4.7 Article

Deriving joint optimal refill rules for cascade reservoirs with multi-objective evaluation

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 524, Issue -, Pages 166-181

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.034

Keywords

Joint optimal refill rule; Multi-objective evaluation; Flood control risk; Utilization benefits analysis; Cascade reservoirs

Funding

  1. Open Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science in Wuhan University [2014SWG02]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51079100, 51190094, 51209008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reservoirs are one of the most efficient infrastructures for integrated water resources development and management; and play a more and more important role in flood control and conservation. Optimal refill operation before the end of flood season is a valuable and effective approach to compromise the flood control, hydropower generation and comprehensive utilization of water resources of river basins. An integrated model consisting of a flood control risk analysis module, a utilization benefits analysis module and a multi-objective evaluation module was proposed in this study to derive joint optimal refill rules for cascade reservoirs. The Jinsha River and Three Gorges cascade reservoirs in the Changjiang River basin of China are selected for a case study. Sixty-one years of observed daily runoff data from 1950 to 2010 have been used to test the model. The results indicate that the proposed model can make an effective tradeoff between flood control and utilization benefits. Joint optimal synchronous and asynchronous refill rules can generate 3.25% and 2.78% more annual average hydropower, respectively and improve the fullness storage rate without increasing flood control risk comparing with the original designed operating rules. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available