Advertisement

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 914–922 | Cite as

Multi-reservoir System Operation in Drought Periods with Balancing Multiple Groups of Objectives

  • Soroosh AlahdinEmail author
  • Hamid Reza Ghafouri
  • Ali Haghighi
Water Resources and Hydrologic Engineering
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Water resources systems should be operated to balance multiple conflicting objectives accounting for a variety of services. In this field, the evolutionary algorithms are very helpful since complex simulation models can be directly embedded within them, and they are also powerful for deriving the trade-off among conflicting objectives in multi-objective optimization problems. In this study, the WEAP (Water Evaluation And Planning) water resources simulation model, and the NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm) multi-objective optimization model, are employed and coupled to extract optimal trade-off among intra-basin, interbasin, hydropower and environmental flow objectives in a Multi-reservoir system. In such a context, there is not a single operating policy that optimizes simultaneously all the water purposes. Therefore, opposite views and disputes on the selection of the best policy among different Pareto solutions arise. In this regard, Game Theory, the formal study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent, rational decision-makers, is adopted to decide on the best hedging rules and operating rule curves among Pareto alternatives. The Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) which is a solution concept in Game Theory is used here. To investigate the models, Zohreh three-reservoir multi-purpose system in the southwestern Iran with four different objectives is studied.

Keywords

multi-objective optimization demand group hedging rule rule-curve nash equilibrium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aboutalebi, M., Bozorg-Haddad, O., and Loáiciga, H. A. (2015). “Optimal monthly reservoir operation rules for hydropower generation derived with SVR-NSGAII.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 141, Issue 11, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) WR.1943-5452.0000553.Google Scholar
  2. Afshar, A., Shojaei, N., and Sagharjooghifarahani, M. (2013). “Multiobjective calibration of reservoir water quality modeling using Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO).” Water Resources Management, Vol. 27, Issue 7, pp. 1931–1947, DOI: 10.1007/s11269-013-0263-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazargan-Lari, M. R., Kerachian, R., and Mansoori, A. (2009). “A conflict-resolution model for the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources that considers water-quality issues: A case study.” Environmental Management, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 470–482, DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9191-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., and Restelli, M. (2013). “A multi-objective reinforcement learning approach to water resources systems operation: Pareto frontier approximation in a single run.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 49, Issue 6, pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.1002/wrcr.20295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y., Su, X., and Zhao, X. (2012). “Modeling bounded rationality in capacity allocation games with the quantal response equilibrium.” Management Science, Vol. 58, No. 10, 2012, pp. 1952–1962, www.jstor.org/stable/41686892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T. (2002). “A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6. No. 2, pp. 182–197, DOI: 10.1109/4235.996017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haile, P. A., Hortacsu, A., and Kosenok, G. (2008). “On the empirical content of quantal response equilibrium.” American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 180–200, DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.1.180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsu, S. K. (1995). “Shortage indices for water-resources planning in Taiwan.” Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 119–131, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang, C., Zhao, J., Wang, Z., and Shang, W. (2016). “Optimal hedging rules for two-objective reservoir operation: Balancing water supply and environmental flow.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 142, Issue 12, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) WR.1943-5452.0000699.Google Scholar
  10. Hydrologic Engineering Center (1966). Reservoir yield: Generalized computer program, 23-J2-L245. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California.Google Scholar
  11. Hydrologic Engineering Center (1975). Hydrologic engineering methods for water resources development, Vol. 8, reservoir yield. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California.Google Scholar
  12. Jessie, D. T. and Saari, D. G. (2015). “From the luce choice axiom to the quantal response equilibrium.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 3–9, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.001.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerachian, R. and Karamouz, M. (2006). “Optimal reservoir operation considering the water quality issues: A stochastic conflict resolution approach.” Water Resources Research, AGU, W 12401, Vol. 42, Issue 12, DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004575.Google Scholar
  14. Kerachian, R. and Karamouz, M. (2007). “A stochastic conflict resolution model for water quality management in reservoir–river systems.” Advances in Water Resources, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 866–882, DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKelvey, R. D., McLennan, A. M., and Turocy, T. L. (2010). “Gambit: Software tools for game theory.” Version 0.2010.09.01, https://doi.org/www.gambit-project.org. Google Scholar
  16. McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R. (1995). “Quantal response equilibria for normal form games.” Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 6–38, DOI: 10.1006/game.1995.1023.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Mendes, L. A., Barros, M. T. L. d., Zambon, R. C., and Yeh, W. W-G. (2015). “Trade-off analysis among multiple water uses in a hydropower system: Case of são francisco river basin, Brazil.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 141, Issue 10, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000527.Google Scholar
  18. Neri, C. (2014). “Quantal response equilibrium in a double auction.” Economic Theory Bulletin, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp 79–90, DOI: 10.1007/s40505-014-0038-4.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piscopo, A. N., Kasprzyk, J. R., Neupauer, R. M., and Mays, D. C. (2014). “An iterative approach to many objective engineering design: Balancing conflicting objectives for engineered injection and extraction.” World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014: Water without Borders, ASCE 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Read, L., Madani, K., and Inanloo, B. (2014). “Optimality versus stability in water resource allocation.” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 133, pp. 343–354, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richards, A. and Singh, N. (1996). “Two level negotiations in Bargaining over water.” Proceedings of the International Game Theory Conference, Bangalore, India, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  22. Shahidehpour, M., Yamin, H., and Li, Z. (2001). Market operations in electric power systems, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2001. pp. 191–232.Google Scholar
  23. Shirangi, E., Kerachian, R., and Bajestan, M. S. (2008). “A simplified model for reservoir operation considering the water quality issues: Application of the Young conflict resolution theory.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 146, Issues 1–3, pp. 77–89, DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-0061-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sieber, J. and Purkey, D. (2011). Calculation algorithms; water evaluation and planning system: User guide. SEI-US Water Program, Stockholm Environment Institute, U.S. Center.Google Scholar
  25. Suen, J. P. and Wayland, E. J. (2006). “Reservoir management to balance ecosystem and human needs: Incorporating the paradigm of the ecological flow regime.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 42, Issue 3, DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004314.Google Scholar
  26. Swatuk, L. A., Mengiste, A., and Jembere, K. (2008). Conflict resolution and negotiation skills for integrated water resources management, Cap-Net-USA.Google Scholar
  27. Turocy, T. L. (2010). “Computing sequential equilibria using agent quantal response equilibria.” Economic Theory, Vol. 42, Issue 1, pp. 255–269, DOI: 10.1007/s00199-009-0443-3.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wagner, M., Bringmann, K., Friedrich, T., and Neumann, F. (2014). “Efficient optimization of many objectives by approximation-guided evolution.” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 243, Issue 2, pp. 465–479, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.032.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao, C. L. and Huang, H. J. (2014). “Modeling bounded rationality in congestion games with the quantal response equilibrium.” The 9th International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies (ICTTS 2014), Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 138, pp. 641–648, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.242.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soroosh Alahdin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hamid Reza Ghafouri
    • 1
  • Ali Haghighi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyShahid Chamran University of AhvazAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations