42
HiMCM Contest
The 2021 HiMCM
C ongratulations to our 2021 Out‑
standing team winners and to all
teams participating in our twenty‑
fourth International High School Math‑
ematical Contest in Modeling (HiMCM).
We are excited to again join with the
National Council of Teachers of Math‑
ematics (NCTM) to designate two of
our teams as NCTM Award winners.
The HiMCM continues to be an amazing
and rewarding experience for students,
advisors, schools, and judges across the
globe. A total of 705 teams, with up to 4
students each, representing 303 schools
and 20 countries/regions, competed this
year.
Outstanding Teams
• 11462 Central Academy, IA, USA
• 11552 Shanghai Linstitute
School, Shanghai, China
• 11576 Yue Kong Pao Secondary
School, Shanghai, China
• 11823 Canadian International
School of Beijing, Beijing, China
• 11898 Chengdu Shishi High
School, Sichuan, China
• 11900 Shanghai Pinghe School,
Shanghai, China
• 11931 Shanghai Pinghe School,
Shanghai, China
• 12384 Hunter College High School,
NY, USA
NCTM Award Teams
• 11924 Shanghai Pinghe School,
Shanghai, China (Finalist)
• 12100 Whittle School, Shenzhen
Campus, Guangzhou, China
(Finalist)
Dr. Kathleen Snook, HiMCM Director
The 2021 Contest
Our 2021 participating teams submitted
some truly impressive papers. We see
the vision of our founders in the unique
and creative mathematical solutions to
complex open‑ended real‑world prob‑
lems. As in the past, students chose
from two problems. This year’s problems
challenged teams to determine the best
solar storage system for an off‑the‑grid
home in Problem A: Storing the Sun, or
to investigate the impact of drought on
water reservoirs in Problem B: Tackling
the Drought.
As learning environments continue to
be a bit disrupted and sometimes virtual
or hybrid, we are truly impressed with
the amazing teamwork shown by par‑
ticipating students. We commend all
students and advisors for the creativity
and ingenuity of their mathematical ef‑
forts. It appears that teams truly enjoyed
developing mathematical models to
address solar power storage and drought
in our 2021 HiMCM problems.
Overview
While COMAP has offered inter‑
national modeling contests for over 40
years, HiMCM celebrated its 24th contest
in 2021. As increasing numbers of
schools engage their students in math‑
ematical modeling, we see continued
increasing participation in COMAP’s
modeling contests. Starting with 115
students in the first year of the HiMCM,
over the course of 24 contests we have
had 41,198 students apply their math‑
ematical knowledge and skills as they
modeled challenging problems in the
HiMCM.
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
The mathematical modeling ability of
participating students continues to be
evident in the problem solutions and
professional submissions we receive. We
acknowledge and credit advisors and
teachers for their work with these stu‑
dents. As teachers and students engage
in mathematical modeling at a higher
level, we are happy and excited to assist
your efforts. Let us know how COMAP
might support your modeling activities.
The 2021 contest had 774 registered
teams resulting in 705 submissions
(91%). Of the 705 submissions, 352 com‑
pleted Problem A: Storing the Sun, and
353 completed Problem B: Tackling the
Drought. Table 1 shows the judging
results of the 2021 HiMCM. We accept
partial solutions and encourage all reg‑
istered teams to submit a solution paper
to experience the learning impact and
satisfaction of fully participating in this
challenging contest.
In total, 2613 students participated in
the 2021 HiMCM. A wide range of
schools competed, including teams
from Australia, Canada, Chile, China,
Germany, Hong Kong (SAR), India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Poland, Sin‑
gapore, South Korea, Taiwan China,
Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom,
the United States of America, and Viet‑
nam. The 193 teams from the United
States represented 26 states. Submis‑
sions included 512 foreign teams. China
represented about 87% of the foreign
participants.
Of the 2613 student participants this
year, 546 (21%) self‑identified as female,
1170 (45%) self‑identified as male, and
897 (34%) did not specify gender. Since
the start of HiMCM in 1999, the 41,198
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
Table 1: 2021 HiMCM Judging Results
Figure 1: Total HiMCM Student Participants 1999 – 2021
(Note: there were two HiMCMs in 2001 when contest moved from spring to fall.)
total participants are quite diverse. We
hope that all students enjoy their contest
experience and continue to pursue
further Science, Technology, Engineer‑
ing, and Mathematics (STEM) educa‑
tion. We welcome all levels of high
school students to the HiMCM. The
only prerequisites for success in the
contest are high school mathematics
skills and concepts. Figure 1 shows the
growth of the HiMCM with the total
number of students participating since
the contest’s start in 1999.
Rule Changes
Recent rule changes regarding the
contest window and scheduling working
time for team members have provided
our teams flexible work hours resulting
in high quality paper submissions for
both problems. Our 25‑page limit for
papers results in well‑written and well‑
organized solution papers. Teams must
choose what information, modeling, and
HiMCM Contest
graphical support is necessary to present
their full analysis of the problem within
25 pages.
One important rule is that students
may only use the members of their own
team along with inanimate (non‑living)
sources to complete the contest prob‑
lem. Students may not use any chat
rooms, electronic communication, or
social media sources. Each year we
have some teams that do not under‑
stand this rule. To be clear, contacting
an expert in a field or an author of one
of the referenced sources is a violation
of this rule. Gathering data from persons
outside of your team through the use of
an interview or a survey or a question‑
naire is a violation of this rule. Using
solutions shared electronically by other
teams or by organizations is a violation
of this rule. Again, only the team members
may contribute to the solution through
their own knowledge and work, and by
using inanimate resources (e.g. research
43
articles, web sites, textbooks, journals,
publications). Additionally, COMAP
will never require that you purchase
additional materials or information to
be successful in the HiMCM. The mate‑
rials and information provided by
COMAP, along with your own team’s
knowledge, skills, and perhaps a bit of
research using allowed references, is all
that you need for success.
COMAP uses Twitter and Weibo to pro‑
vide contest information to participants.
Follow us @COMAPMath on Twitter or
COMAPCHINAOFFICIAL on Weibo
for contest guidance and up to date
contest information.
Judging
All contest submissions are electronic.
This allows a high quality and diverse
judging pool from academia and indu‑
stry to simultaneously judge papers.
In December 2021, we conducted our
first round of contest judging with
judges from the U.S. states of Alabama,
California, Georgia, Maryland, Mas‑
sachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New
Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and
Washington, as well as judges in the
United Kingdom. Each paper is read
and scored by two preliminary judges.
We thank these judges for their careful
review of our HiMCM submissions.
All judging is blind with respect to any
identifying information about the parti‑
cipants or their schools. Preliminary
judges rank papers as Finalist, Merito‑
rious, Honorable Mention, and Successful
Participant. Judges sent all papers ranked
as “Finalist” to Final Judging. This year,
54 papers went to Final Judging for a
panel of twelve judges to consider. As
these 54 papers were the best submis‑
sions from the preliminary round, at
final judging the judges chose the
“best of the best” as Outstanding papers.
Eight papers earned the Outstanding
award. The final judges commend the
44
preliminary judges for their efforts in
selecting the high‑quality Finalist papers.
We feel that the structure of preliminary
and final judging provides a good pro‑
cess for identifying our top papers.
The Future and The New
MidMCM
For 23 years, the HiMCM has sought
to provide all high school students the
opportunity to compete and achieve
success in applying mathematics. Our
efforts remain focused on meeting this
important goal. Mathematical modeling
continues to grow within the high
school curricula across the globe, and
we recognize that middle school students
