A comparative study for prediction of direct runoff for a river basin using geomorphological approach and artificial neural networks

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：S. K. Mondal (1)
  S. Jana (1)
  M. Majumder (2)
  D. Roy (1)
  
• 关键词：GGIUH ; ANN ; Direct surface runoff hydrograph ; Morphological parameters ; Probability density function
• 刊名：Applied Water Science
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：March 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：2
• 期：1
• 页码：1-13
• 全文大小：963KB
• 参考文献：1. Ahmad S, Simonovic SP (2005) An artificial neural network model for generating hydrograph from hydro-meteorological parameters. J Hydrol 315:236-51 CrossRef
  2. ASCE Task Committee (2000) Application of artificial neural networks in hydrology. J. Hydrol Eng 5:115-23 CrossRef
  3. Bhaskar NR, Parida BP, Nayak AK (1997) Flood estimation for ungauged catchment using the GIUH. J Water Resour Plan Manag ASCE 123:228-38 CrossRef
  4. Chutha P, Dooge JCI (1990) The shape of parameters of the Geomorphologic Unit hydrograph. J Hydrol 117:81-7 CrossRef
  5. Hong W, Feng L (2008) On hydrologic calculation using artificial neural networks. Appl Math Lett 21:453-58 CrossRef
  6. Jain SK, Singh RD, Seth SM (2000) Design flood estimation using GIS supported GIUH approach. Water Resour Manag 14:369-76 CrossRef
  7. Kumar A, Kumar D (2004) Derivation of a kinematic-wave and topographically based instantaneous unit hydrograph for a hilly catchment. Hydrology J IAH 27:15-7
  8. Kumar A, Kumar D (2007) A geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph model applied to the Chaukhutia watershed, India. Hydrol J 30:65-6
  9. Majumdar M, Barman RN, Jana BK, Roy PK, Mazumdar A (2009) Application of neuro-genetic algorithm to determine reservoir response in different hydrologic adversaries. J Soil Water Res Inst Agric Econ Inf 4:17-7
  10. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models Part 1-A discussion of principals. J Hydrol 10:282-90 CrossRef
  11. Neelakantan TR, Pundarikanthan NV (2000) Neural network based simulation-optimization model for reservoir operation. J Water Resour Plan Manag 126:57-4 CrossRef
  12. Ray C, Klindworth KK (2000) Neural networks for agrichemical vulnerability assessment of rural private wells. J. Hydrol Eng 5:162-71 CrossRef
  13. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Valdes JB (1979) The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response. Water Resour Res 15:1409-420 CrossRef
  14. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Deroto G, Valdes JB (1979) Discharge response analysis and hydrologic similarity: the interrelation between the geomorphologic IUH and the storm characteristics. Water Resour Res 15:1435-444 CrossRef
  15. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Gonzalez-Sanabria M, Caamano G (1982) On the climatic dependence of the IUH: a rainfall-runoff analysis of the Nash model and the geomorphoclimatic theory. Water Resour Res 4:887-03 CrossRef
  16. Sahoo B, Chatterjee C, Raghuwanshi NS (2005) Runoff prediction in ungauged basins at different basin map scales. Hydrol J 28:45-8
  17. Sahoo B, Chatterjee C, Narendra S, Singh RR, Kumar R (2006) Flood Estimation by GIUH-based Clark and Nash models. J Hydrol Eng 11:515-25 CrossRef
  18. Sherman LK (1932) Stream flow from rainfall by the unit-graph method. Eng News Record 108:501-05
  19. Singh SK (2004) Simplified use of gamma distribution/Nash model for runoff modelling. J Hydrol Eng 9:240-43 CrossRef
  20. Smart JS (1972) Channel networks, advances in hydrosciences. In: Chow (ed), vol 8, Academic Press, New York, pp 305-46
  21. Sorman AU (1995) Estimation of peak discharge using GIUH model in Saudi Arabia. J Water Resour Plan Manag ASCE 121:287-93 CrossRef
  22. Task Committee ASCE (1993) Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J Irrig Drain Eng 119:429-42 CrossRef
  23. Troutman BM, Karlinger MR (1985) Unit hydrograph approximations assuming linear How through topologically random channel networks. Water Resour Res 21:743-54 CrossRef
  24. Valdes JB, Fiallo Y, Rodriguez-Iturbo I (1979) A rainfall runoff analysis of the geomorphologic IUH. Water Resour Res 15:1421-434 CrossRef
  25. Wooding RA (1965) A hydraulic model for the catchment-stream problem: II. numerical solution. J Hydrol 3:268-82 CrossRef
  26. Yen BC, Lee KT (1997) Unit hydrograph derivation for ungauged watersheds by stream-order laws- J Hydrol Eng ASCE 2:1- CrossRef
  27. Zhang B, Govindaraju RS (2003) Geomorphology-based artificial neural networks (GANNs) for estimation of direct runoff over watersheds. J Hydrol 273:18-4 CrossRef
  28. Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Van Liew M (2008) Multi-site calibration of the SWAT model for hydrologic modeling. Trans ASABE 51:2039-049
  
• 作者单位：S. K. Mondal (1)
  S. Jana (1)
  M. Majumder (2)
  D. Roy (1)
  
  1. School of Water Resources Engineering, Jadavpur University, 188, Raja S.C. Mallik Road, Kolkata, 700032, India
  2. National Institute of Technology, Agartala, Tripura (West), 799005, India
  
• ISSN：2190-5495

文摘

Traditional techniques for estimation of flood using historical rainfall–runoff data are restricted in application for small basins due to poor stream gauging network. To overcome such difficulties, various techniques including those involving the morphologic details of the ungauged basin have been evolved. The geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph method belongs to the latter approach. In this study, a gamma geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph (GGIUH) model (based on geomorphologic characteristics of the basin and the Nash instantaneous unit hydrograph model) was calibrated and validated for prediction of direct runoff (flood) from the catchment of the Dulung-Nala (a tributary of the Subarnarekha River System) at Phekoghat station in the state of West Bengal in the eastern part of India. Sensitivity analysis revealed that a change in the model parameters viz., n, R A and R B by 1-0% resulted in the peak discharge to vary from 1.1 to 27.2%, 3.4 to 21.2% and 3.4 to 21.6%, respectively, and the runoff volume to vary from 0.3 to 12.5%, 2.1 to 2.6% and 2.2 to 2.7%, respectively. The Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency criterion, percentage error in volume, the percentage error in peak, and net difference of observed and simulated time to peak which were used for performance evaluation, have been found to range from 74.2 to 95.1%, 2.9 to 20.9%, 0.1 to 20.8% and ? to 3?h, respectively, indicating a good performance of the GGIUH model for prediction of runoff hydrograph. Again, an artificial neural network (ANN) model was prepared to predict ordinates of discharge hydrograph using calibrative approach. Both the ANN and GGIUH models were found to have predicted the hydrograph characteristics in a satisfactory manner. Further, direct surface runoff hydrographs computed using the GGIUH model at two map scales (viz. 1:50,000 and 1:250,000) were found to yield comparable results for the two map scales. For a final clarification, the probability density function of the actual and predicted data from the two models was prepared to compare the pattern identification ability of both the models. The GGIUH model was found to identify the distribution pattern better than the ANN model, although both the models were found to be ably replicating the data patterns of the observed dataset.