E-mail alert
Rss
Application of modified two-point hedging policy in groundwater resources planning in the Kashan Plain Aquifer
-
Abstract: Effective management of water resources, especially groundwater, is crucial and requires a precise understanding of aquifer characteristics, imposed stresses, and the groundwater balance. Simulation-optimization models plays a vital role in guiding planners toword sustainable long-term aquifer exploitation. This study simulated monthly water table variations in the Kashan Plain over a ten-year period from 2008 to 2019 across 125 stress periods using the GMS model. The model was calibrated for both steady-state and transient conditions for the 2008–2016 period and validated for the 2016–2019 period. Results indicated a 4.4 m decline in groundwater levels over the 10-year study period. Given the plain's location in a arid climatic zone with limited effective precipitation for aquifer recharge, the study focused on groundwater extraction management. A modified two-point hedging policy was employed as a solution to mitigate critical groundwater depletion, reducing the annual drawdown rate from 0.44 m to 0.31 m and conserving 255 million cubic meters (mcm) of water annually. Although this approach slightly decreased reliability (i.e. the number of months meeting full water demands), it effectively minimized the risk of severe droughts and irreparable damages. This policy offers managers a dynamical and intelligent tool for regulating groundwater extraction, balancing aquifer sustainability with agricultural and urban water requirements.
-
Figure 4. Types of hedging rule (Shourian and Jamshidi. 2022)
Figure 6. Correlation between observed and calculated groundwater levels: (a) calibration (first month) (b) validation (last month) for the piezometers located in the area
Figure 8. Trend of groundwater level changes under different aquifer extraction scenarios
Figure 9. Pareto fronts for the objective functions obtained using the ant colony optimization algorithm
Table 1. The number and discharge of groundwater resources (mcm).
Alluvial aquifer Total range Heights Plain Resource Discharge Number Discharge Number Discharge Number Discharge Number 239.42 961 267.36 1958 25.86 987 241.5 971 Well 0 0 27.90 268 27.90 268 0 0 Spring 6.46 33 97.37 540 88 504 250.9 36 qanat 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2. Water consumption and its resources by plain and heights areas (mcm).
Surface water and spring Groundwater (well and qanat) Total agriculture Industry Urban Agriculture Industry Urban 261.13 1.85 0 8.50 268.29 5.37 27.11 Plain 88.50 26.61 0.21 0.51 51.11 1.16 8.90 Heights
下载: 导出CSV
Table 3. Parameter statistics obtained from transient calibration
Standard deviation Mean Min Max Parameter 0.081 0.072 0.0026 0.45 Sy 29.5 15.73 0.003 139.5 HK (m/d)
下载: 导出CSV
Table 4. Error evaluation criteria for the simulation model.
ME (m) RMSE (m) bR2 Stage 0.64 0.34 0.95 Calibration 0.82 0.41 0.89 Validation
下载: 导出CSV
Table 5. Results of the three groundwater extraction scenarios
15% decrease in extraction 15% increase in extraction Current extraction trend 887.6 887.6 887.6 Water table of the first month (2008) 880.6 875.78 877/81 Water table of the last month (2029) −6.9 −11.9 −9.8 Groundwater drop
下载: 导出CSV
Table 6. Decision variables of the modified two-point Hedging
EWA(MCM) SWA(MCM) HF Month 207.65 21.2 0.36 October 180.02 13.06 0.22 November 134.89 11.32 0.35 December 101.35 7.89 0.22 January 95.65 10.94 0.26 February 104.87 10.97 0.35 March 115.36 10.69 0.38 April 139.12 14.08 0.48 May 150.23 24.56 0.51 June 208.84 30.21 0.55 July 211.54 33.47 0.64 August 133.62 25.76 0.49 September
下载: 导出CSV
Table 7. Performance criteria for supply-demand management using the modified two-point hedging policy
Sustainability Vulnerability Resilience Reliability Selected Optimal solution MSI Drawdown 51 62 46.06 77.46 3.35 0.31
下载: 导出CSV
Table 8. Comparison between extraction scenarios
MTPHP(Modify Two Point Hedging Policy) 15% decrease extraction Current trend extraction Extraction scenario 0/31 0/35 0/45 Groundwater depletion (m/a)
下载: 导出CSV
-
Ahlfeld DP, Barlow PM, Mulligan AE. 2005. GWM-A ground-water management process for the US Geological Survey modular ground-water model (MODFLOW-2000): 124. Washington DC, USA: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Babel MS, Gupta AD, Nayak DK. 2005. A model for optimal allocation of water to competing demands. Water Resources Management, 19: 693–712. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-005-3282-4. Bhatia N, Srivastav R, Srinivasan K. 2018. Season-Dependent hedging policies for reservoir operation—A comparison study. Water, 10(10): 1311. DOI: 10.3390/w10101311. Ketabchi H, Ataie-Ashtiani B. 2015a. Review: Coastal groundwater optimization advances, challenges, and practical solutions. Journal of Hydrology, 23: 1129−1154. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-015-1254-1. Ketabchi H, Ataie-Ashtiani B. 2015b. Evolutionary algorithms for the optimal management of coastal groundwater: A comparative study toward future challenges. Journal of Hydrology, 520: 193−213. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.043. Liu Y, Zhao J, Zheng H. 2018. Piecewise-linear hedging rules for reservoir operation with economic and ecologic objectives. Water, 10(7): 865. DOI: 10.3390/w10070865. Men B, Wu Z, Liu H, et al. 2019. Research on hedging rules based on water supply priority and benefit loss of water shortage—A case study of Tianjin, China. Water, 11(4): 778. DOI: 10.3390/w11040778. Neelakantan TR, Pundarikanthan NV. 2000. Neural network-based simulation-optimization model for reservoir operation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 126(2): 57–64. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2000)126:2(57). Nguyen AT, Reiter S, Rigo P. 2014. A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to building performance analysis. Applied Energy, 113: 1043−1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.061. Sadeghi-Tabas S, Samadi SZ, Akbarpour A, et al. 2017. Sustainable groundwater modeling using single and multi objective optimization algorithms. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 19(1): 97–114. DOI: 10.2166/hydro.2016.006. Saghi-Jadid M, Ketabchi H. 2020. Result-based management approach for aquifer restoration problems using a combined numerical simulation–parallel evolutionary optimization model. Journal of Hydrology:125709. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125709. Shiau JT. 2011. Analytical optimal hedging with explicit incorporation of reservoir release and carryover storage targets. Water Resources Research, 47(1). DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009166. Shourian M, Jamshidi J. 2022. Hedging rule-based optimized reservoir operation using metaheuristic algorithms. In E3S Web of Conferences, 346: 02011. EDP Sciences. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202234602011. Spiliotis M, Mediero L, Garrote L. 2016. Optimization of hedging rules for reservoir operation during droughts based on particle swarm optimization. Water Resources Management, 30: 5759–5778. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-016-1285-y. Srinivasan K, Kranthi K. 2018. Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization model for long-term reservoir operation using piecewise linear hedging rule. Water Resource Management, 32: 1901−1911. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-018-1911-y. UNESCO. 2007. Groundwater Resources Sustainability Indicators. Vander Bruggen B, Milis R, Vandecasteele C, et al. 2003. Electrodialysis and nanofiltration of surface water for subsequent use as infiltration water. Water Research, 37(16): 3867−3874. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00296-3. Yang L, Cheng YP, Wen X-R, et al. 2024. Development, hotspots and trend directions of groundwater numerical simulation: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 12(4): 411−427. DOI: 10.26599/JGSE.2024.9280031. Wang H, Liu J. 2013. Reservoir operation incorporating hedging rules and operational inflow forecasts. Water Resources Management, 27: 1427–1438. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-012-0246-3. Xu B, Zhong PA, Huang Q, et al. 2017. Optimal hedging rules for water supply reservoir operations under forecast uncertainty and conditional value-at-risk criterion. Water, 9(8): 568. DOI: 10.3390/w9080568. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 14
- HTML全文浏览量: 7
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
