08Dec 2018

FLOOD FORECASTING USING TRANSBOUNDARY DATA WITH THE FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM: THE MARITZA (MERIC) RIVER.

  • Duzce University, Faculty of Forestry, 81620 Duzce, Turkey.
  • Duzce University, Faculty of Technology, 81620 Duzce, Turkey.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

In the present study, in order to predict the current flow of the Kirişhane station (Turkey) from the transboundary data of Plovdiv and Svilengrad stations (Bulgaria), four different models (M1‒M4) were developed by using the fuzzy inference system (FIS) for different number of membership functions (MFs) (i.e. 13, 25, and 49 MFs). In addition, multiple linear regression (MLR) was selected as simpler data driven forecasting method to show how FIS improves the other simpler forecasting models. Flow data from the Plovdiv, Svilengrad and Kirişhane stations were gauged at two hour-intervals covering the period from 9 February 2010 00:00:00 to 21 February 2010 22:00:00. In addition, flow data at two hour-intervals covering the flood period from 6 February 2012 14:00:00 to 13 February 2012 10:00:00 were obtained to test developed FIS and MLR models. In the first model, estimation was made using the current flows of the Plovdiv and Svilengrad stations. In the second model, estimation was made based on a two hour ahead prediction of the Svilengrad station and a four hour ahead prediction of the Plovdiv station. In the third model, calculations were based on predictions of four hours ahead of the Svilengrad station and eight hours ahead of the Plovdiv station. In the last model, estimation was based on predictions of six hours ahead of the Svilengrad station and twelve hours ahead of the Plovdiv station.The performance of the developed FIS models and MLR was evaluated by using the mean absolute error (MAE), the Nach-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (NSMEC), and the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE). According to the performance criteria of the models, FIS model with 49 number of MFs provided highest accuracy. When FIS models with 25 MFs and 49 MFs are compared with respect to performance criteria for 2010 data (training data), NSMEC values are close to each other, but MAE values of FIS models with 49 MFs were obtained less than FIS model with 25 MFs. Even though NSMEC values were obtained close to each other for FIS models with 25 MFs and 49 MFs, NSMEC values of FIS model with 25 MFs were obtained less than 0.90 for 2012 data (validation data). With respect to MLR, all models failed to predict 2012 data, even NSMEC values of MLR model were obtained higher than 0.85 for training data. Even the accuracy of FIS models decrease based on decrease in the number of MFs, all FIS models provided better prediction of 2012 data than MLR.

  1. Alvisi, S., Mascellani, G., Franchini, M., and Bardossy, A. (2006): Water level forecasting through fuzzy logic and artificial neural network approaches. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 10: 1?17.
  2. Amisigo, B.A., van de Giesen, N., Rogers, C., Andah, W.E.I., and Friesen, J. (2008): Monthly streamflow prediction in the Volta Basin of West Africa: A SISO NARMAX polynomial modelling. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33: 141?150.
  3. Altunkaynak, A., ?zger, M., and ?akmak?i, M. (2005): Water consumption prediction of Istanbul city by using fuzzy logic approach. Water Resources Management, 19:641‒654.
  4. Aydın, A., andEker, R. (2012): Prediction of daily streamflow using Jordan-Elman networks. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 21:1515‒1521.
  5. Batur, E., andMaktav, D. (2012): Floodplain Assessment with the Integration of Remote Sensing and GIS: Meric River Case Study (original in Turkish).HavacilikveUzayTeknolojileriDergisi, 5(3): 47‒54.
  6. Besaw, L.E., Rizzo, D.M., Bierman, P.R., and Hackett, W.R. (2010): Advances in ungauged streamflow prediction using artificial neural networks. Journal of Hydrology, 386:27?37.
  7. Campolo, M., Andreussi, P., and Soldati, A. (1999): River flood forecasting with a neural network model. Water Resources Research, 35(4): 1191-1197.
  8. Chaloulakou, A., Assimakopoulos, D., and Lekkas, T. (1999): Forecasting daily maximum ozone concentrations in the Athens basin.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 56: 97-112.
  9. Chang, F.J., and Chen, Y.C. (2001): A counterpropagation fuzzy-neural network modelling approach to real time streamflow prediction. Journal of Hydrology, 245: 153‒164.
  10. Chen, S.H., Lin, Y.H., Chang, L.C. and Chang, F.J. (2006): The strategy of building a flood forecast model by neuro-fuzzy network.Hydrol. Processes, 20: 1525?1540.
  11. Cigizoglu, H.K. (2003): Estimation, forecasting and extrapolation of river flows by artificial neural networks. Hydrological Sciences, 48 (3): 349?361.
  12. Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. (1966): Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, pp.709.
  13. Elsayed, T. (2009): Fuzzy inference system for the risk assessment of liquefied natural gas carriers during loading/off loading at terminals. Applied Ocean Research, 31: 179-185.
  14. Firat, M. (2008), Comparison of artificial intelligence techniques for river flow forecasting. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12: 123?139.
  15. Firat, M., and Gungor, M. (2008): Hydrological time-series modelling using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Hydrological Processes, 22: 2122?2132.
  16. Garcia-Bartual, R. (2002): Short-term river forecasting with Neural Networks, Integrated Assessment and Decision Support. Proc. 1st biennal meeting Int. Environmental Modelling and Software Society, 2: 160-165.
  17. Govindaraju, R.S. (2000): Artificial neural networks in hydrology II: hydrogeologic applications. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5 (2): 124?137.
  18. Hong, T.P., and Lee, C.Y. (1996): Induction of fuzzy rules and membership functions from training examples. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 84: 33?47.
  19. Jang, J. S. R. (1993): Anfis: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23 (3): 665?685.
  20. Kar A.K., Lohani, A.K., Goel, N.K., and Roy G.P. (2010): Development of Flood Forecasting System Using Statistical and ANN Techniques in the Downstream Catchment of Mahanadi Basin. India. J. Water Resource and Protection, 2: 880-887.
  21. Kleme?, V. (1986): Operational testing of hydrologic simulation models.Hydrol. Sci. J., 31: 13-24.
  22. K???k, M., andAğıralioğlu, N. (2006): Wavelet Regression Technique for Streamflow Prediction. Journal of Applied Statistics, 33(9): 943‒960.
  23. Lekkas, D.F., Onof, C., Lee, M.J., andBaltas, E.A. (2005): Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Flood Forecasting. Global Nest: the Int. J., 6(3): 205‒211.
  24. McKerchar, A.I., and Delleur, J.W. (1974): Application of seasonal parametric linear stochastic models to monthly flow data. Water Resour. Res., 10 (2): 246?255.
  25. Mukerji, A., Chatterjee, C., and Raghuwanshi, N.S. (2009): Flood forecasting using ANN, Neuro-Fuzzy, and Neuro-GA Models. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(6): 647-652.
  26. Nayak, P.C., Sudheer, K.P., and Ramasastri, K.S. (2005): Fuzzy computing based rainfall?runoff model for real time flood forecasting.Hydrol. Process, 19: 955?968.
  27. Noori, R., Khakpour, A., Omidvar, B., and Farokhnia, A. (2010): Comparison of ANN and principal component analysis-multivariate linear regression models for predicting the river flow based on developed discrepancy ratio statistic. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(8): 2826-5862.
  28. ?zger, M. (2009): Comparison of fuzzy inference systems for streamflow prediction. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 54(2): 261‒273.
  29. Rezaeianzadeh, M., Tabari, H., Yazdi, A.A., Isik, S., and Kalin, L. (2014): Flood flow forecasting using ANN, ANFIS and regression models. Neural Comput&Applic, 25: 25-37.
  30. Sezen, N., G?nd?z, N., andMalkaralı, S. (2007): Meri? River Floods and Turkish-Bulgarian Cooperations, International Congress on River Basin Management, pp. 646‒654.
  31. Şen, Z., andAltunkaynak, A. (2009): Fuzzy system modeling of drinking water consumption prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 36:11745‒11752.
  32. Takagi, T., and Sugeno M. (1985): Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15 (1): 116-132.
  33. Tokar, AS, and Markus M. (2000): Precipitation-runoff modeling using artificial neural networks and conceptual models. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, 5(2): 156?16.
  34. Tuncok, I.K. (2015): Transboundary river basin flood forecasting and early warning system experience in Maritza River basin between Bulgaria and Turkey. Nat. Hazards, 75:191?214.
  35. Turan, M.E. (2007): The use of artificial intelligence techniques in prediction of streamflow (original in Turkish). Master Thesis, Celal Bayar University, pp. 93.
  36. Turan, M.E., and Yurdusev, M.A. (2009): River flow estimation from upstream flow records by artificial intelligence methods. Journal of Hydrology, 309: 71‒77.
  37. Wang, Y.C., Chen, S.T., Yu, P.S., and Yang, T.C. (1999): Storm-even rainfall?runoff modelling approach for ungauged sites in Taiwan. Hydrological Processes, 22: 4322?4330.
  38. Yen, J., andLangari, R.: Fuzzy Logic: Intelligence, Control and Information, Prentice Hall, 1999.
  39. Yıldız, D., ?zbay, ?., ?akmak, C., andSoylu, N. (2014): International water management in the Maritza Catchment (original in Turkish). Report 2, Hydropolitics Academy, Ankara, 2014.
  40. Yurekli, K., Kurunc, A., and Ozturk, F. (2005): Application of linear stochastic models to monthly flow data of Kelkit Stream. Ecological Modelling, 183: 67?75.

[A. Aydın, I. Yucedag and R. Eker. (2018); FLOOD FORECASTING USING TRANSBOUNDARY DATA WITH THE FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM: THE MARITZA (MERIC) RIVER. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 6 (Dec). 568-579] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

REMZ? EKER
DUZCE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FORESTRY

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/8175      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/8175

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 18 | No. of Views: 84