Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)


Published online 4 October 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6812

Hydrological time-series modelling using an adaptive


neuro-fuzzy inference system
Mahmut Firat* and Mahmud Güngör
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20017 Denizli, Turkey

Abstract:
Accurate forecasting of hydrological time-series is a quite important issue for a wise and sustainable use of water resources. In
this study, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach is used to construct a time-series forecasting system. In
particular, the applicability of an ANFIS to the forecasting of the time-series is investigated. To illustrate the applicability and
capability of an ANFIS, the River Great Menderes, located in western Turkey, is chosen as a case study area. The advantage of
this method is that it uses the input–output data sets. A total of 5844 daily data sets collected from 1985 to 2000 are used for
the time-series forecasting. Models having various input structures were constructed and the best structure was investigated.
In addition, four various training/testing data sets were built by cross-validation methods and the best data set was obtained.
The performance of the ANFIS models in training and testing sets was compared with observations and also evaluated. In
order to get an accurate and reliable comparison, the best-fit model structure was also trained and tested by artificial neural
networks and traditional time-series analysis techniques and the results compared. The results indicate that the ANFIS can
be applied successfully and provide high accuracy and reliability for time-series modelling. Copyright  2007 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS hydrological time-series; ANFIS; ANN; fuzzy logic; River Great Menderes

Received 25 September 2006; Accepted 1 May 2007

INTRODUCTION tool to the conventional methods for modelling of com-


plex hydrologic systems and have been widely used
In recent decades, the forecasting of time-series in hydro- for prediction. Some specific applications of ANNs to
logical processes has become quite important to deliver hydrology include modelling the rainfall–runoff process
sustainable use and effective planning and management (Sajikumar and Thandaveswara, 1999), rainfall forecast-
of water resources. In order to estimate hydrological pro- ing (Bodri and Cermak, 2000), river flow forecasting
cesses such as precipitation, runoff and change of water (Chang et al., 2002; Dibike and Solomatine, 2001; Sud-
level by using existing methods, parameters such as the heer and Jain; 2004), sediment transport prediction (Firat
physical properties of the watershed and river network and Güngör, 2004), and sediment concentration estima-
and observed detail data are necessary. In the litera- tion (Nagy et al., 2002). The ASCE Task Committee
ture, there have been many approaches generally used (2000) undertook a comprehensive review of the applica-
in the forecasting of time-series, such as the Box and tions of ANNs in hydrological forecasting context. Jain
Jenkins (1970) autoregressive (AR), AR moving average and Kumar (2007) proposed a new hybrid time-series
(ARMA), AR integrated moving average, and autore- neural network model that is capable of exploiting the
gressive moving average with exogenous inputs methods.
strengths of traditional time-series approaches and ANNs.
Some of the earliest examples of the AR type of stream
Tingsanchali and Gautam (2000) applied neural networks
flow forecast models include those of Thomas and Fier-
and stochastic hydrologic models to the forecasting of
ing (1962) and Yevjevich (1963). Carlson et al. (1970)
floods in two river basins in Thailand.
proposed significant developments in the form of ARMA
Another approach is the fuzzy logic method, first
models of the hydrologic time-series. These approaches
developed to explain the human thinking and decision
have employed conventional methods of time-series fore-
system by Zadeh (Şen, 2001). Several studies have
casting and modelling (Toth et al., 2000; Owen et al.,
been carried out using fuzzy logic in hydrology and
2001; Ho et al., 2002; BuHamra et al., 2003; Zhang,
2003; Arena et al., 2006; Komornik et al., 2006; Moham- water resources planning (Liong et al., 2000; Mahabir
madi et al., 2006). Artificial neural networks (ANNs) et al., 2000; Chang et al., 2001; Özelkan and Duck-
have recently been accepted as an efficient alternative stein, 2001; Nayak et al., 2004a; Şen and Altunkaynak,
2006). Recently, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference sys-
tem (ANFIS), which consists of the ANN and fuzzy
logic methods, has been used for several application,
* Correspondence to: Mahmut Firat, Civil Engineering Department, Fac-
ulty of Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20017 Denizli, Turkey. such as database management, system design and plan-
E-mail: mfirat@pamukkale.edu.tr ning/forecasting of water resources (Chang et al., 2001;

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING ANFIS 2123

Nayak et al., 2004b; Chang and Chang, 2006; Chen et al., Knowledge Base
2006; Firat and Güngör, 2007; Firat, 2007). INPUT OUTPUT
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the Database Rulebase
applicability and capability of the ANFIS for hydrolog- Fuzzification Defuzzification
ical time-series forecasting and modelling. To verify the
application of this approach, the River Great Menderes Decision
System
catchment located in the western part of Turkey is cho-
sen as the case study area. The River Great Menderes is Figure 1. The general structure of the fuzzy inference system
one of the most important water resources in Turkey. In
this region, the River Great Menderes has a quite signifi- 2006; Chen et al., 2006; Firat and Güngör, 2007). ANFIS
cant effect on drinking water supply, irrigation, hydro-
uses the learning ability of the ANN to define the
electric energy production and recreation. The River
input–output relationship and construct the fuzzy rules by
Great Menderes flow change depends on various impacts,
determining the input structure. The system results were
such as climatic and hydro-meteorological variables of
obtained by the thinking and reasoning capability of the
the basin, anthropogenic effects of human activities and
fuzzy logic. The hybrid-learning algorithm and subtrac-
water usage for agricultural and hydroelectric energy. To
tive function are used to determine the input structure.
exemplify its applicability and demonstrate that the adap-
The detailed algorithm and mathematical background of
tive network fuzzy inference system has the ability to
the hybrid-learning algorithm can be found in Jang et al.
deal with human activities, we developed ANFIS models
(1997). There are two types of fuzzy inference system
having various input structures for time-series forecast-
in the literature: the Sugeno–Takagi inference system
ing. The models are then applied to the prediction of the
and the Mamdani inference system. In this study, the
flows of the River Great Menderes.
Sugeno–Takagi inference system is used for modelling
of hydrological time-series. The most important differ-
THE ADAPTIVE NEURAL FUZZY INFERENCE ence between these systems is the definition of the con-
SYSTEM sequence parameter. The consequence parameter in the
Sugeno inference system is a linear equation, called a
The fuzzy logic approach is based on a linguistic uncer-
‘first-order Sugeno inference system’, or a constant coef-
tainty expression rather than on numerical uncertainty.
ficient, called a ‘zero-order Sugeno inference system’
Since Zadeh proposed the fuzzy logic approach to
(Jang et al., 1997). It is assumed that the fuzzy inference
describe complicated systems, it has become popular and
system includes two inputs, x and y, and one output, z.
has been used successfully in various engineering prob-
For the first-order Sugeno inference system, typical two
lems (Liong et al., 2000; Mahabir et al., 2000; Chang
rules can be expressed as
et al., 2001; Şen, 2001; Nayak et al., 2004a,b; Chang
and Chang, 2006; Chen et al., 2006; Firat and Güngör,
2007). ANFIS, consisting of the combination of ANNs Rule 1: IF x is A1 and y is B1 THEN f1 D p1 x C q1 y C
and fuzzy logic, has been used by many researchers to r1
organize the network structure itself and to adapt the Rule 2: IF x is A2 and y is B2 THEN f2 D p2 x C q2 y C
parameters of the fuzzy system for many engineering r2
problems, such as the modelling of hydrological time-
series. The fuzzy inference system is a rule-based sys- where x and y are the crisp inputs to the node i, Ai and Bi
tem consisting of three conceptual components. These are the linguistic labels such as low, medium, high, etc.,
are: (1) a rule base, containing fuzzy if–then rules, (2) a which are characterized by convenient membership func-
database, defining the membership function and (3) an tions, and pi , qi and ri are the consequence parameters.
inference system, combining the fuzzy rules and produc- The structure of this fuzzy inference system is shown in
ing the system results (Şen, 2001). The first phase of Figure 2.
fuzzy logic modelling is determination of the member- The ANFIS scheme consists of five layers, and the
ship functions of the input–output variables, the second model can be briefly presented step by step as follows.
phase is the construction of fuzzy rules, and the last phase
is the determination of the output characteristics, out-
w1
put membership function and system results (Firat and mA1 w1(x,y) w1 =
w1+w2
Güngör, 2007; Murat, 2006). Two methods, called the x N f1(x,y)
back-propagation algorithm and the hybrid-learning algo- Π w1 f1
mA2
rithm, provide the learning of the ANFIS and construction f (x,y)
of the rules and are used to determine the membership mB1
function of the input–output variables. A general struc- y N f2(x,y) w2 f2
ture of fuzzy system is demonstrated in Figure 1. Π w2
mB2 w2(x,y) w2 =
ANFIS has been shown to be powerful in modelling w1+w2
numerous processes, such as rainfall–runoff modelling Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5
and real-time reservoir operation (Chang and Chang, Figure 2. The ANFIS scheme

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
2124 M. FIRAT AND M. GÜNGÖR


Input nodes (layer 1). Each node in this layer generates Qi5 D fx, y D wi .fi
membership grades of the crisp inputs which belong to i
each of convenient fuzzy sets by using the membership 
functions. Each node’s output Oi1 is calculated by w i fi
i
D w i f1 C w i f2 D  7
Oi1 D Ai x for i D 1, 2; wi
i
Oi1 D Bi2 y for i D 3, 4 1
The ANN is trained based on supervised learning. The
where Ai and Bi are the membership functions for the objective is to train adaptive networks having convenient
Ai and Bi fuzzy sets respectively. Various membership unknown functions given by the training data and to find
functions, such as trapezoidal, triangular, Gaussian func- the proper values of the input and output parameters.
tion, etc., can be applied to determine the membership ANFIS applies the hybrid-learning algorithm to achieve
grades. In this study, the Gaussian membership function this aim, which consists of a combination of the ‘gradient
is used: descent’ and the ‘least-squares’ methods. The gradient
 
x  c2 descent method is used to assign the non-linear input
1
Oi D Ai x D exp 2 parameters, and the least-squares method is employed
2 2 to identify the linear output parameters (pi , qi , ri ). The
where the premise parameters change the shape of the antecedent parameter, i.e. MF given in layer 2, is applied
membership function from one to zero. to construct the rules of the ANFIS model. Since the
input variables within a range might be clustered into
Rule nodes (layer 2). In this layer, the AND/OR several classes, the structure of the input layer needs to be
operator is applied to get one output that represents the determined accurately. The ‘subtractive fuzzy clustering’
results of the antecedent for a fuzzy rule, i.e. firing function, which offers an effective result using less rules,
strength. The outputs of the second layer, called firing is applied to solve the problem in the ANFIS modelling
strengths Oi2 , are the products of the corresponding (Nayak et al., 2004b).
degrees obtained from layer 1, termed w, as follows:

Oi2 D wi D Ai xBi y i D 1, 2 3 STUDY AREA AND THE DATA USED
The applicability of ANFIS as a time-series forecasting
Average nodes (layer 3). The main target is to compute model is investigated. To illustrate the validity and capa-
the ratio of firing strength of each ith rule to the sum of bility of the ANFIS method for time-series forecasting
the firing strengths of all rules. The firing strength in this and modelling, the River Great Menderes, the biggest
layer is normalized as river in western Anatolia, located in the western part of
wi Turkey, is chosen. The river has been used for irrigation,
Oi3 D wi D  i D 1, 2 4 hydropower generation, domestic use and recreation. The
wi
i
Great Menderes catchment is one of the most important
agricultural regions in Turkey because of its ecological
Consequent nodes (layer 4). The contribution of the ith features. It has a length of 560 km and a drainage area
rule towards the total output or the model output and/or of 24 976 km2 . The annual runoff potential of the river
the function defined is calculated by is 3Ð03 km3 . The location of the River Great Menderes
and its drainage basin are shown in Figure 3. There are
Oi4 D wi fi D wi pi x C qi y C ri  i D 1, 2 5 two river-flow gauging stations, Aydın Bridge (706) and
Burhaniye (712), equipped with automatic daily flow
where wi is the ith node output from the previous layer recorders, on the Great Menderes main branch, as shown
as demonstrated in the third layer. fpi , qi , ri g is the in Figure 3. As can be seen in the figure, the flow gaug-
parameter set in the consequence function and also the ing station of Burhaniye (712) is located upstream of the
coefficients of linear combination in the Sugeno inference flow gauging station Aydın Bridge (706). The records
system. of the Aydın Bridge (706) flow gauging station, located
at 27° 500 2600 W and 37° 470 0000 N, are used for time-series
Output nodes (layer 5). This layer is termed the output forecasting and modelling.
node, in which a single node computes the overall output
by summing all incoming signals and it is the last step
of the ANFIS. The output of the system is calculated as RIVER FLOW ESTIMATION BY THE ADAPTIVE
NEURO-FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM
w1 x, yf1 x, y C w2 x, yf2 x, y
fx, y D
w1 x, y C w2 x, y Input variables
w 1 f1 C w 2 f2 The river flow process in any cross-section of a river
D 6 system can be characterized as the function of various
w1 C w2

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING ANFIS 2125

Figure 3. Location of the River Great Menderes and its drainage area

variables, such as spatial and temporal distribution of between input and output variables are calculated in
rainfall, catchment and river physical characteristics. The order to apply the ANFIS model. Different combina-
relationship between river flow and influential variables tions of the antecedent flows of the two stations were
can be expressed by used to construct an appropriate input structure in the
time-series forecasting model. Two different types of
Qt D fXt C εt 8 model were constructed. The first one, called the Runoff-
where Qt denotes the river flow in any cross-section I forecasting model, includes only the Aydın Bridge
of the river system, Xt is the input vector, which (706) station; the second, called the Runoff-II fore-
consists of many variables (such as the spatial and casting model, consists of a combination of the Aydın
temporal distribution of rainfall, catchment and river Bridge (706) and Burhaniye (712) stations. The gen-
physical characteristics at various time lags), and εt is eral structures of the time-series forecasting models are
the random error. In river flow modelling and forecasting, given in Equation (9) and Equation (10) for the Runoff-
these parameters affect the performance of the forecasting I and Runoff-II models respectively. The structures of
model because the input vector includes a number of the Runoff-I and -II forecasting models are shown in
antecedent values of these variables. Owing to the Tables II and III:
complexity of this process, most conventional approaches
are often unable to provide sufficiently accurate and Qt706 D fQt  1706 , Qt  2706 , . . . ,
reliable results. Qt  n706  C εt 9
A total of 5844 observed daily data sets have been
obtained from the river flow gauging stations of the Qt706 D fQt  1706 , Qt  1712 , . . . ,
Aydın Bridge (706) and Burhaniye (712) for the period Qt  n706 , Qt  n712  C εt 10
1985–2000. To discriminate the process of segregation,
the statistical parameters (i.e. minimum value xmin , max- where Qt represents the river flow at time t, Qt 
imum value xmax , mean x, standard deviation sx , varia- 1, . . . , Qt  n are the respective river flows at times
tion coefficient cvx , skewness coefficient csx ) for the total t  1, . . . , t  n, and εt is the random error.
observed daily data sets are given in Table I. It is evident that the training data sets should cover
all the characteristics of the problem in order to obtain
Model structures an effective forecast. For this purpose, the data set was
One of the most important steps in developing a sat- divided into four training/testing subsets, i.e. m1 , m2 ,
isfactory forecasting model is the selection of the input m3 and m4 , by cross-validation method as a systematic
variables, because these variables determine the struc- process to get effective and sensitive modelling. The
ture of the ANFIS model and affect the weighted coef- structures of the data set are given in Table IV and
ficient and the results of the model. Cross-correlations Figure 4.
In each model every input variable might be clustered
Table I. The statistical parameter for data sets into several class values in layer 1 to build up the fuzzy
rules. Each fuzzy rule is constructed through several
xmin xmax x sx csx parameters of the membership function in layer 2. If
the number of parameters that need to be determined
Qt706 m3 s1  0Ð05 227Ð01 32Ð28 25Ð90 2Ð42
Qt712 m3 s1  0Ð21 211Ð90 20Ð92 11Ð81 1Ð79 increases with the fuzzy rule increment, then the model
structure will become more complicated. In this study, the

