Hydrological Sciences Journal

ISSN: 0262-6667 (Print) 2150-3435 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the

river stagedischarge relationship
PARESH DEKA & V. CHANDRAMOULI
To cite this article: PARESH DEKA & V. CHANDRAMOULI (2003) A fuzzy neural network model
for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 48:2,
197-209, DOI: 10.1623/hysj.48.2.197.44697
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.2.197.44697

Published online: 19 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 261

View related articles

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20
Download by: [Azhar K Affandi]

Date: 11 July 2016, At: 07:21

Hydrological SciencesJournaldes Sciences Hydrologiques, 48(2) April 2003

197

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the

river stagedischarge relationship
PARESH DEKA & V. CHANDRAMOULI

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati 781 039, India
chand@iitg.ernet.in

Abstract The measurement of discharge in major rivers is very important and serves
as the base information for hydrological analysis. The rating curve is used to assess
the discharge from the measured stage values in the gauging sites. The rating curve
has important bearing on the correct assessment of discharge. The usefulness of the
fuzzy neural network modelling approach in deriving the stagedischarge relationship
is discussed. The performances of a neural network model, a modularized neural network model, a conventional curve-fitting approach and a fuzzy neural network model
for deriving the rating curve are compared using a case study. Overall, the fuzzy
neural network model gives the best results.
Key words artificial neural network model; fuzzy neural network model; modularized neural
network model; stagedischarge relationship; Brahmaputra River basin, India

Un modle de type rseau de neurones flou pour ltablissement de

courbe de tarage
Rsum La mesure du dbit dans les rivires est trs importante et constitue
linformation de base des analyses hydrologiques. La courbe de tarage dune station
de jaugeage sert connatre le dbit partir des valeurs mesures de hauteur deau.
Nous discutons de lutilit dune approche de modlisation par rseau de neurones
flou pour tablir une courbe de tarage. Les performances dun modle de type rseau
de neurones, dun modle de type rseau de neurones modulaire, dune approche
conventionnelle dajustement de loi et dun modle de type rseau de neurones flou
sont compares pour ltablissement de la courbe de tarage dun cas dtude.
Manifestement, le modle de type rseau de neurones flou fournit les meilleurs
rsultats.
Mots clefs modle de type rseau de neurones artificiel; modle de type rseau de neurones
flou; modle de type rseau de neurones modulaire; courbe de tarage; bassin du Brahmapoutre,
Inde

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

In the field of hydrology and water resources engineering, artificial neural networks
(ANNs) have been applied successfully to the prediction and forecasting of rainfall,
rainfallrunoff, water levels and a number of water quality parameters (Karunanithi et
al., 1994; Chandramouli & Raman, 2001; Minns & Hall, 1996; Hu et al., 1994; See &
Openshaw, 2000, Rajurkar et al., 2002, Xiong & OConnor, 2002). Jain &
Chalisgaonkar (2000) used an ANN to establish a stagedischarge relationship and
found that the ANN approach compares favourably to other conventional approaches.
Tawfik et al. (1997) developed an ANN model for providing more accurate representation of the hysteresis effect in a rating curve. A shortcoming of this approach is that it
is difficult to interpret the knowledge contained in the trained networks, because it is
distributed across the connection weights in a complex manner. However, care must be
taken not to present contradictory information to the ANN.
Open for discussion until 1 October 2003

