Water Science and Engineering, 2014, 7(4): 433-445

doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370.2014.04.008
http://www.waterjournal.cn
e-mail: wse2008@vip.163.com

Simulation-optimization model of reservoir operation

based on target storage curves
Hong-bin FANG1, Tie-song HU*1, Xiang ZENG1, Feng-yan WU2
1. State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science,
Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, P. R. China
2. Hubei Water Resources Research Institute, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China

Abstract: This paper proposes a new storage allocation rule based on target storage curves. Joint
operating rules are also proposed to solve the operation problems of a multi-reservoir system with
joint demands and water transfer-supply projects. The joint operating rules include a water
diversion rule to determine the amount of diverted water in a period, a hedging rule based on an
aggregated reservoir to determine the total release from the system, and a storage allocation rule to
specify the release from each reservoir. A simulation-optimization model was established to
optimize the key points of the water diversion curves, the hedging rule curves, and the target
storage curves using the improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO) algorithm. The
multi-reservoir water supply system located in Liaoning Province, China, including a water
transfer-supply project, was employed as a case study to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
join operating rules and target storage curves. The results indicate that the proposed operating
rules are suitable for the complex system. The storage allocation rule based on target storage
curves shows an improved performance with regard to system storage distribution.
Key words: reservoir operation; joint operating rules; simulation-optimization model; improved
particle swarm optimization

1 Introduction
Inter-basin water transfer-supply projects are mainly meant to rectify the imbalance
between supply and demand in the water shortage region, so as to realize appropriate
allocation of water resources. For a multi-reservoir water supply system with transfer-supply
projects, joint operating rules should answer three basic questions: (1) the amount of water to
be diverted in a period; (2) the total amount of water supplied to meet the joint demands; (3)
and the amount of water to be released from each individual reservoir. The three questions are
connected to one another, so they should be addressed at the same time.
Operation policy is essential for reservoir operation as the impact of the operation on the
society and economy is significant (Sui et al. 2013). Some types of reservoir operating rules

üüüüüüüüüüüüü
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 51339004 and
71171151).
*Corresponding author (e-mail: tshu@whu.edu.cn)
Received Jan. 13, 2014; accepted Aug. 5, 2014
have been discussed in previous studies (Lund and Guzman 1999).
Previous research on the water diversion rule to determine the amount of water to be
transferred has mainly been focused on systems of separated recipient reservoirs without joint
demands (Xi et al. 2010; Sadegh et al. 2010; Li et al. 2009).
Hedging rule curves are often employed to trigger the hedging rule, and are often applied
in operation of a single reservoir to determine the release to meet the demands (Tu et al. 2003).
However, for the multi-reservoir system with joint demands in this study, the reservoir
aggregation method is an effective approach for transforming a multi-reservoir system into an
equivalent reservoir (aggregated reservoir) (Brandão 2010; Guo et al. 2011b). The reservoir
aggregation method performs well in determining suitable total release from a water
supply system.
For parallel multi-reservoir water supply systems having joint demands, that is,
downstream demands that can be satisfied by any one or more of the multiple reservoirs, two
rules are usually used to define the spatial distribution of reservoir storage volumes (Oliveira
and Loucks 1997). The space rule attempts to equalize the ratio of available space in each of
the parallel reservoirs at the end of a period to the expected inflow into each reservoir during
the remainder of the refill season, while the New York City (NYC) rule attempts to equalize the
probability of filling of each reservoir. Both the space and the NYC rules attempt to avoid a
situation in which some reservoirs are spilling over while others remain unfilled (Lund and
Guzman 1999), but they cannot be applied directly and do not provide clear indications on how
to operate a complex system that has several purposes and heavy constraints. There is another
frequently used method in actual application, referred to as the compensation regulation rule
(Guo et al. 2011a), by which small-capacity reservoirs in systems supply water to meet the joint
demand first and then the remaining water is supplied by large-capacity reservoirs. Although
operation by this rule is simple, the results are sometimes imperfect.
Additionally, most researchers just focus on one or two questions. Study of multi-reservoir
systems including water transfer-supply projects should concurrently consider the three issues
listed above.
In this study, an improved storage allocation rule based on target storage curves (Perera
and Codner 1996; Lund and Ferreira 1996) is proposed. Join operating rules are also proposed
based on a water diversion rule, a hedging rule based on an aggregated reservoir, and a storage
allocation rule. A simulation-optimization model was established for a multi-reservoir system,
including a water transfer-supply project, located in northern China. The improved particle
swarm optimization (IPSO) algorithm (Jiang et al. 2007) in combination with the simulation
model were employed to optimize the decision variables, including the key points of water
diversion curves, hedging curves, and target storage curves. Different schemes, including other
operating rules, were also implemented to simulate the operation of the system for verifying the
reasonability and applicability of the proposed rules.

434 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
2 Joint operating rules
The joint operating rules include a water diversion rule to determine the amount of
diverted water, a hedging rule based on an aggregated reservoir to determine the total release
from the system to meet joint demands, and a storage allocation rule to determine the release
from each reservoir. The water diversion rule should be employed first. The hedging rule
curve can help in making reasonable decisions at the same time. After that, the system storage
in the multi-reservoir system can be determined and the target storage curve can specify the
amount of water to be released from each individual reservoir.

2.1 Water diversion rule

In this study, p is used to denote the number of time periods within a year. Two threshold
vectors, X = ( x1 , x2 ," , x p ) and Y = ( y1 , y2 ," , y p ) , were set, which constitute water
T T

diversion operating curves. X constitutes the curve for reservoirs without need of water
diversion, and Y constitutes the curve for reservoirs with the need of maximum amount of
diverted water. xt and yt are water storage thresholds in time period t, with the value less
than the storage capacity, and xt ≥ yt should be satisfied for any period t ( t = 1, 2," , p ) . As
shown in Fig. 1, X and Y divide the water space of the reservoir into three areas, including an
area without water diversion, an area with decreasing diverted water, and an area with
maximum diverted water. The amount of diverted water in each period can be estimated by
­ Qt max yt ≥ St ≥ Smin
°
Qt = ®Qt maxα t xt > St > yt (1)
° 0 Smax ≥ St ≥ xt
¯
where Qt and Qt max are the amount of diverted water and maximum allowable amount of
diverted water in time period t, respectively; Smax and Smin are the maximum and minimum
storage capacity of the recipient reservoir, respectively; St is the initial water storage in time
period t; and α t is a rationing factor for water diversion in time period t, with 0 < α t < 1 .

Fig. 1 Sketch of water diversion operating curves

2.2 Hedging rule based on aggregated reservoir

For joint water demands that can be satisfied by any individual reservoir, reservoir

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 435
aggregation is implemented for the hedging rule (Brandão 2010). Hedging rules for reservoir
operations can be presented in different ways. The hedging rule adopted in this study used the
beginning-of-period storage of an aggregated reservoir, which is one hypothetical reservoir
replacing the reservoir system, as a trigger to start hedging. The total release from the
multi-reservoir system to meet water demand in each period is specified based on the planned
water supply (or water demand) and the relationship between the hedging rule curves and the
existing water storage in the system.
The proposed hedging rule based on the aggregated reservoir consists of hedging rule
curves and rationing factors for each water demand type. For single-purpose water-supply
reservoir operation, the water demand can be divided into various categories, such as
agricultural, industrial, and domestic water demand. It should be noted that different kinds of
water demand require different reliabilities and different degrees of hedging in practice.
Di ,t (i = 1,2,3) is used here to denote different kinds of water demand in time period t, arranged
in the order of priority, from highest to lowest. Corresponding threshold vectors
Zi = ( zi ,1 , zi ,2 ," , zi , p ) were set, where z1,t ≤ z2,t ≤ z3,t existed in all time periods, and z1,t ,
T

z2,t , and z3,t are the water storage thresholds of the aggregated reservoir corresponding to
D1,t , D2,t and D3,t in time period t, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, Z i divides water
space of the aggregated reservoir into four areas, where Vmax and Vmin denote the maximum
and minimum storage capacity of the aggregated reservoir, respectively. The hedging rule in
different areas for determining the total amount of water supply to meet joint demands is
expressed as
­ D1,t + D2,t + D3,t Vt ∈ Zone Ι
°
° D1,t β1 + D2,t + D3,t Vt ∈ Zone ΙΙ
Jt = ® (2)
° D1,t β1 + D2,t β 2 + D3,t Vt ∈ Zone ΙΙΙ
°D β + D β + D β Vt ∈ Zone ΙV
¯ 1,t 1 2,t 2 3,t 3

where J t is the total amount of water supply meeting joint demands in time period t, Vt is
the initial water storage in the aggregated reservoir in time period t, and βi ( i = 1, 2, 3) is
the rationing factor for hedging corresponding to Di ,t ( i = 1, 2,3) , respectively. The value of
rationing factors can be obtained either by optimization or according to the experts’ knowledge.

Fig. 2 Sketch of hedging rule based on aggregated reservoir

436 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
2.3 Allocation rule based on target storage curves
Target storage curves define the spatial distribution of reservoir storage volumes within a
multiple reservoir system, using the fitting or optimization method (Lund and Ferreira 1996;
Oliveira and Loucks 1997). Fig. 3 illustrates the target storage curves for a two-reservoir
system. For a given system storage V at a given period, the curves specify the storage volumes
of reservoirs 1 and 2 as S1* and S2* , respectively, and S1* + S2* = V . Thus, the gradient of the
total storage line equals 1. If the gradient of the target storage curves of the two reservoirs is
less than that of the total storage line, then the excess water should be stored in both reservoirs.
The amount of water stored is related to the gradient of the target storage curves. After the total
system storage reaches point H in Fig. 3, the gradient of the target storage curve of reservoir 1
changes to 0 because reservoir 1 has reached full capacity. Then, the change of the total storage
is equal to that of the storage of reservoir 2.

Fig. 3 Sketch of target storage curves

In this study, the target storage curves for reservoirs in each period were defined by
connected piecewise linear functions with end points A, B, C, and D for reservoir 2 and A, E, F,
and G for reservoir 1, as shown in Fig. 3. For a multiple reservoir system, according to the net
total system storage determined by the water supply rule at the end of period t, the target
storage Si*,t +1 of reservoir i can be computed. The remaining storage Si′,t for reservoir i in
time period t can be express as:
Si′,t = Si ,t + I i ,t − Pi ,t − Li ,t i = 1, 2," , N (3)
where Si ,t is the initial storage of reservoir i in time period t, I i ,t and Li ,t denote the inflow
and loss in reservoir i in time period t, respectively, Pi ,t is the amount of water supply of
reservoir i for individual demand in time period t, and N is the number of reservoirs. By
comparing the remaining storage and the target storage, the storage allocation rule for joint
demands can be defined as follows:
(1) If Si′,t ≥ Si*,t +1 (i = 1, 2,", N ) , all reservoirs should release water to meet joint demands
until target storages are reached, and Si ,t +1 = Si*,t +1 . After meeting joint demands, the excess
water is regarded as abandoned water in the system.

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 437
 (2) If Si′,t < Si*,t +1 (i = 1, 2," , M ) with M < N and S ′j ,t > S *j ,t +1 ( j = M + 1, M + 2," , N ) ,
no water is supplied by reservoir i in period t, and the final storage for reservoir i in period t is
equal to the remaining storage. The water supply task is completed by the remaining
N − M reservoirs. The amount of water to be released from an individual reservoir is related
to its target storage, with the goal of leading the storage of the reservoir as close as possible to
its target storage. The end-of-period storage for reservoir j in period t can be estimated by
§ M N −M
·
( S ′j ,t − S *j ,t +1 ) ¨ Vt +1 − ¦ Si,t − ¦ S *j ,t +1 ¸
S j ,t +1 = S *j ,t +1 + © i =1 j =1 ¹ (4)
N −M

j =1
¦ ( j ,t j ,t +1 )
S ′ − S *

3 Simulation-optimization model
3.1 Objective function and constraints
The main purpose of water transfer is to alleviate water shortages in recipient regions. At
the same time, water spills related to the redundant diverted water should be avoided. Then,
the objective function is as follows:
§ G T
·
f = min ¨ ω1 ¦ E j + ω2 ¦ Qt ¸ (5)
© j =1 t =1 ¹
Subject to
2
100 T § H j ,t ·
Ej = ¦¨
T t =1 ¨© D j ,t
¸¸ j = 1, 2," ,G (6)
¹
­° D j ,t − R j ,t R j ,t < D j , t
H j ,t = ® j = 1, 2," ,G; t = 1, 2," ,T (7)
°̄ 0 R j , t ≥ D j ,t
where H j ,t is the water shortage at demand node j in time period t, E j is the shortage
index at demand node j, D j ,t and R j ,t denote the water demand and the amount of water
supply at demand node j in time period t , respectively, ω1 and ω2 are the weighting factors,
G is the total number of demand nodes, and T is the total number of time periods. The
following constraints are applied to the model:
(1) Water balance equations:
Si ,t +1 = Si ,t + I i ,t + Qi ,t − Pi ,t − M i ,t − Li ,t − Wi ,t i = 1, 2," ,N ; t = 1, 2," ,T (8)
(2) Water storage capacity constraints:
Si min ≤ Si ,t ≤ Si max i = 1, 2," ,N ; t = 1, 2," ,T (9)
(3) Conveyance capacity constraints of the water diversion:
Qt ≤ Qt max t = 1, 2," ,T (10)
(4) Relationship between the total amount of water supply for joint demands and that
from an individual reservoir:

438 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
 N

¦M
i =1
i ,t = Jt t = 1, 2," ,T (11)

(5) Release constraints:

R j ,t ≥ D j ,t (1 − β j ) j = 1, 2," ,G; t = 1, 2," ,T (12)
(6) Target storage constraints:
N N
Vt +1 = ¦ Si ,t +1 = ¦ Si*,t+1 t = 1, 2," ,T (13)
i =1 i =1

(7) System spill constraints:

§ N
·
Bt = min ¨ Vt +1 − ¦ min ( Si′,t , Si max )ˈ0 ¸ t = 1, 2," ,T (14)
© i =1 ¹
where Wi ,t and Bt are the spills of reservoir i and the system in time period t, respectively,
Si min and Si max are the minimum and maximum allowable water storage for reservoir i,
respectively, and M i ,t is the amount of water supply of reservoir i for joint demand in time
period t.

3.2 Method solution

In this study, the simulation-optimization model included system simulation model and
optimization model using the heuristic algorithm. The general framework of the model is
shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Framework of simulation-optimization of joint operation

The simulation model was used to recreate the long-term operation of the muti-reservoir
system with the rule curves (Chau et al. 2005; Chen and Chaw 2006; Zeng et al. 2014). The
decision variables in the optimization model include water diversion curves, water
supply curves based on the aggregated reservoir, and target storage curves, with the
threshold vectors X = ( x1 , x2 ," , x p ) and Y = ( y1 , y2 ," , y p ) in Fig. 1, the threshold vectors
T T

Zi = ( zi ,1 , zi ,2 ," , zi , p ) in Fig. 2, and the coordinates of points A, B, C, D, E, F, and G in

T

Fig. 3. The procedures to simulate the operation were as follows:

Step 1: According to the water diversion rule, the amount of diverted water was defined

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 439
as a function of the current storage of the recipient reservoir and maximum amount of diverted
water, as described by Eq. (1).
Step 2: The hedging rule based on an aggregated reservoir was used to determine the total
water release needed to meet joint water demands during the water diversion operation, as
described by Eq. (2).
Step 3: Finally, the target storage of each reservoir was defined as a function of system
storage at the end of the period and the target storage curves. Then, the allocation rule was
used to determine the amount of water released from each reservoir.
At the end of the current period, the simulation procedure moved to step 1, and the water
balance terms for the next period were calculated. The simulation model proceeded in
iterations until the end of the long-term operation, then provided the statistic indices related to
the decision variables for the optimization model. Then, heuristic strategies were adopted to
look for the combination of parameters that provide the best reservoir operating performance.
Due to nonlinearity, discontinuity, and discreteness of modern simulation models used in
solving complex problems, heuristic search procedures are developed rapidly nowadays
(Cheng et al. 2012; Xie et al. 2012; Chen and Chau 2006). The particle swarm optimization
(PSO) algorithm was proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). As a population-based search
algorithm, PSO uses local and global search capabilities to find better quality solutions based
on simulation of the social behavior of a flock of birds. However, PSO also shows premature
convergence, especially in complex multi-peak search problems (Jiang et al. 2007; Zeng et al.
2014). By integrating competitive evolution, decomposition, and complex shuffling into the
standard PSO algorithm, an improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO) algorithm was
proposed. The algorithm has greater breadth and depth when searching than the standard PSO
algorithm (Jiang et al. 2007). In recent years, the IPSO algorithm has been widely applied to
reservoir system operation (Zhang et al. 2011; Zeng et al. 2014).
In this study, the IPSO algorithm (Jiang et al. 2007) was used to solve optimization
problems. The procedures we followed are described below:
Step 1: Initial L × P particles within the feasible region were generated randomly,
where L is the number of population and P is the number of particles in each population.
Step 2: The population was sorted into one primary group and L − 1 subordinate groups.
Step 3: The particles in each subordinate group were evolved using the standard PSO.
Step 4: The velocity and position of each particle in the primary group were updated
according to the information in the primary group and the subordinate groups.
Step 5: All particles were mixed and their information was exchanged after a certain
number of iterations.
Step 6: If the maximum number of iterations was reached, the procedure was stopped.
Otherwise, the procedure returned to step 2.
More detailed steps about the algorithm are provided in Jiang et al. (2007).

440 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
4 Case study
4.1 Biliuhe and Yingnahe reservoirs
Both the Biliuhe and Yingnahe reservoirs are located in Liaoning Province, China, where
the flood season is from July to September. The active storages of the Biliuhe and Yingnahe
reservoirs are 644 × 106 m3 and 217 × 106 m3, respectively, while that of the Biliuhe Reservoir
decreases to 594 × 106 m3 for flood control during the flood season. The system of
Biliuhe-Yingnahe reservoirs functioning in parallel should supply water to meet joint demands
for industry and agriculture, while both reservoirs are subject to individual demands for
environmental purposes. Simultaneously, the Biliuhe Reservoir can receive diverted water
through the water transfer-supply project. According to the requirements of design, the water
diversion capacity over a year is about 300 × 106 m3.

4.2 Results and discussion

The rationing factor for water diversion has been empirically determined to be 0.5, and
the rationing factors for the agricultural and industrial water supply are 0.7 and 0.9,
respectively. The weighting factors ω1 and ω2 in Eq. (5) were finally chosen to be 80 and 1,
respectively, based on the results of trial and error calculation. In the IPSO method, the weight
coefficient decreases from 0.9 to 0.4 linearly with the increase of the sub-swarm iteration
times. The weighting factors equal 2.0 in the standard PSO method. The number of
sub-swarms was 4, and there were 150 particles in each sub-swarm. The maximum number of
iterations was 2 000.
In order to analyze the effectiveness of the proposed rules, different operating rules were
employed for comparison. Five schemes listed in Table 1 were set up. According to the full
diversion rule, the water diversion capacity has a uniform distribution over each time period
within a year.
Table 1 Description of different schemes
Scheme Diversion rule Supply rule Allocation rule
1 Proposed diversion rule Proposed supply rule Proposed allocation rule
2 Full diversion rule Proposed supply rule Proposed allocation rule
3 Without water diversion Proposed supply rule Proposed allocation rule
4 Proposed rule Proposed supply rule Compensation regulation rule
5 Without water diversion Proposed supply rule Compensation regulation rule

Inflow data for the system were a series of hydrological records of 53 years from 1951 to
2003. According to the distribution of runoff, the hydrological year was divided into four
operating periods: before the flood season (May to June), the flood season (July to September),
after the flood season (October to November), and the drought season (December to April).
Thus, each of the decision variables for operating curves contained four variables. Water
diversion loss was about 4%. Results of different schemes are shown in Table 2, from which
some conclusions can be drawn.

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 441
 Table 2 Results of different schemes
Shortage index (%) Water amount (109 m3)
Scheme
Industry Agriculture Diversion Supply Spill
1 4.95 5.66 0.24 0.67 0.28
2 35.90 41.56 0.28 0.67 0.32
3 57.23 62.32 0.45 0.23
4 7.08 11.32 0.20 0.65 0.26
5 89.15 96.50 0.44 0.24

(1) Scheme 1 obtains the optimal index of water shortage and water supply as compared
with other schemes, which demonstrates the superiority of the proposed rules.
(2) The annual average amount of water diversion in scheme 1 is 0.04 × 109 m3 less than
that in scheme 2, and the shortage index also decreases, which demonstrates that the proposed
water diversion rule is more reasonable than the full diversion rule.
(3) The shortage index of scheme 1 is smaller than that of scheme 4, and the shortage
index of scheme 3 is smaller than that of scheme 5, which indicates that the storage allocation
rule based on target storage curves is more effective than the compensation regulation rule,
whether water diversion exists or not.
The annual water diversion and spill processes for different years are shown in Fig. 5,
based on the results of simulation. Water spills do not occur when the annual amount of water
diversion reaches its maximum, such as in the years 2000 to 2003. The results also indicate
that the trend of water diversion is contrary to that of spilling. This shows that the optimization
of the water diversion process is reasonable and effective.

Fig. 5 Annual water diversion and spill processes for different years
In parallel multi-reservoir water supply systems, excellent operating rules should be able
to equalize probability of spilling among reservoirs in the refill season (Lund and Guzman
1999) and that of empty reservoirs existing in the drawdown season (Wu 1988), which
indicates that there is a significant positive correlation between reservoirs’ storage rates (the
ratio of the reservoir’s storage to its capacity). Distribution of storage rates under different
allocation rules are shown in Fig. 6. x and y denote the average storage rates of Biliuhe and
Yingnahe reservoirs, respectively, and r2 is the correlation coefficient of x and y. A higher

442 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
coefficient r2 indicates a more reasonable allocation of system storage. Fig. 8 shows that the
correlation coefficient r2 of scheme 1 is almost twice as large as that of scheme 4, which
demonstrates that the allocation rule based on the target storage curves are more effective than
the compensation regulation rule in system storage allocation.
As shown in Fig. 6, the storage rate of the Yingnahe Reservoir is mostly less than 0.1 and
the average rate of the Biliuhe Reservoir is 0.82 for scheme 4. The reason is that water is
always released from the Yingnahe Reservoir and diverted into the Biliuhe Reservoir, which
results in a large amount of spilling from Biliuhe Reservoir (as described in Table 2).

Fig. 6 Distribution of storage rates under different schemes

Fig. 7 shows the distribution of system storage using the compensation regulation rule.
Using the fitting method, the target storage curves corresponding to the compensation
regulation rule are obtained as shown in Fig. 7. This implies that the allocation rule based on
this special target storage curve can obtain the same result as the compensation regulation rule.
Thus, the compensation regulation rule is a special case of the storage allocation rule based on
target storage curves. The target storage curve of the storage allocation rule proposed in this
study is obtained using the optimization algorithm, and is more reasonable than that of the
compensation regulation rule.

Fig. 7 Storage distribution of compensation regulation rule

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 443
5 Conclusions
This paper proposes a set of new joint operating rules including a water diversion rule, a
hedging rule based on an aggregated reservoir, and a storage allocation rule based on target
storage curves. Based on the results from the simulation-optimization model established for a
multi-reservoir system in Northern China, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, the
proposed joint operating rules can lead to a preferable performance in comparison to other
rules. Second, the storage allocation rule based on target storage curves is more effective than
the compensation regulation rule. It can also lead to a higher correlation coefficient between
the storage rates of different reservoirs in a parallel multi-reservoir system. The joint operating
rules provide an effective method for operation of water supply systems with complex
hydraulic characteristics.
However there are some limitations in actual application. First, as the number of
reservoirs increases, the efficiency of joint operating rules and optimization algorithms needs
to be further examined. Second, one of the important assumptions in this study was that
inflows of reservoirs in the current time period were known. Therefore, the proposed rules
should be used in combination with a suitable runoff forecasting model in actual application.
The following topics are suggested for further investigation of joint operating rules. This
study integrated decision variables in several adjacent periods in all three operating rules. The
sensitivities of these periods should be considered in detail before integration. In addition,
further investigation of hydropower systems of reservoirs in series using an allocation rule
based on target storage curves would be of value.

References
Brandão, J. L. B. 2010. Performance of the equivalent reservoir modelling technique for multi-reservoir
hydropower systems. Water Resources Management, 24(12), 3101-3114. [doi:10.1007/s11269
-010-9597-9]
Chau, K. W., Wu, C. L., and Li, Y. S. 2005. Comparison of several flood forecasting models in Yangtze River.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(6), 485-491. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:6(485)]
Chen, W., and Chau, K. W. 2006. Intelligent manipulation and calibration of parameters for hydrological
models. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 28(3-4), 432-447. [doi:10.1504/
IJEP.2006.011221]
Cheng, C. T., Shen, J. J., Wu, X. Y., and Chau, K. W. 2012. Short-term hydroscheduling with discrepant
objectives using multi-step progressive optimality algorithm. JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 48(3), 464-479. [doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00628.x]
Guo, X. N., Hu, T. S., Zeng, X., and Li, X. J. 2011a. Two-dimensional scheduling chart for jointly
water-supply operation of dual-reservoir systems. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and
Technology (Nature Science Edition), 39(10), 121-124. (in Chinese).
Guo, X. N., Hu, T. S., Huang, B., and Han, Y. C. 2011b. Joint operation rules for multi-reservoir water supply
system based on the model of simulation and optimization. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 42(6),
705-712. (in Chinese).
Jiang, Y., Hu, T. S., Huang, C. C., and Wu, X. N. 2007. An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm.
Applied Mathematics and Computation, 193(1), 231-239. [doi:10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.047]
Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. 1995. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE International

444 Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445
 Conference on Neural Networks, 1942-1948. Washington, D.C.: IEEE Press. [doi:10.1109/
ICNN.1995.488968]
Li, X. S., Wang, B. D., Mehrotra, R, Sharma, A, and Wang, G. L. 2009. Consideration of trends in evaluating
inter-basin water transfer alternatives within a fuzzy decision making framework. Water Resources
Management, 23(15), 3207-3220. [doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9430-5]
Lund, J. R., and Ferreira, I. 1996. Operating rule optimization for Missouri River reservoir system. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, 122(4), 287-295. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(1996)122: 4(287)]
Lund, J. R., and Guzman, J. 1999. Derived operating rules for reservoirs in series or in parallel. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, 125(3), 143-153. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(1999)125:(143)]
Oliveira, R., and Loucks, D. P. 1997. Operating rules for multireservoir systems. Water Resources Research,
33(4), 839-852. [doi:10.1029/96WR03745]
Perera, B. J. C., and Codner, G. P. 1996. Reservoir targets for urban water supply systems. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 122(4), 270-279. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9496(1996)122:4(270)]
Sadegh, M., Mahjouri, N., and Kerachian, R. 2010. Optimal inter-basin water allocation using crisp and fuzzy
Shapley games. Water Resources Management, 24(10), 2291-2310. [doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9552-9]
Sui, X., Wu, S. N., Liao, W. G., Jin, T. T., and Zhang, X. 2013. Optimized operation of cascade reservoirs on
Wujiang River during 2009-2010 drought in southwest China. Water Science and Engineering, 6(3),
308-316. [doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370. 2013.03.007]
Tu, M. Y., Hsu, N. S., and Yeh, W. W. G. 2003. Optimization of reservoir management and operation with
hedging rules. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 129(2), 86-97. [doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:2(86)]
Wu, R. S. 1988. Derivation of Balancing Curves for Multiple Reservoir Operation. M. E. Dissertation. New
York: Cornell University.
Xie, W., Ji, C. M., Yang, Z. J., and Zhang, X. X. 2012. Short-term power generation scheduling rules for
cascade hydropower stations based on hybrid algorithm. Water Science and Engineering, 5(1), 46-58.
[doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370. 2012.01.005]
Xi, S. F., Wang, B. D., Liang, G. H., Li, X. S., and Lou, L. L. 2010. Inter-basin water transfer-supply model
and risk analysis with consideration of rainfall forecast information. Science China Technological
Sciences, 53(12), 3316-3323. [doi:10.1007/s11431-010-4170-6]
Zeng, X., Hu, T. S., Guo, X. N., and Li, X. J. 2014. Water transfer triggering mechanism for multi-reservoir
operation in inter-basin water transfer-supply project. Water Resources Management, 28(5), 1293-1308.
[doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0541-2]
Zhang, J., Wu, Z., Cheng, C. T., and Zhang, S. Q. 2011. Improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for
multi-reservoir system operation. Water Science and Engineering, 4(1), 61-73. [doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-
2370.2011. 01.006]
(Edited by Yan LEI)

Hong-bin FANG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Oct. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 433-445 445