4.7 Article

A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System

Journal

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 3363-3387

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-016-1356-0

Keywords

Multi-reservoir system; Real-time reservoir system operations; Flood mitigation; Multi-objective optimization; Differential evolution; Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51179044]
  2. Special Fund for Public Welfare Industry of the Ministry of Water Resources of China [201501007]
  3. Central University Basic Research Foundation of China [2014B35214]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To address the decision-making problem for real-time multi-objective flood operations in multi-reservoir system, this paper develops a multi-objective best compromise decision model (MoBCDM). Utility function is used to quantitatively express the preference of decision maker, and also fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and segmentation and averaging (Seg/Ave) are adopted together with the preferences of decision participants (hydrologist and reservoir manager) to convert the problem into a scalar optimization. The differential evolution (DE) algorithm is implemented for obtaining the best compromise solution. The multi-objective flood operation problem in Shiguan River Basin (in China), which contains two reservoirs and three flood control points, is used as a case study. The analyses are performed to compare four historical flood operations scenarios, this model and current operating rules. The results of the analyses show that the MoBCDM outperforms all operational scenarios in terms of peak flow reduction at three flood downstream control points. In addition, the MoBCDM execution is very efficient in real-time implementation, and also weighting coefficients for the use by the MoBCDM can get high resolution calculated by FAHP.

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