the performances of our method proposed
by TCPT in test functions, we will apply our method to the
Memve’ele Hydropower Project in Cameroon. The overall size NP
and the maximum number of function evaluation, max ev al cases
vary from case to case. These details are introduced below. The
proposed algorithm was implemented using MATLAB software,
and the simulation was executed on a computer with a 2 GHz
Intel Core i3 processor and 8 GB RAM. The simulation results will
be discussed in the next section.
3. Results and discussion
In this work, we found it necessary to first evaluate the per-
formance of the TCPT-DE approach on test functions of real op-
timization problems. Secondly, we employed the TCPT-DE ap-
proach in the management of the Dez reservoir in Iran and the
Memve’ele hydroelectric power plant in southern Cameroon.
1445
3.1. Mathematical evaluation of performance
3.1.1. Tests functions
In this work, we evaluated the robustness of the TCPT-DE
hybrid algorithm through 25 benchmark functions of Suganthan
et al. (2005) and these experiments are conducted on some real-
parameter optimization algorithms. The names and formulations
of these functions, as well as their dimensionality and parameter
range, are given in Table 2. We selected these test functions since
they are standard and widely used benchmarks for the evaluation
of new optimization algorithms (Mirjalili et al., 2014).
The classical test functions have dimensions in the range of 30.
Fig. 2 shows the response surfaces of the test functions which can
be visualized in two-dimensional form. The TCPT-DE parameters
used to optimize these test functions are 100 as population size,
100000 as evaluations functions and 25 as maxrun for each test
function. The number of points in each complex and the number
of evolutionary steps for each complex are set to 2D + 1 and
max (D + 1, 10), respectively, where d is the problem dimension.
The number of evolution steps is set to max(d+1,10), to ensure
that the EAs evolve the complexes for a sufficient number of
steps, before evaluating the EAs. In high-dimensional problems,
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Fig. 9. (a) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the demand and release of turbined water considering the losses for 2000 of hydroelectric operation
of Memve’ele reservoir; (b) Curve of the TCPT-DE simulation result in relation to the storage capacity and the natural water input into the reservoir considering the
losses; (c) Convergence curve of a simulation of the TCPT-DE algorithm according to the number of iterations; (d) Curve of the standard deviations of the TCPT-DE
algorithm for 2000.

the maximum number of function evaluations must be chosen
with particular care.
The maximum number of function evaluations is determined
according to the complexity of the problem and is different for
each of the test cases. In addition to the maximum number of
function evaluations, the range of the population parameters and
the improvement of the objective function values are used as
convergence criteria.
3.1.2. Results and discussion
Table 3 illustrates the statistical of the 25 test functions imple-
mentations at 25 independent running simulations using TCPT-
DE and other hybrid algorithms. We can see the best mean
function value obtain with each test function in Table 3. Through
the results in that table, we obtain the lowest function values in
16 out of 25 benchmark functions, compared to the mean func-
tion values achieved by other hybrid algorithms simulations. The
hybrid TCPT-DE was among the top four optimization methods in
finding the minimum function value. In our evaluations of per-
formance of TCPT-DE, we compare the results with genetic algo-
rithm, ant, bee colony and particle swarm optimization combined
1446
to TCPT. TCPT-DE algorithm was superior to other hybrids al-
gorithms in f2 , f3 , f4 , f7 , f9 , f10 , f11 , f12 , f13 , f14 , f16 , f18 , f19 , f21 ,
f22 , f23 and f24 . In these cases, according to the statistics evalua-
tion shown in Table 3, the TCPT-DE have lower standard deviation
values and show more robust and consistent results as compared
to the other algorithms TCPT-GA, TCPT-PSO and TCPT-ABC.
The performance of the hybrid algorithm for these test func-
tions can be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, when the algorithm
is used individually in the optimization, the evolutionary algo-
rithm best suited to the search space employs all the information
in the problem and the entire population to reach the global
optimum. Secondly, some EA are faster and more efficient than
others in a specific optimization phase (exploration/exploitation).
However, they may not be as efficient as other EA in other
optimization phases. Therefore, the dominance of these algo-
rithms during the exploration or exploitation phases may mislead
other EA and cause early (and premature) convergence. The in-
volvement of other algorithms such as TCPT in the evolutionary
process may prevent early convergence in these cases. The per-
formance criteria are problem-dependent and need to be further
investigated depending on the problem space and the EA.
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 1
Steps of implementation of TCPT-DE.
TCPT algorithm
Entries ✓ s problem Dimension
✓ Population size for each NP constraint management method
✓ Stop criteria, maximum number of function evaluations, maxev al
✓ Maximum and minimum values of decision variables s, in vector form Up,max and Up,min
Up,max = Up1,max , Up2,max , . . . , Ups,max and
[ ]
✓
Up,min = Up1,min , Up2,min , . . . , Ups,min
[ ]

Initialization ✓ Define DE parameters: Mutation factor, R = 0,7; crossover rate, C[r = 0,9
✓ POP1: Form an evenly distributed population 1 of individuals in Up,max , Up,min
]

✓ POP2: Form an evenly distributed population 2 of individuals in Up,max , Up,min

[ ]
✓ Each of the two constraint management techniques (SR, PA) has its own POP1 and POP2 population
✓ Initialise parameters PAR1 and PAR2 for SR and PA respectively according to Section 2.2.4.
Improvement ✓ Improve the target function, the constraint function and the constraint violation using the Eqs. (9) to (12) for each
individual X 1k , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , NP } of POP1
✓ Improve the target function, the constraint function and the constraint violation using the Eqs. (9) to (12) for each
individual X 2k , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , NP } for POP2
✓ Increase the function evaluation counter nfev al de 2 × NP
Algorithm loop
Stage 1 ✓ Actualize PAR1 parameter values for SF constraint management methods according to Section 2.2.4
✓ Actualize the PAR2 parameter value of SP constraint management method according to Section 2.2.4
Stage 2 ✓ Perform variants Eq. (19) and crossover Eq. (20) for everyone of POP1; produce offspring OFS1
✓ Perform variants Eq. (19) and crossover Eq. (20) for everyone of POP2; produce offspring OFS2
✓ Examples of mutation and hybridization strategies from ) POP1 to W generation
p
Mutant vector V 1k,W = U1p,Rk1,W + F U1p,Rk2,W − U1p,Rk3,W , k ∈ {1, . . . , NP }
(
Test vector element
V 1k,W (j) randk,j [0, 1] ≤ Cr
{
if j = jrand or
U1k,W (j) =
U1k,W (j) moreov er , where j = 1, . . . , s
Where Rk1, Rk2, and Rk3 are mutually exclusive integers randomly selected from the overall range; {1, . . . , NP }; jrand
is a natural number between {1, . . . , s}
Stage 3 ✓ Using formulas to improve the objective function, constraint function and constraint violation (9) to formula (12)
′
for each individual in POP1 . U1k , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , NP } of POP1
✓ Using formulas to improve the objective function, constraint function and constraint violation (9) to formula (12)
′
for each individual in U2k , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , NP } from POP2
✓ Increase the function rating counter nfev al by 2 × NP
Stage 4 ✓ Combine the parental population with all descendants to create groups.
✓ Group 1: (POP1 + OFS1 + OFS2) and Group2: (POP2 + OFS1 + OFS2)
Stage 5 ✓ In the selection step, the next generation POP1 and POP2 parent populations are selected from group 1 and group
2, respectively. In a group (such as Group1), since POP1 produces OFS1 through mutation and crossover, when POP1
competes with OFS1, DE selection based on the competition between parents and offspring will be used. However,
when POP1 competes with OFS2 produced by other populations, each member of POP1 competes with randomly
selected offspring in OFS2.
Stage 6 ✓ maxev al does it meet the stopping criteria? If yes, STOP
✓ Otherwise, the generation counter is increased by 1, that is, G = G+1. Enter the algorithm loop Stage 1

3.2. Reservoir operation: case study
3.2.1. Memve’ele hydroelectric project reservoir
The Memve’ele hydropower project is designed as a draft tube
development station that can accommodate 4 vertical axis Francis
turbine generator sets with a total installed capacity of 211 MW.
The annual average power generation is 1877 GWh. The total
capacity of Memve’ele Reservoir is 82.71 million cubic meters;
the normal river level is 392 m; the minimum working water
level is 391.5 m. The highest water level of the reservoir will
be 393.80 m (if all 4 units fall off and the 6 gates of the main
spillway and gate fail, the highest water level of the reservoir will
reach 393.80 m, and the auxiliary spillway will release at least
450 m3/s of flow). The model parameters used to manage the
Memve’ele Reservoir use 0.85 and 0.9 respectively to determine
the efficiency of the turbine and generator for generating power.
A reservoir operation was reviewed to optimize Memve’ele’s
total annual hydroelectric power production. The analysis was
conducted over a daily period using daily data on reservoir level,
turbine release, power produced, precipitation and evaporation.
The data used are those of 1945, 1950, 1961, 1971, 1985, 1988
and 2000. Our research work aims at proposing rational man-
agement to maximize the production of the power plant beyond
1447
the forecasts of the Memve’ele Hydroelectric Project preliminary
study.
The simulations of the water supply and hydroelectric oper-
ation of the reservoir used here from historical data have been
formatted to define equations (1) to (8). The values of the wa-
ter volumes in the reservoir in the graphical representations of
the simulation results were particularly applied using the corre-
sponding magnitudes in the elevation of the upstream basin. The
lower and upper bounds of reservoir release is enclosed between
zero and 450 m3 /s. The same informations of volume stock of
reservoir are Sp, min = 3005968.6 m3 and Sp, max = 4827106.1
m3 use during optimization implementation in this study. Fig. 3
shows the spread of natural inflows for the 7 characteristics years
that make up the object of our study. We can see that 1988
was the year when the floods were more severe than in the
previous year. high. The year 1988 was the year with the highest
contributions out of the other 6. As for 1985, it has the highest
average contribution.
The Ntem Valley in Cameroon has a pure equatorial climate
with bimodal seasonality whose extremes have the same heights.
Since the 1970s in West Africa, the extremes are no longer the
same. This state of affairs has consequences for the flow of water
in rivers and streams, since autumn rains refill the groundwater
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 2
Benchmark functions of Suganthan et al. (2005) including mathematical expression, dimension, parameters range and minimum value at initial point (f _bias).
Function Name Function Dimension (n) Range f_bias
number
n
x2 + f _bias1
∑
f1 (x) Shifted sphere Model f (x) = 30 [−100, 100] −450
i
i=1
⎛ ⎞2
n
∑ i
∑
f2 (x) Shifted Schwefel’s f (x) = ⎝ zj ⎠ + f _bias2 30 [−100, 100] −450
Problem 1.2 i=1 j=1
n ( ) i−1
106 n−1 z 2 + f _bias3
∑
f3 (x) Shifted Rotated High f (x) = 30 [−100, 100] −450
i
Conditioned Elliptic i=1
Function
⎛ ⎛ ⎞2 ⎞
n i
⎜∑ ⎝∑ ⎠ ⎟
f4 (x) Shifted Schwefel’s f (x) = ⎝ zj ⎠ ∗ (1 + 0.4 |N (0, 1)|) + f _bias4 30 [−100, 100] −450
Problem 1.2 with Noise i=1 j=1
in Fitness
f5 (x) f (x) = max ⏐x1 + 2x2 − 7⏐ , ⏐2x1 + x2 − 5⏐ + f _bias5 [−200, 200]
{⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐}
Schwefel’s Problem 2.6 30 −310
with Global Optimum
on Bounds
n∑
−1 [ ( )2 ]
f6 (x) f (x) = 100 zi+1 − z 2 + zi − 1 2 + f _bias6 [−100, 100]
( )
Shifted Rosenbrock’s 30 390
i
Function i=1
n z2 n ( )
i z
cos √i
∑ ∏
f7 (x) Shifted Rotated f (x) = − + 1 + f _bias7 30 [0, 600] −180
Griewank’s Function 4000 i
i=1 i=1
without Bounds
⎛  ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
 n
1 ∑ n
1 ∑
f8 (x) f (x) = −20 exp ⎝−0.2√ x2 ⎠ − exp ⎝ cos 2π xi ⎠ + 20 + e + f _bias8 [−32, 32]
( )
Shifted Rotated Ackley’s 30 −140
n i n
Function with Global i=1 i=1
Optimum on Bounds
n [ ]
z 2 − 10 cos 2π zi + 10 + f _bias9
∑
f9 (x) f (x) = [−5, 5]
( )
Shifted Rastrigin’s 30 −330
i
Function i=1
n [ ]
z 2 − 10 cos 2π zi + 10 + f _bias10
∑
f10 (x) f (x) = [−5, 5]
( )
Shifted Rotated 30 −330
i
Rastrigin’s Function i=1
f11 (x) Shifted Rotated f (x) = 30 [−0.5, 0.5] 90
Weierstrass Function
⎛ ⎞
n k∑
max [ ( )] k∑
max [ ( )]
ak cos 2π bk zi + 0.5 ak cos 2π bk ∗ 0.5 + f _bias11
∑ ( )
⎝ ⎠−n
i=1 k=0 k=0
n
∑ )2
f (x) = Ai − Bi (x) + f _bias12 w ith
(

i=1
f12 (x) Schwefel’s Problem 2.13 n ( ) n ( ) 30 [−π, π ] −460
∑ ∑
Ai = aij sin αj + bij cos αj , Bi = aij sin xj + bij cos xj
j=1 j=1
f (x() =(F 8 F 2))z1 , z2 + F 8 F 2 z2 , z3 + . . . + F 8 F 2 zn−1 , zn +
( ( )) ( ( )) ( ( ))
f13 (x) Shifted Expanded 30 [−3, 1] −130
Griewank’s plus F 8 F 2 zn , z1
Rosenbrock’s Function
(F8F2)
F ((x) = F) z1 , z2 + F z2 , z3 + . . . + F zn−1 , zn +
( ) ( ) ( )

F zn , z1 + f _bias14 ( (√ ) )
f14 (x) Shifted Rotated sin2 x2 +y2 −0.5 30 [−100, 100] −300
Expanded Scaffer’s F6 w ith F (x, y) = 0.5 + (
Function
( ))2
1+0.001 x2 +y2

f1–2 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function

f3–4 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f5–6 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
f7–8 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f15 (x) Hybrid Composition f9–10 (x) : Sphere Function 30 [−5, 5] 120
Function
σi = fori = 1, 2, . . . , n
λ = [1, 1, 10, 10, 5/60, 5/60, 5/32, 5/32, 5/100, 5/100]
Mi are all identity matrices

f1–2 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function

f3–4 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f5–6 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
f7–8 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f16 (x) Rotated Version of f9–10 (x) : Sphere Function 30 [−5, 5] 120
Hybrid Composition
Function F 15 Except Mi are different linear transformation
matrixes w ith condition number of 2, all other settings
are the same as F15
( )
f17 (x) F 16 with Noise in f (x) = f16 − f_bias ∗ (1 + 0.2 |N (0, 1)|) + f_bias 30 [−5, 10] × [0, 15] 120
Fitness 16 17

(continued on next page)

considerably, while the winter favours the depletion of the water 1945 and 1961 are considered normal, while 1971 and 2000 are
table while reducing the capacity of the catchment area. enamelled by the severity of the low water level.
This Fig. 3 shows the variability of natural inflows from the Again, for the optimized simulation performed, we use eval-
reservoir over the seven years characteristics which could be uation functions (maxev al) as defined in Table 4 to execute the
divided into normal, low and high water inflow years. 1950, algorithm individually and completely every year. The robustness
1985 and 1988 were the years with the highest floods. Those of of our approach using TCPT-DE algorithm was evaluated based on

1448
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 2 (continued).
Function Name Function Dimension (n) Range f_bias
number
f1–2 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : Sphere Function
f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
f18 (x) Rotated Hybrid σ = [1, 2, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 2] ; 30 [−5, 5] 10
Composition Function
λ = [2 ∗ 5/32; 5/32; 2 ∗ 1; 1; 2 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 2 ∗ 10; 10; 2 ∗ 5/60; 5/60] ;
Mi are all rotation matrices. Condition numbers are
[2 3 2 3 2 3 20 30 200 300]
o10 = [0, 0, . . . , 0]

f1–2 (x) : Ackley’s Function

f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : Sphere Function

f19 (x) Rotated Hybrid f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function 30 [−5, 5] 10

Composition Function f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
with narrow basin σ = [0.1, 2, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 2]
global optimum
λ = [0.1 ∗ 5/32; 5/32; 2 ∗ 1; 1; 2 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 2 ∗ 10; 10; 2 ∗ 5/60; 5/60]
f1–2 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : Sphere Function
f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f20 (x) Rotated Hybrid f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function 30 [−5, 5] 10
Composition Function
with Global Optimum σ = [0.1, 2, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 2]
on the Bounds λ = [0.1 ∗ 5/32; 5/32; 2 ∗ 1; 1; 2 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 2 ∗ 10; 10; 2 ∗ 5/60; 5/60] ;
o1(2j) = 5 for j = 1, 2, . . . , ⌊D/2⌋

f1–2 (x) : Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s F 6 Function

f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : F 8F 2 Function
f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f21 (x) Rotated Hybrid f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function 30 [−5, 5] 360
Composition Function
σ = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2] ;
λ = [5 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 10; 10; 5 ∗ 5/200; 5/200] ;
Mi are all orthogonal matrix

f1–2 (x) : Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s F 6 Function

f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : F 8F 2 Function
f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f22 (x) Rotated Hybrid f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function 30 [−5, 5] 360
Composition Function σ = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2] ;
with High Condition λ = [5 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 10; 10; 5 ∗ 5/200; 5/200] ;
Number Matrix
All settings are the same as F2 1except Mi ’s condition numbers are
[10 20 50 100 200 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000]
f1–2 (x) : Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s F 6 Function
f3–4 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f5–6 (x) : F 8F 2 Function
f7–8 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f9–10 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
σ = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2] ;
λ = [5 ∗ 5/100; 5/100; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 1; 1; 5 ∗ 10; 10; 5 ∗ 5/200; 5/200] ;
f23 (x) Non-Continuous Rotated Mi are all orthogonal matrix; 30 [−5, 5] 360
Hybrid Composition All settings are the same as F21 .
Function ⎧ ⏐ ⏐
⎨x ⏐xj − o1j ⏐ ≺ 1/2
⏐ ⏐
j
Except xj = ( ) ⏐ ⏐ for j = 1, . . . , n
⎩round 2x ⏐⏐x − o ⏐⏐ ≥ 1/2
j j 1j
if x ≤ 0&b ≥ 0.5
{
a−1
round (x) = a if b ≺ 0.5
a+1 if x ≻ 0&b ≥ 0.5
where a is x’s integral part and b is x’s decimal part
f1 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f2 (x) : Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s F6 Function
f3 (x) : F 8F 2 Function
f4 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f5 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f6 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
f24 (x) Rotated Hybrid f7 (x) : Non − Continuous Expanded Scaffer’s F 6 Function 30 [−5, 5] 260
Composition Function f8 (x) : Non − Continuous Rastrigin’s Function
f9 (x) : High Conditioned Elliptic Function
f10 (x) : Sphere Function w ith Noise in Fitness
σi = 2, fori = 1, 2 . . . , n
λ = [10; 5/20; 1; 5/32; 1; 5/100; 5/50; 1; 5/100; 5/100]
Mi are all rotation matrices, condition numbers are [100 50 30 10 5 5 4 3 2 2] ;

(continued on next page)

ten successive runs of each case study. The independent repeated
execution of the operating cycle of the TCPT-DE algorithm aims
to present statistical analysis and evaluate the performance of
constraint management techniques.
❖ Statistical analysis of the execution of the TCPT-DE
1449
Table 4 lists the statistical summary of 10 executions of the
TCPT-DE algorithm reservoir management research case. These
columns show the best, bad, average and standard deviation of
the objective function for each research year. Obviously, in all
cases, no single method can provide the best fit or best average.
The objective of evaluating our approach from the seven specific
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 2 (continued).
Function Name Function Dimension (n) Range f_bias
number
f1 (x) : Weierstrass Function
f2 (x) : Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s F6 Function
f3 (x) : F 8F 2Function
f4 (x) : Ackley’s Function
f5 (x) : Rastrigin’s Function
f6 (x) : Griew ank’s Function
f7 (x) : Non − Continuous Expanded Scaffer’s F 6 Function
f25 (x) Rotated Hybrid f8 (x) : Non − Continuous Rastrigin’s Function 30 [2, 5] 260
Composition Function
without bounds f9 (x) : High Conditioned Elliptic Function
f10 (x) : Sphere Function w ith Noise in Fitness
σi = 2, fori = 1, 2 . . . , n
λ = [10; 5/20; 1; 5/32; 1; 5/100; 5/50; 1; 5/100; 5/100]
Mi are all rotation matrices, condition numbers are [100 50 30 10 5 5 4 3 2 2] ;
All settings are the same as F 24 except no exact search range set for this test function

Table 3
Statistical evaluations of performance of TCPT-DE comparing to other methods.
Function TCPT-DE TCPT-GA TCPT-PSO TCPT-ABC
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard
f1 1,237E+04 3,661E+02 1,137E+04 3,794E+02 1,197E+04 3,794E+02 1,727E+04 3,794E+02
f2 1,846E+04 7,542E+02 1,916E+04 9,312E+02 2,016E+04 9,312E+02 2,269E+04 9,312E+02
f3 1,032E+04 5,963E+02 1,062E+04 6,363E+02 1,488E+04 6,363E+02 1,410E+04 6,363E+02
f4 1,911E+04 8,960E+02 1,901E+04 9,980E+02 2,101E+04 9,980E+02 2,317E+04 9,980E+02
f5 1,517E+04 7,912E+02 1,557E+04 7,012E+02 1,389E+04 7,012E+02 1,410E+04 7,012E+02
f6 2,117E+03 5,512E+02 2,217E+03 5,333E+02 2,011E+03 5,333E+02 2,306E+03 5,333E+02
f7 −1,994E+02 1,028E+01 −1,394E+02 1,323E+01 −1,722E+02 1,323E+01 −1,855E+02 1,323E+01
f8 −1,352E+02 3,700E−01 −1,372E+02 4,710E−01 −1,585E+02 4,710E−01 −1,085E+02 4,710E−01
f9 −6,591E+02 5,500E−02 −3,631E+02 9,300E−02 −4,180E+02 9,300E−02 −4,972E+02 9,300E−02
f10 −2,536E+02 2,300E−02 −2,336E+02 6,700E−02 −2,006E+02 6,700E−02 −1,886E+02 6,700E−02
f11 9,339E+01 6,040E+00 9,939E+01 6,740E+00 9,879E+01 6,740E+00 1,004E+02 6,740E+00
f12 8,560E+00 9,270E−01 8,860E+00 9,340E−01 1,086E+01 9,340E−01 1,486E+01 9,340E−01
f13 −1,248E+02 5,230E+00 −1,148E+02 5,020E+00 −1,101E+02 5,020E+00 −1,101E+02 5,020E+00
f14 −2,993E+02 2,030E−01 −2,013E+02 3,930E−01 −2,347E+02 3,930E−01 −1,918E+02 3,930E−01
f15 1,416E+03 7,023E+01 1,436E+03 7,969E+01 1,392E+03 7,969E+01 1,729E+03 7,969E+01
f16 1,706E+03 5,164E+01 1,716E+03 7,427E+01 1,976E+03 7,427E+01 2,276E+03 7,427E+01
f17 1,801E+03 1,870E+00 1,884E+03 1,920E+00 1,841E+03 1,920E+00 1,801E+03 1,920E+00
f18 1,816E+04 7,328E+02 1,846E+04 6,538E+02 1,846E+04 6,538E+02 1,821E+04 6,538E+02
f19 1,726E+03 1,029E+01 2,216E+03 2,029E+01 2,019E+03 2,029E+01 2,024E+03 2,029E+01
f20 1,807E+03 9,830E−01 1,817E+03 2,983E+00 1,895E+03 2,983E+00 1,728E+03 2,983E+00
f21 2,046E+03 7,330E−01 2,446E+03 1,933E+00 2,736E+03 1,933E+00 2,926E+03 1,933E+00
f22 2,346E+03 4,800E−02 2,347E+03 1,480E−01 2,727E+03 1,480E−01 2,837E+03 1,480E−01
f23 2,750E+03 2,730E−01 2,800E+03 4,570E−01 2,866E+03 4,570E−01 2,925E+03 4,570E−01
f24 1,004E+03 1,753E+00 1,304E+03 2,793E+00 1,464E+03 2,793E+00 1,280E+03 2,793E+00
f25 1,035E+03 1,287E+00 1,045E+03 2,847E+00 1,004E+03 2,847E+00 1,074E+03 2,847E+00

years is to test the performance of our approach in a first step and
in a second step to use these results to predict the production for
the future years. The basis for future predictions is based on the
concept that the weather cycle is estimated to be 30 years in the
pronounced absence of El-Niño phenomena.
This fact reaffirms the necessity and rationality of developing
the entire approach. The criteria that affect the performance of
the CP approach are the nature of the target function, constraints,
the feasible and infeasible areas of the solution, and the function
of the CP approach. In the advanced feasible solution (AP), if
there are some feasible individuals in the group, a higher fine
will be added to the unfeasible individuals (Tessema and Yen,
2006). In addition, the basic approach (SF) poses the problem of
maintaining the diversity of the population and may not change,
especially when the ratio between the feasible area and the
search space is small despite the fact that the initial population
has workable solutions (Coello Coello, 2002). In the initial stage of
the research process, a limited number of feasible solutions may
prevent SF from reaching its optimal value during the test. In any
case, it is a tedious task to choose the adequate CP method for
the actual problems evaluated in many situations. It is not easy
to improve the degree of non-linearity of the objective function
or evaluate the nature of constraints or delineate feasible regions.
The advantage of the overall method is that all members of the CP
approach that make up the method can be accessed and operated
on. Due to the probabilistic nature of DE, in most experiments,
TCPT-DE can reach close, or even not the best, fitness value. To
ensure the accuracy of this conclusion, we simulated the data of
the Memve’ele buffer reservoir to determine the optimal produc-
tion rules that meet the environmental and sustainable energy
conditions based on the water supply and hydropower history of
the reservoir.
Simulations of historical data of the seven specific years allow
us to establish the capacity of the TCPT-DE algorithm to optimize

1450
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 4
Statistical summary of the horizons or periods of operation of the different optimization methods of the Memve’ele reservoir.
Type of Case Optimization Optimization Best Bad Mean Standard Running time
operation study parameters methods deviation
Water Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.237e−07 7.830e−07 3.086e−07 1.973e−07 1.062e+04
supply 1945 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5702 0.7305 0.4681 1.065e−02 1.834 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.1531 0.1804 0.1643 6.173e−03 1.749 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1654 0.2106 0.1839 6.383e−02 2.385 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.512e−07 1.556e−06 4.984e−07 4.113e−07 8.665085422000000e+03
1950 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5747 0.7712 0.4893 1.149e−02 1.789 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.1404 0.1621 0.1498 8.523e−03 1.654 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1703 0.2287 0.2193 6.113e−02 2.551 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.668e−07 8.022e−07 4.306e−07 1.989e−07 1.098273088520000e+04
1961 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5603 0.6743 0.4576 1.087e−02 1.811 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.0981 0.1231 0.1080 2.233e−03 1.749 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1401 0.1986 0.1639 6.823e−02 2.399 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.231e−07 4.623e−07 2.816e−07 1.202e−07 1.087610004890000e+04
1971 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5763 0.7498 0.4890 1.164e−02 1.929 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.0963 0.1237 0.1083 3.383e−03 1.782 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1486 0.1806 0.139 6.376e−02 2.305 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.352e−07 6.115e−07 3.232e−07 1.392e−07 1.085302188680000e+04
1985 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5584 0.7218 0.4286 1.032e−02 1.704 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.1328 0.1701 0.1406 2.973e−03 1.573 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1576 0.2386 0.1989 6.883e−02 2.975 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400

(continued on next page)

the reservoir management problem. We have chosen to present Table 4 shows the statistical simulations results of Memve’ele
the simulation figures for each type of season: normal season, reservoir using TCPT-DE considering evaporation loss and seep-
flood season and dry season for the years 1945, 1988 and 2000 age loss with 10 executions. We have maintained the population
respectively.

1451
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 4 (continued).
Type of operation Case Optimization Optimization Best Bad Mean Standard Running time
study parameters methods deviation
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.986e−07 6.987e−07 3.472e−07 1.401e−07 1.087745180150000e+04
1988 Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5919 0.8534 0.6032 1.253e−02 1.932 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.0774 0.0898 0.0734 1.743e−04 1.439 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1234 0.1796 0.1432 6.321e−02 2.491 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 1.695e−07 2.363e−06 5.894e−07 6.378e−07 1.085896034230000e+04
2000 Maxeval= 30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5925 0.9234 0.7023 1.217e−02 1.853 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.1312 0.1734 0.1497 3.393e−03 1.723 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1484 0.1936 0.1701 5.443e−02 2.682 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Hydropower Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.08492124 0.08492127 0.08492125 9.346e−09 1.544013164880000e+04
reservoir 1945 Maxeval=400000
operation Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.6116 0.8943 0.5481 1.095e−02 1.885 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.6483 0.8045 0.6995 5.343e−03 1.701 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1834 0.2326 0.2049 9.311e−02 2.392 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.1193162 0.1193982 0.11932446 2.591e−05 1.524310067110000e+04
1950 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5702 0.7305 0.4681 1.065e−02 1.834 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.7350 0.1287 0.0943 3.178e−03 1.449 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1556 0.1846 0.1709 7.297e−02 2.585 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.0843650 0.0843836 0.0843680 5.791e−06 1.485884228110000e+04
1961 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5702 0.7305 0.4681 1.065e−02 1.834 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.64930 0.1054 0.0803 3.993e−03 1.749 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1644 0.2065 0.1801 2.399e−02 2.745 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400

(continued on next page)

size at 100. We choose after trial error the maxeval value to ob-
tained an optimal solution during our study as 30000 and 40000
respectively for supply and hydroelectric operation of Memve’ele
reservoir. The table shows that the approach leads to the RMSE
tending towards zero for all the years of our study depending
on the type of optimization. The standard deviation of all the
simulations shows that the results obtained by our approach do
not deviate from the best result although the algorithm used
is metaheuristic because these values are of the order of 10−6 ,
therefore negligible.

1452
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456

Table 4 (continued).
Type of operation Case Optimization Optimization Best Bad Mean Standard Running time
study parameters methods deviation
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.0148996 0.0149000 0.0148997 1.736e−07 1.552890964910000e+04
1971 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5702 0.7305 0.4681 1.065e−02 1.834 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.6531 0.1899 0.6739 4.143e−03 1.542 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1613 0.2366 0.2039 6.873e−02 2.685 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.0150629 0.0151155 0.0150682 1.660e−05 1.492780177800000e+04
1985 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5702 0.7305 0.4681 1.065e−02 1.834 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.8363 0.1104 0.0910 4.138e−03 1.700 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1144 0.1806 0.1329 3.913e−02 2.785 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.0138996 0.0139000 0.0138997 1.636e−07 1.512890964910000e+04
1988 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.5574 0.7765 0.5867 1.181e−02 1.774 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.1234 0.1903 0.1183 4.073e−03 1.730 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1154 0.1706 0.1471 5.723e−02 2.085 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
Data NP=100 TCPT-DE 0.08192124 0.08192127 0.08192125 9.326e−09 1.504013164880000e+04
2000 Maxeval=40000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-GA 0.7174 0.9345 0.7081 1.093e−02 1.823 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-ABC 0.9381 1.1739 0.9638 4.073e−03 1.539 e+03
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400
NP=100 TCPT-PSO 0.1422 0.2036 0.1800 6.983e−02 2.831 e+04
Maxeval=30000
Feval=400

❖ Water supply of 1945 ❖ Water supply of 1988

Simulations of historical data for 1945 allow us to establish
the ability of the TCPT-DE algorithm to optimize the reservoir
management problem. We can therefore visualize the best so-
lutions obtained by the TCPT-DE algorithm through Fig. 4(a) for
the reservoir water supply operations by considering the water
losses for the year 1945 under study in relation to the daily
water demand of the optimization problem. Fig. 4(b) illustrates
the storage of the reservoir at each daily stage about the water
discharge rule resulting from the application of our approach to
the different cases or study horizons. Fig. 4(c) shows the evolution
of the objective function as a function of the number of evaluation
functions of the water supply of the Memve’ele reservoir and
the hydropower production obtained by the TCPT-DE algorithm
with the number of evaluations of the function in the annual
study. Fig. 7(d) shows the robustness of the TCPT-DE algorithm
to provide optimal solutions.
The water stock in our reservoir is distributed in such a way
as to fill the different production set-points coming from the Grid
(SONATREL). We can see a spill of water to ensure the safety of
the dam and its perpetuation of production in Fig. 5(b).
Fig. 5(c) shows the convergence of the TCPT-DE algorithm with
the problem model studied for 30,000 evaluation functions.
The standard deviation described in Fig. 5(d) of all 10 execu-
tions of the application of the TCPT-DE algorithm to the reser-
voir management problem 7.242740276492894e−05 for an av-
erage result of 0.013956226722563. The error committed by the
stochasticity of the results is of the order of 10−3 .
❖ Water supply of 2000
Fig. 6(b) shows the management of the reservoir water quan-
tities throughout the planning horizon in that the application
of TCPT-DE proposes an optimal distribution contributing to the
satisfaction of the production target.

1453
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Fig. 6(c) reflects the ability of the application of TCPT-DE in the
management of the reservoir water supply to converge towards
an overall optimum.
Fig. 6(d) of the 10 executions evaluating the ability of the
TCPT-DE algorithm to give less disparate results provides infor-
mation on the nature of these results. It can be seen that the
variability of the results remains in the same order of value,
which does not affect the credibility of the approach used.
❖ Hydroelectric operation reservoir of 1945
Fig. 7(b) shows the natural inflows into the reservoir and
the evolution of storage during the hydroelectric operation of
the Memve’ele buffer reservoir. The graph shows the permissible
limit for the reservoir’s turbining operations. Beyond the upper
limit, the water from the reservoir is discharged.
To test the robustness of the proposed algorithm for the man-
agement of the hydroelectric operation of the water resources
of the Memve’ele buffer reservoir, we performed 10 runs to
appreciate the stability of the results produced by the TCPT-DE.
The differences between the different runs are small as shown in
Fig. 7(c). Our algorithm can be described as robust with respect to
the management of the Memve’ele buffer tank since the standard
deviation of Table 4 is 2.038408403060718 × 10−8 . The TCPT-
DE algorithm shows the regularity of results from this statistical
analysis which shows the best result compared to the worst,
while standard deviation reveals the closeness of the results to
the prediction derived from TCPT-DE.
Fig. 7(d) shows the added value of using the TCPT-DE algo-
rithm which proves to be stable in solving reservoir management
problems, including robust. This robustness reinforces the judi-
cious choice of this algorithm compared to other metaheuristic al-
gorithms whose results revolve less around the same value given
the stochastic nature of its implementation in an optimization.
❖ Hydroelectric operation reservoir of 1988
The dispersion made by the application of TCPT-DE allows a
perenniality of operation throughout the horizon. The respect of
the operation limits is established with the application of the
TCPT-DE according to Fig. 8(b).
Fig. 8(c) shows the convergence of the TCPT-DE application
which tends towards zero as the best result of the 10 executions
is 0.013912991196221.
The standard deviation of the results is 7.242740276492894.10−5
which shows the robustness of the code to assess the quality of
the TCPT-DE application. The ninth run is more offset from the
other results as shown in Fig. 8(d).
❖ Hydroelectric operation reservoir of 2000
Considering that the achievement of the objectives of the
production plan results from the management of the consequent
stock at the time of the operation, we had evaluated the redistri-
bution emanating from TCPT-DE of the quantities of water in the
reservoir to ensure production through Fig. 9(b). Here we can see
a dispersion of water resources within the operating limits of the
Memve’ele power plant.
For a globally acceptable solution, the RMSE of the application
of TCPT-DE in the management of hydroelectric operations should
tend towards zero. Fig. 9(c) shows the water distribution result-
ing from the operating constraints of the Memve’ele reservoir
management problem.
The nature of the results obtained through Fig. 9(d) is eval-
uated through statistical analysis leading to the determination
of the standard deviation during the 10 TCPT-DE runs to the
Memve’ele reservoir hydroelectric operation problem. This analy-
sis reveals that the standard deviation is 2.077566253002174.10−7 .
Table 4 presents the statistical results of the simulation of
the seven years over a period of 365 days each for the water
supply and the hydroelectric operation of the reservoir. The best
solutions for the years 1945, 1950, 1961, 1971, 1985, 1988 and
1454
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
2000 are respectively 1.237061050921363e−07,
1.512379402079427e−07, 1.668116470982896e−07,
1.231989702176562e−07, 1.352720979251112e−07,
1.986724787576959e−07 and 1.695192467494097e−07 for the
water supply and on the other hand 0.084921245794240,
0.119316248698077, 0.084365011917657, 0.014899645594648,
0.015062914678508, 0.013899645594648 and
0.081921245794240 for the hydroelectric operation. These re-
sults are as close as possible to the expected optimal solutions.
Given the quality of the results obtained, with an RMSE close to
zero for the water supply and of the order of a hundredth for
the hydroelectric operations of the reservoir, we can affirm its
robustness and accuracy at the end of its implementation. Hence
the subsequent use of the combination of constraint manage-
ment with genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization and
ant colony algorithm improve the quality of the results with a
smaller RMSE.
Table 4 shows the superiority of TCPT-DE over other algo-
rithms such as TCPT-GA, TCPT-ABC and TCPT-PSO because the
squared error obtained by TCPT-DE tends to zero for the water
supply and for the hydroelectric operation of the reservoir this
error is of the order of a hundredth. The choice of an evolutionary
algorithm depends strongly on the specificity of the problem
posed and the acuity of the latter to overcome the obstacles
related to the nature of the search space. It is clear that the
differential evolution algorithm is better suited to reservoir man-
agement given its ability to easily overcome the non-linearity and
non-convexity of the problem to be solved. The hybrid TCPT-ABC
algorithm gives slightly more satisfactory results. The parallelism
of the ABC algorithm improves the convergence using a large
number of nonlinear variables (Sutradhar et al., 2018) as shown
in the implementation of reservoir management of Memve’ele
hydropower.
To validate the robustness of our hydropower operation of
reservoir management, we compared the values of the power
produced from our approach on data of 1945, which is 42968.53
MW, and that expected from the Hydroelectric Project, which
is 43137.95 MW. Finally, our combination approach determined
the optimal policy of reservoir using TCPT-DE and showed that
the obtained policy could supply 99,7% of demands in the entire
period of time for all seven horizons study. For the years 1950,
1961, 1971, 1985, 1988 and 2000 for reservoir hydro operations,
the hybrid TCPT-DE approach achieves near-optimal solutions
of 99.0%, 99.1%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.7% and 99.1% of the available
water resources production plan. The TCPT-DE approach shows
the nearing solution of hydropower production. A performance
test for the historical daily electricity production was carried out
using a comparison between the results of our optimization and
those of the company Hydroelectric Project of Memve’ele to verify
the improvement. The test results indicate the robustness of our
modelling approach and algorithm in electricity production. The
optimal turbine release was found near optimal solution using the
TCPT-DE algorithm optimization model.
As a limitation to this study, we should underline the use of
the traditional population initialization strategy specific to each
metaheuristic approach which has a significant impact on the
refinement of the accuracy of the results.
4. Conclusion
Water resource management in a hydroelectric reservoir is a
complex optimization due to the convexity and non-linearity of
the number of determinants in the problem formulation. Due to
the nature of reservoir management problems, it is necessary to
choose robust and efficient optimization techniques regardless of
the nature of the problem for rapid convergence to the optimal
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
solution. This paper aimed to establish a reservoir management
policy for the Memve’ele power plant. To this end, we proposed
a hybrid TCPT-DE method to determine the amount of water
resources to be turbined and the distribution of the reservoir
water volume for a given period. The robustness and accuracy
of our approach were tested on the reference functions and
this experiment produced a better results than the TCPT-GA,
TCPT-ABC and TCPT-PSO methods. Its implementation for the
management of the Memve’ele water resources resulted in an
RMSE approaching zero for the water supply and in the order
of hundredths for the hydroelectric operations of the reservoir,
providing the best solutions compared to the TCPT-GA, TCPT-ABC
and TCPT-PSO methods over the seven hydrological years used to
size and build this plant. The quality of these results stems from
the strategy of using SF and AP in symbiosis under the umbrella
of differential evolution, which aims to leave no solution space
untouched in the optimization problem to be solved. The solution
spaces are tested against each other with a view to either pushing
infeasible solutions to feasible regions through TCPT or refining
the quality of the solutions compared to a much better optimum.
Based on these strengths, the TCPT-DE reservoir management
policy achieves around 99.0% to 99.7% satisfaction with the pro-
duction plan for the seven years hydrological inflow in the valley
of Ntem. In future works, we will explore the contribution in
the optimization process of a population initialization technique
allowing to have much more interesting solutions with a speed of
convergence than those of this study. In order to have results that
perfectly match the production plan, we should use an adequate
initialization technique that allows a very elaborate scan of all
search areas. This technique should generate an initial population
with information from each dimension at equal intervals to avoid
excessive aggregation of information in some dimensions. In ad-
dition, this initialization strategy should consider the influence of
the iterative mechanism, whether linear or not, specific to meta-
heuristic methods. However, the performance of the algorithms
in other water management problems, such as the operation
of various reservoirs and the joint management of surface and
groundwater resources, has not yet been studied. Furthermore,
the reservoir exploration problem proposed in this study is for-
mulated on the basis of the known values of the rivers flowing
through the reservoir. However, uncertainty in river flow for
example may affect drainage policies. By including this type of
uncertainty in your reservoir recipe for the next paper, you can
further improve results and obtain more reliable working rules
by providing uncertainty modelling parameters in the system.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Daniel Eutyche Mbadjoun Wapet: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Salomé Ndjakomo Essiane: Supervision, Formal analysis. René
Wamkeue: Supervision, Formal analysis. Dieudonné Bisso: Data
curation. Patrick Juvet Gnetchejo: Software, Resources, Valida-
tion, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to the Memve’ele Hydroelectric Project for
making this research work possible. More particularly to Mr
1455
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
AMBI Roger, Head of hydroelectric development and also to Dr
OUMATE Alhadji Abba for their availability during the internship
of the corresponding author of this paper. In the same way, Mr
MBADJOUN WAPET Daniel thank Dr Mouzong PEMI Marcelin and
Dr CHAMGOUE André for their careful advice during this research
work.
References
Afshar, Abbas, Massoumi, F., Afshar, Amin, Mariño, M.A., 2015. State of the
art review of ant colony optimization applications in water resource man-
agement. Water Resour. Manage 29, 3891–3904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-015-1016-9.
Ahmad, S.K., Hossain, F., 2020. Maximizing energy production from hydropower
dams using short-term weather forecasts. Renew. Energy 146, 1560–1577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.126.
Asadieh, B., Afshar, A., 2019. Optimization of water-supply and hydropower
reservoir operation using the charged system search algorithm. Hydrology 6
(5), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/hydrology6010005.
Bilal, Pant M., Zaheer, H., Garcia-Hernandez, L., Abraham, A., 2020. Differential
evolution: A review of more than two decades of research. Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 90, 103479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103479.
Biswas, P.P., et al., 2018. Optimal power flow solutions using differential evolu-
tion algorithm integrated with effective constraint handling techniques. Eng.
Appl. Artificial Intelligence 68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.10.
019.
Bozorg Haddad, O., Afshar, A., Mariño, M.A., 2009. Optimization of non-
convex water resource problems by honey-bee mating optimization
(HBMO) algorithm. Eng. Comput. 26, 267–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02644400910943617.
Coello Coello, C.A., 2002. Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling tech-
niques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191, 1245–1287. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0045-7825(01)00323-1.
Deb, K., 2000. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 186, 311–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0045-7825(99)00389-8.
Deb, K., 2001. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. In:
Wiley-Interscience Series in Systems and Optimization, first ed. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester, New York.
Ehteram, M., Banadkooki, F.B., Fai, C.M., Moslemzadeh, M., Sapitang, M.,
Ahmed, A.N., Irwan, D., El-Shafie, A., 2021. Optimal operation of multi-
reservoir systems for increasing power generation using a seagull opti-
mization algorithm and heading policy. Energy Rep. 7, 3703–3725. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.06.008.
Farmani, R., Wright, J.A., 2003. Self-adaptive fitness formulation for constrained
optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7, 445–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/TEVC.2003.817236.
Haddad, O.B., Moravej, M., Loáiciga, H.A., 2015. Application of the water cycle
algorithm to the optimal operation of reservoir systems. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
141, 04014064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000832.
Hidalgo, I.G., Fontane, D.G., Lopes, J.E.G., Andrade, J.G.P., de Angelis, A.F.,
2014. Efficiency curves for hydroelectric generating units. J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage 140, 86–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.
0000258.
Hu, T., Shi, Y., Luan, Z., Xu, Y., Mao, J., 2019. Ensemble of constraint-handling
techniques for solving reservoir scheduling problems. J. Hydroinform. 21,
962–979. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2019.121.
Kale, I.R., Kulkarni, A.J., 2021. Cohort intelligence with self-adaptive penalty
function approach hybridized with colliding bodies optimization algorithm
for discrete and mixed variable constrained problems. Complex Intell. Syst.
7, 1565–1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00283-3.
Lan, T., Jermsittiparsert, K., T. Alrashood, S., Rezaei, M., Al-Ghussain, L., A. Mo-
hamed, M., 2021. An advanced machine learning based energy management
of renewable microgrids considering hybrid electric vehicles’ charging
demand. Energies 14 (569), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14030569.
Liang, J.J., Gong, M., Li, H., Yue, C.T., Qu, B.Y., 2018. Problem definitions and
evaluation criteria for the CEC special session on evolutionary algorithms
for sparse optimization. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12568.70403.
Mallipeddi, R., Jeyadevi, S., Suganthan, P.N., Baskar, S., 2012. Efficient con-
straint handling for optimal reactive power dispatch problems. Swarm Evol.
Comput. 5, 28–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2012.03.001.
Mallipeddi, Rammohan, Suganthan, P.N., 2010a. Differential evolution with
ensemble of constraint handling techniques for solving CEC 2010 benchmark
problems. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Presented At
the 2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC, IEEE, Barcelona,
Spain, pp. 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2010.5586330.
Mallipeddi, R., Suganthan, P.N., 2010b. Ensemble of constraint handling tech-
niques. IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat 14, 561–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TEVC.2009.2033582.
D.E. Mbadjoun Wapet, S. Ndjakomo Essiane, R. Wamkeue et al.
Mezura-Montes, E., Coello, C.A.C., 2005. A simple multimembered evolution
strategy to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Computat 9, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2004.836819.
Mirjalili, Seyedali, et al., 2014. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Soft. 69, 46–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007.
Mohamed, M.A., Abdullah, H.M., El-Meligy, M.A., Sharaf, M., Soliman, A.T.,
Hajjiah, A., 2021a. A novel fuzzy cloud stochastic framework for energy
management of renewable microgrids based on maximum deployment of
electric vehicles. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 129, 106845. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106845.
Mohamed, M.A., Almalaq, A., Abdullah, H.M., Alnowibet, K.A., Alrasheedi, A.F.,
Zaindin, M.S.A., 2021b. A distributed stochastic energy management frame-
work based-fuzzy-PDMM for smart grids considering wind park and energy
storage systems. IEEE Access 9, 46674–46685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2021.3067501.
Mohamed, M.A., Hajjiah, A., Alnowibet, K.A., Alrasheedi, A.F., Awwad, E.M.,
Muyeen, S.M., 2021c. A secured advanced management architecture in
peer-to-peer energy trading for multi-microgrid in the stochastic environ-
ment. IEEE Access 9, 92083–92100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.
3092834.
Polakova, R., 2017. L-SHADE with competing strategies applied to constrained
optimization. In: 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).
Presented At the 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC,
IEEE, Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain, pp. 1683–1689. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/CEC.2017.7969504.
Qin, A.K., Huang, V.L., Suganthan, P.N., 2009. Differential evolution algorithm
with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Computat 13, 398–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2008.927706.
Rahnamay Naeini, M., Yang, T., Sadegh, M., AghaKouchak, A., Hsu, K.,
Sorooshian, S., Duan, Q., Lei, X., 2018. Shuffled complex-self adaptive hybrid
EvoLution (SC-SAHEL) optimization framework. Environ. Model. Softw. 104,
215–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.019.
Ren, X., Zhao, Y., Hao, D., Sun, Y., Chen, S., Gholinia, F., 2021. Predicting
optimal hydropower generation with help optimal management of water
resources by developed wildebeest herd optimization (DWHO). Energy Rep.
7, 968–980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.007.
Saadatpour, M., 2020. An adaptive surrogate assisted CE-QUAL-W2 model em-
bedded in hybrid NSGA-ii_AMOSA algorithm for reservoir water quality
and quantity management. Water Resour. Manage. 34, 1437–1451. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02510-x.
Saadatpour, M., Afshar, A., Edinger, J.E., 2017. Meta-model assisted 2D hydro-
dynamic and thermal simulation model (CE-QUAL-W2) in deriving optimal
reservoir operational strategy in selective withdrawal scheme. Water Resour.
Manage. 31, 2729–2744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1658-x.
1456
View publication stats
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1425–1456
Storn, R., Price, K., 1997a. Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic
for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11, 341–359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328.
Storn, R., Price, K., 1997b. Differential evolution – A simple and efficient heuristic
for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11, 341–359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328.
Suganthan, P.N., Hansen, N., Liang, J.J., Deb, K., Chen, Y.P., Auger, A., Tiwari, S.,
2005. Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special
session on real-parameter optimization.
Sutradhar, S., Dev Choudhury, N.B., Sinha, N., 2018. Parallel abc optimization
algorithm for hydrothermal scheduling problems. In: PResented at the Inter-
national Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Education, Andhra
Pradesh, India. RERE-2018, p. 020015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5049111.
Tessema, B., Yen, G.G., 2006. A self adaptive penalty function based algorithm
for constrained optimization. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evo-
lutionary Computation. Presented At the 2006 IEEE International Conference
on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 246–253.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2006.1688315.
Trivedi, A., Sanyal, K., Verma, P., Srinivasan, D., 2017. A unified differential
evolution algorithm for constrained optimization problems. In: 2017 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). Presented At the 2017 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC, IEEE, Donostia, San Sebastián,
Spain, pp. 1231–1238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2017.7969446.
Wapet, D.E.M., Essiane, S.N., Wamkeue, R., Gnetchejo, P.J., 2020. Hydropower
production optimization from inflow: Case study of songloulou hydroplant.
JPEE 08, 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2020.88003.
Yang, T., Gao, X., Sellars, S.L., Sorooshian, S., 2015. Improving the multi-objective
evolutionary optimization algorithm for hydropower reservoir operations
in the California Oroville–Thermalito complex. Environ. Model. Softw. 69,
262–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.11.016.
Yang, T., Hsu, K., Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., Wang, C., 2019. Methods to esti-
mate optimal parameters. In: Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble
Forecasting. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany. vol. 2019, Springer Nature, pp.
523–561.
Yoshioka, H., 2020. Mathematical modeling and computation of a dam–reservoir
system balancing environmental management and hydropower generation.
Energy Rep. 6, 51–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.10.036.
Zou, H., Tao, J., Elsayed, S.K., Elattar, E.E., Almalaq, A., Mohamed, M.A., 2021.
Stochastic multi-carrier energy management in the smart islands using
reinforcement learning and unscented transform. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 130, 106988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106988.