Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling & Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Comparison of generic simulation models for water resource systems

Andrea Sulis*, Giovanni M. Sechi
Hydraulic Sector, Land Engineering Department, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In water resource systems that frequently experience severe droughts, generic simulation models can
Received 12 December 2011 provide useful information for developing drought mitigation measures. This paper is about modeling in
Received in revised form practice rather than in theory. The emphasis is on the application of generic simulation models to
9 May 2012
a multi-reservoir and multi-use water system in Southern Italy where frequent droughts over the last
Accepted 7 September 2012
two decades have necessitated the use of temporary and unsustainable user-supply restrictions. In
Available online 10 November 2012
particular, AQUATOOL (Valencia Polytechnic University), MODSIM (Colorado State University), RIBASIM
(DELTARES), WARGI-SIM (University of Cagliari) and WEAP (Stockholm Environmental Institute) models
Keywords:
Decision support systems
are considered in a preliminary analysis, which considers series and parallel simple schemes and also
Water resources management evaluates the possibility of alternative plans and operating policies in complex real water system. Each
Simulation model has its own characteristics and uses different approaches to dene resources releases from
Optimization reservoirs and allocation to demand centers. The proposed model comparison and application does not
identify in detail all the features of each model, rather it provides insights as to how these generic
simulation models implement and evaluate different operating rules.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction simple screening models for guiding data collection activities to

Generic simulation models provide information and insight
that can help improve water system management and planning
processes. In conditions of drought, simulation models provide an
efcient way to reproduce sourceedemand interactions and to
predict the impacts of rule modications, over time and space.
This helps set more appropriate drought mitigation measures.
Appropriate measures can mitigate the economic, social and
environmental impacts of drought. Currently, interventions are
largely crisis driven. There is an urgent need (Rossi et al., 2007;
Sechi and Sulis, 2009) for more risk-based management
approaches to drought planning. Determination of appropriate
drought mitigation measures is becoming the primary goal in
managing water systems that frequently experience severe
droughts. In this context, generic simulation models provide an
efcient way to predict the effectiveness and efciency of alter-
native mitigation measures. Frequently, generic simulation
models are the core of complex decision support systems (DSS).
The DSS can assist at different levels of detail, ranging from
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 0706755303; fax: 39 0706755310.
E-mail address: asulis@unica.it (A. Sulis).
more complex tools requiring high levels of expertise. These
computer-based prediction models can be combined in a mixed
optimizationesimulation approach to anticipate the occurrence
of drought considering different hydrological scenarios (Pallottino
et al., 2005; Sechi and Sulis, 2009). Despite the potential of using
scenario optimization in the search for efcient alternatives, full
integration between simulation and optimization has not yet
been achieved, and real-world applications are frequently appli-
cations of generic simulation models.
Despite the large number of simulation models available and
the perceived value of those models with regard to inform water
resource management authorities, there are many improvements
that could be made to the work of planners, managers, modelers
and analysts in this important area (Assaf et al., 2008). Two
decades ago, Loucks (1992) and Simonovic (1992) described the
gap between theory and practice in water resources planning and
management, and still, models are often not adopted by the
intended end users (McIntosh et al., 2011). All models produce
simplied representations of real-world systems. What features
are incorporated into the model depend in part on what the
modelers believe is important. Improving the usefulness, as well
as establishing trust and credibility, is important if the models
are to be fully understood and accepted by the intended end
users.

