Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1747–1761 | Cite as

Uncertainty Analysis in Sediment Load Modeling Using ANN and SWAT Model

  • Mansour Talebizadeh
  • Saeid Morid
  • Seyyed Ali Ayyoubzadeh
  • Mehdi Ghasemzadeh
Article

Abstract

Sediment load estimation is essential in many water resources projects. In this study, the capability of two different types of model including SWAT as a process-based model and ANNs as a data-driven model in simulating sediment load were evaluated. The issue of uncertainty in the simulated outputs of the two models which stems from different sources was also investigated. Calibration and uncertainty analysis of SWAT were performed using monthly observed discharge and sediment load values and through the application of SUFI-2 procedure. The issue of uncertainty in the ANN model was also accounted for by training a network several times with different initial weights and bias values as well as randomly-selected training and validation sets, each time a network trained. Trying different input variables to find the best and most efficient network structure, it was found that in the forested watershed of Kasilian, adding average daily rainfall or previous values of discharge dose not change the performance of the ANN model significantly. Comparing the results of SWAT and ANN, it was found that SWAT model has a superior performance in estimating high values of sediment load, whereas ANN model estimated low and medium values more accurately. Moreover, prediction interval for the results of ANN was narrower than that of SWAT which suggests that ANN outputs are with less uncertainty.

