Formulation and Implementation of Short-Term Optimal Reservoir Operation Schemes Integrated with Operation Rules
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Development of short term operational rule for hydro power reserservoir is very interesting. The methodology used for the paper is reasonable and applicable for other reservoir to determine the best operation mode.
In my opinion, the paper is suitable for a publication after improving English style.
Author Response
The detailed revisions are in the attachment file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript provides an interesting study of the formulation and implementation of the optimal reservoir operation schemes. Although the formulation and implementation parts are well described, some deficiencies exist in providing enough information for employed methods and algorithms. The structure of the paper can be improved too. The conclusion section should be written better by providing more discussions supporting the main finding of the study. The manuscript can be published in Water after minor revisions considering following comments.
1. Line 38 and 41; please define acronyms like MSDP, PSA and GA in the first use even if they are widely used and known acronyms. This has been repeated throughout the manuscript.
2. Line 48; please consider rewriting the sentence. It is not clear. “Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty of future inflow and the existence of forecast errors, when the scheme formulated based on the previous day’s predicted inflow is implemented the next day, it may turn out differently from what is expected”
3. Line 81; please double check the format of the journal for using the term “Formula”. Usually, the “Equation” term is used. This has been repeated throughout the manuscript.
4. Line 157; it seems that the heading 2.1.3. should be “output control mode”.
5. Line 158; “…keeping the actual hydropower output process consistent with N.” maybe it is better if you drop the word “process” in this sentence.
6. Line 223; “Combine the two sets of discrete points and obtain m•n operating conditions.”. Please write m times n or use the * operator instead of m•n.
7. Line 237; since only one case study reservoir exists in this manuscript, maybe it is better not to call them the 1st and 2nd cases studies. You can call them different scenarios.
8. Line 250; please rewrite this part up to end of the paragraph in passive form.
9. Figure 2c; could the authors add some explanation on the reason for the highest discarded water when the reservoir is in the lowest level (for water level and outflow control modes)?
10. Considering the wide range of parameters used in this paper, putting a nomenclature makes it easier for readers to understand the paper.
11. Almost no information about the optimization method and algorithm is provided in the manuscript. Please add proper information on this issue.
12. It would be quite interesting if the authors discuss more from the operational point of view when they compare 3 operation conditions. For example, you can describe what obstacles cause the operating staff not be able to control the water level in a better way despite their extensive experience. It can help readers to solve the same problems.
Author Response
The detailed reply is in the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Some suggestions to text of the manuscript and discussion proposals are placed in the attachement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The detailed reply is in the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
