See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245287452

Precipitation Runoff Modeling Using Artificial

Neural Network and Conceptual Models

Article in Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · April 2000

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(156)

CITATIONS READS

236 504

2 authors, including:

Momcilo Markus
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
39 PUBLICATIONS 704 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Momcilo Markus on 29 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRECIPITATION-RUNOFF MODELING USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL
NETWORKS AND CONCEPTUAL MODELS
By A. Sezin Tokar1 and Momcilo Markus2

ABSTRACT: Inspired by the functioning of the brain and biological nervous systems, artificial neural networks
(ANNs) have been applied to various hydrologic problems in the last 10 years. In this study, ANN models are
compared with traditional conceptual models in predicting watershed runoff as a function of rainfall, snow water
equivalent, and temperature. The ANN technique was applied to model watershed runoff in three basins with
different climatic and physiographic characteristics—the Fraser River in Colorado, Raccoon Creek in Iowa, and
Little Patuxent River in Maryland. In the Fraser River watershed, the ANN technique was applied to model
monthly streamflow and was compared to a conceptual water balance (Watbal) model. The ANN technique was
used to model the daily rainfall-runoff process and was compared to the Sacramento soil moisture accounting
(SAC-SMA) model in the Raccoon River watershed. The daily rainfall-runoff process was also modeled using
the ANN technique in the Little Patuxent River basin, and the training and testing results were compared to
those of a simple conceptual rainfall-runoff (SCRR) model. In all cases, the ANN models provided higher
accuracy, a more systematic approach, and shortened the time spent in training of the models. For the Fraser
River, the accuracy of monthly streamflow forecasts by the ANN model was significantly higher compared to
the accuracy of the Watbal model. The best-fit ANN model performed as well as the SAC-SMA model in the
Raccoon River. The testing and training accuracy of the ANN model in Little Patuxent River was comparatively
higher than that of the SCRR model. The initial results indicate that ANNs can be powerful tools in modeling
the precipitation-runoff process for various time scales, topography, and climate patterns.