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

198

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

A fuzzy system adaptively infers and modifies its fuzzy associations from representative numerical samples. Fuzzy sets aid in providing information in a comprehensible or natural form, and can handle uncertainties at various levels (Hundecha et
al., 2001). The knowledge contained in fuzzy systems is transparent to the user. See &
Openshaw (1999) proposed a combined approach of fuzzy logic, neural network and
genetic algorithm optimization for flood forecasting.
The concept of neuro-fuzzy systems has emerged as researchers have tried to
combine the transparent, linguistic representation of a fuzzy system with the learning
ability of an ANN (Brown & Harris, 1994). A neuro-fuzzy system uses an ANN
learning algorithm to determine its parameters (i.e. fuzzy sets and fuzzy rules) by
processing data samples. Therefore, it can be trained to perform an input/output
mapping, just as with an ANN, but with the additional benefit of being able to provide
the set of rules on which the model is based (Mitra & Hayashi, 2000). There have been
many attempts to synthesize fuzzy neural network (FNN) models and, according to
their integration methodologies, two major categories of FNN can be identified. One is
based on the fuzzification of conventional neural network model and the other is based
on the implementation of a conventional fuzzy systems using neural networks (Chung
& Duan, 2000).
STUDY AREA
The system considered for the analysis is the Brahmaputra River, in Assam State,
India. It originates as Tsan-po in Tibet, to the east of the Mansarovar Lake and is
2898 km long (Fig. 1). The basin lies between latitudes 2413 and 3130N and
longitudes 82 and 964E. Three gauging stations, namely Bessamara, Bhurbandha
and Pandu (hereafter referred to as gauging stations I, II and III), are considered and
daily stagedischarge values collected for these stations are used for this study (see
Table 1). The upstream gauging stations I and II are located at about 340 and 150 km
upstream of gauging station III, respectively. For this study, four models, namely a
conventional curve-fitting model, a single neural network model, a modularized neural
network model and a fuzzy neural network model, are considered for deriving the
stagedischarge relationship.
CONVENTIONAL MODEL
Streamflow measurements are normally derived using the stagedischarge curve for
transforming the record of stage into a record of discharge (Maidment, 1993). A rating
curve of the following form is commonly used:
Q = a (G G0 ) b

(1)

where Q is the discharge (m3 s-1), G is the river stage (m), G0 is the river stage (m) at
which the discharge is nil, and a and b are constants.
This type of relationship is established by fitting a smooth curve between the stage
and discharge records by either an ordinary or a logarithmic scale. The stage for zero
discharge is an unknown and its determination possesses some difficulties for major

199

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

Fig. 1 The Brahmaputra River basin.

rivers. A major limitation of this approach is that it is not able to consider the
hysteresis effect. Also in this study, G0 has been estimated from the observed data and
the best values of a and b for the given range of stage are obtained by the least-squares
error method (Table 1).
SINGLE ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODEL
The single ANN model developed for this study is a feed-forward neural network
model with error back-propagation algorithm (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1987). After
a detailed check of different combinations, two experiments on the ANN model are
developed herein: a single input, single output model (Experiment 1) and a four input,

200

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

Table 1 Data availability, values of a and b for the conventional model and neural network architecture
for different gauging stations considered.

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Gauging station

Data availability:

Gauging station I:
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Gauging station II:
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Gauging station III:
Experiment 1
Experiment 2

Conventional
model:
a
b

NN architecture
(number of neurons):
Input
Hidden
layer
layer

Output
layer

Training

Testing

1600
1600

480
257

148.00

2.38

1
4

3
4

1
1

1000
800

358
346

106.55

2.55

1
4

2
8

1
1

2500
2500

891
889

127.68

2.45

1
4

3
8

1
1

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 The two experiments (a) experiment 1, and (b) experiment 2, considered for
analysis.

single output model (Experiment 2) (Fig. 2). The training of the data is carried out by
monitoring the indices, mean square error (MSE) and mean relative error (MRE),
defined as follows:

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

p
1
MSE =
y (jt ) y j

pq q j =1

(2)

p
y (jt ) y j
1
MRE =
y (t ) 100
pq q j =1
j

(3)

in which p is the number of patterns used for training, q is the number of nodes in the
output layer, yj(t) is the target output pattern value (used for training) and yj is the
output from the neural network model.
The MSE value indicates the goodness of fit at high output values and the MRE
value indicates the goodness of fit for moderate output values (Karunanithi et al.,
1994). The number of neurons in the hidden layer, the number of hidden layers and the
normalization factor for the data considered are decided after many trials by studying
the performance of the ANN training indices. The details of different neural network
models developed for the two experiments considered are listed in Table 1.
MODULARIZED NEURAL NETWORK MODEL
For improving the performance of the neural network model, Zhang & Govindaraju
(2000) suggested a modularized neural network approach for rainfallrunoff
modelling. They showed the advantages of segregating the patterns considered for
training and organized the neural networks in a modular architecture to handle
complex sets of rainfallrunoff data. A modularized neural network modelling
approach is attempted herein for developing the stagedischarge relationship (Fig. 3).

Discharge

Trained ANNs

Trained ANNs for

membership function

Very low
Rule base
using stage value

Fuzzy
inferencing

Low
Medium
High

Fig. 3 (a) Modularized and (b) fuzzy neural network models.

Discharge

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

201

202

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

Table 2 Training results, Experiment 1.

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Description
Gauging station I:
Modularized modelling
Module I
Module II
Module III
Module IV
Average performance
Single NN modelling
Fuzzy NN modelling
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Average performance
Conventional modelling
Gauging station II:
Modularized modelling
Module I
Module II
Module III
Module IV
Average Performance
Single NN modelling
Fuzzy NN modelling
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Average performance
Conventional modelling
Gauging station III:
Modularized modelling
Module I
Module II
Module III
Module IV
Average performance
Single NN modelling
Fuzzy NN modelling
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Average performance
Conventional modelling

Training range (level in m):

From
To

No. of patterns MSE 106

trained
(m3 s-1)2

MRE

80.03
81.10
83.28
85.37

81.09
83.27
85.37
87.80

400
400
400
400

80.03

87.80

1600

0.66
6.58
7.06
8.00
5.50
6.05

28.93
21.06
15.83
23.69
22.38
26.74

80.03
80.71
82.11
84.23

82.11
84.23
86.14
87.80

600
800
800
600

80.03

87.80

1600

1.41
5.08
6.91
9.77
5.82
7.28

35.01
38.35
24.31
16.78
29.00
31.59

58.13
60.07
61.761
64.261

60.06
61.76
64.26
66.94

250
250
250
250

58.13

66.94

1000

0.09
3.34
1.36
17.83
8.73
8.97

8.60
31.52
27.50
15.67
20.82
23.22

58.13
59.52
60.93
63.18

60.92
63.15
65.71
66.94

375
500
500
375

58.13

66.94

1000

1.08
6.41
12.73
17.96
9.55
10.08

20.08
44.03
25.39
18.49
28.09
30.34

40.79
41.92
43.75
46.96

41.91
43.74
46.95
49.95

625
625
625
625

40.79

49.95

2500

3.65
18.10
1.01
6.53
7.32
7.99

32.60
19.26
4.14
5.72
15.43
17.34

40.79
41.42
42.70
45.40

42.70
45.39
46.95
49.95

937
1250
1250
938

40.79

49.95

2500

13.56
10.51
2.10
4.53
7.48
28.24

31.42
20.53
6.51
4.70
15.46
39.04

In the modularized neural network (MNN) approach, the available stagedischarge

data are segregated into four groups based on stage level, and each group is treated as a

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

203

crisp set. In this approach, instead of developing a neural network model for the whole
set of data, four neural network models are developed, one for each group of data. The
data range is fixed after examining the available patterns. For Experiment 1, the four
groups and the respective range of stage level (in m) are given in Table 2 for three
gauging stations. After completion of the training, with the help of a rule base, which
works on the criteria fixed for segregation, the appropriate neural network will be fired
to obtain the final result.

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

FUZZY NEURAL NETWORK MODEL

The unsteady flow effect leads to a looped curve, where the same stage value represents different discharge values in the rising and falling limbs of a flood wave and, due
to this hysteresis effect, the relationship between stage and discharge is complex.
Hence a fuzzy neural network modelling approach is attempted here to establish a
better stagedischarge relationship. A fuzzy neural network (FNN) is a neural network
equipped with the capacity of handling fuzzy information, i.e. either the input signals
and/or connection weights and/or the outputs are fuzzy subsets, or a set of membership
values of fuzzy sets. In this study, the ANNs are trained using historical data to
generate the fuzzy membership functions based on the input stage values.
In the fuzzification, the entire stage domain for a particular gauging station is
categorized into four fuzzy sets namely Very Low, Low, Medium and High. Table 2
shows the ranges of stage domain used for each fuzzy set for Experiment 1. Similarly,
the discharge domain is also categorized into four fuzzy sets (Very Low, Low,
Medium and Large). The overlapping of each fuzzy set is kept as 50% of the previous
set (if any) and 50% of the subsequent set (if any).
Mathematically, the membership function for every set is defined as:

A ( x) = 0 m > x or x > l

(4)

A ( x) = output from trained neural network model if m < x < l

(5)

where m is the lower limit of a fuzzy set, l is the maximum limit for a fuzzy set and
A(x) is the membership function of a fuzzy set.
For each fuzzified grouping, namely Very Low, Low, Medium and High, a
separate neural network model is developed to establish the membership function of
each group (Fig. 3), i.e. the fuzzy surface of each fuzzy set is developed using the
trained neural network model. The developed fuzzy surface for each fuzzy set is not a
standard shape. This arbitrary shape is decided using the neural network. These fuzzy
shapes are wavy matching behaviour patterns that undulate over the domain. The
membership function for each fuzzy set is established using ANN based on the
observed stagedischarge data using a neural network. Figure 4 shows the membership
functions for the Medium and High fuzzy sets developed using the neural network.
For training the neural network with sigmoidal activation function, the output data
have to be normalized using a normalization factor so that the results are comparable for
error back-propagation training. The membership function for the discharge data is derived
based on the normalization factor used in the respective neural network model. This
function is a straight line, increasing set with a slope equal to the normalization factor. The
fuzzy associate memory developed for the fuzzy model has the following rules:

204

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Rule 1: If the stage is Very Low then the discharge is Very Low.
Rule 2: If the stage is Low then the discharge is Low.
Rule 3: If the stage is Medium then the discharge is Medium.
Rule 4: If the stage is High then the discharge is Large.
The fuzzy reasoning used here is the simple monotonic method, a basic fuzzy
implication technique. Mathematically, for a simple proportional implication function:
If x is Y then z is W

(6)

z = f (( x, Y ),W )

(7)

where x is the stage value, z is the discharge value, and Y and W are the fuzzy sets
corresponding to the stage and discharge values. The value of the output is estimated
directly from a corresponding truth membership grade in the antecedent fuzzy region
(Cox, 1994). This type of reasoning is followed when only one rule is fired and
suitable for the stage level considered. On the other hand, if two rules are fired for a
particular stage value, the min-max rule of implication is executed (Fig. 4). The
consequent fuzzy sets resulting from two rules will be producing an output fuzzy
region by aggregation, which will be defuzzified to give the expected discharge value
based on near edge of the support set defuzzification procedure (Fig. 4).

Membership function (MEDIUM)

Membership function (MEDIUM)

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0

0
82

83

84

85

86

87

Membership function (HIGH)

11

16

3 -1

0.8

3 -1

( x 10 m s )

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
84

Stage Value (m)

Membership function
1
Discharge ( x 10 m s )
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
6 11 16 21 26
Membership function (LARGE)
Discharge

0
85

86

87

Stage Value (m)

88

11

16

21

26
3

3 -1

Discharge ( x 10 m s )

Fig. 4 Fuzzy rules application using min-max inference technique.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performances of different models considered are assessed using MSE and MRE
indices for training and testing series. In Experiment 1, the conventional model is
compared with other models, as the ANN, MNN and FNN models have the stage value

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

205

Table 3 Training results, Experiment 2.

Gauging station
I

II

III

Model description
MNN
Single NN
FNN
MNN
Single NN
FNN
MNN
Single NN
FNN

MSE 106 (m3 s-1)2

1.35
1.37
0.93
2.97
3.70
2.83
5.18
5.77
5.46

MRE
5.66
5.83
5.68
8.54
9.03
8.22
4.55
5.56
4.88

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Table 4 Module-wise training results (MSE 106 (m3 s-1)2) for gauging station II.

Module I
Module II
Module III
Module IV

Experiment 1:
Single NN model
0.31
3.45
13.88
18.23

MNN model
0.09
3.34
13.67
17.83

Experiment 2:
Single NN model
0.31
2.14
4.43
7.93

MNN model
0.29
0.96
2.87
7.77

as the only input. However, the conventional model is excluded from the discussions
related to Experiment 2, in which ANN, MNN and FNN models have four inputs.
Further, the training and testing data set lengths are different for Experiment 1 and
Experiment 2. This is due to the fact that, in different gauging sites, observations for
some days in-between were not available for technical reasons. Hence some data are
not considered for Experiment 2, which requires details of previous days.
The single ANN model, the modularized ANN model (MNN) and the fuzzy neural
network model (FNN) training results are given in Tables 2 and 3 for both experiments. Both the testing and the model training results of the conventional model are
poorer than those of the other models.
The MNN model shows good improvement in the total MSE and MRE indices in
the training data set relative to the single ANN model and theconventional model
(about 220% in the case of MSE in both experiments). The performances of single
ANN and MNN models in training are studied in detail by considering different
modules for gauging station II data using experiments 1 and 2. When the MSE index is
considered in each module, the MNN model performs better than the ANN model in
all the modules (Table 4). Hence, the overall MSE index also shows that the MNN
model is better than the single ANN model.
However, the MNN model performs poorly in the testing. The MSE and MRE
indices are high for the MNN model (Table 5). For testing data, the MSE results for
different modules for both the experiments are given in Table 6. The single ANN
model performs better in three modules and one module respectively in experiments 1
and 2. However, the overall performance of the MNN model is inferior. The MNN
model suffers in the split zones. For example, consider the modules I and II split
regions, and the modules III and IV split regions (59.8560.10 m and 64.00 64.50 m,
respectively). The MNN model shows poorer performance than other models in these

206

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

Table 5 Comparing the performance for different models: testing results.

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

Sl. no. Model

Gauging station I:
1
ANN
2
MNN
3
FNN
4
Conventional
Gauging station II:
1
ANN
2
MNN
3
FNN
4
Conventional
Gauging station III:
1
ANN
2
MNN
3
FNN
4
Conventional
Gauging station II:
1
ANN
2
MNN
3
FNN

Experiment 1:
MSE 106 (m3 s-1)2

MRE

Experiment 2:
MSE 106 (m3 s-1)2

2.20
2.65
2.64
4.07

12.07
18.00
15.15
28.77

2.86
3.84
2.26
-

5.87
8.65
5.83

29.29
32.19
27.87
38.45

58.62
58.66
49.84
64.62

1.32
4.50
0.86
-

9.81
14.69
6.79

5.94
20.36
6.35
20.17
4.92
15.33
11.34
24.86
6
3 -1 2
PMSE 10 (m s )
16.86
19.03
16.32

1.83
2.23
1.75
-

4.75
5.37
3.83

MRE

1.04
4.66
0.61

Table 6 Module-wise testing results (MSE 106 (m3 s-1)2) for gauging station II.
Model
Module I
Module II
Module III
Module IV

Experiment 1:
Single NN
MNN model FNN model
model
0.09
0.09
0.22
0.98
0.87
0.72
50.66
56.14
37.07
77.35
84.93
85.74

Experiment 2:
Single NN
MNN model FNN model
model
0.31
0.10
0.01
2.14
0.10
0.08
4.43
1.09
0.81
7.93
12.88
1.85

regions (Figs 5 and 6). Due to this fact, the overall performance of the MNN model
suffers. Hence, it can be concluded that, in the case of MNN, when the data are
classified into four groups crisply, the knowledge captured from the four groups is not
generalized properly. The discontinuity results from the absence of knowledge about
its neighbouring regions. When all the four modules are used together, in testing, the
performance of the MNN model suffers more in the split zones. The nature of the data
is also very crucial for this performance. The modularized approach is very suitable for
studies involving clustering of available information.
In the case of the FNN model, segregation of patterns is done by having
overlapping in the neighbouring regions. Since the training is done by overlapping for
each region, the discontinuity is avoided in the data. Hence for the FNN model, the
knowledge gathering during training is not affected as in the case of the MNN model.
Thus, the FNN model performs better due to the training given with the overlapping
data, which avoids discontinuity and also improves the performance of the FNN
model.

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

207

4500
Observed

ANN

FNN

MNN

Discharge in m3s-1

4000

3500

2500
59.4

59.6

59.8

60

60.2

60.4

60.6

60.8

61

61.2

61.4

61.6

Stage in m

Fig. 5 Performance of different models in the module I and module II split region.

Observed

ANN

FNN

MNN

21000

Discharge in m3 s-1

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

3000

19000

17000

15000

13000
64

64.1

64.2

64.3

64.4

64.5

64.6

64.7

64.8

64.9

65

Stage in m

Fig. 6 Performance of different models in the module III and module IV split region.

Based on testing results, when the performances of single ANN and FNN models
are compared, the FNN performs better than the ANN in all cases except one (about
620% better MSE value than the single ANN). Further, the FNN model performs
better in all modules for Experiment 2 and in two modules in Experiment 1 (Table 6).
When the testing results of different models are compared for Experiment 2
(gauging station II), the hysteresis effect might be better represented by the FNN
model (Fig. 7). The MNN model shows poor performance in the split zone (64.0
65.0 m stage value) and does not properly represent the hysteresis effect in this study.
However, the FNN model gives better performance in this zone also (Fig. 7).

208

Paresh Deka & V. Chandramouli

Observed

ANN

FNN

MNN

Discharge in m3 s-1

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

62

63

63

64

64

65

65

66

66

67

67

Stage in m

Fig. 7 Comparing the results of different models: hysteresis effect.

Discussions on the PMSE index

It is observed that in many research studies, using the MRE to rank different models
according to their performance is different from the ranking using MSE. To overcome
the difficulties in using MSE and MRE, a new statistical measure called the pooled
mean square error (PMSE) has been used, which combines the effects of MSE and
MRE (Elshorbagy et al., 2000). For the calculation of the PMSE, a threshold value of
5% of the actual value is considered in this analysis. The PMSE is estimated as:
N /2

PMSE =

(y

(t )
j

y j .k j

j =1

(8)

j =1

where N is the set size and kj is the rank of the residual error.
For this analysis, the gauging station II data are considered (Table 5). In all the
cases, a better performance of the FNN model is noted. The complexity of the ranking
process for different model performances using two indices, namely the MSE and
MRE, is eased by the PMSE index.
It is worth noting that for the gauging station II, the FNN model gives 34.45 and
30.79% improvement over the ANN model when considering the MSE and MRE
indices, respectively. For the same case, the FNN model shows 40.89% improvement
over the ANN model when the PMSE index is considered. This shows the better ability
of the FNN model compared to the other models in estimating a discharge value that is
closer to the observed value within the threshold of the 5% limit.
CONCLUSION

This study shows the ability of the fuzzy neural network model in developing the
stagedischarge relationship. The FNN model has better predictive ability than the
single ANN, the modularized ANN and conventional models. The MNN model gives

A fuzzy neural network model for deriving the river stagedischarge relationship

209

inferior results relative to the single ANN model and suffers due to data discontinuity
even though the training of the MNN shows better values for the performance
indicators. The FNN model is more flexible than the other models considered with
more options of incorporating the fuzzy nature of the real-world system.
Acknowledgement The authors wish to acknowledge the support given by Assam
State Flood Control Department, India, by providing the necessary data for the
analysis.

Downloaded by [Azhar K Affandi] at 07:21 11 July 2016

REFERENCES
Brown, M. & Harris, C. (1994) Neuro-Fuzzy Adaptive Modeling and Control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, USA.
Chandramouli, V. & Raman, H. (2001) Multi-reservoir modeling with dynamic programming and neural networks.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. ASCE 127(2), 8998.
Chung, F. L. & Duan, J. C. (2000) Multistage fuzzy neural network modeling. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 8(2), 125142.
Cox, E. (1994) The Fuzzy Systems Handbook. Academic Press Professional, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Elshorbagy, A., Simonovic S. P. & Panu, U. S. (2000) Performance evaluation of artificial neural networks for runoff
prediction. J. Hydrol. Engng ASCE 5(4), 424427.
Hu, T. S., Lam, K. C. & Ng, S. T. (2001) River flow time series prediction with a range dependent neural network. Hydrol.
Sci. J. 46(5), 729745.
Hundecha, Y., Bardossy, A. & Theisen, H. W. (2001) Development of a fuzzy logic-based rainfallrunoff model. Hydrol.
Sci. J. 46(3), 363376.
Jain, S. K. & Chalisgaonkar, D. (2000) Setting up stagedischarge relations using ANN. J. Hydrol. Engng ASCE 5(4),
428433.
Karunanithi, N., Grenney, W. J., Whitley, D. & Bovee, K. (1994) Neural networks for river flow prediction. J. Computers
Civ. Engng ASCE 8(2), 201220.
Maidment, D. R. (1993) Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Minns, A. W. & Hall, M. J. (1996) Artificial neural networks as rainfallrunoff models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 41(3), 399418.
Mitra, S. & Hayashi. Y. (2000) Neuro-fuzzy rule generation: survey in soft computing framework. IEEE Trans. Neural
Networks 11(3), 748768.
Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. L. (1987) Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of
Cognition, vols I and II, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Rajurkar, M. P., Kothyari, U. C. & Chaube, U. C. (2002) Artificial neural networks for daily rainfallrunoff modelling.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 47(6), 865877.
See, L. & Openshaw, S. (1999) Applying soft computing approaches to river level forecasting, Hydrol. Sci. J. 44(5),
763778.
See, L. & Openshaw, S. (2000) A hybrid multi-model approach to river level forecasting, Hydrol. Sci. J. 45(4), 523536.
Tawfik, M., Ibrahim, A. & Fahmy, H. (1997) Hysteresis sensitivity neural network for modeling rating curves.
J. Computers in Civ. Engng ASCE 11(3), 206211.
Xiong, L. & OConnor, K. M. (2002) Comparison of four updating models for real-time river flow forecasting, Hydrol.
Sci. J. 47(4), 621639.
Zhang, B. & Govindaraju, R. S. (2000) Prediction of watershed runoff using Bayesian concepts and modular neural
networks. Water Resour. Res. 36(3), 753762.

Received 4 January 2002; accepted 31 October 2002