HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

Published online 18 May 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6488

Rule reduction in fuzzy logic for better interpretability in

reservoir operation
C. Sivapragasam,1 * G. Vasudevan,2 P. Vincent,2 P. Sugendran,3 M. Marimuthu3
and S. Seenivasakan3
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi626 005, Tamilnadu State, India
Research Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi626 005, Tamilnadu State, India
3 Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi626 005, Tamilnadu State, India

Abstract:
Decision-making in reservoir operation has become easy and understandable with the use of fuzzy logic models, which
represent the knowledge in terms of interpretable linguistic rules. However, the improvement in interpretability with increase
in number of fuzzy sets (low, high, etc) comes with the disadvantage of increase in number of rules that are difficult to
comprehend by decision makers. In this study, a clustering-based novel approach is suggested to provide the operators with
a limited number of most meaningful operating rules. A single triangular fuzzy set is adopted for different variables in each
cluster, which are fine-tuned with genetic algorithm (GA) to meet the desired objective. The results are compared with the
multi fuzzy set fuzzy logic model through a case study in the Pilavakkal reservoir system in Tamilnadu State, India. The
results obtained are highly encouraging with a smaller set of rules representing the actual fuzzy logic system. Copyright
2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS

fuzzy logic; genetic algorithm; clustering; reservoir operation

Received 10 January 2006; Accepted 16 June 2006

INTRODUCTION
In the last three to four decades, systems approach has
been extensively used to replace the intuitive approach
in the optimal operation of reservoir systems by guiding
the operator with the use of mathematical and simulation
models. However, even after such extensive studies, there
is no single model or technique, that can be universally
accepted for optimal operation of reservoir systems.
This is primarily due to the fact that the techniques
to be employed are dependent on the characteristics of
the reservoir systems, availability of data, objectives,
performance requirements and the difficulties associated
with the decision-making process.
In real-time reservoir operations, where the reservoir
operator has to make decisions in a relatively short
time, Yeh (1985) observes whatever the form of the
decision model and the technique used, only approximately optimal policies can be obtained since almost
always, approximations of one sort or another must be
made to facilitate practical solutions. The differences
between various solution techniques are in speed of convergence, computational requirements, the need for an
initial feasible policy and the convenience of application. Of course, these differences can be significant. It
is also observed that, although many successful applications of systems approach exist in the literature, the
* Correspondence to: C. Sivapragasam, Department of Civil Engineering,
Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi626 005, Tamilnadu
State, India. E-mail: sivapragasam@yahoo.com
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

reservoir operators remained sceptical in adopting these

optimization techniques for their day-to-day operation
(Yeh, 1985; Wurbs, 1993; Labadie, 1997). Thus, any
attempt to improve the efficiency of real-time reservoir
operation must not only address the computational problem but should also account for ready understanding and
acceptance by the reservoir operators.
In the recent past, the fuzzy logic technique (Russell
and Campbell, 1996; Shrestha et al., 1996; Panigrahi and
Mujumdar, 2000; Hasebe and Nagayama, 2002; Dubrovin
et al., 2002; Karaboga et al., 2004, etc.) has gained
popularity owing to the facility of explicit knowledge
representation in the form of if-then rules (i.e. humanlike reasoning in linguistic terms), and the ability to
approximate complicated non-linear functions with simpler models. However, the issue of easy understanding
and acceptance by reservoir operators has not received
sufficient attention. As observed by Doan and Liong
(2002), the fuzzy inference system often suffers from the
problem of a large number of rules.
The concept of clustering/classification and fuzzy
inference (Kojiri et al., 1990; Kojiri, 1992; Kojiri et al.,
1993) can be extended to form the basis of rule reduction, as proposed in this study. To this end, the study
divides the training data into several clusters and generates a fuzzy rule for each cluster. The input variables
in the cluster are mapped by a single triangular membership function, the ordinates of which are fine-tuned
with genetic algorithm (GA). The use of the single triangular membership function together with the clustering

2836

C. SIVAPRAGASAM ET AL.

technique results in highly condensed and meaningful

rules.
The next section briefly introduces the fuzzy logic
and GA techniques. This is followed by the study area
description. Subsequently, the proposed methodology is
discussed in detail, results analysed and conclusions
drawn.

been activated for a given input. This is usually done with

suitable defuzzification criteria such as centre of gravity
or mean of the maximums. The details of fuzzy logic
can be found in Zadeh (1965, 1988), Kosko (1992), Ross
(1995) and Babuska (1998).

GENETIC ALGORITHM
FUZZY LOGIC
Fuzzy modelling can be interpreted as a qualitative
modelling scheme, that describes system behaviour using
fuzzy quantities, i.e. fuzzy sets or fuzzy numbers. In a
fuzzy set, each element in the universe of discourse is
associated with a membership value between 0 and 1,
which indicates the degree of membership of the element
in the fuzzy set. If U is the universe of discourse and the
input space (e.g. inflow to a reservoir) and its elements
are denoted by x, then a fuzzy set A (such as low,
high, etc.) in U can be represented by a membership
function A , where
A : U
>[0, 1],

and A (x) denotes the degree of membership of x belonging to the fuzzy set A. The transformation of real-valued
inputs to its membership degree is known as fuzzification.
Commonly, in reservoir operation applications, membership functions of geometrical shapes such as triangular
and trapezoidal are used when the standard deviation of
the variable is not large (Russell and Campbell, 1996;
Panigrahi and Mujumdar, 2000). Kosko (1992) observed
that when there is overlapping between adjacent membership functions, the performance of the fuzzy system
is the best.
The fuzzy set primarily constitutes union and intersection operations, which are described in the following
text (Zadeh, 1988). If A and B are two fuzzy sets in the
universe of discourse U and if A and B are the membership functions of fuzzy sets A and B, where A : U
>
[0, 1] and B : U
> [0, 1], then the union and intersection operations of the fuzzy sets A and B are respectively
given as
AUB
x D max
A
x, B
x and
A\B
x D min
A
x, B
x

Fuzzy rules are then formed, which provide the necessary connection between the input and output fuzzy sets.
They are represented by means of fuzzy if-then rules of
the following general form:
If antecedent proposition, then consequent proposition
For a given input, one or more of the rules are activated,
depending on the way in which the membership functions
are defined. A crisp output is obtained through the process
of defuzzification by aggregating all the rules that have
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

GAs are stochastic search strategies that model the mechanism of biological evolution (Goldberg, 1989; Deb,
2001). The technique is derived from Darwins principle
of survival of the fittest and adaptationa population of
creatures is allowed to evolve over generations; an individuals characteristics that are useful for survival are
passed over to the next generation. Information is passed
from parents to their offspring using the mechanism of
natural genetics, resulting in a structured yet randomized exchange of information. Future generations hence
contain the most favourable characteristics.
This same technique can be used for optimization. An
initial population of possible solutions to the problem
being optimized is generated randomly in a coded form.
The representation of the population as a code enables the
exchange of a valuable genetic material within individual members. To ensure that this happens, the selection
of the members to create the next generation is carried
out in a manner that favours the better performing ones.
GA uses crossover and mutation (genetic operators) to
create a new combination of variables that leads to a better solution. Crossover allows the exchange of genetic
information between selected population members and
produces two new strings from two selected parents combining their information. This is done probabilistically
using a swapping process. The resulting offspring has
the combination of the parents information. This helps in
searching for the best combination along the population.
Mutation, however, randomly changes individual population characteristics to preserve and allow the diversity
of genetic information. Mutation can also be beneficial
in forcing the population out of a static condition. It
improves the search through the solution space and introduces new solutions to prevent extinction of potential
useful strings through crossover and reproduction. The
selection technique also plays an important role in converging to a better solution and can be considered as the
third genetic operator (Michalewicz, 1994).
The selection, crossover and mutation processes
(termed as a generation) are repeated until the predefined
termination criterion is met, which is usually the
convergence to an optimum (indicated by no further
improvement with successive generations) or a predefined
maximum number of generations. Tournament selection
is used as the selection technique in this study. Two
sets of chromosomes are randomly selected from the
population with each consisting of a specified number
of chromosomes called the tournament size. The bestperforming chromosome from each set is obtained. Each
selected pair is used to generate a child of the new
Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp

RULE REDUCTION IN FUZZY LOGIC FOR RESERVOIR OPERATION

population in the crossover step. The crossover locations

corresponding to variable sub-string boundaries of the
chromosomes are generated randomly. The genetic code
at these locations is exchanged to obtain the child. Each
child replaces a randomly chosen number of the initial
population. Mutation is implemented by changing the bit
values of randomly selected positions and chromosomes.
The best-performing member (elitist member) of
the parent population is maintained as a member of
the new population. Therefore, the algorithm identifies
the individuals with optimizing fitness values, and those
with lower fitness naturally get discarded from the population.
Decision variables are represented in a GA in a number
of ways, primarily binary coded and real coded. In
binary coding, each gene is further broken down into a
series of binary digits. In real-coded representation, genes
represent a single variable as a real number. Wardlaw and
Sharif (1999) demonstrated the usefulness of real coding
over binary coding.
Numerous modifications to the basic GA have been
made to suit specific applications and to improve GA
performance. Multi-objective GAs are increasingly being
preferred for many engineering applications. A comprehensive review of the application of GA can be found
in the literature (Goldberg, 1989; Deb, 1995; Wardlaw
and Sharif, 1999; Sharif and Wardlaw, 2000; Dandy and
Engelhardt, 2001; Deb, 2001; Wardlaw and Bhaktikul,
2001; Raju and Kumar, 2004; Deb and Tiwari, 2005).

2837

DEVELOPMENT OF FUZZY LOGIC MODEL

The Pilavakkal scheme has been envisioned to primarily
meet the crop water demand of the entire command area
during a given crop season. The optimal policies are
derived with an operating time horizon of two fortnights
by minimizing the demand deficit and deviation from
desired target storage at the end of the operating time
horizon using GA. The objective function is formulated
as follows:
Min Z1 D

n

[

PR i C KRi 
Di 2 ] C

PS n C KSn 

iD1

Ts 2

1

Where PR i D Periyar reservoir release for the ith time

step, KRi D Kovilar reservoir release for the ith time
step, Di D combined demand for the ith time step. PS n D
Storage in Periyar at the end of the operating time
horizon, KSn D storage in Kovilar at the end of the
operating time horizon, Ts D combined target storage,
n D operating time horizon (2- or 4-fortnightly, as used
in this study).
The target storage is the minimum storage required
for the reservoirs and is arrived at from site-specific
considerations of salvaging the crop in the absence of
inflow in the subsequent time steps. The value of target
storage (Ts ) is taken as 11 M m3 .
The objective function is subject to the following
constraints.
(A) Continuity equation

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

PS iC1 D PS i C PI iC1
PR iC1
PLes

2

If PS iC1 > 235 Then

In the present study, a single-purpose (irrigation) reservoir system is considered in Virudhunagar District of
Tamilnadu State, India, with two reservoirs namely the
Periyar and the Kovilar (together known as the Pilavakkal
reservoir scheme). The Periyar and Kovilar reservoirs
(5 km apart) are constructed across the Periyar River
and the Kovilar River in the upper part of the Vaippar basin, located in (9 410 N, 77 230 E) and (9 380 N,
77 32E) respectively. These two rivers form tributaries
to the Arjunanadhi River, which is a tributary to the
main Vaippar River. The releases from the two reservoirs are confluent and flow into the Watrap tank. Both
the rivers are non-perennial and carry only intermittent
flash flows depending on the seasonal rainfall. Both the
reservoirs were constructed to conserve about 30% of
flood flows with a view to release them during the fag
end of the season to avert crop failures and to feed some
new command. The Periyar and Kovilar reservoirs have
to jointly supplement the old command of the system.
Of the 10 years (January 1992December 2001) of fortnightly inflow data available, 9 years have been used for
model development and the remaining 1 year for validation.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PS iC1 D 235
Pspl iC1 D PS iC1
235

3

KS iC1 D KS i C KI iC1
KR iC1
KLes

4

If KS iC1 > 189 Then

KS iC1 D 189
Kspl iC1 D KS iC1
189

5

(B) Release constraints

PR i  4

6

KR i  3

7

PR i C KR i  Di

8

Where PspliC1 D Periyar reservoir spill for (i C 1)th

time step, KspliC1 D Kovilar reservoir spill for (i C 1)th
time step, PI iC1 D inflow in Periyar Reservoir for (i C
1)th time step, KIiC1 D inflow in Kovilar reservoir for
(i C 1)th time step, PLes D Losses due to evaporation and
seepage for Periyar reservoir, KLes D losses due to evaporation and seepage for Kovilar reservoir. All units are in
Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2838

C. SIVAPRAGASAM ET AL.

Mm3 . The upper limits for the reservoir releases are fixed
on the basis of the capacity of the distribution network.
The optimal reservoir operation policies as obtained
from GA optimization have been used as inputoutput
data for calibrating the fuzzy rules in a Mamdani-type
fuzzy inference system (Zadeh, 1965; Mamdani and
Assilian, 1975), hereafter referred to as original fuzzy
model (OFM). The inflow, storage and demand are taken
as the fuzzy premises, whereas the release is taken as
the consequent variable. In the first step, input and output variables (viz. inflow, storage, demand and release)
are fuzzified with triangular membership functions. After
careful evaluation of the training data, the limits of each
premise variable and consequence variables are decided
and overlapping fuzzy sets are arrived at with three
classes, viz. low, medium and high, as shown in
Figure 1.
In the second step, the variables are combined into
rules using the intersection (AND) operator with equal
weightages to all the rules for a given input. Implication is
performed with the minimum function and aggregation is
done with the maximum function. The fuzzy outputs are
converted to corresponding crisp values by the process
of defuzzification using the centroid criteria.

Figure 1. Multi-triangle membership function

Table I. Sample rules obtained from OFM

Sl. no
1
2
3
4
5
6

Inflow

Storage

Demand

Release

Low
Medium
Low
Low
High
High

Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High

Low
Low
High
Medium
High
High

Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
High

The total number of theoretically possible rules is 81.

In the present study, all the rules are not fired due to
lack of matching data. Out of a total of 130 data used in
training, many are identical in both the antecedent and
consequent parts. All identical rules are represented with
one single rule, resulting in a net total of 22 rules for
the reservoir system, a sample of which is tabulated in
Table I. Under a practical scenario, even 22 rules are too
many to give a clear interpretation. Hence, it is desirable
to reduce the number of rules further. The next section
discusses the proposed method for rule reduction.
PROPOSED METHOD FOR RULE REDUCTION
As the number of rules is directly dependent on the
number of fuzzy sets used, obviously one effective way
to reduce the rules is to use fewer numbers of fuzzy
sets, the simplest possible set being a single triangular
membership function. However, such an approach will
drastically affect the accuracy of the model. To this end,
the following method, hereafter referred to as clustered
fuzzy model (CFM), is suggested, as depicted in the flow
chart (Figure 2).
First, the training data is divided into a number of clusters. By classifying the similar inputs into a given class,
it is easy to represent the inputs by fewer fuzzy sets. The
similarity computing and the number of clusters are two

Figure 2. Flow chart for proposed approach

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2839

RULE REDUCTION IN FUZZY LOGIC FOR RESERVOIR OPERATION

factors that should be decided in a clustering analysis. In

this study, the Kohonen network, a type of unsupervised
neural network, is used for clustering the training data.
Kohonen networks provide an objective way of clustering
data by utilizing a self-organizing network of artificial
neurons. Each neuron stores a weight vector (an array
of weights), each of which corresponds to one of the
inputs in the data. When presented with a new input
pattern, each neuron calculates its activation level. The
neuron with the lowest activation levelmeaning the
one whose weight is closest in Euclidian space to the
new input pattern, is allowed to adjust its weights so
that it is closer to the input pattern, as are some of the
nodes near it; the number there nodes is determined as the
algorithm runs, beginning at all the nodes and decreasing
linearly throughout the training process. When training
terminates, the algorithm sorts the output layer nodes
from most to least populated. All nodes that meet the
minimum population criterion are allowed to take part
in the final clustering. This mechanism helps in a better generalization of classification of unobserved data.
As opposed to the standard clustering approaches, neural
network classifiers produce a highly non-linear decision
surface, discovering structures and patterns among data,
and have generalization capability of correct classification of unobserved data. The Kohonen-based clustering
technique is widely being used (e.g., Song et al., 1997;
Chen et al., 1999; Emamian et al., 2000). The similarity
measurement is done by mapping all input vectors with
similar Euclidean distances into the same cluster. The
distance function is used as a classification tool because
the points closer together in Euclidean space are similar.
The details related to the structure of the Kohonen network and its training process can be referred to in Haykin
(1999).
In the present study, the analysis is carried out for
5, 8 and 12 clusters respectively. The choice of number
of clusters is basically a function of accuracy desired
and ease in interpretability by the human mind. In this
study, the accuracy is found to be affected seriously
when the number of clusters is less than 5. On the other
hand, by adopting number of clusters greater than 12,

Figure 3. Single-triangle membership function

there is no significant reduction in the rule base. So,

in this study, it was decided to perform the analysis
for 5, 8 and 12 clusters. For each of the clusters, a
fuzzy rule is generated by assuming that the fuzzy set
for each input variable consists of a single triangular
membership function (there are no such categories as
low, medium, etc.) parameterized by its vertices (l,
c, r), as shown in Figure 3, where l  c  r, l is the
left vertex, c is the centre, and r is the right vertex of
the membership function. GA is used to alleviate the
difficulty in ascertaining the optimal l, c and r values
for each variable to map the patterns in each cluster
accurately. Since the input variables are mapped by a
single membership function, it would be of interest to
know how such a concept reflects the fuzziness of the
inputs. This could be understood from the fact that when
the input variables are clustered into different groups, a
particular group may represent the fuzzy set medium
for a given variable (say, inflow) and another group
may represent the fuzzy set low for the same variable.
Moreover, there is also some overlap in the two groups.
Thus, the fuzziness of the variables is accounted for in
their clustering into different groups.
A total of 12 variables is used for GA optimization
(4 variables, each with its respective vertices l, c and r
values of their membership functions). GA generates the

Table II. (a) Lower and upper limits for different variables: 5 cluster
Variables

Vertices

Lower and upper limits of vertices (L, U)

C1

Inflow
Storage
Demand
Release

l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r

041, 059
059, 1485
1500, 1945
163, 233
233, 419
424, 549
262, 375
375, 543
548, 711
161, 230
230, 542
548, 711

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

C2
000,
000,
520,
069,
099,
284,
254,
364,
548,
065,
092,
529,

000
515
675
099
281
369
364
543
711
092
524
687

C3
000, 000
000, 1340
1354, 1756
000, 000
000, 127
128, 166
203, 291
291, 396
400, 519
000, 000
000, 3898
393, 510

C4
000,
000,
349,
101,
145,
341,
024,
034,
113,
000,
000,
112,

000
345
453
145
338
443
034
112
146
000
111
146

C5
000,
000,
674,
000,
000,
128,
024,
034,
113,
000,
000,
112,

000
667
874
000
127
166
034
112
146
000
111
145

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2840

C. SIVAPRAGASAM ET AL.

Table II. (b) Lower and upper limits for different variables: 8 cluster
Variables

Vertices

Lower and upper limits of vertices (L, U)

C1

Inflow
Storage
Demand
Release

l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r

000,
000,
347,
000,
000,
059,
024,
034,
113,
000,
000,
085,

C2

000
343
450
000
059
077
034
112
146
000
084
110

000,
000,
674,
042,
059,
150,
024,
034,
113,
017,
025,
112,

000
667
874
060
149
195
034
112
146
025
111
145

C3
000,
000,
349,
114,
163,
264,
024,
034,
113,
000,
000,
106,

C4

000
345
453
163
262
343
034
112
146
000
105
137

000,
000,
029,
000,
000,
341,
024,
034,
113,
000,
000,
112,

C5

000
029
038
000
338
443
034
112
146
000
111
146

C6

041, 059
059, 985
995, 1291
203, 290
290, 419
424, 549
266, 379
375, 543
548, 711
161, 230
230, 542
548, 711

000,
000,
548,
098,
141,
284,
254,
364,
548,
065,
092,
374,

000
543
711
141
281
369
364
543
711
092
370
485

C7

C8

000, 000
000, 353
356, 462
000, 000
000, 127
128, 166
203, 291
291, 396
400, 519
0001 0002
000, 251
253, 329

364, 520
520, 1485
1500, 1945
000, 000
000, 260
263, 341
262, 375
375, 543
548, 711
254, 363
363, 524
529, 687

Table II. (c) Lower and upper limits for different variables: 12 cluster
Variables

Vertices

Lower and upper limits of vertices (L, U)

C1

Inflow

l
c
r

Storage

l
c
r

Demand

l
c
r

Release

l
c
r

582,
831
831,
1485
1500,
1946
163,
233
233,
420
424,
550
276,
394
394,
543
549,
712
275,
393
393,
543
548,
711

C2

C3

C4

C5

061,
087
087,
420
424,
550
203,
290
290,
420
424,
550
263,
375
375,
543
549,
712
198,
282
282,
506
511,
663

000,
000
000,
489
494,
641
159,
227
227,
348
352,
456
255,
364
364,
396
400,
519
065,
093
093,
387
391,
507

006,
008
008,
150
152,
197
102,
145
143,
238
240,
312
255,
364
364,
543
549,
712
085,
122
122,
242
244,
317

191,
272
272,
543
549,
712
063,
091
091,
233
235,
305
263,
375
375,
543
549,
712
172,
245
245,
525
530,
687

C6
453,
648
648,
1340
1354,
1756
000,
000
000,
075
076,
099
263,
375
375,
396
400,
519
254,
363
363,
390
394,
511

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

106,
151
151,
317
320,
415
000,
000
000,
060
061,
079
255,
364
364,
371
375,
487
081,
116
116,
237
239,
310

000,
000
000,
108
109,
141
000,
000
000,
093
094,
122
204,
291
291,
396
400,
519
000,
000
000,
151
152,
198

002,
002
002,
087
088,
114
042,
059
059,
127
128,
167
204,
291
291,
307
310,
402
043,
062
062,
199
201,
261

000,
000
000,
346
349,
453
124,
177
177,
338
342,
443
024,
035
035,
112
113,
147
000,
000
000,
112
113,
146

000,
000
000,
667
674,
874
047,
068
068,
162
164,
212
025,
035
035,
112
113,
147
018,
025
025,
111
112,
146

000,
000
000,
344
347,
450
000,
000
000,
059
060,
077
025,
035
035,
112
113,
147
000,
000
000,
084
085,
110

initial population randomly for vertices of each variable

and encodes the membership functions into numerical
strings called the chromosome. The upper and lower
limits for the different variables are adopted, as shown in
Table II(ac). The objective function for optimization is
formulated as minimizing the absolute value of deviation
between actual release and fuzzy-based release, and can
be written as follows:
n


jR1i
R2i j

9
Min Z2 D

function values after 75 generations. Tournament selection is used for selecting population for the mating pool.
The best crossover probability and mutation probability
is decided by trial-and-error for different cases. After the
GA run is terminated, the best chromosome is obtained,
which can be decoded to define the fuzzy rule for the
cluster.

iD1

Table III(ac) lists the optimal vertices obtained for 5,

8 and 12 clusters respectively. The vertices l and c
with zeros indicate right-angled triangular membership
function (e.g. C1, C2, etc. for a 5-cluster scenario) for the
variable. The results from OFM and CFM are compared

where R1i and R2i are releases for ith time step from
optimized releases and CFM respectively. The stopping
criterion for GA run is set to be 75 generations. It is
observed that there is no significant change in objective
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2841

RULE REDUCTION IN FUZZY LOGIC FOR RESERVOIR OPERATION

Table III. (a) Optimal vertices of membership function: 5 cluster

Vertices

Inflow

l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r

Storage
Demand
Release

Optimal vertices for different

groups (Mm3 )

Release (CFM)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

051
059
1793
184
386
461
326
538
548
187
542
703

000
000
520
082
281
285
288
506
564
092
092
644

000
000
1353
000
000
128
219
324
476
000
000
393

000
000
453
134
246
379
024
039
113
000
000
134

000
000
874
000
0005
129
024
054
146
000
006
112

Release (Mm3)

Variables

Release (Actual)
Release (OFM)

3
2
1
0
0

(a)

6
8
Time (Fortnight)

10

Release (Actual)
Release (OFM)

12

14

Release (CFM)

Optimal vertices for different groups (Mm3 )

Storage
Demand
Release

l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r

C1

C2

C3

C4

000
000
347
000
000
059
024
111
145
000
031
085

000
000
874
060
065
167
027
042
143
021
043
113

000
032
453
115
258
312
024
040
113
000
000
137

C5

C6

C7

C8

000 047 000 000

520
012 059 000 000 1080
031 1172 548 356 1914
000 280 122 000
000
119 406 247 000
000
430 487 342 128
327
029 350 341 227
363
056 458 449 315
527
126 550 566 501
711
000 224 092 0001 316
111 515 166 023
513
146 709 483 329
660

with actual releases for a 1-year validation period, as

shown in Figure 4(ac).
As seen from Figure 4, the performance of the CFM
model is, in general, as good as and, in some conditions,
better than the OFM model. It is also observed that
the performance of the model improves as the number
of clusters is increased from 5 to 8, but is found to
deteriorate when the number of clusters is increased to

3
2
1
0
0

6
8
Time (Fortnight)

(b)

Release (Actual)
Release (OFM)

10

12

14

Release (CFM)

4
Release (Mm3)

Variables Vertices

Inflow

Release (Mm3)

Table III. (b) Optimal vertices of membership function: 8 cluster

3
2
1
0
0

(c)

6
8
Time (Fortnight)

10

12

14

Figure 4. (a) Comparison of results (validation): 5 cluster. (b) Comparison of results (Validation): 8 cluster. (c) Comparison of results (Validation): 12 cluster

Table III. (c) Optimal vertices of membership function: 12 cluster

Variables

Inflow
Storage
Demand
Release

Optimal vertices for different groups (Mm3 )

Vertices

l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r
l
c
r

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

820
1292
1879
179
299
506
382
434
548
385
479
707

075
265
445
285
353
503
345
479
550
231
368
639

000
000
494
181
274
399
358
388
510
092
355
506

007
008
152
143
150
245
266
492
570
121
241
316

205
275
667
066
134
251
292
512
548
245
281
687

541
647
1396
000
001
076
283
391
444
275
389
508

120
214
400
000
022
075
312
366
415
110
145
274

000
106
140
000
091
094
204
389
519
000
150
152

001
002
087
051
065
134
241
305
341
061
083
261

000
029
453
127
251
397
024
039
113
000
000
146

000
000
874
053
067
172
027
039
146
017
055
112

000
000
348
000
000
059
024
112
143
000
030
086

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2842

C. SIVAPRAGASAM ET AL.

Membership function

12. This can be attributed to the fact that, with only 5

clusters, the variegatedness of data within each group
cannot be effectively described by a single triangular
membership function. For example, the releases in the
first fortnight, as predicted by OFM and CFM models,
are considerably different (Figure 4(a)). With 8 clusters,
this variegatedness is mapped better and, consequently,
the prediction improves, as shown in Figure 4(b). There is
a general overall improvement over the entire operation
period. However, with 12 clusters, the number of data
available under each group to optimize vertices of the
membership functions is very low, leading to a relatively
inferior performance.
In order to appreciate the fuzziness of the input
variables, the individual triangular membership function
(as obtained after GA optimization) for each input
c4 c2 c5 c3

c1

0
0

1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

Inflow (Mm3)

Membership function

(a)

c3,c5

c4 c2

c1

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0

4.5 5.0

Storage (Mm3)

(b)
Membership function

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

c4 c5

c3

c2 c1

0
0

0.5 1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Demand (Mm3)

(c)

variable in each cluster is combined, as shown in Figure 5

(for the 5-cluster analysis). It should be noted that, for
the input variable storage, the (l, c, r) ordinates in two
clusters are nearly same, and as such Figure 5(b) has only
four membership functions. Also, for the input variable
inflow, it is seen that the inflows belonging to fuzzy
set low, though predominantly occurring only in the
fourth cluster, are, however, present in all the remaining
four clusters. However, such occurrences are very few.
For example, in the third cluster, out of a total of 37
data, only 6 are found to be in the low category. These
6 data can be seen as a noise. The presence of such
noise is a function of the strength and ability of the
clustering algorithm used as well as the degree of nonlinearity in the inter-relationship between the variables.
Thus, Figure 5(a) is plotted without taking the noise
into account.
A closer observation of data within each group of each
of these clusters indicates that Euclidean-based clustering
is suitable for understanding and interpreting the system
performance, particularly for a single-purpose reservoir
system such as the one considered in this study. In order
to give linguistic interpretation to each of the clusters,
suitable classes (high, low, etc.) are to be assigned
on the basis of the maximum and minimum values for
the input variables in each of the clusters. In this study,
since the reservoir is single purpose, it was decided to
combine the effect of storage and inflow according to the
total availability of water. For 5-cluster results, Table IV
shows the assigned classes and the intervals used for rule
formulation. For example, an availability of 4 Mm3 falls
under three classes, viz. low, medium and high. Of the
three, this value is closest to the class average of medium
class. Thus, it is assigned as medium. A similar procedure
is adopted for other inputs. For the average condition of
input variables under each of the clusters, the rules can
be easily arrived at as listed below:

Figure 5. (a) Optimal membership function for inflow: 5 cluster. (b) Optimal membership function for storage: 5 cluster. (c) Optimal membership
function for demand: 5 cluster

Group C1 (Severity 2): IF availability of water is high

AND demand is high THEN
release is very high
Group C2 (Severity 4): IF availability of water is medium AND demand is high
THEN release is high
Group C3 (Severity 5): IF availability of water is low
AND demand is medium THEN
release is medium

Table IV. Assigned classes and intervals adopted for rules formulation: 5 cluster

High
Medium
Low
Very low

Demand (Mm3 )

Availability (Mm3 )

Class

Release (Mm3 )

Average

Min

Max

Average

Min

Max

Average

Min

Max

754
302
127
124

290
099
000
000

1511
805
776
370

420
356
089
084

364
291
035
035

549
401
113
113

216
097
056
034

138
076
026
023

445
197
067
055

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2843

RULE REDUCTION IN FUZZY LOGIC FOR RESERVOIR OPERATION

Group C4 (Severity 1): IF availability of water is low

AND demand is low THEN
release is low
Group C5 (Severity 3): IF availability of water is very
low AND demand is very low
THEN release is very low
It can be seen that each group (C1, C2, . . . C5) is so
formed to indicate the condition of the system. C1 represents the system being subjected to a condition of high
availability of water, but with high irrigation demand. The
total availability of water includes both reservoir storage
volume and the inflow volume. Similarly, C3 represents
the system being subjected to low availability of water
with a medium demand. Under each of these scenarios,
the decision on release differs. In simple terms, the clustering procedure helps in understanding the severity of
the system clearly. When the system is subjected to a
very low availability of water with a high demand, the
condition of the system can be inferred as highly severe.
Numerical values are used to indicate the severity condition with 1 indicating the least severity. Thus, the five
rules as listed above summarize the system condition and

the decision taken, and can be easily understood by the

operator.
Similar analysis is extended to clusters with 8 groups
and 12 groups, as shown in Table V(a) and (b). As
seen from the table, the rules give a clearer picture of
the system condition. The severity is also accordingly
classified. It can be noted that rule no. 9 and 10
corresponding to 12 clusters are apparently exactly same.
This is because, as mentioned earlier, the total availability
of water comprises both storage volume and inflow
volume. In case of rule no. 9, the storage volume is found
to be more than the inflow volume and vice versa for rule
no. 10. However, the total availability comes under the
same class of relatively high.

CONCLUSIONS
Decision-making in reservoir operation with the aid
of fuzzy logic is commonly recognized. On the one
hand, the linguistic rules offer great advantage in easy
understanding and interpretability of the system, yet, on
the other hand, increase in number of rules dilutes such
advantage. In this paper, an attempt has been made to

Table V. (a) Rules obtained from 8-cluster CFM

Rule
no.

Severity
class

Group
no.

Fuzzy Rules
Antecedent proposition

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

C8
C3
C4
C5
C2
C1
C6
C7

IF

Consequent proposition

Availability

Demand

Release

Very high
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Very low
Medium
Very low

Medium
Very low
Low
Very High
Low
Very low
High
High

Very high
Low
Medium
High
Low
Very very low
Relatively high
Very low

AND

THEN

Table V. (b) Rules obtained from 12-cluster CFM

Rule
no.

Severity
class

Group
no.

Fuzzy rules
Antecedent proposition

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

C1
C6
C10
C11
C8
C12
C7
C3
C5
C2
C9
C4

IF

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Consequent proposition

Availability

Demand

Release

Very High
High
Relatively high
Low
Very low
Very low
Relatively low
Medium
Relatively high
Relatively high
Low
Relatively low

High
Relatively high
Low
Low
Very low
Low
Relatively low
Relatively high
High
High
Relatively high
High

Very very high

High
Low
Very low
Low
Very very low
Relatively low
Medium
High
Very high
Relatively low
Relatively low

AND

THEN

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp

2844

C. SIVAPRAGASAM ET AL.

eliminate this paradox by clustering the data into different

groups and designing a single triangular membership
function, the vertices of which are optimized by GA.
The performance of the CFM model is, in general,
found to be as good as and, in some cases, better than
the OFM model with fewer of rules. The fuzziness in the
input variables is reflected through the different clusters,
which makes the whole process of fuzzy inference very
easy and results in highly condensed but, yet very
meaningful rules. Moreover, as shown in the case study,
the clustering approach can be effectively interpreted to
reflect the different conditions to which the reservoir
system is subjected, and is therefore more meaningful
to the decision maker. The choice of number of clusters
depends on the accuracy desired and the ability to clearly
distinguish various rules by the human mind.
Since the Kohonen clustering algorithm uses the
Euclidean measure as the basis for clustering, it seems
to be suitable for the present case study, which is a
single-purpose reservoir system. However, for systems
involving more complex decisions, it would be desirable
to investigate the performance of other clustering techniques besides the Kohonen algorithm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is a part of the research work funded

by the Department of Science and Technology (DST),
Government of India. The authors wish to acknowledge
the financial support rendered by DST.

REFERENCES
Babuska R. 1998. Fuzzy Modeling for Control . Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Boston, MA.
Chen Z, Feng TJ, Houkes Z. 1999. Texture segmentation based on
wavelet and kohonen network for remotely sensed images. Proceedings
of IEEE International Conference on Systems. Man and Cybernatics:
Tokyo, Japan.
Dandy GC, Engelhardt M. 2001. Optimal scheduling of water pipe
replacement using genetic algorithms. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management 127(4): 214223.
Deb K. 1995. Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and
Examples. Prentice Hall: New Delhi, India.
Deb K. 2001. Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.
Deb K, Tiwari S. 2005. Omni-optimizer: a procedure for single and
multi-objective optimization. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference EMO-2005 . Springer: Guanajuato; 4761, Lecture Notes
on Computer Science 3410.
Doan CD, Liong SY. 2002. Improving prediction accuracy and
interpretability of fuzzy inference system with efficient and effective
data set. Hydroinformatics 2002. Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Hydroinformatics, Cardiff, 729 734.
Dubrovin T, Jolma A, Turunen E. 2002. Fuzzy model for realtime reservoir operation. Journal of Water Resource Planning and
Management 128(1): 6673.

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Emamian V, Kaveh M, Tewfik AH. 2000. Robust clustering of acoustic

emission signals using the kohonen network. Proceedings of
International conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Goldberg DE. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA.
Hasebe M, Nagayama Y. 2002. Reservoir operation using the neural
network and fuzzy systems for dam control and operation support.
Advances in Engineering Software 33(5): 245260.
Haykin S. 1999. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation.
Prentice Hall International: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Karaboga D, Bagis A, Haktanir T. 2004. Fuzzy logic based operation
of spillway gates of reservoirs during floods. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, ASCE 9(6): 544549.
Kojiri T. 1992. Estimation and management of drought situation by using
pattern classification and fuzzy inference. Proceedings of 8th Congress
of APD-IAHR, Pune, India; A: 7989.
Kojiri T, Ikebuchi S, Unny TE, Panu US. 1990. Knowledge-based
system approach to reservoir operations. Proceedings of International
Symposium on Water Resources Systems Application, Winnipeg,
Canada: 566 574.
Kojiri T, Sugiyama Y, Paudyal GN. 1993. Fuzzy reservoir operation with
multi-objective and few monitoring data. Proceedings of International
Conference on Environmentally Sound Water Resources Utilization,
Bangkok, Thailand; II: 280287.
Kosko B. 1992. Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems: a Dynamical
Systems Approach to Machine Intelligence. Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Labadie JW. 1997. Reservoir system optimization models. Water
Resources Update 108: 83115.
Mamdani EH, Assilian S. 1975. An experiment in linguistic synthesis
with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies 7(1): 113.
Michalewicz Z. 1994. Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution
Programs, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Panigrahi DP, Mujumdar PP. 2000. Reservoir operation modeling with
fuzzy logic. Water Resources Management 14(2): 89109.
Raju KS, Kumar DN. 2004. Irrigation planning using genetic algorithms.
Water Resources Management 18: 163 176.
Ross TJ. 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, McGraw-Hill,
Hightstown, NJ.
Russell SO, Campbell PF. 1996. Reservoir operating rules with fuzzy
programming. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
122(3): 165170.
Sharif M, Wardlaw R. 2000. Multi reservoir systems optimization
using genetic algorithms: case study. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, ASCE 14(4): 255 263.
Shrestha BP, Duckstein L, Stakhiv EZ. 1996. Fuzzy rule-based modeling
of reservoir operation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 122(4): 262269.
Song YH, Wan HB, Johns AT. 1997. Kohonen neural network based
approach to voltage weak buses/areas identification. IEE Proceedings
on Generation, Transmission and Distribution 144(3): 340 344.
Wardlaw R, Bhaktikul K. 2001. Application of a genetic algorithm for
water allocation in an irrigation system. Irrigation and Drainage 50:
159170.
Wardlaw R, Sharif M. 1999. Evaluation of genetic algorithms for optimal
reservoir system operation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, ASCE 125(1): 25 33.
Wurbs R. 1993. Reservoir-system simulation and optimization models.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE 119(4):
455472.
Yeh WWG. 1985. Reservoir management and optimization model:
a stateofthe-art review. Water Resources Research 21(12):
1797 1818.
Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338 353.
Zadeh LA. 1988. Fuzzy logic. IEEE Computer 21(4): 8391.

Hydrol. Process. 21, 2835 2844 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/hyp