This article was downloaded by: [59.92.76.

160] On: 03 April 2014, At: 08:01 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

Development of a fuzzy logic-based rainfall-runoff model

YESHEWATESFA HUNDECHA , ANDRAS BARDOSSY & HANSWERNER WERNER
a a a a

Institut fr Wasserbau , Universitt Stuttgart , D-70550, Stuttgart, Germany E-mail: Published online: 29 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: YESHEWATESFA HUNDECHA , ANDRAS BARDOSSY & HANS-WERNER WERNER (2001) Development of a fuzzy logic-based rainfall-runoff model, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 46:3, 363-376, DOI: 10.1080/02626660109492832 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626660109492832

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Hydrological Sciences-Journal~des Sciences Hydrologiques, 46(3) June 2001

363

Development of a fuzzy logic-based rainfall-runoff model

YESHEWATESFA HUNDECHA, ANDRAS BARDOSSY & HANS-WERNER THEISEN
Institut fiir Wasserbau, Universitdt Stuttgart, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany e-mail: hundecha@iws.uni-stuttgait.de; bai-dossv@iws.uni-stuttgart.de Abstract Rainfall-runoff models are used to describe the hydrological behaviour of a river catchment. Many different models exist to simulate the physical processes of the relationship between precipitation and runoff. Some of them are based on simple and easy-to-handle concepts, others on highly sophisticated physical and mathematical approaches that require extreme effort in data input and handling. Recently, mathematical methods using linguistic variables, rather than conventional numerical variables applied extensively in other disciplines, are encroaching in hydrological studies. Among these is the application of a fuzzy rule-based modelling. In this paper an attempt was made to develop fuzzy rule-based routines to simulate the different processes involved in the generation of runoff from precipitation. These routines were implemented within a conceptual, modular, and semi-distributed modelthe HBV model. The investigation involved determining which modules of this model could be replaced by the new approach and the necessary input data were identified. A fuzzy rule-based routine was then developed for each of the modules selected, and application and validation of the model was done on a rainfall-runoff analysis of the Neckar River catchment, in southwest Germany. Key words rainfall-runoff modelling; HBV model; fuzzy logic; River Neckar, Germany

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Dveloppement d'un modle pluie-dbit base de logique floue

Rsum Les modles pluie-dbit sont utiliss pour dcrire le comportement hydrologique d'un bassin versant. De nombreux modles existent pour simuler les processus physiques dterminant la transformation de la pluie en dbit. Certains d'entre eux sont bass sur des concept simples et aisment transposables, tandis que d'autres s'appuient sur des approches physiques et mathmatiques trs sophistiques qui ncessitent beaucoup d'efforts au niveau de la prise en compte et du traitement des donnes. Depuis quelque temps, des mthodes mathmatiques manipulant aussi bien des variables alphanumriques que les habituelles variables numriques, ont t dveloppes en hydrologie. Parmi celles-ci se trouve la modlisation base de logique floue. Dans cet article nous prsentons une tentative de dveloppement de routines base de logique floue pour simuler les diffrents processus mis en jeu dans la production d'coulement partir des prcipitations. Ces routines ont t implmentes au sein du modle HBV, conceptuel, modulaire et semi-distribu. L'tude a ncessit de dterminer quels modules du modle pouvaient tre remplacs par la nouvelle approche d'une part et d'identifier les donnes ncessaires d'autre part. Une routine base de logique floue a alors t dveloppe pour chacun des modules ainsi identifis, et la mise en uvre et la validation du modle global ont t ralises avec les donnes de pluie et de dbit du bassin versant de la rivire Neckar, au Sud-Ouest de l'Allemagne. Mots clefs modles pluie-dbit; modle HBV; logique floue; Rivire Neckar, Allemagne

INTRODUCTION It is customary to establish a rainfall-runoff relationship in hydrological studies of a river basin. Traditionally, this task has been accomplished using methods ranging from
Open for discussion until I December 2001

364

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

those that give explicit emphasis to the underlying physical processes involved in the generation of runoff from rainfall to simple conceptual approaches that treat the catchment system in a simple idealized way. In using models that are based on descriptions of the physical processes, rigorous mathematical equations are often needed to solve the problem at hand. Such models are highly demanding in terms of their data requirement and it is often necessary to estimate input parameters specific to the catchment being modelled. In many cases, a large number of these parameters are involved and there is no way of estimating them uniquely. Instead, they are determined subjectively based on the modeller's judgement and the effect is normally manifested in the output of the model (Prakash, 1986). Hence, models which are easy to handle and have a minimum data requirement are often sought to solve problems where data availability is limited and the system is too complicated to be handled by physical models. Recently, mathematical methods using linguistic variables rather than conventional numerical variables, which have been applied in other disciplines, are encroaching into hydrological studies as well. Among these is the application of a fuzzy rule-based approach in modelling processes involved in the hydrologie cycle. A fuzzy rule-based modelling is a qualitative modelling scheme by which one describes system behaviour using a natural language (Sugeno, 1993). In using a fuzzy logic-based approach in modelling cause and effect, relationships are described verbally rather than using known governing physical relationships. Some of the causes that are taken into account in the physically-based models may be omitted. On the other hand, some of the causes that are not considered in idealized types of models, because of the nature of generalization or unavailability of known relationships, can be included in a fuzzy logic-based approach. Establishing these relationships depends on observing trends between the cause and effect and a detailed knowledge of the underlying processes is, therefore, not required. A few attempts have been made so far to implement such an approach, in modelling processes taking place in a river catchment, and promising results have been obtained. Brdossy & Disse (1993) have already demonstrated the applicability of such an approach in modelling infiltration. See & Openshaw (1999, 2000) have also worked on the application of entirely Artificial Intelligent approaches and a hybrid model constructed by integrating conventional and Artificial Intelligent approaches in river level and flood forecasting. In the area of meteorological data management, Abebe et al. (2000) have shown the applicability of fuzzy rule-based models for reconstruction of missing precipitation events. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability of a fuzzy logic-based approach to rainfall-runoff modelling. An attempt was made to model the individual processes involved in a watershed system, and their applicability was investigated by incorporating them in a modular conceptual model already in use. A FUZZY LOGIOBASED MODELLING APPROACH Quantitative rules pertaining to physical science are normally described by mathematical functions which, for every element in the domain, assign a unique output value. There are also certain classes of rules applied to linguistic variables, which do not have unique numerical values. A very simple example that can demonstrate such classes of rules could be drafted as: "If the air is warm, one has to consume much water."

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

365

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Here, the term "warm" is not a quantity that can be clearly defined. It can have values within an arbitrarily chosen range. But all temperature values within the defined range may not be considered equally warm. Similarly, the consequence, i.e. consumption of "much" water is not a quantity that can be assigned a unique value. A fuzzy logic-based modelling approach enables one to establish a one-to-one relationship between air temperature and water consumption in a way that is quite different from a conventional functional form (Zadeh, 1973). Fuzzy logic modelling is based on the theory of fuzzy sets (Zadeh, 1965). Unlike in an ordinary binary set, in a fuzzy set the boundary is not clearly defined and partial membership of elements is possible. Each element of the set is assigned a membership value which can be between 0 and 1 inclusively. The function that assigns this value is referred to as the membership function associated with the fuzzy set. Fuzzy numbers are special types of fuzzy sets defined on the set of real numbers. Fuzzy numbers are usually defined by using membership functions that have triangular shapes and are expressed as (a.\, 02, a3)T such that a\ < a2 < 03, or trapezoidal shapes that are expressed as (ci\, 02, 3, ci4)R such that ci\ < ci2< cii< a$. These triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are shown in Figs 1 and 2 respectively. Other functions, such as the Gaussian function, can also be used as membership functions, but these increase the computational effort and provide no noticeable performance improvement (Welstead, 1994). To model a certain process using a fuzzy logic-based approach, the model variables are partitioned into different fuzzy classes and an IF...THEN type of rule is utilized to establish the resulting response of any combination of the fuzzy classes of the variables. The fuzzy arguments may be connected by logical connectors AND, OR, or XOR (either...or). The responses, referred to as the rule consequences, are also usually in the form of a fuzzy number. Unlike the usual type of rules on binary sets in which the conditions of the rule are either completely fulfilled or not, partial fulfilment of the conditions is possible in the case of rules on fuzzy sets. The consequence of the actual rule for a

at

a.2

\a

Fig. 1 Membership function of a triangular fuzzy number.

t
?

>

aj a2 a3 04 x Fig. 2 Membership function of a trapezoidal fuzzy number.

366

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

given set of model variable values depends on the degree to which they fulfil the condition of the rule. The truth value corresponding to the fulfilment of the conditions of a rule for a given set of values of the arguments is referred to as the degree of fulfilment (DOF) of the rule and has values in the interval [0,1]. This value is determined based on the membership value of each of the arguments and the logical connectors used (Brdossy &Duckstein, 1995). Normally, several rules are partially satisfied for a given set of model variables and hence there are several associated fuzzy consequences, which are then combined into an overall fuzzy consequence using different techniques of rule combination. The combination method used in this paper is the maximum combination technique in which the membership function of the overall consequence is determined as the maximum of the product of the degree of fulfilment of each of the rules and the membership function of their corresponding rule consequence. The combined rule consequence
Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

lnput-1 Fuzzification

Xfj

Input-N Fuzzification

Defuzzification

Crisp output (y)

Fig. 3 Schematic representation of a fuzzy logic-based modelling procedure.

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

367

is then converted into a crisp real number using defuzzification techniques. The defuzzification technique commonly used is the mean defuzzification in which the centroid of the overall fuzzy consequence is taken as the crisp output of the fuzzy rule system (Brdossy & Duckstein, 1995). Figure 3 shows the schematic representation of the modelling procedure using a fuzzy rule-based approach. DESCRIPTION OF MODEL APPLICATION AREA Application and validation of the model was carried out on the catchment of the River Neckar in southwest Germany, most of which is in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, It has a total drainage area of 13 957 km2 and its complex topography ranges from moderate hills to plains with erratic geological formations. The elevation of the land surface varies from 100 to 1000 m a.s.l. A variety of land-use patterns ranging from residential areas to forests characterize the basin. The outlet of the basin is at the point of confluence of the River Neckar with the River Rhine. The entire basin was subdivided into 41 sub-basins so that each sub-basin could be modelled separately. Each sub-basin was further subdivided into up to ten different elevation classes. This was performed based on a 100 m elevation difference. Daily time series of precipitation from 1980 to 1995 and daily time series of mean temperature data from 1960 to 1998, observed at all meteorological stations within the basin, were used to run the model. For each elevation zone in each sub-basin, the corresponding daily time series of temperature and precipitation were computed using geostatistical methods from the station data. Daily discharge values from 1980 to 1996 were obtained from different gauging stations on the River Neckar and many of its tributaries. From these, data from 15 stations were chosen to calibrate the model. FORMULATION OF MODEL COMPONENTS Four different processes taking place in a watershed system were identified and a fuzzy logic-based routine was formulated for each of these processes. The modules identified are: snowmelt, vapotranspiration, runoff, and basin response. A fuzzy rule-based routine was formulated for each of the modules independently of the others. Snowmelt The dynamics of snowmelt depends on the energy balance of the accumulated snow, which in turn depends on temperature, net short-wave radiation, net long-wave radiation, and additional heat energy input due to incoming rainfall. In utilizing a fuzzy rule-based routine, air temperature, accumulated snow depth and magnitude of daily precipitation were considered as factors that influence the amount of snowmelt. Since the short-wave and long-wave radiations largely depend on the air temperature, they were omitted. Although the effect of temperature on the amount of snowmelt is apparent, the effect of the magnitude of precipitation and the amount of accumulated snow is indirect. The magnitude of rainfall plays a role in increasing the amount of snowmelt by providing additional energy input to the snowpack. This is especially true if the temperature of the incoming rainfall is higher.

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

368

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

The depth of the accumulated snow also affects the amount of snowmelt. Only the upper few centimetres of the snowpack are under the direct influence of the atmosphere. Temperature of this layer depends on the atmospheric temperature. Snowmelt only occurs from this layer when its temperature reaches 0C and the net energy balance is positive. If the temperature of the lower layer is below 0C, part or all of the snowmelt is refrozen. The heat released in the process is used to satisfy part or the entire heat deficit of the lower snowpack. The amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of the lower layer from some negative value to 0C depends on the volume of this part of the snowpack. When the temperature of the lower snowpack reaches 0C, any additional snowmelt is used to satisfy the free water holding capacity of the snowpack. Only snowmelt in excess of this free water holding capacity becomes available for infiltration and surface runoff (Anderson, 1968). Two systems of rules were established to determine the proportion of precipitation that is in the form of snow and the amount of snowmelt, respectively. The arguments to be used in each system of rules were identified and were divided into different fuzzy classes. In the first system of rules where the proportion of precipitation in snow form is determined, the only argument is temperature and the consequence is proportion of solid precipitation. In the second system of rules, temperature, accumulated snow depth, and magnitude of daily precipitation are used as arguments and the consequence is the daily amount of snowmelt. The temperature values were divided into five fuzzy classes. The magnitude of precipitation and accumulated snow were also partitioned into three fuzzy classes. The consequences of the rule systems were also fuzzified by dividing the amount of snowmelt into four fuzzy classes and the proportion of solid precipitation in the form of snow into three fuzzy classes. These are summarized in Tables 1-5.
Table 1 Fuzzy classes of temperature for snowmelt computation. Class of temperature Cold About zero Cool Warm Table 2 Fuzzy classes of accumulated snow depth. Accumulated snow depth Low Moderate High Table 3 Fuzzy classes of daily precipitation. Daily precipitation Low Moderate High Fuzzy number representation (mm) (0, 10, 15)j(10, 15,20) r (15,20, + )jFuzzy number representation (mm water equivalent) (0, 20, 35) r (20, 35, 45)T (35,45, + ~ ) r Fuzzy number representation (C)
(_oo,_l,0)j-

(-1,0.1.2), (1,2,3,4), (3, 4, + ~ ) r

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model Table 4 Fuzzy classes of amount of snowmelt. Amount of snowmelt Low Moderate High Extreme Fuzzy number representation (mm day"') (0, 4, 8) r (4, 8, 15)7(8, 15, 20)r (15,20,55)7-

369

Table 5 Fuzzy classes of percentage of precipitation in snow form. Proportion of precipitation in snow form No snow Half All Fuzzy number representation (%) (0, 25, 50) r (25, 50, 75)T (50, 75, 100)r

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Table 6 A system of rules describing proportion of precipitation in snow form. Rule no.
1 2 3 4

Argument (temperature)
Cold About zero Cool Warm

Proportion of precipitation in snow form All Half No snow No snow

Table 7 A system of rules for the determination of snowmelt.

Rule no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Argument: Snow depth Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High High High High High High High Tempe rature About zero About zero About zero Cool Cool Cool Warm About zero About.zero About.zero Cool Cool Cool Warm Warm Warm About :zero About ;zero About :zero Cool Cool Cool Warm Warm Warm Precipitation High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low Extreme High Moderate Low High Moderate Low Extreme Extreme High Moderate Low Low High Moderate Low Extreme Extreme High Amount of snowmelt

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

370

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

In the first system of rules, for each fuzzy class of temperature values, a corresponding fuzzy class of proportion of precipitation in snow form was assigned (Table 6). The consequence of each rule was computed for a given temperature value and the crisp output of the system of rules was computed by combining the fuzzy consequences of each rule using the maximum combination technique and defuzzifying the combined fuzzy consequence using the mean defuzzification technique. The same techniques were used in all rule systems in the other modules as well. In the second system of rules, the arguments, namely the fuzzy classes of temperature, magnitude of precipitation, and accumulated snow, were connected using the "AND" operator. The complete system of rules is shown in Table 7. Note that the increase in temperature and the magnitude of precipitation lead to the increase in the amount of snowmelt. The consequence of increase in the amount of accumulated snow is to decrease the potential for snowmelt as explained earlier in this section. Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014 Evapotranspiration The fuzzy logic routine for this process was formulated based on the long-term series of observed mean monthly temperature and the corresponding mean monthly vapotranspiration values. A set of rules was developed in which the incremental temperature value above the long-term monthly mean value (T - Tm) is used as an argument and the ratio of the actual to the long-term mean monthly vapotranspiration value (PEJPEm) is the consequence. The incremental temperature value above the long term monthly mean value was divided into seven fuzzy classes and the corresponding classification of the consequence was made. These are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8 Summary of the fuzzy rule system used to describe vapotranspiration.

"r-r,(c) (-2,0,2) r (1,3, 5),(3,5,7)T (5,7, + oo)r (-5,-3,-l) r (-7, -5, -3) r
(-00,-7,-5)7-

PEa/PEm (0.8,1.0,1.2)7(1.1, 1.2, 1.3)r (1.2, 1.4, 1, 6)r (1.4, 1.6, 1.8)r (0.3,0.6,0.8)7(0.2, 0.3,0.4, 0.6)*
(0.1,0,2,0.3)7-

Calculation of runoff This module computes the proportion of rain or snowmelt that is converted to runoff at a given soil moisture deficit. The proportion of rain or snowmelt that contributes to runoff depends on the relative soil moisture. The relative soil moisture is the ratio of the actual soil moisture to the field capacity of the soil. The proportion of rain or snowmelt that contributes to runoff increases with the relative soil moisture. In the HBV model, their relationship is expressed by an exponential function. The fuzzy logic based routine was formulated by using the relative soil moisture as the rule argument and the proportion of rain or snowmelt that contributes to runoff as the consequence of the rule system. The field capacity and the permanent wilting

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

371

Table 9 A rule system for soil water accounting. Relative soil moisture (ratio of actual to the maximum soil moisture storage) (0, 0, 0.2, 0.3)R (0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5)* (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7)R (0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9)R (0.8,0.9, 1.0, 1.0)R Percentage of rain or snow that goes to runoff (0, 2, 4)T (10, 15,20) r (20, 30, 40) r (60, 70, 80)T (75, 90, 100, 100)R

points for the different zones were defined based on the type of soil in each zone. Five fuzzy classes of the relative soil moisture values were established and the corresponding classes of percentage of rain or snowmelt that contributes to runoff were defined as shown in Table 9. Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014 The basin response This module describes the dynamics of the generated runoff, and thus its distribution in time once the water balance is set by the modules for snowmelt and runoff. The conceptual system used in the HBV model (Bergstrm, 1995) was adapted to use a fuzzy logic-based routine. The process is conceptualized by a fictitious system of two reservoirs arranged one over the other in which the outflows from the upper and lower reservoirs simulate the direct runoff and the base flow respectively at the outlet of the basin. These reservoirs are conceptually defined to simulate movement of the runoff within the basin before reaching the outlet of the basin. The infiltration excess water computed in the runoff module is input to the upper reservoir. The lower reservoir is replenished by percolation from the upper reservoir. In formulating the fuzzy logic-based routine of this module, three systems of fuzzy rules were utilized to determine the outflows from the two reservoirs and the percolation from the upper reservoir to the lower one respectively. The volume of water in the upper reservoir was used as an argument in the rule systems established to determine the outflow from the upper reservoir and the percolation from the upper to the lower reservoir. In the rule system used to determine the outflow from the lower reservoir, the volume of water was used as an argument. The volume of water in the upper reservoir was classified into 10 fuzzy sets while that in the lower reservoir was classified into 15 fuzzy sets to establish the rules. Because of the erratic nature of the entire basin, the rules that apply for one part of the basin would not apply to other parts of the basin. This would necessitate the formulation of different sets of rules for each sub-basin, which would be difficult to handle. For this reason, rules were established for three different types of upper and three different types of lower reservoirs (Tables 10-12). For each sub-basin, a pair of reservoir types was selected and the rules corresponding to the chosen pair were used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Before testing the applicability of the fuzzy logic-based routines for the different catchment processes, the HBV model was calibrated and used for the basin.

372

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

Table 10 A rule system to predict outflow from the upper reservoir.

Volume of water in the reservoir (mm) ( 0 , 1 , 2)T (1,2,4,8)* (4, 8, 10) r (8, 10, 15)T (10,15,20)* (15,20,25)r (20, 3 0 , 4 0 ) r (30, 40, 45) T (40, 45, 55) r (45, 55, =o)j. Reservoir outflow (mm day"1): Res. Type 1 (0.0,0.17,0.33)7(0.17,0.33,0.5)7(0.33, 0.5, 0.67) r (0.5,0.67,1.0) 7 (0.67, 1.0, 1.33)r (1.0,1.33,2.0)7(3.0, 3.33, 3.67)T-

Res. Type 2 (0.0, 0.25, 0.5) r (0.25,0.83,1.5)7(0.83,1.5,2.17)7(1.5,2.17, 3.0) r (2.17,3.0,4.33)7(3.0,4.33, 6.0) r (5.0,8.33,11.67)7(8.33, 11.83, 15.0) r (11.83,15.0,18.5)7 (15.0, 18.5, 21.67) r

Res. Type 3 (0.0, 0.17, 0.33),(0.17,0.33,0.67)7(0.33, 0.67.1.33) r (0.67,1.33,2.0) r (1.33, 2.0, 2.67)7(2.0, 3.33, 5.67) r
(6.67, 9.0, 10.0)T-

(3.33, 3.67, 4.33) T (3.67, 6.67, 10)T(10.0, 13.33, 15.0)7-

(9.33, 10.67, 12.33)7(11.67,12.67, 14.0)7(13.0, 15.0, 16.0)7-

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Table 11 A rule system to predict percolation from the upper to the lower reservoir.
Volume of water in the reservoir (mm) (0,l,2)r (1,2,4,8)* (4, 8, 10) r (8, 10, 15)T(10, 15, 20) r (15,20,25)7(20, 30, 40) r (30, 40, 45) r (40, 45, 55) 7 (45, 55, ) r Percolation rate (mm.day 1 ): Res. Type 1 (0.0, 0.28, 0.56) r (0.28, 0.56, 0.83)7(0.56,0.83, 1,11)T (0.83,0.95, l . l l ) r (0.95,1.11,1.22)7(1.11, 1.39, 1.67)r (1.38, 1.67, 1.95)T (1.67, 1.95, 2.22) r (1.95,2.22,2.5) r
(2.22, 2.5, 2.78)T-

Res. Type 2 (0.0, 0.43, 0.86) r

(0.43, 0.86, 1.24)T(0.86, 1.24, 1.67)T-

Res. Type 3 (0.0, 0.3, 0.44) r (0.3, 0.5, 0.86) r (0.5,0.86, 1.06) r (0.86, 1.06, 1.3) r (1.06, 1.3, 1.47) r (1.3, 1.58, 1.78) r (1.58,1.78,2.03)7(1.8,2.03,2.26)7(2.03, 2.26, 2.6) r (2.26, 2.6, 2.78)7-

(1.24,1.67,2.15) r (1.67, 2.15, 2.54) r (2.15,2.54,3.27) r (2.54, 3.27, 3.89) r (3.27, 3.89,4.17) r (3.89,4.17,4.72)7(4.17,4.72,5.17)7-

Table 12 A rule system to predict outflow from the lower reservoir.

Volume of water in the reservoir (mm) (0.0, 5.0, 10.0)7(5.0,10.0,20.0)7(10.0,20.0,40.0)r (20.0, 40.0, 60.0) r
(40.0, 60.0, 80.0)T-

Outflow rate (mm day"1)1: Res. Type 1 (0.0,0.05,0.1)7(0.05,0.1,0.15) r (0.1,0.15,0.2)7(0.15,0.2,0.25) 7 (0.2, 0.25, 0.6) r (0.25, 0.3, 0.35) T (0.3, 0.35, 0.43)r (0.35, 0.43, 0.5)7(0.43, 0.5, 0.58)T-

Res. Type 2 (0.0,0.08,0.15)7(0.08, 0.15, 0.25)7(0.15,0.25,0.35)7(0.25, 0.35, 0.45) T (0.35, 0.45, 0.53) 7 (0.45, 0.53, 0.60)j(0.53, 0.6, 0.68) r (0.6, 0.68, 0.75) r (0.68, 0.75, 0.83) r (0.75, 0.83, 0.90) r (0.83, 0.90, 0.98) r (0.90,0.98, 1.05)7(0.98,1.05,1.13)7 (1.05, 1.13, 1.2)7(l.l,1.2,1.3)r

Res. Type 3 (0.0,0.05,0.1) r (0.05, 0.10, 0.15) r (0.1,0.15,0.20)7(0.15,0.20,0.25) r (0.20, 0.25, 0.30) 7 (0.25, 0.30, 0.35)7(0.30, 0.35, 0.40)2(0.35, 0.40, 0.45) r (0.40, 0.48, 0.55)7(0.48, 0.55, 0.63)7(0.55, 0.63, 0.70) r (0.63, 0.70, 0.78) r (0.70, 0.78, 0,85) T (0.78, 0.85, 0.90) T (0.85, 0.90, 0.95) r

(60.0, 80.0, 100.0)7(80.0, 100.0, 120.0)7(100.0, 120.0, 140.0)7(120.0, 140.0, 160.0) r (140.0, 160.0, 180.0)7(160.0, 180.0, 200.0) r (180.0, 200.0, 220,0) r (200.0, 220.0, 240.0) r (220.0, 240.0, 260.0) r (240.0, 260.0, ~ ) r

(0.5, 0.58, 0.65) r (0.58, 0.65, 0.73) r (0.65, 0.73, 0.80) r (0.70, 0.80, 0.90)7(0.80,0.90,1.0) r
(0.90, 1.0, 1.10)T-

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff

model

373

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Applicability of the fuzzy logic-based routines was investigated by incorporating only one of the fuzzy rule-based modules at a time while retaining the HBV versions for the other modules. Calibration of the modules was performed by using a multi-objective calibration procedure (Gupta & Sorooshian, 1998). Three different measures of model performance were used to calibrate the modules. These measures are the correlation coefficient of the modelled and the observed discharges (RCOEF), the Nash-Sutcliffe measure (NS), and the bias (the average of the difference between the modelled and the observed discharges). The consequences of each rule system were manually changed until acceptable values of all the three measures of model performance were obtained. The model performance values were calculated based on simulation of daily discharge for a period of 10 years, i.e. N = 3652. Finally, all the independently adjusted fuzzy logic-based routines were coupled together to model the catchment. All computations were carried out for a time step of two hours. Performance of each of the fuzzy rule-based modules was found to be nearly the same as that of the corresponding HBV modules. Generally, the fuzzy rule-based routine for snowmelt was observed to show the best performance (Table 13). Estimation of the winter high flows by the HBV model was improved a little at some observation points by introducing this module (Fig. 4). This is because, in the HBV model, the snowmelt was represented by a simple degree-day method in which only temperature is considered a driving force for snowmelt. In the fuzzy rule-based routine, additional factors that were not considered in the HBV routine were incorporated, leading to an improvement in the estimation of the amount of snowmelt. On the other hand, the fuzzy rule-based routine for the basin response module was found to be the most difficult to handle. Assignment of the combination of upper and lower reservoir types to the sub-catchments was undertaken through a kind of trial and

160.00-] 140.00 HBVModel 120.00 ^ ^S 100.00 Observed "Snow-Fuzzy" Model

a
ff 80.00a g 60.00-

Date Fig. 4 Comparison between the HBV and the "Snow-Fuzzy" models at one of the observation nodes.

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

^
-s: oa O c-i m (N oc m < -* m en O v O ro CN -H NC o oo d d d d d d d d d d d d

irjTroor-cotn^o- & S:

> > b. bj & .O o as <

N 3 Z

t C O O C C O h M - - M X i J .. 0 O h O 0 0 0 0 G l X 1 0 O a O \ C i C S C C l a

^ 2
:

oocN'Knaiv-ivoo O M N T t n i n n \ o i n ' d o d o o
I
OO t

t *

r, r^

T } - <n

K5
N N

tu i)
O

> > s
co

oio-^
\0 * O C\

!Tl CO r - w i 1 M

C O 1 > 0 0 0 0 0 C C N C 0 Q 0 C N C O C O O N

\ o o m o ^ o c i o co m ^ m v> oc ^o CN r~ i r ^ r o o c o -S fc) O Tttocoor-ooor^oo es O C O as O O h C O C O C O M O O O O O O C ^ d c d d d o d d c d d

* & . k,
J

d d d d d d d d d d d

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

co ON (N t- r~~ o " t rw * o \o h co * sa d d d d d p C f N
^

>
N S

r-avoo h n ^ c o o e c f o ^ t
C C h O O C O C C C O O O O C C C C O C O

PJ+- b. n - i - c ^ M c o m C s n o fc) c O o o o o - h c o i n o i u w L J i 3 O COCOOOOOMOXOCj&OCO C as d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

co

r--oo\ointnr-s> mcoTtmmOcN'
m h * - 1 1 - -*tf- <"!

^
> 1

oo ^
CN

= Q - o c
C 0 N 0 0 > 0 N C 0 N o O H i n c M K o o i n O ' - ' ^ h ' c c h a c o c o o o w o n t c ^ O \ - ' H M o c o

r^ M m en

tN w M O

-"* _ CO O N Oi Cs <N

N -3 n1

^d %
k, kj

d d d d d d d d d d d d d

C X 0 0 ON. NO C N r^ ._ c o a h o o o c o c o o o o o

& .O H
a

f^-3-_-_ror->fN'Tf-"<3"CNCN--<irN

o as
-o =0 <

cor-CNOccccococNOOoocNooocCN d d d d d d d d d d d d d d n h - o o c o M i O M m t N i n h i u ~ ] - ^ o o m o r- c\ < d d d ^

>1

IOW-

3 d d c d o o d d d d d d d eu k, c o " t \ o o o t n i r t o c \ i n - i n - ^ ^ " * m r - - - " ( N h o o co c O l/i

N N

_ m . . _ > O O V~i tN l> o -H-^Tj-r-i'+OmCinco^o^or^ co S: o , r ^ ^ - ( r ^ c o o c ^ c c n o o r - H r ^ o o

C O h C \ M C O C O X O \ O N O \ a O O C C 7 i

u a:
co

M M C \ C O C O C O C O O O C ? ! ? C O O O

s Oq
co

r- ON o T- o o d d p d p p ^ o i d d O w ^ c c i o m h c o oo \o r- r- C O l f t M C O O O h C O co r- CN oo oo C O C O C N O O C O C N O O O C d d d d d d d d d d d d

%
b.

b l o o o " * m \ c \ o < i - o < N oc co CN O o o c \ r N r - o o s o < N O > in </) oo -* t> or-ONOoocoooacNCo m O c S as d d d e o CN O t^ CN

>
s o

oc C\ oo oo

CN

d c U

il

T J -

io \o m

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

375

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014

Feb/85

Feb/ 85

Mar/ 85

Apr/ 85

Apr/85

May/85

Jim/85

Jun/85

Date Fig. 5 Comparison between the HBV and the "All-Fuzzy" models at one of the observation nodes.

error procedure and the associated large number of rules pertaining to the outflows from the reservoirs resulted in difficulty in adjustment of the rales. The entirely fuzzy logic-based model was found to reproduce the observed discharges well. Generally, under low and normal flow conditions the model performed well and no noticeable difference was observed between the HBV and the fuzzy rule-based models. The fuzzy rule-based model was observed to overestimate the peak flows (Fig. 5).

CONCLUDING REMARKS The applicability of a fuzzy logic-based approach to modelling catchment processes has been illustrated. When using such an approach, a sound knowledge of the underlying physical processes is not prerequisite.. Only knowledge of the factors that influence a process and a qualitative relationship between the cause and effect is required. Since the mathematical relationship between the cause and effect is not necessary, quantities that are not explicitly included in other conceptual or physically based models because of the nature of idealization of the process in the models or unavailability of a known relationship can easily be included as rule arguments in a fuzzy rule-based modelling. Parameters are normally required to be determined by field measurements or estimated through model calibration in other types of models. Each parameter can have different values for different zones of the model area. No model parameters are

376

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

considered in a fuzzy rule-based modelling approach. This makes the approach easier and faster to work with. REFERENCES
Abebe, A. I , Solomatine, D. P. & Venneker, R. G. W. (2000) Application of adaptive fuzzy rule-based models for reconstruction of missing precipitation events. Hydrol. Sci. J. 45(3), 425-436. Anderson, E. A. (1968) Development and testing of snowpack energy balance equations. Wat. Resour. Res. 4(1), 19-38. Brdossy, A. & Disse, M. (1993) Fuzzy rule-based models for infiltration. Wat. Resour. Res. 29, 373-382. Brdossy, A. & Duckstein, L. (1995) Fuzzy Rule-Based Modeling with Applications to Geophysical, Biological, and Engineering Systems. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Bergstrom, S. (1995) The HBV model. In: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology (ed. by V. P. Singh), 443^176. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA. Gupta, H. V. & Sorooshian S. (1998) Toward improved calibration of hydrologie models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Wat. Resour. Res. 34(4), 751-763. Prakash, A. (1986) Current state of hydrologie modeling and its limitations. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Flood Frequency and Risk Analysis (14-17 May 1986). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana/USA. See, L. & Openshaw, S. (1999) Applying soft computing approaches to river level forecasting. Hydrol. Sci. J. 44(5), 7 6 3 778. See, L. & Openshaw, S. (2000) A hybrid multi-model approach to river level forecasting. Hydrol. Sci. J. 45(4), 523-536. Sugeno, M. & Yasukawa, T. (1993) A fuzzy-logic-based approach to qualitative modeling. IEEE Trans, on Fuzzy Systems 1(1), 7-31. Welstead, S. T. (1994) Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic Applications in C/C++. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, USA. Zadeh, L. A. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3), 338-353. Zadeh, L. A. (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 3, 28-44. Received 6 June 2000; accepted 20 December 2000

Downloaded by [59.92.76.160] at 08:01 03 April 2014