Keywords

Uncertainty analysis Neural network SWAT Inverse modeling SUFI2 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC (2008) SWAT-CUP user manual. Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), SwissGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbaspour KC, Johnson A, van Genuchten MTh (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3(4):1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I, Siber R, Bogner K, Mieleitner J, Zobrist J, Srinivasan R (2007) Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J Hydrol 333(2–4):413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrahart RJ, White SM (2001) Modelling sediment transfer in Malawi: comparing backpropagation neural network solutions against a multiple linear regression benchmark using small data sets. Phys Chem Earth, Part B Hydrol Oceans Atmos 26(1):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anctila F, Michelb C, Perrinb C, Andreassianb V (2004) A soil moisture index as an auxiliary ANN input for stream flow forecasting. J Hydrol 286(1–4):155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aqila M, Kitab I, Yanob A, Nishiyamac S (2007) Analysis and prediction of flow from local source in a river basin using a Neuro-fuzzy modeling tool. J Environ Manag 85(1):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barsanti A, Disperati L, Marri P, Mione A (2003) Soil erosion evaluation and multi-temporal analysis in two Brazilian basin. In: 2th international SWAT conference, Bari, Italy, 1–4 July 2003Google Scholar
  8. Beven K, Binlley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chekol DA, Tischbein B, Eggers H, Vlek P (2007) Application of SWAT for assessment of spatial distribution of water resources and analyzing impact of different land management practices on soil erosion in upper awash river basin watershed, FWU Water ResourcesPublications. Volume No: 06/2007, ISSN No. 1613–1045. pp 110–117Google Scholar
  10. Cigizoglu HK, Kisi O (2006) Methods to improve the neural network performance in suspended sediment estimation. J Hydrol 317(3–4):221–238Google Scholar
  11. Dawson CW, Abrahart RJ, Shamseldin AY, Wilby RC (2006) Flood estimation at ungauged sites using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 319(1–4):391–409, Eng., ASCE 127(1):30–37Google Scholar
  12. Demirel MC, Venancio A, Kahya E (2008) Flow forecast by SWAT model and ANN in Pracana basin, Portugal. Adv Eng Softw 40(7):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farokhnia A, Morid S (2009) Uncertainty analysis of artificial neural networks and nero-fuzzy models in river flow forecasts. Iran J Water Resour Manag (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Heskes T (1997) Practical confidence and prediction interval. In: Mozer M, Jordan M, Peskes T (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems 9. MIT, Cambridge, pp 466–472Google Scholar
  15. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1990) Universal approximation of an unknown mapping and its derivatives using multi layer feedforward networks. Neural Netw 3:551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu KL, Gupta H, Sorooshian S (1995) Artificial neural network modeling of the rainfall runoff process. Water Resour Res 31(10):2517–2530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobs JH, Srinivasan R (2005) Application of SWAT in developing countries using readily available data. In: 3th international SWAT conference, Zurich, 11–15 July 2005Google Scholar
  18. Jain SK (2001) Development of integrated sediment curve using ANNs. J Hydro 127:30–37Google Scholar
  19. Kool JB, Parker JC (1988) Analysis of the inverse problem for transient unsaturated flow. Water Resour Res 24(6):817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuczeraa G, Parent E (1998) Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm. J Hydrol 211(1–4):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luk KC, Ball JE, Sharma A (2000) A study of optimal model lag and spatial inputs to artificial neural network for rainfall forecasting. J Hydrol 227(1–4):56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier HR, Dandy GC (2000) Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modeling issues and applications. Environ Model Softw 15(1):101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marce’ R, Comerma M, Garcia JC, Armengol J (2004) A neuro-fuzzy modeling tool to estimate fluvial nutrient loads in watersheds under time-varying human impact. Limnol Oceanogr 2(1):342–355Google Scholar
  24. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael W, van Liew, Arnold GJ (2005) Downstream sediment response to conservation practice implementation. In: 3th international SWAT conference, Zurich, 11–15 July 2005Google Scholar
  26. Mishra A, Kar S, Singh VP (2007) Prioritizing structural management by quantifying the effect of land use and land cover on watershed runoff and sediment yield. Water Resour Manag (2007) 21(11):1899–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morid S, Gosain AK, Keshari AK (2002a) Comparison of the SWAT model and ANN for daily simulation of runoff in snowbound ungauged catchments. In: Fifth international conference on hydroinformatics, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  28. Morid S, Gosain AK, Keshari AK (2002b) Solar radiation estimation using temperature-based, stochastic and artificial neural networks approaches. Nord Hydrol 3(4):291–304Google Scholar
  29. Ndomba PM, Mtalo FW, Killingtveit (2007) A Sediment yield mdeling using SWAT at larger and complex catchment: issues and approaches. A case of Pangani River catchment, Tanzania. In: 4th international SWAT conference, institute for water education Delf, The Netherlands, pp 4–6Google Scholar
  30. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2005. BlackLand Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  31. NRC (2001) Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. Committee to access the scientific basis of the total maximum daily load approach to water pollution reduction, water science and technology board, division on earth and life studies, national research council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Ozturk F, Apaydin H, Walling DE (2001) Suspended sediment load through flood events for streams of Sakarya Basin. Turkish J Eng Env Tubitak 25:643–650Google Scholar
  33. Panagoulos Y, Polyzoi E, Mimikou M (2007) Land use change effect on river sediment yield in Western Greece. In: 4th international SWAT conference, institute for water education Delf, The Netherlands, 4–6 July 2007Google Scholar
  34. Rai RK, Mathur BS (2008) Event-based sediment yield modeling using artificial neural network. Water Resour Manag 22(4):423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tayfur G (2002) Artificial neural networks for sheet sediment transport. Hydrol Sci J 47(6):879–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Griensven A, Meixner T (2007) A global and efficient multi-objective auto-calibration and uncertainty estimation method for water quality catchment models. J Hydroinform 9(4):277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003) A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for estimating posterior distribution of watershed model parameters. In: Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta HV, Rousseau AN, Turcotte R (eds) Calibration of watershed models. AGU, Washington, DC. doi:10.1029/006WS07
  38. Willemsen PG, Bailer CAL, Kaempf TA (2004) ICAP-Variability-Alerts joint working group meeting, Paris, 8 October 2004Google Scholar
  39. Williams JR (1975) Sediment routing for agricultural watersheds. Water Resour Bull 11(5):965–974Google Scholar
  40. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall losses: a guide to conservation planning. USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 537. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mansour Talebizadeh
    • 1
  • Saeid Morid
    • 1
  • Seyyed Ali Ayyoubzadeh
    • 1
  • Mehdi Ghasemzadeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Agriculture Faculty, Water Resources DepartmentTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations