2.1. Case Study Identification
The case study area is located between longitude E 44°30′–45°48′ and Latitude N 33°57′–34°58′ in the northeast of Iraq (
Figure 1). It comprises the central part of the Dyiala river basin within Iraq. It is bounded by two multipurpose dams; Derbindikhan located in the north, and Himren in the south, and covers an area of about 7360 km
2. The land surface elevation ranges between 1809 and 88 m.a.s.l. The average annual rainfall and mean temperature (
Tmean) are 285 mm and 24 °C, respectively [
29].
The area is located on a low-angle folded zone, which extends from the northeast foothill areas of Iraq [
30]. The tertiary sediments present in a range between middle–late Eocene, represented by Gercus formation, to late Pliocene represented by Bai-Hassan formation. The Quaternary sediments are of late Pliocene–Pleistocene age manifested by Bammu Conglomerate, ending with Valley fill deposit of the Holocene. The stratification is illustrated in
Figure 2a.
Groundwater generally flows from the north to the south of the basin, following the topographic surface elevation decline (
Figure 1). The main units of hydrogeological significance with aquifer resource potential are the Mukdadiya, Bai-Hassan, and Quaternary deposits. The Quaternary deposits cover a wide portion of the study area with a thickness from 5 to 25 m. It is composed mainly of gravel, sand, and rock fragment. The Bai-Hassan and Mukdadiya formations are considered to be the two major aquifer of this region. The Bai-Hassan formation outcrops at different locations in the study area, while Mukdadiya appears at other parts of the area (
Figure 2a). The Mukdadiya formation is composed of fine upward cycles of gravely sandstone, sandstone, and mudstone, while Bai-Hassan is composed of conglomerates with beds of mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone. Their thickness range from 500 to 1000 m [
30]. These layers overlay the Injana formation, which is composed mainly of sandstone and claystone. The average hydraulic conductivity for both upper aquifers is 4.88 m/day [
29]. Groundwater quality, as characterized by salinity, varies; the total dissolved salts (TDS) ranged between 182 and 5500 mg/L for the upper aquifer (with c. 1000 mg/L being the brackish taste threshold). The estimated aquifer water storage is about 9 × 10
9 m
3, with storage coefficients for the upper and lower aquifer estimated at 3.5% and 0.14%, respectively [
31]. The central part of Diyala river basin has many cities, villages, and farms. Since the 1980s, about 1800 wells were drilled [
29] in the area due to urban and rural development and associated regional water exploitation increase. Moreover, the government intends to develop and invest in six irrigation projects covering a total area of 647.4 × 10
6 m
2 [
29,
32]. The average aquifer pumping discharge (
) within projects areas is about 778 m
3/day, which is calculated using spatial analysis in ArcGIS 10.2 depending on the wells’ discharges available in the historical database [
29] (
Figure 2b).
The annual design crop plan pattern exploits 100% of the arable land for winter crops, and 20% for summer crops. The winter crops mainly include wheat, barley, grains, legumes, and berseem, while the summer crops include cotton, rice, sesame and sunflower, vegetables, and cucurbits. The project’s water demands are based upon open furrow irrigation with an efficiency of 65%; hence, 35% loss of the delivered water due to evaporation, on-farm allocation, and infiltration losses. Sprinkler techniques have consistently high evaporative water losses due to the semi-arid environment [
32]. Hence, drip irrigation was proposed in this study as an alternative technique to reduce water allocation losses. This has a normal irrigation efficiency of about 90%, and an efficiency of 85% was modelled as a conservative estimate. The total agricultural project’s annual water demand is 567 × 10
6 m
3 [
29,
32]. This is set within the context of 30 years of meteorological data (precipitation and evapotranspiration) 1981–2010 presented in
Table 1 [
29]. The maximum field capacity, according to [
33] in [
31], is 115 mm, with the surface runoff being equal to 7% of the direct rainfall [
34]. The expected future gross total agricultural economic benefit is 160 million USD per year. Hence, the decision makers will require robust water resource management strategies to enable economic benefits to be realized without jeopardizing the sustainability of the water resource.
2.2. Identification of Groundwater Flow Model
The three-dimensional groundwater flow through an aquifer can be expressed by the following finite-difference equation as in [
35]
where
Kxx,
Kyy, and
Kzz are the hydraulic conductivities of the media in
x,
y, and
z direction, respectively.
W is a source or sink of water,
Ss is the specific storage of the aquifer, h and t represent the groundwater level and time, respectively. Harbaugh and McDonald (1996) present MODFLOW-96 package as a groundwater model solver for steady and unsteady flow. An updated version of MODFLOW-2005 was presented by Harbaugh [
36].
Generally, there are two sources of groundwater recharge, which maintain the water for an unconfined aquifer system. The first source is local recharge from rainfall or irrigation water that infiltrate through the soil texture, and the second is from the boundaries of the system: Exchange with neighboring aquifers and water bodies like river, lake, or even sea.
Groundwater recharge at any time
t (
DPt) occurs due to the infiltration of access water precipitation (
Pt) or irrigation water (
IRt), when soil moisture (
SMt) and the crop evapotranspiration (
ETt) requirements are fully satisfied. The general soil–water balance equation to calculate the infiltrating amount of water to groundwater in the time period
t + 1 can be expressed as:
where
is the soil moisture content at time
t + 1; and
ROt is the surface runoff at time
t. Deep percolation occurs when the moisture content in soil exceeds the maximum field capacity (
maxSM) of the soil, which is defined by Allen et al. [
37] as “the amount of water that a well-drained soil should hold against gravitational forces”. Hence, the deep percolation, in case of
>
maxSM, can be found as follows
The natural aquifer boundary recharges can be calculated using Darcy’s law, as follows:
where
Q is the groundwater recharge across a boundary section area
ASec, the aquifer permeability
K is the aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and
I is the hydraulic (groundwater) gradient where
I =
∆h⁄
∆l, with
∆h being the difference between the water table head at the recharge and discharge zones of the specified aquifer, and
∆l is the separation distance. These parameters can be calculated using MODFLOW-2005 and GIS techniques. A regional groundwater model had not previously been developed and, hence, a complete regional 3D MODFLOW-2005 model was built for recharge estimation, as in
Figure 3. The initial boundary head levels and wells parameters were extracted from wells log database and maps available in SGI et al. [
29]. The regional water balance in
Table 1 shows scarcity in water recharges from the rainfall due to high evapotranspiration rates (
ETo >
P), hence zero recharge from rainfall was considered for the simulation model [
38]. The simulation model achieved static flow for parameter calibration. The model consists of four layers’ the first two layers are Bai-Hassan and Mukdadiya formation since the two formations are composed of course sediments and are hydraulically connected. The last two layers represent the Injana aquifer system, which is composed of alternation of clay and sand beds. The average thickness of the two systems is 2000 m. The average calibrated
K value is about 2.67 m/day and 0.01 m/day for the upper and lower aquifers (
Figure 4), respectively, while the upper aquifer boundary recharge
TR0 is about 4.88 × 106 m
3/month.
It is obvious from
Figure 4 that Diyala River drains groundwater from the northern part of the basin, with that condition reversing gradually to the south. The relation between the groundwater and surface water depends on the riverbed sediments and the water level. In the upper part of the basin, the river is bounded between high-level lands (
Figure 1) with coarse bed sediment. This condition changes gradually toward the lower part of the basin, in which the riverbed is higher than the groundwater level with finer bed sediment [
39].
Figure 4 also shows the reported aquifer parameters. Cluster and bias in aquifer’s parameters (
K) are observed due to irregular distribution of wells across the basin. Here, the aquifer’s water level was presented as a general guide, as they are relevant to wells drilled sequentially over the last 25 years.
2.3. Regional Management Model Identification
The regional water management strategy aims to fulfil future water demands with sustainable groundwater exploitation; hence, aquifer storage, mining, and infiltration losses should also be considered. Accordingly, decision variables, objectives, and constraints were developed for the optimization approach. Here, the decision variables for the current conceptual model are the numbers of monthly pumping wells (
Nwt) to fulfil the project’s monthly water demands over the proposed operation period.
Table 2 shows the adopted scenarios and operation periods of the model.
To evaluate management strategies for competing groundwater demands in the study area, the first objective is minimizing water deficit between projects’ water demands (
PDt) and the total groundwater withdrawal (
Gt) at time
t with respect to the project’s maximum demands (
PDmax) over the entire considered period (
T), which can be expressed by the following formula:
where
Nwmax is the design maximum wells’ number, and
C is a penalty factor that includes all models violations, which can be formulated as [
40,
41]:
where
A is a coefficient,
NC is the number of constraint violation functions, and
represents constraint violations functions; their formula details are presented in Equations (13)–(16).
Usually A is found empirically, which depends on several replications of trial and error [
40,
41]. This value should be selected carefully to preserve suitable selection pressure to accelerate the algorithm convergence to the near-optimum solutions [
42]. Here, a value of
A = 10
4 was selected to exploit all feasible solutions and avoid rendering infeasible solutions at the constraint threshold, especially those with small violation values.
Regional future projection for rainfall was achieved by Abbas et al. [
26] using the SWAT model (soil and water associated tool) and GCM (general circulation model) to predict climate changes impacts for a half-century for the entire basin. The average annual rainfall reduction at the end of the half-century was 21%, hence the monthly reduction will be 0.035%. The monthly aquifer rainfall at time
t (
Pt) can be estimated as:
The second objective is minimizing infiltration losses due to water allocation at time
t (
DPt) with respect to maximum soil field capacity (
maxSM) over the considered period of time (
T), which can be expressed as:
Finally, minimizing the mining from static groundwater storage (
Sst) in the aquifers during the extracting process at time
t can be expressed as:
where
Saq is the aquifer storage calculated from the water balance equation as:
where
TRt is the total water recharges to the aquifers at time t.
Abbas et al. [
26] also estimates the average annual groundwater recharge depletion after a half-century for the entire basin about 35%, hence the monthly recharge reduction will be 0.058%. The monthly aquifer boundary recharge at time
t (
TRt) can be estimated as:
The groundwater management model has multiple operational and environmental constraints, illustrated in
Table 3. The monthly groundwater pumping discharge (
Gt) is equal or less than the project’s maximum water demands, while the monthly number of operated wells (
Nwt) should not exceed the maximum design number (
Nwmax). Also, the monthly soil moisture content (
SMt) should be greater than 50% of the maximum soil moisture content (
maxSM) to avoid reaching wilting point, in which the plant will die, nor the value of (
maxSM) to avoid water deep percolation.
From the above, the constraints functions
can be expressed as:
2.4. MOEA Method Identification
The multi-objectives evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) was used to solve the optimization problem to minimize F(x) = (f1(x), …, fm(x))T; subjected to: x ∈ Ω, Ω is the decision space and x ∈ Ω is a decision vector. F(x) consists of m objective functions fi: Ω → Rm, i = 1, …, m where Rm is the objective space.
The multi-objective optimization problem needs a strategy to compare and select solutions, because there is more than one optimum solution in the decision variables space that dominates. Stadler [
43] define the Pareto-optimal dominance relation concepts, which is widely used to describe the dominance solutions [
44,
45]. In a minimization problem, a vector
u = (
u1, …,
um)
T is said to dominate another vector
v = (
v1, …,
vm)
T if
ui ≤
vi for
i = 1, …,
m and
u ≠
v. This can be defined as
u ≺
v. Also, a feasible solution
x ∈ Ω is called a Pareto-optimal solution; if there is no alternative solution
y ∈ Ω such that
F(y) ≺
F(x), then the Pareto-optimal set,
PS, is the union of all Pareto-optimal solutions, and may be defined as:
PS = {
x ∈ Ω:∄
y ∈ Ω,
F(y) ≺
F(x)}. The Pareto-optimal front (
PF) is the set comprising the Pareto-optimal solutions in the objective space in a multi-objective optimization problem and is expressed as:
PF = {
F(x)|
x ∈
PS}.
Here, two competitive EAs were adopted to solve the multi-objective problem, Borg MOEA [
27] and ε-DSEA [
28]. Borg MOEA has many novel concepts to produce optimum solutions and overcome high-dimension complexity. It has a dominance archive to maintain the non-dominated solutions to preserve diversity and convergence. The search space is divided into hyper-boxes, with dimensions equal to ε, and represents the search resolution. The algorithm has an improvement indicator for stagnation monitoring (ε-progress), which monitors the solutions in the dominance archive periodically to check stagnation on local optima. Hence, the algorithm adopts a restart mechanism to revive the search. It has multi recombination operators to generate new solutions and adapt with the one who generates non-dominated solutions in the dominance archive. A competitive assessment of Borg MOEA compared with other state-of-the-art evolutionary algorithms was utilized using multi-objectives problems, through which it outperformed or met these algorithms [
27,
46,
47,
48,
49].
ε-DSEA has a novel methodology to improve the diversity and the convergence to an optimal solution. The diversity enhanced by implementing multiple operators produces new offspring after an initial random seeding of population. Also, it has a novel methodology to control parameters tuning over the evaluation process for the operators, through which operators’ parameters connected with its performances to produce dominance solutions in the dominance archive. These parameters adjust dynamically within a specified ranged depending on the number of dominance solutions produced by each operator [
50,
51].
Details of algorithms techniques are in the aforementioned references. The algorithms’ computational parameters are illustrated in
Table 4.
A program was written in C language representing Equations (2)–(16). Ten runs were executed for each case, using each of the two scenarios; hence, the total runs were 200 for the entire scenarios and periods, using a desktop PC with Ubuntu 16.04 OS (Core i7-6700 CPU @ 3.4 GHz, 16 GB RAM). The ε values, which is the hyper-box dimension and represent the resolution of the objective function search space, ranged between 0.001 and 0.5 for Equations (5), 0.01 to 0.5 for Equation (9), and from 0.001 to 0.1 for Equation (10). The number of function evaluations ranged between 0.5 × 106 to 1.2 × 106 in both scenarios.