1364-8152/$ e see front matter
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.012
 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
This paper is about modeling in practice rather than in theory.
An extended state-of-the-art review on simulation and optimiza-
tion modeling approaches in reservoir system operation problems
is given by Rani and Moreira (2010). The main objective is to
illustrate application performances of ve generic models for
simulating multi-reservoir and multi-use water resource systems:
AQUATOOL-SimWin (referred to as AQUATOOL in this paper)
(Valencia Polytechnic University) (Andreu et al., 1996), MODSIM
(Colorado State University) (Labadie et al., 2000), RIBASIM (DEL-
TARES) (Delft Hydraulics, 2006), WARGI-SIM (University of
Cagliari) (Sechi and Sulis, 2009) and WEAP (Stockholm Environ-
mental Institute) (SEI, 2005). Presented models have been applied
in the 2009 release version.
These models are representative of simulation models used for
preliminary analysis of alternative plans and policies on water
resources systems. These popular generic simulation models have
been implemented world-wide in a large number of water systems.
They incorporate most of the desirable attributes of a simulation
model.
After a short presentation and comparison of the main char-
acteristics and features of each simulation model, we emphasize
the application of these simulation models to single-purpose
reservoirs in series and in parallel, as well as to a complex
multi-reservoir and multi-use real water system in Southern Italy,
where frequent droughts over the last two decades have neces-
sitated adoption of temporary and unsustainable user-supply
restrictions.
2. Model characteristics and comparison
The ve generic simulation models considered in this paper
were developed within interactive graphics-based interfaces by
public and private organizations. They are all designed to study
water related planning and management issues in water systems
and to satisfy the needs of those at different levels of the planning
and decision-making process (Assaf et al., 2008). Each model has
its own special characteristics. However, a feature makes the
main difference: AQUATOOL, MODSIM and WEAP apply optimi-
zation methods on a single time-period of the simulation, and the
results are used as an efcient mechanism for performing the
simulation of a single period of water allocation in the system,
whereas RIBASIM and WARGI-SIM are simulation-only models
based on a more conventional if-then approach. Technically
speaking, in MODSIM the ow allocation problem is modeled
using a minimum cost ow modeling approach in a simplied
way. In WEAP, a standard linear program is used to solve the
water allocation problem. This allows the model to consider more
complex physical, hydrological, and institutional constraints than
the min-cost ow approach. In AQUATOOL, the simulation and
management of the surface system are made simultaneously by
solving a conservative ow network optimization problem and
trying to maximize several objectives. The application of
simulation-only models, such as RIBASIM and WARGI-SIM, to
complex water systems could enable lower performance system
indexes (e.g., vulnerability or reliability at user-dened water
supply levels). However, these simulation-only models can better
reproduce the operating policies used by water authorities in the
resource management of real systems.
There is a large variety of operating policies presented in the
literature. For single-reservoir systems, operating policies can
precisely dene how much water to release from the reservoir for
all possible combinations of hydrologic and reservoir storage
conditions. For multi-reservoir and multi-use systems supply
preference and demand priority are frequently included in the
215
operating policies. Operating policies in AQUATOOL, RIBASIM and
WARGI-SIM are xed, whereas operating policies in MODSIM and
WEAP are dened as a combination of system states and hydrologic
conditions. The most recent version of MODSIM is developed under
the MS .NET Framework that allows users to customize MODSIM for
specialized operating rules without having to modify the original
source code. While these generic simulation models vary with
regards to the type and details of the operating policies that they
can reproduce, they all include the concepts of priorities and
preferences.
Each of the ve models has a built-in capacity for water quality
modeling, but most water quality modeling components and
algorithms are relatively simple compared to the state of the art in
water quality modeling. In addition to this capacity, MODSIM and
WEAP can be linked to a more detailed higher dimensional model
(e.g., the US EPA QUAL2E modeling framework, Brown and
Barnwell, 1987) to provide highly detailed and comprehensive
modeling of water quantity and quality conditions in the system.
MODSIM and WEAP can also be linked with the MODFLOW model
(Harbaugh et al., 2000), a three dimensional nite difference
groundwater model, to study how changes in groundwater levels
affect the overall system and vice versa. However, this tight
coupling between generic simulation models and MODFLOW is not
an easy task because it requires an extensive calibration phase. In
AQUATOOL, the user can choose among a spectrum of models to
represent groundwater realistically, ranging from a model of
reservoir type to a distributed model of a heterogeneous aquifer of
irregular shape.
3. Model features
3.1. AQUATOOL
3.1.1. Description
AQUATOOL is a generalized DSS developed at the Universidad
Politcnica de Valencia (UPV), Valencia, Spain. The model was
designed for the operational management and planning stages of
decision-making in complex basins comprising multiple reservoirs,
aquifers and demand centers. Implemented within the Microsoft
Windows Environment, AQUATOOL has been coded in different
programming languages, such as C, Visual Basic and FORTRAN.
3.1.2. Appropriate use
The DSS has been upgraded and expanded. It currently consists
of several modules including a simulation module (SimWin),
a management module for a water resource system that considers
the risk of drought (SimRisk) and is based in SimWin, an optimi-
zation module with a monthly passage of time (OptiWin) that is
more detailed than SimWin, and a simulation module of ground-
water that uses the eigenvalues method (AquiVal) to simulate
groundwater distribution. The simulation in SimWin is made on
a monthly basis, and it allows nonlinear processes, such as evapo-
ration and inltration, to be adequately shaped. SimWin distin-
guishes ve types of oriented connections that allow the user to
reproduce the losses of water, hydraulic connections between
nodes, reservoirs and aquifers and ow limitations based on
elevation. The optimization of the ow network attempts to
minimize several target functions on reservoirs, demands and
rivers subjected to the restrictions of mass conservation and to
physical capacities.
3.1.3. Training required
To effectively use all of the SimWin features, a high skill level
and experience in resource modeling is required.
216 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
3.1.4. Documentation
Some documentation is available through the UPV website
(http://www.upv.es/aquatool/).
3.1.5. Cost
The user should contact the UPV Group to inquire about the cost
of a license.
3.2. MODSIM
3.2.1. Description
MODSIM is a generic system management DSS that was orig-
inally conceived in the late 1970s at Colorado State University
(CSU), U.S., and has been continuously maintained. MODSIM was
developed in the .NET Framework that provides a powerful
environment for customization without requiring recoding.
MODSIM simulates water allocation in the system at each time
step through a sequential solution of a network ow optimization
problem where nonlinearities (i.e., evaporation, groundwater
return ows, channel losses) are assessed using a successive
approximations solution procedure. The problem is solved with
the Lagrangian relaxation algorithm, RELAX-IV (Bertsekas and
Tseng, 1994). Reservoir balancing routines that allow division of
reservoir storage into several operational zones can be used to
control the spatial distribution of available reservoir storage.
Additionally, operating rules on reservoir regulation and demand
allocation can be conditioned based on user dened hydrologic
state variables.
3.2.2. Appropriate use
MODSIM has been linked with MODFLOW for the analysis of
conjunctive use of groundwater and surface resources, as well as to
QUAL2E for assessing the effectiveness of pollution control strate-
gies. MODSIM can be applied in an implicit stochastic optimization
framework where optimal rules for integrated operation are ob-
tained using the generalized dynamic programming software
package, CSUDP.
3.2.3. Training required
The use of the main module requires moderate training,
whereas external modules are quite hard to use without prior
modeling skills.
3.2.4. Documentation
Detailed documentation is available through the CSU website
(http://modsim.engr.colostate.edu/).
3.2.5. Cost
MODSIM can be downloaded free through the CSU website.
3.3. RIBASIM
3.3.1. Description
RIBASIM is a generic model package for simulating the behavior
of river basins under various hydrological conditions. It was
developed by DELTARES, formerly the DELFT Institute, Delft, The
Netherlands. Different scenarios can be easily compared based on
user-dened objectives through the powerful graphical interface.
The analysis of water demand is extensive (i.e., based on demo-
graphic, economic, crop water requirements aspects), and the
current and future demands at different horizons can be compared.
Crop production and crop damage due to water shortages can be
assessed. RIBASIM provides xed operating rules based on target
storage volumes and multiple zoning.
3.3.2. Appropriate use
RIBASIM particularly address the hydrological and hydro-
graphical description of the river-basins and links the hydrological
water inputs at various locations with the specic water-users in
the supply system. It allows the user to dene operating/planning
scenarios where each scenario is characterized by a particular
operating rule and/or water supply projection.
3.3.3. Training required
While RIBASIM is intuitive and easy to use, it requires signicant
data to perform detailed analysis.
3.3.4. Documentation
Documentation can be obtained from DELTARES (http://www.
wldelft.nl/soft/ribasim).
3.3.5. Cost
Information on the license cost can be obtained from DELTARES
(http://www.wldelft.nl/soft/ribasim).
3.4. WARGI-SIM
3.4.1. Description
WARGI is a user-friendly tool specically developed to help
users understand the interrelationships between demands and
resources for multi-reservoir water systems under drought condi-
tions, such as those that frequently occur in Mediterranean regions.
Since the mid-1990s, WARGI has been extended and new modules
have been developed by the Water Research Group (WRG) at the
Department of Land Engineering, University of Cagliari, Italy. The
WARGI modeling capability includes several interrelated macro-
modules; the main ones are a simulation-only module (WARGI-
SIM), a deterministic optimization module (WARGI-OPT), the
reservoir quality optimization module (WARGI-QUAL), and
a module of scenario optimization (WARGI-SCEN). The water allo-
cation in WARGI-SIM is simulated using user-dened preferences
and priorities. Additionally, the user can dene reserved volumes as
a xed function of the period of the year, and the withdrawn water
from the reserved zone is decreased to satisfy user-selected high
priority demands.
3.4.2. Appropriate use
Improvements to the denition of drought mitigation measures
and effective linking of these measures with drought indicators are
achieved through a full integration of WARGI-SIM and WARGI-OPT.
The requirement of massive simulation-optimization runs for the
analysis of complex water system under drought conditions are
satised in a GRID environment.
3.4.3. Training required
WARGI-SIM is a relatively simple model that enables non-
experts to understand the main issues and problems of complex
water systems.
3.4.4. Documentation
Requests for a detailed documentation can be addressed to the
authors.
3.4.5. Cost
Requests for a non-commercial license can be addressed to the
authors.
 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
3.5. WEAP
3.5.1. Description
WEAP is a generic simulation model developed at the Stockholm
Environment Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. WEAP model
simulations are constructed as a set of scenarios with different
simulation time steps. These demand scenarios are applied deter-
ministically to a linear programming allocation algorithm where
each demand and source is assigned a user-dened priority. The
linear program solves the water allocation problem by trying to
maximize satisfaction of demand subject to supply preferences and
demand priorities while using reservoir operating policies to
minimize the distance to ideal conditions. The water allocation
problem is solved at each time step using an iterative, computa-
tionally expensive approach. Traditional target storage levels,
multiple zones, and reduced releases by a buffer coefcient are
implemented in WEAP. Supply balancing within demand centers
with the same priority is assured by that approach. A groundwater
module in WEAP allows for water transfer between the stream and
the aquifer.
3.5.2. Appropriate use
The model integrates some physical hydrological processes with
the management of demands and infrastructure to allow for
multiple scenario analyses, including alternative climate scenarios
and changing anthropogenic stressors. The primary aim of the
water management analysis in WEAP is the analysis of water
demand conguration.
3.5.3. Training required
WEAP requires signicant data and a moderate amount of
experience for a detailed analysis.
3.5.4. Documentation
Detailed documentation is available online at the SEI website
(http://www.weap21.org).
3.5.5. Cost
The cost of WEAP is US $1000 for universities and governments.
Fig. 1. Congurations of reservoirs in series and in parallel.
217
4. Comparison of application to single-purpose reservoirs in
series and in parallel
In multipurpose multi-reservoir systems there are sometimes
conicting and sometimes complementary multiple purposes
served by the water stored in and released from reservoirs. Oper-
ating policies dene what should be performed for any combina-
tion of system states and hydrologic conditions to minimize any
necessary deviation from ideal conditions in those systems.
Common operating rules for single-purpose reservoirs in series and
in parallel can be derived from principles of mathematical opti-
mization and can be supported by system manager experiences.
Multipurpose multi-reservoir systems can be seen as an aggrega-
tion of reservoirs in series and in parallel (in Fig. 1 indicated with (a)
and (b), respectively). Many of the operating rules for multipurpose
systems require combinations of operating rules for single-purpose
reservoirs in series and in parallel. This is not always the case
(Needham, 1998). Nevertheless, the operation of single-purpose
reservoirs in series and in parallel is classic in the literature. In
addition, it is remarkably easier to analyze generic simulation
model results using reservoirs in series and/or parallel schemes.
The primary reviews of operating rules are Sheer (1986), Loucks
and Sigvaldason (1982), and Lund and Guzman (1999). For reser-
voirs in series providing water supply, a reasonable objective is to
maximize the amount of the water available and the resulting rule
is to deplete the downstream reservoir before the upstream
reservoir is used to meet downstream demands (Sheer, 1986). A
conceptual rule for reservoirs in parallel involves drawing in
tandem from each reservoir in a manner that equalizes the prob-
ability of reservoir lling for each reservoir (Loucks and
Sigvaldason, 1982). This procedure ensures the minimization of
expected water wastage.
According to Loucks and Sigvaldason (1982), operating rules for
reservoirs in series and in parallel may include one or more of the
following components:
1. Target storage levels or volumes;
2. Multiple zoning; and
3. Conditional rule curves.
218 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
When a prescription of the desired storage volumes or levels in
each reservoir is introduced in the system operation, reservoir
operators are expected to maintain these levels as closely as
possible while generally trying to satisfy downstream demands.
Multiple zoning denes ve storage allocation zones in the total
reservoir capacity: the conservation zone (from which requests are
normally satised), the ood control zone (for storing large unex-
pected inows), the spill zone (associated with actual ood
damage), the buffer zone (beneath the conservation zone used to
satisfy only high priority water demands during dry periods) and
the inactive zone (the dead zone where withdrawals may not be
possible). The conditional rule curve denes reservoir releases as
a function of the existing storage volumes and the expected natural
inows for some future months. The well-known SQ type linear
decision rule, originally proposed by Loucks (1970), as applied to
reservoir j at time step t is as follows:
X
tm
Rj;t aj;t Vj;t bj;t Ij;i cj;t (1)
it
where Rj,t is the release from the reservoir, Vj,t is the stored volume
in the reservoir, Ij,i is the expected natural inow during the month i
within the estimating (m  1) month periods, and aj,t, bj,t and cj,t are
coefcient to be assessed. Bhaskar and Whitlatch (1980) tested
linear and nonlinear monthly operating rules by regressing the
series of releases with reservoir storage at the beginning of each
month and inow at the current month. They found that the linear
operating rules are as good as or better than the more complex
rules in many cases.
All the examined simulation models permit the denition of
monthly target storage levels or volumes and multiple zones,
eventually further dividing each zone into a user-dened number
of subzones (e.g., in MODSIM), through tables and gures. Only
three models (MODSIM, WARGI-SIM and WEAP) implement
conditional rules, including the SQ type linear decision rule (1). In
particular, WEAP uses trial-and-error iterative procedures, which
can be time consuming and problematic, or ofine multiple
regression models to assess the aj,t, bj,t and cj,t coefcients of (1). As
an alternative to this simulation-only approach, MODSIM uses the
