Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Multiobjective Statistical Method for In
Multiobjective Statistical Method for In
Multiobjective Statistical Method for In
Multiobjective
Statistical
Methodfor InteriorDrainageSystems
Y. Y. HAIMES AND K. A. LOPARO
Systems
Engineering
Department,
CaseWestern
Reserve
University,
Cleveland,
Ohio44106
S.C. OLENIK
DataSystems
Division,
IBM Corporation,
Poughkeepsie,
NewYork12602
S. K. NANDA
U.S.ArmyEngineer
District,RockIsland,Illinois61201
In thispaperthedesign
of a leveedrainage
system
is formulated
asa multiobjective
optimization
problem
inaprobabilistic
framework.
Thestatistical
nature
oftheproblem
isreflected
bytheprobabilis-
ticbehavior
ofrainfallandriverstage
events
in anygivenmonth.Themultiobjective
approach
allowsfor
theincorporation
ofnoncommensurable
objectives
suchasaesthetics,
economics,
andsocial
issuesinto
theoptimization
problem,
providing
a morerealistic
quantification
oftheimpact
ofa floodorhigh water
situation
in an interiorbasin.A newmethodreferredto asthemultiobjective
statistical
method,which
integrates
statistical
attributes
withmultiobjective
optimization
methodologies
suchasthesurrogate
worthtrade-off
method,
isdeveloped
in thispaper.A casestudyusingdatafromtheMolineareain Illi-
noissuggests
the useof the procedure.
465
Papernumber80W0219.
0043-13977807080W-0219501.00
466 HAIMES ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD
mum attainableriver elevations,respectively,to be considered whereX is the setof feasibledecisions; ft (E(x; •1,,rm),D(x; •b,
in a given study. Similarly, define •, fi, and T to be the mini- rm))is the value of the/th objectivefunction for each x, •b,and
mum and maximum intensities(in inchesper hour) and the rm.Since ft dependsexplicitly on the random variables •b and
duration (in hours), respectively,for the componentrainfall rm (the river stage and rainfall events),via the values of the
events(sj,,)to be considered
in a givenstudy.It is importantto elevation and duration functions E( ) and D( ), respec-
observethat not every river elevation is contained in [f/, •/], tively, the optimization problem must be posedto accountfor
nor can everyrainfall eventrmbe generatedas a combination this feature.
of rainfall intensitiesin the range [•, • and a set of durations To takecareof this,let ft (x) denotetheexpected
(average)
in the range [0, T]; i.e., characterizedby a sequence value of the function ft (E(x; T/i, rm), D(x; •b rm)). Mathemati-
However, in any given study,we assumethat the parameters cally,[t(x) -- •{f,(E(x; •/i,rm),D(x;•b,rm))},whereg( ) de-
•, •/, •, fi, and T are definedso as to includeall possibleevents notesexpectedvalue relative to the joint probability distribu-
of significance,and it is in this contextthat we can refer to the tions of the random variables •/, and rm. The set of feasible
aboveparametersasdefininga completesystemof river stages decisionsX is generally characterized by constraintsof the
and rainfall events. form
Define the integers I, J, and N which represent a dis-
cretization of the intervals [//, q/], [•, •, and [0, T] into a se- G(x) <_0
quenceof subintervalsof length H(x) -- 0
an -- - (Eachobjective
function• ( ), 1= 1,2, -.., L depends
implic-
itly on the decisionvectorx sincethe elevationand duration
A•, _=(•- •)/J relationshipsE( ) and D( ) dependexplicitlyon x via the
At = T/N simulation programs.
In orderto proceed,
thefunctions
[•(x), 1= 1,2, ..., L, must
respectively. be computed.The random variablesinvolved are •b and rm,
Define a river stageevent •/i as and they are introducedinto the problem formulationby
meansof the peak pondingelevationand pondingduration
•/,--- iA•/ i e {1, 2, -.., I} relationships.
and similarlya componentrainfall eventsj,,as Define the events(1) A•,,* equal to a componentrainfall
event(inchesof total rain) characterized by a rainfallintensity
s•, -- (/A•,) . (nAt) in the rangeI* 05) = 09-l, •9) and a stormdurationin the
(The componentrainfall eventss•,,are definedin terms of rangeI* (&) = (/n--l,In),j • l, 2, '", J andn = 1, 2, -.., N and
inchesof rain; there exist many combinationsof j and n (in- (2) Bi equal to a river elevationin the range
tensityand duration) which yield equivalentamountsof total Z*(•i) •- (•i--l, •i) i= 1, 2, ..., I
rain. By definings•,,as above,eachrainfall event(and hence
eachstormhyetograph)remainsdistincteven thoughthe total Fromthedefinitionof A•, it isclearthatthereexistsa total
amount of rainfall might be the same.) of JN distinctcomponentrainfall events.For any givenstudy,
Given a sequenceof decisionvariablesX•,, k = 1, 2, ..-, K, a let M denotethe number of stormhyetographsto be consid-
river stage•/i, and a rainfall event rm,E(x; •/i, rm) and D(x; •/i, ered.Associated with eachhyetograph is an eventAm,rn E {1,
rm) are computedvia simulation. 2, -", M} whichcharacterizes the hyetograph. That is to say,
for eachrn E {1, 2, -.., M} thereexistsequences of integers
j
b. Formulationof the OptimizationProblem and n, 1 • j _<J, 1 • n • N, suchthat Am= Uj•j On]9 Aj,*,
The planning and operation(long term) of a leveedrainage where• and• aresubsets of {1, 2, ..., J} and {1, 2, ..., N},
systemhave classicallybeen studiedusingbenefit-costanaly- respectively.
Remark
sis,where the various multiple noncommensurableobjectives
have been commensurated in monetary terms. The benefit-
cost analysisis primarily concernedwith comparisonof the j=l n=!
0 0 I*(•)XI*(t,)=[•,• X[0,TI
reduction in expectedannual damage versusthe costof the fa-
cility. Unfortunately, this type of analysis precludesthe ex-
plicit considerationof nonmonetary objectivesincluding (1) i=1
HAIMES ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD 467
haustive in the sensethat any component rainfall event with jr,(x)= Y'. Y'.f, (E(x;% r,., D(x;•,, r•))P(A•IB,)P(B,)
intensityin the range [•, • and duration in the interval [0, T] i-- I m-- I
is containedin a subintervalof I* (vj) x I* (t,) for somej • Steœ,l. Selecta different decisionvector x • X, increment
{1, 2, --., J} and n • {1, 2, -.., N}. Similarremarksapply for q by l, i.e., q -, q + l; if q •< Q, go to step2; otherwise,go to
the river elevation events.
step $.
From available data (discussedin detail in section2c), the
Step$. Giventhesetof orderedpairs{x(q),]?,n},q = 1,
conditional probabilitiesP(A,•IBi), m = 1, 2, ..., M, i = 1, 2, ..., Q, 1= 1, 2, -.-, L, a curvefittingtechniquesuchas least
2,-.-, I (i.e., the probability of attaining a rainfall event A,• squarescan be used to determinethe functional relationship
'given'that the eventB, hasoccurred)canbe computed.These f,:x -, f, (x).
can be usedto computethe conditionalexpectationoff ( )
by meansof the formula d. The MultiobjectiveStatisticalMethod
M
The completeprogram package(see Figure 2) which does
f, (')(x;7,)-- Y'.f, (E(x;•,, rm)
, D(x;•,, rm)
) P(AmIB,) the work necessaryfor this analysisconsistsof three modules:
m•---' I
(1) a hydrologicalsimulationprogram, (2) a regressionpro-
(The conditional
expectation
jr,(0(x;]•) canbe thoughtof as gram which also computesthe expectedvaluesof the objec-
the expected(average)valueof the functionf, ( ) giventhat tive functions,and (3) a separableprogramingroutine usedas
the fiver elevation is in the range (],_,, ],).) part of the surrogateworth trade-offanalysisto determineop-
Let P(B•), i = 1, 2, ..., I denotethe probabilityof the occur- timal designparameters.
rence of the river elevationevent B•, computedfrom available The simulation model Indran [U.S. Army Corpsof Engi-
data (referto section2c). The expectedvalueof f, ( )denoted neers,1975]givespeak pondingelevationsand pondingdura-
by f, ( ) relativeto thejoint probability
distribution
of 7, and tions above three index elevations for various setsof decisions,
rm is given by river stages,and storm events. Elevations and durations are
computed for all combinationsof river stages,storm events,
f,(x)= •.f,('•
(x;7,)P(B,) and decisionvariablesto be used in the study. Output from
this module givesthe resultsof the routings,and thesevalues
M are used as inputs to the regressionprogram.
= i==l
Y.f,(E(x;
n,,rm),
D(x;
n,, The second module of the program develops linear or
- • •.f,(E(x;
i-•l
%rm),D(x;
m== I
hi, STATE
NEEDS
]
where the last equality follows from the multiplicationfor-
mula of probability for any fixed x • X and l = 1, 2, ... , L. VERBAL
OBJECTIVES,
CONSTRAINTS,
DECISIONS
The methodologydevelopedhere is valid in a generalsense,
sinceit doesnot require any a priori assumptionregardingthe
HYDROLOGICAL
RECORDS
QUANTIFY OBJECTIVE
statisticaldependenceor independenceof rainfall and river SPECIFY I E• M FUNCTIONS,
fk(E,O)
stage events.
c. Algorithmto Determinethe
Quantitiesf l ( ), 1= 1, -.., L
COMPUTE SIMULATION
Step 1. Following the procedureoutlined in Appendix A, PROBABILITIES GENERATE E(') 8, O(')
the required probabilities P(A,.i) or equivalently
and P(B•),m = 1, 2, ..-, M, i -- 1,.2, -.., I are computed.Set q
•--' I.
Step 2. Given a fixed set of feasibledecisions,x • X, for
eachm • {1, 2, ..., M} and i • {1, 2, ..-,/}, determinethe
values of the elevation and duration E( ) and D( ) using GENERATE
fk(') ASFUNCTIONS
OF_x, fk(x)
hydraulic simulation programs such as Indran [U.S. Army
Corpsof Engineers.1975] (a total of M- I values for each).
Step 3. Let fl(E, D) denote the lth objective function SURROGATE WORTH TRADE-OFF
which dependsexplicitly on the pond elevation E and the GENERATE:
pond duration D specifiednumericallyin step2. Using the re- PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS
to the expectedvaluesof the objec- the cost[Haimesand Hall, 1974;Haimeset al., 1975, Cohon
quadraticapproximations
tive functions which are used in the multiobjective opti- and Marks, 1975; Hall and Haimes, 1976;Haimes, 1977; Co-
mization. Given a set of objectiveswhich are functions of hon, 1978; Haimes and Chankong, 1979].
peak pondingelevationand duration,a setof decisionvectors
and probabilitiesfor a collectivelyexhaustiveand mutually e. Useof the SurrogateWorth
exclusiveset of stage/stormevents,the program computesthe Trade-Off (S WT) Method
expectedvaluesof the objectivefunctionsfor eachsetof deci- The use of the surrogateworth trade-off method with re-
sionsand fits a linear or quadratic function of the decision gardto the interiordrainageproblemis examinedin detailin
variables to the expectedvalue of the objective functions,us- this section.Becauseof the forms of the problem and the ob-
ing a leastsquaresalgorithm.The resultingequationsfor the jectivesthe SWT analysisreducesto a muchsimplerprocess
expectedvaluesof the objectivesas functionsof the decision than in the generalcasewheremanyobjectivesare in conflict
variablesmay then be usedin the multiobjectiveoptimization. with each other.
Linear and quadratic approximationswere made to allow Since all damagesassociatedwith ponding elevation and
us to use a separableprogramingoptimizationroutine. Other duration will increasewith increasingpeak ponding elevation
fitting techniquescould alsobe used,alongwith nonlinearop- and pondingduration,then improvingoneobjectivefunction
timization techniquessuited to the problem. will improveall of the otherobjectives(exceptfor the cost)at
All objectivesare assumedto be functionsof the peak pon- the sametime. Naturally, increasingthe flood protectionlevel
ding elevationE and the pondingduration D. E(x; r/i, rm)is as measured by any of the multiple objectivescosts some-
defined as the peak ponding elevation for given decisionsx, thing.Thus,in the end,the problemis essentially
reducedto a
river stage*b,and stormeventrm.Likewise,D•(x; •,, rm)is de- bicriterion (two objective)optimizationproblem. All of the
fined as the duration for which ponding elevation exceedsa multipleobjectives havetrade-offsassociatedwith the overall
specifiedthresholdlevelj, for givendecisionsx, river stage*b, cost,but trade-offsamongother multiple objectiveswould be
and storm rm.Becausethree different durations (measuredin meaningless(i.e., a trade-off betweenman-hourslost and
relation to three different index damage elevations) are deter- flooddamagecouldnot be madebecausetheir behaviorwith
mined in Indran; any of thesedurationscan be used in con- respectto floodinglevel and duration is similar). The SWT
structingthe objectivefunctions. analysisis most useful when objectivesare in conflict (i.e.,
Two different curve-fittingroutinescan be usedhere. If the when the level of one objectivecan be improved only at the
linear option is chosen,then the/th objectivefunction is as- expenseof others).The trade-offanalysiscan then be con-
sumed to have the form ducted between the cost and each of the other objectives.
In the E constraint formulation [Haimes et al., 1971], in the
[, (x) = bo•ø+ b?X l q- b2q)X2
+ '" + b•øX• first iteration, one or more of the objectiveswill be binding,
and the routine usesa least squarestechniqueto determine while the others remain nonbinding. A dual trade-off value
the coefficientsb?, which give the best fit to the available for the binding objectiveswill be generatedin the process,but
data. in order to obtain trade-offsfor the other objectivesit is neces-
If the quadratic option is chosen,then the lth objective saryto changethe right-handsideE levelsfor the nonbinding
function is assumed to have the form constraintsin such a way as to make them binding. For ex-
ample, if one of the objectivee constraintsis f3(x) •< 10 and if,
/•(x) = bo•ø+ bl½øX
! q-b2q)X2
+ "' + b•q)X•+ bn+l(O(Xl)
2 after an initial optimization,f3(x) has a value of 9, then re-
+ b•+•(ø(x•)• + ... + b?(x•) • formulating the constraintas f3(x) •< 9 (i.e., e3 = 9) would
make this constraintbinding in the neighborhoodof e3= 9 at
The higher-order terms give a closerfit to the inherently non- the next iteration. The printed values for the dual trade-offs
linear objective functions, so the quadratic fit would be ex- give the marginal costsassociatedwith varying the constraint
pected to give more accurateresults.The function of the re- levels by one unit. These trade-off values can be used to vary
gressionpart of the program is simply to carry out the matrix the original e constraintlevels systematicallyuntil a preferred
operationsneededto evaluate thesecoefficients. Pareto optimal solution is reached via the use of the surrogate
Program 'output' consistsof a list of the decisionvectorswith worth functions [Haimes and Hall, 1974].
the correspondingexpectedvalues of the multiobjectives.Be- A stepwiseprocedure correspondingto an algorithm out-
fore performing the curve fitting, the values of the decision lined by Haimes et al. [1975] but specializedfor this problem
vectors may be changed to allow a more reliable fit to be is outlined below.
made (i.e., to reduce the possibility of having an ill-condi- Step 1. Find minimum and maximum values for each of
tioned matrix). Finally, the regressioncoefficientsare used the multiobjectives.These can be easily found by examining
with the correspondingdecision vector values to compare ac- the output from the regressionmodule of the program. This is
tual and modeled objective function values. done to find the approximate range of each objective, as a
The resultsof this program module are then used as inputs function of the decisions to be examined.
to the optimization routine, which usesseparableprograming Step 2. Set initial right-hand sidevalues(i.e., E values) for
to obtain the optimal solution. The first requirement for the each of the constraintscorrespondingto the multiobjectives.
routine involves reformulating the multiobjective problem so Eache•> fjminbut alsoei< fjmax
forj = 2, 3, -.., n, wheren is
that it can be handled by the separableprograming routine. the numberof objectivesandfim,nandfjmax are the minimum
Cost is taken to be the primary objective, and the other mul- and maximum values of the jth objective function.
tiple objectivesare put into • constraint form for the purpose Step 3. Solve
of generating Pareto optimal solutionsand their correspond-
ing trade-offvalues [Haitneset al., 1971].As part of the overall min fl(X)
optimization cycle, the surrogate worth trade-off (SWT)
method is used to solve for the e levels as well as to minimize subjectto f(x) < e xG T
HAIMES ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD 469
ß
o
A case study using three decision variables (pump size, f3a( )= 10 for D=0hours
pump-on elevation,and gate closureelevation)and three ob- f3a( )= 7 for D= 12 hours
jectives(pumpingcost,job man-hourslost,and aesthetics) is
givenhere.Hydrologicaldatafor area2-A of the Moline proj- f3•( )= 4 for D=24hours
ectareain Illinoiswereusedin the problem.In a normalproj- f3•( )= 0 for D _>36hours
ect evaluation,inputsfrom affectedpersonsin the projectarea
would be important in determining the forms of the multi- f3o( )= 10 for E = 0
objectivefunctions.The projectengineerswould usethesein-
f3t,( ) = 9 for E = ET(1)
putsto developobjectiveswhich dependupon pondingeleva-
tion and duration. In the case study here, however, this f3•,( )-- 6 for E--Er(2)
processwas bypassed,and functional forms which approxi-
mated the functional form of the objectiveswere used. f3•,( )•- 0 for E_•Er(3)
Four different pump sizes(0, 65,000, 90,000, and 150,000 Thesepoint valueswereusedas grid pointsfor a piecewise
gpm), three different pump-on elevations(564, 565, and 566 linearfit, sothatelevations
anddurations
betweenthosegiven
feet abovemean sealevel (msl)) and three differentgate clo- above could have a functional value associated with them.
sureelevations(565, 566, and 567 feet abovemsl) were exam- Finally,f3( ) wasdefinedasf3( ) -- f3a( ) + f3b(), so
ined. Costswere associatedwith each pump size and these that the value of 20 wasits maximumpossiblevalue and zero
values were used as grid points for a piecewiselinear fit, so was its lowest possiblevalue.
that intermediatepump sizescould have costsassociatedwith
them by linear interpolationbetweentwo of the grid points. a. Formulationof Linear and QuadraticForms
The primarycostobjectivefunctionf,( ) is of this piecewise Define the following three decisionvariables:
linear form.
The overall problem was Xl pump sizein gallonsper minute times 104;
X2 pump-on elevation in feet above 563 feet above msl;
min f l(X) = cost X3 gate closure elevation in feet above 564 feet above msl.
HAIMES ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD 471
where the cost coefficients0, 2.8, etc. have been divided by min(0X,o + 2.8X,, + 3.5X,: + 5.2X,3) (1)
105,and wherethe X,• are specialvariables.The pump sizeis
definedin terms of thesespecialvariablesby the equation subjectto the constraints
X, -- 0X, o + 6.5X,, + 9.0X,2 + 15.0X13 10,100- (0X,o + 3965X,, + 5490X,2 + 9150X,3)
It is also required that + 279x• + 15.2x3_<4000 (2)
Xlo + Xii -•- X12+ Xi3 -" 1 0 _<X v _< 1 0.00606+ (OX,o + 0.2216x,, + 0.3169x,• + 0.5115x,3)
- 0.0473X• - 0.0126X3 > 0.35 (3)
insuringthat onlytwoadjacentspecialvariables
canbe non-
zero at once.
1 _<X2 < 3 1 _<X3_<3 (4)
Expectedvaluesfor man-hours lostf•( ) and aesthetics
f3( ) weredetermined usingthemethodof section 2d for a X,o + X,, + X, 2 + X, 3-- 1 (5)
complete setof riverstagesandstormevents. Theseexpected Pump size -- 0X,o+ 6.5x,,+ 9.0x,2 + 15.0x,3
valueswerethenregressed in termsof thethreedecisionvari-
ablesX,, X2, and X3,determiningthe regression as Equation(1) isf,, thepiecewise
coefficients linearformof thecostobjec-
outlinedin section2e. Both linear and quadraticfits were tive.Equation(2)is f•, theman-hours lostobjective.
Equation
performed
on thesamedata,allowing
a comparison
to be (3) is f•, the aesthetics
objective.
Equations
(4) restrictthe
madebetweenthe resultsfor each.The outputfromthe re- pump-onelevation
andgateclosure
elevation
to valueswhich
gression
modulethengivesthe following formsof the ex- havebeenexamined in theregression
andsimulation.Equa-
pected
values
forf•( ) andf3( ) interms
ofthedecisionsX•, tion(5) is therestriction
on thespecial
variableassociated
X•, and X3. with the pumpsize
472 HAIMES ET AL.' MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD
Pump size
jr2= 3268
Aesthetics index
f3 = 0.35
Pump cost
$426,000
Trade-offs
•'12-" $0.0046/man-hour
Quadratic regressionapproximatesfunction trends much (2) there existsan integerM suchthat the sequenceof events
better and does not force variables to assumean upper or {Am}m--•
s•includesall possible
combinations
of railafalldepth
lower bound but rather allows them to take on discrete valuesand storm duration required for the analysis,where P(Am) is
within the interval of definition. The discrete values corre-given by available Weather Bureau data, are adjusted(on a
spondto the grid pointswhich have beenusedto approximate monthly or annual basis)to satisfy
the forms of the separable functions of that variable. The M
as follows.Let Pk(•4mBi)
----P(•4mBilrow
k), then usingthe mul- postleveesituationis what mustbe dealt with. This is a situa-
tiplicationtheoremwe compute tion with which no one has had any direct experience.So a
greatdealof thinkingaboutprobablecompanypoliciesin this
P(•4mB•)
= 1••12
Pk(,4mIB,)P(B,)
k----I
situationmustbe done to give the bestpossibleanswers.In all
probabilityit would be impossibleto specifyexactlywhat a
i= 1,2, -.. ,I m= 1,2, -.. ,M company'spolicy will be so early in the developmentof the
project, but your best estimate would be appreciated. It
wherePn(AmlB•) is availablefrom the analysisof data for any shouldbe emphasizedthat pondinglevelsreachingelevations
month k (theseconditionalprobabilitiespresenta computa- which will be mentioned here are rare events.Heavy rains, es-
tional problem comparableto that requiredby the coincident peciallyduring timeswhen gravity drain outletsare blocked,
frequencymethod [U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers,1975]),and will be the primary reasonfor having pondedwater. The sys-
the probabilitiesP(B•) are alsoknown. tem as designedwould handle ordinary stormswithout very
Similarly, much ponding.
12 Some of the questionswill seem very difficult to answer
P(•4mlBi)
-- • Pn(•4mlB,)P(row
k) quantitatively,but your bestand mostinformedanswerswill
k•l
be very helpful. Consultationswith districtrepresentatives of
i-- 1,2, ... ,I m-- 1,2, ... ,M the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineerswill be mosthelpful in es-
tablishinglimits of pondingin certainsituationsand also in
from the theoremof total probability. providingother technicalinformation.Thank you for your
In this section,a computationallyfeasible procedurefor help.
computingthe requiredprobabilitiesP(AmBi),rn -- 1, 2, ...,
M, i = 1, 2, -.., /, or equivalentlyP(AmIB•)using regional The Questionnaire
Weather Bureau data and fiver elevation versus duration data(Note: elevationsand durationslistedhere are not necessarily
on a monthly (hourly) basisis developed.If assumptionsre- thosewhichwouldbe usedin everyprojectarea.Pondinglev-
garding the statistical independenceof rainfall events and els are in feet abovethe zero damagelevel, and durationsare
fiver stageeventsare valid, for example,in the caseof a large in days.)
fiver and a largebasinin a shorttime horizon,a simplification 1. Past experiencewithflooding:general.
in the computationsrequiredis observed[Haimes, 1978]. Has floodingbeen a problem for you in the past?List the
flood years,the maximum floodingdepths,and the flooding
duration for each.
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
Was it ever necessaryto suspendnormal businessopera-
tions, or to modify the normal work routine becauseof flood-
A sample questionnairewith the type of questionsthat ing?If so, at what floodingdepth did this becomenecessary?
would have to be answered in order to formulate reasonable If more changesoccur as a function of how high the water
objectivefunctionsfor severalobjectivesappearsbelow. In gets,try to list thesechanges,alongwith the floodingdepth at
addition, a short write-up explaining the potential flooding which they occur.
problemasit wouldexistafter leveeconstruction is given,and 2. Possiblebusinessinterruption.
this would probably be put as a prefaceto the questionnaire, (A) Briefly outline your company'sflood fighting proce-
to make sure that everyone would be addressingthe same dures.What stepsare taken to reducefloodingdamagein a
problem as they answerthe questions.The form has been normal flood(i.e., high-riverstage):Is adequatemanpoweral-
made as generalas practicable,but this doesnot imply in any ways available or are volunteersusedalso?
way that all of the objectiveslisted will be relevantin every Try to list theseproceduresas they dependon the water's
case.Any objectiveswhich are not consideredto be relevant maximumdepth, along with the appropriatenumberof man-
by the personfilling out the questionnairedon't have to be hourslostor dollarsof productionlost. For example,at a river
consideredin the multiobjectiveformulation [Haimes, 1978]. stage1 foot overthe minimumdamagelevel,perhaps40 man-
hourswill be lostper day, but at a depthof 2 feet,perhaps140
Introduction to Questionnaire
man-hoursmight be lost per day.
A flood protectionproject consistingof levees,flood walls,
and associatedinterior drainage facilitieshas been approved man-hours lost or dollars at I foot over minimum
for the area. Previously,topographicmaps having a contour damage level.
interval of 2 feet and a scale of 100 ft/in. were available for man-hours lost or dollars at 2 feet over minimum
estipaating
elevation-damage
relationsfor eachaffectedarea. damagelevel.
man-hours lost or dollars at 3 feet over minimum
Thesesamemapscan now be usedfor evaluatingother objec-
damage level.
tive functions, to help visualize various possible situations. man-hours lost or dollars at 4 feet over minimum
The basic idea is to try to develop theseobjectivesin as de- damage level.
tailed a form as possible,as a function of peak ponding eleva- man-hours lost or dollars at higher flood stages.
tion and ponding duration.
Ponding levels in the questionnaireare given in terms of Detailed answerswould be appreciated.If thereis no previous
feet abovethe zero damagelevel,a levelwhichmustbe speci- experienceto fall back on, pleaseindicateso, and your best
fled for each different project area; the same topographic estimateswould be helpful.
maps that were used to compute elevation-damagecurves (B) What standard proceduresmight be developedin a
shouldbe usedhere. postleveesituation?Floods that come from pondedwater are
At the same time, it is important to understandthat the likely to give much lessadvancedwarningthan river floods,
HAIMES ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE STATISTICAL METHOD 475