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
2126 M. FIRAT AND M. GÜNGÖR

Table II. Model structures of Runoff-I for time-series forecasting

ANFIS model Input structure No. of variables Output

R-I M1 Qt  1706 1 Qt706


R-I M2 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 2 Qt706
R-I M3 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 3 Qt706
R-I M4 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  4706 4 Qt706
R-I M5 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  4706 Qt  5706 5 Qt706
R-I M6 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  4706 Qt  5706 Qt  6706 6 Qt706
R-I M7 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  4706 Qt  5706 Qt  6706 Qt  7706 7 Qt706

Table III. Model structures of Runoff-II for time-series forecasting

ANFIS model Input structure No. variables Output

R-II M1 Qt  1706 Qt  1712 2 Qt706


R-II M2 Qt  1706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 3 Qt706
R-II M3 Qt  1706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 Qt  3712 4 Qt706
R-II M4 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  1712 3 Qt706
R-II M5 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 4 Qt706
R-II M6 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 Qt  3712 5 Qt706
R-II M7 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  1712 4 Qt706
R-II M8 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 5 Qt706
R-II M9 Qt  1706 Qt  2706 Qt  3706 Qt  1712 Qt  2712 Qt  3712 6 Qt706

Table IV. The cross-validation data sets for time-series forecast- root-mean-square error RMSE.
ing

N
Cross-validation Dates of the data No. of data QD  QD QY  QY 
iD1
m1 1 Oct 1984–30 Sep 1988 1461 CORR D  11
 N
m2 1 Oct 1988–30 Sep 1992 1461 
m3 1 Oct 1993–30 Sep 1996 1461  Q  Q 2 Q  Q 2
D D Y Y
m4 1 Oct 1996–30 Sep 2000 1461 iD1

E1  E2 
N
ED E1 D QD  QD 2
E1 tD1
Testing Training Training Training
MY1 m1 m2 m3 m4 
N
E2 D QY  QD 2 12
Training Testing Training Training tD1
MY2 m1 m2 m3 m4  0Ð5

N
QD  QY 2
Training Training Testing Training RMSE D 13
iD1
N
MY3 m1 m2 m3 m4

Training Training Training Testing where, QY is the forecasted river flow by ANFIS, QD
MY4 m1 m2 m3 m4 is the observation river flow, QY is the average of
forecasted river flows, and QD is the average of the
Figure 4. The training and testing data set for time-series forecasting
observation river flows. The correlation coefficient is
a commonly used statistic and provides information
on the strength of the linear relationship between the
subtractive fuzzy clustering function is used to establish observed and the computed values. The efficiency E is
the fuzzy rule based on the relationship between the input one of the widely employed statistics to evaluate model
and output variables. The hybrid algorithm is used in performance. The values of CORR and E close to 1Ð0
order to determine the non-linear input and linear output indicate good model performance. RMSE evaluates the
parameters. The learning procedure and the construction residual between measured and forecasted river flow.
of the rules are provided by this algorithm (Nayak et al., Theoretically, if this criterion equals zero then model
2004b; Firat and Güngör, 2007). The performances of the represents the perfect fit, which is not possible at all.
ANFIS models for both the training data and the testing The performances of Runoff-I and -II for time-series
data are evaluated and the best training/testing data set is forecasting models are given in Tables V and VI.
selected according to the absolute average relative error As can be seen from Table IV, the ANFIS models are
AARE, correlation coefficient CORR, efficiency E and evaluated based on their performance in the training and

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING ANFIS 2127

Table V. Comparison of the performances of the Runoff-I forecasting models

Criteria Testing data R-I M1 R-I M2 R-I M3 R-I M4 R-I M5 R-I M6 R-I M7

RMSE 1984–1988 7Ð153 7Ð100 7Ð150 7Ð430 6Ð930 7Ð050 7Ð07


1989–1992 4Ð040 3Ð910 3Ð930 3Ð940 3Ð970 3Ð960 4Ð030
1993–1996 6Ð400 6Ð130 6Ð300 6Ð720 6Ð290 6Ð290 6Ð30
1996–2000 8Ð940 9Ð210 9Ð200 9Ð03 14Ð17 9Ð030 10Ð71
E 1984–1988 0Ð920 0Ð926 0Ð925 0Ð920 0Ð920 0Ð920 0Ð920
1989–1992 0Ð920 0Ð923 0Ð923 0Ð920 0Ð920 0Ð920 0Ð922
1993–1996 0Ð860 0Ð862 0Ð864 0Ð843 0Ð862 0Ð861 0Ð860
1996–2000 0Ð900 0Ð903 0Ð903 0Ð900 0Ð796 0Ð900 0Ð869
AARE 1984–1988 0Ð073 0Ð073 0Ð073 0Ð074 0Ð074 0Ð074 0Ð075
1989–1992 0Ð120 0Ð120 0Ð115 0Ð116 0Ð115 0Ð117 0Ð127
1993–1996 0Ð190 0Ð229 0Ð321 0Ð184 0Ð22 0Ð242 0Ð195
1996–2000 0Ð102 0Ð100 0Ð103 0Ð102 0Ð122 0Ð102 0Ð112
CORR 1984–1988 0Ð960 0Ð964 0Ð962 0Ð962 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð960
1989–1992 0Ð960 0Ð961 0Ð961 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð960
1993–1996 0Ð931 0Ð933 0Ð933 0Ð923 0Ð933 0Ð933 0Ð931
1996–2000 0Ð955 0Ð955 0Ð955 0Ð950 0Ð897 0Ð950 0Ð939

Table VI. Comparison of the performances of the Runoff-II forecasting models

Testing data R-II M1 R-II M2 R-II M3 R-II M4 R-II M5 R-II M6 R-II M7 R-II M8 R-II M9

RMSE 1984–1988 6Ð03 6Ð89 6Ð76 6Ð85 6Ð85 7Ð48 7Ð04 7Ð06 7Ð09
1989–1992 6Ð98 6Ð94 6Ð90 6Ð94 6Ð87 6Ð72 6Ð69 6Ð65 6Ð72
1993–1996 6Ð34 6Ð35 6Ð39 6Ð21 6Ð28 6Ð08 6Ð21 6Ð42 6Ð37
1996–2000 9Ð05 9Ð88 9Ð78 9Ð20 9Ð29 9Ð06 9Ð07 9Ð12 9Ð12
E 1984–1988 0Ð934 0Ð929 0Ð930 0Ð933 0Ð930 0Ð922 0Ð932 0Ð928 0Ð927
1989–1992 0Ð924 0Ð922 0Ð928 0Ð931 0Ð931 0Ð930 0Ð935 0Ð930 0Ð930
1993–1996 0Ð858 0Ð854 0Ð851 0Ð864 0Ð861 0Ð870 0Ð863 0Ð857 0Ð861
1996–2000 0Ð900 0Ð900 0Ð900 0Ð900 0Ð891 0Ð900 0Ð897 0Ð898 0Ð888
AARE 1984–1988 0Ð073 0Ð075 0Ð074 0Ð073 0Ð075 0Ð074 0Ð073 0Ð078 0Ð074
1989–1992 0Ð124 0Ð117 0Ð113 0Ð110 0Ð113 0Ð119 0Ð108 0Ð125 0Ð106
1993–1996 0Ð271 0Ð208 0Ð465 0Ð254 0Ð448 0Ð323 0Ð444 0Ð201 0Ð485
1996–2000 0Ð103 0Ð100 0Ð095 0Ð100 0Ð102 0Ð098 0Ð096 0Ð100 0Ð098
CORR 1984–1988 0Ð968 0Ð960 0Ð963 0Ð968 0Ð967 0Ð961 0Ð963 0Ð965 0Ð964
1989–1992 0Ð964 0Ð960 0Ð962 0Ð966 0Ð966 0Ð964 0Ð966 0Ð962 0Ð962
1993–1996 0Ð933 0Ð930 0Ð932 0Ð933 0Ð934 0Ð937 0Ð935 0Ð930 0Ð932
1996–2000 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð960 0Ð955 0Ð957 0Ð957 0Ð957 0Ð963

testing sets. Note that the models are trained using non- the best cross-validation training/testing data set was
transformed data. The models show significant variations determined. As seen in Table V, in the testing of R-I M2,
as to the criteria of the performance evaluation given in the lowest value of the RMSE is 3Ð910 (for MY1) and the
Table V. It appears that the ANFIS models are accurate highest is 9Ð210 (for MY4). On the other hand, it appears
and consistent in different subsets, where all the values of that all the values of AARE, efficiency E and CORR
RMSE and AARE are small enough, and all correlation of the MY1 data set are higher than those of other data
coefficients and efficiencies are very close to unity. The sets are. As a result, the ANFIS model consisting of two
lowest value of the RMSE is 3Ð910 (in R-I M1) and antecedent flows is chosen as the best-fit model structure.
the highest is 14Ð17 (in R-I M5). The values of the This ANFIS model showed the highest performance in
AARE (7Ð30%) and RMSE (3Ð910) in forecasting R-I training of the MY1 cross-validation data set.
M2 are much lower than those of the other models are. Table VI shows that the lowest value of the RMSE is
In addition, the efficiency value (0Ð926) and correlation 6Ð03 (in R-II M1) and the highest value is 9Ð88 (in R-II
coefficient (0Ð964) of the model R-I M2 are higher than M2). The values of AARE (7Ð30%) and RMSE (6Ð03)
those of the other models are. R-I M2, which consists in forecasting R-II M1 are much lower than those of
of two antecedent flows in the input, shows the highest other models are. In addition, the values of E (0Ð934)
efficiency and correlation and the minimum RMSE and and CORR (0Ð968) in forecasting R-II M1 are higher
AARE. As a result, R-I M2 is selected as the best-fit than those of other models are. R-II M1, which consists
model to estimate the river flow in the Great Menderes of two antecedent flows in the input, shows the highest
catchment. The performance of the best model (R-I M2) efficiency and correlation and the minimum RMSE and
was compared for all the cross-validation data sets and AARE. As a result, R-II M1 is selected as the best-fit

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
2128 M. FIRAT AND M. GÜNGÖR

model to estimate the river flow in the Great Menderes As seen from Table VII, performance of the R-II M1
catchments. The performance of the best model (R-II forecasting model is better than that of R-I M2 model.
M1) was compared for all the cross-validation data sets According to the criteria previously mentioned, the R-
and the best cross-validation training/testing data set was II M1 forecasting model structure is selected as the
determined. As seen in Table VI, in the testing of Model best-fit time-series forecasting model trained with the
1, the lowest value of the RMSE is 6Ð03 (for MY1) MY1 data set. The best-fit model structure for the time-
and the highest value is 9Ð34 (for the MY1 data set). series forecasting and modelling is shown in Figure 5
On the other hand, it appears that all the values of and the training parameters of this model are given in
AARE, E and CORR of the MY1 data set are higher Table VIII.
than those of other data sets are. As a result, the ANFIS
model consisting of two antecedent flows was chosen as
the best-fit model structure. This ANFIS model showed
the highest performance in training of the MY1 data Q(t-1)706 . Π Π
set. The best-fit structures of the Runoff-I and Runoff- .
II models are given in Equation (14) and Equation (15)
respectively. The performances of the best-fit R-I M2 and Π Π Q(t)706
R-II M1 forecasting models are shown in Table VII. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
R-I M2 ANFIS model : .
Π Π
Q(t-1)712
Qt706 D fQt  1706 , Qt  2706  C εt 14
Input Membership Output Membership
Fuzzy Rules Output
R-II M1 ANFIS model : Functions Functions

Figure 5. The structure of the best ANFIS model for time-series forecast-
Qt706 D fQt  1706 , Qt  1712  C εt 15 ing

Table VII. Comparison of the performances of the R-I M2 and


R-II M1 ANFIS models Table VIII. The training parameters of the R-II M1 ANFIS
forecasting model
Model Testing set
Number of rules 4
RMSE E AARE CORR Number of iterations 30
Membership function Gauss
R-I M2 7Ð100 0Ð926 0Ð073 0Ð964 AND method prod
R-II M1 6Ð830 0Ð934 0Ð073 0Ð968 Defuzzification method Weighted average

Training Data R- I M2 ANFIS Testing Data R- I M2 ANFIS


250 240
River Flow River Flow
200 200
ANFIS Estimation

ANFIS Estimation

160
150
120
100
80
50
40
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Observation Observation

Training Data R- II M1 ANFIS Testing Data R- II M1 ANFIS


250 240
River Flow River Flow
200 200
ANFIS Estimation

ANFIS Estimation

160
150
120
100
80
50 40

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Observation Observation

Figure 6. Comparison of the runoff ANFIS forecasting models and observation

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING ANFIS 2129

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION internal dependent component and independent (random)


components. Trend is the evidence of an increase or
The results of the ANFIS models are compared with
decrease of process parameters (mean and standard
the observed flows in order to evaluate the performance
deviation) with time. It is understood that there is a
of the training/testing of the runoff models. Figure 6
periodic component when the parameters of the process
shows the scatter diagrams of the estimated values of
show variation in a determined period. The Box–Cox
the training/testing of the ANFIS models and observed
transformation was applied to the data to converge the
values.
data to a normal distribution. The periodicities of the
Figure 6 demonstrates that the ANFIS model perfor-
daily means and standard deviations were calculated by
mance is, in general, accurate and satisfactory, where all
data points are quite near the line of agreement. The using Fourier series to arrange the periodicity in the data.
results of the ANFIS model demonstrate that the ANFIS DYt  DY
can be successfully applied to establish accurate and reli- DNYt D 16
able time-series forecasting models. In order to get a DY
true and effective evaluation of the performance of the where DNY(t) is the normalized time-series variable,
ANFIS model, the best model structure having two input DY(t) is the original time-series variable, DY is the mean
variables has also been trained and tested by ANNs and of the original time-series data and DY is the standard
traditional time-series analysis techniques, i.e. AR mod- deviation of the original time-series data. An AR(2)
els. model, which includes input variables of the Runoff-I
model, is used to compare the responses of the R-II M1
Artificial neural network model ANFIS model. The structure of the AR model can be
The ANN models are trained and tested using the same expressed by the following:
non-transformed data set. The error back-propagation
algorithm and tangent activation function are used for 
N

training/testing of the ANN models. The number of Qt D ˛i Qt  i C εt 17
iD1
hidden layers and the hidden neurons in this layer, the
learning rate (0Ð1), the coefficient of momentum (0Ð5) where Qt is the daily river flow, Qt  i is the river
and epochs (1000) were selected by trial and error during flow at time t  i, ˛ is the AR parameter to be
the training. The structure of the Runoff-II ANN model determined, i is an index representing the order of the AR
consists of 10 hidden neurons. model and εt is the random error. In addition, a Markov
model is used in order to evaluate the performance
Autoregressive model of the R-II M1 ANFIS model, which consists of the
In traditional time-series analysis, the data set must be combination of flows of river flow gauging stations.
divided in to a periodic component, a trend component, an In this study, a first-order Markov model is chosen

Testing Data R- II M1 ANN Testing Data R- II M1 ANFIS


240 240
River Flow River Flow
200 200
ANFIS Estimation
ANN Estimation

160 160

120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Observation Observation

Training Data R- II M1 ANN Training Data R- II M1 ANFIS


250 250
River Flow River Flow
200 200
ANFIS Estimation
ANN Estimation

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Observation Observation

Figure 7. Comparison of the R-II M1 ANFIS and ANN models

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
2130 M. FIRAT AND M. GÜNGÖR

to compare the results of the R-II M1 ANFIS model Table IX. Comparison of test performances of ANFIS, ANN and
consisting of the river flows of two stations. Once the traditional models
estimates of the traditional time-series model coefficients Model RMSE E AARE CORR
have been obtained using the training data set, the
model can be validated by computing the performance R-I M2 ANFIS 7Ð100 0Ð926 0Ð073 0Ð964
statistics during both the training and testing data sets. R-I M2 ANN 9Ð620 0Ð875 0Ð103 0Ð938
The performances of the ANFIS, the ANN and the AR(2) (for Runoff-I) 10Ð34 0Ð856 0Ð118 0Ð928
traditional time-series analysis techniques are given in R-II M1 ANFIS 6Ð830 0Ð934 0Ð073 0Ð968
R-II M1 ANN 9Ð997 0Ð892 0Ð108 0Ð911
Table IX and a comparison of the results of the ANFIS AR(1) model (for Runoff-II) 10Ð045 0Ð869 0Ð113 0Ð934
and ANN models is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 8. Membership function of the R-II M1 ANFIS forecasting model

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING ANFIS 2131

and reliable in different subsets, where all the values of


RMSE and AARE are smaller and all the correlation
coefficients and efficiency are very close to unity. The
performances of the Runoff-I and -II forecasting models
were compared and the Runoff-II model trained with
the MY1 data set was selected as the best-fit model
structure according to the performance criteria previously
mentioned. According to the results of the R-II M
forecasting models, R-II M1, which consists of two
antecedent flows in the input, shows the highest efficiency
and correlation and the minimum RMSE and AARE. As a
Figure 9. Rule base of the R-II M1 ANFIS forecasting model result, the R-II M1 is the best-fit model for the time-series
forecasting in the Great Menderes catchment. In order to
Comparing the ANFIS and ANN forecasting models, get a true and effective evaluation of the performance of
it can be seen that the values of the AARE and RMSE the R-II M1 ANFIS model, the best-fit model structure
of the ANFIS model are much lower than that of the having two input variables was also trained and tested
ANN model are. It appears that the AARE of the ANFIS using ANNs. Comparing the two estimation models, it
model is lower (7Ð30%) than the ANN (10Ð08%) during can be seen that the values of the AARE and RMSE
testing. The RMSE value of the ANFIS model is also of the ANFIS model are much lower than those of the
lower (6Ð830) than that of the ANN model (9Ð997). In ANN model. The values of E and CORR of the ANFIS
addition, the values of the efficiency E and correlation model are higher than those of the ANN. It may be noted
coefficients CORR of the ANFIS model are higher than that the ANN model requires a trial-and-error procedure
those of ANN model are. The efficiency of the ANFIS to develop the best network structure, whereas such a
model is much higher (0Ð934) than that of the ANN model procedure is not required in developing an ANFIS model.
(0Ð892). The CORR of the ANFIS model is also higher The results suggest that the ANFIS method is superior to
(0Ð968) than the ANN (0Ð911). The results suggest that the ANN method in the modelling of time-series. The
the ANFIS method is superior to the ANN method in the results of the ANFIS model show that the ANFIS can be
modelling of time-series. The membership function and applied successfully to establish time-series forecasting
the rule base of the R-II M1 ANFIS forecasting model models, which could provide accurate forecasting and
are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively. modelling of time-series.
As can be seen from these figures, four membership
functions and rules were used in modelling of the hydro-
logical time-series using the ANFIS method. Moreover, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
it may be noted that a trial-and-error procedure has to be
performed for the ANN model to develop the best net- We are grateful to the anonymous referees for their
work structure, whereas no such procedure is required in helpful and constructive comments on an earlier draft
developing an ANFIS model. Moreover, in the current of this paper.
study, the ANFIS model was trained by using just 30
epochs, whereas the ANN model took 1000 epochs.
REFERENCES

Arena C, Cannarozzo M, Mazzola MR. 2006. Multi-year drought


CONCLUSIONS frequency analysis at multiple sites by operational hydrology— a
comparison of methods. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31:
This study investigated the applicability and capability 1146– 1163.
of the ANFIS method in river flow forecasting. The ASCE Task Committee. 2000. Artificial neural networks in hydrology—
II: hydrologic applications. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE
data set includes 5844 daily runoff data for the period 5: 124– 137.
1985–2000. The data set was divided in to four subsets Bodri L, Cermak V. 2000. Prediction of extreme precipitation using a
by the cross-validation method. Two different types of neural network: application to summer flood occurence in Moravia.
Advances in Engineering 31: 311– 321.
model were constructed: the Runoff-I and the Runoff- Box GEP, Jenkins G. 1970. Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and
II forecasting models. The performances of the ANFIS Control . Holden-Day: San Francisco, CA.
models and observations were compared and evaluated. BuHamra S, Smaoui N, Gabr M. 2003. The Box–Jenkins analysis
and neural networks: prediction and time series modelling. Applied
The ANFIS models were compared based on their Mathematical Modelling 27: 805–815.
performance in the training and testing sets. The ANN Carlson RF, MacCormick AJA, Watts DG. 1970. Application of linear
models were also investigated for the same set of data models to four annual streamflow series. Water Resources Research 6:
1070– 1078.
and the results are reported. The following conclusions Chang FJ, Chang YT. 2006. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for
can be drawn from the findings of this study. prediction of water level in reservoir. Advances in Water Resources 29:
The R-I M and R-II M forecasting models show 1–10.
Chang FJ, Hu HF, Chen YC. 2001. Counter propagation fuzzy– neural
significant variations in the criteria of the performance network for river flow reconstruction. Hydrological Processes 15:
evaluation. It appears that the ANFIS models are accurate 219– 232.

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
2132 M. FIRAT AND M. GÜNGÖR

Chang FJ, Chang LC, Huang HL. 2002. Real-time recurrent learning Nagy HM, Watanabe K, Hirano M. 2002. Prediction of sediment load
neural network for stream-flow forecasting. Hydrological Processes concentration in rivers using artificial neural network model. Journal
16: 2577– 2588. of Hydraulic Engineering 128: 588– 595.
Chen SH, Lin YH, Chang LC, Chang FJ. 2006. The strategy of building Nayak PC, Sudheer KP, Ramasastri KS. 2004a. Fuzzy computing based
a flood forecast model by neuro-fuzzy network. Hydrological Processes rainfall-runoff model for real time flood forecasting. Hydrological
20: 1525– 1540. Processes 17: 3749– 3762.
Dibike YB, Solomatine DP. 2001. River flow forecasting using artificial Nayak PC, Sudheer KP, Ragan DM, Ramasastri KS. 2004b. A neuro
neural networks. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: fuzzy computing technique for modeling hydrological time series.
Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere 26: 1–7. Journal of Hydrology 29: 52–66.
Firat M. 2007. Watershed modeling by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference Owen JS, Eccles BJ, Choo BS, Woodings MA. 2001. The application of
system approach. PhD thesis, Pamukkale University, Turkey (in auto-regressive time series modelling for the time–frequency analysis
Turkish). of civil engineering structures. Engineering Structures 23: 521–536.
Firat M, Güngör M. 2004. Estimation of the suspended concentration and Özelkan EC, Duckstein L. 2001. Fuzzy conceptual rainfall-runoff
amount by using artificial neural networks. IMO Technical Journal 15: models. Journal of Hydrology 253: 41–68.
3267– 3282. Sajikumar N, Thandaveswara BS. 1999. A non-linear rainfall–runoff
Firat M, Güngör M. 2007. River Flow Estimation using Adaptive Neuro- model using an artificial neural network. Journal of Hydrology 216:
Fuzzy inference System. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 32–55.
75(3– 4): 87–96. Sudheer KP, Jain A. 2004. Explaining the internal behaviour of artificial
Jain A, Kumar AM. 2007. Hybrid neural network models for hydrologic neural network river flow models. Hydrological Processes 18:
time series forecasting. Applied Soft Computing 7: 585– 592. 833–844.
Jang JSR, Sun CT, Mizutani E. 1997. Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing: Thomas HA, Fiering MB. 1962. Mathematical synthesis of streamflow
Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence. sequences for the analysis of river basin by simulation. In Design
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. of Water Resources Systems, Maass A, Hufschmidt MM, Dorfman R,
Ho SL, Xie M, Goh TN. 2002. A comparative study of neural network Thomas Jr HA, Marglin SA, Fair GM (eds). Harvard University Press:
and Box–Jenkins ARIMA modeling in time series prediction. Cambridge, MA; 459–493.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 42: 371–375. Tingsanchali T, Guatam MR. 2000. Application of tank, NAM, ARMA
Komornik J, Komornikova M, Mesiar R, Szökeova D, Szolgay J. 2006. and neural network models to flood forecasting. Hydrological
Comparison of forecasting performance of nonlinear models of Processes 14: 2473– 2487.
hydrological time series. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31: Toth E, Brath A, Montanari A. 2000. Comparison of short-term rainfall
1127– 1145. prediction models for real-time flood forecasting. Journal of Hydrology
Liong SY, Lim WH, Kojiri T, Hori T. 2000. Advance flood forecasting 239: 132– 147.
for flood stricken Bangladesh with a fuzzy reasoning method. Şen Z, Altunkaynak A. 2006. A comparative fuzzy logic approach to
Hydrological Processes 14: 431–448. runoff coefficient and runoff estimation. Hydrological Processes 20:
Mahabir C, Hicks FE, Fayek AR. 2000. Application of fuzzy logic to the 1993– 2009.
seasonal runoff, Hydrological Processes 17: 3749– 3762. Yevjevich V. 1963. Fluctuations of wet and dry years. Part I. Research
Mohammadi K, Eslami HR, Kahawita R. 2006. Parameter estimation of data assembly and mathematical models. Hydrology Paper 1, Colorado
an ARMA model for river flow forecasting using goal programming. State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Journal of Hydrology 331: 293– 299. Zhang GP. 2003. Time series forecasting using a hybrid ARIMA and
Murat YS. 2006. Comparison of fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks neural network model. Neurocomputing 50: 159– 175.
approaches in vehicle delay modeling. Transportation Research, Part
C: Emerging Technologies 14: 316– 334.

Copyright  2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2122– 2132 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp