臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

乾旱是地球上不可避免、短暫偏離常態的氣候現象，乾旱的形成是緩慢且不易察覺，因此水庫蓄豐濟枯提供穩定供水的功能，往往在乾旱期間便無法有效發揮。在面臨即將到來的乾旱，若無適時的採取限水措施，可能使得缺水集中於少數幾個缺水時刻，這是水資源管理者與用水戶都不樂見的。一般而言，採取適當的限水措施可以避免嚴重缺水現象的產生，亦即以提前且小幅度的限水來避免突然產生之大幅度缺水。制定水庫營運之最佳限水策略為本文主要研究目的，本文試圖以乾旱指標為依據制定水庫的限水機制，本文考慮兩種方式，第一種限水策略僅依據乾旱指標，即由乾旱指標所訂定的乾旱程度來決定何時限水及限水幅度。而第二種限水策略除乾旱指標外，另增加水庫蓄水量作為判斷是否限水的依據，即當水庫月初蓄水量已達某一可穩定供水程度時即使乾旱指標值偏低亦不限水，但當蓄水量偏低且乾旱指標未達某標準時即採取限水措施。本文所採用之乾旱指標乃McKee等(1993)所提出之標準化降雨指數(Standardized Precipitation Index， SPI)，以不同期距累積降雨量值計算其SPI值，當SPI值低於某特定值時即採行限水。至於此一特定值及限水幅度，即限水策略的參數，則以水庫營運之缺水指標來評估，本文所考慮的缺水指標有總缺水率及單月最大缺水率，並以妥協規劃(Compromise Programming)將此二項缺水指標同時降至最低值之限水策略為最佳限水策略。本文以簡化的石門水庫供水系統為例說明限水策略之研擬，包括如何決定限水及限水幅度、各限水參數對缺水指標的影響、及最佳限水策略之決定等。分析結果顯示最佳的第一種限水策略為以連續3個月期距的SPI值為1.0時訂為限水起始值，最大限水幅度為60%時，可使得水庫營運之總缺水率為12.62%，單月最大缺水率為48.06%。最佳的第二種限水策略仍以連續3個月為期距，當水庫月初有效蓄水量大於173.15百萬立方公尺( Dt+0.6(C-Dt) )時以不限水方式供水，蓄水量小於此值且以SPI值為3.0時訂為限水起始值，最大限水幅度為50%時，總缺水率為11.29%，單月最大缺水率為47.38%。

Droughts are inevitable phenomena of the climate on earth. Initiation and termination of droughts are unpredictable, water supplies from reservoirs are unstable during droughts. It is often to accept a series of smaller shortages to mitigate the negative impacts caused by a sudden high percentage shortage. It is aimed to derive the optimal hedging rules for a water supply reservoir in this study. Water rationing mechanism depends on drought indicators. Two types of hedging are considered in this study. The first type of hedging uses drought indicators solely, namely, initiation, termination of hedging and amount of water rationing are determined by the drought indicators. The second type of hedging employs the storage and drought indicators to determine hedging or not. When water stored in reservoir sufficient to meet the established demand, no hedging is initiated even though the drought indicators indicating an impending drought. The standardized precipitation index, developed by McKee et al. (1993), is used in this study as an indicator to determine hedging or not. Various time-scale SPIs are used to monitor the drought condition. When SPI below a specific threshold, water rationing is initiated. Reservoir performance is evaluated by shortage characteristics. Two shortage indices, shortage ratio and maximum one-month shortage ratio, are considered in this study. Multi-objective compromise programming is employed to derive the optimal hedging rules for minimizing these two conflicting objectives simultaneously. Simplified Shihmen reservoir system is used as an example to illustrate the proposed methodology. The results indicate that the optimal first type of hedging uses 3-month time scale to calculate SPI, the starting hedging SPI of 1.0, and the maximum hedging amount of 60%, which resulting in shortage ratio of 12.62% and the maximum one-month shortage ratio of 48.06%. The optimal second type of hedging uses 173.15 million m3 and SPI of 3.0 as the hedging thresholds, and the maximum hedging amount of 50%, which resulting in shortage ratio of 11.29% and the maximum one-month shortage ratio of 47.38%.

第一章 前言………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 研究動機…………………………………………………... 1
1.2 章節架構…………………………………………………... 2
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………… 3
2.1 限水機制………………………………………………… 3
2.2 缺水指標………………………………………………… 5
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………… 7
3.1 標準化降雨指數………………………………………… 7
3.2 單一水庫供水系統……………………………………… 11
3.2.1限水策略I………………………………………….. 13
3.2.2限水策略II…………………………………………. 15
3.3 缺水指標………………………………………………… 16
3.4 妥協規劃………………………………………………… 17
第四章 案例研究………………………………………………… 20
4.1石門水庫概述……………………………………………… 20
4.2石門水庫基本資料………………………………………… 20
4.3標準化降雨指數之應用…………………………………… 22
4.3.1 SPI計算過程…………………………………… 23
4.3.2不同期距雨量理論分佈適合度檢定……………… 24
4.3.3石門站歷年SPI值變化情形…….………………… 29
第五章 結果與討論………………………………………………. 33
5.1限水策略I ………………………………………………... 33
5.1.1不同SPI期距與總缺水率之關係………………… 33
5.1.2不同SPI期距與單月最大缺水率之關係………… 37
5.1.3不同SPI期距之最佳限水策略…………………… 39
5.2限水策略II………………………………………………... 42
5.2.1不同SPI期距、不同蓄水量與總缺水率之關係…… 42
5.2.2不同SPI期距、不同蓄水量對與單月最大缺水率之關係…………………………………………… 47
5.2.3不同SPI期距之最佳限水策略…………………… 52
第六章 結論與建議……………………………………………… 59
6.1 結論……………………………………………………… 59
6.2 建議……………………………………………………… 60
參考文獻………………………………………………………… 62
附錄1 連續1個月雨量分佈圖…………………………………. 65
附錄2 連續2個月雨量分佈圖………………….………………… 69
附錄3 連續3個月雨量分佈圖………………….………………… 73
附錄4 連續6個月雨量分佈圖………………….………………… 77
附錄5連續12個月雨量分佈圖………………….………………… 81
附錄6 連續24個月雨量分佈圖………………….……………… 85
附錄7不同期距限水策略II之總缺水率變化圖………………… 89
附錄8不同期距限水策略II之單月最大缺水率變化圖………… 100
附錄9不同期距限水策略II隨限水起始值及最大限水幅度變化關係圖……………………………………………………………… 111

朱壽銓、黃文政、黃珮貞，2000，「模擬法在水庫操作規線上之應用」，台灣水利，第48卷，第4期，第53-63頁。
徐享崑、洪益發，1988，「枯水期水庫放水決策動態模式之研究」，台灣水利，第36卷，第4期，第52-62頁。
郭振泰、林國峰，1992，「台灣地區乾旱問題之回顧與前瞻」，土木水利，第18卷，第4期，第33-37頁。
簡俊彥、蔡正男、洪益發，1991，「乾季時期水庫農業用水放水量調配模式之研究」，台灣水利，第39卷，第4期，第24-32頁。
蕭政宗，1999，「單一水庫系統缺水特性之探討」，台灣水利，第47卷，第2期，第72-91頁。
蘇明道、徐忠寶、陳維英，1997，「石門水庫操作規則之推導及評估」，台灣水利，第45卷，第1期，第58-67頁。
灌溉節水技術手冊，1995，農委會水利特刊第8號，行政院農業委員會，台北市七星農田水利研究發展基金會。
水庫資料冊，2000，經濟部水利處。
柳中明、許晃雄、童慶彬、陳明業，2002,「2002年台灣乾旱之醒思」，http://hsu.as.ntu.edu.tw。
石門水庫營運四十年特刊，2003，經濟部水利署北區水資源局。
宋嘉文，2003，「氣候變遷對台灣西半部地區降雨及乾旱影響之研究」，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所碩士論文。
Bayazit, M., and Unal, E., 1990,
“Effects of Hedging on Reservoir Performance”, Water Resources Research, 26(4), 713-719.
Cancelliere, A., Ancarani, A., and Rossi, G., 1998, “Susceptibility of Water Supply Reservoir to Drought Conditions”, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 3(2), 140-148.
Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J. R., and Loucks, D. P., 1982, “Reliability, Resilience, and Vulnerability Criteria for Water Resources System Performance Evaluation”, Water Resources Research, 18(1), 14-20.
Hayes, M., Wilhite, D. A., Svodoba, M., and Vanyarkho, O., 1999, “Monitoring the 1996 drought using the Standardized Precipitation Index”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 429-438.
Keyantash, J., and Dracup, J. A., 2002, “The Quantification of Drought: An Evaluation of Drought Indices”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83, 1167-1180.
Maass, A., Hufschmidt, M. M., Dorfman, R., Thomas Jr., H. A., Marglin, S. A., and Fair, G. M., 1962, “ Design of Water Resources System”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., and Kleist, J., 1993, “The Relationship of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time Scales”, Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Applied Climatology, 17-22 January,1993, Anaheim, California, U.S.A.179-184.
Neelakantan, T. R., and Pundarikanthan, N. V., 1999, “Hedging Rule Optimisation for Water Supply Reservoirs System”, Water Resources Management, 13(6), 409-426.
Shih, J. S., and Revelle, C., 1994, “Water-Supply Operations During Drought: Continuous Hedging Rule”, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 120(5), 613-629.
Shih, J. S., and Revelle, C., 1995, “Water-Supply Operations During Drought: A Discrete Hedging Rule”, European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 163-175.
Simonovic, S. P., and Burn, D. H., 1989 ,“An Improved Methodology for Short-Term Operation of a Single Multipurpose Reservoir ”, Water Resources Research, 25(1), 1-8.
Srinivasan, K., and Philipose, M. C., 1998, “Effect of Hedging on Over-Year Reservoir Performance”, Water Resources Management, 12(2), 95-120.
Takeuchi, K., 1986, “Chance-Constrained Model for Real-Time Reservoir Operation Using Drought Duration Curve”, Water Resources Research, 22(4), 551-558.
Xu, Z., Jinno, K., Kawamura, A., Takesaki, S., and Ito, K., 1998, “Performance Risk Analysis for Fukuoka Water Supply System”, Water Resources Management, 12(1), 13-30.
Zeleny, M., 1973,“Compromise Programming, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making”, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 262-301.