1 s2.0 S0960148124007444 Main

Journal Pre-proof
Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic operation of water levels
to increase cascade reservoir hydropower generation
Yuzuo Xie, Shenglian Guo, Sirui Zhong, Zhipeng He, Pan Liu, Yanlai Zhou
PII: S0960-1481(24)00744-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120676
Reference: RENE 120676
To appear in: Renewable Energy
Received Date: 28 January 2023

Revised Date: 13 May 2024
Accepted Date: 16 May 2024
Please cite this article as: Xie Y, Guo S, Zhong S, He Z, Liu P, Zhou Y, Optimal allocation of flood
prevention storage and dynamic operation of water levels to increase cascade reservoir hydropower
generation, Renewable Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120676.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1 Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic operation of
2 water levels to increase cascade reservoir hydropower generation
3 Yuzuo Xie, Shenglian Guo*, Sirui Zhong, Zhipeng He, Pan Liu, Yanlai Zhou
4 State Key Laboratory of Water Resources Engineering and Management, Wuhan University, 430072, China
*
5 Corresponding author: Shenglian Guo (E-mail: slguo@whu.edu.cn)
6
7 Abstract: The existing trade-off between flood control and water conservation measured
f
oo
8 by flood limited water level (FLWL) during flood season hinders multi-reservoir system
r
9 -p
from realizing comprehensive benefits. To overcome this barrier, we reasonably allocated
re
10 the complementary flood prevention storage based on the aggregation-decomposition
lP
11 technique, theoretically deduced the mathematical formula of power generation variation

na
12 simplified from the cascade reservoir operation model, and dynamically operated reservoir
13 water levels considering the inflow forecasting information. The Wudongde (WDD) ~
ur
Jo
14 Baihetan (BHT) ~ Xiluodu (XLD) ~ Xiangjiaba (XJB) cascade reservoirs in the
15 downstream Jinsha River in China is selected as the case study. Results demonstrate that: (1)
16 The derived power generation function monotonically increases only with the growth of the
17 pre-discharge water volume. (2) The reduced proportion of the flood prevention storage of
18 WDD (or XJB) is favorable to boost the hydroelectric benefits of the WDD~BHT (or
19 XLD~XJB) cascade reservoirs. Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage could
20 increase 1.933 billion kW∙h power generation annually (+2.15%) for the
21 WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs. (3) Further cooperated with dynamic operation
1
22 of water levels, the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs could totally generate 5.925
23 billion kW∙h more hydropower annually (+6.60%) with effective 5d lead-time inflow
24 forecasting information without loosening the design flood prevention standards.
25 Key words: Cascade reservoirs; Hydropower generation; Flood prevention storage; Flood
26 control risk; Dynamic operation; Downstream Jinsha River
f
27 1 Introduction
r oo
28 Critical energy-related challenges have been widely arisen with the deterioration of the
29
-p
natural environment and the depletion of non-recyclable fossil fuel, leading to a growing
re
30 consensus to utilize clean and renewable energy sources, such as hydro, wind, tidal, and
lP
31 solar power, as a substitute of classic production to satisfy the energy needs [1–3]. Among
na
32 them, hydropower has been developed rapidly and recognized globally in academic and
ur
33 policy debates [4,5], providing over 72% of all renewable electricity worldwide [6] and
Jo
34 becoming an indispensable kind of renewable energy sources to date [7]. To meet the
35 energy purposes, more and more reservoirs have been frequently constructed in recent
36 decades, which form a large number of cascade reservoir communities throughout the
37 world [8–11].
38 The reservoir flood prevention tasks and standard operating policy have been
39 investigated and planned in construction period [12,13]. It was a commonly sight that the
40 reservoir group located at the same river basin are designed by dissimilar survey and
2
41 planning institutes in the different periods on a case-by-case basis. Since the cascade
42 reservoirs often have the same flood control tasks in the downstream region, the design
43 flood prevention storage of cascade reservoirs is complementary and equivalent in the
44 operation period. In other words, the identical flood control effects of downstream flood
45 protection objects could be achieved by using diverse combinations of flood prevention
46 storage in upstream cascade reservoirs if the total storage keeps unchanged. On the other
f
oo
47 hand, reservoirs flood regulation reduces both the peak discharge and the flood volume of
r
48 -p
flash inflow, and thus the ability of cascade reservoirs to defend against at-site design
re
49 floods has been greatly improved [14,15]. In consequence, the interoperability breaks the
lP
50 limitation of the flood prevention storage of each reservoir during the entire flood season
na
51 and provides more flexibility for real-time flood control operation. Given that the timeworn
52 hydroelectric policy imposes restrictions on the economic benefit of reservoirs, it is

ur
Jo
53 worthwhile to explore how existing hydraulic structures could be maximized of its
54 effectiveness to provide more power to the energy grid by optimizing the operations [2].
55 The existing trade-off between flood prevention and conservation hinders cascade
56 reservoirs from realizing the comprehensive benefits [16,17]. More specifically, flood
57 control requires a certain amount of empty storage, i.e., flood prevention storage to
58 withstand the floods that may pose a serious threat to downstream residents and dam safety,
59 while water conservation needs less flood prevention storage for hydroelectricity, water
3
60 supply, recreation, and so on [18,19]. Figure 1 shows a sketch diagram of reservoir storage
61 zones and water levels.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
62 Figure 1 Sketch diagram of reservoir storage zones and water levels

ur
63
Jo
64 As a designed characteristic parameter, the flood limited water level (FLWL) was
65 defined to meet the flood control requirements during flood season, which was a vital
66 important parameter to coordinate the conflict between flood control and conservation
67 [20,21]. Currently the static control of FLWL (SC-FLWL) stipulated that the reservoir
68 water level was restraint below the FLWL for impounding the possible design floods,
69 which had a very small probability to occur. Besides, the hydrological regime (particularly
70 in the temporal variation and the magnitude of peak discharges) of the river channel have
71 been greatly affected by the upstream reservoirs [22,23]. The SC-FLWL mode that reserved
4
72 redundant flood prevention storage might no longer be applicable in current water resources
73 management, especially for power generation-oriented reservoirs [13,24]. Based on the
74 hydro-meteorological forecasting information and the aggregation-decomposition method,
75 many studies investigated the dynamic control of FLWL (DC-FLWL) for cascade
76 reservoirs in recent years [25–27], which allowed to store an additional amount of water
77 (i.e., pre-discharge volume) above the FLWL during the flood season to increase
f
oo
78 hydroelectricity generation [24,25]. For instance, Chen et al. [20] developed an
r
79 -p
aggregation-decomposition model, which consists of an aggregation module, a storage
re
80 decomposition module and a simulation operation module, to compromise the flood control
lP
81 and water conservation of the Qing River cascade reservoirs in China. Their results
na
82 indicated that joint operation and DC-FLWL could increase hydropower generation by 179
83 million kW∙h (improve by 4.51%) without increase flood control risks. Zhou et al. [28]
ur
Jo
84 proposed a multi-objective DC-FLWL model based on NSGA-II algorithm and a modified
85 aggregation-decomposition method for three cascade reservoirs in the upper Yangtze River,
86 which showed that the minimum power generation risk solution and the minimum flood
87 control risk solution could enhance the hydropower generation by 6.48% and 2.18%,
88 respectively. Lu et al. [26] proposed a risk-based aggregation-decomposition method for
89 floodwater utilization of complicated multi-reservoir communities and established a Monte
90 Carlo simulation model to maximize power production. Compared with the SC-FLWL
5
91 scheme, the DC-FLWL scheme generated 18.58 million kW∙h more hydropower in the Pi
92 River basin.
93 The DC-FLWL approach with hydro-meteorological forecasting information could
94 significantly increase floodwater resources utilization rate during flood season without
95 reducing the design flood prevention standards. However, the literature above conducted
96 the DC-FLWL universally based on the design flood prevention storage determined in
f
oo
97 construction period, and only considered forecasting information and hydraulic connection
r
98 -p
between the cascade reservoirs, leaving the consciousness of the complementary
re
99 relationship between the flood prevention storage of cascade reservoirs. Moreover,
lP
100 numerous investigations have focused on developing operation models that maximize
na
101 various benefits through optimization techniques. Yet, such models, often perceived as
102 “black boxes”, struggle to provide clear, quantitative guidance for real-time flood control
ur
Jo
103 operation. Bridging the longstanding gap between operation practices and theoretical
104 research, with the primary objective of enhancing hydropower generation during flood
105 season predicated on manageable flood risk, this paper endeavors to: (1) Rationally develop
106 a volume-based aggregation-decomposition technique for reservoir flood prevention
107 storage and pre-discharge water volumes; (2) Theoretically deduce the variation of the
108 cascade reservoir power generation; (3) Optimally allocate the flood prevention storage of
109 cascade reservoirs; and (4) Dynamically operate the reservoir water levels considering
110 inflow forecasting information with risk analysis.
6
111 One of the world’s largest cascade reservoirs, the Wudongde (WDD), Baihetan (BHT),
112 Xiluodu (XLD), Xiangjiaba (XJB) in the downstream Jinsha River, was selected as a case
113 study. The remaining contents were structured as follows. The methodology used in this
114 study was described in Section 2. Section 3 briefly presented the study area and data sets of
115 the cascade reservoirs in downstream Jinsha River. In Section 4, optimal allocation of flood
116 prevention storage and dynamic operation of water levels considering flood control risk and
f
oo
117 power generation analysis were investigated. The last section drew the main findings of this
r
118 study. -p
re
119 2 Methodology
lP
120 2.1 Volume-based aggregation-decomposition of cascade reservoir storage

na
121 The volume-based aggregation-decomposition method was used to accounts for the
ur
122 hydrological mechanism of deploying the reservoir storage including the design flood
Jo
123 prevention storage and the pre-discharge water volume for each reservoir. To achieve this
124 purpose, two specific conditions for the configuration of the aggregated reservoir system
125 were identified as depicted in Figure 2. One was that no large tributary confluence between
126 the interval basin of the cascade reservoirs, the other was that cascade reservoirs
127 conformably undertake the identical flood prevention task in the downstream region. The
128 former assured the correlation and homogeneity between the inflows of the cascade
129 reservoirs while the latter unified the utility of the flood prevention storage of each
7
130 reservoir. This standardization harmonized the role and contribution of each reservoir’s
131 flood prevention storage. Meeting these criteria enabled the treatment of flood prevention
132 storage across the cascade reservoirs as functionally equivalent, thereby facilitating their
133 complementary and integrated utilization.
134
135
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
136 Figure 2 Sketch map of the volume-based aggregation-decomposition for the cascade
137 reservoir storage
138
8
139 2.1.1 Aggregation-decomposition for the design flood prevention storage
140 The design flood prevention storage, which is the storage between the design flood
141 water level and FLWL, aims to secure the flood control safety of the reservoir dam and
142 downstream flood protection targets. Previous studies proved that the design floods of the
143 downstream reservoirs were reduced significantly due to the regulation of upstream
144 reservoirs [13,15]. If the flood protection target of the cascade reservoir consistently
f
oo
145 focuses on the same flood control section B as shown in Figure 2, then the flood prevention
r
146 -p
storage of the upper reservoirs could be aggregated firstly and appropriately reallocated (or
re
147 decomposed) lately with the total flood prevention storage keeping unchanged to increase
lP
148 hydroelectricity generation, especially for power generation-oriented reservoirs. As a result,

na
149 the design flood prevention storage of the aggregated virtual reservoir equals to the sum of
150 the flood prevention storage of all the sub-reservoirs. The aggregation-decomposition of
ur
Jo
151 design flood prevention storage lays the foundation for the optimized allocation of flood
152 prevention storage of cascade reservoirs (Section 2.2).
153 2.1.2 Aggregation-decomposition for the pre-discharge water volume
154 The aggregation basis for the pre-discharge water volume lies in the principle of water
155 balance equation and hydraulic connection between the cascade reservoirs [29], which were
156 given as below:

Vm (t + 1) = Vm (t ) + (qin,m (t ) − qout,m (t ))  t
157  (1)
qin,m+1 (t ) = f r (qout,m (t −  )) + qz,m (t )

9
158 where t and M were the time variable and the amount of reservoirs, respectively; m was the
159 ordinal number of reservoirs from upstream to downstream in order ( m = 1,..., M ), Vm (t ) ,
160 qin,m (t ) and qout,m (t ) represent the storage, inflow and outflow of the m th reservoir at
th
161 time t, respectively; qz,m (t ) denoted the inter-basin flow between the m reservoir and
the m + 1 reservoir; f r ( ) was the hydrologic channel routing approach, such as

th
162
Muskingum method [14,30]; and  denoted the time lag of flow discharge from the m
th
163
f
oo
reservoir to m + 1 reservoir.
th
164
r
165 -p
The mutual coordination among the reservoir community provided a flexible allocation
re
166 for the total pre-discharge water volume of the aggregated reservoir in Section 2.3.
lP
167 2.2 Optimal allocation of the flood prevention storage

na
168 In this section, we mathematically derived the theoretical hydropower generation
169 expression of two-reservoir and multi-reservoir system, which leveraged the properties of
ur
Jo
170 complementary relationship between the flood prevention storage of cascade reservoirs.
171 This derivation was grounded on two fundamental hypotheses: (a) The principle of water
172 balance equation expressed in equation (1), and (b) The effects of reservoir water level
173 fluctuations during the flood raising or recessing process were negligible. The latter was
174 respected when the inflow equals to outflow so that the reservoir storage remained
175 unchanged in two adjacent operation period during flood season. It was worth mentioning
176 that the optimal allocation of the reservoir flood prevention storage must keep the
10
177 aggregated flood prevention storage unchanged, i.e., the aggregated reservoir system had
178 the same flood control ability as set in the planning and design stage.
179 2.2.1 Power generation for two-reservoir aggregated system
180 We focused on the A1~A2 sub-system in Figure 2 to further analysis the power
181 generation. The theoretical power generation expressions were represented as below:

 N m (t ) = km  qout,m (t )  hm (t )
f
oo

 1
182  hm (t ) = ( Z u,m (Vm (t )) + Z u,m (Vm (t + 1))) − Z d,m (qout ,m (t )) − hs,m (2)
 2
r
 T
-p
 m

E (t ) = 
t =1
N m (t )  t
re
th
183 where km denoted the hydropower efficiency of the m reservoir; hm (t ) , qout, m (t ) ,
lP
184 N m (t ) and Em (t ) were the net available hydropower head, the release flow from turbines,
na
th
185 the power output and the power generation (kW⋅h) of the m reservoir in period t ,
ur
186 respectively; Z u,m ( ) represented the relationship function between the upstream water
Jo
th
187 level of the m reservoir, which could be fitted by power function when the water level is
higher than dead water level, i.e. Zu,m (Vm ) = am Vm m (am  0, bm  0) , where am and bm
b
188
189 were the parameters of the power function. Furthermore, the marginal utility curve of the
190 raising of the water level shows a sharp increasing trend, i.e.
191  2 Zu ,m (Vm ) / Vm2 = am  bm  (bm −1) Vmbm  0 , so that 0  bm  1 ; Z d, m ( ) was the
192 relationship function between the tailwater level and reservoir outflow discharge; hs , m
193 indicated the hydraulic head loss of power generation.
11
194 Developing reservoir operation models predicated on the Markov decision process
195 constitutes the predominant methodological approach within the scholarly discourse on
196 cascade reservoir management [3, 19, 21, 28]. A cascade reservoir operation model was
197 constrained by both the physical and reservoir operational limitations, including water
198 balance, reservoir capacity limits, power generation limits, and reservoir release discharge
199 limits etc. [31]. Since each reservoir will persistently reserve a quantitative amount of flood
f
oo
200 prevention storage during flood season, the reservoir capacity limits will not be broken
r
201 -p
based on the water balance equation expressed in equation (1). If the upper (lower) bound
re
202 of the assignable allocation range of flood prevention storage was lower (higher) than the
lP
203 flood prevention storage corresponding to the water level that power facility basically
na
204 touching the full-load operating state (the maximum discharge capacity reaching the safety
205 flow of the downstream node), then the restraints of power generation limits (reservoir
ur
Jo
206 release limits) were nearly satisfied. As a result, the form of the reservoir operation model
207 during flood season could be greatly simplified to the mathematical expressions.
208 It was acknowledged that the total flood prevention storage of the two reservoirs
209 during the flood season remains constant.  was set as the proportion of the current flood
210 prevention storage of the first reservoir V0,1 relative to the total flood prevention storage of
the aggregated reservoirs V0* , which satisfies V0,1 =  V0 . If the storage capacity
*
211
th
212 corresponding to the design flood water level of the m reservoir was Vnor,m , then V0,m
213 was equal to the difference between Vnor,m and the storage capacity corresponding to the
12
214 FLWL, i.e., V0,m = Vnor,m − Vx,m . The variation of the total power generation of the pair-wise
215 aggregated reservoir was (Please see Appendix A.):
E = 1  ( Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  * V0* ) − Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  V0* ) ) +

 2  ( Z u,2 (Vnor,2 − (1 −  * ) V0* ) − Z u, 2 (Vnor,2 − (1 −  ) V0* ) )
216 (3)
= 1  ( a1  (Vnor,1 −  * V0* )b1 − a1  (Vnor,1 −  V0* )b1 ) +
 2  ( a2  (Vnor ,2 − (1 −  * ) V0* )b − a2  (Vnor,2 − (1 −  )  V0* )b
2 2
)
T
217 where  m = km   qout,m (t )  t / ny ; n y indicated the number of years.
f
oo
t =1
218 Then we could derive that:
r
 E
-p
= −V0*  (1  a1  b1  V1b1 −1 −  2  a2  b2  V2b2 −1 )

 
re
*
219  2 (4)
  E = V *2  [  a  b  (b − 1)  V b1 − 2 +   a  b  (b − 1)  V b2 − 2 ]  0
lP

  *2
0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
V1 = Vnor,1 −  * V0* = Vnor,1 − V0,1

na
220  (5)
V2 = Vnor,2 − (1 −  )  V0 = Vnor,2 − V0,2
* *
ur
th
221 where V0,m denoted the optimal allocated flood prevention storage of the m reservoir.
Jo
It was insufficient to determine the sign of E /  according to equation (4). As

*
222
reflected from equation (5),  E /   0 indicated that E is convex in [ *low ,  *up ] ,

2 *2
223
meaning E /  decreased monotonically.

*
224
225 2.2.2 Power generation for multi-reservoir aggregated system
226 In consequence, E of multi-reservoir aggregated system could be turned as:
( )
M
227 E =   m  am  (Vnor,m − m*  V0* )bm − am  (Vnor,m − m  V0* )bm (6)
m =1
13
M
228 which was constrained by 
m =1
*
m = 1 and m*  [m*low , m*up ] . m*low and m*up could be
229 calculated by the assignable range of the flood prevention storage of the cascade reservoirs.
230 Based on equation (6), the Lagrange multipliers r [32] was applied to find the local
231 maxima of a function subject to the equality constraints, which leaded to equation (7).
M
F (m* , r ) = E + r  ( m* − 1)
m =1
f
 F* = 0, m = 1, 2,..., M
'
oo
232  m (7)
 Fr = 0
'
 *
r
 m  [m , m ]
*low *up
-p
re
233 The augmented Lagrangian algorithm, which was a certain class of algorithms for
lP
234 solving constrained optimization problems, could be conducted to solve this nonlinear
na
235 objective programming [32,33]. This method combined the objective function and the
ur
236 nonlinear inequality or equality constraints in to a single function: essentially, the objective
Jo
237 plus a “penalty” for any violated constraints. This modified objective function was then
238 passed to another optimization algorithm with no nonlinear constraints. If the constraints
239 were violated by the solution of this sub-problem, then the size of the penalties was
240 increased and the process was repeated; eventually, the process must converge to the
241 desired solution (if it existed).
242 2.3 Dynamic operation of reservoir water levels
243 This section aimed to clarify the pre-discharge operation process, evaluated the
244 uncertainties and flood control risks, calculated the upper bound of the pre-discharge water
14
245 volume with multi-step effective lead-times, and derived the mathematical expression of
246 reservoir power generation.
247 Dynamic operation of reservoir water level was a rolling cyclic process of
248 “forecast-decision-implementation”, which was defined over a finite time horizon called the
249 effective forecasting lead-time. At each time-step t in flood season, an inflow hydrograph
250 over the effective lead-time [t, t + Tc] was forecasted by a hydrologic model predictor that
f
oo
251 used the available hydrometeorological information as inputs. For the implementation of
r
252 -p
dynamic control of water level, the reservoir water level should be able to lower down to
re
253 the FLWL during [t, t + Tc] period to ensure the flood control safety in the downstream.
lP
254 The amount of water volume between the upper bound of dynamic operation of water level
na
255 and FLWL was called the pre-discharge volume. Dynamic control of water levels needed to
256 ensure that the highest regulated flood levels do not exceed the designed values in the
ur
Jo
257 planning and stage for different flood frequencies in the effective lead-time inflow
258 forecasted.
259 2.3.1 Pre-discharge operation with risk analysis
260 1. Aggregated reservoir pre-discharge operation
261 The single reservoir pre-discharge operation proposed by Li et al. [34] could be
262 improved for aggregated reservoir to increase hydropower generation, which should make
263 the aggregated reservoir storage returns to the safe initial storage (Vx) within effective
264 lead-time forecasting before a coming large flood. According to the hydraulic connectivity
15
265 between the cascade reservoirs depicted in Figure 2, the inflow of the aggregated reservoir
266 qin* (t ) was the sum of the inflow in the first reservoir (m = 1) and all confluence stream
*
267 flows of inter-basins, while the outflow Qout was the discharge from the last reservoir M,
268 which was limited to below the safety discharge in the downstream flood protection section
269 qsafe . The pre-discharge operation of aggregated reservoir was reflected as:
 *low Tc M −1 Tc
V = V *up
+ ( q (t ) +  q (t ) − Q*
)  t = V *up
+ (qi*n (t ) − Qout
*
)  t
f
in,1 z, m out
270  (8)
oo
t =1 m =1 t =1
 V *up = V * + V *
 x pre
r
*
271 where Tc denoted the effective forecasting lead-time; V *low , V *up , Vx* and Vpre
-p
re
272 represented the lowest aggregated storage during Tc , upper bound of aggregated storage
lP
273 during Tc , the initial aggregated storage sumed by all the reservoir storage corresponding
na
274 to FLWLs, and the aggregated pre-discharge water volume, respectively.
275 2. Flood control risk analysis

ur
Jo
276 There were two primary risk sources in flood control for dynamic operation of
277 reservoir water levels. One was the pre-discharge operating error derives from the inflow
278 forecast uncertainty, whose risk events could be divided into four categories comprising
279 E1 : Qin*  qsafe Qi*n  qsafe , E2 : Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe , E3 : Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe , and
280 E4 : Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe , where Qin* denotes the maximum forecast inflow during Tc .
281 Event E1 and E2 might cause incorrect pre-discharge operations while event E2 and
282 E3 may activate the flood control operation.
16
283 The other risk source was the uncertainty of the flood hydrograph shape at the
284 pre-discharge period. The aggregated reservoir pre-discharge water volume may not be
285 completely vacated when a p-frequency design flood (corresponding to T p -year return
286 period, i.e, Tp = 1/ p ) occurred at the end of Tc , which will induce more risks compared
287 with standard operating policy. The p-frequency design flood was magnified by the flood
288 process of a typical year with the peak and volume amplitude (PVA) method [35,36]. If the
f
oo
289 reservoir water level at the end of the pre-discharge operating period Vmlow and
r
290 -p
forthcoming p-frequency design flood were mutually independent, then the risk induced by
re
th
291 uncertainty of the flood hydrograph shape of m reservoir could be estimated by the law
lP
292 of total probability [34]:
Nf
na
293 Rm ( p, Z mlow ) =  P ( Z mlow low

, nf ) Rm ( p, Z m , nf ) (9)
nf =1
ur
294 where Rm ( p, Z mlow ) represented the probability that the routing water level of a certain
Jo
295 frequency flood regulated from water level Z mlow exceeded the highest routing level of the
296 p-frequency design flood regulated from FLWL Z x,m . We set the risk with the 100-year
297 design flood regulated from Vx ,m equals 0.01, i.e. Rm (0.01,Vx,m ) = 0.01 ; Nf described
298 the amount of flood hydrographs at the pre-discharge period, nf = 1, 2,..., Nf ; Vmlow
, nf was
th
299 the storage of m th reservoir at the end of the pre-discharge operation for the nf flood.
300 According to the volume-based aggregation-decomposition model, the risk assessment
301 for single reservoir could be extended to the aggregated reservoir assuming that all the
302 reservoirs discharge synchronously and identically. Given the design flood frequency p1
17
303 and risk p2, the risk R* originating from by uncertainty of the flood hydrograph shape of
304 aggregated reservoir could be transformed as:
 Rm ( p1 , Z m ) = p2

 * 
Z d,−1m ( Z m )  = p2
M
305   R  1

p , V *
=  
(10)

( )
m =1

 RM p 1 , Z M = p 2
306 where Z d−1 ( ) represented the inverse function of function Z d ( ) . Then we could define
f
that R* ( p,Vx* ) = p with Vx* =  Vx,m .
M
oo
307
m =1
r
308 -p
3. Determine the upper bound of pre-discharge water volume
re
309 Overall, the flood control risks of the aggregated reservoir among the four events were
lP
310 summarized in Table 1.
311 Table 1 Flood control risk analysis for the four events
na
Perform
Numbers Perform
ur
flood
Events of the pre-discharge Flood control risk
control
events operation?
Jo
operation?
Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe e1 Yes No 0
e2
Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe e2  R( p,Vx* + Vpr*up
e )
e
No Yes
Nf
e3
Q  qsafe Q  qsafe
* * e3   P (Vn*low ) R ( p, Vn*low )
e
in in
Yes Yes f f
nf =1
Qin*  qsafe Qin*  qsafe e4 No No 0
312
18
313 The flood prevention standard was one of the most important nodes in constituting
314 flood control and prevention strategy, which was primitively determined by the flood
315 regulation from the designed FLWL for single reservoir. The pre-discharge operation of
316 aggregated reservoir also adhered to the principle of not lowering the flood prevention
317 standard given the design flood frequency p, which could be expressed as follows:
e2 e3 Nf
e2 + e3 *
318  R ( p, V + V
* *up
)+   P(Vn*low ) R ( p, Vn*low )  R ( p, Vx* ) (11)
f
e e e
x pre f f
oo
nf =1
*up
319 where Vpre denoted the upper bound of pre-discharge water volume.
r
320
-p
Taking equation (11) as the constraints, the Monte Carlo simulation and the
re
321 trial-and-error method could be applied to determine the upper bound of the pre-discharge
lP
322 water volumes of the aggregated reservoir as shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3, 0.05 billion
na
323 m3 represented the step size of water volume used in the iterative process for determining
ur
324 the upper limit of pre-discharge water volume. Initially, we assumed a relatively high upper
Jo
325 limit for pre-discharge volume. Subsequently, the flood control risk analysis was performed,
326 gradually reducing this upper limit in decrements of 0.05 billion m3 until it conformed to
327 Equation (13). This stepwise reduction process was useful for finely tuning the balance
328 between minimizing flood risk and optimizing the use of reservoir storage for hydropower
329 generation, ensuring that we arrive at an optimal and safe pre-discharge strategy.
330 Meanwhile, Vx* was taken as the lower limit of the dynamic operation region.
19
331
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
332 Figure 3 Sketch diagram to determine the upper bound of pre-discharge water volume
333
334 2.3.2 Mathematical expression of reservoir power generation
335 1. Two-reservoir aggregated system
20
336 The A1~A2 sub-system in Figure 2 was taken to demonstrate the power generation
337 analysis. Taking the allocation of the flood prevention storage into consideration, the
338 variation of the theoretical power generation for the aggregated reservoir could be
339 expressed as:
E = 1  ( a1  (Vnor,1 −  * V0* +   Vpre ) − a1  (Vnor,1 −   V0* )b1 ) +

* b1
340 (12)
 2  ( a2  (Vnor,2 − (1 −  * )  V0* + (1 −  )  Vpre
* b
) − a2  (Vnor ,2 − (1 −  )  V0* )b
2 2
)
f
Given the value of variable  and  , the first and second derivatives of E
*
341
oo
were derived in equation (13), which revealed that E / Vpre  0 always
* *
342 versus Vpre
r
343 holds in the domain of function E (Vpre
* *
-p
) , and E (Vpre ) was a convex function signifying
re
344 E / Vpre
*
decreased monotonically.
lP
 E
 V * =   1  a1  b1 V1 + (1 −  )   2  a2  b2  V2  0
b1 −1 b2 −1
 pre
na
345  2 (13)
  E =  2    a  b  (b − 1)  V b1 −2 + (1 −  )    a  b  (b − 1)  V b2 −2  0
 Vpre
* 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

ur
Jo
346 in which
 V1 = Vnor,1 −  V0 +  Vpre = Vnor ,1 − V0,1 − Vpre,1

 * * *
347  (14)
V2 = Vnore,2 − (1 −  )  V0 + (1 −  )  Vpre = Vnor,2 − V0,2 − Vpre,2
* * *

348 Similarly, equation (15) could also be inferred by equation (12), meaning that the
349 second-order partial derivative  2 E /  2 was less than zero and the value of E / 
should be further discussed based on the deterministic value of  and Vpre

* *
350 .
21
 E
  = Vpre  [1  a1  b1  V1 −  2  a2  b2  V2 ]
* b1 −1 b2 −1

351  2 (15)
  E = V * 2  [  a  b  (b − 1) V b1 − 2 +   a  b  (b − 1)  V b2 − 2 ]  0
  2 pre 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
352 It could be seen from the above derivations that only the first-order partial derivative
353 of function E with respect to Vpre

*
was not affected by the other explanatory variables,
354 which manifests that the variation in the power generation E increased monotonically
f
*
355 with the increase of the total pre-discharge water volume Vpre . Therefore, we set
oo
356
*
Vpre = Vpre
*up
so that the problem of finding the maximum value of a tri-variable function
r
357 E ( * ,Vpre
*
-p
, ) was transformed into a bivariable question E ( * , ) .
re
358 Since the mathematical derivation to determine the maximum or minimum point relies
lP
359 on higher order tests (see Appendix B), a numerical simulation method was applied to
na
360 analyze the local maximum of target function E ( * , ) in this study. If the relative
ur
361 extreme point (0 ,0 ) did not exist within the domain of E ( * , ) , then the maximum
Jo
362 point of E ( * , ) was obtained at the boundary of the domain.
363 2. Multi-reservoir aggregated system
364 Consequently, a constrained optimization problem represented the optimal allocation
365 of flood prevention storage and dynamic operation of water levels was deduced and the
366 augmented Lagrangian algorithm [32,33] could be applied to maximally optimize the
367 functions expressed in equation (16) which were constructed by the Lagrange multipliers
368 r and penalty term  l [32].
22
( )
M
F (m* , r ,  l ) =   m  am  (Vnor,m − m*  V0* +  m  Vp*re )bm − am  (Vnore, m − m  V0* )bm +
m =1
M
l M
369 r  (  m* − 1) +  (  m* − 1) 2 (16)
m =1 2 m =1
 F* = 0, m = 1, 2,..., M
 m
 Fr = 0

 Fl = 0
 *
 m  [m , m ]
*low *up
   [0,1]

