J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.
A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
DOI 10.1007/s40030-012-0013-8
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Optimal Reservoir Operation for Hydropower Generation using
Non-linear Programming Model
R. Arunkumar • V. Jothiprakash
Received: 2 January 2012 / Accepted: 23 July 2012 / Published online: 13 September 2012
Ó The Institution of Engineers (India) 2012
Abstract Hydropower generation is one of the vital
components of reservoir operation, especially for a large
multi-purpose reservoir. Deriving optimal operational rules
for such a large multi-purpose reservoir serving various
purposes like irrigation, hydropower and flood control are
complex, because of the large dimension of the problem
and the complexity is more if the hydropower production is
not an incidental. Thus optimizing the operations of a
reservoir serving various purposes requires a systematic
study. In the present study such a large multi-purpose
reservoir, namely, Koyna reservoir operations are opti-
mized for maximizing the hydropower production subject
to the condition of satisfying the irrigation demands using a
non-linear programming model. The hydropower produc-
tion from the reservoir is analysed for three different
dependable inflow conditions, representing wet, normal
and dry years. For each dependable inflow conditions,
various scenarios have been analyzed based on the con-
straints on the releases and the results are compared. The
annual power production, combined monthly power pro-
duction from all the powerhouses, end of month storage
levels, evaporation losses and surplus are discussed. From
different scenarios, it is observed that more hydropower
can be generated for various dependable inflow conditions,
if the restrictions on releases are slightly relaxed. The study
shows that Koyna dam is having potential to generate more
hydropower.
R. Arunkumar (&)  V. Jothiprakash, Fellow
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India
e-mail: arunkumar.r@iitb.ac.in
Keywords Hydropower generation  Optimization 
Non-linear programming model 
Koyna hydroelectric project
Introduction
Hydropower is one of the clean and green potential sources
for meeting the growing energy needs of a country. The main
advantages of hydropower are the absence of pollution
during operation, its capability to respond quickly to
changing demands, and its relatively low operating costs.
India is endowed with rich hydropower potential and it ranks
fifth in the world in terms of usable potential. In India, most
of the reservoirs are having hydropower plants. However,
only less than 25 % of the total possible potential had been
developed or taken up for development [1] and the existing
hydropower plants are not operated to its full potential due to
several reasons. Some of them are (i) hydropower is pro-
duced through irrigation release in most of the reservoir;
(ii) hydropower and irrigation are having conflicting
objectives and (iii) the disputes in sharing the available
water among different stakeholders. As per Asian Devel-
opment Bank (ADB) [1] report, nearly 78 % of the potential
remains without any plan for exploitation. Thus in the
present scenario, there is a need to exploit the full potential
of the existing hydropower plants and to optimize their
operations for maximizing the hydropower generation. In
India, most of the reservoirs are serving multiple purposes,
even if it was planned for a specific purpose at the time of
construction. Deriving the optimal operational rules for
large multi-purpose reservoirs serving various purposes
such as irrigation, hydropower and flood control are com-
plex, because of the large dimension of the problem and
conflicting objectives. Optimizing the operational plans of
123
112
such reservoirs serving both the irrigation and hydropower
are also complex, if the hydropower production is not an
incidental. Hydropower requires more head to be available
in reservoir for efficient operation, where as crop production
requires more irrigation release. This calls for an efficient
and effective operation of reservoirs for the development of
the country in agricultural as well as power sector.
Optimizing the operations of a large multi-purpose
reservoir requires a systematic study [2]. Several optimi-
zation techniques have been applied to derive the optimal
reservoir operational rules like linear programming (LP),
non-linear programming (NLP), goal programming (GP),
chance constraint linear programming (CCLP), dynamic
programming (DP) and recently, the soft computing tech-
niques. Detailed reviews about these optimization tech-
niques are also available in the literature [3–5]. Even
though various techniques are available, the complexity of
the model depends on the case study and its associated
problems. Optimizing hydropower systems are more
complex because of their non-linear objective functions
and constraints. However, the non-linear problem can be
converted to linear through approximation and can be solved
using LP technique. Various studies have been reported for
optimizing hydropower systems using different techniques,
for example, CCLP [6], mixed integer programming (MIP)
[7], stochastic dynamic programming (SDP) [8], bayesian
stochastic dynamic programming (BSDP) [9]. A review on
various techniques used for optimizing the hydropower
production can be found from previous literature [10, 11].
Among several techniques, NLP is widely applied for
optimizing hydropower systems [12, 13], since it is most
accurate, involves no approximation and uses the physi-
cally based non-linear energy production function [14].
NLP technique is also used for many other applications
such as, optimal cropping pattern [15], multi-purpose res-
ervoir optimization [16], multi-reservoir optimization [17]
and optimal design and operation of pumping stations [18]
apart from hydropower optimization.
The researchers have developed a reliability model for
optimizing the operations of a multi-purpose reservoir for
hydropower generation and flood control [19]. The model
was solved using a three level algorithm, which includes a
non-linear search, a separable programming and a LP.
Earlier, the researchers have already compared the two
non-linear methods namely, augmented price method
(APM) and sequential quadratic programming (SQP) for
optimizing a large scale hydropower plant in Zambezi river
system, Africa [20]. Both the algorithms were applied for
different time horizons and inflow records. The researchers
have developed a non-linear optimization model for a
multi-purpose reservoir operation [16]. It was reported that
the developed model successfully integrated the behaviour
analysis algorithm, automatic differentiation and sequent
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
peak algorithm. The scientists have developed the optimal
operation policies for a multi-reservoir hydropower system
in Maine, USA using the NLP technique and reported that
the model allows the decision makers to adjust the opera-
tions for different alternative operation scenarios [21].
Some researchers have applied the mixed integer NLP for
short-term optimal operation of hydraulically linked
hydropower reservoirs in Manitoba, Canada [22]. In their
study, the hydraulic coupling between the cascades of
hydropower plants was established using the tail water
elevation curve. Previous researchers have developed a
monthly NLP optimization model, called SISOPT for the
management and operations of the Brazilian hydro-power
system [14]. The formulated NLP model was first linear-
ized by two different linearization techniques and solved
by LP method. It was reported that the LP model could be
used in system capacity expansion studies, where storage
variation is not as important as the power production.
However, the NLP model performed better when checked
with the historical operational records and concluded that
the NLP model is the most accurate and practically suitable
for real-time operation. A decomposition-coordination
approach was applied by Ailing [23] to a multiple hydro-
electric reservoir systems of Yellow River, China.
After investigation, the scientists have developed a NLP
model for a multi-reservoir system in upper Krishna basin
for maximizing the irrigation, municipal and industrial
releases and hydropower production [17]. On comparing the
results with the LP model, it was reported that the NLP
model resulted in less irrigation deficit with more hydro-
power production. The decomposition was done on the non-
linear hydropower problem using linear approximation for
optimal short-term hydropower scheduling of Multi-reser-
voir system [24]. A non-linear multi-objective optimization
model was developed by earlier researchers to optimize the
annual scheduling of power generation in serial or parallel
hydropower plants for dry, medium and wet scenarios [25].
The multiple objectives were converted to a single objective
using weighted sum method. It was reported that the wet
scenario resulted in increased amount of energy production
due to high inflow. A monthly mathematical model, called
HIDROTERM, was developed by the researchers to opti-
mize the management and operation of large hydrothermal
systems [26, 27]. This study was further extended for more
R&D purposes [28, 29]. The researchers have compared the
two optimization models namely equivalent reservoir opti-
mization model (EROM) and operational optimization
model (OPOM) for optimal hydropower production of São
Francisco River Hydroelectric System, Brazil [30]. It was
reported that the OPOM procedure was more accurate than
EROM, since power plants and reservoirs were represented
as individual items of the system. However, when a quick
estimate of the potential power production is needed, the
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
EROM approach is a simpler alternative to model the sys-
tem. All these studies show that NLP technique provides
better results for hydropower optimization. It is becoming
increasingly important to optimize the operations of reser-
voirs for effective, efficient and economical management
and operations for various purposes. Among the various
purposes of a reservoir, hydropower plants play a significant
role in supplying the national power grid, especially the high
valued peak demand loads. Therefore, planning and opera-
tion of hydropower reservoirs is more focused on peak load
power generation. Hence, in the present study it is aimed to
optimize the hydropower generation of a large scale
hydropower plant using NLP model. The present study also
focuses on the effect of different inflow conditions for var-
ious operating scenarios in peak hydropower production.
Thus, three different dependable inflow levels such as 50 %
(wet), 75 % (normal) and 90 % (dry) are considered to study
the performance of the developed NLP model. The results of
this study can be used as initial trajectory and the results can
be further improved, and also provides a basis for develop-
ing operational plans using soft computing techniques.
Study Area
The Koyna Hydro Electric Project (KHEP) in Maharashtra,
India is considered as the case study. The KHEP is the
lifeline of Maharashtra, which has four stages to a total
capacity of 1,960 MW [31]. The Koyna reservoir situated on
the west coast of Maharashtra, India, alone has three pow-
erhouses, two on the western side and one at the dam foot on
the eastern side of the reservoir. The location of Koyna dam
and its powerhouses is shown in Fig. 1. The Koyna stage I is
Fig. 1 Location of powerhouses of Koyna dam
113
the first base load hydel station with 4 9 70 MW capacity.
The second stage (stage II) was designed to harness the
capacity of 4 9 80 MW. For these two stages the dam,
headrace tunnel, surge well pressure shafts and tailrace are
common and hence referred as single powerhouse PH I in
this study. Thus, the combined total capacity of both the
stages is 600 MW. The full installed capacity of PH I
(stage I and II) supplying base power to the grid was found
insufficient to cope up with the peak demand of the state.
Hence, it was decided to meet the demand during peak
hours by converting the hydropower stations into peaking
stations. This has given rise to stage IV (hereafter referred
as PH II) with a capacity of 4 9 250 MW in KHEP. Apart
from power generation, there is also a need to release for
irrigation and downstream riparian rights on eastern side,
which has fertile land as compared to barren exposed rock
covers, and undulating terrain on western side. Hence, the
Koyna Dam Power House (KDPH) (hereafter referred as
PH III) was constructed with a capacity of 2 9 20 MW to
generate hydropower through the irrigation releases. The
stage III is at Kolkewadi dam with a capacity of
4 9 80 MW. All the releases required for this stage III is
made from Kolkewadi dam and receives most of its inflow
from the tailrace water from PH I and PH II of the Koyna
dam. In the present study, only the Koyna dam power-
houses are considered and the total installed capacity of
Koyna dam considered is 1,640 MW (PH I, PH II and PH
III). The power production at Koyna dam is not continu-
ous, since they are all peaking stations. They are operated
only during the peak hours i.e. during the morning and
evening where there is a peak demand. It is also to be
noted that the power generation at PH III in the eastern
side of the dam is incidental, since it is through irrigation
123
114
release, and the major powerhouses release are to be made
in the western side of the dam.
Model Formulation
The capacity of a hydropower plant is primarily the func-
tion of the hydraulic head and the flow rate through the
turbines. According to Loucks et al. [2], the hydropower
production during any time period t for any reservoir is
dependent on the installed plant capacity, flow through the
turbines, average effective storage head, number of hours
operation, plant factor (the fraction of time that energy is
produced) and a constant for converting the product of
flow, head and plant efficiency to electrical energy. Thus,
the hydropower produced [32] (PHt) in terms of kilowatt-
hours (kWh) during any time period t is expressed as
PHt ¼ 2725  Rt  Ht  g ð1Þ
where, Rt is the release to powerhouse during the time period
t, Ht is the net head available during the time period t and g is
the plant efficiency. In the present study, the average head
available during a particular time period t is expressed as
function of storage. Then the net head is estimated by
deducting the tail water level and the frictional losses.
The objective of the present study is to maximize the
hydropower production from all the three powerhouses and
it is expressed as:
X
12
Max Z ¼ PH It þ PH IIt þ PH IIIt ð2Þ
t¼1
where, PH It ; PH IIt and PH IIIt is the power produced from
PH I, PH II and PH III, respectively during the time period
t in terms of kWh. The above objective function is sub-
jected to various constraints.
The head available in the reservoir should be greater
than the minimum drawdown level of the powerhouse for
any time period t. This is expressed as
Hn;t  MDDLn;t t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12; n ¼ 1; 2; 3 ð3Þ
where Hn;t is the head (m) in the reservoir for the
powerhouse n during the time period t and MDDLn;t is the
allowable minimum drawdown level for the powerhouse n
during the time period t. The power production during any
time period t should be less than or equal to the maximum
power generating capacity of the power plant
PHn;t  P maxn;t P maxn;t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12; n ¼ 1; 2; 3
ð4Þ
where PHn;t is the power produced (kWh) in the power-
house n during the time period t; Pmaxn;t is the maximum
capacity of power generation (kWh) for the powerhouse n
during the time period t.
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
The release for irrigation should be greater than or equal
to the demand for irrigation during the time period ‘t’.
R3;t  IDt t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12 ð5Þ
where R3;t is the eastward irrigation release from Koyna
Dam during the time period t and IDt is the demand for
irrigation during the time period t.
The diversion of huge quantity of water to the western
side for power production has resulted in series disputes.
To ensure adequate water for irrigation on eastern side and
other downstream rights, the westward diversion was
restricted to certain limit [31]. Therefore, diversion of large
quantity of water to westward for power production was
restricted to 1,912 9 106 m3 and the irrigation release
should be 850 9 106 m3. This Krishna water tribunal
constraint is given as:
X
12
ðR1;t þ R2;t Þ  Rw;max ð6Þ
t¼1
X
12
R3;t  IDmax ð7Þ
t¼1
where, Rw;max is the maximum annual volume of water that
can be diverted to the western side for power production
and IDmax is the maximum annual volume of water to be
released for irrigation in the eastern side.
The reservoir storage St during any time period t should
not be less than the minimum storage (Smin ) or dead storage
and should not be more than maximum storage (Smax ) or
capacity of the reservoir. This physical constraint is given by:
Smin  St  Smax t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12 ð8Þ
The evaporation loss (Et) during the period t is
expressed as a function of initial and final storage [33]
during that particular time period. A regression equation
has been developed between the monthly evaporation loss
and the average storage in that month. The regression
equation is expressed as:
 
St þ Sðtþ1Þ
Et ¼ a t þ b t t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12 ð9Þ
2
where, at and bt are the regression constants during the time
period t estimated by regression analysis.
For any given time period t, the final storage in the res-
ervoir should be equal to the inflow, releases and other losses
of the system. This mass balance constraint is given as:
X
3
Sðtþ1Þ ¼ St þ It  Rn;t  Ot  Et
n¼1
ð10Þ
t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12; n ¼ 1; 2; 3
where, Sðtþ1Þ is the final storage in the reservoir during the
time period t (106 m3); St is the initial storage in the
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120 115

reservoir during the time period t (106 m3); It is the inflow
into the reservoir during the time period t (106 m3); Rn;t is
the release to the power house n during the time period t
(106 m3); Ot is the overflow from the reservoir during the
time period t (106 m3) and Et is the evaporation losses from
the reservoir during the time period t, (106 m3).
The overflow occurs when the final storage exceeds the
reservoir capacity. This overflow constraint is given by:
Ot ¼ Sðtþ1Þ  Smax t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12
and Ot  0 t ¼ 1; 2; . . .12
where, Smax is the capacity of the reservoir during time
period t (106 m3) and Sðtþ1Þ is the final storage in the res-
ervoir during time period t (106 m3). This final storage is
initial storage for the next time period t ? 1, when there is
no overflow. If overflow occurs then Smax will be the initial
storage for the next time period t ? 1 for the reservoir.
Results and Discussion
In the present study, the operational plans of Koyna reservoir
are optimized for maximizing the hydropower production
using a monthly time step NLP model. The above formu-
lated NLP model is solved using LINGO/Global solver [34].
The developed NLP model is optimized for 50 % (wet),
75 % (normal) and 90 % (dry) dependable inflows, esti-
mated by Weibull’s method [35] from 49 years of inflow
data. The box and whisker plot of Koyna reservoir inflow is
shown in Fig. 2. From the figure, it can be observed that the
average inflow is higher during monsoon periods. The
maximum inflow is observed in the month of August. It is
also observed that some outliers are found in few months.
During the non-monsoon periods, the mean, maximum and
minimum are almost same which shows that the data is near
normally distributed. From the analysis, it is observed that
the reservoir receives 95 % of the inflow during the mon-
soon season (5 months) and the remaining 5 % during the
non-monsoon period (7 months). Thus, the reservoir is
completely dependent on monsoon inflow. Therefore, it is
very much important to store the water to meet the unex-
pected demands during the non-monsoon periods. Hence, in
real-life the reservoir is always maintained with good stor-
ð11Þ age. The initial storage for optimizing the models is taken as
ð12Þ corresponding dependable inflow year starting month stor-
age observed in the reservoir. The Koyna reservoir evapo-
ration is expressed as the function of average storage [33]
(initial and final storage) of the reservoir during the partic-
ular time period t, as showed in Eq. 9. The constants in the
equation at and bt are estimated through regression analysis
of the evaporation during a particular time period against the
average storage during that time period using 49 years of
observed data. The values of the regression constants for
various time periods are given in Table 1.
Based on the constraints of the above formulated NLP
model, several scenarios are analyzed for each dependable
inflow considering with and without restriction on releases
to the westward and eastward sides. These different sce-
narios will be helpful in assessing the full potential of the
system and are given as:
Scenario 1: No eastward and westward binding
constraints on releases are considered
Scenario 2: Only annual binding constraint on irrigation
(eastward) releases is considered
Scenario 3: Both monthly and annual binding constraint
on irrigation (eastward) releases is considered
Scenario 4: Both westward and eastward binding
constraints on releases are considered as per
the Krishna tribunal [31]

Table 1 Estimated values of evaporation constants for different

months
Month at bt

June 3.00 0.0074

July 3.06 0.0068
August 3.62 0.0068
September 3.43 0.0069
October 3.38 0.0076
November 3.01 0.0076
December 3.01 0.0078
January 3.37 0.0075
February 3.48 0.0066
March 4.35 0.0068
April 4.42 0.0064
Fig. 2 Box and whisker plot of Koyna reservoir inflow for different May 4.07 0.0073
time period

123
116
The results of the developed NLP model for these four
scenarios under different dependable inflow conditions are
discussed in the following section.
Annual Power Production
The resulted annual hydropower production from various
scenarios for different dependable inflow conditions are
given in Table 2. From the table it can be seen that the
power production decreases with increase in the inflow
dependability. This is due the fact that the quantity of
inflow decreases with the increase in the dependability
level. Also, the various scenario shows that the power
production decreases with the increase in the irrigation
release. Since, major powerhouses are in western side and
the irrigation releases are on the eastern side of the reser-
voir. This also shows that the power production and the
irrigation are having conflicting objectives in this case. In
scenario 1, no restrictions (Eqs. 5, 6 and 7 are not con-
sidered) are considered on releases either on westward or
eastward. In scenario 1, the 50 % dependable inflow has
produced a maximum of 4824.48 9 106 kWh hydropower,
better than the other inflow series. However, the irrigation
release on the eastern side is very less and also for only
three months. For this scenario, the model has not resulted
in any irrigation releases to the eastern side for 75 and
90 % dependable inflows. This may be due to that no
binding constraints are considered on the irrigation relea-
ses. This shows that the model tend to release more for
power production than irrigation. Since there is no release
for irrigation on the eastern side, there is no power pro-
duction from PH III for all the three inflow conditions.
In order to achieve irrigation release, in scenario 2, the
annual irrigation release constraint (Eqs. 5 and 6 are not
considered) is considered. The maximum annual hydro-
power production in scenario 2 is 4332.28 9 106 kWh is
also for 50 % dependable inflow. In this scenario, the model
has resulted in the annual irrigation release as per the tri-
bunal for all the inflow conditions, but not for all the time
periods. Only few months have irrigation release. This has
Table 2 Annual hydropower production from various scenarios for
different inflow conditions
Scenario Annual hydropower production for various dependable
inflow levels (106 kWh)
50 % 75 % 90 %
1 4824.48 4300.68 3535.64
2 4332.28 3294.05 2520.24
3 3956.13 3268.42 2493.76
4 2685.58 2673.25 2493.76
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
substantially reduced the releases on western side and the
annual power production is also decreased from scenario 1
for all the inflow conditions. The reduction in power pro-
duction is also due to that the powerhouses on the western
side are having high capacity and net head than PH III.
Since, the irrigation releases are not made in all the months
in the above scenario 2, both the irrigation release con-
straints (Eq. 6 is not considered) are taken into account in
scenario 3. The additional irrigation constraint has forced
the model to release for irrigation every month as per the
monthly demand. The maximum annual power production
in this scenario is 3956.13 9 106 kWh for 50 % dependable
inflow. However, there is a slight reduction in power pro-
duction compared to scenario 2, due to the variation in
monthly releases and storage levels. In all the above sce-
narios, there is no restriction on westward release for power
production and hence the total release on westward is more
the tribunal limit. In order to restrict the release on the
westward as per the tribunal, in scenario 4 all the binding
constraints (Eqs. 5, 6 and 7) on releases are considered. The
maximum annual power production in this scenario is
2685.58 9 106 kWh for 50 % dependable inflow. Since the
releases are restricted to less than the capacity of major
powerhouses, the power production has been considerably
decreased. Also, in scenario 4 the variation in power pro-
duction among the different inflow conditions is less com-
pared to other scenarios. For 90 % dependable inflow there
is no variation in power production among the scenario 3 and
4. This shows that the when the inflow is very low, the
constraints on releases does not affect the power production.
On the other hand, this has resulted in increased storage in
the reservoir and also overflows in few months.
Combined Monthly Power Production
The total monthly power production from all the three
powerhouses for 50 % dependable inflow condition is
given in Fig. 3. From the figure, it is observed that all the
scenarios, except scenario 4, have resulted in maximum
production during monsoon period due to high inflow and
storage. For most of the months, the scenarios 1 and 2 have
produced almost equal power production. The scenario 1
has resulted in good power production for all months
expect May. This may be due to the less storage at the end
of the season. The scenario 4 has constant power produc-
tion for most of the monsoon months and much lesser than
other scenario due to the restriction in releases on either
side. This shows that the scenario 4 keeps storing the water
during monsoon and hence during non-monsoon seasons
the power production is higher.
The combined monthly power production from all the
three powerhouses for various scenarios of 75 % depend-
able inflow is given in Fig. 4. From the figure, it is
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120 117

Fig. 3 Monthly power production from various scenarios for 50 % Fig. 5 Monthly power production from various scenarios for 90 %
dependable inflow dependable inflow

shows that even under unrestricted flow on westward, the

system is not able to produce hydropower due to the less
inflow.

Storage Curves

The resulted end of month storage levels from various

scenarios for 50 % dependable inflow condition is given in
Fig. 6. From the figure, it can be seen that all the scenarios
have resulted in maximum storage at least in one month.
Even though all the scenarios have resulted in maximum
storage, the overflow occurred only in scenario 4 during the
month of August for 50 % dependable inflow. This is due
to that, in scenario 4, the releases are restricted strictly to
the tribunal limits and this has increased the storage in the
Fig. 4 Monthly power production from various scenarios for 75 %
dependable inflow

observed that initially the power production is same for all

the scenarios and the power production increases with
increase in the inflow for scenario 1, 2 and 3. Like 50 %
dependable inflow condition, the power production from
scenario 4 is constant during the monsoon season and there
is high variation during non-monsoon season. Also, there is
a substantial power production during the non-monsoon
periods where there will be peak demand. Figure 5 shows
the combined monthly power production from various
scenarios for 90 % dependable inflow. Unlike other two
inflow conditions, the power production from 90 %
dependable inflow is constant at the start and end of the
season for all the scenarios. It is observed that the overall
monthly maximum power production is lesser than 50 and
75 % dependable inflow. Also, the scenarios 3 and 4 have Fig. 6 Resulted end of month storage from various scenarios for
almost produced same hydropower in all the months. This 50 % dependable inflow

123
118 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120

reservoir leading to overflow. However, there is no over-

flow in scenario 4 for 75 and 90 % dependable inflows,
since the inflow is decreased. For all the scenarios, the
storage during the non-monsoon period is decreasing since
there is very less inflow and only the carry over storage is
available for release. The resulted final storage for different
time periods from various scenarios for 75 % dependable
inflow is given in Fig. 7. For both the inflow condition,
except scenario 4, all other scenarios have resulted in a
similar trend in final storage. From the figure, it can be seen
that the resulted final storage for scenario 1, 2 and 3 is
much lesser than the scenario 4. This is due to the increased
release in all the scenarios except scenario 4. It is to be
noted that in scenario 4, due to restriction, the release is
very less and subsequently the storage is more. Also, the
difference in maximum storage between scenario 4 and Fig. 8 Resulted end of month storage from various scenarios for
other scenarios is very high for 75 % dependable inflow. 90 % dependable inflow
Thus in case of 50 % dependable inflow, the surplus is over
and above the complete utilization of the powerhouses, Fig. 8. From the figure, it is observed that all the scenarios
whereas in case of 75 % dependable inflow, the flow is have resulted almost same maximum storage during the
underutilized and resulted in more storage. The available month of August. It is also observed that the storage levels
storage in the reservoir shows that still more hydropower for scenario 3 and 4 are same for all the months. The
can be generated in all the scenarios during the monsoon resulted storage is much less than 50 and 75 % dependable
season. During monsoon period, the variation in storage inflow condition. Unlike other inflow condition, the final
level is very less for all the scenarios. However, during the storage at the end of the season is same as initial storage for
non-monsoon period, the variation is very high. Also for all all the scenarios. It is also seen that there are no surplus for
the scenarios, except scenario 4, the final storage at the end 90 % dependable inflow level, since the inflow is less and
of the season is same as the initial storage thus representing fully utilized for power production. This shows that the
the steady state policy. However, in scenario 4, due to release constraint restricted the power production half of
restriction on releases, the model keeps on storing the the possible power production. Instead of producing power,
water resulting in excess storage at the end of the season. huge storage is maintained in the reservoir. Thus, it may
The resulted end of month storage levels from various concluded that there is still more power production
scenarios for 90 % dependable inflow condition is given in potential from Koyna dam.

Fig. 7 Resulted end of month storage from various scenarios for Fig. 9 Resulted evaporation from various scenarios for 50 %
75 % dependable inflow dependable inflow

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
Evaporation Loss
The evaporation loss during a particular time period is
expressed as a function of initial and final storage in the
reservoir during that particular time period. The resulted
evaporation loss from various scenarios of power produc-
tion for 50 and 75 % dependable inflow condition is shown
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. From the figures, it can be
seen that the evaporation has followed a similar trend of
storage. This shows that the storage in the reservoir plays a
significant role in reservoir evaporation, since the water
spread area of the Koyna reservoir is very high. The
evaporation for scenario 4 is much higher than all other
scenarios for the both inflows, since the storage is also
higher for scenario 4.
Fig. 10 Resulted evaporation from various scenarios for 75 %
dependable inflow
Fig. 11 Resulted evaporation from various scenarios for 90 %
dependable inflow
119
The resulted evaporation from various scenarios for
90 % dependable inflow condition is given in Fig. 11.
Contrasting to the above inflow conditions, the variation in
evaporation loss is very less among different scenarios for
90 % dependable inflow condition.
Conclusion
In the present study, the Koyna reservoir operations are
optimized for maximizing hydropower production satisfying
the irrigation demands using a NLP model. Among different
dependable inflow conditions, 50 % dependable level has
resulted in more power production due to the high inflow.
The model resulted in a maximum power production of
4824.48 9 106 kWh when there is no restriction in releases.
From the study, it is observed that the increase in release for
irrigation has decreased the power production considerably.
The comparison of monthly power production shows that
during the monsoon seasons the power production is higher
than the other months. This is due the storage and the high net
head available during that period. This study shows that the
power that can be produced with all the release constraints is
only 55 % of the power production potential of Koyna res-
ervoir. The developed model has also resulted in good stor-
age at the end of the season and available storage can be
further utilized for more hydropower generation. The study
shows that Koyna dam is having more potential to generate
more hydropower. Further, the results of this study can be
used as initial trajectory and provides the basis for the other
methods like recent soft computing techniques through
which the results can be further improved.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the Minis-
try of Water Resources, Government of India, New Delhi, for spon-
soring this research project through the Indian National Committee on
Hydrology. The authors also thank the people who concern related to
Koyna Hydroelectric Project and Koyna Dam for providing necessary
data.
References
1. ADB. Hydropower development in India: a sector assessment.
Asian Development Bank, Publication Stock No. 031607, Phil-
ippines, 2007
2. D.P. Loucks, J.R. Stedinger, D.A. Haith. Water Resources Sys-
tems Planning and Analysis. (Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, 1981)
3. W.W.G. Yeh. Reservoir management and operation models: a
state-of-the-art review. Water Resour. Res. 21(12), 1797–1818
(1985)
4. R. Wurbs. Reservoir-system simulation and optimization models.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. ASCE 119(4), 455–472 (1993)
5. D. Rani, M.M. Moreira. Simulation–optimization modelling: a
survey and potential application in reservoir systems operation.
Water Resour. Manag. 24(6), 1107–1138 (2009)
123
120
6. K. Sreenivasan, S. Vedula. Reservoir operation for hydropower
optimization: a chance-constrained approach. Sadhana 21,
503–510 (1996)
7. J. Yi. Mixed integer programming approach to optimal short-term
unit commitment for hydropower systems. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2(3), 335–346 (1998)
8. B. Zahraie, M. Karamouz. Hydropower reservoirs operation: a
time decomposition approach. Sci. Iran. 11, 92–103 (2004)
9. P.P. Mujumdar, B. Nirmala. A bayesian stochastic optimization
model for a multi-reservoir hydropower system. Water Resour.
Manag. 21(9), 1465–1485 (2007)
10. J.A. Momoh, M.E. El-Hawary, R. Adapa. A review of selected
optimal power flow literature to 1993 part I: nonlinear and qua-
dratic programming approaches. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems 14(1), 96–104 (1999a)
11. J.A. Momoh, M.E. El-Hawary, R. Adapa. A review of selected
optimal power flow literature to 1993 part II: Newton, linear
programming and interior point methods. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 14(1), 105–111 (1999b)
12. C.R. Gagnon, R.H. Hicks, S.L.S. Jacoby, J.S. Kowalik. A non-
linear programming approach to a very large hydroelectric sys-
tem optimization. Math. Program. 6, 28–41 (1974)
13. J.A. Tejada-Guibert, J.R. Stedinger, K. Staschus. Optimization of
value of CVP’s hydropower production. J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manag. ASCE 116(1), 52–70 (1990)
14. M.T.L. Barros, F.T.C. Tsai, S.L. Yang, J.E.G. Lopes, W.W.G. Yeh.
Optimization of large-scale hydropower system operations. J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manag. ASCE 129(3), 178–188 (2003)
15. G. Paudyal, A.D. Gupta. A nonlinear chance constrained model
for irrigation planning. Agric. Water Manag. 18(2), 87–100
(1990)
16. A. Sinha, B. Rao, C. Bischof. Nonlinear optimization model for
screening multipurpose reservoir systems. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. ASCE 125(4), 229–233 (1999)
17. M.G. Devamane, V. Jothiprakash, S. Mohan. Non-linear pro-
gramming model for multipurpose multi-reservoir operation.
Hydrol. J. 29(3–4), 33–46 (2006)
18. M. Moradi-Jalal, M.A. Mariño, A. Afshar. Optimal design and
operation of irrigation pumping stations. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
ASCE 129(3), 149–154 (2003)
19. S.P. Simonovic, R. Srinivasan. Explicit stochastic approach for
planning the operations of reservoirs for hydropower production.
Extreme Hydrological Events: Precipitation, Floods and Droughts,
Proceedings of the Yokohama Symposium, 1993, pp. 349–349
20. E. Arnold, P. Tatjewski, P. Wołochowicz. Two methods for
large-scale nonlinear optimization and their comparison on a case
study of hydropower optimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 81(2),
221–248 (1994)
21. C.S. Peng, N. Buras. Dynamic operation of a surface water
resources system. Water Resour. Res. 36(9), 41–60 (2000)
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2012) 93(2):111–120
22. R.S.V. Teegavarapu, S.P. Simonovic. Short-term operation model
for coupled hydropower reservoirs. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. ASCE 126(2), 98–106 (2000)
23. L. Ailing. A study on the large-scale system decomposition—
coordination method used in optimal operation of a hydroelectric
system. Water Int. 29(2), 228–231 (2004)
24. S. Liu, J. Wang, Z. Liu. Short-term hydropower optimal sched-
uling of multireservoir system using a decomposition approach.
Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation, IEEE,
2008, pp. 565–570
25. S.A.A. Moosavian, A. Ghafari, A. Salimi, N. Abdi. Non-linear
multiobjective optimization for control of hydropower plants
network. ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelli-
gent Mechatronics, 2008, pp. 1278–1283
26. M.T.L. Barros, R.C. Zambon, J.E.G. Lopes, P.S.F. Barbosa,
A.L.F. Francato, W. Yeh. Model to optimize large hydrothermal
system operation considering water and environment sustain-
ability. Proceedings of World Environmental & Water Resources
Congress, Honolulu, 2008
27. M.T.L. Barros, R.C. Zambon, J.E.G. Lopes, P.S.F. Barbosa,
A.L.F. Francato, W. Yeh. Impacts of the upstream storage res-
ervoirs on itaipu hydropower plant operation. Proceedings of the
World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2009, Kansas
City, 2009
28. R.C. Zambon, M.T.L. Barros, P.S.F. Barbosa, A.L. Francato,
J.E.G. Lopes, W.W.G. Yeh. Planning Operation of Large-Scale
Hydrothermal System. World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress 2011: Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability,
2011, pp. 3026–3035
29. R.C. Zambon, M.T.L. Barros, J.E.G. Lopes, P.S.F. Barbosa,
A.L. Francato, W.W.G. Yeh. Optimization of large-scale hydro-
thermal system operation. J Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 138(2),
135–143 (2012)
30. J.L.B. Brandão. Performance of the equivalent reservoir model-
ling technique for multi-reservoir hydropower systems. Water
Resour. Manag. 24(12), 3101–3114 (2010)
31. Koyna Hydro Electric Project Stage—IV, Irrigation Department,
Government of Maharashtra
32. S. Vedula, P.P. Mujumdar. Water Resources systems: Modelling
Techniques and Analysis. (Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Com-
pany Ltd, New Delhi, 2005)
33. V. Jothiprakash, R. Arunkumar, A.A. Rajan. Optimal crop
planning using a chance constrained linear programming model.
Water Policy 13(5), 734–749 (2011)
34. Lingo User Guide. (Lindo systems, Inc., Illinois, 2011), p. 834
35. K. Subramanya. Engineering Hydrology. 3rd edn. (Tata
McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., 2008), p. 452