are now modeling too. In 2021, COMAP
held its first international MidMCM, a
middle school/level contest option. The
MidMCM occurred concurrently with
HiMCM. The MidMCM allows middle
school/level students the opportunity
to demonstrate their mathematics and
modeling abilities. For more details and
the results of this new contest please
visit www.MidMCM.com.
The MidMCM and the HiMCM provide
a vehicle for using mathematics to build
models that allow students to represent,
and to understand, real world behavior
in a quantitative way. Both contests
enable student teams to look for patterns
and think logically about mathematics
and its role as a language in our daily
lives. Students gain confidence by tack‑
ling ill‑defined problems and working
as part of a team to generate a solution.
We are excited that in our contests,
applying mathematics is a team sport.
Advisors and students often ask what
level of mathematics is required, and
what special programming or coding
HiMCM Contest
skills are needed for the contest. All our
HiMCM problems are accessible using
high school level mathematics alone,
and no programming or coding skills
are required or necessary. Our new
MidMCM problems require only mid‑
dle school/level mathematics. As in all
of our contests, each of our problems is
accessible on multiple levels. Students
should apply the mathematics they
understand and are able to explain in
their solution analysis.
Advisors need only be motivators and
facilitators to encourage students to be
creative and imaginative. COMAP en‑
courages all middle and high school
mathematics faculty to get involved,
encourage your students to be problem
solvers, make mathematics relevant,
and open the doors to future success.
We want to partner with teachers as we
continually strive to improve the contest
and make it accessible and impactful to
all students. Any school can enter and
each school can enter as many teams as
that school desires. MidMCM and
HiMCM have no restriction on the total
number of schools or teams.
More than just learning skills and oper‑
ations, mathematics is both an art and
a science. Through mathematical mod‑
eling, students learn to think critically,
communicate effectively, and be con‑
fident, competent problem solvers.
Success is not only about the procedural
technique used, but the conceptual un‑
derstanding in discovering the role of
assumptions and model development
in driving those techniques to a valid
solution and conclusion. The ability to
recognize problems, formulate a math‑
ematical model, use technology, and to
communicate and reflect on one's work
are important skills to develop. Applying
the mathematical principles and concepts
that one learns is key to individual and
societal future success.
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
2022 Contest Dates
Mark your calendars for the next HiMCM,
and the second annual MidMCM, to be
held November 2 – 15, 2022. Registration
for the 2022 MidMCM and HiMCM will
open in September. Student teams may
work at any time during the contest win‑
dow. At the team members’ convenience,
teams download and choose their problem,
complete their modeling solution, and
electronically submit their solution doc‑
ument by the deadline on November
15th. Again in 2022, one team for each
problem will receive the NCTM award.
Teams can learn more about COMAP’s
contests and registration at
www.comap.com.
MathModels.org
Powered by COMAP content, Math‑
models.org is a wonderful resource for
students and teachers to make math model‑
ing a year round activity. Teachers and
students may use the materials found on
this site to enrich their classes and help
prepare students for mathematical modeling
competitions. We encourage you to visit
www.mathmodels.org.
Awards
OUTSTANDING
FINALIST
MERITORIOUS
HONORABLE MENTION
SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANT
After final judging, HiMCM
papers receive a designation
in one of the categories above.
Depending upon the qual‑
ity of the papers, the top
20–25% of submitted papers
receive a d e s i g n a t i o n o f
Meritorious or above, with
approximately t h e t o p 1 %
designated as Outstanding.
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
The International Mathematical
Modeling Challenge, IM2C
The International Mathematical Mod‑
eling Challenge (IM2C), held each
spring, continues to grow. The purpose
of the IM2C is to promote the teaching
of mathematical modeling and applica‑
tions at school level (high school and
below) for all students around the
world. It is based on the firm belief that
students and teachers need to experi‑
ence the power of mathematics to help
better understand, analyze and solve
real world problems outside of math‑
ematics itself—and to do so in realistic
contexts. Each country/region admin‑
isters the contest for its own students
and then sends its top two teams to
the international final judging. An
international Expert Panel of final judges
determines winners and selects teams
to present their solutions at an inter‑
national award ceremony. In 2021, selected
teams presented at local, regional, or
virtual conferences due to COVID‑19.
IM2C hopes to return to an international
award ceremony in 2023. To learn more
visit www.immchallenge.org for rules
and country/region contacts.
COMAP invites selected teams from
the United States, to include teams
earning Meritorious or above in the
HiMCM contest, to compete in the
IM2C U.S. Regional Round. Registration
is free! From these participants, our U.S.
IM2C judges select the two top teams to
represent the U.S. in the IM2C international
round. See U.S. Rules for IM2C at
https://immchallenge.org/Pages/Rules/
USA/USA‑Rules.html.
HiMCM Contest
Problem Discussions and Judge’s Commentary
The following paragraph describes what
our preliminary and final judges look for
in identifying and judging competitive
HiMCM papers:
Regardless of the problem chosen, com‑
petitive papers include a comprehensive
summary, address all requirements through
developing and applying a mathematical
model, and write a clear letter or memo if
required. Better papers do all of the above
in an articulate, well‑supported, well‑
organized, and well‑presented manner. The
best papers combine complete mathematical
and logical analysis, and explain their
work in an organized presentation beyond
simply addressing the requirements.
These best papers are easy to read, flow
logically, and they include sections that
address assumptions with justifications,
the modeling process(es), results of mod‑
eling and analysis, strengths and weak‑
nesses, sensitivity, conclusions, and references.
Our judges have asked that I continue
to stress that all our HiMCM problems
are accessible by students at any level
using high school mathematics. Some
teams attempt to use advanced concepts
and tools found on the Internet that
they do not explain clearly or use
appropriately. Judges recognize this,
and these papers do not do well. We are
not looking for papers that use the most
advanced mathematics. We have found
that the best papers develop a math‑
ematical model that incorporates high
school level mathematical concepts and
tools that the teams understand, are
able to fully explain, use appropriately,
and analyze subsequent results. The
most important aspects of solutions are
the model development and the clear use
and analysis of the model toward addres‑
sing the requirements of the problem.
The following specific problem discus‑
sions provide comments on how teams
addressed the requirements of each
problem. Following this section, we
provide judges’ comments about the
45
solutions and presentations by breaking
down the various parts of a submission
and providing exemplars. To view the
complete problem statements visit
www.mathmodels.org
or
www.himcmcontest.com
Problem A: Storing the Sun
In this problem, we asked teams to
think about the current issue of storing
energy produced by solar panels. As
the home use of solar panels is
increasing in many parts of the world,
some homeowners desire to truly live
“off‑the‑grid,” with no connection to
their local energy grid (i.e., a power
company). This requires having an
energy storage system. Energy storage
systems allow homeowners to capture
electricity, store it in another form of
energy (battery, thermal, mechanical),
and then have it to use when needed.
Overall, Problem A asked teams to
analyze the solar‑power storage require‑
ments for a 1600 square‑foot off‑the‑
grid home, to develop a mathematical
model to evaluate various battery storage
systems, and to choose the best storage
option for this home. Teams also had to
