Water level forecasting through fuzzy logic and artificial neural network approaches

被引:104
作者
Alvisi, S [1 ]
Mascellani, G
Franchini, M
Bárdossy, A
机构
[1] Univ Ferrara, Dipartimento Ingn, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy
[2] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Wasserbau, D-7000 Stuttgart, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.5194/hess-10-1-2006
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
In this study three data-driven water level forecasting models are presented and discussed. One is based on the artificial neural networks approach, while the other two are based on the Mamdani and the Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy logic approaches, respectively. All of them are parameterised with reference to flood events alone, where water levels are higher than a selected threshold. The analysis of the three models is performed by using the same input and output variables. However, in order to evaluate their capability to deal with different levels of information, two different input sets are considered. The former is characterized by significant spatial and time aggregated rainfall information, while the latter considers rainfall information more distributed in space and time. The analysis is made with great attention to the reliability and accuracy of each model, with reference to the Reno river at Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna, Italy). It is shown that the two models based on the fuzzy logic approaches perform better when the physical phenomena considered are synthesised by both a limited number of variables and IF-THEN logic statements, while the ANN approach increases its performance when more detailed information is used. As regards the reliability aspect, it is shown that the models based on the fuzzy logic approaches may fail unexpectedly to forecast the water levels, in the sense that in the testing phase, some input combinations are not recognised by the rule system and thus no forecasting is performed. This problem does not occur in the ANN approach.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 17
页数:17
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   Application of adaptive fuzzy rule-based models for reconstruction of missing precipitation events [J].
Abebe, AJ ;
Solomatine, DP ;
Venneker, RGW .
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES, 2000, 45 (03) :425-436
[2]   Multi-model data fusion for river flow forecasting: an evaluation of six alternative methods based on two contrasting catchments [J].
Abrahart, RJ ;
See, L .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2002, 6 (04) :655-670
[3]   Evaluation of neural network streamflow forecasting on 47 watersheds [J].
Anctil, F ;
Rat, A .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING, 2005, 10 (01) :85-88
[4]  
[Anonymous], MODEL VALIDATION PER
[5]   Fuzzy rule-based classification of remotely sensed imagery [J].
Bárdossy, A ;
Samaniego, L .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, 2002, 40 (02) :362-374
[6]  
Bardossy A., 1995, BIOL ENG SYSTEMS
[7]  
Beven K.J., 1979, HYDROL SCI B, V24, P43, DOI [DOI 10.1080/02626667909491834, 10.1080/02626667909491834]
[8]   TESTING A PHYSICALLY-BASED FLOOD FORECASTING-MODEL (TOPMODEL) FOR 3 UK CATCHMENTS [J].
BEVEN, KJ ;
KIRKBY, MJ ;
SCHOFIELD, N ;
TAGG, AF .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 1984, 69 (1-4) :119-143
[9]  
Burnash R. J. C., 1973, GEN STREAMFLOW SIMUL
[10]   Artificial neural network approach to flood forecasting in the River Arno [J].
Campolo, M ;
Soldati, A ;
Andreussi, P .
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL, 2003, 48 (03) :381-398