首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Hydrology >Comparison between kinematic wave and artificial neural network models in event-based runoff simulation for an overland plane
【24h】

Comparison between kinematic wave and artificial neural network models in event-based runoff simulation for an overland plane

机译:运动波与人工神经网络模型在陆面基于事件的径流模拟中的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The results of a study comparing the Kinematic Wave, coupled with the Phi-index toss model (KWM) with Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model in event-based rainfall-runoff modeling for an asphalt plane are reported in this paper. The rainfall and runoff data for ten natural storm events at 0.25-min interval were used in the analyses. Two categories of ANN models, based on the input configuration, were considered: (i) using measured rainfall only, and using measured rainfall with calculated discharge, and (ii) using both measured rainfall and measured discharge. In the first category, three cases were studied: (i) Type 1 - total rainfall up to four time tags, (ii) Type 2 - same as Type I plus a calculated flow by the KWM, and (iii) Type 3 - same as Type 1 plus a calculated flow by the ANN. In the second category, three other cases were studied: (i) Type 4 - total rainfall up to four time tags and measured discharge up to three time tags, (ii) Type 5 total rainfall up to four time tags and measured discharge up to one time tag, and (iii) Type 6 - total. rainfall up to one time tag and measured discharge up to one time tag. The ANN with Type 2 input performed better than the Type 1 and Type 3 ANN models. Thus, including a calculated discharge from the KWM was found to improve the predictions by the ANN. The ANN with Type 3 input fared worst among the ANN models considered and was found to be an unreliable method for runoff prediction. Type 1 ANNs generally fared worse than the KWM. In general, the ANN models in the second category performed better that the ANN models in the first category. In addition, the second category of ANN models out-performed the KWM in most cases. However, the predictions by the KWM were based on the calculated discharge and not the measured discharge. Finally, the ANN was found to be unable to make accurate predictions beyond the range of its training data. In this case, the KWM performed better that the ANN.
机译:本文报道了在基于事件的沥青路面降雨-径流模拟中,将运动波与Phi指数折腾模型(KWM)与人工神经网络(ANN)模型相比较的研究结果。分析中使用了以0.25分钟为间隔的10次自然风暴事件的降雨和径流数据。考虑了基于输入配置的两类ANN模型:(i)仅使用测得的降雨量,并使用带有计算出的流量的测得的降雨量,以及(ii)同时使用测得的降雨和测得的流量。在第一类中,研究了三种情况:(i)类型1-最多四个时间标签的总降雨量;(ii)类型2-与类型I相同,加上KWM的计算流量,以及(iii)类型3-相同作为类型1加上ANN计算的流量。在第二类中,研究了其他三种情况:(i)类型4-最多四个时间标签的总降雨量和最多三个时间标签的实测排放量;(ii)类型5-最多四个时间标签的总降雨量和最多测量的排水量。一个时间标签,以及(iii)类型6-总计。最多一个时间标签的降雨量和最多一个时间标签的实测流量。具有类型2输入的ANN的性能优于类型1和类型3的ANN模型。因此,发现包括从KWM算出的流量可以改善ANN的预测。在所考虑的ANN模型中,类型3输入的ANN表现最差,被发现是一种不可靠的径流预测方法。 1型人工神经网络通常表现得比KWM差。通常,第二类的ANN模型的性能优于第一类的ANN模型。此外,在大多数情况下,第二类ANN模型的性能优于KWM。但是,KWM的预测是基于计算的流量而不是测量的流量。最后,发现神经网络无法在其训练数据范围之外做出准确的预测。在这种情况下,KWM的性能优于ANN。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号