INTRODUCTION knowledge, and understanding of the model and the watershed

The precipitation-runoff relationships are among the most
complex hydrologic phenomena to comprehend due to the tre-
mendous spatial and temporal variability of watershed char-
acteristics, snowpack, and precipitation patterns, as well as a
number of variables involved in modeling the physical pro-
cesses. For many years, hydrologists have attempted to un-
derstand transformation of rainfall and snow to runoff in order
to forecast streamflow for water supply, flood control, irriga-
tion, drainage, water quality, power generation, recreation, and
fish and wildlife propagation. The transformation of precipi-
tation to watershed runoff involves many highly complex com-
ponents, such as interception, depression storage, infiltration,
overland flow, interflow, percolation, evaporation, and tran-
spiration. Conceptual models provide daily, monthly, or sea-
sonal estimates of streamflow for short- and long-term fore-
casting on a continuous basis. The entire physical process in
the hydrologic cycle is mathematically formulated in the con-
ceptual models. Thus, they are composed of a large number
of parameters. The Sacramento soil moisture accounting
(SAC-SMA) model is defined by 22 parameters in addition to
12 parameters required by the potential evaporation (‘‘Na-
tional’’ 1996). The number of water balance (Watbal) model
parameters can be much larger and can often exceed 50, or
even 100, for larger basins with a large number of computa-
tional units (Markus and Baker 1994). The simple conceptual
rainfall-runoff (SCRR) model has seven fitting coefficients and
two storage elements (McCuen and Snyder 1986). Since there
are numerous model parameters, and the interaction of these
parameters is highly complicated, the optimization of the
model parameters is usually accomplished by a trial-and-error
procedure. Therefore, the accuracy of the model predictions is
very subjective and highly dependent on the user’s ability,
1 ANNs include modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff process
Hydro., Consultant, Nat. Weather Service, 1325 East-West Hwy., Sil-
ver Spring, MD 20910-3283.
2
Sr. Hydro., Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., Alexandria, VA.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on October 5, 1999. This paper is part of the Journal
of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, April, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN
1084-0699/00/0002-0156–0161/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22049.
156 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000
characteristics. In conceptual models, precipitation, air tem-
perature, and/or evaporation data are usually employed as in-
put data. In addition, streamflow data are required for the cal-
ibration of the model. Although well-calibrated conceptual
models provide reasonable forecast accuracy, their uses are
limited only to a small number of watersheds due to the dif-
ficulties discussed.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been in existence
since the 1940s, but since current algorithms have overcome
the limitations of those early networks great interest in the
practical applications of ANNs has arisen in recent decades
(Wasserman 1989; Muller and Reinhardt 1990). Various ANN
algorithms have an objective to map a set of inputs to a set of
outputs. An ANN is described as an information processing
system that is composed of many nonlinear and densely in-
terconnected processing elements or neurons. ANNs have been
proven to provide better solutions when applied to (1) complex
systems that may be poorly described or understood; (2) prob-
lems that deal with noise or involve pattern recognition, di-
agnosis, abstraction, and generalization; and (3) situations
where input is incomplete or ambiguous by nature. It has been
reported that an ANN has the ability to extract patterns in
phenomena and overcome difficulties due to the selection of
a model form such as linear, power, or polynomial. An ANN
algorithm is capable of modeling the rainfall/snowmelt-runoff
relationship due to its ability to generalize patterns in noisy
and ambiguous input data and to synthesize a complex model
without prior knowledge or probability distributions. The ANN
model is calibrated using automatic calibration techniques.
Thus, an ANN model eliminates subjectivity and lengthy cal-
ibration cycles.
In the literature some of the hydrologic applications of
and snowmelt-runoff process, assessment of stream ecological
and hydrological responses to climate change, rainfall fore-
casting, sediment transport prediction, pier scour estimation,
and ground-water remediation (French et al. 1992; Trent et al.
1993a,b; Roger and Dowla 1994; Hsu et al. 1995; Markus et
al. 1995; Poff et al. 1996; Tokar 1996; Shamseldin 1997; Tokar
and Johnson 1999).
REVIEW
Artificial Neural Networks
An ANN is an information processing system that is com-
posed of a number of processing elements (or neurons) anal-
ogous to biological neurons and interconnections (or weights)
between these elements that imitate the synaptic strength in a
biological nervous system (Fig. 1). In an ANN architecture,
the neurons are arranged in groups called layers. Each neuron
in a layer operates in logical parallelism. Information is trans-
mitted from one layer to another in serial operations (Hecht-
Nielsen 1990). A network can have one or several layers. The
basic structure of a network usually consists of three layers—
the input layer, where the data are introduced to the network;
the hidden layer(s), where data are processed; and the output
layer, where the results for given inputs are produced (Fig. 2).
The most distinctive characteristic of an ANN is its ability
to learn from examples. Learning (or training) is defined as
self-adjustment of the network weights as a response to
changes in the information environment. When a set of inputs
is presented, a network adjusts its weights in order to approx-
imate the target output (observed or measured output) based
on a certain algorithm. Learning in ANNs consists of three
elements—weights between neurons that define the relative
importance of the inputs, a transfer function that controls the
generation of the output from a neuron, and learning laws that
describe how the adjustments of the weights are made during
training (Caudill 1987). During learning, a neuron receives
inputs from the input or previous layer, weights each input
FIG. 1. Artificial Neuron (xn = nth Input; w In j = Weight from n th
Input to jth Neuron in I th Layer; Netj = Weighted Inputs of j th
Neuron; f ( ) = Transfer Function; and outj = Output of j th Neuron)
FIG. 2. Schematic of Back-Propagation Network
with a preassigned value, and combines these weighted inputs.
The combination of the weighted inputs is represented as
netj = 冘 wij xi (1)
where netj = summation of weighted input for the jth neuron;
wij = weight from the ith neuron in the previous layer to the
jth neuron in the current layer; and xi = input from the ith to
the jth neuron. The netj is either compared to a threshold or
passed through a transfer function to determine the level of
activation (Fig. 1). If the activation of a neuron is strong
enough, it produces an output that is sent as an input to other
neurons in the successive layer. The hyperbolic tangent and
sigmoid are often employed as transfer functions in the train-
ing of networks.
In this study, the training of ANNs was accomplished by a
back-propagation algorithm. Back-propagation is the most
commonly used supervised training algorithm in the multi-
layer-feedforward networks. In back-propagation networks, in-
formation is processed in the forward direction from the input
layer to the hidden layer(s) and then to the output layer (Fig.
2). The objective of a back-propagation network is to find the
weights that approximate target values of output with a se-
lected accuracy. The least-mean-square-error method, along
with the generalized-delta rule, is used to optimize the network
weights in back-propagation networks. The gradient-descent
method, along with the chain rule of the derivative, is em-
ployed to modify the network weights. Detailed information
on learning rules and back-propagation is available (Rumelhart
et al. 1986; Hecht-Nielsen 1990).
Conceptual Models
Watbal Model
The Watbal model is a physically based model used for
forecasting water yields in areas where runoff is dominated by
snowmelt (Leaf and Brink 1973, 1976; Leaf and Alexander
1975; Markus and Baker 1994). It simulates winter snow ac-
cumulation, shortwave and longwave radiation balance, snow-
pack conditions, snowmelt, evapotranspiration, and subsequent
runoff in time and space.
Shortwave and longwave radiation represents the energy
components available for snowmelt. In the Watbal model,
shortwave radiation to snow or the ground surface beneath the
forest canopy is controlled by a transmissivity coefficient,
which varies with forest cover characteristics. The incident
shortwave radiation as measured on a horizontal surface is
adjusted based on the slope and aspect of each hydrologic
response unit. Longwave radiation is computed by the Stefan-
Boltzmann equation (Leaf and Brink 1973, 1975).
Snowpack reflectivity varies with precipitation form, air
temperature, and the energy balance. During the winter
months, temperatures within the snow cover are simulated us-
ing the unsteady heat flow theory. The snowpack will yield
snowmelt only when it becomes isothermal at 0⬚C, and its free
water holding capacity is reached.
Evapotranspiration is derived from the Hamon equation
(Leaf and Brink 1973, 1975) for potential evapotranspiration
reduced in proportion to the radiation actually received. The
soil water content is computed for each time increment. The
critical point, at which the soil water content begins to limit
evapotranspiration, varies with time and forest tree species.
Forest cover density plays an important role in the simulation
model. It is the major descriptive parameter of the form, struc-
ture, and arrangement of forest stands, and therefore controls
the energy balance, interception, and evapotranspiration.
Reflectivity is described as a function of the forest stand
reflectivity, forest opening reflectivity, and natural forest cover
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 157
density. Interception is given as a function of forest cover. The
combined evaporation from snow surfaces and intercepted
snow is a function of potential evapotranspiration, intermedi-
ate forest cover density, and forest cover density. Many other
processes, such as snow redistribution, tree cutting, ground-
water flow, etc., that are significant factors influencing runoff
are also modeled in the Watbal model.
SAC-SMA Model
The SAC-SMA model is a conceptually based, lumped,
rainfall-runoff model that represents spatially heterogeneous
runoff processes for river basins at scales ranging from a few
hundred to thousands of square kilometers. The SAC-SMA
model is an operational rainfall-runoff model that is used in
the National Weather Service river forecast system (‘‘United
States’’ 1972). The model has six soil moisture states and 16
parameters, not counting the 12 monthly adjustment factors of
potential evaporation. Most of the parameters have to be cal-
ibrated using historical hydrometeorological data.
In this model, the watershed consists of two areas—a per-
vious area that produces runoff only when precipitation ex-
ceeds a specific amount, and an impervious area that produces
runoff regardless of the amount of precipitation. In pervious
areas, the soil profile is divided into two vertical zones—an
upper zone and a lower zone. The upper zone represents the
amount of water held in the interception and upper-soil layer,
and the lower zone represents the amount of water retained in
the lower zone and ground-water storage. Both zones are di-
vided into two types of storage-—tension water and free water
storage. Tension water represents the field capacity, which is
the amount of water held in the soil zones due to binding with
soil particles. Once the tension water is satisfied, water starts
accumulating in free water storage, and from there it moves
either laterally or vertically. In the upper zone, free water
moves laterally to the streams as interflow and vertically to
the lower zone as percolation. The free water from the lower
zone either constitutes the base flow or feeds to the ground-
water storage.
SCRR Model
The conceptual rainfall-runoff model, SCRR, that was de-
veloped by McCuen and Snyder has three storage components
—surface, ground water, and the unsaturated zone (McCuen
and Snyder 1986). The rainfall first enters to the surface and
ground-water systems depending on the model parameter that
defines the fraction of infiltrated water into the ground. Water
that enters to the surface storage contributes to the stream sys-
tems using a unit hydrograph with a time base of four time
intervals. The unit hydrograph ordinates are based on a model
parameter that distributes the surface runoff. The schematic of
the model is presented in Fig. 3. Daily precipitation, air tem-
perature, and streamflow data are employed for the calibration
of the model. The objectives are to approximate a combination
of the following: total measured runoff, peak discharges, tim-
ing of peak discharges, soil moisture state at the beginning of
the record, recession of the storm events, and bias in the flow
during dry periods. Since there are multiple objective func-
tions, the calibration can be accomplished by the subjective
optimization technique.
CASE STUDIES
The numerical algorithm based on ANNs was applied to
three watersheds in the continental United States (Table 1).
Historical measurements of precipitation (P), temperature (T),
snow-water equivalent (SWE), and stream discharge (Q) are
available for the Fraser River, the Raccoon River, and the Lit-
tle Patuxent River watersheds.
Fraser River
The ANN technique was used to develop a one-step,
monthly flow forecast model for the Fraser River in central
Colorado. The Fraser River is a mountainous, subalpine river,
with steep slopes, coniferous vegetation, and large snowpack
accumulation in wintertime. The discharge of the Fraser River
is dominated by snowmelt in the late spring and early summer.
The Fraser River flows into the Colorado–Big Thompson res-
ervoir system. Therefore, timely and accurate forecasts of
monthly river volumes result in significant economic benefits.
In the Fraser River watershed, data are available for the
periods of 1951–83 and 1987–93. In calibration of the ANN
and Watbal models, only data for high-flow months, May,
June, and July, were employed. The Watbal model was cali-
brated using the data for the entire record, and tested using
data for the period from 1981 to 1983 and 1987–93. However,
the ANN model was trained using only data extending from
1951 to 1980, and then tested for the period from 1981 to
1983 and 1987–93. A standard back-propagation algorithm
and the sigmoid transfer function were applied in training of
the networks. A one-hidden-layer network with two hidden
neurons was used, and the number of iterations for the training
varied from several hundred to several thousand, depending
on the particular month. The watershed runoff was modeled
as follows using ANN:
Q(t) = f {Q(t ⫺ 1), P(t ⫺ 1), SWE(t ⫺ 1), SWE(t ⫺ 2), T(t ⫺ 1)}
(2)
where Q(t) and Q(t ⫺ 1) = streamflows at times t and t ⫺ 1,
respectively; P(t ⫺ 1) = precipitation at time t ⫺ 1; SWE(t ⫺
1), SWE(t ⫺ 2) = snow water equivalents at times t ⫺ 1 and
t ⫺ 2, respectively; T(t ⫺ 1) = air temperature at time t ⫺ 1;

TABLE 1. General Information for Basins Used in Case Stud-

ies
Middle Little
Fraser Raccoon Patuxent
Parameter River River River
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Station Near Granby, Near Bayard, Near Guilford,
Colo. Iowa Md.
Latitude 40⬚08⬘49⬙ 41⬚46⬘43⬙ 39⬚10⬘04⬙
Longitude 105⬚56⬘31⬙ 94⬚29⬘33⬙ 76⬚51⬘07⬙
Drainage area (km2) 458.2 960.0 98.4
Mean annual discharge
(m3/s) 6.2 7.4 1.32
FIG. 3. Flowchart for Simple Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Period of record 1948–94 1978–93 1968–93
Model, SCRR (McCuen and Snyder 1986)

158 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000

and t = one month. The testing results for the ANN and Watbal TABLE 2. Statistical Indices for Testing ANN and Watbal Mod-
models are presented in Table 2. els Developed Using Monthly Streamflow in Fraser River, Colo.
The ANN model provided higher streamflow forecast ac- May June July Average
curacy compared to the forecasts of the Watbal model for high- 2 2 2
Model Se /Sy R Se /Sy R Se /Sy R Se /Sy R2
flow months based on the ratio of root-mean-square error (Se)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
to the standard deviation of the observed data (Sy), and coef-
ficient of determination (square of the correlation coefficient) Watbal 0.95 0.10 0.69 0.52 0.69 0.52 0.78 0.38
ANN 0.77 0.41 0.68 0.54 0.45 0.80 0.63 0.58
between the predicted and observed discharges (R 2). The ratio
of Se /Sy for testing the ANN model was significantly lower for Note: Se and Sy are root-mean-square error and standard deviation of
May and July, and about the same for June, as illustrated in observed discharge, respectively. R 2 represents coefficient of determina-
tion between predicted and observed discharges.
Table 2. These results indicate that the ANN model has a
higher accuracy than that of the Watbal model for forecasting
monthly streamflows in the Fraser River, despite the fact that TABLE 3. Statistical Indices for Calibration of ANN and SAC-
the testing data set was included in the calibration of the Wat- SMA Models for Middle Raccoon River, Iowa
bal model. The ANN model is also simpler, and takes less
Model Sy Se Se /Sy R2
time to calibrate compared to the Watbal model.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Observed 16.0 — — —
Middle Raccoon River Model 1 11.7 10.5 0.66 0.57
Model 2 12.2 10.8 0.67 0.55
Various ANN models were trained to simulate daily rainfall-
Model 3 12.0 10.2 0.64 0.60
runoff relationships for the Raccoon River near Bayard, Iowa. Model 4 14.7 6.4 0.40 0.84
The loss of life and property in this region due to the Great SAC-SMA 16.7 6.7 0.42 0.84
Flood of 1993 led to a need for improved predictions to sup- Note: Se and Sy are root-mean-square error and standard deviation of
port flood/drought management and damage mitigation (‘‘The observed discharge, respectively. R 2 represents coefficient of determina-
Great’’ 1994). The SAC-SMA model is currently used by the tion between predicted and observed discharges.
National Weather Service for rainfall-runoff calibration and
operational forecasting (‘‘National’’ 1996). The calibration ac-
curacy of the ANN was compared to the calibration accuracy
of the SAC-SMA model. TABLE 4. Statistical Indices for Training Average, Dry, and Wet
Years Using ANN and SAC-SMA for Middle Raccoon River, Iowa
In this study, four different ANNs were trained using the
back-propagation algorithm. In training of networks, the hy- Average Dry Wet
perbolic tangent was used as an activation function. The net- Model Se /Sy R2 Se /Sy R2 Se /Sy R2
works were trained and tested using NeuralWorks software (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(Professional 1993). A one-hidden-layer network was used for
Model 1 0.50 0.79 1.09 0.39 0.48 0.81
training of each model. The number of neurons in the hidden Model 2 0.52 0.76 1.07 0.36 0.52 0.79
layer was 10 for models 1–3 and 25 for model 4. The ANN Model 3 0.53 0.80 1.21 0.37 0.44 0.87
architecture for each model was determined by a trial-and- Model 4 0.49 0.77 0.59 0.68 0.23 0.96
error process. The models are represented by (3)–(6) SAC-SMA 0.38 0.86 0.78 0.57 0.30 0.93
Note: Se and Sy are root-mean-square error and standard deviation of
Q(t) = f {P(t ⫺ 1), P(t ⫺ 2), P(t ⫺ 3), T(t)} (3) observed discharge, respectively. R 2 represents coefficient of determina-
tion between predicted and observed discharges.
Q(t) = f {P(t), P(t ⫺ 1), P(t ⫺ 2), P(t ⫺ 3), T(t)} (4)