generalized dynamic programming software CSUDP (Labadie,
2003) and WARGI-SIM uses the linear programming module
WARGI-OPT (Sechi and Sulis, 2009) that can be applied in a GRID
computing environment (Sulis, 2009).
Models were applied to single-purpose reservoirs in series and
in parallel over a 52-year time horizon with a monthly time step.
Fig. 1 shows the two types of system congurations. The main
reservoir variables are shown in Table 1. In both congurations,
reservoirs 1 and 2 have a total capacity of 260 and 320 106 m3,
respectively. Statistical parameters show that the hydrological
inputs to the reservoirs were selected to be signicantly different
to highlight the adequacy of adopted operating rules. The initial
reservoir volume was equal to half of the total capacity in both
reservoirs. An urban water demand with an annual request of
115.7 106 m3 and a uniform monthly program was modeled. The
demand site was connected to the reservoirs with the same supply
Table 1
Reservoir data input.
Reservoir Mean inow Maximum inow
(106 m3/year) (106 m3/year)
1 126.5 318.6
2 15.9 53.6
preference (MODSIM, RIBASIM and WEAP), transfer cost (AQUA-
TOOL) or weight (WARGI-SIM).
Reservoirs in parallel, P1 and P2, had the same priority for
lling and no additional components of the operating rule were
adopted. Although WARGI-SIM uses a traditional simulation
algorithm and WEAP uses a linear optimization module to allocate
water in the system, both models correctly reproduced the oper-
ating rule by drawing in tandem from each reservoir. As expected,
WARGI-SIM and WEAP minimize the spilled water (1.86 106 m3/
month in Table 2), which is the same as maximizing the amount of
water available. Fig. 2a and b show that AQUATOOL, MODSIM and
RIBASIM discharge water from reservoir P1 rst. This reservoir
was arbitrarily selected among two reservoirs, having the same
priority. In particular, P2 is the reservoir with the larger potential
inow per unit storage volume capacity. Unnecessary spilling
occurs in this reservoir (17%). In MODSIM, releases from the
reservoir in the system follow the order of insertion of arcs
outgoing the reservoir nodes. To release in tandem from reservoir
P1 and P2, the multiple zoning component was applied to the
operating rule. Specically, in MODSIM, the total capacity in each
reservoir must be divided into many subzones (100 in our appli-
cation) so that water was discharged from reservoir P2 only in the
case of having the storage level of reservoir P1 within the same
subzone. On the other hand, AQUATOOL and RIBASIM dened
three allocation zones (conservation, buffer and inactive zones)
within the total capacity of reservoir P1 and P2. As expected, the
storage volume time series and total unnecessary spilling simu-
lated by MODSIM are very close to the time series provided by
WARGI-SIM and WEAP, whereas the probabilities of reservoir
lling for reservoir P1 and P2 remain signicantly different in
AQUATOOL and RIBASIM.
For reservoirs in series, the upstream reservoir S1 has a higher
priority of lling than the downstream reservoir S2. No additional
components of the operating rule were adopted. As shown in
Fig. 3, AQUATOOL, MODSIM, WARGI-SIM and WEAP exactly
reproduced the common operating rule for such systems and S2
was depleted before the water in S1 was discharged to meet the
downstream urban demand, whereas RIBASIM considers the
downstream reservoir S2 as a demand to be supplied by the
upstream reservoir S1.
5. Comparison of applications to a multi-reservoir and
multipurpose water system
To verify the potential for using generic simulation models to
dene drought mitigation measures, the Agri-Sinni water system
(Southern Italy) was considered (Fig. 4). The Agri-Sinni is a multi-
reservoir and multipurpose system located in the Basilicata
region. It supplies water to the Puglia and Calabria regions as well.
The main reservoirs in the system are Monte Cotugno (capacity of
556 106 m3) and Pertusillo (capacity of 159 106 m3) along the Sinni
and the Agri rivers, respectively. Marsico Nuovo and Cogliandrino
are single purpose reservoirs (for irrigation and hydroelectric use,
respectively) with small total capacities. ENEL, the largest Italian
power company, has the authority to manage the Cogliandrino
Minimum inow Initial volume Maximum capacity
(106 m3/year) (106 m3) (106 m3)
24.1 131 260
1.7 160 320
 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
Table 2
Monthly mean volume of spilling for reservoirs in parallel.
AQUATOOL, MODSIM
and RIBASIM
Spilling (106 m3/month) 2.17
reservoir exclusively for hydropower production. The reservoir is
operated independently. Four intake structures (Agri, Sarmento,
Sauro, and Gannano) were constructed on the main rivers for water
diversion.
Based on the observed monthly inows at Monte Cotugno and
Pertusillo over the period of 1983e2005, the inows in other
sections of interest in the basin were generated using the distrib-
uted runoff model DREAM (Manfreda et al., 2005). The inow series
accurately reproduced the severe water scarcities in the Agri-Sinni
system that occurred in the years 1989e1990 and 2001e2002.
Table 3 shows the main statistical properties of the inow series.
Urban (Lucano Aqueduct and AQP in Fig. 4), industrial (ILVA), and
agricultural (C.B.) demands are 295.8 106 m3/yr, 12.6 106 m3/yr, and
240 106 m3/yr, respectively.
Fig. 2. Storage volume time series for reservoirs in parallel.
219
Demand nodes in the graph, which were common to all
simulation models, represent aggregations of several homoge-
WARGI-SIM nous urban, industrial or agricultural water requests. The allo-
and WEAP cation order to follow when supplying those demands was
1.86 based on the assignment of a decreasing priority Pi (increasing
the priority number) to urban (P1 1), industrial (P2 2) and
agricultural (P3 3) demands. While in AQUATOOL all demand
nodes connected with sources were supplied by those sources,
MODSIM, RIBASIM, WARGI-SIM and WEAP required that each
demand node had a hierarchical list of sources from which
a supply ow could be activated. These lists of sources and
priorities for lling reservoirs were established according to the
information provided by the system water agency. This system
conguration was set up in an Italian National Project (PRIN:
Decision Support Model in complex system management under
shortage conditions).
5.1. Model applications to the basic system conguration
In a rst application of the simulation models, the conservation
and inactive zones were dened in the reservoirs while no further
components of reservoir operating rules were introduced. The
220 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
Fig. 3. Storage volume time series for reservoirs in series.
results of the rst phase simulation help us highlight heavy
restrictions operated during shortages and the resulting benets of
management rules that will be introduced in the following
paragraph.
The release time series simulated by the ve models for the
Monte Cotugno reservoir (Fig. 5) present similar trends, and they
closely reproduce the historical values. In particular, all models
simulated the severe restriction of total releases that occurred
during the most serious drought in years 2001e2002 when releases
were reduced by 55%, with a small exception of RIBASIM that gave
a higher reduction of 16% with respect to the historical value.
Table 4 shows the mean annual volume of spilling from the system
evaluated as the sum of spilling from the Monte Cotugno reservoir
and the available resources not diverted at the Gannano intake. As
reported in Table 4, the annual mean of spilling is minimized by
WARGI-SIM and WEAP, whose values are very close, whereas
higher values were obtained by AQUATOOL (3.9%), and, more
signicantly, by MODSIM (7.4%) and RIBASIM (8.6%). The results
previously described for simple systems in series and parallel could
partially explain these differences; nevertheless, a more in-depth
analysis of diversion utilization and spilling resulting from
WARGI-SIM and WEAP was needed.
Fig. 6 shows the simulated time series of monthly spilling at
Monte Cotugno and Gannano. WARGI-SIM and WEAP provided
similar results with the exception of Monte Cotugno reservoir
lling condition (Fig. 7). The occurrence of high ows and ood
events highlight the use of different techniques for reproducing
operating rules for reservoir lling. Specically:
1. The simulation-alone algorithm in WARGI-SIM requires a xed
list of reservoirs (i.e., Monte Cotugno) for each source (i.e., Agri,
Sauro and Gannano) that can operatively receive the unused
resources in all reservoir conditions;
2. The optimization model in WEAP has considerable exibility
for deciding whether incoming withdraw resources at the Agri
and Sauro intake structures should be released downstream.
Consequently, after having supplied the C.B. Bradano and
Metaponto irrigation demand, the WARGI-SIM and WEAP models
use different strategies to transfer exceeding resources. The
simulation-alone algorithm in WARGI-SIM transfers further
available resources from the Gannano intake structure to the
Monte Cotugno reservoir even when the Monte Cotugno reservoir
is in a lling condition. The optimization model in WEAP releases
 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225 221

Fig. 4. The Agri-Sinni water system in the WARGI-SIM graphical interface (satellite images courtesy of Google Earth).

downstream the Gannano structure the available resource at a predened demand level l (l 1.0, l 0.75 and l 0.5) of the
Monte Cotugno lling condition. aggregated water demand Dt,i. The time series of monthly simu-
In this study, the water system performance evaluation anal- lated values of supplies for each aggregated use, Xt,i, had its own
ysis in the form rst suggested by Hashimoto et al. (1982) and range of satisfactory, Sl,i, and unsatisfactory, Ul,i, values for each
recently revised by Sandoval-Solis et al. (2011) was used to threshold demand Dt,l,i l$Dt,i:
compare the supply performances of the models. Selected criteria
can capture the main differences of how generic simulation
models work more than system-oriented criteria that could if Xt;i  Dt;l;i then Xt;i Sl;i and Zt;l;i 1
(2)
describe the behavior of the system in depth but, in some cases, else Xt;i Ul;i and Zt;l;i 0
not offering interesting data to compare those models. The
performance criteria, CP,l,i were dened for the aggregated water The Nt periods of successive unsatisfactory Xt,i for the criterion
use i (i 1,2,3 related to urban, industrial and agricultural uses, (2) were then evaluated in the total time length, T, and reliability
respectively) when unsatisfactory values were unable to provide and vulnerability indices were dened as:

PT
t1 Zt;l;i
Reliability : CR;l;i (3)
T
Table 3
Statistical indexes of inows in the period 1983e2005. 8 9
>
> Dt;l;i  Xt;i >
>
Stations Mean Stand. Dev. Max Min >
<X >
=
(106 m3/year) (106 m3/year) (106 m3/year) (106 m3/year) Dt;i
Vulnerability : CV;l;i max (4)
Pertusillo 212.15 57.72 328.54 118.25 >
> Nt >
>
>
: tT >
;
Monte Cotugno 277.60 106.61 494.14 118.45
Cogliandrino 89.76 32.12 147.13 33.95
Marsico Nuovo 7.82 3.04 12.91 2.53
Gannano 105.54 88.56 389.03 11.72 Reliability and vulnerability were calculated in the 1983e2005
Agri 115.54 64.43 241.55 17.92 simulation period (T 264 months). As expected, the RIBASIM
Sauro 50.46 25.50 101.31 11.93 model, using allocation rules based only on a hierarchical order of
Sarmento 84.10 38.79 162.06 26.42
demand priorities, obtained higher vulnerabilities to those
222 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225

Historical WARGI-SIM MODSIM

AQUATOOL RIBASIM WEAP
400

300
Supply [10 m ]
3
6

200

100

0
1993-1994

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

1997-1998

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004
[Year]

Fig. 5. Simulated and historical releases from Monte Cotugno reservoir in the period 1993e2004.

demands with lower priorities (Table 5). The absence of any
reservoir release rule determined CV,1.0,3 (irrigation vulnerability)
higher than other uses in all model simulations. The urban
vulnerability values CV,1.0,1 obtained by models having a network
ow optimization algorithm engine (MODSIM and AQUATOOL)
were the same. These values were very close to the results of
WARGI-SIM, which uses a simulation-alone algorithm for repro-
ducing allocation rules based on priorities and preferences, ranging
from 0.42 to 0.46. WEAP using a linear programming model gave
a higher vulnerability value (CV,1.0,1 0.54), which was signicantly
lower than RIBASIM (CV,1.0,1 0.78).
Despite the similarities in the vulnerability values, CV,1.0,i of
AQUATOOL, MODSIM and WARGI-SIM, those models used different
techniques for reproducing allocation rules in the Agri-Sinni
system. Specically:
1. The management optimization of surface water in the system
was made once every month in MODSIM and AQUATOOL.
Decit costs in the objective function were calculated from
demand priorities (P1 1, P2 2 and P3 3);
2. In WARGI-SIM, the simulation process allocates the available
resources by rst considering only urban demands (P1 1),
then the ILVA industrial demand (P2 2) and nally irrigation
demands (P3 3), following the hierarchical order of demand
priorities.
MODSIM supplied the different demands having the same
priority from each reservoir zone simply by following the order of
node insertion in the system graph, and an equitably share of water
shortage among those demands during drought events was then
Table 4
Annual mean volume of spilling.
AQUATOOL
MODSIM
RIBASIM
WARGI-SIM
WEAP
assured only by introducing a really high number (i.e.: 100) of
multiple subzones in the conservation storage zones of Monte
Cotugno and Pertusillo reservoirs.
Reliability was then briey assessed from WARGI-SIM and
WEAP results. Table 6 shows that urban reliability values CR,1.0,1 and
CR,0.75,1 were lower than industrial values CR,1.0,2 and CR,0.75,2 for
WARGI-SIM and WEAP results. This was unexpected given the
priorities attached to the demand sites. This is because the ILVA
industrial demand could be supplied by several sources of the Agri-
Sinni, whereas one of the urban demands (AQP) has only the Per-
tusillo reservoir as source. As expected, reliability values for urban
CR,1.0,1 and CR,0.75,1 and industrial CR,1.0,2 and CR,0.75,2 in WARGI-SIM
were lower than in WEAP and equal or higher for CR,0.5,i. This
comparison shows that WARGI-SIM reduced the risk and cost of
large shortages, at a cost of more frequent small shortages
compared to WEAP that uses a linear objective function weighted
on decit costs. Finally, reliability values for agricultural use CR,l,3
were equal in WARGI-SIM and WEAP for all l levels, the agricultural
demands being supplied after demands with higher priorities
(Pi < 3).
5.2. Second model application
No operating rules were implemented in the rst generic
application of the simulation models; therefore all models repro-
duced the unsustainable condition of urban use during the two
severe drought events in the Agri-Sinni system (1988e1990 and
2001e2002). The results highlight that these two 2-year droughts
accounted for more than 80% of the total water shortage over the
total simulation period. A second application of the models intro-
duced operating rules to reduce the scarcity impacts. According to
the system water agency, the objective was to minimize the urban
and industrial vulnerabilities with respect to a single month (T 1
in (4)) and the entire demand level (l 1):
Water loss (106 m3/year)
93.99 8 9
>
>Dt;l;i  Xt;i >
>
97.22 >
< >
=
98.26 Dt;i
90.49 CVT 1;1;i max (5)
>
> Nt >
>
90.69 >
: >
;
 Fig. 6. Simulated spilling volumes at the Monte Cotugno reservoir (a) and Gannano intake structure (b).

RIBASIM WARGI-SIM MODSIM WEAP AQUATOOL

500

400

300
[10 m ]
3
6

200

100

0
Oct-83 Oct-86 Oct-89 Oct-92 Oct-95 Oct-98 Oct-01 Oct-04
[time]

Fig. 7. Simulated storage volumes at Monte Cotugno reservoir.

224 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225

Table 5 a restriction coefcient for the agricultural use and a target

Vulnerability values for different uses. volume of half of the conservation volume in both reservoirs as
CV,1.0,1 CV,1.0,2 CV,1.0,3 a trigger for the restriction rule;
AQUATOOL 0.42 0.67 0.98 2. In WARGI-SIM when the storage volume in a reservoir (Per-
MODSIM 0.42 0.67 0.98 tusillo or Monte Cotugno) was within a reserved volume that
RIBASIM 0.78 1.00 0.81 was equal to half of the conservation volume, releases were
WARGI-SIM 0.46 0.70 1.00
decreased to supply only the urban demands and the ILVA
WEAP 0.54 0.80 1.00
industrial demand;
3. In MODSIM and WEAP, a conditional rule curve was introduced
that dened reservoir releases from Monte Cotugno and Per-
Table 6 tusillo as a function of existing storage volume (WEAP), and
Monthly reliability for different uses in WARGI-SIM and WEAP.
a function of existing storage volume and inow into the
Urban Industrial Agricultural reservoir (MODSIM), when the storage volume was within the
WARGI-SIM WEAP WARGI-SIM WEAP WARGI-SIM WEAP buffer volume, which was equal to half of the conservation
CR,1.0,i 91.67 92.05 94.70 96.21 90.53 90.53 zone. The coefcients of these linear functions for each reser-
CR,0.75,i 94.32 95.08 95.08 96.21 91.67 91.67 voir were obtained using a trial-and-error procedure.
CR,0.5,i 97.73 97.73 95.45 96.21 93.56 93.56
In some cases, procedures were extremely sensitive and
computationally expensive. Table 7 summarizes results for
A hedging rule was introduced in all software to reduce agri- CV(T 1),1.0,i values. In these results, only WARGI-SIM minimized
cultural releases to save water for higher priority uses in the both urban and industrial demands, whereas the hedging rule in
following periods. Each simulation model has its own way to RIBASIM and WEAP did not reduce signicantly the urban and
reproduce this reservoir operating rule at Pertusillo and Monte industrial vulnerabilities. AQUATOOL and MODSIM could only save
Cotugno. Briey: water for urban demands. In particular, AQUATOOL, MODSIM,
RIBASIM and WEAP showed CV(T 1),1.0,2 higher than 0.85. It should
1. In AQUATOOL and RIBASIM at each arc entering in a demand be noted that the total releases in AQUATOOL, MODSIM and WEAP
node we associated a monthly alarm indicator containing were reduced and the reduced supplies were allocated to the
demands according to their priorities; in other words, the proce-
dure did not allow for water saving to decrease CV(T 1),1.0,2. Finally,
Table 7
the application of the proposed hedging rule in RIBASIM did not
Vulnerabilities values at single month for different uses, considering the reservoir efciently restrict supply to agricultural uses and CV(T 1),1.0,3 was
hedging rules. signicantly lower than that obtained using other simulation
CV(T CV(T CV(T
models (CV(T 1),1.0,3 0.79).
1),1.0,1 1),1.0,2 1),1.0,3
Fig. 8 shows the simulated time series of monthly storage
AQUATOOL 0.16 1.00 1.00
MODSIM 0.12 1.00 0.98 volumes at Monte Cotugno when releases were temporarily
RIBASIM 0.57 1.00 0.79 decreased by the hedging rule during the severe drought events. As
WARGI-SIM 0.28 0.00 1.00 expected, the time series of all models are close with signicant
WEAP 0.39 0.85 0.91
exceptions during drought events in 1988e1990, 1992e1993 and

RIBASIM WARGI-SIM MODSIM WEAP AQUATOOL

500

400

300
[10 m ]
3
6

200

100

0
Oct-83 Oct-86 Oct-89 Oct-92 Oct-95 Oct-98 Oct-01 Oct-04
[Time]

Fig. 8. Simulated storage volumes at Monte Cotugno reservoir operated through a hedging rule.
 A. Sulis, G.M. Sechi / Environmental Modelling & Software 40 (2013) 214e225
2001e2002. In those cases, the storage volume trend in Monte
Cotugno emphasized the use of different techniques for repro-
ducing the hedging rule that reduces reservoir releases when
storage volume is within the buffer zone. In particular, the most
conservative rules were those implemented in AQUATOOL and
RIBASIM, which use static hedging coefcients, whereas the release
reduction in MODSIM and WEAP were adaptive. This could justify
the fact, noticeable in Fig. 8, that reservoir storage remains
considerably high even during a drought when considering
AQUATOOL values.
6. Conclusions
Five popular generic simulation models were synthetically
illustrated in this paper and their features were compared via
application to a complex water system in Southern Italy. While
RIBASIM and WARGI-SIM use simulation-only algorithms in
a traditional if-then approach, AQUATOOL, MODSIM and WEAP
additionally employ optimization methods for the single period as
an efcient tool for performing simulations. Demand priority is
a common concept in all simulation models. AQUATOOL, MODSIM
and WEAP extend this concept to reservoir lling. Each model has
its own way to reproduce operating rules in the reservoir. A tradi-
tional hedging rule was implemented to reduce releases and save
water for high priority demands during the drought periods. The
results demonstrated that simulation-only models, such as WARGI-
SIM, can provide system performance criteria values close to or
higher than simulation models aided by optimization models. They
also can facilitate greater adherence to water allocation in real
world management of water systems.
Further research is needed to estimate and evaluate water
management of the system based on indexes that represent
aggregate measures of performance criteria, such as environmental
sustainability or drought risk indexes. Nevertheless, the second
model application, which introduced operating rules, highlights
the potential use of a simulation approach to reduce the environ-
mental impacts of drought. This approach could also be used to
estimate drought mitigation measures under different hydrologic
conditions, considering the alternation of the hydrological
scenarios due to climate change.
Acknowledgments
This research was developed with the nancial support of the
Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, under the
PRIN 2005 Project, Decision Support Model in complex system
management under shortage conditions and the Regione Auton-
oma della Sardegna, under the PO Sardegna FSE 2007e2013 (L.R.7/
2007 e Promozione della Ricerca Scientica e dellInnovazione
Tecnologica in Sardegna).
References
Andreu, J., Capilla, J., Sanchs, E., 1996. AQUATOOL, a generalised decision-support
system for water-resources planning and operational management. Journal of
Hydrology 177 (3e4), 269e291.
Assaf, H., van Beek, E., Borden, C., Gijsbers, P., Jolma, A., Kaden, S., Kaltofen, M.,
Labadie, J.W., Loucks, D.P., Quinn, N.W., Sieber, J., Sulis, A., Werick, W.J., Wood, D.M.,
2008. Generic simulation models for facilitating stakeholder involvement in
water resources planning and management: a comparison, evaluation, and
225
identication of future needs in environmental modelling, software and decision
support (3): the state of the art and new perspective. In: Jakeman, A., Voinov, A.,
Rizzoli, A.E., Chen, S. (Eds.), IDEA Book Series. Elsevier, pp. 229e246.
Bertsekas, D., Tseng, P., 1994. RELAX-IV: a Faster Version of the RELAX Code for
Solving Minimum Cost Flow Problems. Completion Report Under NSF Grant
CCR-9103804. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Bhaskar, N., Whitlatch, E., 1980. Derivation of monthly reservoir release policies.
Water Resources Research 16 (6), 987e993.
Brown, C.L., Barnwell Jr., T.O., 1987. The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models
QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS Documentation and User Manual. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
Georgia, EPA/600/3e85/040, 455 pp.
Delft Hydraulics, River Basin Planning and Management Simulation Program, 2006. In:
Voinov, A., Jakeman, A.J., Rizzoli, A.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEMSs Third Biennial
Meeting: Summit on Environmental Modelling and Software. International
Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., McDonald, M.G., 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the
U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-water Model e User Guide to Modu-
larization Concepts and the Ground-water Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-le Report 00-92, 121 pp.
Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J.R., Loucks, D.P., 1982. Reliability, resiliency, and vulner-
ability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation. Water
Resources Research 18 (1), 14e20.
Labadie, J.W., Baldo, M.L., Larson, R., 2000. MODSIM: Decision Support System for
River Basin Management: Documentation and User Manual. Colorado State
University and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Ft Collins, CO.
Labadie, J., 2003. Generalized Dynamic Programming Package: CSUDP, Documen-
tation and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins, CO.
Loucks, D.P., 1970. Some comments on linear decision rules and chance constraints.
Water Resources Research 6 (2), 668e671.
Loucks, D.P., 1992. Water resource systems models: their role in planning. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management 118 (3), 214e223.
Loucks, D.P., Sigvaldason, O.T., 1982. The operation of multiple reservoir systems.
In: Kaczmarek, Z., Kindler, J. (Eds.), Multiple-reservoir Operation in North
America. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Laxemburg,
Austria.
Lund, J., Guzman, J., 1999. Derived operating rules for reservoir in series or in
parallel. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 125 (3),
143e153.
Manfreda, S., Fiorentino, M., Iacobellis, V., 2005. DREAM: a distributed model for
runoff, evapotranspiration, and antecedent soil moisture simulation. Advances
in Geosciences Vol. 2, 31e39.
McIntosh, B.S., Ascough, J.C., Twery, M., Chew, J., Elmahdi, A., Haase, D., Harou, J.J.,
Hepting, D., Cuddy, S., Jakeman, A.J., Chen, S., Kassahun, A., Lautenbach, S.,
Matthews, K., Merritt, W., Quinn, N.W.T., Rodriguez-Roda, I., Sieber, S.,
Stavenga, M., Sulis, A., Ticehurst, J., Volk, M., Wrobel, M., van Delden, H., El-
Sawah, S., Rizzoli, A., Voinov, A., 2011. Environmental decision support systems
(EDSS) development e challenges and best practices. Environmental Modelling
& Software 26 (12), 1389e1402.
Needham, J.T., 1998. Application of Linear Programming for Flood Control Opera-
tions on the Iowa and des Moines Rivers, MS thesis, University of California,
Davis.
Pallottino, S., Sechi, G.M., Zuddas, P., 2005. A DSS for water resources management
under uncertainty by scenario analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software
20, 1031e1042.
Rani, D., Moreira, M., 2010. A survey and potential application in reservoir systems
operation. Water Resources Management 24 (6), 1107e1138.
Rossi, G., Vega, T., Bonaccorso, B., 2007. Methods and Tools for Drought Analysis and
Management. Springer, 418 pp.
Sandoval-Solis, S., McKinney, D.C., Loucks, D.P., 2011. Sustainability index for water
resources planning and management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 137 (5), 381e390.
Sechi, G.M., Sulis, A., 2009. Water system management through a mixed
optimization-simulation approach. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 135 (3), 160e170.
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute, 2005. WEAP: Water Evaluation and Planning
System, User Guide. Somerville, MA.
Sheer, D., 1986. Dan Sheers Reservoir Operating Guidelines. School of Civil and
Environmental Engeneering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Simonovic, S.P., 1992. Reservoir systems analysis: closing gap between theory
and practice. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 118 (3),
262e280.
Sulis, A., 2009. GRID computing approach for multireservoir operating rules with
uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software 24 (7), 859e864.