m
f
oo
370 3 Study area and materials
r
371 3.1 -p
The cascade reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha River basin
re
372 The Jinsha River in southwestern China, whose journey begins from the glacial melt
lP
373 waters of the Tanggula Mountains in Qinghai province, is the upper reach of the Yangtze
na
374 River. The Jinsha River spans a total length of 3481 km with a watershed area of 502,000
ur
375 km2, contributing 26% of the drainage area of the Yangtze River. The falling of 3300
Jo
376 meters in the Jinsha River produces fast and steep flowing stream water, which was
377 important in generating hydroelectric power. Several of the world’s largest hydroelectric
378 power plants, i.e. the Wudongde (WDD), Baihetan (BHT), Xiluodu (XLD), and Xiangjiaba
379 (XJB) reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha River (depicted in Figure 4) were designed
380 individually by four different institutes, i.e. Changjiang Institute of Survey, Planning,
381 Design and Research Corporation, Power China Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited,
382 Power China Chengdu Engineering Corporation Limited, and Power China Zhongnan
383 Engineering Corporation Limited, respectively. The WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade
23
384 reservoirs were constructed and put into operation in the year of 2021, 2022, 2013, and
385 2015, respectively.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
386 (a) Sketch map of the cascade reservoirs in the Jinsha River basin
387
388 (b) Sketch diagram of reservoirs, hydrological stations, and flood protection cities
389
390 Figure 4 Sketch location map of cascade reservoir and hydrological stations
391
24
392 The basic information of WDD, BHT, XLD, and XJB cascade reservoirs was
393 summarized in Table 2. The drainage areas of these reservoirs were 406.1, 430.3, 454.4,
394 and 458.8 thousand km2, respectively. According to the investigation by the Yangtze River
395 Water Resources Commission (YWRC), the river channel distances between the
396 Wudongde, Baihetan, Xiluodu, and Xiangjiaba reservoirs were 182 km, 199 km, and 147
397 km, respectively, with the average flood propagation times being 3~4 hours, 5 hours, and 0
f
oo
398 hours, respectively. The annual maximum flood series, including surveyed historical flood
r
399 -p
data at Sanduizi, Huatan, and Pingshan hydrological stations, were used to fit the Pearson
re
400 Type Three distributions and estimate design floods with 1000-year return period. These
lP
401 reservoirs served as a major mission in hydropower generation with installed hydropower
na
402 capacities of 10.2, 16, 13.86 and 7.75 GW, and generated 38.91, 61.09, 57.12 and 30.75
403 billion kW∙h hydropower annually, respectively. The cascade reservoirs had a set of
ur
Jo
404 existing operational policy such as rule curves customized during the planning and design
405 phase to guide their operation. However, during the flood season, the rule curves devolved
406 into a strategy, defined as the SC-FLWL scheme, which mandated the strict maintenance of
407 the originally designed flood prevention storages (2.44, 7.50, 4.65, and 0.903 billion m3 for
408 Wudongde, Baihetan, Xiluodu, and Xiangjiaba reservoir, respectively),. The SC-FLWL
409 scheme resulted in a less efficient utilization of water resources for hydropower generation.
410
411
25
412
413 Table 2 Basic information of cascade reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha River basin
Reservoir characteristics WDD BHT XLD XJB
Drainage area (thousand km2) 406.1 430.3 454.4 458.8
Dead pool level (m) 945 765 540 370
Normal pool level or design flood water level (m) 975 825 600 380
Flood limited water level (m) 952 785 560 370
f
oo
Design flood water level (m) 979.38 827.71 604.23 380
Check flood water level (m) 986.17 832.34 609.67 381.86
r
Flood prevention storage (billion m3) -p 2.44 7.5 4.65 0.903
Total storage capacity (billion m3) 7.408 20.627 12.670 5.163

re
Hydropower generation efficiency 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4
lP
Installed hydropower capacity (GW) 10.20 16.00 13.86 6.40
Annual mean hydropower output (billion kW∙h)

na
38.91 61.09 57.12 30.75
414
ur
415 During the planning and design phase, the total flood prevention storage of reservoirs
Jo
416 in the upstream Yangtze River basin was determined according to “The Comprehensive
417 Planning of Yangtze River Basin from 2012 to 2030” which regulated the main flood
418 control tasks of the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs: (1) Protecting the
419 downstream Luzhou and Chongqing cities from flood hazards, and (2) When severe flood
420 occurs in the Jinsha River basin, these reservoirs should be jointly operated with Three
421 Gorges Reservoir to protect the inhabitants in middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River.
422 With the identical focus for ensuring the 20-year return period flood control safety at the
26
423 Boxi town, the flood prevention storage of cascade reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha
424 River were complementary as well as the outflow discharge in these cascade reservoirs
425 cannot over 28000 m3/s.
426 As one of the essential characteristic parameters, the reservoir flood prevention storage
427 was determined based on at-site natural streamflow data series and did not consider the
428 connection and complement relationship between cascade reservoirs in the planning and
f
oo
429 designing stage. While in the operation period, the designed flood prevention storage of
r
430 -p
WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs could be optimal allocated to increase
re
431 hydropower generation.
lP
432 3.2 Data set

na
433 The daily streamflow records of these reservoir stations were calculated by the
434 hydrology analogue method based on Sanduizi, Huatan and Pingshan hydrological gauges
ur
Jo
435 (see Figure 4), which were restored to natural flow series by the YWRC, Ministry of Water
436 Resource of China. These daily data series covered a period of 81-year from 1940 to 2020,
437 which was widely employed in flood risk assessment and reservoir operation in the Jinsha
438 River basin [13,19]. In practical flood control decision-making process, the daily discharges
439 could be disaggregated into hourly data using a disaggregation strategy [37], which
440 respected the volume balance and the continuity between the adjacent time steps and fitted
441 the mean discharges using the Lorentz- or Weibull-function.
27
442 3.3 Reservoir inflow forecasting accuracy
443 The hydrological forecasting system that included data management and GIS
444 visualization platforms was established by the Yangtze River Commission. This system
445 could realize the integrated short-, medium-, and long-term flow forecasting for all
446 hydrologic stations and major reservoirs in the lower reaches of Jinsha River basin [38,39].
447 Since the interval basin areas between WDD and BHT (XLD and XJB) were very small,
f
oo
448 and the backwater of BHT (XJB) reservoir reaches to the WDD (XLD) reservoir dam site,
r
449 -p
only the inflows of the WDD and XLD reservoirs were forecasted, and the inflows of BHT
re
450 and XJB reservoirs were the outflow discharges of the WDD and XLD reservoirs.
lP
451
452 Table 3 The average relative inflow forecasting errors and the error distribution
na
453 standard deviations of WDD and XLD reservoirs

ur
Forecasting horizon ( Tc , day) 1 2 3 4 5

Jo
WDD reservoir ( RE /%) 5.7 8.4 10.3 11.8 12.8
XLD reservoir ( RE /%) 2.7 6.9 11.5 13.0 14.6
WDD reservoir (  ) 0.071 0.105 0.129 0.148 0.160
XLD reservoir (  ) 0.034 0.086 0.144 0.163 0.183
454 Note: The forecast periods of WDD~BHT and XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir were from 2021/1 to
455 2022/9 and from 2015/1 to 2022/9, respectively.
456
457 Table 3 summarized the average relative inflow forecasting errors ( RE /%) and the
458 error distribution standard deviations (  , which was introduced and concretely derived in
459 Appendix C) for WDD and XLD reservoirs, which showed that the ability of inflow
28
460 forecasting generally met the requirements of reservoir flood control operation in
461 downstream Jinsha River.
462 4 Result Analysis
463 4.1 Flood control risk analysis
464 Based on Table 3, the forecast daily inflows of the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB
f
oo
465 aggregated reservoir in 81-year flood season (from June 1st to September 30th) were
r
466 simulated using the Monte Carlo method. Then the number of the random events under
467
-p
multiple Tc were statistically summarized in Table 4. The number of event E1 and E3
re
468 growled as Tc increased, while e2 decreased to zero, which indicated that although the
lP
469 long forecasting horizon caused an increase in e1 , it avoided the situation where
na
470 pre-discharge operations haven’t been performed when a large flood comes, and therefore
ur
471 better ensured the downstream safety.

Jo
472 Table 4 The number of the simulation events under multiple Tc for the aggregated
473 reservoir
Tc 1d 2d 3d 4d 5d
e1 1 8 9 20 18
e2 1 1 0 0 0
e3 2 3 5 6 7
e4 9878 9869 9866 9853 9853
474
29
475 The maximum water levels by regulating design flood frequencies of 5%, 2%, 1%, and
476 0.5% (equivalent to 20-year, 50-year, 100-year, and 200-year return periods) were
477 considered as the flood prevention standards. It should be noticed that in construction
478 period, only the annual maximal flood in 1966 was selected as the common typical flood
479 hydrograph for the cascade reservoir in downstream Jinsha River. The 5%, 2%, 1%, and
480 0.5%-frequency design floods derived by PVA method of the cascade reservoirs were
f
oo
481 plotted in Figure 5. Then the risk rates of different Z mlow over the annual flood prevention
r
482 -p
standard of 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0.5% frequencies for the cascade reservoirs were depicted on
re
483 Figure 6 to Figure 9, respectively. Taking WDD reservoir as an example, if the water level
lP
484 at the end of the pre-discharge operating period is 955 m, then the flood prevention
na
485 standard will not be reduced when the design flood frequency is not higher than 6.48%. In
486 other words, the highest water level during the whole flood regulation process after
ur
performing flood regulation from 955m for a 6.48% frequency design flood isn’t above the
Jo
487
488 primary scenario that preventing a 5% frequency design flood from 952m.
30
35000
(a) WDD 5% 2%
30000
1% 0.5%
Flow discharge (m³/s)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
f
0
oo
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121
Time (6h)
r
489 (a) WDD reservoir
-p
490
re
lP
35000 (b) BHT

30000
na
25000
ur
20000
15000
Jo
10000
5000
0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121
Time (6h)
491 (b) BHT reservoir
31
40000 (c) XLD
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121
f
oo
Time (6h)
492 (c) XLD reservoir
r
40000 (d) XJB
-p
re
35000
lP
30000
25000
na
20000
15000
ur
10000
5000
Jo
0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115
Time (6h)
493 (d) XJB reservoir
494 Figure 5 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0.5%-frequency design flood hydrographs for the cascade
495 reservoirs in 1966
32
496
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
497 Figure 6 Risk curves of variant reservoir starting water levels to regulate 5%-frequency
498 design floods
na
499
ur
Jo
501 design floods
33
502
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
504 design floods
na
505
ur
Jo
506 Figure 9 Risk curves of variant reservoir starting water levels to regulate 0.5%-frequency
507 design floods
34
508 The risk curves for the different V * − Vx* of the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated
509 system were subsequently obtained as displayed in Figure 10. V * − Vx* could be
510 interpreted not only as the difference between the aggregated storage after the pre-discharge
*low *
511 operation V and Vx* but also as the pre-discharge water volume Vpre . It could be
512 observed that the flood risk grows simultaneously as V * − Vx* increases, which meant that
513 less flood prevention storage reduced the ability of reservoirs to withstand extreme flood
f
oo
514 events.
r
515
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
516 Figure 10 Risk curves of V * − Vx* for the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir
517 with 5%, 2%, 1% and 0.5% frequency design standards

518
35
519 In the observed flow series from 1940 to 2020 (81 years) at the Huatan and Pingshan
520 hydrologic stations, only the 1966 peak flood discharge event exceeded qsafe and
521 disaggregated into 6-hour scale data to accord with the practical reservoir operation. The
*up
522 upper limits of pre-discharge water volume Vpre with 1d to 5d effective lead-times were
523 determined by the trial-and-error method, and equal to 0.09, 0.21, 0.51, 0.90, and 1.80
*up
524 billion m3, respectively. Meanwhile the flood control risks corresponding to Vpre were
f
oo
525 calculated by the deterministic reservoir pre-discharge operation, which were shown in
r
526 -p
Table 5. Based on 5d lead-time flood forecasting, the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated
re
527 community could prevent 4.747%, 1.922%, 0.964%, and 0.482% frequency design floods
lP
528 under the flood prevention standard of 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-year return period,
*up
respectively, meaning that the Vpre could be totally vacated during pre-discharge period.
na
529
530
ur
*up
531 Table 5 Flood control risks (%) of Vpre with p-frequency design standard
Jo
*up Flood control risk with p-frequency design standard (%)

Tc (d) Vpre (Billion m3)
p = 5% p = 2% p = 1% p = 0.5%
- 0 5.000 2.000 1.000 0.500
1 0.09 4.986 1.996 0.998 0.499
2 0.21 4.985 1.996 0.998 0.499
3 0.51 4.982 1.995 0.997 0.499
4 0.90 4.844 1.953 0.978 0.490
5 1.80 4.747 1.922 0.964 0.482
532
36
533 4.2 Aggregated reservoirs power generation analysis
534 The relational curves of between reservoir water level and flood prevention storage of
535 WDD, BHT, XLD and XJB reservoirs were fitted by power function. Figure 11 showed
536 great fitting effects and the coefficients of determination R 2 were greater than 0.99. The
regression equations were Zu,1 = 899.72 V1 , Zu,2 = 671.05V2 , Zu,3 = 429.78 V3
0.046 0.099 0.137
537
and Zu,4 = 306.02 V4 , respectively.

0.135
538
f
oo
539
r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
540 Figure 11 Relational curves between reservoir water level and reservoir storage
541
542 The flood prevention storage corresponding to the dead pool levels were 3.02, 10.436,
543 6.462 and 0.903 billion m3, respectively, which were set as the upper limit of the flood
up
544 prevention assignable storage V0,m . It should be noted that the discharge capacity
37
545 corresponding to the dead pool level of XJB reservoir was over 28000 m3/s, which
546 guaranteed the flood control safety within the aggregated system. The water levels basically
547 reaching the full load operation state of these four reservoirs were 968m, 803m, 573m and
low
548 373m, corresponding to the lower limit of the flood prevention assignable storage V0,m of
549 0.827, 4.409, 3.284 and 0.643 billion m³, respectively[40]. The allocation of the flood
550 prevention storage interoperability between the cascade reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha
f
oo
551 River might facilitate the operation and management of these reservoirs and further boost
r
*up
552 their comprehensive benefits of flood control and hydropower generation. Besides, Vpre
-p
re
553 deduced by equation (11) could be allocated according to the proportions of the total flood
lP
554 prevention storage of WDD~BHT and XLD~XJB to the total flood prevention storage of
na
555 the four reservoirs. The assignable flood prevention storage and pre-discharge water
556 volumes for the WDD, BHT, XLD, and XJB cascade reservoirs were calculated and shown
ur
Jo
557 in Table 6. The daily data series, spanning an 81-year period from 1940 to 2020, was
558 utilized to calculate the power generation differences using the derived mathematical
559 formula in flood season. It should be noted that the flood routing in the reservoir river
560 channel did not considered for the following reasons: (a) there were no significant
561 tributaries entering the interval basin; (b) the flood propagation time between the reservoirs
562 was less than 5 hours and could be neglected in a daily time-step.
563
38
564 Table 6 The assignable flood prevention storage and pre-discharge water volumes for
565 the cascade reservoirs (billion m3)
Reservoir WDD BHT XLD XJB
V0,m 2.44 7.5 4.65 0.903
V0,mup 3.02 10.436 6.462 0.903
V0,mlow 0.827 4.409 3.284 0.643
Tc = 1d 0.06 0.03
f
Tc = 2d 0.14 0.07
oo
*up
Vpre Tc = 3d 0.34 0.17
Tc = 4d 0.60 0.30
r
Tc = 5d 1.20 0.60
566
-p
re
567 4.2.1 WDD~BHT aggregated reservoir
lP
568 Following the procedures of the optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and
na
569 dynamic operation of water levels, the difference of the multi-year average power
ur
570 generation of WDD~BHT aggregated reservoir during flood season could be deduced as:
Jo
E1,2 = 174.500  ( 5.863 − 9.940 * +  Vpre ) −1.058 +

* 0.046

571 (17)
129.677  ( 9.066 + 9.94 * + (1 −  ) Vpr*e ) − 1.273
0.099
 
where  * [0.0832, 0.3038] ;   [0, 1] ; the units of E1,2 and Vpre were billion kW·h
*
572
573 and billion m3, respectively;  Vpre

*
= Vpre,1 and (1 − ) Vpre
*
= Vpre,2 .
Figure 12 showed that given a  , the objective function E1,2 grew monotonously
*
574
with the increase of Vpre , which was consistent with equation (13) that E1,2 / Vpre  0 ,
* *
575
576 reflecting the objective contradictory and mutually exclusive nature between power
39
577 generation and flood control benefits of the reservoir system. Therefore, the numerical
simulation was applied to investigate the relationship between E1,2 and  when 
*
578
579 was taken at different values, as shown in Figure 13, which revealed that:
3 η
0
0.1
E 1,2 billion kW·h
0.2
2
f
0.3
oo
0.4
0.5
r
1 0.6
-p 0.7
0.8
re
0.9
0 1
lP
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

* 3
V pre billion m
na
Figure 12 E1,2 ~ Vpre relational curves of WDD~BHT aggregated reservoir for different
*
580
 cases
ur
581
582
Jo
40
Figure 13 E1,2 ( , ) curves of WDD~BHT aggregated reservoir for different Vpre
* *
583
cases. E1,2 ( , ) increases in the gradient color order of orange, yellow, green, and blue.
*
584
585
586 (1) In the optimal allocation of flood prevention storage scheme, the pre-discharge
water volume Vpre = 0 (Figure 13a) and E1,2 decreased with the growth of  . At the
* *
587
point where  = 0.2455 (corresponding to the design flood prevention storage), E1,2 = 0 ,
*
588
f
589 indicating that the reduction of the proportion of the WDD reservoir flood prevention
oo
590 storage was able to rise the power generation benefits of the WDD~BHT reservoirs, which
r
591
-p
could maximally increase the annual power generation by 0.86 billion kW∙h (+1.67%)
re
592 relative to the original SC-FLWL scheme (51.56 billion kW∙h).
lP
593 (2) In the optimal allocation of flood prevention storage with dynamic operation of
na
water levels scheme, E1,2 raised with the increase of Vpre until the maximum value point
*
594
ur
595 of E1,2 was not obtained at the boundary point ( * = 0.0832,  = 1.0) where the
Jo
596 reserved flood prevention storage of WDD and BHT reservoir were 0.827 and 9.113 billion
597 m³, respectively. Figure 13d illustrated that Tc = 5d and  = 1.0 lead maximum point of
E1,2 at  = 0.144 , which could generate 2.786 billion kW∙h more hydropower (+ 5.40%)
*
598
599 annually compared with the SC-FLWL scheme.
600 4.2.2 XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir
601 Similarly, the expression of the difference of the multi-year average power generation
602 of XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir during flood season was:
41
E3.4 = 97.512  (11.574 − 5.554 * +  Vpre ) −1.304 +
* 0.137

603 (18)
71.627  ( −0.577 + 5.554 * + (1 −  ) Vpre ) −1.209
* 0.135

where  * [0.8374, 0.8842] ;   [0, 1] ; the units of E3,4 and Vpre were billion kW·h
*
604
605 and billion m3, respectively;  Vpre

*
= Vpre,3 and (1 − ) Vpre
*
= Vpre,4
606 Figure 14 showed the E3.4 ( * , ) curves of XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir for
*
607 different Vpre cases, which demonstrated that:
f
oo
(1) In the optimal allocation of flood prevention storage scheme ( Vpre = 0 as depicted
*
608
r
in Figure 14a), E3,4 increased with the growth of  . E3,4 = 0 at  = 0.8374
* *
609 -p
re
610 (corresponding to the design flood prevention storage), indicating that the larger proportion
lP
611 of the XLD reservoir flood prevention storage was favorable to rise the power generation
na
612 benefits of the XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs, which could maximally increase annual
613 power generation by 0.06 billion kW∙h (+0.17%) with respect to the SC-FLWL scheme
ur
Jo
614 (38.23 billion kW∙h).
615 (2) In the optimal allocation of flood prevention storage with dynamic operation of
water levels scheme, E3,4 raised with the increase of Vpre until the maximum value point
*
616
of E3,4 was not obtained at the boundary point  = 0.8842 where the reserved flood
*
617
618 prevention storage of XLD and XJB reservoir were 4.911 and 0.643 billion m³, respectively.
619 For instance, Figure 14d showed that Tc = 5d and  = 0.1 lead maximum point of E3,4
at  = 0.85 , which could produce 1.621 billion kW∙h more hydropower during flood
*
620
621 season (or increases by 4.24%) with respect to the SC-FLWL scheme.
42
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
Figure 14 E3.4 ( * , ) curves of XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir for different Vpre cases.
*
na
622
623 E3,4 ( * , ) increases in the gradient color order of orange, yellow, green, and blue.
ur
Jo
624
625 4.3 Comparison of power generation with different operation schemes
626 Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic operation of water levels
627 varied with many controlled variables such as the aggregated pattern of cascade reservoirs
628 the lengths of the forecasting horizons, etc., which provided many alternatives for boosting
629 the power generation benefits of the cascade reservoirs. To determine the optimal
630 hydroelectric generation scheme during flood season, four distinct cascade reservoir
631 operation schemes were examined: (1) SC-FLWL, (2) DC-FLWL, (3) Optimal Allocation
43
632 of Flood Prevention Storage (OAFPS), and (4) Optimal Allocation of Flood Prevention
633 Storage with Dynamic Operation of Water Levels (OAFPS-DOWL). These schemes are
634 illustrated in Figure 15 and their comparative analyses are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
635
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
636 Figure 15 The graphical diagrams of cascade reservoir operation schemes
637
638 The results in the tables 7 and 8 demonstrated:
639 (1) With an explicit decision-making, both the OAFPS and the DC-FLWL schemes
640 could provide more hydroelectric benefits than the SC-FLWL scheme for cascade
44
641 reservoirs. The less the flood prevention storage allocated to the WDD and XJB reservoir,
642 the greater the total power generation benefit of the four cascade reservoirs.
643 (2) The OAFPS scheme could observably improve the power generation of DC-FLWL,
644 especially for the aggregated reservoir with huge flood prevention storage. Taking
645 WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated system as an example, the OAFPS-DOWL scheme
646 could generate 1.917, 1.870, 1.719, 1.749 and, 1.386 billion kW∙h more hydropower
f
oo
647 annually for 1d to 5d lead-time flow forecasting than the DC-FLWL scheme operation,
r
648 respectively. -p
re
649 (3) Applying the OAPFS-DOWL scheme, the power generation of
lP
650 WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB reservoirs community raised 1.071, 1.115, 1.170, 1.426, 1.517
more billion kW∙h annually, respectively, than the sum of WDD~BHT and XLD~XJB
na
651
652 aggregated systems for multiple Tc from 1d to 5d, which designated that the
ur
Jo
653 multi-reservoir aggregated organization was more efficient at hydroelectricity generation
654 than the addition of pair-wise reservoir systems.
655 (4) Table 8 showed that the proposed OAPFS-DOWL operation scheme could
656 increase 2.175, 2.462, 3.111, 4.123, 5.925 billion kW∙h hydropower annually (or increase
657 by 2.42%, 2.74%, 3.46%, 4.59%, 6.60%) based on 1d to 5d effective flow forecasting
658 information in the cascade reservoirs in downstream Jinsha River.
659 However, it’s hard to use the optimal solution to steer the practical reservoir operation.
660 The near-optimal allocation solutions, whose objective values were sufficiently close to the
45
661 optimal allocation, could be congregated as a set of flexible decision-making, which was
662 more valuable for the actual reservoir operation [41,42]. The global maximum of a
663 continuous function on a closed interval might be obtained at the local maxima or on the
664 boundary of the domain. Based on the continuity of the objective functions expressed in
665 equation (17) and equation (18), the interval between the local maximum point in the
666 interior of the domain and boundary extreme point could be defined as near-optimal
f
oo
667 allocation flood prevention storage for different forecasting horizons. As a result, the
r
668 -p
near-optimal flood prevention storage allocation range of WDD (or XLD) reservoir was
re
669 [0.827, 1.429] (or [4.692, 4.910]) billion m3 for the WDD~BHT (or XLD~XJB) aggregated
lP
670 reservoir.
na
671
672
ur
Jo
46
673 Table 7 Comparison of four different operation schemes for WDD~BHT and XLD~XJB aggregated reservoirs
WDD~BHT XLD~XJB
V0,m − Vpre,m V0,m − Vpre,m

