Intl. Trans. in Op. Res.

8 (2001) 439464

An active decision support system for optimality in open air reservoir release strategies
J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa Corresponding author e-mail: vuuren@ing.sun.ac.za Received December 1998; received in revised form May 2000; accepted September 2000

Abstract Decisions regarding good release strategies for large open air reservoirs may be surprisingly complex, even for experienced reservoir managers. This is due to the dual requirement that water levels should neither be kept too high (resulting in excessive evaporation) nor too low (resulting in an inability to supply water during particularly dry periods). Decisions do not only affect the reservoir's efciency in the short term, but may also do so in the long run, and this signicantly complicates matters. A new decision support system called ORMADSS (for Optimal Reservoir Management Active Decision Support System) is discussed here. This system is designed to aid medium-scale reservoir managers in their complicated decision-making processes. The visually attractive and informative computer-implemented system is based on determining an optimal release strategy for years of average climate and then attempting to steer release strategies for non-average years in such a manner that the reservoir content approaches the optimal level for average years, while still satisfying legal and environmental constraints, as well as demand set by reservoir users. The success of ORMADSS is discussed in a special case study regarding its implementation at Keerom Dam, the second-largest privately-owned open air reservoir in South Africa.
Keywords: reservoir, optimal control, decision support, linear programming

Introduction Since the 1960s one of the most signicant developments in the eld of water resources engineering has been the use of mathematical optimization techniques for the design and subsequent management of reservoirs and reservoir systems. Once the objectives and constraints have been established, most reservoir problems lend themselves to solution techniques well-known in the elds of operations research and the management sciences. In fact, most mathematical models for single-purpose reservoir operation may be divided into two fundamental classes: (1) mathematical programming models (incorporating linear programming, Arunkuma and Chon,
# 2001 International Federation of Operational Research Societies. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

440

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

1978; Ko, Fontane and Margeta, 1994; Ozelkan et al. 1997), non-linear programming (Opricovic , Eccher and Isailovski, 1991), and dynamic and goal programming (Archibald et al., 1999; Dudley, 1988; Fontane, Gates and Moncada, 1997; Lamond and Sobel, 1995; Read and Scott, 1996; Yang et al. 1995); and (2) simulation and other stochastic models (Lamond and Lang, 1996; Lamond, Monroe and Sobel, 1995; Lamond and Bachar, 1998; Lamond et al. 1996; Simonovic, 1987; Stam, Salewics and Aronson, 1998; Trezos and Yeh, 1987). Multi-purpose reservoirs have also been considered, mainly employing the methods of multi-criteria decision analysis (Agrell, Lence and Stam, 1998; Lall and Miller, 1988). Literature on the subject of optimal release strategies indicates that no general algorithm or method exists to aid reservoir managers in decisions regarding the operation of reservoirs. The choice of method depends upon the purpose (e.g. irrigation, industrial or domestic use, hydropower generation, water quality improvement, recreation, sh and wildlife enhancement, ood control or navigation) and characteristics (e.g. reservoir size, connections to other reservoirs upstream as well as downstream) of the reservoir under consideration, upon the management objectives chosen (e.g. to maintain a maximal water level in the reservoir, or to minimize total annual evaporation and other losses), upon the constraints specied (e.g. legal, environmental and safety regulations, upper and lower user proles, risk measures), and especially upon the availability of historical and other data (e.g. ood history and precipitation and evaporation data). In this paper we concentrate exclusively on irrigation reservoirs. According to Yeh (1985) discussions during a 1979 international workshop in reservoir systems operation at the University of Colorado, Boulder, a substantial gap was identied between theories and applications, particularly in the area of real time reservoir operation, and this gap certainly still exists in developing countries today. This is especially true in the case of medium-scale, privately-owned reservoirs, where management do not have available the complex analysis tools (and the necessary manpower to utilize such tools) that are typically available to government departments of water affairs in the case of large open-air reservoirs. The focus in this paper therefore falls on medium-scale open-air irrigation reservoirs which are run by groups of individuals or owners whose aim is typically to maximize the total annual reservoir yield (i.e., to minimize the total annual evaporation from the reservoir surface), while adhering to legal and environmental constraints, as well as supplying their own water demand. The layout of this paper is as follows. In the next section, the phrase ` release strategy', as well as optimality with regard to reservoir release strategies is made precise, and certain criteria are mentioned which have to be met by release strategies. After setting out the underlying assumptions, a deterministic mathematical model (in the form of a linear programming problem) is formulated in the third section, by which optimal release strategies may be found for average years. Rather than employing probabilistic methods such as the stochastic programming approach followed in Nzewi and Houck (1995), the difcult problem of non-determinacy of parameters in the model and that of non-average years is discussed briey in the fourth section, after which the essentials of a decision support system, known as ORMADSS, are given in the fth section. In this section we specically describe how the decision support system incorporates non-average years in an interactive manner able to compensate dynamically for unexpected climatic phenomena, using risk margins. The features of a Microsoft Visual Basic windows-implementation of ORMADSS are discussed in some detail in the next section, before turning to a case study in which the success of ORMADSS is discussed (in relation to its use as an objective second opinion when considering release strategies at Keerom Dam, Republic of South

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

441

Africa), thereby providing a simulated experimental validation of the system. We conclude the paper with a discussion of possible improvements and desirable generalizations to ORMADSS. Criteria for optimal reservoir release strategies Reservoir release strategies (the controlled rate at which water should be allowed to pass through sluices) are usually based on demand, but also vary according to the purpose of the reservoir. In this paper we shall expect a valid reservoir release strategy to satisfy the following ve criteria: Parameters of reservoir A release strategy should take into account the reservoir parameters (a strategy should not, for example, require the release of more water than can be handled through the sluices). Dynamic release strategy A release strategy should be dynamic, or else at the very least utilize risk measures of some form in order to accommodate above or below-average hydrological years. Simplicity A release strategy should not be so complex that it cannot readily be implemented from a practical point of view (a strategy which, for example, requires that the water release rate should be adjusted every few minutes will not do). This is especially important at reservoirs where sluices are not computer-controlled. Constraints A release strategy should abide by legal and reasonable environmental requirements and should satisfy safety regulations (a reservoir for the purpose of accumulating irrigation water should not be managed in such a manner that it harms the ecology of the lower-lying river valley). Repeatability A release strategy should be repeatable (i.e. a one-year periodic function of time) during average years. It would, for example, be unacceptable to manage a reservoir so `optimally' in any given average hydrological year that its ability to supply water during subsequent average years is marred. A release strategy is considered optimal if, in addition to satisfying the above mentioned ve criteria, the total amount of water released through the sluices during any hydrological year is maximal (i.e., if the total amount of water lost due to evaporation during that year is minimal). An optimal release strategy is referred to as an optimal averaged release strategy if the strategy is optimal for an average

442

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

hydrological year only (by which is meant a year with climate and precipitation which is average for the specic region in question).

Mathematical model In this section we only consider average years, and formulate a mathematical model to determine objectively the best release strategy, given certain constraints. The objective will be to maximize total annual water supply from the reservoir by minimizing the total annual evaporation from the reservoir. The model will be generalized in two ways in order to accommodate non-average years: (1) risk reserves (as specied by the reservoir users) will be incorporated into the model, and (2) the model will be used as basis for an active decision support system able to handle non-average or non-ideal climates. The former generalization will already be built into the model in this section, while the latter will be discussed later. Special attention will be paid to the assumptions underlying the basic average-year model, its complexity as well as a suitable solution procedure. Model assumptions In order to formulate a mathematical model it is necessary to make the following assumptions: 1) Average years. We assume that each year is an average year in the sense that average precipitation, climate and evaporation for the region prevails. This is obviously not a realistic assumption, and will only be used as a point of departure. We shall return to the validity of this assumption in the next section. 2) Conservation law. It will be assumed that the difference in reservoir volume at the end of any time period equals the inux (including precipitation on the reservoir itself as well as inow resulting from rain on the reservoir catchment area) less the outux (including evaporation from the surface, seepage through the reservoir oor and walls, possible overow, and controlled outow through the reservoir sluices) during that period, as is illustrated in Fig. 1. 3) Dynamics of evaporation. The rate of evaporation during any time period is assumed to be proportional to the average exposed reservoir surface area during the period in question; the proportionality being functional according to the climate of the particular time of year. This is a good assumption only for relatively short time periods due to the continuity of the actual reservoir dynamics, and especially so if the functional proportionality has a volatile nature. 4) Reservoir shape. We assume that the exposed surface area of the reservoir increases linearly with its content volume. This is in fact only true if the shape of the reservoir walls is an exponential function of height. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the true relationship between exposed area and volume may be approximated satisfactorily by some linear function. Formulation of a deterministic model Assume that the rate of controlled reservoir outux is adjusted exactly n 1 times annually. The problem will be to determine what the release rate should be for each of the resulting n time periods in

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

443

Precipitation

Evaporation Overflow

Influx via r iver

Reservoir wall Reservoir

Seapage through reservoir floor

Controlled releases

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the dynamics of the conservation law of Assumption 2.

the index set y f0, 1, . . ., n 1g (which is assumed to span the hydrological year) so that the total annual water loss due to evaporation is minimized. Let Vi denote the reservoir volume at the end of period i 2 y, and let Bi denote the volume of outux through the sluices during period i 2 y . Hence V i may be seen as the state variables, while Bi represent the control variables. Furthermore let the parameters Ii and Ei denote respectively the volumes of inux and of water evaporated from the reservoir surface during period i 2 y . Finally, dene Ai as the exposed surface area of the reservoir at the end of period i 2 y . To ensure the required periodicity of the release strategy during average years we shall use modulo- n arithmetic in the model formulation. By Assumption 2 we may write Vi Vt Ii Bi Ei , Bi Vt Vi Ii Ei , By Assumption 3 it follows that Ei / Ai At , 2 i 2 y, t  i 1 (mod n): i 2 y, i 2 y, t  i 1 (mod n): t  i 1 (mod n): (1) (2) From (1) we may solve for Bi to nd

Hence we may write

444

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

ei( Ai A t ) , i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n), 2 where the e i represent the constants in the functional proportionality mentioned in Assumption 3. Assumption 4 implies that ei (3) E i [( kVi c) ( kVt c)], i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n) 2 where the constant c > 0 represents the area of the reservoir oor, while the constant k . 0 represents the rate of increase of the exposed reservoir surface area per unit volume increase. Omitting the constants ei c, our objective will therefore be to minimize the rescaled annual evaporation, X ei ( Vi Vt ), t  i 1 (mod n): Ei
i2y

This minimization will have to be carried out subject to the following four sets of constraints. Lower user prole The users of the reservoir water may typically have some (hopefully reasonable and probably legally substantiated) collective idea as to the minimal amount of water that they may expect from the reservoir during any time period in order to maintain their livelihood. Denote this minimal expected amount of water during period i by qi. Then we require the decision variables to satisfy Bi > qi for all i 2 y . Using equation (2) this results in the constraint Vt Vi Ei > qi Ii , i 2 y, t  i 1 (mod n): After substitution of the expression for Ei in (3) it therefore follows that     kei kei 1 Vt 1 Vi > qi Ii ei c, i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n): 2 2 Upper user prole Likewise the users of the reservoir water may typically specify some upper limit upon the controlled release of water during any given period in order to protect their livelihood from over-exposure or to avoid wasting resources. Denote this upper bound on the expected amount of water during period i by Qi . Then we require that Bi < Qi for all i 2 y , resulting (in exactly the same manner as before) in the constraint that     kei kei Vt 1 Vi < Qi Ii ei c, i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n): 1 2 2 If water law or the users of the reservoir specify no such upper bound during period i, then Qi should be taken as the physical sluice release capacity for the period. Risk reserves In order to (partially) accomodate below-average years (i.e., lower than usual precipitation or higher than usual evaporation) the reservoir volume may be required to remain above some risk threshold at all times during the hydrological year. This can be accomplished by insisting that

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

445

Vi > rVmax ,

i 2 y,

where Vmax is the reservoir capacity (just before overow occurs) and where r is some specied fraction between zero and one. Flood storage capacity If the reserve is large enough it may be utilized to accommodate relatively small oods in order to protect communities below the ood walls. Therefore it will be required that Vmax Vi > v i , i 2 y, where 0 < v i < V max is the potential ood storage capacity of the reservoir during period i. This capacity is index-dependent since the expected average size of oods is not constant throughout the hydrological year. Note that if v i 0 for any i 2 y then the corresponding ood storage capacity constraint merely disallows overow. The general model for an average year The optimal averaged release strategy for a reservoir may therefore be found by solving the linear program, Minimize X ei ( Vi Vt ),
i2y

t  i 1 (mod n)

Subject to     kei kei Vt 1 Vi > qi Ii ei c, 1 2 2     kei kei 1 Vt 1 Vi < Qi Ii ei c, 2 2 Vi > rVmax , Vi < Vmax v i , Vi , i 2 y ,

i 2 y, i 2 y, i 2 y, i 2 y:

t  i 1 (mod n) t  i 1 (mod n)

This linear program consists of 4 n constraints in the n state variables and may be solved using the revised simplex method. However, since efcient implementations of the simplex method handle simple bounds implicitly as part of the denition, rather than explicitly as constraints, it is in fact possible to reduce the above model formulation to a linear program consisting of n constraint equalities in the n bounded structural variables Vi , together with n bounded slack variables si :

446

  kei kei Vt 1 Vi si , 1 2 2 i2y

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n)

rVmax < Vi < Vmax v i ,

qi Ii ei c < si < Qi Ii ei c,

i 2 y:

This version of the constraint formulation has the advantage of requiring only an n 3 n basis matrix to be maintained in the bounded-variable simplex method.

The problem of non-average years The optimal release strategy for average years may be found by solving the mathematical model above. If average climate prevailed each year this release strategy could be implemented every year due to the periodicity of the solution guaranteed by the modulo-n arithmetic formulation used in the model. However, approximate one-year periodic climate patterns are rarely observed in practice. Particularly dry or wet seasons are encountered from time to time, and with frequencies that typically cannot be predicted accurately. In fact substantially longer than annual climate cycles are often observed, which are determined by factors such as ood frequencies for the region or global climatic phenomena. This gives rise to a situation where the general model is insufcient for sole use as a realistic decision support system, in view of its inexibility. Even the (predetermined) risk reserves incorporated in the mathematical model may be insufcient (or overly extreme) when dealing with extremely non-average seasons. Therefore our mathematical model can, at most, be used as a skeleton around which a more elaborate, exible and preferably active decision support system should be developed.

Using the model as the basis for a decision support system In view of the problem discussed above it may happen that the volume of the reservoir at the end of release period i 1 is at an observed level of W i1 instead of at the optimal target level of V ir1 (associated with a risk reserve of r %) as determined by the mathematical model. This situation is shown graphically in Fig. 2. The discrepancy between W i1 and V ir1 affects the optimal choice of release strategy B ir for the release period i. It seems reasonable to choose B ir so as to try and steer the observed reservoir volume W i at the end of period i as close as possible to the optimal value of V ir , while still adhering to the volume and release constraints as discussed in the third section. The discrepancy between W i and V ir will vanish when B ir is chosen as B ir W t V ir I i Ei , t  i 1 (mod n), which corresponds to a choice of Vi V ir and V t W t in (2). Using (3) this yields a best possible release quantity of     kei kei r Bi 1 Wt 1 V ir Ii ei c, t  i 1 (mod n) (4) 2 2 for period i 2 y . But of course this release strategy may be unacceptable in terms of ood-control

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

447

Optimal volume profile (Average years) Observed volume profile (Particular non-average year) Projected volume profile (Particular non-average year) Best possible target volume

Reservoir contents

Wi1 Best target Vi1r V r

i

Minimal discrepancy between V r i and Wi

.... i1 i Release periods

.....

n1

Fig. 2. Optimal averaged volume prole versus observed volume prole for a particular non-average year.

regulations or release expectancy on the part of reservoir users, especially during years which deviate substantially from the average. The best acceptable choice of release quantity would instead be 8 r > < qi if B i , qi , B ir if qi < B ir < Qi , (5) B i > : r Qi if B i . Qi : Figure 3 contains a ow chart representing the architecture of an active decision support system for reservoir management which will be referred to as ORMADSS (short for Optimal Reservoir Management Active Decision Support System). The rationale behind the system is to utilize the user-provided parameters of the reservoir to solve the mathematical model for a user-specied value of the risk reserve, r. This solution represents the ideal target volume versus time prole for the reservoir if average climate prevails. The idea is then to prompt the user for the actually observed reservoir level, W i1 , at the end of release period i 1, and to use the discrepancy between this value and the ideal volume, V ir1 , to determine a best acceptable choice of release strategy, B i , according to equation (5). The decision support system may therefore be utilized dynamically throughout the year to determine the best current release strategy for any time period.

448

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

File storage 1. Average influx profile 2. Average evaporation profile 3. Upper and lower user profiles 4. Reservoir parameters

Process Determine optimal averaged release strategies for various risk reserve factors and store on disk.

User input 1. Current date 2. Date of next adjustment 3. Current reservoir content 4. Risk measures

Process Calculate best projected constant release strategy B r i.

Decision

Is B r i within the limits as defined by upper and lower user profile values Qi and qi, i 1,2,..., n?

Yes

Output Best projected release strategy B r i.

No Output Decision Is B r i greater than the upper limit defined by the user profile values Qi, i 1,2,..., n? Yes Largest possible release as determined by the upper profile values. Qi, i 1,2,..., n

No Output Smallest possible release as determined by the lower-profile values. qi, i 1,2,..., n

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the active decision support system, ORMADSS, based on the general model.

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

449

The computer-implemented decision support system, ORMADSS The architecture as discussed above and shown in Fig. 3 was implemented via Visual Basic 5.0 to obtain a Microsoft Windows 95-supported active decision support system which can run on a personal computer. This programming language was chosen, because there already exists an established LP-solver available in Microsoft's Excel spreadsheet application, called Solver; therefore communication between the decision support system implementation and the LP-solver component is easy, and there is no need to hardcode a solution procedure for the mathematical model, or use an external stand-alone LP-solver. The main user interface of this implementation is shown in Fig. 4. The layout consists of four parts: a release window containing outow details such as the initial and nal dates of the current release period, the length of the period, as well as the specic risk reserve chosen (top left of Fig. 4). a specication window containing the set of parameters for the irrigation reservoir in question such as the reservoir capacity, the sluice capacity, the average annual inux, and the average annual evaporation in the reservoir basin (top middle of Fig. 4). a graphics window able to present graphically the average annual inux and evaporation, the optimal

Fig. 4. Main user interface in the Visual Basic 5.0 personal computer implementation of ORMADSS.

450

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

averaged volume and corresponding release quantity proles, the effective evaporation associated with a specic release strategy and the pre-specied lower user prole (bottom left of Fig. 4). a simulation window which displays the dates dening the current release period, the optimal release quantity for the period and the volume as well as the water level at the start and end of the release period (right of Fig. 4). ORMADSS allows the user to attach various reservoirs to the computer application. Each reservoir is allocated a specication le containing the information shown in the specication window. The user has to provide data les containing average daily/weekly/annual inux into the reservoir, evaporation from the reservoir, minimally acceptable user expectation prole and required storage capacity for each reservoir in question. These data are used in the formulation of the mathematical model and may be displayed in the graphics window. The user is prompted for the start and end dates of the release period during which an optimal strategy is required via a user-friendly release period interface. The best strategy (as obtained in (5)) is then obtained by clicking on the `Compute Strategy' button after specifying the actual reservoir volume at the start of the release period. This strategy for the specied release period is displayed in the regions of the simulation window labeled `Kumec' and `Kusec', and is also indicated on the vertical scroll bar labeled `Outow' in the middle of the simulation window. The reservoir volumes and water levels at the start and end of the release period are shown graphically in the vertical bars labeled `VOL' and `LVL' on either side of the vertical scroll bar. The vertical scroll bar may be used to adjust the release strategy by dragging the cursor in the vertical scroll bar up or down, while the computer program displays the expected resulting effects upon the reservoir volume and level at the end of the release period by adjusting the bars on the right-hand side of the simulation window accordingly. The computer implementation of ORMADSS therefore incorporates both mathematical modelling and mathematical simulation into the decision support process, and is both visually attractive and quite informative regarding the implications of variations in strategy. Finally the Microsoft Windows-based implementation is very easy to use.