Q(t) = f {P(t), P(t ⫺ 1), P(t ⫺ 2), P(t ⫺ 3), P(t ⫺ 4), T(t)}
Q(t) = f {P(t ⫺ 1), P(t ⫺ 2), P(t ⫺ 3), T(t), Q(t ⫺ 1)}
where Q(t) = streamflow at time t; P(t ⫺ 1) = precipitation at
time t ⫺ 1; and T(t) = temperature at time t; note that t is in
days. The calibration period for both the ANN and the SAC-
SMA extends from 1978 to 1993. The results are presented
for the entire calibration period and for average-, dry-, and
wet-year data sets, separately shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Model 4 has a slightly lower Se to Sy ratio, about 0.40, when
compared to the SAC-SMA model. Models 1–3 had higher Se
to Sy ratios, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67, compared to both
model 4 and the SAC-SMA model. As shown in Table 3, the
SAC-SMA model reproduced observed standard deviation
fairly well, while the ANN models provided less variation of
streamflow values.
The SAC-SMA model underestimated the minimum and
maximum streamflows in the record, at about 69% and 11%
of their observed values, respectively. While the ANN models
closely approximated the maximum streamflow in the record,
they significantly overestimated the low flow values. A poor
performance of the ANNs in forecasting low flows is consis-
tent with the results reported in recent literature (Tokar 1996;
Markus 1997).
The sensitivity of model training accuracy to the content of
data was assessed using three data sets within the training data.
(5)
Three years were selected based on the mean annual daily
(6) discharge values—average, dry, and wet years. As illustrated
in Table 4, the SAC-SMA model provided slightly higher ac-
curacy for the average year compared to the ANN models.
However, the SAC-SMA and models 1–3, with high Se to Sy
ratios, fail to approximate the dry-year data as well as model
4. In addition, model 4 provided the lowest Se to Sy ratio for
the wet year. As shown in Table 4, model 4 also had the high-
est accuracy for the three years compared to the SAC-SMA
and models 1–3. These results are explained by the addition
of Q(t ⫺ 1). In model 4, the values of Q(t ⫺ 1) provided
information that was not contained in precipitation and tem-
perature.
Little Patuxent River
The Little Patuxent River is located in Maryland. It is a
rainfall-dominated stream exhibiting the behavior of a stable
ground-water and perennial runoff stream type (Poff et al.
1996). The streamflow regime in the Little Patuxent River con-
sists of high flows from December to May. The highest pre-
cipitation variations are observed during the dry months, June
through September, that are characterized by flash flood
events. The ANN technique was used to model daily rainfall-
runoff in the watershed. Networks defined by various combi-
nations of rainfall, temperature, and discharge at present and
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 159
TABLE 5. Statistical Indices for Training and Testing Using CONCLUSIONS
ANN and SCRR Models for Little Patuxent River, Md.
In the literature, the ANN methodology has been reported
Se /Sy Se /Sy R2 R2 to provide reasonably good solutions for circumstances having
Model Training Testing Training Testing complex systems that may be poorly defined or understood
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) using mathematical equations, problems that deal with noise
ANN 0.46 0.42 0.78 0.83 or involve pattern recognition, and input data that are incom-
SCRR model 0.66 0.67 0.56 0.55 plete and ambiguous by nature. Because of these characteris-
Note: Se and Sy are root-mean-square error and standard deviation of tics, it was believed that ANN could be applied to model pre-
observed discharge, respectively. R 2 represents coefficient of determina- cipitation-runoff relationships. The ANN rainfall-runoff
tion between predicted and observed discharges. models exhibit the ability to extract patterns in the training
data.
The ANNs were applied to forecast monthly streamflows in
TABLE 6. Statistical Indices for Training and Testing Average,
the Fraser River basin, and daily streamflows in the Raccoon
Dry, and Wet Years Using ANN (Model 4) and SCRR Models for River basin (calibration only) and the Little Patuxent River
Little Patuxent River Watershed, Md. basin (calibration and testing). For the Fraser River, the ANN
provided more accurate monthly streamflow forecasts than did
Training Testing a physically based model. Similarly, for the Raccoon River,
Parameter Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average the best-fit ANN model has reasonable calibration accuracy
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) when compared to that of a conceptual model. Such perfor-
(a) SCRR Model mance is a result of adding the streamflow at t ⫺ 1 as an input
Se /Sy 0.68 0.64 0.63 0.68 0.74 0.63
to the ANN model. Finally, in the Little Patuxent River basin,
R2 0.54 0.59 0.60 0.54 0.45 0.60 the best-fit ANN model provided higher training and testing
accuracy compared to that of the simple conceptual rainfall-
(b) ANN Model
runoff model.
Se /Sy 0.44 0.84 0.47 0.37 0.66 0.39 These examples demonstrated that ANNs can accurately
R2 0.83 0.54 0.79 0.86 0.56 0.85
model nonlinear relationships between hydrologic inputs, rain-
Note: Se and Sy are root-mean-square error and standard deviation of fall, snow water equivalent, temperature, and output stream-
observed discharge, respectively. R 2 represents coefficient of determina- flow. The ANN models provided a systematic approach and
tion between predicted and observed discharges.
shortened time spent on training of models compared to the
conceptual models.
Although the models were applied to only three watersheds,
previous time periods were trained and tested to simulate the results presented here were encouraging, and demonstrated
streamflow using different ANN configurations. Based on av- a high potential for the application of neural networks to var-
erage precipitation, three data sets representing average, wet, ious precipitation-runoff modeling scenarios.
and dry years were selected for training and testing in order
to identify the rainfall-runoff behavior in the Little Patuxent APPENDIX. REFERENCES
River watershed. For training of the networks, 1979, 1980, and Caudill, M. (1987). ‘‘Neural network primer: Part I.’’ AI Expert, (Decem-
1984 were selected as the wet, dry, and average years. Simi- ber), 46–52.
larly for testing, 1989, 1991, and 1992 were chosen as the French, M. N., Krajewski, W. F., and Cuykendall, R. R. (1992). ‘‘Rainfall
wet, dry, and average years. The testing data were not directly forecasting in space and time using a neural network.’’ J. Hydro., 137,
1–13.
used in the training; however, in order to avoid overtraining
‘‘The Great Flood of 1993.’’ (1994). NOAA Natural Disaster Survey Rep.,
of the networks, networks were tested using a test set. For National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring, Md.
different combinations of the input variables, networks were Hecht-Nielsen. (1990). Neurocomputing. Addison-Wesley, Reading,
trained using a one-hidden-layer network (Tokar 1996). The Mass.
training of networks was accomplished using the back-prop- Hsu, K, Gupta, V. H., and Sorooshian, S. (1995). ‘‘Artificial neural net-
agation algorithm of NeuralWorks (Professional 1993). The work modeling of the rainfall-runoff process.’’ Water Resour. Res.,
hyperbolic tangent was selected as an activation function in 31(10), 2571–2530.
Leaf, C. F., and Alexander, R. R. (1975). ‘‘Simulating timber yields and
training of the networks. The selection of the best-fit model hydrologic impact resulting from timber harvest on subalpine water-
was accomplished by a trial-and-error process (Tokar 1996). sheds.’’ USDA Forest Service Res. Paper RM-133, U.S. Department of
The best-fit model was the network with 10 hidden neurons, Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
and is given below Leaf, C. F., and Brink, G. E. (1973). ‘‘Hydrologic simulation model of
Colorado subalpine forest.’’ USDA Forest Service Res. Paper RM-107,
Q(t) = f {P(t), P(t ⫺ 1), T(t)} (7) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Leaf, C. F., and Brink, G. E. (1975). ‘‘Land use simulation model of the
subalpine coniferous forest zone.’’ USDA Forest Service Res. Paper
where t is in days. The SCRR model for the Little Patuxent RM-135, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
River watershed (Tokar 1996) was calibrated under the super- Markus, M. (1997). ‘‘Application of neural networks in streamflow fore-
vision of R. H. McCuen, who originally developed the SCRR casting,’’ doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
model (McCuen and Snyder 1986). For the conceptual model, Colo.
the Se /Sy values are 0.66 and 0.67 for calibration and verifi- Markus, M., and Baker, D. (1994). ‘‘The Fraser River: Streamflow fore-
casting and simulation computer package.’’ Tech. Rep., Northern Col-
cation, respectively. As indicated in Table 5, the forecast ac- orado Water Conservancy District, Loveland, Colo.
curacy for SCRR is relatively poor compared to that of the Markus, M., Salas, J. D., and Shin, H. (1995). ‘‘Predicting streamflows
ANN model, with low Se /Sy values of 0.46 and 0.42 for train- based on neural networks.’’ 1st Int. Conf. on Water Resour. Engrg.,
ing and testing, respectively. As shown in Table 6, the ANN ASCE, New York.
model provided a significantly higher training accuracy for the McCuen, R. H., and Snyder, M. W. (1986). Hydrologic modeling: Statis-
tical methods and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
average and wet years compared to that of the SCRR, whereas
Muller, B., and Reinhardt, J. (1990). Neural networks: An introduction.
SCRR illustrated better training accuracy for the dry year. Springler, New York.
However, the ANN model demonstrated significantly higher ‘‘National Weather Service river forecast system.’’ (1996). National
testing accuracy for the three years. Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring, Md.

160 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000

Poff, L. N., Tokar, A. S., and Johnson, P. A. (1996). ‘‘Stream hydrological
and ecological responses to climatic changes assessed with an artificial
neural network.’’ Limnology and Oceanography, 41(5), 857–863.
Professional II/PLUS and NeuralWorks Explorer. (1993). NeuralWare,
Pittsburgh.
Roger, L. L., and Dowla, F. U. (1994). ‘‘Optimization of groundwater
remediation using artificial neural networks with parallel solute trans-
port modeling.’’ Water Resour. Res., 30(2), 457–481.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and PDP Research Group. (1986).
Parallel distributed processing—Volume I: Foundations. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Shamseldin, A. (1997). ‘‘Application of a neural network technique to
rainfall-runoff modeling.’’ J. Hydro., 199, 272–294.
Tokar, A. S. (1996). ‘‘Rainfall-runoff modeling in an uncertain environ-
ment,’’ doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park,
Md.
View publication stats
Tokar, A. S., and Johnson, P. A. (1999). ‘‘Rainfall-runoff modeling using
artificial neural networks.’’ J. Hydrologic Engrg., ASCE, 4(3), 232–
239.
Trent, R., Molinas, A., and Gagarin, N. (1993a). ‘‘An artificial neural
network for computing sediment transport.’’ Proc., ASCE Hydr. Conf.,
ASCE, New York.
Trent, R., Molinas, A., and Gagarin, N. (1993b). ‘‘Estimating pier scour
with artificial neural networks.’’ Proc., ASCE Hydr. Conf., ASCE, New
York.
‘‘United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, National Weather Service, and National Weather
Service River Forecast System Procedures.’’ (1972). Tech. Memo. NWS
HYDRO-14, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Md.
Wasserman, P. D. (1989). Neural computing theory and practice. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 161