Water Resources Management

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 4229–4239 | Cite as

Comparison of Rainfall-Runoff Relationship Modeling using Different Methods in a Forested Watershed

  • Ferhat Gökbulak
  • Kamil Şengönül
  • Yusuf Serengil
  • İbrahim Yurtseven
  • Süleyman Özhan
  • Hikmet Kerem Cigizoglu
  • Betül Uygur
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The daily rainfall-runoff relationship in an experimental watershed was modeled using a statistical method and an artificial neural network method. The estimations were examined and a performance evaluation was done. It was seen that the ANN method, FFBP (Feed Forward Back Propagation), provided closer flow estimations reproducing the shape of the observed hydrograph more realistic. The superiority of FFBP was reflected in the performance evaluation criteria. The extreme flows, i.e., high and low flows, were relatively better approximated by FFBP indicating its promise as a useful tool for hydrologic studies such as flood modeling. The Rational Method was also used, as a conventional tool, to predict the maximum discharge for selected return periods. It was found to be realistic for the forested watershed under consideration when the C coefficient was taken as 0.20 for the 10-year period.

Keywords

ANN FFBP Rational method Rainfall-runoff model Runoff coefficient 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank four emeritus professors of the Department of Watershed Management, namely, Nihat Balcı, Selman Uslu, Necdet Özyuvacı, and Ahmet Hızal for their valuable contributions.

This study (Project No. 28027) has been supported by the Research Fund of Istanbul University.

References

  1. Agarwal A, Singh RD (2004) Runoff modeling through back propagation artificial neural network with variable rainfall-runoff data. Water Resour Manage 18:285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alp M, Cigizoglu HK (2007) Suspended sediment estimation by feed forward back propagation method using hydro meteorological data. Environ Model Softw 22(1):2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altun A, Bilgil A, Fidan BC (2007) Treatment of multi-dimensional data to enhance neural network estimators in regression problems. Expert Syst Appl 32:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balcı AN, Özyuvacı N, Özhan S (1986) Sediment and nutrient discharge through stream water from two experimental watersheds in mature oak-beech forest ecosystems near Istanbul, Turkey. J Hydrol 85:31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balcı AN, Özyuvacı N (1989) Forest and range hydrology. Lecture notes. Istanbul University, Faculty of ForestryGoogle Scholar
  6. Brikovski T (2007) GEOS 5313 UTD Applied surface water modeling. Lecture NotesGoogle Scholar
  7. Brikundavyi S, Labib R, Trung HT, Rousselle J (2002) Performance of neural networks in daily streamflow forecasting. J Hydrol Eng 7(5):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cigizoglu HK (2003a) Estimation, forecasting and extrapolation of river flows by artificial neural networks. Hydrolog Sci J 48(3):349–361Google Scholar
  9. Cigizoglu HK (2004) Estimation and forecasting of daily suspended sediment data by multi layer perceptrons. Adv Water Resour 27:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cigizoglu HK (2005a) Application of the generalized regression neural networks to intermittent flow forecasting and estimation. ASCE J Hydrol Eng 10(4):336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cigizoglu HK (2005b) Generalized regression neural network in monthly flow forecasting. Civ Eng Environ Syst 22(2):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cığızoğlu HK (2003b) Incorporation of ARMA models into flow forecasting by artificial neural networks. Environmetrics 14(4):417–427Google Scholar
  13. Cigizoglu HK, Kisi O (2005) Flow prediction by three back propagation techniques using k-fold partitioning of neural network training data. Nord Hydrol 36(1):1–16Google Scholar
  14. Cigizoglu HK, Kisi O (2006) Methods to improve the neural network performance in suspended sediment estimation. J Hydrol 317(3–4):221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D.S.I (1970) Frequency atlas of maximum rainfalls in Turkey. Ministry of energy and natural resources. general directorate of state hydraulic works. Publicatition No.675Google Scholar
  16. Dawson CW, Wilby RL (2001) Hydrological modeling using artificial neural networks. Prog Phys Geography 25(1):80–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eberhart RC, Dobbins RW (1990) Neural network PC tools: A practical guide. Academic, San Diego, p 414.1990Google Scholar
  18. Fernando DAK, Jayawardena AW (1998) Runoff forecasting using RBF networks with OLS algorithm. J Hydrol Eng 3(3):203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu K, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1995) Artificial neural network modeling of the rainfall-runoff process. Water Resour Res 31:2517–2530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnston R, Smakhtin V (2014) Hydrological modeling of large river basins: How much is enough? Water Resour Manage 28:2695–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khalil M, Panu US, Lennox WC (2001) Groups and neural networks based streamflow data infilling procedures. J Hydrol 241:153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King HW, Brater EF (1954) Handbook of hydraulics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, INC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Maier HR, Dandy GC (2000) Neural network for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modeling issues and applications. Environ Model Softw 15:101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe AV (1997) Statistics in civil engineering (Series ed. Brian Everitt) Arnold Applications of statistics series, Arnold, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Minns AW, Hall MJ (1996) Artificial neural networks as rainfall runoff models. Hydrolog Sci J 41(3):399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mutlu E, Chaubey I, Hexmoor H, Bajwa SG (2008) Comparison of artificial neural network models for hydrologic predictions at multiple gauging stations in an agricultural watershed. Hydrol Process 22:5097–5106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Özhan S (1977) Variation in some hydrologic properties of forest floor as related to certain environmental factors in Ortadere watershed of Belgrad Forest. Publication of Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry Publication No. 235Google Scholar
  28. Özhan S, Gokbulak F, Serengil Y (2008) Water yield and sediment discharge from a deciduous forest ecosystem in Istanbul, Turkey. Conference on Water Observation and Information System for Decision Support, 27–31 May, Ohrid, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  29. Özhan S, Balcı AN, Özyuvacı N, Hızal A, Gokbulak F, Serengil Y (2005) Determination of cover and management factor of the Universal Soil-Loss Equation for forest ecosystems in Marmara Region, Turkey. Forest Ecol Manage 214:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Partal T, Cigizoglu HK (2008) Estimation and forecasting of the daily suspended sediment data using wavelet-neural networks. J Hydrol 358:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rai RK, Mathur BS (2008) Event-based sediment yield modeling using artificial neural network. Water Resour Manage 22:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Randolph J (2004) Environmental land use planning and management. Island press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Ranjithan S, Eheart JW, Garrett JH (1993) Neural network-based screening for groundwater reclamation under uncertainity. Water Resour Res 29(3):563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seckin N, Cobaner M, Yurtal R, Haktanir T (2013) Comparision of artificial neural network methods with L-moments for estimating flood flow at ungauged sites: the case of East Mediterranean river basin, Turkey. Water Resour Manage 27:2103–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh KK, Pal M, Singh VP (2010) Estimation of mean annual flood in Indian catchments using backpropagation neural network and M5 model tree. Water Resour Manage 24:2007–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sohail A, Watanabe K, Takeuchi S (2008) Runoff analysis for a small watershed of Tone area Japan by back propagation artificial neural network with seasonal data. Water Resour Manage 22:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sudheer KP, Gosain AK, Ramasastri KS (2002) A data-driven algorithm for constructing artificial neural network rainfall-runoff models. Hydrol Process 16:1325–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thirumalaiah K, Deo MC (1998) River stage forecasting using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol Eng 3(1):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thirumalaiah K, Deo MC (2000) Hydrological forecasting using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol Eng 5(2):180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tokar AS, Johnson PA (1999) Rainfall-runoff modeling using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol Eng 4(3):232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferhat Gökbulak
    • 1
  • Kamil Şengönül
    • 1
  • Yusuf Serengil
    • 1
  • İbrahim Yurtseven
    • 1
  • Süleyman Özhan
    • 1
  • Hikmet Kerem Cigizoglu
    • 2
  • Betül Uygur
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Watershed Managementİstanbul UniversityBahçeköy-İstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hydraulics Divisionİstanbul Technical UniversityMaslak-İstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations