Distribution network reconfiguration optimization method based on undirected-graph isolation group detection and the whale optimization algorithm

Zijian Hu; Hong Zhu; Chen Deng; Zijian Hu; Hong Zhu; Chen Deng

doi:10.3934/energy.2024023

AIMS Energy

2024, Volume 12, Issue 2: 484-504. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024023

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Distribution network reconfiguration optimization method based on undirected-graph isolation group detection and the whale optimization algorithm

Nanjing Power Supply Company, State Grid Jiangsu Electric Power Co., Ltd., Nanjing, 210019, China

Received: 02 December 2023 Revised: 08 March 2024 Accepted: 20 March 2024 Published: 26 March 2024

As distributed generation (DG) becomes increasingly integrated into the distribution grid, the structure of the distribution network is becoming more complex. To enhance the safety and cost-effectiveness of distribution systems, distribution network reconfiguration is gaining significant importance. Achieving optimal distribution network reconfiguration entails two key considerations: A feasible topology and economic efficiency. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a novel approach that combines the potential island detection in undirected-graphs and the application of a whale optimization algorithm (WOA) for network reconfiguration optimization. To begin, we identified island categories based on the type of switchable-branches connected to these islands, allowing for the construction of potential island groups. Subsequently, unfeasible topologies were eliminated based on the conditions under which islands form within these potential island groups. Feasible topologies were then used to construct a model for network reconfiguration optimization. The optimal distribution network topology is determined using the WOA. In the final phase, the proposed method's effectiveness was demonstrated through a case study on the IEEE-33 node distribution network under scenarios with and without DG integration. The results showed that the proposed method exhibited better performance than traditional approaches in distribution network reconfiguration.

Keywords:

Citation: Zijian Hu, Hong Zhu, Chen Deng. Distribution network reconfiguration optimization method based on undirected-graph isolation group detection and the whale optimization algorithm[J]. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(2): 484-504. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024023

Related Papers:

[1]	Aziz Belmiloudi . Time-varying delays in electrophysiological wave propagation along cardiac tissue and minimax control problems associated with uncertain bidomain type models. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 928-983. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.928
[2]	Zuliang Lu, Xiankui Wu, Fei Huang, Fei Cai, Chunjuan Hou, Yin Yang . Convergence and quasi-optimality based on an adaptive finite element method for the bilinear optimal control problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9510-9535. doi: 10.3934/math.2021553
[3]	Zahra Pirouzeh, Mohammad Hadi Noori Skandari, Kamele Nassiri Pirbazari, Stanford Shateyi . A pseudo-spectral approach for optimal control problems of variable-order fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23692-23710. doi: 10.3934/math.20241151
[4]	Xin Yi, Rong Liu . An age-dependent hybrid system for optimal contraception control of vermin. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2619-2633. doi: 10.3934/math.2025122
[5]	Yuanyuan Cheng, Yuan Li . A novel event-triggered constrained control for nonlinear discrete-time systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20530-20545. doi: 10.3934/math.20231046
[6]	Woocheol Choi, Young-Pil Choi . A sharp error analysis for the DG method of optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9117-9155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022506
[7]	Xiang Wu, Yuzhou Hou, Kanjian Zhang . Optimal feedback control for a class of fed-batch fermentation processes using switched dynamical system approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9206-9231. doi: 10.3934/math.2022510
[8]	Tainian Zhang, Zhixue Luo . Optimal harvesting for a periodic competing system with size structure in a polluted environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14696-14717. doi: 10.3934/math.2022808
[9]	Qian Li, Zhenghong Jin, Linyan Qiao, Aichun Du, Gang Liu . Distributed optimization of nonlinear singularly perturbed multi-agent systems via a small-gain approach and sliding mode control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20865-20886. doi: 10.3934/math.20241015
[10]	Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Roman Ullah, Nawazish Naveed . Optimal control strategies for a heroin epidemic model with age-dependent susceptibility and recovery-age. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1377-1394. doi: 10.3934/math.2021086

Abstract

1. Introduction

In structural mechanics, particularly in the field of elasticity, there are equations that describe the behavior of thin plates under loads. These equations are often partial differential equations that govern the displacement of a thin plate. The plate equation depends on factors like material properties, geometry, and boundary conditions. In the context of geophysics, "plate equation" could refer to the equations that describe the movement and interaction of tectonic plates on the Earth's surface. Plate tectonics is a theory that explains the movement of the Earth's lithosphere (the rigid outer layer of the Earth) on the more fluid asthenosphere beneath it. In mathematics, specifically in the field of differential equations, the term "plate equation" might be used to refer to certain types of equations. For instance, in polar coordinates, Laplace's equation takes a specific form that is sometimes informally referred to as the "plate equation". Plate equation models are hyperbolic systems that arise in several areas in real-life problems, (see, for instance, Kizilova et al.^[1], Lasiecka et al. ^[2] and Huang et al.^[3]). The theory of plates is the mathematical formulation of the mechanics of flat plates. It is defined as flat structural components with a low thickness compared to plane dimensions. The advantage of the theory of plates comes from the disparity of the length scale to reduce the problem of the mechanics of three-dimensional solids to a two-dimensional problem. The purpose of this theory is to compute the stresses and deformation in a loaded plate. The equation of plates results from the composition of different subsets of plates: The equilibrium equations, constitutive, kinematic, and force resultant, ^[4,5,6].

Following this, there are a wide number of works devoted to the analysis and control of the academic model of hyperbolic systems, the so-called plate equations, For example, the exact and the approximate controllability of thermoelastic plates given by Eller et al. ^[7] and Lagnese and Lions in ^[8] treated the control of thin plates and Lasiecka in ^[9] considered the controllability of the Kirchoff plate. Zuazua ^[10] treated the exact controllability for semi-linear wave equations. Recently many problems involving a plate equations were considered by researchers. Let us cite as examples the stabilization of the damped plate equation under general boundary conditions by Rousseau an Zongo ^[11]; the null controllability for a structurally damped stochastic plate equation studied by Zhao ^[12], Huang et al. ^[13] considerrd a thermal equation of state for zoisite: Implications for the transportation of water into the upper mantle and the high-velocity anomaly in the Farallon plate. Kaplunov et al. ^[14] discussed the asymptotic derivation of 2D dynamic equations of motion for transversely inhomogeneous elastic plates. Hyperbolic systems have recently continued to be of interest to researchers and many results have been obtained. We mention here the work of Fu et al. ^[15] which discusses a class of mixed hyperbolic systems using iterative learning control. Otherwise, for a class of one-dimension linear wave equations, Hamidaoui et al. stated in ^[16] an iterative learning control. Without forgetting that for a class of second-order nonlinear systems Tao et al. proposed an adaptive control based on an disturbance observer in ^[17] to improve the tracking performance and compensation. In addition to these works, the optimal control of the Kirchoff plate using bilinear control was considered by Bradly and Lenhart in ^[18], and Bradly et al. in ^[19]. In fact, in this work we will talk about a bilinear plate equation and we must cite the paper of Zine ^[20] which considers a bilinear hyperbolic system using the Riccati equation. Zine and Ould Sidi ^[19,22] that introduced the notion of partial optimal control of bilinear hyperbolic systems. Li et al. ^[23] give an iterative method for a class of bilinear systems. Liu, et al. ^[24] extended a gradient-based iterative algorithm for bilinear state-space systems with moving average noises by using the filtering technique. Furthermore, flow analysis of hyperbolic systems refers to the problems dealing with the analysis of the flow state on the system domain. We can refer to the work of Benhadid et al. on the flow observability of linear and semilinear systems ^[25], Bourray et al. on treating the controllability flow of linear hyperbolic systems ^[26] and the flow optimal control of bilinear parabolic systems are considered by Ould Sidi and Ould Beinane on ^[27,28].

For the motivation the results proposed in this paper open a wide range of applications. We cite the problem of iterative identification methods for plate bilinear systems ^[23], as well as the problem of the extended flow-based iterative algorithm for a plate systems ^[24].

This paper studies the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective is to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. We show how one can transfer the flow of a plate equation close to the desired profile using optimization techniques and adjoint problems. As an application, we solve the partial flow control problem governed by a plate equation. The results open a wide way of applications in fractional systems. We began in section two by the well-posedness of our problem. In section three, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3). In section four, we state the characterization of the optimal control. In section five we debate the case of time bilinear optimal control. Section six, proposes a method for solving the flow partial optimal control problem governed by a plate equation.

2. Well-posedness of the problem

Consider $\Theta$ an open bounded domain of $I\!\!R^2$ with $C^2$ boundary, for a time $m$ , and $\Gamma = \partial\Theta \times (0, m)$ . The control space time set is such that

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m];L^{\infty}(\Theta)){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p\}, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant. Let the plate bilinear equation be described by the following system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial }^2 {u} }{{\partial t}^2} } + \Delta^{2} u = Q(t)u_{t}, & & (0,m) \times \Theta, \\ u(x,0) = u_0(x) ,\; {\frac{{\partial } u }{{\partial t}} } (x,0) = u_1(x), & & \Theta,\\ u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $u_{t} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$ is the velocity. The state space is $H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ , (see Lions and Magenes ^[29] and Brezis ^[30]). We deduce the existence and uniqueness of the solution for (2.2) using the classical results of Pazy ^[31]. For $\lambda > 0$ , we define $\nabla u$ as the flow control problem governed by the bilinear plate equation (2.2) as the following:

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(2.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ , is the flow penalizing cost defined by

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt, \end{align}$

(2.4)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow target in $L^2(0, m;L^2(\Theta))$ . One of the important motivations when considering the problem (2.3) is the isolation problems, where the control is maintained to reduce the flow temperature on the surface of a thin plate (see El Jai et al. ^[32]).

3. Existence of solution

Lemma 3.1. If $(u_{0}, u_{1}) \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ and $Q \in U_{p}$ , then the solution $(u, u_{t})$ of (2.2) satisfies the following estimate:

$\Big\| (u, u_{t}) \Big\|_{{\cal C}(0,m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))} \leq T (1+ \eta m)e^{\eta K m},$

where $T = \Big\| (u_{0}, u_{1}) \Big\|_{ H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)}$ and $K$ is a positive constant ^[18,19].

Using the above Lemma 3.1, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 3.1. $(u^{*}, Q^*)\in {\cal C}([0, m];\; \; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times U_{p})$ , is the solution of (2.3), where $u^{*}$ is the output of (2.2) and $Q^*$ is the optimal control function.

Proof. Consider the minimizing sequence $(Q_{n})_{n}$ in $U_{p}$ verifying

$C^{*} = \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow +\infty}C_{\lambda}(Q_n) = \inf\limits_{Q\in L^{\infty}(0,m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))} C_{\lambda}(Q).$

We choose $\bar{u}^{n} = (u^{n}, \frac{\partial u^{n}}{\partial t})$ to be the corresponding state of Eq (2.2). Using Lemma 3.1, we deduce

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}(x,t) \Big\|_{H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} + \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{1} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{1}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Furthermore, system (2.2) gives

$\Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{2} \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} {\mbox{ with }} T_{2}\in I\!\!R^{+}.$

Then easily from (3.1), we have

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{3} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{3}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Using (3.1) and (3.2), we have the following weak convergence:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} Q_{n} \rightharpoonup Q^{*}, & & L^{2}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{t}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{t}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{tt}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{tt}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H^{-2}(\Theta)),\\ \end{array} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

From the first convergence property of (3.3) with a control sequence $Q_{n} \in U_{p}$ , easily one can deduce that $Q^{*} \in U_{p}$ ^[20].

In addition, the mild solution of (2.2) verifies

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{n}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{n} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{n} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta). \end{align}$

(3.4)

Using (3.3) and (3.4), we deduce that

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{*}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{*} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{*} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta), \end{align}$

(3.5)

which implies that $u^{*} = u(Q_{*})$ is the output of (2.2) with command function $Q^{*}$ .

Fatou's lemma and the lower semi-continuous property of the cost $C_{\lambda}$ show that

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q^{*}) \leq \frac{1}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\Big\|\nabla u^{k}-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q_{k}^2(x,t)dxdt\\ \leq \liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} C_{\lambda}(Q_{n})\\ = \inf\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{align}$

(3.6)

which allows us to conclude that $Q^{*}$ is the solution of problem (2.3). □

4. Characterization of solution

We devote this section to establish a characterization of solutions to the flow optimal control problem (2.3).

Let the system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = -\Delta^{2}v(x,t)+Q(x,t) v_{t} + d(x,t) v_{t}, & & (0, m)\times \Theta,\\ v(x,0) = v_{t}(x,0) = v_0(x) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ v = \frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

with $d \in L^{\infty}(0, m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))$ verify $Q+\delta d \in U_{p}, \quad \forall \delta > 0$ is a small constant. The functional defined by $Q \in U_{p}\mapsto \bar{u}(Q) = (u, u_{t}) \in {\cal C}(0, m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))$ is differentiable and its differential $\overline{v} = (v, v_{t})$ is the solution of (4.1) ^[21].

The next lemma characterizes the differential of our flow cost functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ with respect to the control function $Q$ .

Lemma 4.1. Let $Q \in U_{p}$ and the differential of $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ can be written as the following:

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int _{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )dtdx+ \varepsilon\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} d Q dt dx.\\ \end{align}$

(4.2)

Proof. Consider the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (2.4), which is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dt dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.3)

Put $u_{k} = z(Q+k d)$ , $u = u(Q)$ , and using (4.3), we have

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{\beta\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}} - u_i^d)^{2}-( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dt dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{\Theta} \int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}(t)dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.4)

Consequently

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q +kd)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}( \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d) dt dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\lambda d Q+ k \lambda d^2)dt dx\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.5)

□ We define the following family of adjoint equations for system (4.1)

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q^*(x,t) (w_{i})_{t}+( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}), & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.6)

Such systems allow us to characterize the optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 4.1. Consider $Q \in U_{p}$ , and $u = u (Q)$ its corresponding state space solution of (2.2), then the control solution of (2.3) is

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-1}{\lambda}(u_{t})(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)), \end{equation}$

(4.7)

where $w = (w_{1}....w_{n})$ with $w_{i} \in C ([ 0, T ]; H^{2}_{0}(\Theta))$ is the unique solution of (4.6).

Proof. Choose $d\in U_{p}$ such that $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ with $k > 0$ . The minimum of $C_{\lambda}$ is realized when the control $Q$ , verifies the following condition:

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k}. \end{equation}$

(4.8)

Consequently, Lemma 4.1 gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx.\\\\ \end{align}$

(4.9)

Substitute by equation (4.6) and we find

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}(x,t) }{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i}(x,t)-Q(x,t)( w_{i})_{t}(x,t))dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} v-Q(x,t) v_{t})w_{i}(x,t)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(d(x,t) u_{t})w_{i}dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt dx\\ \\ = \int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}d(x,t)[u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})+\lambda Q dt dx].\\ \\ \end{align}$

(4.10)

It is known that if $d = d(t)$ in a chosen function with $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ , using Bang-Bang control properties, one can conclude that

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)) = max(-p, min( \frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}Div(w), p)), \end{equation}$

(4.11)

with $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ . □

5. Flow time bilinear control problem

Now, we are able to discuss the case of bilinear time control of the type $Q = Q(t)$ . We want to reach a flow spatial state target prescribed on the whole domain $\Theta$ at a fixed time $m$ .

In such case, the set of controls (2.1) becomes

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m]){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p {\mbox{ for }} t \in (0, m)\}, \end{equation}$

(5.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant.

The cost to minimize is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u(x,m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\Theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(\Theta)} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t)dt, \end{align}$

(5.2)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow spatial target in $L^2(\Theta)$ . The flow control problem is

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ is the flow penalizing cost defined by (5.2), and $U_{p}$ is defined by (5.1).

Corollary 5.1. The solution of the flow time control problem (5.3) is

$\begin{align} Q(t) = max(-p, min(\int_{\Theta}\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda} (\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}})dx,p)) \end{align}$

(5.4)

with $u$ as the solution of (2.2) perturbed by $Q(t)$ and $w_{i}$ as the solution of

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q(t) (w_{i})_{t}, & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(5.5)

Proof. Similar to the approach used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0\leq \int_{0}^{m}d(t)[\int_\Theta u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})dx+\lambda Q ]dt, \end{align}$

(5.6)

where $d(t)\in L^{\infty}(0, m)$ , a control function such that $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ with a small positive constant $k$ . □

Remark 5.1. (1) In the case of spatiotemporal target, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, t) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a the change of velocity induced by the known forces acting on system (4.6).

(2) In the case of a prescribed time $m$ targets, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, m) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a Dirichlet boundary condition in the adjoint equation (5.5).

6. Partial flow optimal control problem

This section establishes the flow partial optimal control problem governed by the plate equation (2.2). Afterward we characterize the solution. Let $\theta\subset \Theta$ be an open subregion of $\Theta$ and we define

$\begin{array}{lll} \widetilde{P_{\theta}}: (L^2(\Theta)) & \longrightarrow & (L^2(\theta)) \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & \widetilde{P}_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}, \end{array}$

and

$\begin{array}{lll} P_{\theta}: (L^2(\Theta))^{n} & \longrightarrow &(L^2(\theta))^{n} \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & P_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}. \end{array}$

We define the adjoint of $P_{\theta}$ by

$P_{\theta}^{*}u = \left\{\begin{array}{lll} u \, \, in \, \, \Theta, \\ 0 \in \Theta \setminus \theta. \end{array} \right.$

Definition 6.1. The plate equation (2.2) is said to flow weakly partially controllable on $\theta \subset \Theta$ , if for $\forall \, \, \beta > 0$ , one can find an optimal control $Q\in L^{2}(0, m)$ such that

$|P_\theta \nabla u_Q(m)-u^d||_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}}\leq \beta,$

where $u^d = (z_{1}^{d}, ...., u_{n}^{d})$ is the desired flow in $(L^2(\theta))^{n}$ .

For $U_{p}$ defined by (5.1), we take the partial flow optimal control problem

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(6.1)

and the partial flow cost $C_{\lambda}$ is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|P_\theta\nabla u(m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u(T)}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.2)

Next, we consider the family of optimality systems

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}} }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = \Delta^{2} w_{i}+Q(t) (w_{i})_{t},& & (0, m)\times\Theta,\\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u(m)}{\partial x_{i}} - \widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,t) = \frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(6.3)

Lemma 6.1. Let the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (6.2) and the control $Q(t) \in U_{p}$ be the solution of (6.1). We can write

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.4)

where the solution of (4.1) is $v$ , and the solution of (6.3) is $w_{i}$ .

Proof. The functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ given by (6.2), is of the form:

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\theta}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.5)

Choose $u_{k} = u(Q+k d)$ and $u = u(Q)$ . By (6.5), we deduce

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\frac{(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}-(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}dt. \end{align}$

(6.6)

Furthermore,

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d)dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{m}(2\lambda d Q+k \lambda d^2)dt\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}( \frac{\partial u(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}}-\widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_i^d)dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}w_{i}(x,m)dx+\lambda \int_{0}^{m}dQ dt. \end{align}$

(6.7)

Using (6.3) to (6.7), we conclude

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt.\\ \end{align}$

(6.8)

□

Theorem 6.1. Consider the set $U_{p}$ , of partial admissible control defined as (5.1) and $u = u (Q)$ is its associate solution of (2.2), then the solution of (6.1) is

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)), \end{equation}$

(6.9)

where $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ .

Proof. Let $d \in U_{p}$ and $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ for $k > 0$ . The cost $C_{\lambda}$ at its minimum $Q$ , verifies

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}. \end{equation}$

(6.10)

From Lemma 6.1, substituting $\frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}$ , by its value in system (4.1), we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}dt+ \int_{0}^{m}(-\Delta^{2} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}+Q(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(v_{t}) + d(t)\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_{i}}(u_{t}))w_{i} dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.11)

and system (6.3) gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}-\Delta^{2} w_{i}-Q(t) (w_{i})_{t})dt+d(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(u_{t})w_{i} dt\right]dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \int_{0}^{m} (h(t)u_{t})\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \int_{0}^{m} h(t)\int_\theta\left[ u_{t}\widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} + \lambda Q\right] dx dt, \end{align}$

(6.12)

which gives the optimal control

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)). \end{equation}$

(6.13)

□

7. Conclusions

This paper studied the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective was to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. The problem flow optimal control governed by a bilinear plate equation was considered and solved in two cases using the adjoint method. The first case considered a spatiotemporal control function and looked to reach a flow target on the whole domain. The second case considered a time control function and looks to reach a prescribed target at a fixed final time. As an application, the partial flow control problem was established and solved using the proposed method. More applications can be examined, for example. the case of fractional hyperbolic systems.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Jouf University under Grant Number (DSR2022-RG-0119).

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

[1]	Guan W, Chen C, Lan T, et al. (2021) Research on distribution network fault recovery reconfiguration considering distributed generations. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 769: 042011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/769/4/042011 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/769/4/042011
[2]	Mahdavi M, Schmitt K, Ramos RAV, et al. (2022) Role of hydrocarbons and renewable energies in Iran's energy matrix focusing on bioenergy: Review. IET Renewable Power Gener 16: 3384–3405. https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12540 doi: 10.1049/rpg2.12540
[3]	Mahdavi M, Vera D (2023) Importance of renewable energy sources and agricultural biomass in providing primary energy demand for Morocco. Int J Hydrogen Energy 48: 34575–34598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.246 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.246
[4]	Mahdavi M, Schmitt KEK, Jurado F (2023) Robust distribution network reconfiguration in the presence of distributed generation under uncertainty in demand and load variations. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 38: 3480–3495. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2023.3277816 doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2023.3277816
[5]	Li Y, Feng B, Li GQ, et al. (2018) Optimal distributed generation planning in active distribution networks considering integration of energy storage. Appl Energy 210: 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.008 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.008
[6]	Li Y, Feng B, Wang B, et al. (2022) Joint planning of distributed generations and energy storage in active distribution networks: A Bi-Level programming approach. Energy 245: 123226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123226 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123226
[7]	Mahdavi M, Alhelou HH, Siano P, et al. (2022) Robust mixed-integer programing model for reconfiguration of distribution feeders under uncertain and variable loads considering capacitor banks, voltage regulators, and protective relays. IEEE Trans Industrial Inf 18: 7790–7803. https://doi.org/10.1109/tii.2022.3141412 doi: 10.1109/tii.2022.3141412
[8]	Kim HW, Ahn SJ, Yun SY, et al. (2023) Loop-based encoding and decoding algorithms for distribution network reconfiguration. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 38: 2573–2584. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2023.3247826 doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2023.3247826
[9]	Shaheen AM, Elsayed AM, El-Sehiemy RA, et al. (2021) Equilibrium optimization algorithm for network reconfiguration and distributed generation allocation in power systems. Appl Soft Computing 98: 106867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106867 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106867
[10]	Helmi AM, Carli R, Dotoli M, et al. (2021) Efficient and sustainable reconfiguration of distribution networks via metaheuristic optimization. IEEE Trans Automation Sci Eng 19: 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2021.3072862 doi: 10.1109/TASE.2021.3072862
[11]	Mahdavi M, Alhelou HH, Hatziargyriou ND, et al. (2021) An efficient mathematical model for distribution system reconfiguration using AMPL. IEEE Access 9: 79961–79993. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3083688 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3083688
[12]	Shaheen AM, Elsayed AM, Ginidi AR, et al. (2021) Effective automation of distribution systems with joint integration of DGs/SVCs considering reconfiguration capability by jellyfish search algorithm. IEEE Access 9: 92053–92069. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3092337 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3092337
[13]	Mansouri SA, Ahmarinejad A, Nematbakhsh E, et al. (2022) A sustainable framework for multi-microgrids energy management in automated distribution network by considering smart homes and high penetration of renewable energy resources. Energy 245: 123228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123228 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123228