Operation scheme Tc (d) E ∆E E ∆E
9 3 9 9 9 3 9
(10 m ) (10 kW∙h) (10 kW∙h) (10 m ) (10 kW∙h) (109 kW∙h)
WDD BHT XLD XJB
f
(1) SC-FLWL - 2.440 7.500 51.560 - - 4.650 0.903 38.230 - -
oo
1 2.380 7.500 51.707 0.147 +0.29% 4.651 0.873 38.316 0.086 +0.22%
r
2 2.300 7.500 51.901 0.341 +0.66% 4.651 0.833 38.429 0.199 +0.52%
-p
(2) DC-FLWL 3 2.100 7.500 52.366 0.806 +1.56% 4.651 0.733 38.709 0.479 +1.25%
re
4 1.840 7.500 52.937 1.377 +2.67% 4.651 0.603 39.064 0.834 +2.18%
lP
5 1.240 7.500 54.131 2.571 +4.99% 4.651 0.303 39.851 1.621 +4.24%
(3) OAFPS - 0.827 9.113 52.420 0.860 +1.67% 4.911 0.643 38.291 0.061 +0.16%
na
1 0.767 9.113 52.522 0.962 +1.87% 4.911 0.613 38.372 0.142 +0.37%
2 0.687 9.113 52.657 1.097 +2.13% 4.911 0.573 38.480 0.250 +0.65%
(4) OAFPS-DOWL 3 0.519 9.081
ur
52.985 1.425 +2.76% 4.911 0.473 38.746 0.516 +1.35%
Jo
4 0.431 8.909 53.404 1.844 +3.58% 4.871 0.383 39.084 0.854 +2.23%
5 0.229 8.511 54.346 2.786 +5.40% 4.693 0.261 39.851 1.621 +4.24%
674
47
675 Table 8 Comparison of four different operation schemes for WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB
676 aggregated reservoir
V0,m − Vpre,m (109 m3) E ∆E

Operation scheme Tc (d)
WDD BHT XLD XJB (109 kW∙h) (109 kW∙h) (%)
(1) SC-FLWL - 2.440 7.500 4.650 0.903 89.790 0.000 0
1 2.440 7.500 4.650 0.813 90.048 0.258 +0.29
2 2.440 7.500 4.650 0.693 90.382 0.592 +0.66
f
oo
(2) DC-FLWL 3 2.440 7.500 4.650 0.393 91.182 1.392 +1.55
4 2.440 7.500 4.520 0.143 92.164 2.374 +2.64
r
5 2.198 7.500-p 3.995 0.000 94.329 4.539 +5.06
re
(3) OAFPS - 1.184 10.382 3.284 0.643 91.723 1.933 +2.15
1 1.179 10.386 3.284 0.553 91.965 2.175 +2.42

lP
2 1.192 10.367 3.233 0.492 92.252 2.462 +2.74

na
(4) OAFPS-DOWL 3 1.874 9.692 3.284 0.133 92.901 3.111 +3.46
4 1.117 10.449 3.027 0.000 93.913 4.123 +4.59

ur
5 1.339 10.227 2.127 0.000 95.715 5.925 +6.60

Jo
48
677 5 Discussions
678 Current research typically employed DC-FLWL [20, 21, 28] during the flood season.
679 However, this approach often overlooked the complementary equivalency in flood
680 prevention storage among cascade reservoirs. Our study introduced the optimal allocation
681 of flood prevention storage and coupled with dynamic operation of water levels (i.e.,
f
oo
682 OAFPS-DOWL), which enhanced hydropower generation by leveraging this
r
683 complementary aspect. Our results demonstrated that, compared to DC-FLWL, the
684
-p
OAFPS-DOWL approach could significantly increase power generation at the aggregated
re
685 reservoir. Specifically, within a 1-day to 5-day effective lead-times, the OAFPS-DOWL
lP
686 method increased power generation by 1.92, 1.87, 1.719, 1.749, and 1.386 billion kW·h for
na
687 the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir, corresponding to improvements of

ur
688 2.13%, 2.07%, 1.89%, 1.90%, and 1.47%, respectively. These comparisons underscored the
Jo
689 effectiveness of integrating optimized flood prevention storage management with dynamic
690 water level operations, confirming the substantial benefits of our proposed method over
691 conventional techniques.
692 As the downstream reservoir of the aggregated system in lower Jinsha River, Three
693 Gorges Reservoir (TGR) was the largest multipurpose water conservancy project around
694 the world. With a flood prevention storage of 22.15 billion m3, the TGR could effectively
695 mitigate flood risks at the downstream Jing River Reach and Chenglingji Section. The
49
696 impact of these changes in the operation mode of the cascade reservoir system studied in
697 this paper on the downstream TGR could be categorized from three aspects. (a) The optimal
698 allocation of the flood prevention storage doesn’t decrease the aggregation flood prevention
699 storage of the cascade reservoirs in flood season. The pre-discharge operation based on
700 real-time flood forecasting information could ensures the water level lowered down to
701 FLWL. Compared with the original designed operation scheme, the flood control role of
f
oo
702 the aggregation reservoir system for the TGR had not been changed. (b) The design floods
r
703 -p
of the TGR in operation period have been significantly reduced primarily due to the
re
704 regulation of the cascade reservoirs in downstream Jinsha River [43], which greatly
lP
705 alleviated the flood control pressure of the TGR. (c) During the impoundment period at the
na
706 end of the flood season, the aggregation reservoir system could start to impound from the
707 water levels for dynamic operating, thus the downstream TGR could be filled up more
ur
Jo
708 quickly, which increased the comprehensive utilization benefits of the TGR.
709 This study provided a systematic framework of optimal allocation of flood prevention
710 storage and dynamic operation of water levels for cascade reservoirs, which still had some
711 limitations and constraints. First, the volume-based aggregation-decomposition technique
712 was only suitable to the cascade reservoirs where the inter-basin area was small and share
713 the downstream flood control tasks jointly, so that the flood prevention storage of each
714 reservoir was approximately complementary and equivalent. Conversely, if there were
715 larger tributaries that feed into the interval watershed, the flood prevention storage of
50
716 cascade reservoirs cannot be exactly considered equal and there may be some conversion
717 relationship between them. For example, the inter-basin between the cascade reservoirs in
718 downstream Jinsha River and TGR has the confluence of several large tributaries, such as
719 the Min River, Jialing River, and Wu River, etc. Xiong et al. [44] found that the conversion
720 coefficient of equivalent relationship between the downstream Jinsha River and Three
721 Gorges Reservoir (TGR) was mainly affected by the flood types in the interval basin. For
f
oo
722 the 1954 and 1998 basin-type floods, the conversion coefficients were nearly 0.8. While for
r
723 -p
the 1981 and 1982 region-type floods, the coefficients were considerably smaller, with the
re
724 approximate mean value of 0.5. Second, the methodology proposed in this study is framed
lP
725 within the existing capacities of reservoirs and the design flood prevention standards,
na
726 treating these as immutable constraints to fulfill flood risk management targets. These
727 constraints narrowed the scope for dynamic water level adjustments and, consequently, the
ur
Jo
728 potential for optimizing hydropower generation. Finally, this study only provided a
729 quantitative assessment of the hydropower generation based on a historical streamflow
730 dataset but failed to integrate forecast information into the mathematical functions, which
731 could be improved in further work.
732 6 Conclusion
733 According to the interoperability between cascade reservoirs during flood season, this
734 study got rid of the restrictions of the conservative design flood prevention storage of the
51
735 WDD～BHT～XLD～XJB cascade reservoirs in construction period, and theoretically
736 derived the expression of the reservoir power generation based on the volume-based
737 aggregation-decomposition and the pre-discharge operation methods. The main conclusions
738 were drawn as follows:
739 (1) The deduced objective function E monotonically increased only with the
*
740 growth of the pre-discharge water volumes Vpre . Under the design floods of 20-, 50-, 100-,
f
oo
741 and 200-year return periods, the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated reservoir could
r
742 -p
prevent 4.747%, 1.922%, 0.964%, and 0.482% frequency design floods respectively with
re
743 5d effective lead-time flood forecasting, respectively, in which the design flood prevention
lP
744 standard was not reduced.

na
745 (2) Reducing the proportion of the flood prevention storage of the WDD (or XJB)
746 reservoir could increase the hydroelectric benefits for the WDD~BHT (or XLD~XJB)
ur
Jo
747 aggregated reservoir, respectively. Based on the optimal allocation of flood prevention
748 storage scheme, the WDD~BHT, XLD~XJB, and WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB aggregated
749 reservoirs could generate 0.860, 0.061, and 1.933 billion kW∙h more hydropower annually
750 or increase of 1.67%, 0.16%, and 2.15%, respectively.
751 (3) The proposed optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic
752 operation of reservoir water levels could generate 5.925 billion kW∙h more hydropower
753 annually or increase by 6.60% for the WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs with
52
754 effective 5d lead-time inflow forecasting information without reducing the design flood
755 prevention standards.
756 This study underscored the critical need for incorporating optimization strategies into
757 cascade reservoirs management and policy-making to boost hydropower generation while
758 safeguarding against flood control risks. We recommended further research into the optimal
759 allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic control of water levels, especially
f
oo
760 across diverse hydrological conditions and geographical settings, to refine and validate our
r
761 -p
proposed methods. Development and integration of advanced forecasting and
re
762 decision-support systems were encouraged to enhance the precision of inflow predictions
lP
763 and operational efficiency. Moreover, we advocated for cross-disciplinary collaboration

na
764 among hydrologists, engineers, and environmental scientists to tackle the intricate
765 challenges of reservoir management and developed comprehensive solutions that

ur
Jo
766 harmonize renewable energy production, flood risk management, and environmental
767 sustainability.
768 Data Availability
769 Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study were available
770 from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
771 Credit Author Statement:
53
772 Yuzuo Xie: Conceptualization, Data curation, Visualization, Methodology; Shenglian
773 Guo: Conceptualization, Supervision; Sirui Zhong: Data curation, Methodology; Zhipeng
774 He: Visualization, Methodology; Pan Liu: Supervision; Yanlai Zhou: Visualization.
775 Declaration of Interest Statement:
776 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
f
777 relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
oo
778 Acknowledgments
r
779 -p
This study was financially supported by the by the National Key Research and
re
780 Development Plan (2021YFC3200305) and National Natural Science Found of China
lP
781 (U20A20317). The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers
na
782 whose comments and suggestions help to improve the manuscript.

ur
783 Appendix A. Derivation of power generation for pair-wise aggregated reservoir

Jo
784 The total power generation for pair-wise aggregated reservoir was derived by:
E = E1 + E2
T
 Z (V (t )) + Z u,1 (V1 (t + 1)) 
= k1  t   qout,1 (t )   u,1 1 − Z d,1 (qout,1 (t )) − hs,1  / ny +
t =1  2 
T
 Z (V (t )) + Z u,2 (V2 (t + 1)) 
785 k2  t   qout,2 (t )   u,2 2 − Z d,2 (qout,2 (t )) − hs,2  / ny (A-1)
t =1  2 
= k1  t   qout,1 (t )  ( Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  V0* ) − Z d,1 (qout,1 (t )) − hs,1 ) / ny +

T
t =1
k2  t   qout,2 (t )  ( Z u,2 (Vnor,2 − (1 −  ) V0* ) − Z d,2 (qout ,2 (t )) − hs,2 ) / ny

T
t =1
786 where n y indicated the number of years.
54
787 We set  * as the proportion of the flood prevention storage of the leading reservoir
788 after allocation of flood prevention storage, i.e., V0,m = m* V0* , so that the variation of the
789 total power generation could be expressed as:
E =  1  ( Z u,1 (V1 (t )) + Z u,1 (V1 (t + 1)) − Z u,1 (V1 (t )) − Z u,1 (V1 (t + 1)) ) +
1
2
  2  ( Z u,2 (V2 (t )) + Z u,2 (V2 (t + 1)) − Z u,2 (V2 (t )) − Z u,2 (V2 (t + 1)) )
1
2
790 (A-2)
=  1  ( −  * )  V0*  ( Z u,1
 (V1 (t )) + Z u, 1 (V1 (t ) + (qin,1 (t ) − qout,1 (t ))  t ) ) +
1
f
2
oo
  2  ( * −  ) V0*  ( Z u,2
 (V2 (t )) + Z u ,1 (V2 (t ) + (qin,2 (t ) − qout,2 (t ))  t ) )
1
2
r
T
791
t =1
-p
where  m = km   qout,m (t )  t / ny ; Vm (t ) represented the storage of m th reservoir after
re
792 reallocation of flood prevention storage.
lP
793 For example, the first term of the right-hand-side of the equation (A-2) could be
na
T
794 transformed into the addition of k1  t   qout,1 (t )  ( −  * )  V0*  Z u,1
 (V1 (t )) / ny and
t =1
ur
T
Jo
795 1/ 2  k1  t   qout,1 (t )  ( −  * )  V0*  (qin,1 (t ) − qout,1 (t ))  t  Z u,1

 (V1 (t )) / ny , and the latter was
t =1
796 negligible due to the aforesaid assumption of the insignificant effects of reservoir water
797 level fluctuations. As a result, E could be turned as:
E = 1  ( Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  * V0* ) − Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  V0* ) ) +

 2  ( Z u,2 (Vnor,2 − (1 −  * ) V0* ) − Z u, 2 (Vnor,2 − (1 −  ) V0* ) )
798 (A-3)
= 1  ( a1  (Vnor,1 −  * V0* )b1 − a1  (Vnor,1 −  V0* )b1 ) +
 2  ( a2  (Vnor ,2 − (1 −  * ) V0* )b − a2  (Vnor,2 − (1 −  )  V0* )b
2 2
)
799
55
800 Appendix B. Derivation of the local extremum for E ( * , )
801 It was assumed that the function E ( * , ) was continuous about a point (0 ,0 )
802 and the first and second order partial derivatives all exist at that point, then the point
803 (0 ,0 ) satisfied:
E
  * =0
  = 0 , =0
*
804  (B-1)
 E
f
=0
oo
 
  * = 0 , =0
r
805 Equation (B-2) and (B-3) could be derived from equation (B-1) as follows:
806 1  a1  b1  (Vnor,1 − 0 V0* + 0 Vpre

* b −1
1
-p
) = 2  a2  b2  (Vnor,2 − (1 − 0 ) V0* + (1 −0 ) Vp*re )b −1 (B-2) 2
re
 2 E
lP
807 = −V0* Vpre

*
 (1  a1  b1  (b1 − 1) V1b1 −2 + 2  a2  b2  (b2 − 1) V2b2 −2 ) (B-3)
 
*
na
808 Then (0 ,0 ) was the relative extremum point of function E ( * , ) [45]. Equation
ur
809 (B-4) could be inferred by equation (4), (15) and (B-3). According to the sufficient
Jo
810 condition of local extremum for two-dimensional function with equation (B-1) and
811 equation (B-4), only low-order partial derivatives cannot differentiate whether (0 ,0 )
812 was a local maximum point or local minimum point [45,46].
  2 E  2 E 
    2 E 
2
   *   2 E  2 E
*2
=  − * 
813   2 E  2 E  
*2
 2     (19)
   * = 0 , =0  * = 0 , =0   = 0 , =0 
*
   2 
*
=0
814
56
815 Appendix C. Estimation of Normal distribution’s parameters
816 The uncertainty of flood forecasting could be induced by the inputs (e.g. rainfall
817 forcecasts), hydrological model structure and model parameters, etc. [25,47]. If the
818 reservoir inflow forecasting data series had no systematic deviation, it could be considerd
819 as a continuous stochastic process. Then the relative error of forecasts  could be defined
820 and assumed to follow a normal distribution as follow [48]:
f
oo
q* − q*
821 = ~ N (0,  2 ) (C-1)
q*
r
822
-p
where q * and q* were the forecasted and actual reservoir inflow at time t;  denoted
re
823 the standard deviation of the distribution at time t.
lP
824 According to equation (C-1), the average relative inflow forecasting errors ( RE )
na
825 applied in Yangtze River Commission could be expressed as follows:

ur
q* − q*
826 RE =  =  100% (C-2)
q*
Jo
827 Therefore  could be obtained by calculating the mathematical expectation of the
828 absolute value of the random variable that obeys a normal distribution N (0,  2 ) :
57
x2
+ 1 − 2 2
X = x e dx
−
2
+ 1 − 12 ( x )2 x
= x e d
−
2 
+  x − 12 ( x ) x
2
0 x
1 x
− ( )
2
x
= e d − e 2 d
0
2  − 2 
829 (C-3)
  + x − 12 ( x ) x 1 x
0 x − ( )
2
x 2
=  0 e d − e 2 d 
2    −  
  1 x 2
+
1 x 2
0

=  − exp{− ( ) } + exp{− ( ) } 
2  2  0 2  − 
f
oo
2
= 

r
 -p
830 Then  =  RE .
2
re
831
lP
na
ur
Jo
58
832 Reference
833 [1] M.Z. Jacobson, Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Energy
834 Environ. Sci. 2 (2009) 148–173. https://doi.org/10.1039/B809990C.
835 [2] S.K. Ahmad, F. Hossain, Maximizing energy production from hydropower dams using short-term
836 weather forecasts, Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 1560–1577.
837 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.126.
838 [3] S. He, S. Guo, J. Yin, Z. Liao, H. Li, Z. Liu, A novel impoundment framework for a mega
839 reservoir system in the upper Yangtze River basin, Appl. Energy 305 (2022) 117792.
840 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117792.
f
oo
841 [4] L. Zhang, B.K. Sovacool, J. Ren, A. Ely, The Dragon awakens: Innovation, competition, and
842 transition in the energy strategy of the People’s Republic of China, 1949–2017, Energy Policy 108
r
843 (2017) 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.027.
844 [5]
-p
X. Li, P. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Gong, R. An, K. Huang, Y. Wen, Derivation of operating rule
re
845 curves for cascade hydropower reservoirs considering the spot market: A case study of the China’s
846 Qing River cascade-reservoir system, Renew. Energy 182 (2022) 1028–1038.
lP
848 [6] D.E.H.J. Gernaat, P.W. Bogaart, D.P. van Vuuren, H. Biemans, R. Niessink, High-resolution
na
849 assessment of global technical and economic hydropower potential, Nat. Energy 2 (2017) 821–828.
850 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0006-y.
ur
851 [7] M.U. Rashid, I. Abid, A. Latif, Optimization of hydropower and related benefits through Cascade
852
Jo
Reservoirs for sustainable economic growth, Renew. Energy 185 (2022) 241–254.
854 [8] X. Liu, Q. Tang, N. Voisin, H. Cui, Projected impacts of climate change on hydropower potential
855 in China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20 (2016) 3343–3359.
856 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3343-2016.
857 [9] Z. Feng, W. Niu, C. Cheng, China’s large-scale hydropower system: operation characteristics,
858 modeling challenge and dimensionality reduction possibilities, Renew. Energy 136 (2019)
859 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.059.
860 [10] Z. Ding, X. Wen, Q. Tan, T. Yang, G. Fang, X. Lei, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, A forecast-driven
861 decision-making model for long-term operation of a hydro-wind-photovoltaic hybrid system, Appl.
862 Energy 291 (2021) 116820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116820.
863 [11] Z. Yang, K. Yang, Y. Wang, L. Su, H. Hu, Long -term multi-objective power generation operation
864 for cascade reservoirs and risk decision making under stochastic uncertainties, Renew. Energy 164
865 (2021) 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.106.
59
866 [12] Z. Liang, J. Yang, Y. Hu, J. Wang, B. Li, J. Zhao, A sample reconstruction method based on a
867 modified reservoir index for flood frequency analysis of non-stationary hydrological series, Stoch.
868 Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 32 (2018) 1561–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1465-1.
869 [13] F. Xiong, S. Guo, P. Liu, C.-Y. Xu, Y. Zhong, J. Yin, S. He, A general framework of design flood
870 estimation for cascade reservoirs in operation period, J. Hydrol. 577 (2019) 124003.
871 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124003.
872 [14] S. Guo, R. Muhammad, Z. Liu, F. Xiong, J. Yin, Design flood estimation methods for cascade
873 reservoirs based on copulas, Water 10 (2018) 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050560.
874 [15] F. Xiong, S. Guo, J. Yin, J. Tian, M. Rizwan, Comparative study of flood regional composition
875 methods for design flood estimation in cascade reservoir system, J. Hydrol. 590 (2020) 125530.
f
oo
877 [16] P. Liu, L. Li, S. Guo, L. Xiong, W. Zhang, J. Zhang, C.-Y. Xu, Optimal design of seasonal flood
r
878 limited water levels and its application for the Three Gorges Reservoir, J. Hydrol. 527 (2015)
879 -p
1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.055.
re
880 [17] Y. Gong, P. Liu, L. Cheng, G. Chen, Y. Zhou, X. Zhang, W. Xu, Determining dynamic water level
881 control boundaries for a multi-reservoir system during flood seasons with considering channel
lP
882 storage, J. Flood Risk Manag. 13 (2020) e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12586.
883 [18] J. Chen, P.-A. Zhong, R. An, F. Zhu, B. Xu, Risk analysis for real-time flood control operation of
na
884 a multi-reservoir system using a dynamic Bayesian network, Environ. Model. Softw. 111 (2019)
885 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.10.007.
ur
886 [19] S. He, S. Guo, K. Chen, L. Deng, Z. Liao, F. Xiong, J. Yin, Optimal impoundment operation for
887
Jo
cascade reservoirs coupling parallel dynamic programming with importance sampling and
888 successive approximation, Adv. Water Resour. 131 (2019) 103375.
889 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.07.005.
890 [20] J. Chen, S. Guo, Y. Li, P. Liu, Y. Zhou, Joint Operation and Dynamic Control of Flood Limiting
891 Water Levels for Cascade Reservoirs, Water Resour. Manag. 27 (2013) 749–763.
892 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0213-z.
893 [21] Y. Zhou, S. Guo, P. Liu, C. Xu, Joint operation and dynamic control of flood limiting water levels
894 for mixed cascade reservoir systems, J. Hydrol. 519 (2014) 248–257.
895 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.029.
896 [22] S. Gao, P. Liu, Z. Pan, B. Ming, S. Guo, L. Cheng, J. Wang, Incorporating reservoir impacts into
897 flood frequency distribution functions, J. Hydrol. 568 (2019) 234–246.
60
899 [23] Y. Xie, S. Guo, L. Xiong, J. Tian, F. Xiong, Nonstationary design flood estimation in response to
900 climate change, population growth and cascade reservoir regulation, Water 13 (2021) 2687.
901 https://doi.org/10.3390/w13192687.
902 [24] Q. Lu, P. Zhong, B. Xu, F. Zhu, Y. Ma, H. Wang, S. Xu, Risk analysis for reservoir flood control
903 operation considering two-dimensional uncertainties based on Bayesian network, J. Hydrol. 589
904 (2020) 125353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125353.
905 [25] Q. Lu, P. Zhong, B. Xu, F. Zhu, H. Wang, Y. Ma, Risk analysis of reservoir floodwater utilization
906 coupling meteorological and hydrological uncertainties, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 34
907 (2020) 1507–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01834-9.
908 [26] Q. Lu, P. Zhong, B. Xu, F. Zhu, X. Huang, H. Wang, Y. Ma, Stochastic programming for
f
909 floodwater utilization of a complex multi-reservoir system considering risk constraints, J. Hydrol.
oo
910 599 (2021) 126388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126388.
r
911 [27] Z. Mu, X. Ai, J. Ding, K. Huang, S. Chen, J. Guo, Z. Dong, Risk Analysis of Dynamic Water
912
913
-p
Level Setting of Reservoir in Flood Season Based on Multi-index, Water Resour. Manag. 36 (2022)
3067–3086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03188-z.
re
914 [28] Y. Zhou, S. Guo, F.-J. Chang, P. Liu, A.B. Chen, Methodology that improves water utilization and
lP
915 hydropower generation without increasing flood risk in mega cascade reservoirs, Energy 143
916 (2018) 785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.035.
na
917 [29] F. Yassin, S. Razavi, M. Elshamy, B. Davison, G. Sapriza-Azuri, H. Wheater, Representation and
918 improved parameterization of reservoir operation in hydrological and land-surface models, Hydrol.
ur
919 Earth Syst. Sci. 23 (2019) 3735–3764. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-3735-2019.
920
Jo
[30] M.A. Gill, Flood routing by the Muskingum method, J. Hydrol. 36 (1978) 353–363.
921 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(78)90153-1.
922 [31] G. Yang, B. Zaitchik, H. Badr, P. Block, A Bayesian adaptive reservoir operation framework
923 incorporating streamflow non-stationarity, J. Hydrol. 594 (2021) 125959.
925 [32] A.R. Conn, N.I.M. Gould, P. Toint, A Globally Convergent Augmented Lagrangian Algorithm for
926 Optimization with General Constraints and Simple Bounds, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 28 (1991)
927 545–572. https://doi.org/10.1137/0728030.
928 [33] E.G. Birgin, J.M. Martínez, Improving ultimate convergence of an augmented Lagrangian method,
929 Optim. Methods Softw. 23 (2008) 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10556780701577730.
930 [34] X. Li, S. Guo, P. Liu, G. Chen, Dynamic control of flood limited water level for reservoir
931 operation by considering inflow uncertainty, J. Hydrol. 391 (2010) 124–132.
61
933 [35] Y. Zhong, S. Guo, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, J. Yin, Quantifying differences between reservoir inflows and
934 dam site floods using frequency and risk analysis methods, Stoch Env. Res Risk Assess 6 (2017)
935 1–15.
936 [36] J. Yin, S. Guo, Z. Liu, G. Yang, Y. Zhong, D. Liu, Uncertainty Analysis of Bivariate Design Flood
937 Estimation and its Impacts on Reservoir Routing, Water Resour. Manag. 32 (2018) 1795–1809.
938 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-1904-x.
939 [37] S. Fischer, A. Schumann, M. Schulte, Characterisation of seasonal flood types according to
940 timescales in mixed probability distributions, J. Hydrol. 539 (2016) 38–56.
942 [38] Jun W., Shenglian G., On Three Gorges Reservoir control water level and operating conditions in
f
943 flood season, Adv. Water Sci. 31 (2020) 473–480.
oo
944 https://doi.org/10.14042/j.cnki.32.1309.2020.04.001.
r
945 [39] Guangrong C., Weimin S., Baohong Z., Hua T., Shaonan Z., Xinnan Z., Exploration and
946
947
-p
Reflection on the Construction of River Basin Intelligent Dispatching Building, Hydropower New
Energy 36 (2022) 1–8. https://doi.org/10.13622/j.cnki.cn42-1800/tv.1671-3354.2022.03.001.
re
948 [40] YWRC, Research on the dynamic control of water level during the flood season of four cascade
lP
949 reservoirs in the lower reaches of the Jinsha River, 2022.
950 [41] P. Liu, X. Cai, S. Guo, Deriving multiple near-optimal solutions to deterministic reservoir
na
951 operation problems, Water Resour. Res. 47 (2011) W08506.

952 https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010998.
ur
953 [42] G. Yang, S. Guo, L. Li, Flexible decision-making for cascade reservoir operation considering
954
Jo
ecological flow, 43 (2015) 114–116 and 122. https://doi.org/10.13245/j.hust.150922.
955 [43] S. Guo, F. Xiong, J. Wang, Y. Zhong, J. Tian, J. Yin, Preliminary exploration of design flood and
956 control water level of Three Gorges Reservoir in operation period, J. Hydraul. Eng. 50 (2019)
957 1311–1317. https://doi.org/10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20190459.
958 [44] F. Xiong, Y. Xie, S. Guo, Y. Li, J. Yin, N. Li, Equivalent relationship between flood prevention
959 storage of cascade reservoirs in the downstream Jinsha River and Three Gorges reservoir, J. Water
960 Resour. Plan. Manag. 149 (2023) 05023005. https://doi.org/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-5710.
961 [45] M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun, eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs,
962 and Mathematical Tables, 0009-Revised edition ed., Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1965.
963 [46] G.B. Thomas, R.L. Finney, Calculus and Analytic Geometry, 9th edition, Addison Wesley,
964 Reading, Mass, 1995.
62
965 [47] B. Yan, S. Guo, L. Chen, Estimation of reservoir flood control operation risks with considering
966 inflow forecasting errors, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 28 (2014) 359–368.
967 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0756-4.
968 [48] J. Chen, P. Zhong, Y. Zhao, B. Xu, Risk analysis for the downstream control section in the
969 real-time flood control operation of a reservoir, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 29 (2015)
970 1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1032-6.
971
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
63
Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage and dynamic operation of
water levels to increase cascade reservoir hydropower generation
Declaration of Interest Statement:
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
f
oo
Corresponding author
r
Prof. Shenglian Guo -p
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources Engineering and Management,
re
Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, P. R China
lP
E-mail: slguo@whu.edu.cn
January 24, 2024
na
ur
Jo

1 s2.0 S0960148124007444 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1 s2.0 S0960148124007444 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0960148124007444 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 28 January 2023

© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2 water levels to increase cascade reservoir hydropower generation

11 technique, theoretically deduced the mathematical formula of power generation variation

14 Baihetan (BHT) ~ Xiluodu (XLD) ~ Xiangjiaba (XJB) cascade reservoirs in the

19 XLD~XJB) cascade reservoirs. Optimal allocation of flood prevention storage could

21 WDD~BHT~XLD~XJB cascade reservoirs. (3) Further cooperated with dynamic operation

24 forecasting information without loosening the design flood prevention standards.

26 control risk; Dynamic operation; Downstream Jinsha River

43 flood prevention storage of cascade reservoirs is complementary and equivalent in the

45 protection objects could be achieved by using diverse combinations of flood prevention

52 hydroelectric policy imposes restrictions on the economic benefit of reservoirs, it is

53 worthwhile to explore how existing hydraulic structures could be maximized of its

61 zones and water levels.

62 Figure 1 Sketch diagram of reservoir storage zones and water levels

73 management, especially for power generation-oriented reservoirs [13,24]. Based on the

74 hydro-meteorological forecasting information and the aggregation-decomposition method,

84 proposed a multi-objective DC-FLWL model based on NSGA-II algorithm and a modified

88 respectively. Lu et al. [26] proposed a risk-based aggregation-decomposition method for

89 floodwater utilization of complicated multi-reservoir communities and established a Monte

93 The DC-FLWL approach with hydro-meteorological forecasting information could

106 a volume-based aggregation-decomposition technique for reservoir flood prevention

110 inflow forecasting information with risk analysis.

120 2.1 Volume-based aggregation-decomposition of cascade reservoir storage

133 complementary and integrated utilization.

137 reservoir storage

148 hydroelectricity generation, especially for power generation-oriented reservoirs. As a result,

152 prevention storage of cascade reservoirs (Section 2.2).

153 2.1.2 Aggregation-decomposition for the pre-discharge water volume

156 given as below:

159 ordinal number of reservoirs from upstream to downstream in order ( m = 1,..., M ), Vm (t ) ,

the m + 1 reservoir; f r ( ) was the hydrologic channel routing approach, such as

167 2.2 Optimal allocation of the flood prevention storage

168 In this section, we mathematically derived the theoretical hydropower generation

179 2.2.1 Power generation for two-reservoir aggregated system

191  2 Zu ,m (Vm ) / Vm2 = am  bm  (bm −1) Vmbm  0 , so that 0  bm  1 ; Z d, m ( ) was the

193 indicated the hydraulic head loss of power generation.

215 aggregated reservoir was (Please see Appendix A.):

E = 1  ( Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  * V0* ) − Z u,1 (Vnor,1 −  V0* ) ) +

218 Then we could derive that:

V1 = Vnor,1 −  * V0* = Vnor,1 − V0,1

It was insufficient to determine the sign of E /  according to equation (4). As

reflected from equation (5),  E /   0 indicated that E is convex in [ *low ,  *up ] ,

meaning E /  decreased monotonically.

225 2.2.2 Power generation for multi-reservoir aggregated system

226 In consequence, E of multi-reservoir aggregated system could be turned as:

241 desired solution (if it existed).

242 2.3 Dynamic operation of reservoir water levels

246 reservoir power generation.

259 2.3.1 Pre-discharge operation with risk analysis

260 1. Aggregated reservoir pre-discharge operation

274 to FLWLs, and the aggregated pre-discharge water volume, respectively.

275 2. Flood control risk analysis

282 E3 may activate the flood control operation.

292 of total probability [34]:

293 Rm ( p, Z mlow ) =  P ( Z mlow low

reflected from equation (5),  E /   0 indicated that E is convex in [ low ,  up ] ,