adjust and generalize their model to
evaluate battery storage systems for any
home. Finally, teams considered and
discussed the use of cement batteries.
While the problem statement provided
background information about solar power
storage and criteria when considering storage
systems, most teams began by doing some
additional research. Teams posed and
answered questions to help them estimate the
energy demands for this home. In addition to
46
three questions provided about residents and
energy usage, teams explored other impacts
on energy storage requirements. For example,
many questions arise from the initial question
of “Where is the home located?” Teams
considered factors such as hours of daylight,
change in daylight during various seasons,
percentage of cloudy/rainy days versus days
of sunshine, and maximum hours the system
could provide power without recharging.
After determining their needs, teams
developed a model to evaluate storage
systems. Teams used characteristics of
several given batteries, along with other
batteries found through online research,
to develop their models. It was important
for teams to pay attention to units (e.g.,
kw versus kwh) and to recognize the
various unit measures of the characteristics
(inches, lbs, %). Most teams developed a
model that ensured the storage system
had the required power and maximized
desired characteristics. The judges
particularly looked for teams to clearly
state what “best” meant in a storage
system and to logically build a model to
evaluate various battery storage options. The
judges then looked for teams to use their
model and choose a specific storage system
(i.e., which battery or batteries and how many
of these batteries). Most teams developed a
reasonable model, but most teams also under‑
estimated the energy requirements for several
consecutive cloudy or rainy days. Surprisingly,
very few teams suggested that homeowners
consider a back‑up fuel generator to cover
the possibility of multiple rainy days. Problem B: Tackling the
To generalize their model, teams allowed Drought
sliding scales of input variables that address‑
ed factors such as number of residents, size of
home, number of appliances, and location of
home. A key factor in generalizing the model
was the location of the home as teams needed
to measure the impact of daylight hours and
weather patterns.
Teams next considered cement as a new
possible medium for energy storage.
They acknowledged the issue of weight
as a disadvantage, but the fact these
HiMCM Contest
batteries would be integrated into the
actual building structure was an advantage.
Teams recognized and discussed the
additional information they would need
to analyze and model cement batteries.
Teams should ensure they read the problem
requirements carefully. The solar storage
problem asked teams to determine and
discuss the additional information needed
to model and compare cement batteries
BUT also indicated that teams did NOT
need to create the model. Some teams spent
time and pages in their paper to create and
present a model at the expense of perhaps
enhancing another required part of their
solution.
Teams wrote a one‑page, non‑technical
news article describing their solar power
batter storage decision model and their
recommendations for the future possibi‑
lities of a cement battery. Judges saw
many well‑written articles. Teams should
note that not all readers understand
mathematics and modeling. Better papers
enhanced their article using graphics or
flowcharts and their descriptions were
easy to follow and understand.
Teams presented a range of methodologies,
from simple and straightforward to more
complex, to address the issue of solar
power storage. It seemed teams enjoyed
learning more about storage options for
this renewable energy source. The judges
enjoyed reading these thoughtful and creative
solution papers.
This real‑world problem addresses the
present‑day challenges of the water levels
in Lake Mead in Colorado, United States.
Due to continuing drought conditions
coupled with increasing demands for
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
water, in 2021 the Bureau of Reclamation
announced the first‑ever water shortage
declaration. This water shortage declara‑
tion resulted in reduced deliver of water
to several states in the region with agricul‑
tural communities feeling the first reductions.
Overall, Problem B asked teams to look at
factors impacting water levels in Lake
Mead, verify volume data, and analyze
the volume and elevation patterns of Lake
Mead to identify and describe past and
future drought periods. Additionally,
teams had to address the impact of future
water demands and consider the recy‑
cling of wastewater to make up any
future shortfalls.
Most teams started their modeling by
examining the factors influencing inflow,
outflow, and loss in Lake Mead. Teams
then considered evaporation and assessed
the relationship of these factors to the vol‑
ume and water level of the lake. Lake
Mead is an irregularly shaped lake with
varying depths. COMAP provided teams
with limited data from 2010 showing the
relationship of elevation, area, and volume
of Lake Mead. Teams used many methods
as they discussed how to use mathematics
to verify the provided data. Teams should
ensure they read the problem require‑
ments carefully. The drought problem
asked teams to describe what additional
information and data they would need to
apply their mathematical plan to verify
these measures BUT also indicated that
teams did NOT need to obtain these data
or calculate the measures. Some teams
spent a great amount of time and many
pages of work to approximate the volume
of the lake at the expense of their fully
completing the other two parts of the
problem.
Teams next considered data files contain‑
ing the elevation level of Lake Mead at the
end of each month, as well as the highest
and lowest elevation levels during each
year, from 1935 to 2021. Teams analyzed
patterns and defined the criteria for
drought periods to include when they
start and when they end. Teams should
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
have included a comparison of recent
droughts to those in the past to determine
any trends. Most papers used regression
and other predictive modeling to look for
these drought trends in the lake. The
judges specifically looked for teams to
provide a definition for a drought period.
In developing two models, based on two
different periods of data, judges looked
for teams to use their models to specifi‑
cally predict and compare Lake Mead
water levels in future years.
Based on their models and predictions,
students addressed the impact of future
water demands. Teams identified and
described factors to include in a plan to
recycle wastewater. They considered deci‑
sions and priorities local leaders would
need to make. Teams described their plan
and its impact. Better papers addressed
fit‑for‑purpose recycling and made spe‑
cific recommendations.
Teams wrote a one‑page, non‑technical
news article reporting their key takeaways
and recommendations. Most teams handled
this requirement quite well. Teams must
remember that the readers of this article
may not have the same level of math‑
ematics savvy as they do. The better articles
were more readable and often had a few
graphics or illustrations to catch the
reader’s eyes.
The judges saw a myriad of methodologies
used to model Lake Mead, define droughts,
and develop recycling recommendations.
From the very simple to quite complex,
students presented creative solutions to mod‑
eling this real‑world problem. Teams adeptly
used both provided information and data
they obtained from other sources to ap‑
proach the problem.
Judge’s Discussion
While the problem discussions above
provide comments on the solutions to
this year’s problems, in the following
paragraphs we examine the sections of
a submission and provide comments
about the solutions and the presenta‑
HiMCM Contest
tion of the solutions from our judges’
point of view. At the end of the article,
we have included excerpts from our
Outstanding papers as exemplars.
Mathmodels.org members can view all
the unabridged versions of the Out‑
standing papers online.
Overall
Participants must ensure their papers
follow the contest rules posted on the
contest website. Papers that are coher‑
ent, organized, clear, and well written
provide a great impression to the
judges. The logic and mathematics of
these papers are easy to follow.
Teams should present their entire sub‑
mission in 25 pages or less, using at
least 12‑point font. These 25 pages
should include your introduction/ex‑
ecutive summary, your solution that
addresses all requirements, a resource
list, and any appendices. While students
may want to include some background
research on the problem topic, this
information should be brief. It is not the
number of pages, but the ability to com‑
plete all contest requirements and
communicate the solution in a concise
and articulate fashion that will merit
recognition. Students should use spelling
and grammar checkers before submitting
a paper. Foreign papers should insure
that all symbols in tables and graphs are
in English. Student and school names
should not appear on solution papers.
Papers considered for Finalist and Out‑
standing start with a clear summary
that describes the problem. These teams
then preview their paper with an
organized Table of Contents. They present
assumptions with justifications, explain
the development of their model and its
solutions, apply their model, and sup‑
port the results mathematically. These
best papers communicate all of the above
clearly, do a sensitivity analysis, address
strengths and limitations, and finally,
close by stating overall conclusions.
47
Executive Summary
As the first page, or cover sheet, the
Executive Summary provides a first
impression of your paper. It offers the
judge (or any reader) not only a
synopsis of the paper and your mod‑
eling and analysis process, but also the
solution to the problem. Judges see
many well‑detailed descriptions of the
problem and the process but look for
well‑written and complete summaries
that include the important actual results
and recommendations. Teams should
write the Executive Summary after they
finish their solution to summarize the
entire contents of the paper. Although
written last, ensure you spend time on
this important part of your submission.
Judges are best able to analyze a paper
when students restate the problem in
their own words and clearly preview
the focus and organization of their
paper. Teams should consider a three to
five paragraph approach for their sum‑
mary: a restatement of the problem and
questions in their own words, a short
description of their method, a discus‑
sion of their solution model, and actual
results and conclusions providing the
numerical answers in context. Examples
1 and 2 present good summaries for
Problem A: Storing the Sun and Problem B:
Tackling the Drought respectively.
The Non-Technical Memo
or Article
The purpose of the article or memo is to
show the judges that regardless of the
complexity of your mathematics or
analysis, you can convey your work
and solution in common terms. Often,
the recipients and consumers of math‑
ematical modeling and research are not
as technically astute as the mathematicians
and scientists doing the work. Teams
must translate their hard work into a shorter
descriptive format, such as a news article
or memo. This increases the likelihood
your audience will understand and con‑
sider your solution and recommendations.
48
Like your summary, the article briefly
describes the problem and background,
your model or process, and your results
and any recommendations. Some teams
include a flowchart or diagram in their
article. These visual aids can assist the
team in presenting their process and the
reader in understanding the model and
results. The solar storage article de‑
scribed the team’s decision model and
addressed cement batteries. The drought
article provided key takeaways and
recommendations from the team’s anal‑
ysis. A good memo for Problem B: Tackling
the Drought is shown as Example 3.
Introduction/Background
Following the summary, teams should
provide some brief background, restate
the problem, and perhaps provide a
preview of the solution. Teams should
not simply repeat what was in the
summary. In Example 4, a team succinctly
provides an introduction that incorpo‑
rates a diagram to preview their modeling
process and then restates the problem
for Problem A: Storing the Sun. Using a
flow chart or diagram is an excellent
way to present your overall model or
algorithm. Example 5 illustrates similar
introductory sections for Problem A:
Storing the Sun followed by Assump‑
tions with Justifications.
Assumptions with Justifications
Good models make a few necessary
assumptions to help simplify the mod‑
eling process. These are sometimes called
simplifying assumptions. A common
mistake judges see is teams that make
assumptions that are not needed nor
relevant to developing their model.
Good and relevant assumptions are dif‑
ficult to identify and articulately state.
Long lists of assumptions that do not
play directly in the context of model
development or its solution are not con‑
sidered relevant and deter from a
paper's quality. Assumptions that over‑
simplify the problem too much do not
allow for a full solution. You should in‑
clude a short justification to show each
assumption is reasonable and necessary.
HiMCM Contest
In Problem B: Tackling the Drought, a good
example of an assumption is “The
monthly water consumption by residents
served by Lake Mead is constant within
a year.” An unnecessary assumption is
“There will not be a catastrophic event
that destroys Lake Mead.” Note that
Example 5 included a list of assump‑
tions with justifications this team
deemed required for their modeling
process in Problem A: Storing the Sun.
Definition and Use of Variables
Most mathematical models include
several (or perhaps many) variables
that teams must define for the reader.
This list of variables should include the
variable symbol, a short description of
the variable, and the units of the vari‑
able. Judges often see lists of 10, 20, or
even 30 unique variables in HiMCM
submissions Any complexity gained by
adding an excessive number of vari‑
ables is often offset by their practicality
and usefulness. Using best practices,
teams should focus on a manageable set
of variables when modeling. Ad‑
ditionally, as you use variables in your
model, remind the reader of the variable
definitions and units. This practice assists
the reader in following the logic of your
process. A nice list of variables for Prob‑
lem B: Tackling the Drought is shown as
this team introduces their water loss
model in Example 6.
Mathematical Model
The development of the mathematical
model is the most important part of
your submission. There is always more
than one appropriate solution method
to our HiMCM problems and so teams
should address the problem with the
mathematics they know and under‑
stand. Papers should explain the devel‑
opment of the mathematical model(s)
and/or algorithm(s) and define all vari‑
ables in a logical manner. Teams should
take the reader on a journey describing
why they selected a particular model or
decided to use one or more models.
Better teams will explain why they
choose their model and how they plan
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
to use or modify it to fit this problem.
Teams that merely present a model
without explaining or showing the
development of that model do not gen‑
erally do well. Although during your
HiMCM work you may develop several
models, presenting multiple models
without identifying the most appropri‑
ate model to answer the questions is
detrimental to your paper’s success.
Judges are more impressed with a well
thought out (and perhaps simple)
model then with a very complex model
that a team struggles to apply. To impress
the judges, focus on applying sound
principles to your model that you un‑
derstand. Judges do value creativity
and thinking “outside of the box” so be
creative and have fun. Be sure, however,
to balance creativity with your level of
expertise and modeling experience.
Perhaps the most important step of the
modeling process is the last one:
explicitly present your final model in its
full form. Do not make the judges have to
look for your final model. Judges continue
to see papers with an initial model men‑
tioned in one section and then different
models used in subsequent sections with‑
out the team connecting the models logically.
Be consistent and logical with your mod‑
eling process and guide the reader
through your solution. Clearly identify
your model(s) and then use your final
model as you address the problem require‑
ments and determine your results.
There are many ways to model and analyze
the HiMCM problems. This year we
saw a variety of appropriate, as well as
creative, models to address both prob‑
lems. Many times, a picture is worth a
thousand words! The use of tables,
graphs, and images is often helpful to
show your modeling process. We in‑
clude several examples of the processes
involved in model development for this
year’s problems.
To get started on their modeling in
Problem A: Storing the Sun, teams posed
and answered questions impacting
energy needs in the home as shown in
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
Example 7. In Problem B: Tackling the
Drought, teams first considered inflow,
outflow, and loss as shown in Example 8.
Note this team’s use of an illustrative
graphic of their ideas. Some teams
begin with a general overview of their
modeling process to include their vari‑
ables, main concept, and perhaps a process
diagram as shown in Example 9.
An important task in Problem B: Tack‑
ling the Drought was to define the crite‑
ria of a drought period. Example 10
nicely discusses and defines drought
criteria, while Example 11 presents drought
periods in table and graphic form.
Example 12 presents a team’s predic‑
tive model to address future drought
periods in Problem B: Tackling the Drought.
Strengths and Limitations
As teams only have a short time to
develop their model, we expect strengths
and limitations. Teams should be criti‑
cal of their proposed model and solution
as they address strengths, limitations, and
possible model extensions or improve‑
ments. Is your solution reasonable?
Under what conditions will it perform
best and where will it not? Addition‑
ally, teams should address the sensitivity
of their solution. Is there a critical as‑
sumption you made that if changed
would significantly change your solution?
Did you use weightings that if changed
would significantly impact your results?
Teams should validate their models, even
if by numerical example or intuition.
Example 13 provides a sensitivity anal‑
ysis followed by a model evaluation for
Problem B: Tackling the Drought.
Conclusion
A clear conclusion and answers to the
specific scenario questions are key com‑
ponents to an Outstanding paper.
Attention to detail and proofreading
your paper prior to final submission are
vital as the judges look for excellence in
your submission. Teams should take
the time to read the entire paper to
ensure they have followed a logical
sequence and flow that tells a story
HiMCM Contest
from start to end. See a nice conclusion
from Problem B: Tackling the Drought in
Example 14.
Citations and References
Citations are very important within the
paper, as well as either a reference list
or bibliography page at the end. Teams
that use existing models should cite
their source(s) within the paper at the
point they present the model and include
a reference citation at the end of the
paper. This is also true for all graphs
and tables taken from the literature.
Use “in line” documentation with foot‑
notes or endnotes to give proper credit
to outside sources. All data, figures,
graphs, and tables that come from out‑
side sources require documentation at
the point in the paper where they appear.
Lack of documentation will result in a
lower designation. We have noticed an
increase in the use of Wikipedia. Teams
need to realize that although useful,
information from Wikipedia might not
be accurate. Teams should recognize
and acknowledge this fact and look for
primary resources.
Final Thoughts
Each year the quality and level of math‑
ematics demonstrated by our high school
student teams amazes and impresses
our judges. We truly enjoy reading all
solution papers. Successful teams use a
wide variety and level of mathematics.
While teams using post‑high school/un‑
dergraduate level mathematics are in a
league of their own if they understand
and can explain their work, teams using
basic high school mathematics and
much simpler approaches are often
among our Outstanding designees. We
encourage students of all levels to com‑
pete in future HiMCM competitions. To
be successful, read the comments and
guidance provided in this article, see
the TIPS article on the COMAP website,
and visit mathmodels.org to review
previous problems.
49
Follow us @COMAPMath on Twitter or
COMAPCHINAOFFICIAL on Weibo for
information about all COMAP contests.
List of Examples:
1. Summary (Problem A, Team 11900,
Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai,
China)
2. Summary (Problem B, Team 11924,
Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai,
China)
3. Article (Problem B, Team 11898,
Chengdu Shishi High School, Sichuan,
China)
4. Introduction (Problem A, Team 12117,
Chengdu No. 7 High School (Gaoxin
Campus), Sichuan, China)
5. Introduction/Assumptions (Problem A,
Team 11462, Central Academy, IA,
USA)
6. Model Variables (Problem B, Team
11552, Shanghai Linstitute School,
Shanghai, China)
7. Energy Demand Questions (Problem A,
Team 11931, Shanghai Pinghe School,
Shanghai, China)
8. Model Development (Problem B, Team
11823, Canadian International School of
Beijing, Beijing, China)
9. Overview Model Process (Problem B,
Team 11576, Yue Kong Pao Secondary
School, Shanghai, China)
10. Model Development (Problem B, Team
12384, Hunter College High School, NY,
USA)
11. Model Development (Problem B, Team
11552, Shanghai Linstitute School,
Shanghai, China)
12. Model (Problem B, Team 11898,
Chengdu Shishi High School, Sichuan,
China)
13. Sensitivity, Strengths and Limitations
(Problem B, Team 11576, Yue Kong Pao
Secondary School, Shanghai, China)
14. Conclusion (Problem B, Team 12384,
Hunter College High School, NY, USA)
50 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Summary
The usage of solar power has, in recent years, been adopted by many countries to reduce CO2
emission. However, compared to traditional methods of producing power, solar power is not
capable of producing power consistently as it is heavily dependent on the sun. A method to store
solar energy is therefore necessary to store solar energy when available, and to release it when
power is needed. The most common way to store electricity is to use a battery. However, batteries
come in different costs and qualities, and a method is necessary to determine how good a battery is,
and what battery is the best.
Therefore, we use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This method is suitable to the
problem as it gives weight from the comparative importance of the factors, which may vary due to
different geological issues. In generalizing the model, we choose several locations on Earth that
have distinct characteristics. These characteristics, as they alternate the comparative importance of
factors over each other, affect the ultimate choice of the best battery.
In short, we believe that the Discover AES 7.4kWh battery is the best battery due to its
excellent instantaneous power ratings and round-trip efficiency. Its continuous power rating and
capacity is also good while having medium cost. This would be of use both in warm countries,
where the instantaneous power rating is necessary to power air conditioners; and in colder
countries, where capacity and efficiency are important in making the most out of the minimal
sunshine. The choice of this battery, therefore, would be the best choice. Another alternative to this
choice is the Tesla Powerwall + battery. It also has good qualities and excellent capacity. However,
due to its higher cost and bulkiness, it isn’t as good as the Discover battery. The rest of the
batteries were not a good choice, either because of poor quality or high cost.
The demand for electricity generally becomes greater with the advancement in technology
and living conditions. In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential
utility customer was 10,715 kilowatt hours (kWh). A typical U.S. home consists of lightings, a
dryer, a stove, a water heater, a dishwasher, a disposal, and a central AC.
Another alternative to using traditional batteries is cement-based battery. One of the most
updated research on sustainable energy and solar energy batteries has developed and improved on
the cement-based batteries by increasing energy density. It is suggested that with the installation of
this technology, the ubiquitous application of concrete would provide extra capacity for home use
energy storage. Yet, after close examination and calculation of the given data, as well as the
comparison with other choices in the market, we hold an overall negative altitude for its
application in the current stage. Its disadvantage includes low storage capacity and high costs.
Furthermore, information including potential dangers, performance under extreme conditions, and
long-term durability was not provided for more rounded decision making. Nevertheless, we are
optimistic for the future developments of this technology.

Example 1: Summary Problem A

Team 11900, Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
51
HiMCM Contest

Example 2: Summary Problem B

Team 11924, Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai, China
52 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !

!" #$%&'($)$*&$!'
Saving Lake Mead:
!
!

Recycling Wastewater Does Wonders

!
!
!Since the summer of this year, the temperature in the
!western part of the United States has been higher
!than before, accompanied by widespread droughts.
!The most worrying thing is that Lake Mead
!Reservoir, the largest artificial lake in the western
!region of the United States, will also face a "red
!alert". In fact, the federal government has officially
!announced that the Lake Mead Reservoir is in a state
!of water shortage. According to relevant
!hydrological calculations, the storage capacity of the
!reservoir is only 36% of its full capacity, which is a In addition, the prediction shows that if the trend of
!record low since the completion of the Hoover Dam the recent drought period continues, the water level by
!in 1930. If Lake Mead runs out of water, then 2050 is only 740 feet, which is lower than the dead
!Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and other regions storage, 900 feet approximately, while if the trend of
!will significantly reduce water supply in 2022. the water level from 2005 to 2020 lasts, the water
! level of Lake Mead in 2050 is predicted to be only 964
!According to investigation and analysis from Team feet, which is also very close to the dead storage. !
!11898, the water level of Lake Mead is mainly
!affected by factors such as precipitation, It is urgent to take measures to deal with the water
!temperature, wind speed and wind direction. shortage problem. In addition to reducing personal and
!Concerning the temperature, the western part of the industrial water consumption through government
!United States is experiencing extremely high calls, a large-scale treatment of wastewater to
!temperatures recently, and there is not much rainfall effectively recycle wastewater resources is advocated.
!or snowfall that can be left to prevent drought in the When implementing the wastewater recycling plan
!summer. As for the precipitation, which in the proposed by Team 11898, priority should be given to
!eastern region of Rocky Mountains mainly depends factors like the quality and volume of wastewater,
!on the southwest monsoon, is also decreasing. This construction and operation costs, and the difficulty of
!year, a huge ridge of high pressure appeared in the construction. The successful implementation of the
!southwest of the United States, which is too far to wastewater recycling plan is expected to have a good
!the south, preventing the westerly wind and impact on the local environment, economy and
!monsoon from reaching, causing less precipitation. society.
This indicates that the recent climate will have a
!negative impact on the water level of Lake Mead. Due to people's lack of awareness of water
! conservation in the previous century, coupled with
!Referencing to definition of Meteorological Drought climate factors such as today's greenhouse effect and
!and Hydrological Drought, with the water level global climate change, our freshwater resources have
!being the indicator, the most recent drought period is been severely reduced. As water resources are the
!found from April 2021 to present. The future water source of life, we must cherish the existing freshwater
lake resources and natural environment. We never
level of Lake Mead is predicted by Team 11898,
know the worth of water till the well is dry. Therefore,
finding that the water level of Lake Mead will
we encourage everyone to save water, using water
continue to decline in the next 30 years.!
! rationally and recycling water!

