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

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."

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

365

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

a.2

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

Xfj

lnput-1
Fuzzification

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.

368

Yeshewatesfa Hundecha et al.

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

Fuzzy number representation

(C)
(_oo,_l,0)j-

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

Table 2 Fuzzy classes of accumulated snow depth.

Accumulated snow depth
Low
Moderate
High

Fuzzy number representation

(mm water equivalent)
(0, 20, 35) r
(20, 35, 45)T
(35,45, + ~ ) r

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, + )j-

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

369

Table 4 Fuzzy classes of amount of snowmelt.

Fuzzy number representation
(mm day"')
(0, 4, 8) r
(4, 8, 15)7(8, 15, 20)r
(15,20,55)7-

Amount of snowmelt
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme

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

Table 6 A system of rules describing proportion of precipitation in snow form.

Rule no.

Argument (temperature)

1
2
3
4

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:

Amount of snowmelt

Snow depth

Tempe rature

Precipitation

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

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

High
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Low

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

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.
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.
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)

Reservoir outflow (mm day"1):

Res. Type 1

Res. Type 2

Res. Type 3

( 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.

(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-

(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

(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

(3.0, 3.33,

3.67)T-

(3.33, 3.67, 4.33) T

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

(6.67, 9.0, 10.0)T-

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

Table 11 A rule system to predict percolation from the upper to the lower reservoir.
Volume of water in the
reservoir (mm)

Percolation rate (mm.day 1 ):

Res. Type 1

Res. Type 2

Res. Type 3

(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

(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

(0.0, 0.43, 0.86) r

(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-

(2.22, 2.5, 2.78)T-

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

(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-

(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

Outflow rate (mm day"1)1:

Res. Type 1

Res. Type 2

Res. Type 3

(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-

(0.0,0.08,0.15)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

(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

(0.43, 0.5, 0.58)T-

(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

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 vO ro CN -H NC o oo

irjTroor-cotn^o-
&
S:

>> b.
bj
&. Oo
as
<

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

N
3

^2

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

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

' d o d o o

K5

>
>
s

N
N

tu
i)

OO t

r,

r^

T } - <n

C\

oio-^

!Tl CO
r - w i 1 M

\0

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

co

*
&. k,

d d d d d d d d d d d

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

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

N
S

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

- 1 1 -

-*tf- <"!

=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

> 1

N
-3

^d
%

tN
w
M
O

-"* _
CO O
N
Oi
Cs <N

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

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

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

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 ^

=0
<

N
N

r^
M
m
en

o
as
-o

>1

^ O \
- ' H M
o c o

CN

k,
kj

&
.O
H
n1

n
t
c

oo
^

. . _
> OO V~i tN l>
o_ m

-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

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

u
a:

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

co

s
Oq

r- ON o T- o o
d d p d p p ^ o i d d

co

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>
oocoooacNCo
m O co rd- OdN O
d e o CN O t^ CN
S as

>

oc C\ oo oo

s
o

CN

d
cU

il

TJ-

io \o m

Development of a fuzzy rule-based rainfall-runoff model

Feb/85

Feb/ 85

Mar/ 85

Apr/ 85

Apr/85

May/85

375

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