PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF GENERATION OF SCENARIOS FOR RESERVOIR INFLOWS USING ENSEMBLE RAINFALL FORECASTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16215Keywords:
Cenários de afluências, Modelos autoregressivos, Previsões de precipitação por conjunto.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16215
The electric energy planning of the National Interconnected System - SIN has a close correlation between present stocks of water in the reservoirs of hydroelectric plants and future inflows. For time periods above one month, inflows scenarios are generated without incorporating any kind of climate information. The inclusion of such information can improve the representation of future hydrological conditions. The objective of this study is to evaluate the gain that can be achieved with the use of precipitation information on generating reservoir inflows scenarios. We generated reservoir inflows scenarios to the Grande River basin using univariate autoregressive modeling – AR, which considers only past inflows, and multivariate modeling – ARx, which also considers precipitation information. Statistical indices were calculated to evaluate the performance of the scenarios generated using the two types of autoregressive models by comparing the predicted inflow with the observed inflow. The results highlighted that both the univariate and multivariate modeling represented well the seasonal behavior of the inflows, however the univariate methodology presented difficulties in capturing the corresponding natural variability. Statistical indices showed the best performance of the ARx model, indicating that the inclusion of the precipitation information proved to be an important addition to generate reservoir inflows scenarios.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
