Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Water Resources Systems - Vedula PDF
Water Resources Systems - Vedula PDF
Water Resources Systems - Vedula PDF
and R represent, respectively, the demand and the release in a period. Let the
of the reservoir be K. Then the standard operating policy for the
period is represented as illustrated in Fig. 5.3. The available water in any
period is the sum of the storage, S, at the beginning of the period, and the
inflow & during the period. The release is made as per the line OABC in the
figure.
Release, R
Spills
Filling Phase
*-----* /
0 D D + K Water ~vailable,S + Ci
Fig. 5.3 ) Standard Operating Policy
Figure 5.3 implies the following:
Along OA: Release = water available; reservoir will be empty after'release.
Along AB: Release = demand; excess water is stored in the reservoir (filling
phase).
At A: Reservoir is empty after release.
At B: Reservoir is full after release.
Along BC: Release = demand + excess of availability over the capacity (spill)
h other words, the release in any time period is equal to the availability, S +
Q, or demand, D, whichever is less, as long as the availability does not exceed
the sum of the demand and the capacity. Once the availability exceeds the sum
of the demand and the capacity, the release is equal to demand plus excess
available over the capacity. It is to be noted that the releases made as per the
standard operating policy are not necessarily optimum as no optimization crite-
rion is used in the release decisions. For highly stressed systems (systems in
which water availability is less than the demand in most periods), the standard
operating policy performs poorly in terms of distributing the deficits across the
periods in a year.
. - --
R,= D , i f S , + Q , - E t 2 D,
= St + Q, - Et, otherwise
0, = (St + Q, - E, - D,) - K if positive
= 0 otherwise
S t + , = St + Q, - E, - R, - 0, with R, and 0,determined as above
150 1 Model Development
St is the storage at the beginning of the period t, Q, is the inflow during the
period t, D,is the demand during the period t, E, is the evaporation loss during
the period t, R , is the release during the period t, and 0,is the spill (overflow)
during the period t. Note that = K, if 0,> 0.
An illustrative example oi^ the standard operating policy is
5.3, for a reservoir with capacity K = 350 units and an initial
storage of 200 units. Inflow Q,, demand D ,i d evaporation E, are known
values, as given in the table.
Evaporation, Et
Reservoir
Release
Rt
LP Formulation
Consider the simplest objective of meeting the demand to the best extent pos-
sible (the same objective as considered in the standard operating policy), such
that the sum of the demands met over a year is maxir;..km. This may be formu-
lated as a LP problem as follows:
Max C R t (5.2.1)
L
Subject to
St+i St + Qt- R,- Et - 0, 'dt (5.2.2)
R, I D, Vt (5.2.3)
St 5 K Vt (5.2.4)
Rt2 0 Vt (5.2.5)
$2 0 Vt (5.2.6)
ST+I= s1 (5.2.7)
where T is the last period in the year, and all other terns are as defined in
Section 5.2.1.
The constraint (5.2.3) restricts the release during a period to the correspond-
ing demand, while the objective function (5.2.1) maximizes the sum of the
releases. Thus the model aims to make the release as close to the demand as
~ possible over the year. To ensure that the overflows 0,assume a nonzero value
in the solution only when the storage at the end of the period is equal to the
reservoir capacity, K, integer variables may be used as discussed in Section
5.1.4. Constraint (5.2.7) makes the end of the year storage equal to the begin-
ning of the (next) year's storage, so that a steady state solution is achieved.
When the initial storage at the beginning of the first period is known, an
additional constraint of the form, S1 = So, may be included, where So is the
known initial storage, in which case the sequence of releases obtained would
be optimal only with respect to the particular initial storage. The end of the
year storage, ST+1,may be set equal to the known initial storage (5.2.7), if a
steady state solution is desired, or may be left free (i.e. constraint 5.2.7 is
excluded) if only the release sequence for one year, with known initial storage,
So, is of interest.
Table 5.4 below is constructed with results obtained by solv-
el (5.2.1) to (5.2.7) with inflow Q,, demand D,, and evapora-
(Contd)
t st Qt Dt Rt E, &+I 0, -
I Fig. 5.6. The system serves the purposes of water supply, flood control and
hydropower generation. Release for water supply is passed through the
Reservoir Systems-Deterministic Inflow 1 153
max z3
z=lt=l
T
[ B ~ R+; B: ( K , - $1 + B:s:]
subject to
~:20;R:20.
In the model, the index i refers to a reservoir (i = 1, 2, 3), and t to time period
(t = 1, 2,..., T). Q is the natural inflow, K is reservoir capacity, S is storage, R
is release, E is evaporation, and 0 is overflow (spill). The storage S, is the
storage at the beginning of period t.
11 1 Fig. 5.6.
Consider the data given in the table below for a three-period,
system. The reservoir system configuration is as shown in
Note that the spill from a reservoir is included in the release values shown
~ for that reservoir. Also note that the mass balance for reservoir 3 includes the
contributions from the two upstream reservoirs. In this hypothetical example,
the benefit coefficients for the release are much higher than those for the
flood storage. The solution will be quite sensitive to variations in these coeffi-
cients. It would be instructive for the student to generate and analyze a num-
ber of solutions, varying the benefit coefficients relative to each other, for the
Isame lnflow data provided in this example.
