Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Ensemble of artificial intelligence and physically based models for rainfall-runoff modeling in the upper Blue Nile Basin
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Ensemble of artificial intelligence and physically based models for rainfall-runoff modeling in the upper Blue Nile Basin
Do you wish to request the book?
Ensemble of artificial intelligence and physically based models for rainfall-runoff modeling in the upper Blue Nile Basin
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Ensemble of artificial intelligence and physically based models for rainfall-runoff modeling in the upper Blue Nile Basin
2024
Overview
This study investigated the performance of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), feed forward neural network (FFNN), Soil and Water Analysis Tool (SWAT), Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydraulic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning (HBV), and support vector regression (SVR) models for rainfall–runoff modeling using gauged and satellite rainfall, and their fusions in the Gilgel Abay watershed, Ethiopia. Afterward, simple average ensemble (SAE), weighted average ensemble (WAE), and neural network ensemble (NNE) techniques were applied to combine the outputs of individual models under three scenarios. The performance of the models was evaluated using Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and root mean square error (RMSE). The results demonstrated that the ANFIS model outperformed all the other single models with validation stage NSE values of 0.864 and 0.875, and RMSE values of 23.58 and 21.84 m3/s for gauge and fusion rainfall data, respectively. Among the physical-based models, SWAT gave better modeling performance with the validation stage NSE values of 0.81 and 0.821 for gauge and fusion rainfall data, respectively. Moreover, an ensemble of artificial intelligence and physical-based models greatly improved the overall modeling performance. The NNE improved the performance of single models up to 15.7 and 21.2 5% for fusion and satellite-based rainfall modeling, respectively.
Publisher
IWA Publishing
Subject