Keerom open-air reservoir: A case study In this section the implementation of the previously discussed decision support system, ORMADSS, is considered with respect to its application to Keerom Dam (South Africa). After providing a short background to the use of Keerom Dam, the reservoir's previous release strategy is discussed. The (nontrivial) process of gathering the necessary data in order to implement the mathematical model is touched upon briey followed by the solution of the mathematical model representing the optimal averaged release strategy in the case of Keerom Dam. Next, there is a simulated experimental validation of ORMADSS during the actually observed 1990/91 hydrological year. Conclusions regarding the success and possible cost-effective savings due to the future implementation of ORMADSS in the case of Keerom Dam follow. Reservoir background Established in 1905, the Nuy agricultural irrigation district lies just outside the Little Karoo town of Worcester (about 150 km from Cape Town) in the South African Western Cape. The Nuy district

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464 Table 1 Reservoir volume and exposed reservoir surface area as a function of water level at Keerom Dam. Level (m) 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 Volume (m3 millions) 0.01 0.11 0.39 0.79 1.33 1.97 2.72 3.63 4.68 5.86 7.18 8.69 10.4 Area (hectares) 1.4 9.7 17.4 23.4 29.4 35.2 40.7 49.6 55.4 62.7 70.5 80.1 90.5

451

Note: Data courtesy of Ninham Shand Inc.

consists of 15 farms producing a variety of crops, but mainly concentrating on wine. The prime water resource of this district is the Nuy River, but additional water may also be bought (at high cost) from the nearby perennial Bree River. Since the Western Cape is a winter rainfall region, and since the Little Karoo is a semi-desert region, the Nuy River cannot satisfy the district's water demand during the dry summer months (roughly November to February). It was found nancially more viable to build an open-air reservoir in which water may be accumulated during the abundant winter in order to sustain the district during the arid summer season, rather than to rely solely upon bought water from the Bree River. The resulting Keerom Dam was completed in 1954 and is the second-largest privately-owned openair reservoir in South Africa. With an arched wall 27m high the reservoir can hold approximately 10m cubic meters of water and, when full, spans an area of more than 90 hectares. The dam can supply water at a rate of up to 1.1m cubic metres per month when not overowing. The previous release strategy Decisions regarding the release strategy at Keerom Dam are made jointly by a board of management consisting of six of the 15 farmers who benet from the reservoir. These decisions were previously based largely on intuition and a considerable pool of agricultural experience. However, opinions as to exactly how an optimal release strategy for Keerom Dam should look typically differed signicantly enough during meetings to warrant the current objective scientic study in order to settle the matter. To complicate decision matters a rigid annual release strategy was previously decided upon by the board of management at the start of each hydrological year (which runs from October to September in South Africa). Hence non-average precipitation and evaporation remained dynamically unexploited or uncompensated for. Water release rates were previously usually high during the summer months

452

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

(November to February), moderate during the shoulder months (March, April, September and October) and low during the wet winter season (MayAugust). Gathering the necessary data For the purpose of this case study the hydrological year was divided into 52 one-week periods, and week zero was taken at the start of October (the exact dates corresponding to the numbering of weeks are shown in Table 2). The index set therefore becomes y f0, 1, . . ., 51g in this case. Using sonar the consulting engineering company Ninham Shand Inc. determined Keerom Dam's capacity as Vmax 9:67m cubic metres, and found the exposed surface area versus volume prole as shown in Fig. 5 and Table 1. By applying the method of least squares we found the best straight line t to be A 8:00197 V 14:0295, where A is measured in hectares and V is measured in millions of cubic metres. This yields the values k 0:0800197m1 and c 140295m2 for Keerom Dam. Athough an imposing sight, Keerom Dam is not large enough to accommodate oods effectively: during a substantial ood in 1981 the reservoir overowed at a height of approximately 3m above the reservoir walls. We may therefore take v i 0 for all i 2 y . The lower-user prole for the reservoir was determined by considering the sustain prole for the vineyards of all 15 farms in the Nuy Valley. This sustain prole is based on the rate of evaporation of moisture from the vineyard soil: the faster moisture evaporates per week, the more the vineyard has to be irrigated during the following week in order to replenish the soil. However, since evaporation chiey affects the upper soil layers, only a certain percentage (known as the prole factor for the specic vegetation and region in question) of the total evaporation during week i has to be replaced at the end of week i. The rate of evaporation varies according to the time of year, and these prole factors, f i , for vineyards in Nuy were determined by the KWV (the largest South African corporate winery) as 20% during April through September, 30% during March and October, 40% during February and November, and 50% during January and December. Since the reservoir is separated from the Nuy Valley (which it provides with water) by a mountain range, the average rate of evaporation at Keerom Dam ( ei m during week i) differs signicantly from that in the Nuy district ( i m during week i). Hence the lower prole 3 is computed using the formula qi A f i E i m3 instead of q9 i A f i ei m , where the symbol A denotes 2 some fraction of the total cultivated area (in m ) to be irrigated. The values of ei , E i , f i and qi are shown in Table 2, while the area, A, is taken as 65% of the total of 1367.41 hectares of cultivated land. In the absence of any agriculturally motivated small upper-user prole, we take these prole values as Qi 0:2569 m3 millions per week for all i 0, 1, . . ., 51, which corresponds to the sluice capacity of the reservoir. Finally, the rate of inux into Keerom Dam could not be measured directly due to the fact that there are numerous streams and springs serving as sources to the reservoir. It would be too expensive to install apparatus to measure the rate of inux at each of these sources. However, it follows from (1) that Ii Vi Vt Bi Ei , i 2 y , t  i 1 (mod n): (6) A detailed bank of data (concerning reservoir level, controlled reservoir outux and evaporation rates) has been kept up to date by the South African Department of Water Affairs & Forestry via a measuring station located on the wall of Keerom Dam since its construction in 1954. This enabled us to construct daily reservoir balance tables for the period 19541998 from which the average daily rate of inux

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

453

Table 2 Average weekly inow Ii into Keerom Dam, average weekly evaporation E i in the Nuy District, average weekly evaporation ei at Keerom Dam, prole factors f i used to determine the sustain prole for vineyards in Nuy, and weekly lower and upper user proles qi and Qi respectively for all 15 farms based on requirements to sustain vineyards only. Date Week Inow number (m3 millions) i 01/1007/10 08/1014/10 15/1021/10 22/1028/10 29/1004/11 05/1111/11 12/1118/11 19/1125/11 26/1102/12 03/1209/12 10/1216/12 17/1223/12 24/1230/12 31/1206/01 07/0113/01 14/0120/01 21/0127/01 28/0103/02 04/0210/02 11/0217/02 18/0224/02 25/0203/03 04/0310/03 11/0317/03 18/0324/03 25/0331/03 01/0407/04 08/0414/04 15/0421/04 22/0428/04 29/0405/05 06/0512/05 13/0519/05 20/0526/05 27/0502/06 03/0609/06 10/0616/06 17/0623/06 24/0630/06 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Ii 0.074222 0.084492 0.093672 0.102192 0.108831 0.112264 0.112649 0.110120 0.105124 0.097944 0.090140 0.082222 0.074959 0.068979 0.064720 0.062337 0.062059 0.063495 0.066258 0.069846 0.073902 0.077453 0.080242 0.081952 0.082456 0.081851 0.080384 0.078793 0.077789 0.078286 0.081267 0.087699 0.099130 0.115064 0.136236 0.162511 0.193266 0.229205 0.264964 Evaporation (Keerom) (m) ei 0.023940 0.026320 0.028630 0.029820 0.032690 0.034790 0.039060 0.038330 0.039130 0.040810 0.044380 0.046130 0.047670 0.046950 0.048250 0.046250 0.045780 0.047080 0.046320 0.045590 0.043280 0.042150 0.040880 0.040660 0.035930 0.032060 0.029180 0.027980 0.024000 0.022050 0.019170 0.015840 0.015330 0.013640 0.012740 0.011730 0.011780 0.010310 0.010000 Evaporation (Nuy) (m) Ei 0.039884 0.045141 0.050157 0.054503 0.058059 0.060880 0.063106 0.064894 0.066382 0.067667 0.068798 0.069777 0.070569 0.071114 0.071334 0.071154 0.070505 0.069336 0.067624 0.065368 0.062600 0.059376 0.055777 0.051900 0.047855 0.043756 0.039718 0.035844 0.032227 0.028939 0.026033 0.023540 0.021469 0.019811 0.018538 0.017613 0.016990 0.016625 0.016477 Prole factor (Nuy) fi 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lower prole (Nuy) (m3 millions) qi 0.106349 0.120366 0.133741 0.145329 0.206415 0.216445 0.224359 0.230715 0.236006 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.25690 0.240421 0.232401 0.222560 0.211097 0.148727 0.138389 0.127603 0.116673 0.070604 0.063717 0.057288 0.051443 0.046277 0.041845 0.038164 0.035217 0.032954 0.031309 0.030202 0.029553 0.029290 Upper prole (Keerom) (m3 millions) Qi 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.259600 0.259600 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 continued overleaf

454 Table 2 (continued ) Date

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

Week Inow number (m3 millions) i Ii 0.300080 0.331991 0.357918 0.375084 0.380945 0.372937 0.350745 0.314733 0.266861 0.207839 0.149548 0.096711 0.058089 7.432456

Evaporation (Keerom) (m) ei 0.011310 0.009470 0.011290 0.010180 0.011420 0.012110 0.013720 0.013290 0.013940 0.016170 0.017310 0.019080 0.022580 1.438500

Evaporation (Nuy) (m) Ei 0.016516 0.016725 0.017107 0.017678 0.018472 0.019536 0.020921 0.022673 0.024829 0.027398 0.030358 0.033645 0.037148 2.204346

Prole factor (Nuy) fi 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Lower prole (Nuy) (m3 millions) qi 0.029359 0.029731 0.030410 0.031425 0.032836 0.034728 0.037190 0.040304 0.044137 0.048704 0.053965 0.059808 0.066036 6.466193

Upper prole (Keerom) (m3 millions) Qi 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 0.256900 13.35880

01/0707/07 08/0714/07 15/0721/07 22/0728/07 29/0704/08 05/0811/08 12/0818/08 19/0825/08 26/0801/09 02/0908/09 09/0915/09 16/0922/09 23/0930/09

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 P

Note: the real value of qi is greater than the sluice capacity of the reservoir. The value has therefore been truncated accordingly.

(including unmeasurable loss through the reservoir oor and walls, but excluding losses due to evaporation and controlled releases) into the reservoir, was calculated via (6). These data were lumped into one-week periods to nd the weekly inux, Ii , shown in Table 2. Details may be found in Goosen (1997). Optimal averaged release strategy Solutions to the mathematical model for 0%, 20%, and 40% risk reserves are given in Table 4. The corresponding control strategies are also shown in the table. Fig. 6 contains a graphical presentation of these results. In both Table 4 and P Fig. 6 it can be seen that an increase in the risk reserve r results in a decrease in total annual P yield Bi through the sluices of Keerom Dam. This is due to an increased total annual evaporation Ei as the reservoir is managed at a higher reserve strategy, as shown in Table 4. The table also contains the total evaporation losses corresponding to release strategies based on 0%, 20%, and 40% risk reserves. As may be seen from the table, total evaporation losses due to sub-optimal management may be quite substantial; in the order of 1015% for conservative release strategies. Solving for the optimal averaged release strategy for Keerom Dam from the mathematical model required in the region of 3060 m oating point operations, which could be carried out within 412 seconds on 233 MHz personal computer, as shown in Table 3, for various risk reserve measures.

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

455

80 Exposed surface area (hectares)

60

40 A 8.00197 V 14.0295 20

6 Volume (m3 millions)

10

Fig. 5. Exposed surface area as a function of reservoir volume at Keerom Dam. Note: Data courtesy of Ninham Shands. The best straight line t to the data is also shown. Table 3 Model complexity and solution features. r 0% 20% 40% Time (seconds) 11.37 4.01 4.29 Number of oating point operations 56,532,624 30,317,662 30,666,144

Note: Time is that required by a Pentium 200 MMX personal computer (clock speed 233 MHz) to solve the mathematical model via the revised simplex method.

Implementing ORMADSS We are now in a position to evaluate the success of ORMADSS with respect to its application to Keerom Dam. For the sake of brevity we only consider the climatically eventful hydrological year 1990/91, but the cost-effectiveness of ORMADSS could just as well have been illustrated with respect to any other year. The support system ORMADSS was not in use during the hydrological year 1990/91; the release strategy was decided upon intuitively. Table 5 contains the actually observed weekly inux, volume, release quantity, and evaporation loss alongside three simulated scenarios which reect the

456

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464 Table 4 Optimal averaged weekly control strategies Bi (m3 million) and corresponding volume proles Vi (m3 million). Week i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 0% Vi 3.4277 3.3810 3.3292 3.2740 3.1634 3.0457 2.9192 2.7845 2.6396 2.4667 2.2854 2.0962 1.9001 1.6989 1.4939 1.2878 1.0823 0.8787 0.6951 0.5240 0.3677 0.2271 0.1523 0.0897 0.0394 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0760 0.2741 0.5080 0.7766 1.0768 1.4016 1.7426 2.0873 2.4216 Bi 0.106357 0.120329 0.133768 0.145331 0.206425 0.216440 0.224347 0.230695 0.236042 0.256781 0.256775 0.256863 0.256749 0.256831 0.256787 0.256801 0.256795 0.256796 0.240443 0.232326 0.222585 0.211136 0.148686 0.138454 0.127530 0.116703 0.076290 0.074867 0.074422 0.075192 0.078577 0.085477 0.096979 0.113150 0.134448 0.160865 0.115577 0.029514 0.029348 0.029312 0.029760 0.030414 0.031375 0.032893 0.034753 20% Vi 5.5456 5.4944 5.4378 5.3776 5.2615 5.1379 5.0049 4.8638 4.7124 4.5328 4.3441 4.1474 3.9434 3.7346 3.5217 3.3081 3.0953 2.8841 2.6931 2.5146 2.3515 2.2042 2.1229 2.0540 1.9980 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 1.9536 2.0732 2.2325 2.4288 2.6611 2.9277 3.2263 3.5491 3.8883 4.2311 4.5634 Bi 0.106295 0.120373 0.133732 0.145305 0.206430 0.216508 0.224318 0.230708 0.236042 0.256723 0.256851 0.256778 0.256840 0.256769 0.256843 0.256810 0.256707 0.256826 0.240424 0.232451 0.222503 0.211156 0.148729 0.138352 0.127590 0.116684 0.071728 0.070493 0.070670 0.071745 0.075581 0.083001 0.094583 0.111018 0.132457 0.039375 0.030284 0.029535 0.029224 0.029364 0.029731 0.030473 0.031426 0.032833 0.034677 40% Vi 7.6672 7.6115 7.5501 7.4848 7.3632 7.2338 7.0943 6.9468 6.7889 6.6024 6.4065 6.2021 5.9903 5.7738 5.5531 5.3320 5.1117 4.8930 4.6946 4.5088 4.3388 4.1848 4.0971 4.0217 3.9601 3.9106 3.9072 3.9072 3.9072 3.9072 3.9072 3.9072 3.9389 4.0125 4.1099 4.2355 4.3929 4.5874 4.8179 5.0825 5.3795 5.7004 6.0379 6.3787 6.7089 Bi 0.106327 0.120410 0.133687 0.145371 0.206425 0.216465 0.224277 0.230709 0.236030 0.256854 0.256714 0.256879 0.256817 0.256793 0.256785 0.256806 0.256807 0.256744 0.240391 0.232463 0.222509 0.211165 0.148660 0.138440 0.127541 0.116757 0.070563 0.066119 0.066918 0.068298 0.072584 0.080524 0.060467 0.035211 0.032908 0.031349 0.030146 0.029554 0.029298 0.029413 0.029698 0.030429 0.031375 0.032869 0.034697

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464 Table 4 (continued ) Week i 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 0% Vi 2.7304 3.0000 3.2173 3.3699 3.4583 3.4872 3.4698 Bi 0.037192 0.040221 0.044137 0.048709 0.053991 0.059832 0.066036 20% Vi 4.8698 5.1371 5.3520 5.5018 5.5873 5.6130 5.5917 Bi 0.037242 0.040247 0.044155 0.048748 0.053940 0.059784 0.066098 40% Vi 7.0130 7.2779 7.4905 7.6375 7.7201 7.7425 7.7174 Bi 0.037188 0.040369 0.044068 0.048783 0.053883 0.059831 0.066054

457

P 7.0521 6.8172 6.5814 P Bi 0.3799 0.6145 0.8499 E i P % Ei 5.11 8.27 11.44 P Notes: P Bi total annual yield through the reservoir sluices Ei total annual evaporation losses P % Ei percentage losses due to evaporation, as measured against the annual inux

expected situation had ORMADSS been implemented during 1990/91 at strategies corresponding to risk reserves of 0%, 20%, and 40% respectively. The simulations were done by starting with the actual water level of 9.0414m3 million as observed on 1 October 1990, and taking Ii as was actually observed during the following year. However, instead of considering the actual release quantities recorded for that year, the releases suggested by ORMADSS for different values of r were used to build up hypothetical volume proles for the various risk margins. The corresponding expected evaporation losses were calculated in each case using the average evaporation rates, ei , for the Keerom Dam basin, as listed in Table 2. The resulting three simulated volume proles are shown in Table 5, and Fig. 7. Conclusions Note that the observed total 1990/91 evaporation loss of 13.51% (as measured against the average annual inux into the reservoir) is relatively high compared to the expected losses of 9.69%, 9.81%, and 10.32% corresponding to risk reserves of 0%, 20%, and 40% respectively had ORMADSS been used during that year. Furthermore, the observed total 1990/91 water yield of 7:19 3 106 m3 is very low compared to the expected water yield of 13:36 3 106 m3 , 12:07 3 106 m3 and 10:02 3 10 6 m3 corresponding to risk reserves of 0%, 20%, and 40% respectively had ORMADSS been used during that year. Upon closer examination of the four release strategies in Fig. 7 it is clear that the strategies suggested by ORMADSS differ signicantly from the overly conservative approach of the farmers' intuition. This is especially true during weeks 4246 (22 July25 August) during which the board of management felt that the dam sluices should be shut completely, while all three ORMADSS strategies show that it would have been better to open the sluices to full capacity in view of the heavy precipitation preceding the period in question.

458

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

8.00 0% Reserve 7.00 6.00 Volume profile (m3 millions) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 Time (weeks) 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 20% Reserve 40% Reserve

0.300 Release quantity (m3 millions) 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Time (weeks) 0% Reserve 20% Reserve 40% Reserve

Fig. 6. Optimal averaged control strategies and corresponding volume proles for risk reserves of 0%, 20% and 40% respectively in the case of Keerom Dam.

Table 5 A comparison between the management of Keerom Dam with and without ORMADSS for the 1990/91 hydrological year. Week Without ORMADSS number Observed data i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ii 0.099 0.088 0.098 0.097 0.118 0.093 0.101 0.099 0.091 0.081 0.083 0.083 0.106 0.079 0.060 0.063 0.088 0.067 0.058 0.066 0.072 0.066 0.070 0.072 0.083 0.081 0.105 0.084 0.082 0.070 0.061 0.069 Vi 8.927 8.800 8.677 8.543 8.426 8.290 8.154 8.013 7.868 7.711 7.539 7.352 7.186 7.012 6.831 6.648 6.492 6.316 6.137 5.993 5.876 5.759 5.646 5.538 5.458 5.380 5.329 5.264 5.199 5.129 5.057 4.998 Bi 0.194 0.194 0.198 0.207 0.209 0.202 0.207 0.211 0.207 0.208 0.222 0.231 0.240 0.220 0.207 0.215 0.213 0.212 0.207 0.180 0.161 0.157 0.158 0.155 0.143 0.140 0.138 0.134 0.133 0.128 0.122 0.118 Ei 0.020 0.021 0.023 0.024 0.025 0.027 0.030 0.029 0.029 0.030 0.033 0.039 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.019 0.019 0.018 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.011 0.010 Using ORMADSS (hypothetically) 0% reserve 20% reserve Vi 8.867 8.681 8.502 8.323 8.163 7.976 7.796 7.615 7.425 7.224 7.024 6.819 6.642 6.437 6.213 5.995 5.801 5.587 5.364 5.150 4.994 4.734 4.528 4.325 4.137 3.948 3.784 3.601 3.416 3.222 3.019 2.825 Bi 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 Ei 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.026 0.031 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 Vi 8.867 8.681 8.502 8.323 8.163 7.976 7.796 7.615 7.425 7.224 7.024 6.819 6.642 6.437 6.213 5.995 5.801 5.587 5.364 5.150 4.944 4.734 4.528 4.325 4.137 3.948 3.784 3.601 3.416 3.222 3.019 2.825 Bi 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 Ei 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.026 0.031 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 40% reserve Vi 8.867 8.681 8.502 8.323 8.163 7.976 7.796 7.615 7.425 7.224 7.024 6.819 6.642 6.437 6.213 5.995 5.801 5.587 5.364 5.150 4.944 4.734 4.528 4.325 4.137 3.948 3.887 3.877 3.876 3.863 3.851 3.851 Bi 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.153 0.084 0.073 0.075 0.065 0.062 Ei J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.026 0.031 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007

459

(continued on next page)

460

Table 5 (continued ) Week Without ORMADSS number Observed data i 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Tot Ii 0.060 0.077 0.098 0.128 0.115 0.127 0.749 0.431 1.104 0.257 0.571 1.216 0.508 0.258 0.169 0.143 0.232 0.305 0.101 0.128 9.408 Vi 4.933 4.889 4.873 4.893 4.907 4.944 5.601 5.944 6.956 7.176 7.740 8.947 9.445 9.692 9.849 9.928 10.056 10.118 10.111 10.111 Bi 0.117 0.112 0.107 0.101 0.094 0.084 0.086 0.082 0.086 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.089 0.085 0.092 0.106 7.191 Ei 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.023 1.004 Using ORMADSS (hypothetically) 0% reserve 20% reserve Vi 2.623 2.439 2.276 2.143 1.997 1.864 2.354 2.525 3.370 3.366 3.677 4.632 4.878 4.874 4.780 4.661 4.629 4.671 4.508 4.370 Bi 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 13.36 Ei 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.720 Vi 2.623 2.439 2.276 2.143 2.114 2.208 2.925 3.096 3.962 3.958 4.269 5.223 5.469 5.464 5.370 5.251 5.425 5.668 5.615 5.650 Bi 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.140 0.030 0.029 0.257 0.235 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.051 0.054 0.145 0.082 12.07 Ei 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.729 40% reserve Vi 3.862 3.892 3.947 4.033 4.107 4.196 4.907 5.169 6.109 6.103 6.412 7.365 7.609 7.603 7.507 7.386 7.553 7.786 7.736 7.666 Bi 0.044 0.040 0.038 0.037 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.165 0.160 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.055 0.062 0.140 0.183 10.02 Ei

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011 0.015 0.767

Notes: The rst column in the table contains the same numbering of weeks as was used in Table 2. Columns 25 contain the actually observed weekly inux Ii (in tens of thousands of m3 ), weekly water volume Vi within the reservoir (in m3 millions), weekly release quantity Bi (in tens of thousands of m3 ) and weekly evaporation losses Ei (in thousands of m3 ) all for the 1990/91 hydrological year, during which ORMADSS was not used. Columns 614 contain a simulation of the expected weekly water volume, weekly release quantity and weekly evaporation loss (in the same units as before) for risk reserves of 0%, 20%, and 40% respectively, had ORMADSS been used during the 1990/91 season.

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

461

10 Volume profile (m3 millions)

4 Actual 2 0% Reserve 20% Reserve 40% Reserve 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 Time (weeks) 34 37 40 43 46 49 52

Release quantity (m3 millions)

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0% Reserve 0.00 1 5 9 20% Reserve 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 Time (weeks) 45 49 40% Reserve Actual

Fig. 7. Observed volume prole and corresponding release strategy during the 1990/91 hydrological year (without the use of ORMADSS) versus simulated expected volume proles as well as their corresponding release strategies for risk reserves of 0%, 20%, and 40% respectively (when using ORMADSS) in the case of Keerom Dam. Note: All gures are in millions of cubic metres.

462

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

It is anticipated that a total saving on evaporation in the region of 28% and an expected increase in total water yield of 85% would have been achieved during 1990/91 by using ORMADSS with a risk reserve of 0% instead of adjusting the release rate based purely upon intuition. These gures represent dramatic improvements. However, it should be mentioned in all fairness that dramatic improvements are typically expected for the rst year during which ORMADSS is implemented, and that, while still remaining quite substantial, these improvements during subsequent years of implementation are expected to be slightly less dramatic. Based on similar gures for hydrological years other than 1990/ 91 it is our conclusion that the use of the objective second opinion provided by ORMADSS as to what constitutes a good reservoir release strategy at Keerom Dam may produce substantial improvements on total water yield. This may, in turn, lead to an improved nancial position as a result of better crops and lower water costs due to better than intuitive reservoir management. ORMADSS was installed at various work stations throughout the Nuy valley in October 1998 to help manage Keerom Dam more optimally. The system was demonstrated to a group of 12 farmers, who received it enthusiastically and who felt that its recommendations regarding strategy seemed plausible, objective, and realistic. Discussion In this paper a mathematical model was derived from which optimal release strategies may be determined for open air irrigation reservoirs during years of average climate. The model takes the form of a linear programming problem where the objective is to maximize total annual yield by minimizing total annual evaporation losses, while adhering to reservoir restrictions, specied lower user proles and certain risk measures. Although the mathematical model may be solved readily on a fast personal computer, a solution only applies to average years, since climatic factors (such as precipitation, temperature, and evaporation) may typically differ signicantly from averages in which case the model solution becomes unrealistic, and indeed dangerous. The mathematical model was therefore incorporated as a central component into a greater decision support system, called ORMADSS. The rationale behind ORMADSS is to take into account the discrepancy between the actually observed and ideal (target) water levels at any time during the hydrological year and to use this discrepancy to determine release strategies in such a manner as to steer the volume prole as close as possible to the ideal in the shortest possible time. ORMADSS is an ideal and objective second opinion to managers of open air irrigation reservoirs when making complex decisions regarding good release strategies. This is especially true in the case of medium-scale reservoirs which are typically run jointly by owners and users whose aim is to channel as much water as possible through the reservoir sluices, without having available the complex analysis tools (and necessary manpower to utilize such tools) which are typically at the disposal of government departments, who run large national reservoirs. The cost-effectiveness and success of ORMADSS was illustrated for the special case study of Keerom Dam, where substantial improvements are currently being made when formulating release strategies compared to the past when no decision support system was in place, and release quantities were determined based solely on experience and intuition. There are many similar-scale reservoirs in South Africa (and indeed in other developing countries) where substantial savings are possible by using a decision support system such as ORMADSS, instead of only relying on intuition.

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

463

Acknowledgements The authors thank Alewyn Burger Sr and Jr for bringing the problem of Keerom Dam to their attention, and Johan du Plessis and Hannes Rabie for many helpful discussions. The authors are also grateful to Pieter Burger, Henry de Haas and Estelle van Niekerk (Department of Water Affairs & Forestry) as well as Schalk du Toit (KWV) for supplying the necessary data and helpful hints for the case study. The authors are indebted to Mariza Goosen, who did much of the ground work for the case study. Finally we would like to thank Stellenbosch University's Research Sub-Committee B for funding this research project.

References
Agrell, P.J., Lence, B.J., Stam, A., 1998. An interactive multicriteria decision model for multipurpose reservoir management. The Shellmouth Reservoir, MCDA 7, 6186. Archibald, T.W., Buchanan, C.S., McKinnon, K., Thomas, L.C., 1999. Nested Benders decomposition and dynamic programming for reservoir optimization. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50, 468479. Arunkumar, S., Chon, K., 1978. On optimal regulation policies for certain multi-reservoir systems. Operations Research 26, 551562. Departement van Waterwese en Bosbou, 1986. Die Bestuur van Waterhulpbroone van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. CTP Boekdrukkers, Kaapstad. Dudley, N.J., 1988. A single decision-maker approach to irrigation reservoir and farm management decision making. Water Resources Research 24, 633640. Fontane, D.G., Gates, T.K., Moncada, E., 1997. Planning reservoir operations with imprecise objectives. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management 123, 154162. Geogakakos, A.P., Marks, D.H., 1987. A new method for real-time operation of reservoir systems. Water Resources Research 23, 13761390. Goosen, I.M., 1997. Optimale Beheerstrategiee vir Besproeiingsreservoirs. Unpublished honours research project, Department of Applied Mathematics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch. Henderson-Sellers, B., 1979. Reservoirs. MacMillan Press, London. Ko, S-K., Fontane, D.G., Margeta, J., 1994. Multiple reservoir system operational planning using multi-criterion decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 76, 428439. Kotze , J., Brotherton, I.A., 1990. Nuy Besproeiingsraad: Ondersoek na die Lewensvatbaarheid van die verhoging van die Keerom Damwal. Unpublished report, AGRIPLAN Agricultural Management Consultants. Lall, U., Miller, C.W., 1988. An optimization model for screening multipurpose reservoir systems. Water Resources Research 24, 953968. Lamond, B.F., Monroe, S.L., Sobel, M.J., 1995. A reservoir hydroelectric system: Exactly and approximately optimal policies. European Journal of Operational Research 81, 535542. Lamond, B.F., Sobel, M.J., 1995. Exact and approximate solutions of afne reservoir models. Operations Research 43, 771780. Lamond, B.F., Drouin, N., Gautier, A., Lang, P., 1996. Piecewise afne approximations for the control of a one-reservoir hydroelectric system. European Journal of Operational Research 89, 5369. Lamond, B.F., Lang, P., 1996. Lower bounding aggregation and direct computation for an innite horizon one-reservoir model. European Journal of Operational Research 95, 404410. Lamond, B.F., Bachar, B., 1998. Numerical experiments on discretization of the random inow to a nonseasonal reservoir. INFOR 36, 247260. Nzewi, E.U., Houck, M.H., 1995. A motivation for probabilistic balancing rule models used for real-time reservoir operation: Newsboy problem approach. Engineering Optimization 25, 8397.

464

J.H. van Vuuren and W.R. Gru ndlingh / Intl. Trans. in Op. Res. 8 (2001) 439464

Opricovic , S., Eccher, L., Isailovski, M., 1991. An optimization procedure for water reservoir planning. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research 1, 225233. Ozelkan, E.C., Galambosi, A., Fernandez-Gaucherand, E., Duckstein, L., 1997. Linear quadratic dynamic programming for water reservoir management. Applied Mathematical Modelling 21, 591598. Prabhu, N.U., 1965. Queues and Inventories, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Read, E.G., Scott, T.J., 1996. Modelling hydro reservoir operation in a deregulated electricity market. International Transactions in Operational Research 3, 243253. Simonovic, S., 1987. The implicit stochastic model for reservoir yield optimization. Water Resources Research 23, 2159 2165. Smith, N., 1971. A History of Dams. The Chaucer Press, Suffolk. Smith, N., 1976. Man and Water. Peter Davies, London. Stam, A., Salewics, K.A., Aronson, J.A., 1998. An interactive reservoir management system for Lake Kariba. European Journal of Operational Research 107, 119136. Trezos, T., Yeh, W.W.-G., 1987. Use of stochastic dynamic programming for reservoir management. Water Resources Research 23, 983996. Twort, A.C., Hoather, R.C., Law, F.M., 1974. Water Supply (2nd edition). Edward Arnold Publishers, London. Yang, X.L., Parent, E., Michel, C., Roche, P.A., 1995. Comparison of real-time reservoir-operation techniques. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 121, 345351. Yeh, W.W.-G., 1985. Reservoir Management and Operations Models: A State of the Art Review. Water Resources Research 21, 17971818.