Wiki Wiki

« Back to FrontPage

Grandi Laghi Lombardi - NAVIGATION

Navigation on Grandi Laghi Lombardi in the region of Lombardy, Italy

CONTENT

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Background

4. Stakeholder

5. Motivation of Study

6. Technical Content

    6.1. Maximum Water Level Evaluation

     6.2. Minimum Water Level Evaluation

     6.3. The Model

     6.4. The Performance Indicator Reliability

7. Scenarios

     7.1. Base Scenario

     7.2. Second Scenario

     7.3. Third Scenario

8. Results

     8.1. Trade-offs

9. Recommendations

10. Conclusion

11. References

12. Authors

13. Appendices

   13.1. Appendix I

   13.2. Appendix II

   13.3. Appendix III

________________________________________________________________________________

 

1. Abstract

The Great Lakes of Lombardy in North Italy contain a number of lakes which are attracting tourists from around the world. The tourism activities in these lakes provide job opportunities for many people working on the different touristic activities. Recreational tourism activities include: boating; shipping; water skiing and touristic tours; and transport of vehicles on ferries. The lake navigation is usually affected by many factors. One of these factors is the weather, and the weather conditions are directly influencing the levels of water in the lakes.

The levels of the both lakes are computed using Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) (SEI, 2007) software to calculate the performance metrics which will serve for the navigation activity. Three scenarios are used in this project. The first Base scenario used in the project has input historical data (storage volumes, outflow volumes and water elevations) of 37 years from January 1974 to December 2010. The first Alternative scenario (Second Scenario) was used to improve the performance indicator's values. And the second Alternative scenario (Third Scenario) was used to suggest another possible way of working activities of the stakeholder.

The results obtained from this daily model for historical data of 37 years from 1974 - 2010. will help: our own stakeholder which owns a fleet of ships in order to know when there is a deficit of water in the lake translated as a low lake level and when there will be flooding in the area so that they can work out a way of implementing their work in these harsh situations. In order to know exactly how the system will behave we will calculate a performance indicator: the reliability, which will represent the number of days with flood/deficit of water telling us how the system is behaving, i.e. how long the system is in a satisfactory condition.

 

2. Introduction

The surface areas of the lakes of Maggiore and Como are quite big thus covering a big area of the Lombardy region. Many cities are located on the banks of these lakes in addition to agricultural fields, hydropower plants and industrial facilities. The scenes of the lakes are breathtaking, especially when touring on a boat.  These lakes play a key role in the economy of the surrounding cities and the entire region.

The Lakes of Como and Maggiore serve a number of stakeholders, where a number of them affect the levels of the water in the two lakes. The levels of the lakes vary significantly during the year. Our goal is to keep the levels of the lake in suitable level for navigation by avoiding the high levels (floods) and low levels.

In this WEAP daily model, the irrigation demand sites affect the levels of the lake by withdrawing water from the lakes during the summer time where the water levels drop down in order to satisfy their demands. In the winter time, the levels of the water are high because of two reasons: firstly because of higher precipitations; secondly because there is no withdrawal of water during this period for irrigation. Both lakes had witnessed some flood events and low water events during this time span of 37 years (1974 - 2010). Both the high and low levels affect the navigation activity.

The base scenario of our daily model calculates the number of days when the navigation activity is disturbed. In this scenario we didn't change anything in the WEAP daily model, in order to see how the system is behaving (by checking the values for the reliability).  In the alternatives we wanted to improve the reliability indicator by reducing the number of days without navigation.

In the following parts of the report, we will show the results of the alternatives we used along with the performance indicator that will be calculated for each alternative to determine the best scenario for our stakeholder.

 

3. Background

The first boat that  set sail on the lake Maggiore was on the February 25, 1826. The first wooden boat was launched in the Ticino Canton. It was the beggining of  the navigation activity which it prompted a boom in the streamer service on the lake. The Lake Como has shape of  the upside down “Y” letter. The northern part of the lake begins at the town of Colico. Cities of Como and Lecco sit at the ends of the south-western and south-eastern branches of the lake respectively. Adda River, which is the inflow of the Lake Como enters the Lake in the northern part in the city of Colico and flows out in the south-eastern part in the city of Lecco. Mainly because of the fact that there is no outflow at the south-western branch of the lake, where Como is located, many flood events occur (Italiaoutdoors, 2015). The lake of Como has a developed transportation system links, with many cities on the lake, by means of ferries. The ferry service was launched in Lake Como in 1826 when a steamship with sails called “Lario” was launched by the "Società Privilegiata per la Navigazione a Vapore nel Regno Lombardo-Veneto" (Source). In 1952, an Italian government organization called Gestione Governativa Navigazione Laghi became the responsible of the navigation service in Lakes of Como, Maggiore and Garda (Massimo Gossi, 2007). The Lake Maggiore has a surface of 210 km² (Laghi.net), where the northern part of the lake is located in Switzerland. The lake has three tributary rivers, Ticino, Maggia and Toce, and the only outlet is Ticino  (Catherine Richards, 2011). All of the topographic features of the lakes can be seen on the  Figure 1 representing  a satelite view of the region.

 
 
Figure 1. The satellite view of Grandi Laghi Lombardi, where on the left side you can see the Lake Maggiore, and the Lake Como the the right side
 

 

4. Stakeholder

As our stakeholder we have chosen the tourism of the Lakes Maggiore and Como. To be more precise our stakeholder is the “Gestione Navigazione Laghi” – Lombardy, Italy. As their website says they are a "Governmental Authority established by Law no. 614/57 through which the legislator has entrusted the handling of the shipping lines to an Official of the State Administration appointed by the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport” (Navigazione, 2015).
This Company has a General Directorate situated in Milan that works with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and it is also manages three operational Departments in Arona for Lake Maggiore, Desenzano for Lake Como and Garda (Navigazione, 2015). But we are only interested in Como and Maggiore.

Their mission is to be able to fully satisfy every need of the passenger that needs and wants to move around in the territories of the Lake Maggiore and Lake Como.
The Gestione Navigazione Laghi was built 50 years ago and now has its own fleet of over 90 vessels - assuring full work time throughout the year. The transport on the Maggiore, Garda and Como lakes is executed with the highest comfort for the users’ needs and at the same time it respects the environment on the area on in which the Gestione Navigazione Laghi operates. (Navigazione, 2015).

The main locations of the lakes are connected by a vessel service (Fleet Maggiore, Fleet Como), represented by: motorboat; fast hydrofoils; catamarans; ferryboat car transport services, which sail between Intra and Laveno for Lake Maggiore, and the four towns of Bellagio, Varenna, Menaggio and Cadenabbia on Lake Como (Navigazione, 2015).

 

5. Motivation of study

This project was a final step of the learning curve for the subject of Natural Recources Management +Integrated Water Recources Management (NRM + IWRM) in the summer semester of 2015. Motivating this topic was the flooding and the deficit of water present in the lakes of Como and Maggiore. These conditions influence directly the navigation activities of the boat companies in such a way that they will not be able to do satisfy their working conditions, ensuring loss of profits meaning unsatisfied workers. We want to find out for how many days the Navigation company cannot do their work and what are the reliabilities of high and low water levels in the lake.

 

 6. Technical Content

The major problems in our region are the minimum and maximum thresholds of the lakes’ elevations. In this study the performance indicator has been calculated; which is the reliability of navigational activities with respect to the high and low water levels in Maggiore and Como lakes.

 

6.1. Maximum Water Level Constraint

Increasing water levels more than a certain flood threshold causes flood event in the lake sides. This maximum threshold was determined based on the reference level in both lakes, which are Sesto Calende for Maggiore and Piazza Cavour for Como. The values for the maximum theshold are the following: 198.67m for Como (Threshold Como) and 195.5m for Maggiore (Threshold Maggiore). As seen these values for the threshold are based on the reference level which is 0.5m above the minimum level. Once there is flood case in the lake side, the connection between the ports/docks and the public becomes lost. The tourists and the crew of navigation become unable to keep normal activities and the docks would be rendered unusable. The days with flooding would be a loss for both the people who want to use the stakeholders' tours and also for the stakeholder itself who wants to serve the public and gain its benefit. Such flood event for Lake Como can be seen on figure 2., and on figure 3 a flood event for Lake Maggiore.

Figure 2. The flood event in Piazza Cavour near Como Lake side (November, 2014) (Source)

Figure 3. Flood event in Sesto Calende on the Lake Maggiore (November, 2014) (Source)

 

6.2. Minimum Water Level Constraint

On the other hand, to sustain the navigation activities there is a minimum water level constraint, to make docking actions safely on the coast (Min. level for navigation for Maggiore and Min. level for Como). The approximation will be that; when there is less water than the minimum level on the lake side the navigation of the big ferries sailing on the lakes, will be interrupted in such a way that they will not be able to set sail, because they require a certain amount of water elevation to not run a ground. the tourists will be able to reach the boat ports but that will not matter because the navigational tourism activities will be put on hold, until the water level returns to the normal one (above the min. level for navigation).

 

6.3. The model

The daily model consists of number of: reservoirs; rivers; demand sites; catchments; and groundwater; seen in the figure 4. In our case we considered the components that affect our performance indicator, which are the demand sites for irrigation; and the minimum flow requirement in Ticino for the hydropower production and for the environmental group the two outflow rivers (Ticino and Adda). When calculating the alternative scenario these stakeholders need to be also taken into account, because our decision will directly affect their performance indicators. In this study and model, Lake Maggiore and Lake Como are represented as reservoirs. The study is to keep on examining: the storage volumes (m3); the release (outflow) volumes (m3); storage elevation levels (m) in order to evaluate water elevations changes in the reservoirs. In Figure 4, the schematic of Grandi Laghi Lombardi Region can be seen on WEAP daily Model format with its components of the daily model.

Figure 4. The schematic of Grandi Laghi Lombardi Region and the components of the daily model

As it is mentioned above, we only consider the lakes of Maggiore and Lake Como in this project. We analysed and evaluated our scenarios with respect to the performance indicators of the other groups and their demand sites. The components of the system that we considered in Lake Maggiore include the irrigation demand sites (Industiale irrigation, Regina Elena irrigation and Villoresi irrigation) and Regina Elena demand site in addition to the flow requirement of Ticino River. In lake Como, the components we considered are the flow requirement of Adda River and Adda irrigation demand site.

 

6.4. The Performance Indicator Reliability

In this study only one performance indicator has been calculated; which is the reliability of the navigational activities with respect to high and low water levels on Maggiore and Como lakes.

For both of the lakes there are different thresholds for maximum water level. Once the water level exceeds this maximum water level threshold, flooding happens on the lake side (flood case). Accordingly, touristic navigational activities on the lake cannot take place. Activities will likely be interrupted in flood case as well as the connections between the navigation ports and touristic centers will be lost.

On the other hand, to sustain the navigation activities there is a minimum water level constraint, to make docking actions in a safety way on the coast, and also to be able to navigate on the lake without crashing to the ground base.

Here we will compute how many times the water levels exceeded the flood threshold and how many times the water level is below the minimum threshold and calculate the reliability accordingly.

Firstly, we will compute how many times the water levels exceeded the flood threshold and interrupted the navigational tourism activities. With respect to these computations, we are taking into account the following performance indicator: Reliability. The reliability of time series can be defined as the total number of the days when navigation activities can be run normally (satisfactory state) divided by the total number of days (Loucks, 2005). This was calculated using the appropriate results data of the WEAP daily model. Here we needed the following data obtained from the results of the ran daily model for the base and alternative scenarios: Reservoir storage volume; Reservoir outflow volume; reservoir elevation.

                                        Rh(%)=[((N when WeTf))/N]*100                                                               (1)

Rh – reliability of water level going over the flood threshold

N – total number of days

We – water elevation in any time

Tf – threshold of flood 

The equation 1 will work for any set of data where we have set a threshold and we now that the water elevation reaches or exceeds this threshold. But in our case, with the WEAP daily model we cannot get a value for the water elevation higher than the threshold because the program gets rid of all the excess water. All of this is more thoroughly explained in the paragraf concerning the Base scenario, seen below,(7.1. Base Scenario), look for the equations from 6 through 7, excluding 7.

Secondly, we will compute how many times the water levels is below the threshold of minimum water level for navigation, and paused the navigational tourism activities.  The reliability of time series can be defined as the total number of the days when navigation activities can be run normally (satisfactory state) divided by the total number of days (Loucks, 2005). This was calculated using the appropriate results data of the WEAP daily model. Here we needed the following data obtained from the results of the ran daily model for the base and alternative scenarios which is the Reservoir Elevation.  

                                     Rl(%)=[((N when WeTm))/N]*100                                                                 (2)

Rl –  reliability of water level going under the min threshold

N – total number of days

We – water elevation in any time

Tm – threshold of min water level for navigation

With the equation 2 we can show the reliability of days when the navigation can be executed regarding the low bound - Tm.

 

7. Scenarios

In this part, we will define the results of our base and the alternative scenarios. In the three scenarios, we did not add elements to the system and we did not include all elements of the system, meaning we only looked at the part of the Grandi Laghi Lombardy concerning our stakeholder, which are the two lakes Como and Maggiore.

7.1. Base Scenario

First of all for our stakeholder the Navigation on the Lakes Maggiore and Como we calculated the base scenario and 2 alternative scenarios. For the Base scenario nothing in the WEAP daily model was changed it was just run and the results concerning the elevationstorage volumewater outflow of the both lakes were used as a starting point for the calculation of the previously stated indicator: Reliability. As said before for the calculation was executed by the program Matlab (Natick, 2009). The used script/code for the indicators can be seen in the last section of the wiki page if someone wishes to see it (13.3. Appendix III).

The results of the base scenario concerning the reliabilities can be viewed in the table 1, 13.1. Appendix I.

Figure 5. Base scenario, the elevation of the levels of the Lake Maggiore and Lake Como

As we can see from the figure 5. on the x-axis the time of days is set and on the y-axis the water level represented in meters can be viewed. On this figure we can see the variation of the levels of the both lakes we are considering Lake Como and Lake Maggiore. For the Lake Como a value of 22milion cubic meters is considered as the top of buffer, and as top of conservation a value 10 times bigger than the top of buffer. For the Lake Maggiore the top buffer is considered to be at 41milion cubic meter which is again 10 times lower than the maximum capacity of the lake.

Figure 6. Base scenario, the reservoir storage volume of the levels of the Lake Maggiore and Lake Como

On the figure 6. this time instead of the elevation we will see the storage levels of the both lakes. We have set a threshold for floods in the Matlab code. This signifies that a flood will occur if the water volume exceeds this line. While doing this we encountered a problem with the WEAP, because it did not show the flooding of the lakes. WEAP says that the maximum capacity of the lake cannot be exceeded. In order to bypass this option of WEAP we needed to take into account more factors. This can be seen in the previous 2 figures. Here we will show you what we have done. With the following code (6,6.1,6.2) written in the Matlab script we were able to get as a result the exact number of flooded days instead of the level of the maximum capacity of the lake as a maximum. Here you will see the matlab script only for Lake Maggiore, if you wish to further investigate for Lake Como just go to the 13.3. Appendix III.

h_flood_M =  195.5m           %Threshold of flood                                               

RefL_M=193.02                   %Elevation of the reference level                    

volume_flood_M =  (207.51*(h_flood_M-RefL_M)+1/2*4.65*(h_flood_M-RefL_M)^2+1/3*0.13*(h_flood_M-RefL_M)^3 )*10^6+103755000                                                                                    (6)   

% When the water level exceeds the flood volume, flood happens in Maggiore. The formulation above for Maggiore Lake is referenced to the WEAP daily model files.                                                        

available_water_M = StorageVolumeMaggiore + ReleaseMaggiore;                                              (6.1)

% available water is a water volume in lake before relesing water.   

flood_maggiore = (available_water_M > volume_flood_M)                                                             (6.2)

% 1 represent the days when the available water is above the flood threshold. 0 when the available water was equal or less the threshold.                                                                                                     

By implementing this code instead of the regular:                                                                                             

no_navigation_maggiore = (storage_elevation_maggiore < h_navigation_M);                                  (7)

% When the storage elevation drops below of the minimum navigation elevation threshold, the navigational activities will be interrupted in Maggiore Lake.

In our daily model we did not just look for the flood levels as a problematic outcome but also looked out for the very low lake levels because these turn out to be quite troublesome. This is mainly because the ships sailing in the Grandi Laghi Lombardi are not just small touristic ships used for sightseeing, but also big ferries which could carry up to 844 people and 37 vehicles (Flota Navi.). So for determining the number of days where the navigation could not happen because of very low levels of water in the lakes we used the equation (7).

The low level of water present in the lakes is due to the outflows, on which the other stakeholders are depending on, such as the Irrigation that need the water for watering their crops, the Environmental group that want a specific amount of water flow in the river, the Hydropower producers which want also a certain amount of water entering their run on the river hydropower.

 

7.2. Second Scenario

In this scenario, we modified the minimum inflow requirement in Ticino River in Lake Maggiore and Ticino River in Lake Como. The aim of this scenario is to improve our performance indicator by also considering the performance indicators of other groups.

The results can be seen in the table 2 in the appendix II. What we wanted to do with the alternative scenario is the improvement of the reliability of our stakeholder, meaning that through modifying the minimum flow requirement in the 2 rivers we could decrease the number of days with no navigation. The Gestione Navigazione company would want to be able to always  perform their job, i.e. Navigation on the lakes. If we take a minute to see the results from the table 2, appendix II, we can notice that with this alternative scenario we have improved our own reliability alongside the other stakeholders’. By arriving at these results it can be said that this alternative scenario is good for everyone. All of this can be backed up with the following calculation of the tradeoffs between the stakeholders.

 

7.3. Third Scenario

Without influencing the other stakeholders we can implement another alternative scenario that would suggest using ships that have a lower immersion values(Tech. info small boat), seen on figure 8, than the ferries (Tech. info ferrie), seen on figure 7. This means that when experiencing low level of water the navigation will remain uninterrupted. So for implementing this scenario we just need the Matlab so that we can lower the minimum threshold to a lower value. In this occasion the navigation company can easily start using ships much smaller and in greater numbers than the ferries mentioned above. One of these ships carries only 80 people, which is much less than the 1000 people carried by the ferries. Even though the capacity is lower the navigation company can use more smaller ships in order to meet their requirements. For Maggiore Lake once we can decrease the minimum required water level by 47 cm to keep navigations, we can obtain 100% reliability. For lower levels the company may follow a way to change their boats. After this application the reliability of low levels can rise to 100% from 83%, with no effect to other stakeholders.

Figure 7. The big size ferry can be used in for high water levels. (Source)

Figure 8. The small size boat can be used for low water levels. (Source)

 

8. Results

The results that are shown on this wiki page are gotten from the software package WEAP. By translating the results data needed for calculation of our performance indicators into excel/csv file it was therefore used into another software package named Matlab. While by only showing these results into WEAP we can take into account only our stakeholder the Navigation, without seeing anything for the other stakeholders on the Grandi Laghi Lombardi.

 

8.1. Trade-offs

In order to see how we influence their stakeholder we need to calculate our own base and alternative scenario and to use the results we obtain to calculate their own reliability indicator, but this time in the monthly model which was used by the other groups. This was done by rightfully selecting the file specified by the group and implementing it in their own Matlab scrip provided by them. If we do this for both the base and the alternative scenario we can check how we influence the other stakeholders with your decisions. This is a great way to check upon your progress on how you want to implement something in the model by just recalculating the other stakeholders reliability indicator to see if your decision is preferable or not.

 

To be able to visualize the tradeoffs between all of the stakeholders a program called DiscoveryDV (DecisionVis LLC, 2014) was used.

By means of this program the loading of the objectives was managed also by choosing the correct optimization and the way how they are represented (color, range) it was able to arrive to the results.

For this model of the Grandi Laghi Lombardi (GLL) a total number of 5 stakeholders are present. The 5 stakeholders are:

  • Hydropower producers – max. hydropower production;
  • Flood busters – minimize intensity of flood events;
  • Navigation sector – maximize volume of water available in lake;
  • Agriculture – maximize crop production;
  • Environmental – optimize the flow in the rivers Adda and Ticino;

All the stakeholders are related to the following objectives have different objectives. For example: Flood busters want less water in the Lake Maggiore so that a flood would be avoided; The Agriculture want to minimize the Unmet Irriigation Demand; Hydropower producers want to increase their Hydro power production by increasing the flow in the outflow river of Maggiore, Ticino; The Navigation sector want to decrease the days with no navigation by optimizing the flow of the outflow rivers of Lake Como and Lake Maggiore; Environmental group want  also to optimize the flow of the outflow rivers of the two lakes so that they can assure optimal conditions for the trouts living in the rivers.

Figure 9. Analysis of the base and alternative scenario addressing Ticino river and the stake holders: Enviroment, Irrigation, Hydropower, Navigation, Flood Busters; the base scenario is the one in the bottom left corner, while the alternative scenario is the top right corner

Here on the figure 9 we see all the previosly mentioned stakeholders and how does the first alternative influences them. It can be noticed that all of the reliabilities of the other stakeholders were improved except the one of the enviromental which decreased by 0.9%. Considering these data it is safe to say that out first alternative scenario is a well executed scenario.

Figure 10. Analysis of the base and alternative scenario addressing Ticino river and the stake holder Irrigation with its 3 demand sites represented with different visualizations; the base scenario is the one in the bottom left corner, while the alternative scenario is the top right corner.

By this modificaton of the base scenario, seen on figure 10, we improve our reliability indicator as well as the reliabilities of three agriculture demand sites: Irrigation Industriale; Irrigation Villoresi; and Irrigation Regina Elena. 

Figure 11. Analysis of the base and alternative scenario addressing Adda river and the Navigation, Irrigation and Environment

This figure 11 shows the 3 stakeholders that influence the lake levels of lake Como. These are the Irrigation, Navigation, and the Environmental stakeholders. What we see on this figure is the following: with the base scenario the stakeholders were not satisfied with their reliabilities but with the alternative of the Navigation stakeholder all the reliabilities become greater. This increase is due to the fact the minimum flow of the river was increased to a value greater than the one in the base scenario.

 

9. Recommendations

Based on the results obtained from the WEAP daily model, the alternative scenario is the best solution to increase our performance indicators, where the reliabilities of the both lakes increased, and the performance indicators of the other groups improved, except the performance indicator of the Environmental group in Adda River, which it decreased by 0.9%.

The current/base scenario has many days without navigation activity, lowering the level of water in the Lake of Como and raising the level of water in the Lake of Maggiore will guarantee a decrease of the number of days without navigation, which it also helps the other groups to increase their performance indicators.


10. Conclusions

The level of the both lakes are not suitable for navigation during the whole year. According to the lakes' elevations obtained from the results of the daily model in WEAP, the number of non-navigable days concerning floods events in Lake Como are 216 days and due to the low water level we have 0 days, and for Lake Maggiore 26 days and 2378 days respectively. So the reliability for flood in Como is 98.43 %, and for low level is equal to 100 %. The reliability fo Maggiore for flood is 83.00%, whereas for low level is 99.80 %. For the first alternative we got an improvement of 5 days for Lake Como, regarding floods so the reliability increased by 0.01%  to 98.44%, and in Lake Maggiore we obtained 0 days with low level lake water, meaning that the reliability concerning the low levels increased to 100 %, for the other reliability concerning the threshold of flood it was also increased but by only a few percents. So besides the increasing of our own reliabilities we achieved a slight increase in the other stakeholders reliabilities and that is why our preffered scenario is the first alternative. The calculated reliabilities for the second alternative scenario can be seen in the Maltalb code provided in the appendix III, and for this scenario we just lowered the minimum level by using smaller ships, this may be also considered desirable by our stakeholder.

11. References

12. Authors

Stefan Velkovski, M.S. Student, Politecnico di Milano, 2015 Italy

Semih Tastekin, M.S. Student, Politecnico di Milano, 2015 Italy

Ahmed Elwaleed, M.S. Student, Politecnico di Milano, 2015 Italy

Instrctor: Rosenberg David E., PhD Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University,Politecnico di Milano, 2015 Italy

Teacihng assistant: Cominola AndreaPhD Candidate, Politecnico di Milano, 2015 Italy

13. Appendices

13.1. Appendix I

Table (1) shows the reliability values according to the current scenario

 Stakeholders

 Reliability (%) 

 Navigation 

 Como

 Low Level

100.00

 Flood

98.43

 Maggiore 

 Maggiore Low Level

83.00

 Flood

99.80

 Environment

 Min Environmental Flow Adda

30,34

 Min Environmental Flow Ticino

100.00

 Regina Elena Hydropower Plant

53.60

 Irrigation

 Adda

66.96

 Industriale

94.60

 Regina Elena

55.05

 Villoresi

84.49

 

13.2. Appendix II

Table (2) shows the reliability values according to our altnerative

 Stakeholders

 Reliability (%) 

 Navigation

 Como

 Low Level

100.00

 Flood

98.44

 Maggiore 

 Maggiore Low Level

99.81

 Flood

100.00

 Environment

 Min Environmental Flow Adda

99.78

 Min Environmental Flow Ticino

99.1

 Regina Elena Hydropower Plant

53.78

 Irrigation 

 Adda

67.17

 Industriale

94.81

 Regina Elena

55.18

 Villoresi

84.68

 

13.3 Appendix III

The Matlab code and resource files can be downloaded from the link below:

/documents/96286999/0/NavigationMatlabCode.zip

Presentation

14 Attachments
2384 Views
Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.
Comments