Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9
Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Technology & Construction Engineering for Sustainable

Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Technology & Construction Engineering for Sustainable Development ICETCESD-2011, March 10-12, 2011, SUST, Sylhet, Bangladesh

ICETCESD-2011, March 10-12, 2011, SUST, Sylhet, Bangladesh DEVELOPMENT OF STREAMFLOW AND RESERVOIR INFLOW PREDICTION

DEVELOPMENT OF STREAMFLOW AND RESERVOIR INFLOW PREDICTION MODELS WITH FUZZY LOGIC : A CASE STUDY OF LAM TAKHONG DAM, THAILAND

SITTIPORN PORNUDOMTHAP 1 , AREEYA RITTIMA 2*

1,2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University, Thailand.

SUMMARY:

For the purpose of reservoir management and planning, the fuzzy streamflow and reservoir inflow prediction models were developed for predicting the streamflow at station M.89 located on the upstream side of Lam Takhong Dam and the reservoir inflow. The measured daily streamflow at time t, t-1, and two variables representing the cyclical effect components;

were specified as the major inputs to predict the streamflow values

(2

π

i)

12

(2

π

i)

12

cos

and

sin

at time t+1. Whereas the predicted daily streamflow of station M.89 at time t+1, t together

with,

also used as inputs for the reservoir inflow prediction model to

(2

π

i)

(2

π

i)

cos

and

sin

12 12

predict reservoir inflow at time t+1. The fuzzy logic approach was applied to develop these two prediction models, and tested the predicted accuracy by R-Square and MSE. The results of model calibration from 1970-2008 for streamflow prediction and from 1987-2008 for reservoir inflow prediction showed a reasonable level of R-Square; 0.60 and 0.61, respectively and MSE which was equal to 56.09 cms and 0.006 mcm, respectively. Additionally, it could predict at a higher level of accuracy for the model validation which R- Square and MSE ranged between 0.63-0.78 and 1.89-2.99 cms, respectively for the streamflow prediction when the data since 2006-2008 and in 1972 were used. While the short-term data from 2006-2008 and peak flow data occurred in 1990 were employed for the reservoir inflow prediction, it found that the results varied between 0.62-0.78 and 0.002- 0.041 mcm, respectively. Moreover, the predicted patterns of streamflow and reservoir inflow were similar to the observed values for both low and high flow periods. Key Words: Streamflow, Reservoir Inflow, Prediction Model, Fuzzy Logic, Reservoir Operation, Reservoir Management and Planning, Lam Takhong Dam.

1. INTRODUCTION

The effects of global warming crisis have been often occurred and became more severe since the past decade apparently found as the unpredictable rainfall, large variation of streamflow over a year, uncertain water supply, severe flood and drought events. Not only the people and the basic infrastructures were damaged and destroyed but these also made the life living of the people and animals become harder and need to be changed. For the reservoir

*Corresponding Author:

egart@mahidol.ac.th

management, the complexity of reservoir operation under the uncertainty of hydrological data caused by the effects of climate change seems to be a serious thing for the reservoir operators especially in the critical operation periods. Consequently, the various research techniques such as artificial neural network (ANN), genetic algorithm (GA), and fuzzy logic approach were used to predict the key parameter data in many ways and new operational strategies were created and applied for the determination of effective reservoir management plan in reducing the risk of failure operation. Fuzzy logic is the famous tool which is mostly applied in many fields such as engineering, computer sciences, information technology and others. It is reported that fuzzy logic is widely used especially for data prediction [1], [2]. Therefore, this study focuses on the development of two fuzzy prediction models to predict the streamflow and reservoir inflow data which are regarded as the major input data for a reservoir operation planning and management. Lam Takhong Dam is selected as a case study in order to compare the predicted results with the fuzzy prediction tools developed by Keskin [3] and ANN technique applied by Vudhivanich [4].

2. STUDY AREA

2.1 The general characteristics of Lam Takhong Basin

Lam Takhong is a branch of Mun River which is the main river of the Khorat Plateau in the northeast of Thailand and is the largest tributaries of the Mae Kong River. Lam Takhong Dam is located on the upper side of Lam Takhong Basin with the drainage area of 1,430 sq.km. Lam Takhong Dam was constructed in 1964 for mitigating flood and drought problems especially in the lower area of Mun Basin. Therefore, a large number of flow gauging stations was installed over the region to measure the streamflow rate and water stage. The flow gauging station M.89 which is the main station situated on the upstream side of the dam is regarded as the major inflow of the Lam Takhong Reservoir as appeared in Fig 1. Hence, the streamflow data at station M.89 is taken as the major input to develop the reservoir inflow prediction model applied by fuzzy logic.

the reservoir inflow prediction model applied by fuzzy logic. Fig 1 : The location of streamflow

Fig 1 : The location of streamflow gauging station M.89.

2.2 The basin meteo-hydrological data

From the preliminary analysis of the daily streamflow data since 1970-2008 at gauging station M.89, it is found that the peak flow occurred in 1972 with 200.95 cms and the lowest flow is only 0.7 cms occurred in 1987. Meanwhile, the average flow is about 8.81 cms as plotted in Fig 2. It is also observed that the large amount of streamflow in this region is gradually increased at the beginning of rainy season. Its magnitude depends on the duration of heavy rainfall. For the water stage, it tends to be higher especially in rainy season since May-December, on the other hands it is very low in drought season since February-June.

250

200

150

100

50

0

Flow M.89 (m 3 /s) Avg. Monthly Data since 1970-2008 Daily Data in 1972 Daily
Flow M.89 (m 3 /s)
Avg. Monthly Data since 1970-2008
Daily Data in 1972
Daily Data in 1987
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month

Fig 2 : Daily streamflow at gauging station M.89.

In addition, the investigation of the daily reservoir inflow data of Lam Takhong Dam since 1987-2008 showed that the peak flow is 2.0390 mcm occurred in 1990, the lowest flow is 0 mcm occurred in 2004, and the average flow is 0.0544 mcm. The low flow period starts since December until the end of June, while the high flow period starts since July until November. Besides, the peak flow period is between September and October as shown in the Fig 3.

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Reservoir Inflow (mcm)

Avg. Monthly Data since 1987-2008 Daily Data in 1990 Daily Data in 2004 Jan Feb
Avg. Monthly Data since 1987-2008
Daily Data in 1990
Daily Data in 2004
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month

Fig 3 : Daily reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam.

3. MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1 Data collection and preliminary analysis

The streamflow data at gauging station M.89 was gathered on the daily basis since 1 May 1970 to 30 March 2008 whereas the reservoir inflow data done by the reservoir water balance concept was collected since 1 January 1987 to 30 March 2008. These collected data were preliminarily checked in parts of the abnormality and inconsistency via time series plots and filled up the missing data by the average value.

3.2 The determination of fuzzy prediction models As mentioned above, the hydrological input data required for the development of fuzzy models was daily streamflow at station M.89 and the reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam. Therefore, the autocorrelation of this streamflow data was analyzed in order to explain the correlation between members of a series of numbers arranged in time (Flow M.89t, t-1, …, t-n) and finally select the number of correlated variable with high correlation for the determination of streamflow prediction models (M.89 t+1) as shown in Fig 4. Meanwhile, the

cross correlation between the predicted streamflow data at station M.89 (M89 predicted

t+1, t, …, t-

n) from the previous model and reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam (Inflow t+1) was also investigated in order to specify the number of input for the reservoir inflow prediction model as shown in Fig 5. Moreover, in order to explain the periodic effects of the predicted data,

cos

(2

π

i)

and

sin

(2

π

i)

12 12

values were taken into account as input variables also [5], [6].

Input Variables Flow M.89t, t-1,…, t-n

cos

12

, sin

12

(2

π i)

(2

π i)

t-n cos 12 , sin 12 (2 π i) (2 π i) Output Variables Forecasted Streamflow

Output Variables Forecasted Streamflow

M.89 (t+1)

Fig 4 : The model for forecasting streamflow at gauging station M.89.

Input Variables Flow M.89 Predicted t+1, t,…, t-n

cos

12

, sin

12

(2

π i)

(2

π i)

t-n cos 12 , sin 12 (2 π i) (2 π i) Output Variables Forecasted reservoir

Output Variables Forecasted reservoir

Inflow (t+1)

Fig 5 : The model for forecasting reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam.

Setting membership function depended on the number of variables as specified above. The streamflow data in 1972 and the reservoir inflow data in 1990 which gave the highest peak flow were used to set the fuzzy sub-groups made by considering from the relative frequency and

cumulative frequency curves of these data. The membership function of variable

sin

(2

π

i)

12

were set by referring to the seasonal effects within a yearly cycle.

cos

(2

π

i)

12

,

and

3.3 The formulation of fuzzy rule base

The fuzzy rule base was performed by Fuzzy Inference System or FIS type-Mamdani Model. Firstly, the AND method fuzzy operator was used to set the rule base following the concept of minimum and no weighting were applied, then the implication fuzzy operator was used to find out the result of each rule by minimum function. Aggregation fuzzy operator was used to summarize all the results by maximization operation. Finally, the centroid defuzzification method was used to find the final value of the streamflow at M.89 station and reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam.

3.3 Model calibration and validation

To calibrate the accuracy of modeled results, the data since 1970-2008 for the streamflow prediction model and since 1987-2008 for the reservoir inflow prediction model were used. The fuzzy rule base was subsequently modified until the predicted results matched with an observed set of data. For the model validation, the streamflow data since 2006-2008 and in 1972 which gave the highest peak flow were selected for verifying the streamflow prediction model. Meanwhile, the streamflow data since 2006-2008 was also used to validate the reservoir inflow prediction model and in 1990 which gave the highest peak flow was also selected for verifying the reservoir inflow prediction model. The accuracy of model prediction was evaluated by considering the R 2 P P value and Mean Square Error (MSE) [7].

4. RESULTS

4.1 The determination of membership function of input and output variables

4.1.1 The streamflow at gauging station M.89 and reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam The results of autocorrelation and cross correlation analysis revealed that the autocorrelation and cross correlation coefficients of the input and output variables tended to be high especially from lag 1-9 which ranged between 0.41-0.82 and 0.33-0.77 respectively. However, to reduce much information for the model determination, only two previous flow; t, t-1 was selected to formulate the prediction models. For the determination of membership levels of those streamflow input and output variables, the cummulative distribution function fitted to the measured streamflow data was used. The results showed that the streamflow data was fitted to the fatigue life distribution quit well. Consequently, it can set the membership value of the streamflow data at time t, t-1 as illustrated in Fig 6. This cumulative distribution curve was also used to identify the membership levels of target outputs as shown in Fig 7. For the reservoir inflow of Lam Takhong Dam, it was demonstrated that Wakeby distribution with five parameters was fitted to this reservoir inflow data. Therefore, this cumulative distribution curve was brought to set the membership function of reservoir inflow (output) as illustrated in Fig 9. Meanwhile, the membership levels of the predicted streamflow data at station M.89 at time t and t+1 were specified similar to the previous one as shown in Fig 9. It

was noticeable that the wide and short range of cumulative probability was set to specify the linguistic terms of those variables by referring to the behavior of actual observed flow data at time t.

to the behavior of actual observed flow data at time t. Fig 6 : The membership

Fig 6 : The membership function of streamflow at time t and t-1.

6 : The membership function of streamflow at time t and t-1. Fig 7 : The

Fig 7 : The membership function of streamflow at time t+1.

Fig 7 : The membership function of streamflow at time t+1. Fig 8 : The membership

Fig 8 : The membership function of streamflow at time M.89 Predicted t+1 and M.89 Predicted t.

c t e d t+1 and M.89 P r e d i c t e d

Fig 9 : The membership function of reservoir inflow at time t+1.

4.1.2 The periodicity variables

To set the membership levels of

cos

(2

π

i)

12

, sin

(2

π

i)

12

which refers to the effects of monthly

periodicity of streamflow and reservoir inflow data, the following in Fig 10 are the details of

how to set the membership values of these variables.

Fig 10 : The membership function of monthly periodicity. 4.2 The formulation of fuzzy rule

Fig 10 : The membership function of monthly periodicity.

4.2 The formulation of fuzzy rule base Mamdani model was used to set the rule base by if-then law. For example, If (t is lowest) and (t-1 is lowest) and (cos is mf1) and (sin is mf1) then (t+1 is lowest), this means that if streamflow at day t is the lowest and streamflow at day t-1 is the lowest and cosine value of month t is in mf1 function and sine value of month t is in mf1 function then streamflow at day t+1 is the lowest. In this study, the streamflow data during year 1970-2008 was used and the model was set totally 132 base rules and then the model was inferenced. Finally, the model was defuzzificated in order to find the target steamflow at station M.89. The results showed that the predicted accuracy of streamflow was quite low with 0.17 of R 2 P P and the MSE was very high nearly 1,163 cms. For the reservoir inflow prectiction model, the fuzzy model was set with 120 base rules in order to predict the net inflow that flow into the dam. The predicted results showed that the R 2 P P was only 0.199 but the MSE was low merely 0.166 mcm.

4.3 The results of model calibration and validation

4.3.1 Model calibration

To enhance the prediction accuracy, the author adjusted the rule base of streamflow at station M.89 by increasing the fuzzy rules from 132 rules to 299 rules. The predicted results of new fuzzy rules were shown in Fig 11(a). It was revealed that R 2 P P was increased from 0.17 to 0.60 and the MSE was also reduced from 1,163 to 56. When the rule base of reservoir inflow prediction model was adjusted from 120 rules to 227 rules, the predicted result became more accurate as graphically illustrated in Fig 11(b). The RP 2 P was increased from 0.199 to 0.61 and the MSE was reduced from 0.166 to 0.006.

Flow M.89 (m 3 /s) 250 Observed Data Year 1970 - 2008 Forecasted Data 200
Flow M.89 (m 3 /s)
250
Observed
Data
Year 1970 -
2008
Forecasted Data
200
150
100
50
0
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006

Year

(a)

Inflow (mcm) 2.5 Observed Data Year 1987 - 2008 Forecasted Data 2 1.5 1 0.5
Inflow (mcm)
2.5
Observed Data
Year
1987 - 2008
Forecasted
Data
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008

Year

(b)

Fig 11 : (a) Comparison of the observed and predicted streamflow data after calibration. (b) Comparison of the observed and predicted reservoir inflow after calibration

4.3.2 Model validation

Both prediction models were validated by using the daily streamflow data in 2006-2008 as a set of input variables. The validation results showed that the predicted streamflow was more accurate. The R 2 P P of streamflow and reservoir inflow prediction were 0.63 and 0.62 and the MSE were 1.89 cms and 0.002 mcm, respectively as graphically illustrated in Fig 12(a) and Fig 12(b). Moreover, when the short-term streamflow data in 1972 was selected to validate the streamflow prediction model, the R 2 P P was increased to 0.78, however the MSE was increased to 2.99 cms. Besides, it was investigated that the prediction results were not good enough especially during the sudden changes in streamflow from peak flow to low flow period. The validation result of reservoir inflow prediction model with data in 1990 tended to be better. The R 2 P P was increased to 0.78 and MSE was slightly increased to 0.041. Moreover, the predicted results were very close to the observed data both low flow and high flow periods as graphically shown in the Fig 13(c) and Fig 13(d).

Flow M.89 (m 3 /s) 80 Observed Data Year 2006 -2008 Forecasted Data 70 60
Flow M.89 (m 3 /s)
80
Observed Data
Year 2006 -2008
Forecasted Data
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan06
Apr06
Jul06
Oct06
Jan07
Apr07
Jul07
Oct07
Jan08

Date

(a)

Inflow (mcm)

0.9 Observed Data Year 2006 -2008 Forecasted Data 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.9
Observed Data
Year 2006 -2008
Forecasted Data
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Jan06
Apr06
Jul06
Oct06
Jan07
Apr07
Jul07
Oct07
Jan08

Date

(b)

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

Flow M.89 (m 3 /s) Observed Data Year 1972 Forecasted Data
Flow M.89 (m 3 /s)
Observed Data
Year 1972
Forecasted Data

2.25

2

1.75

1.5

1.25

1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

Inflow (mcm) Observed Data Year 1990 Forecasted Data
Inflow (mcm)
Observed Data
Year 1990
Forecasted Data

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Month

(c)

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

Month

(d)

Fig 13 : (a), (c) are comparison of the observed and predicted streamflow data in model validation when the data since 2006-2008 and in 1972 were used. (b), (d) are comparison of the observed and predicted reservoir inflow when the data since 2006-2008 and in 1990 were used.

4.4 Discussion Similar to the study results by Keskin [3] which developed the fuzzy model to predict the daily streamflow in the Middle Mediterranean in Turkey, it was reported that the accuracy of model prediction was approximately 0.71 which was not much difference by comparison

with that obtained from the fuzzy streamflow prediction model of station M.89 which was around 0.78. By comparing with the predicted results using other techniques like artificial neural network models by Vudhivanich [4], two types of ANN prediction models were developed; single reservoir prediction model and multireservoir prediction model, to predict the reservoir inflow of Mun Bon, Lam Chae, Lam Takhong, and Lam Phra Ploeng Reservoirs in Thailand. Consequently, a various form of ANN prediction models was formulated by varying the number of input variables, ANN structures, together with the different types of transfer functions. It was found that the predicted output received from the single reservoir model gave the best result with 0.55 of R 2 which was lower than that obtained from the fuzzy prediction model approximately 6%. Moreover, the fuzzy prediction model also gave the better results by comparison with the multireservoir prediction model applied with ANN technique.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The fuzzy logic approach was applied to develop the streamflow and reservoir inflow prediction models. The results showed a reasonable level of the modeled prediction accuracy both R 2 and MSE. Moreover, the predicted patterns of target outputs were similar to the observed values for both low and high flow periods. In the other words, the fuzzy prediction models are an effective tool in hydrologic data prediction and are very useful especially for the water resource planning and management.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Special thanks to the officers in the Royal Irrigation Department for their assistance in data collection and the Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy for funding support.

REFERENCES

[1] Mahabir, C., et al, 2003, Application of Fuzzy Logic to Forecast Seasonal Runoff Hydrological Process, vol 17, pp 3749-3762. [2] Sen, Z., 1998, Fuzzy Algorithm for Estimation of Solar Irradiation from Sunshine Duration, Solar Energy, vol 63(1), pp 39-49. [3] Keskin, M. E., et al, Flow Prediction Model with Fuzzy Logic Approaches: Dim Stream, International Congress on River Basin Management, Antalya, Turkey, 439-447, 2007. [4] Vudhivanich, V., et al [2004]. “Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Reservoir Inflow Forecasting”, Final Research Report, Kasetsart University, pp.134. [5] Cimen, M., et al, Stream Flow Forecasting by Fuzzy Logic Method, International Congress on River Basin Management, Antalya, Turkey, 439-447, 2007. [6] Mohan, S., et al, Fuzzy Logic Model for Multi Reservoir Operation, 2 nd Conference of Asia Oceanic sciences Society, Singapore, 2005. [7] Magalhiies, M. H., et al [2004]. “Predictive Fuzzy Clustering Model for Natural Streamflow Forecasting, pp 1349-1354.