Improving event-based rainfall–runoff modeling using a combined artificial neural network–kinematic wave approach

The results of a study using a combined artificial neural network–kinematic wave (ANN-KW) approach to simulate event-based rainfall–runoff process are reported in this paper. Three types of ANN models were used, the first (NN R) takes only measured rain as input, the second (NN RQ) takes rain and es...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of hydrology (Amsterdam) 2010-08, Vol.390 (1), p.92-107
Hauptverfasser: Chua, Lloyd H.C., Wong, Tommy S.W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The results of a study using a combined artificial neural network–kinematic wave (ANN-KW) approach to simulate event-based rainfall–runoff process are reported in this paper. Three types of ANN models were used, the first (NN R) takes only measured rain as input, the second (NN RQ) takes rain and estimated discharge obtained from a kinematic wave model assuming zero losses (KW o) as input and the third (NN Q) takes estimated discharge from the KW o model only as input. The NN R and NN RQ model outputs were compared to assess improvements to ANN model predictions when estimated discharge is included as input to the ANN model. NN Q model results were compared to a kinematic wave model (KW c) which was modeled based on the loss rate of a calibration event. Three sets of rainfall–runoff data were used in the analyses; two obtained from an experimental station (completely impervious) and a third dataset from a real catchment. Using various performance measures, the results show that the NN RQ model performed better than the NN R model. Significantly, the NN RQ model produced hydrographs that were smoother than those predicted by the NN R model. The KW c modeled hydrographs for the experimental station were close to the measured hydrographs because the loss rates in the experimental station were small. For the real catchment however, since the loss rates were large and varied significantly between events, the KW c model was not able to produce the hydrographs from the catchment accurately. On the other hand, the NN Q model was able to produce hydrographs that were much closer to the measured hydrographs.
ISSN:0022-1694
1879-2707
DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.037