-- - - - -
The reservoir capacities and land area proposed for irrigation are as shown
in Table 7.3.
The Model
A linear programming model is formulated with monthly time periods to deter-
mine the crops and crop areas to be irrigated at each of the sites A, B, and C,
subject to minimum downstream releases from reservoir D to meet the existing
irrigation requirement in the lower basin. The model considers the option of
irrigating or not irrigating any or all of the cropped area under each crop, for
each objective.
Objective 1 Maximize the total net economic benefits from all crops in the
upper basin.
The objective function is written as
-- ;--Mi..; -
?-MY--=
max iia,],+ x z&U,J
1=1 ]=I '31
-
aij net benefits at site j per unit area of irrigated crop i (j= 1, reservoir A;
j = 2, reservoir B; and j = 3, reservoir C);
Pij net benefits at site j per unit area of unirrigated crop i;
I, irrigated area at site j under crop i;
- Uii unirrigated area at site j under crop i; and
. .
M, total number of crops c o n s i d e l . e d a t :
Applications of Linear Programming 1 217
Objective 2 Maximize total irrigated area from all crops in the upper basin.
Constraints
Land Allocation Constraints The same land should be made available for a
given crop throughout the growing season.
For all the growing months m of crop i at site j
Iqn7= Iq for all nz,
where I,,, is the irrigated area at site j under crop i in pcriod m.
For all the growing months nz of crop i at site j,
Uij, =: U,. for all m,
where Uij, is the unirrigated area at site j under crop i in period m.
Storage-Continuity Equations The equationsfor the four sites j = 1, 2. 3, 4
are written as follows:
These constraints are valid for all time periods, m = 1, 2, ..., 12.
Forj= 1
1=1
For j = 2
where
Si, storage at site j at the beginning of month m;
p,,,, water diversion requirement of crop i (in depth units) at j during its
-- - -
growingmonth m, - i d equ-d-to zerCifor3lie nongiiowiiig riZonths;
R d/s release from the reservoir at site j during the month m;
Ej,, Reservoir evaporation at site j during the month rn;
F,,, mean inflow (unregulated) at site j during month rn; and
Wjm water diversion requirement at site j for all existing crops during month
m (this term will appear only for j = 2, and for j = 4, as per existing
irrigation requirements. Additional irrigation to ten proposed crops, i, at
site j = 2 is considered) - .,
218 1 Applications
Land Area Constraints The total cropped area (irrigated andlor unirrigated)
in each month is less than the possible maximum at each site.
Groundnut
Potato
Wheat
"Obtained by deducting estimated cost of fertilizer from produce value at wholesale prices.
Applications of Linear Programming [ 219
Solution
Objective 1 Maximization of net economic benefits (annual): The optimal
cropping for this case is shown in Table 7.6. The table shows what crops are to
be grown, whether they should be irrigated or not, to what extent they should
be grown in each of the areas, and the growing seasons. The maximized net
benefits and the corresponding values of the total diversion and the irrigated
cropped area in the upper basin are also given in the table. -
Reservoir B
Reservoir C
Maximum net benefits = Rs. 2084.709 million; total irrigated cropped area = 527,570 ha.
(exclusive of fixed mulberry crop area of 20,700 ha.)
*I = irrigated, U = unirrigated.
Reservoir B
PulsesNegetables Nov-Feb
Reservoir C
Maximum irrigated cropped area = 755,600 ha; total net benefits = Rs. 1659.623 million
(excluding mulberry over a fixed area of 20,700 ha).
*I = irrigated, U = unirrigated,
crops needing relatively lower water requirement, as the total amount of water
available is limited. These are also the crops that yield lower economic
benefits.
Summary of Results
Variable maximized Net Benefits Irrigated Cropped Area (ICA)
Net benefits (lo6 Rs 1970-72) 2084.709" 5275.700
Irrigated cropped area (100 ha) 1659.623 7556.00 *
("maximum value)
Implicit Tradeoff A total irrigated cropped area of 576,800 ha. (at reservoirs
A, B, and C) is projected for development by the concerned planning agency,
based on rainfall distribution and local conditions. It is interesting to see that
Applications of Linear Programming 1 221
1850 1' I I 1
4800 5800 6800 7800
Irrigated Cropped Area (100 ha)
Fig. 7.1 0 %j Transformation Curve for the Four-reservoir System
the proposed area lies within the range of values obtained for the two objec-
tives (between 527,570 and 755,600 ha.). A chance constrained form of the
model may be used to determine the results for inflows at a specified reliability
level, though the study reported herein does not attempt it.
A tradeoff between the net benefits and the irrigated cropped area can be
found from the curve above (Fig. 7.10) by determining the slope of the curve at
a given value of the irrigated area. For the projected level of 576,800 ha., the
tradeoff works out to Rs 360 per ha. This means that the amount of net benefits
foregone for an increase in the irrigated cropped area (at the level of projection)
is Rs. 360 per hectare, subject to the assumptions and limitations of the model.
For details of the study, refer to Vedula and Rogers (1981).