[14]	Abou El-Ela AA, El-Seheimy RA, Shaheen AM, et al. (2021) PV and battery energy storage integration in distribution networks using equilibrium algorithm. J Energy Storage 42: 103041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103041 doi: 10.1016/j.est.2021.103041
[15]	Ali MH, Kamel S, Hassan MH, et al. (2022) An improved wild horse optimization algorithm for reliability based optimal DG planning of radial distribution networks. Energy Rep 8: 582–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.023 doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.023
[16]	Gautam M, Bhusal N, Benidris M (2022) Deep Q-Learning-based distribution network reconfiguration for reliability improvement. 2022 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T & D), New Orleans, LA, USA, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1109/TD43745.2022.9817000
[17]	Eid A, Kamel S, Abualigah L (2021) Marine predators algorithm for optimal allocation of active and reactive power resources in distribution networks. Neural Computing Appl 33: 14327–14355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06078-4 doi: 10.1007/s00521-021-06078-4
[18]	Castiblanco-Pérez CM, Toro-Rodríguez DE, Montoya OD, et al. (2021) Optimal placement and sizing of D-STATCOM in radial and meshed distribution networks using a discrete-continuous version of the genetic algorithm. Electronics 10: 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10121452 doi: 10.3390/electronics10121452
[19]	Mahdavi M, Javadi MS, Wang F, et al. (2022) An efficient model for accurate evaluation of consumption pattern in distribution system reconfiguration. IEEE Trans Industry Appl 58: 3102–3111. https://doi.org/10.1109/tia.2022.3148061 doi: 10.1109/tia.2022.3148061
[20]	Mahdavi M, Schmitt K, Jurado F, et al. (2023) An efficient framework for optimal allocation of renewable energy sources in reconfigurable distribution systems with variable loads. IEEE Trans Industry Appl 60: 2431–2442. https://doi.org/10.1109/tia.2023.3341876 doi: 10.1109/tia.2023.3341876
[21]	Mahdavi M, Schmitt K, Chamana M, et al. (2023) Effective strategies for distribution systems reconfiguration considering loads voltage dependence. IEEE Trans Industry Appl 60: 2621–2632. https://doi.org/10.1109/tia.2023.3341890 doi: 10.1109/tia.2023.3341890
[22]	Mahdavi M, Schmitt K, Chamana M, et al. (2023) Distribution systems reconfiguration considering dependency of loads on grid voltage and temperature. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 39: 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2023.3340344 doi: 10.1109/tpwrd.2023.3340344
[23]	Zhang J, Wang P, Zhang N (2021) Distribution network admittance matrix estimation with linear regression. IEEE Trans Power Syst 36: 4896–4899. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3090250 doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3090250
[24]	Sarkar D, Konwar P, De A, et al. (2020) A graph theory application for fast and efficient search of optimal radialized distribution network topology. J King Saud University Eng Sci 32: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2019.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jksues.2019.02.003
[25]	Chen Y, Deng J, Zhang X, et al. (2020) Distribution network topology identification method based on matching loop power. J Physics: Conf Ser 1633: 012093. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1633/1/012093 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1633/1/012093
[26]	Shaheen AM, Elsayed AM, El-Sehiemy RA, et al. (2021) Equilibrium optimization algorithm for network reconfiguration and distributed generation allocation in power systems. Appl Soft Computing 98: 106867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106867 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106867
[27]	Jiang LH, Wang WY, Wang PJ, et al. (2014) Distribution network reconfiguration optimization method for reducing the voltage sag impact on important loads. Appl Mech Mater 492: 478–481. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.492.478 doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.492.478
[28]	Ma X, Wang P, Wang Y, et al. (2022) Penalty and barrier-based numerical optimization for efficiency and power density of interleaved buck/boost converter. IEEE Trans Power Electron 37: 12095–12107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2022.3173008 doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2022.3173008
[29]	Zhang Y, Qian T, Tang W (2022) Buildings-to-distribution-network integration considering power transformer loading capability and distribution network reconfiguration. Energy 244: 123104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123104 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123104

This article has been cited by:

Fatima Hussain, Suha Shihab, Transforming Controlled Duffing Oscillator to Optimization Schemes Using New Symmetry-Shifted G(t)-Polynomials, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 915, 10.3390/sym16070915

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)