Assessment of Normalization of Monthly Runoff Probabilistic Distribution impact on SVM and ANN Models Performance in Monthly River Flows Simulation (A Case Study: ZarrinehRud River Basin)

Isazadeh, Mohammad; Ahmadzadeh, Hojjat; Ghorbani, Mohammad ali

doi:10.29252/jwmr.8.16.22

Volume 8, Issue 16 (2-2018) jwmr 2018, 8(16): 22-33 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.29252/jwmr.8.16.22

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Isazadeh M, Ahmadzadeh H, Ghorbani M A. (2018). Assessment of Normalization of Monthly Runoff Probabilistic Distribution impact on SVM and ANN Models Performance in Monthly River Flows Simulation (A Case Study: ZarrinehRud River Basin). jwmr. 8(16), 22-33. doi:10.29252/jwmr.8.16.22
URL: http://jwmr.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-927-en.html

Assessment of Normalization of Monthly Runoff Probabilistic Distribution impact on SVM and ANN Models Performance in Monthly River Flows Simulation (A Case Study: ZarrinehRud River Basin)

Mohammad Isazadeh

, Hojjat Ahmadzadeh

, Mohammad ali Ghorbani

Abstract: (3760 Views)

Accurate estimation of river flows is one of the fundamental activities in water resources management of river basins. Artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector machine (SVM) are the most important data mining models that can be considered for this purpose. Due to the data-based attribute of these models, probability distribution of data may have a considerable effects on their performance in river flow simulation. In order to, Zarrineh Rud River basin was selected as a study area and the investigations were done for three hydrometric stations located in this basin. In this regard, first monthly runoff probability distribution of stations were studies based on Shapiro- Wilk test and then normalization of data distribution were done. Then the performance of ANN and SVM models in monthly river flow simulation of three stations was evaluated for initial observed and normal data. Based on the results of this study, the values of 0.71, 5.93 (m³/sec), 0.80, 6.58 (m³/sec) and 0.82, 22.9 (m³/sec) were obtained for correlation coefficient (CC) and root mean square errors (RMSE) indicators in the ANN model for Safakhaneh, Santeh and Polanian stations respectively in the testing period. In the SVM model, the values of 0.70, 6.34 (m³/sec), 0.78, 7.02 (m³/sec) and 0.79, 24.31 (m³/sec) were obtained for these indicators in the mentioned stations respectively. The results showed that in river flow simulation by ANN model values of CC increase 6%, 14% and 11% and RMSE values decrease 9%, 19% and 6% for Polanian, Santeh and Safakhaneh stations respectively in the testing period due to normalization of data probability distribution. For SVM model, due to normalization of data probability, CC value increases 10% and RMSE value decrease 16% only for Santeh station. Also the results showed that the ANN model with normal input data has high performance in estimation of monthly river flow compared to the SVM model in each of the three hydrometric stations.

Keywords: ANN, Monthly River Flow, Normal Probabilistic Distribution, SVM, Zarrineh Rud Basin

Full-Text [PDF 1574 kb] (1190 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2018/02/24 | Revised: 2018/02/25 | Accepted: 2018/02/24 | Published: 2018/02/24

References

1. Adamowski, J. 2013. Using support vector regression to predict direct runoff, base flow and total flow in a mountainous watershed whit limited data in Uttaranchal, India. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW. Land Reclamation, 45(1): 71-83. [DOI:10.2478/sggw-2013-0007]

2. Alvisi, S., G. Mascellani, M. Franchini and A. Bardossy. 2006. Water level forecasting through fuzzy logic and artificial neural network approaches. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 10(1): 1-17. [DOI:10.5194/hess-10-1-2006]

3. ASCE Task Committee on Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology. 2000. Artificial neural networks in hydrology, I: preliminary concepts. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5(2): 115-123. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(115)]

4. Cortes. C. and V. Vapnik. 1995. Support vector networks. Machine Learning, 20: 273-297. [DOI:10.1007/BF00994018]

5. Coulibaly, P., F. Anctil and B. Bobée. 2000. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach. Journal of Hydrology, 230: 244-257. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00214-6]

6. Dibike, Y.B., S. Velikov, D. Solomatine and M.B. Abbort. 2001. Model induction with of support vector machines: introduction and applications. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 15: 208-216. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2001)15:3(208)]

7. Guo, B., S.R. Gunn, R.I. Damper and J.D. Nelson. 2008. Customizing kernel functions for svm-based hyper spectral image classification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 17(4): 622-629. [DOI:10.1109/TIP.2008.918955]

8. Huang, W. and B.X. Chan-Hilton. 2004. Forecasting flows in Apalachicola River using neural networks. Hydrological Processes, 18(13): 2545-2564. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.1492]

9. Kakaei Lafadani, E., A. Moghaddam Nia, A. Ahmadi, M. Jajarmizadeh and M. Ghafari. 2013. Stream flow simulation using SVM, ANFIS and NAM models (A case study). Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2(4): 86-93.

10. Kavzoglu, T. and I. Colkesen. 2009. A kernel functions analysis for support vector machines for land cover classification. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 11(5): 352-359. [DOI:10.1016/j.jag.2009.06.002]

11. Kouchakzadeh, M. and A. Bahmani. 2006. Assessment of artificial neural networks revenue in reducing required parameters for estimation of reference evapotranspiration. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 11(4): 87-97.

12. Lin, J.Y., C.T. Cheng and K.W. Chau. 2006. Using support vector machines for long-term discharge prediction. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(4): 599-612. [DOI:10.1623/hysj.51.4.599]

13. Liu, G.Q. 2011. Comparison of regression and ARIMA models with neural network models to forecast the daily streamflow of White Clay Creek. PhD Thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, USA. 517 pp.

14. Misra, D., T. Oommen, A. Agarwal, S.K. Mishra and A.M. Thompson. 2009. Application and analysis of support vector machine based simulation for runoff and sediment yield. Biosystems Engineering, 103(9): 527-535. [DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.04.017]

15. Nayak, P.C., K.P. Sudheer, D.M. Rangan and K.S. Ramasastri. 2004. A neuro-fuzzy computing technique for modeling hydrological time series. Journal of Hydrology, 291(1): 52-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.010]

16. Nouri, R., A. Khakpour, M. Dehghani and A. Farrokhnia. 2010. Monthly river flow prediction using support vector machine based on principal components analysis. Journal of Water and Wastewater, 22(1): 118-129 (In Persian).

17. Safavi, H.R. 2009. Engineering hydrology. 4nd edn, Arkan Danesh publisher, Esfahan, Iran, 706 pp. (In Persian)

18. Samsudin, R., P. Saad and A. Shabri. 2011. River flow time series using least squares support vector machines. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(6): 1835-1852. [DOI:10.5194/hess-15-1835-2011]

19. Yang, K.H., G.L. Shan and L.L. Zhao. 2006. Correlation coefficient method for support vector machine input samples. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2857-2861 pp., Dalian, China. [DOI:10.1109/ICMLC.2006.259069]

20. Yoon, H., S.C. Jun, Y. Hyun, G.O. Bae and K.K. Lee. 2011. A comparative study of artificial neural networks and support vector machines for predicting groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer. Journal of Hydrology, 396(1-2): 128-138. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.11.002]

21. Zealand, C.M., D.H. Burn and S.p. Simonovic. 1999. Short term stream flow forecasting using artificial neural networks. Journal of Hydrology, 214(1-4): 32-48. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00242-X]