1. Target Releas e Component 1 Component 3 Baseline Flow Component 2 Design a regulation plan for Lake Superior that:  is easily interpretable (piecewise linear rule curve) 77A  increases the total regulation benefits compared to the current plan called 77A over the historical period (1900 – 2009)  respects evaluation criteria defined by Superior Plan Formulation Technical Working Group, TWG : http://www.iugls.org/SupPlanForm.aspx  Outflow is Split between Gates and Side Channels at each time step  Co-Ordinated Great Lakes Regulation and Routing Model is used to simulate downstream levels and flows Location of Great Lakes and Lake Superior STUDY GOAL Multi-Objective Lake Superior Regulation Masoud Asadzadeh, S. S. Razavi, B. A. Tolson SIMULATION MODEL: CGLRRM MS Excel based Shared Vision Model uses simulation levels and flows and calculates:  Navigation Benefit  Hydropower Generation Benefit  TWG evaluation criteria NEW OPERATION PLAN OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM RESULTS CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Update the Archive Continue ? STOP Is new solution Pareto? Pick the New solution Pick a Pareto solution Initial solution s Y N P Find P areto solutions Y N DDS Perturb current ND- solution A A rchive Pareto solutions PA-DDS (Asadzadeh and Tolson, 2009) Beginning of Period Lake Superior Surface Elevation (m) 1 1 1 a 1 b d c ef Excess Shortag e a ≥ bd ≥ c 1 1 g h Beginning of Period Level MH Surface Elevation (m) Excess Shortag e 1 1 i j Beginning of Period Level Erie Surface Elevation (m) Excess Shortag e OBJECTIVES  Max Benefit (Navigation + Hydro Power)  Min Criteria Violations EVALUATION MODEL: SVM (IUGLS report) CRITERIA Selected from criteria defined by TWG:  Respect the high and low Lake Superior Surface elevation limits (183.86 and 182.76 m)  Do not compress the surface elevation of Lake Superior  Do not compress the surface elevation of Lakes Michigan-Huron TRADEOFF KEY CONCLUSIONS Acknowledgement: This poster partially presents a study funded by the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS), International Joint Commission (http://www.iugls.org/). Special thanks to David Fay, Bill Werick, Jacob Bruxer, Syed Moin, Yin Fan and other members of the IUGLS study team. [1]. Asadzadeh, M., and Tolson, B. A. “Hybrid Pareto Archived Discrete Dynamically Dimensioned Search, a New Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm, for Solving Water Distribution Network Design Problems”. To be submitted. [2]. International Upper Great Lakes Study Board (2009). Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels: St. Clair River. Final report to the International Joint Commission, International Upper Great Lakes Study, Ottawa-Washington, 224 pp. http://pub.iugls.org/en/Other_Publications/IUGLS_Final_Report.pdf UW plan 77A Time series of lakes surface elevations, comparing UW plan and 77A OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM Parameters of Rule curve (a, b, …, j + Baseline Flow) for two seasons 2 x 11 = 22 must be optimized. Find a single plan (a set of rule-curve parameters) with overall benefit and no criteria violation  Rule-curve based UW plan increases overall Great Lakes regulation benefits compared to 77A, respects limits on Lake Superior level, and does not compress levels of Lake Superior and MH  Successfully combined constraints (criteria) to an objective and used multi-objective optimization  Further assessment is required to evaluate UW plan against all criteria defined by TWG EVALUATION OF PLAN SELECTED AS UW PLAN  Full simulation-evaluation of a solution takes 50 seconds on an Intel ® Core ™ i7 - 930 @ 2.80 GH  Results are based on 15,000 solution evaluations Increased Benefit against 77A$M Annual Avg. Increased Navigation Benefit1.59 Increased Navigation Benefit1.61