Abstract
This study employed four methods—non-linear regression, fuzzy logic (FL), artificial neural networks (ANNs), and genetic algorithm (GA)-based nonlinear equation—for predicting mean discharge and bank-full discharge from cross-sectional area. The data compiled from the literature were separated into two groups—training (calibration) and testing (verification). Using training data sets, the methods were calibrated to obtain optimal values of the coefficients of the non-linear regression method; optimal number of fuzzy subsets, their base widths and fuzzy rules for the fuzzy method; and the optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer, the learning rate and momentum factor values for the ANN model. The GA-based method employed 100 chromosomes in the initial gene pool, 80% cross over rate and 4% mutation rate in determining the optimal values of the coefficients of the constructed nonlinear equation. The calibrated methods were then applied to the test data sets. The test results showed that the non-linear regression, ANN and GA-based methods were comparable in predicting the mean discharge while the fuzzy method produced high errors and low accuracy. The GA-based method had the highest accuracy of 75%. In terms of predicting bankfull discharge, all methods produced satisfactory results, although the fuzzy method had the lowest accuracy of 33%. The results of sensitivity analysis, which is limited to the GA-based and nonlinear regression methods, showed that the GA-based method calibrated with low bankfull discharge values can be successfully applied to predict high bankfull discharge values. This has important implications for predicting bankfull rates at ungauged sites. On the other hand, the sensitivity analysis results also showed that both the non-linear regression and GA-based methods have poor extrapolation capability for predicting mean discharge data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Afzalimehr H, Singh VP, Abdolhosseini M (2009) Effect of nonuniformity of flow on hydraulic geometry relations. J Hydrol Eng 14(9):1028–1034
Akbari FM, Afshar A, Sadrabadi MR (2009) Fuzzy rule based models modification by new data: application to flood flow forecasting. Water Resour Manag 23(12):2491–2504
ASCE (2000) Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I: preliminary concepts. J Hydrol Eng, ASCE 5(2):115–123
Bardossy A, Dissi M (1993) Fuzzy rule-based methods for infiltration. Water Resour Res 29(2): 373–382
Bardossy A, Duckstein L (1995) Fuzzy rule-based methoding with applications to geophysical, biological and engineering systems. CRC, New York
Bhatt VK, Tiwari AK (2008) Estimation of peak streamflows through channel geometry. Hydrol Sci J 53(2):401–408
Chen CH, Chou FN-F, Chen BP-T (2010) Spatial information-based back-propagation neural network modeling for outflow estimation of ungauged catchment. Water Resour Manag 24: 4175–4197
Engeland K, Hisdal H (2009) A comparison of low flow estimates in ungauged catchments using regional regression and the HBV-model. Water Resour Manag 23(12):2567–2586
Eslamian S, Ghasemizadeh M, Biabanaki M, Talebizadeh M (2010) A principal component regression method for estimating low flow index. Water Resour Manag 24(11):2553–2566
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms for search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, New York
Haykin S (1998) Neural networks—a comprehensive foundation, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 26–32
Hey RD, Thorne CR (1986) Stable channels with mobile gravel beds. J Hydraul Eng 112(8):671–689
Palisade Corporation (2001) Evolver, the genetic algorithm solver for microsoft excel. Palisade Corporation, Newfield
Sen Z (1998) Fuzzy algorithm for estimation of solar irradiation from sunshine duration. Sol Energy 63(1):39–49
Sen Z (2004) Genetic algorithm and optimization methods. Su Vakfi Yayinlari, Istanbul. (Turkish). ISBN: 975–6455–12–8
Sen Z, Altunkaynak A (2003) Fuzzy awakingning in rainfall-runoff methodling. Nord Hydrol 35(1):31–43
Tayfur G (2006) Fuzzy, ANN, and Regression Methods to Predict Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficient in Natural Streams. Nord Hydrol 37(2)
Tayfur G (2008) Soft computing approaches in hydrology. In: Singh VP (ed) Hydrology and hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, LLC, Colorado, pp 113–144
Tayfur G (2009) GA-optimized method predicts dispersion coefficient in natural channels. Hydrology Research 40(1):65–78
Tayfur G, Moramarco T, Singh VP (2007) Predicting and forecasting flow discharge at sites receiving significant lateral inflow. Hydrol Process 21:1848–1859
Wahl KL (1984) Evolution of the use of channel cross section characteristics for estimating streamflow characteristics. US Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper no. 2262, Washington DC, USA, pp 53–66
Wharton G (1995) The channel-geometry method: guidelines and applications. Earth Surf Process Landf 20:649–660
Wharton G, Tomlinson JJ (1999) Flood discharge estimation from river channel dimensions: results of applications in Java, Burundi, Ghana and Tanzania. Hydrol Sci J 44(1):1–17
Wharton G, Arnell NW, Gregory KJ, Gurnell AM (1989) River discharge estimated from river channel dimensions. J Hydrol 106:365–376
Williams GP (1978) Bank-Full discharge of rivers. Water Resour Res 14(6):1141–1154
Zhu Y-Y, Zhou H-C (2009) Rough fuzzy inference model and its application in multi-factor medium and long-term hydrological forecast. Water Resour Manag 23(3):493–507
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tayfur, G., Singh, V.P. Predicting Mean and Bankfull Discharge from Channel Cross-Sectional Area by Expert and Regression Methods. Water Resour Manage 25, 1253–1267 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9741-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9741-6