Example 3: Article Problem B

Team 11898, Chengdu Shishi High School, Sichuan, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
53
HiMCM Contest

1. Introduction

Example 4: Introduction Problem A

Team 12117, Chengdu No. 7 High School (Gaoxin Campus), Sichuan, China
54 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

1 Introduction
1.1 Background

With the development of sustainable energy sources as alternatives to fossil fuels comes
an increasingly important question: How can sustainable energy, such as solar or wind power, be
effectively stored? An expanding number of homeowners must solve this dilemma as they begin
to utilize sustainable energy sources such as solar panels to power their homes. Currently, the
prevailing solution is electrical batteries, which store energy in the form of electricity for later
use. There are many different batteries on the market, with a large variation between the design
and application of each. Every home has different electrical needs and therefore requires a
unique energy storage solution, posing a major challenge to many homeowners seeking to run
their homes off sustainable energy. Aiding homeowners in this undertaking is the basis of our
task.

1.2 Restatement of Problem

We must develop a model which determines the best battery storage system for a 1600ft2
house powered fully by solar panels. Our chosen battery system must support the house through
the night as well as through a cloudy day. In generating this model, a multitude of factors must
be considered: the total energy needed to support the house over a cloudy day, the
required to run all the appliances in the house, and the differing capabilities of batteries already
on the market. The model must then take these considerations and output an adequate power
system, likely an array of multiple batteries. Afterward, our model must be adapted to output an
adequate battery storage system for any home, and the viability of cement batteries
must be explored.

2 Preliminary Information

2.1 Assumptions

1. During light hours, our solar array is capable of fully supporting the
power needs while also charging the battery storage system to its full capacity.
Justification: The task assumed by our team was only to determine the battery storage system of
the house. Our battery system is only required to support the house at night and on a cloudy day,
so the solar panels must be able to support the house during the day itself. Furthermore, we must
assume that the batteries can be reliably charged to their full capacity during a non-
cloudy day since the specifications of the battery system are otherwise negated.

2. No energy is generated during night hours, where night is sunset to sunrise.

Justification: Solar panels produce a negligible electrical output when the sun is not in the sky;
for the sake of simplicity, this production will be disregarded.
demands must be fully met by the battery storage system during the night.

Example 5: Introduction/Assumptions Problem A

Team 11462, Central Academy, IA, USA
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
55
HiMCM Contest

3. No energy is produced during a cloudy day.

Justification: Calculating the amount of energy produced during a cloudy day would require
and its regular output, which is beyond the scope of our
task. Cloudy days also vary in severity, meaning that it is not possible to assign a simple
coefficient of energy production to every cloudy day. Consequently, our model must default to
the assumption of no energy production during a cloudy day. This assumption also gives our
system redundancy.

4. The length of a cloudy day is 24 hours plus one night.

Justification: In the event of a cloudy day, the batteries will have to power the house until the
solar panels can become productive again. The batteries will have to last the night before the
cloudy day and the cloudy day itself, totaling 24 hours plus one night.

5. A day is split into 2 periods, 16 productive hours and 8 rest hours. Only constant power is
drawn during rest hours, and rest hours only occur at night.
Justification: direct effect on the power
necessities of the house; therefore, it must be assumed that they have a
regular period over which they use nonconstant appliances. This regularity allows our model
to be concise and simpler to figure.

6. Appliances can be used at any time during productive hours.

Justification: while it is reasonable to assume rigid periods of sleep and productivity, appliance
usage is much more variable. For the sake of versatility, we assumed that
appliance usage does not follow a strict guideline and can occur at any time throughout the
productive period.

7. Power consumption not listed does not exist.

Justification: To calculate every object and device that requires power within a house is
extremely complex and variable; to do so would overburden our model. Additionally, unlisted
power consumption would be inconsequential to our output.

8. All listed batteries can be combined in series and/or parallel.

Justification: Running batteries in series and/or parallel increases their capacity or continuous
power rating respectively, permitting flexibility in our battery system. While some batteries
cannot be connected in such a manner, for sake of simplicity in calculation, this is not a
limitation our model must consider.

Example 5: Introduction/Assumptions Problem A, Continued

Team 11462, Central Academy, IA, USA
56 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Example 6: Model Variables Problem B

Team 11552, Shanghai Linstitute School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
57
HiMCM Contest

Example 6: Model Variables Problem B, Continued

Team 11552, Shanghai Linstitute School, Shanghai, China
58 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Example 7: Energy Demand Questions Problem A

Team 11931, Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
59
HiMCM Contest

3 Identify factors and relationship

3.1 Inflow, Outflow and Loss
General Function
There are a number of factors that could influence the inflow, outflow and loss of water in
lakes. Letting F be the volume, t = time in year, the inflow, outflow and loss forms a dynamic
cycle which usually balances the volume of water in lakes. The could be calculated by:

F (t + ∆t) = F (t) + Vinf low − Voutf low − Vloss (3.1)

Nevertheless, factors that impact the inflow, outflow and loss varies from lake to lake
depending on its geographic location, water resources nearby, human environment, to name but
a few. For Lake Mead, specific factors that contributed to its

VInf low = Vtributary inf low + Vdam water release

(3.2)
+ Vprecipitation + Vgroundwater
VOutf low = Vwater released + Vwater consumed (3.3)

VLoss = Vevaporation (3.4)

Figure 3.1: Inflow and Outflow

Example 8: Model Development Problem B

Team 11823, Canadian International School of Beijing, Beijing, China
60 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Example 9: Overview Model Process Problem B

Team 11576, Yue Kong Pao Secondary School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
61
HiMCM Contest

o Wastewater Recycling Plan: Finally, based on the cost and efficiency of the existing
wastewater treatment system, we establish an integer programming model to plan the
construction of different types of wastewater treatment plants included in the wastew-
ater recycling system of Lake Mead in the future.

In summary, the whole modeling process is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1: Model Overview

Example 9: Overview Model Process Problem B, Continued

Team 11576, Yue Kong Pao Secondary School, Shanghai, China
62 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Example 10: Model Development Problem B

Team 12384, Hunter College High School, NY, USA
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
63
HiMCM Contest

Example 11: Model Development Problem B

Team 11552, Shanghai Linstitute School, Shanghai, China
64 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

Example 11: Model Development Problem B, Continued

Team 11552, Shanghai Linstitute School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
65
HiMCM Contest

!!!!! !! ! ! !

!"#"$ %&'()*+,*-(./01('*%&2.3/*+2(45/(*%(10&'*
The basic idea of the Weighted Moving Average Method, which is one of the time series models, is to
give greater weights to recent data considering the different importance of the data at different times.
This appropriately fits in the situation of a more similar climate pattern between consecutive months than
months with long intervals and the context of utilizing few data to make predictions.
The data of the most recent drought period, from April to September in 2021 indicated in 5.1.2,
is processed as raw data for model A. Since the climate patterns of consecutive quarters, which includes
three months, are relatively more similar, we consider that the climate of the predicted month is more likely
to be related with three previous months. For the predicted month, the water level of last month is with a
more internal relevance and greater weight, while the further apart the month the greater the difference in
climatic conditions and the less closely the data are correlated. Thus, considering data from the
previous three months before the month which is going to be predicted, the predicted data is

!
(9)

where is the predicted water level of the (t+1)th month; , and are the water levels
in month , month t-1 and month t-2; , and are the corresponding weights, where
and .

For verification, we predicted the water levels for July, August and September in 2021 by (9). The
predicted water levels are all generally larger than the actual water levels, which are shown in Table 3,
proving that we need to adjust the predicted values by (9).
Table 3. Actual and Predicted Values for July, August and September in 2021
Month 2021/7 2021/8 2021/9
The actual water level 1067.7 1068 1067.7
Model predicted water level 1072.1 1069 1068

The relative error between the predicted values and actual values is!

(10)

Since the predicted values are averagely 0.18% higher than actual values, the predicted value
can by divided by 1+0.18%, with serving as the corrected predicted values of model A.
Based on the weights obtained above and the proposed correction criteria, water level predictions for
2025, 2030 and 2050 are presented in Table 4.a and 4.b!!!!
Table 4.a. Predicted Water Levels of 2025, 2030 and 2050 from January to June by Model A (feet)

Water level "#$%#&'! ()*&%#&' +#&,- ./&01 +#' "%$)

2324!5')#&6 "#$%&"" "#$$&#" "#$#&'# "#"'&(# "#"(&)' "#"*&+'
2373!5')#&6 '+(&(# '+*&*) '+)&*% '++&)' '+,&)) '+%&)%
2343!5')#&6 *%'&+" *%(&*" *%*&'", *%*&"" *%)&%" *%+&+$

Table 4.b. Predicted Water Levels of 2025, 2030 and 2050 from July to December by Model A (feet)

Water level "%1' .%8%9: ;)/:)<*)& =,:>*)& !?>@)<*)& A),)<*)&

2324!5')#&6 "#")&,' "#"+&%' "#",&$' "#"%&$# "#"$&"# "#""&#"
2373!5')#&6 '+$&+' '+"&+) '+#&+, ','&+" ',(&,( ',*&,)
2343!5')#&6 *%,&*$ *%%&'% *%%&", *%$&%, *%"&++ *%#&*)

It can be clearly seen that from 2025 onwards, the water level has been below the threshold in
our drought period criteria and continues to fall. It is even worse that the water level in 2050 is already
well below Lake Mead's dead storage, 900 feet approximately, for the whole year. In other words, Lake
Mead is likely to disappear shortly after 2050, which will bring enormous negative impacts for both humans
and the ecosystem.

Example 12: Model Problem B

Team 11898, Chengdu Shishi High School, Sichuan, China
66 CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer

HiMCM Contest

6.4 Sensitivity Analysis

In Section 6.3, the exogenous factors are introduced to estimate the number of wastewa-
ter facilities and the corresponding budget: the expected amount of wastewater. Therefore,
the relationship between results and the exogenous factors is approximated shown in the
Figure 12.

(a) Secondary (b) Advanced

(c) No Discharge (d) Total budget

Figure 12: Sensitivity Analysis

It is indicated that the number of wastewater facilities and the corresponding budget in-
creased with thethe expected amount of wastewater margin, which reflects the effectiveness
of facilities on wastewater recycling. The trend of the model obtained by sensitivity test is
consistent with the actual situation, which also proves the rationality and robustness of the
model.

7 Model Evaluation
7.1 Advantages
o Based on the dynamic data of the various components of Lake Mead’s water resources,
we have obtained the data-based correlation between factors, which was more con-
vincing;

o Our time series forecasting model based on the autocorrelation of historical water level
data itself is objective;

o We obtained the optimal number of wastewater treatment facilities of different specifi-

cations through the integer programming model, and specified a set of reasonable and
feasible wastewater recycling plans considering local financial pressure and conducted
a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the stability of the model.

7.2 Possible Improvements

o If we had more elaborate data, we could get a dynamic Lake Mead water resources
budget balance sheet.

o Due to the limited time to complete, the wastewater recycling program we provided
only involves the installation of large-scale wastewater treatment facilities, and did
not consider possible technological progress. If there was enough time, a more com-
prehensive analysis could be established.

Example 13: Sensitivity, Strengths and Limitations Problem B

Team 11576, Yue Kong Pao Secondary School, Shanghai, China
CONSORTIUM 122 Spring/Summer
67
HiMCM Contest

Example 14: Conclusion Problem B

Team 12384, Hunter College High School, NY, USA