2006
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2006)132:2(111)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stochastic Dynamic Programming with Risk Consideration for Transbasin Diversion System

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first four scenarios (1 to 4) optimize the rule curves for individual objectives, namely maximization of net economic benefits from irrigation supplies, power production, sediment evacuation, and flood dis-benefits, respectively. Next four scenarios (5 to 8) combine all four individual objectives by various priority weights ranging from 1 to 10 000 in order to make them significantly different (Tingsanchali and Boonyasirikul, 2006). The significantly different values of priority weights are assigned to find the effects of each objective component on the optimization results with a specific reservoir operation policy.…”
Section: Priority Weightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first four scenarios (1 to 4) optimize the rule curves for individual objectives, namely maximization of net economic benefits from irrigation supplies, power production, sediment evacuation, and flood dis-benefits, respectively. Next four scenarios (5 to 8) combine all four individual objectives by various priority weights ranging from 1 to 10 000 in order to make them significantly different (Tingsanchali and Boonyasirikul, 2006). The significantly different values of priority weights are assigned to find the effects of each objective component on the optimization results with a specific reservoir operation policy.…”
Section: Priority Weightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A traditional approach to take risks into account in reservoir operation is using a utility function to represent decision maker's risk aversion attitude (Keeney and Wood 1977;Loucks et al 1981;Krzysztofowicz 1986;Loaiciga and Mariño 1986;Bouchart and Goulter 1998;Tingsanchali and Boonyasirikul 2006). However, it is difficult to identify the utility function that actually represents decision maker's risk aversion attitude (Hashimoto et al 1982;Nardini et al 1992).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%