J. Indian Water Resour.

Soc.,ofVol.
33Water
No. 1,
January,
2013
Journal
Indian
Resources
Society,
Vol 33, No. 1 , January, 2013

PLANNING FOR OPTIMUM USE OF WATER RESOURCES OF MRP

COMPLEX USING MIKE BASIN
S.K. Jaiswal1, M. K. Verma2 and Mohan Gupta3
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the application of simulation software MIKE BASIN (2009) for optimum utilization of water resources of
MRP Complex. Mahanadi Reservoir Project (MRP) Complex is a multipurpose multi-reservoir system. It consists of Mahanadi basin
and Pairi basin. This project comprises of four reservoirs. There is inter-basin transfer of water from Sondur reservoir in Pairi basin
to Dudhawa reservoir in Mahanadi basin through a feeder canal. MIKE BASIN has extensive reservoir modeling capabilities, and
accommodate multi-purpose reservoirs and multiple reservoir systems. The philosophy behind MIKE BASIN is to keep modeling
simple and intuitive, yet provide in-depth insight for planning and management. In this paper, an attempt has been made to decide the
strategies for optimum use of water available in the reservoirs of MRP Complex. There are three possible ways of supplying water
from the two upstream reservoirs to the Ravishankar reservoir. These three ways of supplying water has been simulated in MIKE
BASIN and designated as three models. The simulation has been run for twenty one years (1975 to 1995) historical data. To check the
efficiency of models the annual deficit between demand and supply has been computed for each model. The results of these three
models have been compared with the results of earlier reported optimization model. The total deficit for twenty one years was found
minimum in the first model hence this is the efficient model. First Model is then run for recent data (1996-2008). The model is
working well for the recent data (1996-2008).
Key words: Optimum use, MRP Complex, MIKE Basin model.

INTRODUCTION
The increasing demand of water due to population growth and
industrialization has created pressure on the available water
resources. This problem can be solved by optimum utilization
of the available resources in the existing reservoir system. The
operation of multiple reservoir system is a complex decision
making process involving many variables and many
objectives. With the advent of digital computer in recent past,
the research and application of systems analysis in the area of
water resources planning and management has received a big
impetus. The basic techniques used in water resources systems
analysis are optimization and simulation.
The basic techniques used in water resources systems analysis
are optimization and simulation. Simulation is a technique by
which we imitate the behavior of a system. We use simulation
to answer what-if type questions, as against optimization
where we look for the best possible solution. Simulation is a
very powerful technique in analyzing most complex water
resource system in detail for performance evaluation. In many
situations, however, decision makers would be interested in
examining a number of scenarios rather than just looking at
one single solution that is optimal. By repeatedly simulating
the system with various sets of inputs it is possible to obtain
optimal solutions (Vedula and Mujumdar, 2006). Application
of various mathematical modeling procedures is greatly
benefitted by the excellent review presented by Yeh (1985)
and Labadie (2004). Application of Reservoir-System
simulation and optimization models is presented by Wurbs
(1993). Afzali et al. (2008) presented a multireservoir
1.
2.
3.

Department of Civil Engg., B.I.T. Durg (CG), 491001, India.

E-mail: skjaiswal67@yahoo.com
Department of Civil Engg., N.I.T. Raipur (CG), 492010, India.
E-mail: mkseem670@rediffmail.com
Department of Civil Engg., B.I.T. Durg (CG), 491001, India.
E-mail: info@mohangupta.com
Manuscript No. 1308

reliability-based simulation model considering the integrated

operation of the systems. Cutlac and Horbulyk (2011) used the
publicly developed Aquarius modeling software to examine
the effect on economic welfare of alternative surface water
allocations in the Alberta portion of the South Saskatchewan
River Basin in Canada. Application of simulation software
MIKE BASIN for water management strategies in a watershed
of Mun River Basin located in Northeast Thailand was
reported by Jha and Gupta (2003). Rani and Moreira (2010)
presented a survey of simulation and optimization modeling
approaches used in reservoir systems operation problems.
Reichold et al. (2010) presented a methodology to identify
watershed management strategies that will have a minimal
impact on the flow regime and downstream ecosystems. This
methodology utilizes a simulation-optimization framework.
Neelakantan
and
Pundarikanthan
(2000)
used
a
backpropagation neural network to approximate the simulation
model developed for the Chennai city water supply problem.
For multi-reservoir operation problem simulation technique is
very useful. As the MRP Complex is a multi-reservoir system,
it has been decided to use simulation technique for finding the
optimum way of using water of this system. Simulation
software MIKE BASIN (2009) has been used for analysis in
this work.
MIKE BASIN has extensive reservoir modeling capabilities,
and accommodate multi-purpose reservoirs and multiple
reservoir systems. The philosophy behind MIKE BASIN is to
keep modeling simple and intuitive, yet provide in-depth
insight for planning and management.

STUDY AREA
Mahanadi is an important river system of Chhattisgarh state. It
is classified amongst the twelve major river basins in the
country. The Mahanadi Reservoir Project Complex (MRP
Complex) consists of Mahanadi basin and Pairi basin. The
index map of MRP Complex is shown in Figure 1. This project
comprises of four reservoirs namely Ravishankar Sagar

15

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

80 O00 '

81O 30 '

82O00 '

82O 30 '

20 O45 '

20 O45 '

PAIRI BASIN

1
20 30 '

20 O30 '

3
20 15 '

O
20 0 '

19 O45 '

81O 00 '

MAHANADI BASIN

20 O15 '

L EG E N D
RI VE R:
C A TC HM E N T B O U N D A R Y
D A M / WE I R :
R E SE R V O I R
1 : R A V I S H A N K A R S A GA R 3 : D U D H A WA
2 : M U R U MS I L L I
4 : S O N DU R
I N TE R - B AS I N LI N K C A N A L
5 : S ON D U R FE E D E R C A N A L
82 00 '
81 30 '

20 O0 '

19 O45 '

82 O30 '

Fig. 1: Index map of MRP complex

Sr. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Table 1: Catchment Area at Dam sites

Name of the Site
Gross
Intercepted
Unintercepted
Ravishankar Sagar Dam
3670
1105
2565
Dudhawa Dam
621
Nil
621
Murumsilli Dam
484
Nil
484
Sondur Dam
512
Nil
512
[Unit: Square Kilometer (sq. km.)]

Sr. No.

Reservoir

1.
2.
3.
4.

Ravishankar Sagar
Dudhawa
Murumsilli
Sondur

Table 2: Reservoir Capacities (in Mm3)

Storage Capacity at
MWL
FRL
1223
909
467
288
179
165
226
180

Reservoir, Murumsilli Reservoir and Dudhawa Reservoir in

Mahanadi basin and Sondur Reservoir in Pari basin.
Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir is constructed across Mahanadi
river, Dudhawa reservoir is situated on upstream of
Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir on Mahanadi river and
Murumsilli Reservoir is constructed across Silliyari river a
tributary of Mahanadi river on upstream of Ravishankar Sagar
Reservoir. Sondur reservoir is situated at the upstream of
Dudhawa reservoir and constructed across Sondur river in
Pairi basin. Sondur and Dudhawa reservoirs are connected by

DSL
144
4
3
18

Live Storage
765
284
162
162

an interbasin link canal called Sondur Feeder canal. This

interbasin link canal transfer water from Sondur reservoir in
Pairi basin to Dudhawa reservoir in Mahanadi basin. Sondur
feeder canal feed water to Dudhawa reservoir as well as it
irrigates some command area. There is no direct irrigation
through Dudhawa and Murumsilli reservoirs, they feed water
to Ravishankar Sagar reservoir. The MRP Complex is intended
to provide irrigation and to meet municipal and industrial
demands of Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) and its township. Few of
the statistical and physical features of the MRP complex are

16

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

given in tables 1 and 2. Thus Mahanadi Reservoir Project
Complex is a multipurpose multi-reservoir system. Mahanadi
is a mansoon fed river and almost all the inflows in to the
reservoir of the system are observed in mansoon months and
rest of the year the inflow is practically nil. It has been
experienced that the annual inflow is insufficient to meet all
the requirements in some of the years.
To mitigate the shortfalls in the supply of water for meeting
various demands in the system it is necessary to develop a
methodology for optimum use of water resources of Mahanadi
Reservoir project Complex.

METHODOLOGY

The data used in this work were collected from the various
reports of Water Resources Department of Chhattisgarh
Government such as report of Central Water and Power
Research Station, "Development of Decision Support System
for Mahanadi Project", Final Report (Feb. 1994), Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh, "M.P. Major Irrigation Project - Mahanadi
Project", Feb. 1990, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, "Mahanadi
Reservoir Project (Major Irrigation Project), Water Resources
Department", January 2001.

MIKE BASIN Simulation Model for MRP System

This paper deals with the application of simulation software

MIKE BASIN (2009) for detail scenario analysis for
optimum utilization of water resources of MRP system. The
performance evaluation of the models of present work has
been done with that of the earlier reported PGP optimization
model (Verma, 2010). For the purpose of direct and justifiable
comparison of performance of MIKE BASIN simulation
models, the same data set that is used in earlier reported model
has been used. Then the best simulation model has been
selected for application to MRP system with recent data.
The model of MRP complex has been developed in MIKE
BASIN using the model building blocks available in the
software. Following input data are required in the software for
model building:
(i)

Physical features of the reservoir such as dead storage

level, minimum operational level, critical water level,
full reservoir, and maximum water level,

Fig. 2: Mike Basin model setup of MRP-Complex

17

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

(ii)

Inflow in the reservoir,

(iii)

Elevation Area Capacity data of reservoir,

(iv)

Evaporation loss from reservoir,

(v)

Demand data of different users.(Table 3, 4 and 5)

BASIN software and designated as three models. These three

models are:
(i)

Model-I: In this model Murumsilli reservoir has been

given first priority and Dudhawa has been given 2nd
priority to feed water to Ravishankar reservoir.

The following priority order on the utilization of storage of

MRP system has been used in the model as per the
recommendation of Government-

(ii)

Model-II: In this model Dudhawa reservoir has been

given first priority and Murumsilli has been given 2nd
priority to feed water to Ravishankar reservoir.

(i)

First priority has been given to municipal and industrial

use.

(iii)

(ii)

Second priority has been given to Irrigation demand for

Kharif and Rabi season.

Model-III: In this model Murumsilli and Dudhawa

have been given equal priority to feed water to
Ravishankar reservoir.

In MRP complex, Ravishankar reservoir is connected with two

upstream reservoirs Murumsilli and Dudhawa and there is inter
basin transfer of water from Sondur reservoir to Dudhawa
reservoir. The Mike Basin model setup of MRP complex has
been shown in Figure 2. For different need water is supplied
through Ravishankar reservoir only, hence Dudhawa and
Murumsilli reservoirs are feeder reservoirs. Sondur reservoir
feed water to Dudhawa reservoir as well as it irrigates some
command area. In this work it has been tried to analyze the
different alternative ways of operating reservoirs of the MRP
complex as against finding the single optimum solution.
Simulation technique has been used to analyze different
alternatives and then best performing alternative has been
identified. This analysis will provide the optimum sequence of
operating the reservoirs of the complex. For integrated
operation of reservoir Muskingum routing procedure has been
used.
By observing the Figure 2, it is clear that there is only one way
of supplying water from Sondur to Dudhawa but there are
three possible ways of supplying water from Murumsilli and
Dudhawa reservoirs to Ravishankar Sagar reservoir. These
three ways of supplying water has been simulated in MIKE

Sr. No.
1.

The above three models have been simulated in MIKE BASIN.

To find the optimum model, the annual deficit between
demand and supply for different users has been calculated for
each model. The model having least value of deficit for a
specified duration will be the optimum model.
To make the models more efficient the following additional
conditions have been incorporated in the models.
(a) At Ravishankar reservoir the priority of downstream users
have been fixed as follows:
(i) M & I demand (Table 3) have been given first priority.
(ii) The irrigation demand of Mahanadi feeder canal (MFC)
(Table 4) has been given second priority.
(iii) The irrigation demand of Mahanadi Main Canal (MMC)
(Table 5) has been given third priority.
(b) At Sondur reservoir the first priority has been given to
supply water for irrigation and second priority to supply
water to the Dudhawa reservoir.
For starting period of operation the initial storage in the
reservoirs is taken as their corresponding dead storages.

Table 3. Municipal and Industrial Demand (Mm3)

Month
Municipal Demand Industrial Demand Total M & I Demand
June
11.0
3.0
14.0

2.

July

0.0

26.0

26.0

3.

August

0.0

9.0

9.0

4.

September

0.0

10.0

10.0

5.

October

0.0

20.0

20.0

6.

November

4.0

0.0

4.0

7.

December

5.0

0.0

5.0

8.

January

6.0

34.0

40.0

9.

February

7.0

34.0

41.0

10.

March

8.0

34.0

42.0

11.

April

9.0

34.0

43.0

12.

May

11.0

34.0

45.0

18

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

Table 4. Monthly Demand Series for MFC command area (Mm3)
Year
1975

JUN
13

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

14.8

1
0.7

1.1
1.1

0.6
2.4

10.9
15

7.2
6.7

10.6
10.4

47.7
47.3

47.1
47

46.6
47.2

43
43

1976

45
45

1977

13.1

0.9

1.7

1.1

13.4

6.8

10.5

47.7

47

46.6

43

45

1978

11.5

0.8

0.5

7.7

14

6.6

10.5

47.7

48

46.9

43

45

1979

11.5

0.6

10.1

14.1

6.7

10

48.4

47.4

46.7

43

45

1980

11.3

0.4

3.3

0.9

11.8

6.9

10.3

47.1

47.5

46.8

43

45

1981

14

0.9

0.5

1.6

12.1

6.8

10.2

47.4

47.3

47.2

43

45

1982

14.8

5.3

0.5

7.9

12.1

6.8

10.6

48.2

47.7

47.4

43

45

1983

16.4

1.2

0.9

1.2

11

7.2

10.8

46.7

46

46.7

43

45

1984

11.2

0.8

1.7

10.2

10.5

6.9

11.1

47.8

47.4

47

43

45

1985

12

1.1

1.4

12.9

10.6

47.5

47.2

46.8

43

45

1986

11.1

0.5

1.5

12.1

13.1

6.8

10.2

47.2

47

46.5

43

45

1987

17.8

1.4

3.5

6.7

6.3

6.6

10.4

47.4

47.2

47.1

43

45

1988

11.4

1.6

17.5

7.3

10.8

48.6

49

46.5

43

45

1989

11.2

0.8

0.8

16.1

7.1

10.6

47.4

48.8

47

43

45

1990

13.4

0.7

0.8

2.6

12.6

6.5

10.9

48

47.6

46.8

43

45

1991

11.3

0.3

0.5

7.4

11.1

6.9

10.5

47.3

46.8

46.5

43

45

1992

14.4

0.4

1.9

6.1

12.1

6.1

10.9

48.2

46.7

46.7

43

45

1993

11.2

0.6

1.3

5.8

11.7

7.1

10.9

48.9

46.6

46.5

43

45

1994

11.2

0.7

1.8

1.4

11.4

7.4

10.7

46

46.7

44.6

43

45

1995

12.9

0.9

2.3

11.7

12.1

7.2

10.9

48.5

47.7

46.7

43

45

Table 5. Monthly Demand Series for MMC command area (Mm3)

Year

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

1975

42.7

20.5

22

13.3

139.4

51.9

120.3

161.5

119.4

74.2

1976

45

15.2

22.5

38.5

212.3

37.2

122.9

160.4

104.91

102.4

1977

47.5

19.5

25.2

21.8

169.1

40.7

112.8

164.7

117.39

82.71

1978

14.6

16.5

10.3

58

182.3

35.2

129

174

156

93.4

1979

14.9

12.6

20

60

203.1

35.7

111.8

190.4

156.2

88.3

1980

12.1

7.8

38.7

18

166.3

44

121.4

135.7

123.71

89.59

1981

45.9

18.4

9.8

35.5

162.2

39.1

117.6

132.5

134.1

104.3

1982

47.1

29.5

20.7

63

182.7

51.7

141.2

186.9

169.2

100.4

1983

40

25.4

19.1

28

151

51.9

137.8

142.1

110.7

102

1984

14.3

16.6

24.3

35

149.7

42.6

146.3

176.7

155.3

111.3

1985

12.5

18.3

22.3

29.4

139.5

46.5

131.9

157.3

129.1

95

1986

10.3

21.3

31

49

193.7

51.1

123.9

157.3

144

96.1

1987

35

28.6

51.4

60

145.3

44.1

125.4

164.4

138.8

115.7

1988

12.5

21.3

33.7

43

231.2

53.1

150.3

154.7

140.7

94.2

1989

13.1

16.6

19.9

16.9

165.7

50.7

138.2

164.9

201.8

110.2

1990

32

15.1

17.3

43.3

163.1

30.5

139.7

162.3

143.4

75.4

1991

11.1

6.1

9.9

45

152

43.9

127.9

161.5

130.8

94.7

1992

32

20.2

39

60

177.3

41.3

130.1

189

134.5

102.6

1993

16.3

12

27.2

35

164.7

49

119.1

190.1

130

96.6

1994

16.1

25.1

37.1

45.9

158.3

58.9

133.5

134.9

134.6

42.6

1995

31.8

25.8

47.8

85

152.3

53.4

130.7

180.4

167.6

102.7

19

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

monthly operation policy for individual year is determined
using the simulation models, Model-I, Model-II and Model-III.
The reservoirs were considered at the dead storage level at the
beginning of June in the year 1975. The monthly deficit
between demand and supply have been computed and totaled
for each year to determine the total yearly deficit. The results
obtained with the Model-I, Model-II and Model-III have been
compared (Table 6) with the results of PGP model (Verma,
2010). The total deficit for 21 years has been computed for all
the three models. The model having least value of total deficit
will be the most efficient model. Out of the three models the
total deficit was found minimum in Model-I, hence Model-I is
the efficient model. The results of this model have been
compared with the results of earlier reported optimization
model (PGM model) (Verma, 2010). As the results of the
Model-I is very close to the result of optimization model,
hence Model-I is optimum model. The total deficit in Model-I
is 689.547 Mm3 which is very close to 679.3 Mm3, the total
deficit in PGM model. The accuracy of Model-I is 98.5%.

Approach Adopted for the Present Study

The approach adopted in the present study can be enumerated
sequentially as follows:
(i) The three simulation models, Model-I, Model-II and
Model-III for MRP system have been first run for 21 years
(1975 to 1995) with historical data and the results of these
models have been compared with the earlier reported
model. Out of the three models the optimum model is
selected.
(ii) The optimum model is then run for recent data of 13 years
(1996 2008).

Results and Analysis of Simulation Model with

Historical Data
For meaningful comparison, the three simulation models are
run using the same inflow and demand data as used in the
earlier reported optimization model (PGP model). The 21 years
(1975 to 1995) data have been used for this purpose. The

Table 6. Comparison of Yearly Deficit

Yearly Deficit (Mm3)
Year

Model-I

Model-II

Model-III

Earlier Model

1975

17.76568438

17.765684

17.173495

1.6

1976

1977

1.7

1.7489815

1978

1979

94.07594785

119.33505

119.52434

119

1980

15.64316237

16.376667

16.198395

1981

1982

5.3290328

5.0451618

1983

15.44

4.722581

4.722581

4.4

1984

0.0466667

0.0466667

1985

0.2295111

1.4428425

1986

1987

1.4921722

1.3989115

1988

212.35

243.06461

243.06467

198.2

1989

166.5638618

253.40504

293.64101

273

1990

32.92910923

37.929109

37.929109

1991

1992

1993

90.79

68.979866

43.71754

78.2

1994

18.12870971

14.018065

14.018065

1995

25.86128071

2.012903

1.8870965

3.9

Total

689.547756

786.40697

801.55887

679.3

20

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

Table 7. Yearly Deficit in Model-I for historical
data

and 11.28 in 2003). Hence the simulation Model-I is successful

for recent data also.

Year

% yearly deficit in

1975

1.54

1976

Year

% yearly deficit

1977

1996

3.425356

1978

1997

1979

7.23

1998

1.261115

1980

1.36

1999

7.929487

1981

2000

1.637737

1982

2001

10.63858

1983

1.28

2002

0.433653

1984

2003

11.28656

1985

2004

4.336533

1986

2005

1987

2006

1988

15.78

2007

1989

12.85

2008

1990

2.70

1991

1992

1993

7.33

1994

1.55

1995

1.85

The percentage yearly deficit for Model-I has been calculated

and presented in Table 7. Analysis of the results in the Table 7
shows that for most of the year the deficit is less than 10%. In
water resources less than 10% deficit is not considered as
deficit. Out of the 21 years only 2 years have the deficit more
than 10%, hence the model-I is 90.5% time successful.

Results and Analysis of Optimum Simulation Model

with Recent Data
As discussed in the previous section, it was found that the
simulation Model-I is the optimum model for operation of
reservoirs of MRP complex. Now this optimum simulation
Model-I is applied to MRP system with recent data of 13 years
(1996 2008). By the analysis of 21 years (1979 to 1995)
demand data it was found that the variation in demand is very
small, hence the average value of demand has been used for
period 1996 to 2008. The monthly operation policy for
individual year is determined using the optimum simulation
model-I. The reservoirs were considered at the dead storage
level at the beginning of June in the year 1996. The monthly
deficit between demand and supply have been computed and
totaled for each year to determine the total yearly deficit. The
results have been shown in Table 8. It is observed from Table
8 that for most of the year the deficit is less than 10%. Only for
2 years the deficit is slightly more than 10%, (10.63% in 2001

Table 8. Yearly Deficit in Model-I for recent data

Table 9. Annual spill from Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir

Year
Annual Spill(Mm3)
1996
192.2097324
1997
299.1990036
1998
0
1999
0
2000
21.35618957
2001
0
2002
720.2353594
2003
0
2004
1135.548196
2005
381.5821803
2006
441.3747162
2007
715.1611997
2008
0
Average
300.51281
Anuual Spill
The spill analysis for Mahanadi Basin has been done for the
effective utilization of the spill water of the system. The spill
of Mahanadi Basin is through the Ravishankar Sagar
Reservoir. The amount of annual spill has been computed for
the period 1996 to 2008. The results of annual spill analysis
have been shown in Table 9. The average annual spill from
Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir is 300.51 Mm3. Adjoining to the
Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir there is Tandula Reservoir. Since
last ten years there is scarcity of water in Tandula Reservoir, it
is filled less than 50% of its storage capacity. In this work it is
proposed to utilise the spill water of Ravishankar Sagar
reservoir by transferring it to Tandula reservoir through an
interlinking canal.

21

J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33 No. 1, January, 2013

CONCLUSIONS
In the first part of this paper the three simulation models
(Model-I, Model-II and Model-III) have been applied with the
same data set which has been used in the earlier reported study.
It is observed that the simulation Model-I perform better than
the Model-II and Model-III. The results of Model-I is very
close to the results of earlier reported optimization model,
hence performance of model-I is satisfactory and is identified
as the suitable model for MRP system.
In the second part of the study, the Model-I is applied to MRP
system for recent data set. It has been observed that for most of
the year the deficit is less than the permissible limit. Hence the
performance of simulation model-I for recent data set is
satisfactory.
The spill analysis for Mahanadi Basin has been done. The
average annual spill from Mahanadi Basin is 300.51 Mm3. For
effective utilization of this spill water, it is proposed to transfer
this water to adjoining Tandula Reservoir, as there is shortage
of water every year.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

Afzali, R., Mousavi, S. J. and Ghaheri, A. 2008.

Reliability-Based Simulation-Optimization Model for
Multireservoir Hydropower Systems Operations: Khersan
Experience. J. of Water Resources Planning and
Management. 134 (1): 24-33.
Cutlac, I.M. and Horbulyk, T.M., 2011. Optimal Water
Allocation under Short-Run Water Scarcity in the South
Saskatchewan River Basin. J. of Water Resources
Planning and Management. 137 (1): 92-100.
Central Water and Power Research Station,
Khadakwasla, Pune (India). "Development of Decision
Support System for Mahanadi Project", Final Report
(Feb. 1994).
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, "M.P.
Major Irrigation
Project - Mahanadi Project", Feb. 1990.
Govt. of Chhattisgarh, "Mahanadi Reservoir Project
(Major Irrigation Project) Water Resources
Department", January 2001.

6.

Jha M. K. and Gupta A. D., 2003. Application of MIKE

BASIN for Water Management Strategies in a Watershed.
Water International, Vol. 28., No.1, 27-35.

7.

Labadie, John W., 2004. Optimal Operation of

Multireservoir System: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol.130,
No.2, 93-111.

8.

Mike Basin. 2009. A Modeling System for River Basin

Management and Planning. User Guide.

9.

Neelakantan, T. R. and Pundarikanthan, N. V., 2000.

Neural Network Based Simulation Optimization Model for
Reservoir Operation.
Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, Vol. 126, No. 2, 57-64.

10. Rani, D. and Moreira, M.M. 2010. Simulation

Optimization Modeling: A Survey and Potential
Application in Reservoir Systems Operation. Water
Resources Management. 24 (6): 1107-1138.
11. Reichold, L., Zechman, E.M., Brill, E.D. and Holmes, H.
2010. Simulation-Optimization Framework to Support
Sustainable Watershed Development by Mimicking the
Predevelopment Flow Regime. J. of Water Resources
Planning and Management, ASCE. 136 (3): 366-375.
12. Vedula, S. and Mujumdar, P.P. 2006. Water Resources
System. The McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN No. 0-07059089-3.
13. Verma, M.K., Shrivastava, R.K. and Tripathi, R.K., 2010.
Evaluation of Min-Max, Weighed and Preemptive Goal
Programming Models with Reference to Mahanadi
Reservoir Project Complex. Journal of Water Resources
Management, Springer Netherland. 24 (2): 299-319.
14. Wurb, R. A., 1993. Reservoir-System Simulation and
Optimization Models. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, Vol. 119, No. 4, 455-472.
15. Yeh, William W-G, 1985. Reservoir Management and
Operation Models : A State of- the- Art Review. Water
Resources Research, Vol.21, No.12, 1797-1818.

22