# Heuristic Methods for Reservoir Monthly Inflow Forecasting: A Case Study of Xinfengjiang Reservoir in Pearl River, China

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Study Area and Data Sets

#### 2.1. Study Area

^{2}and reaches a total length of 2400 km. The rainy season extends from April to September, followed by a dry season from October to March.

^{2}, which accounts for about one quarter of the East River Basin area. The average annual rainfall is about 1974.7 mm. The annual inflow at the dam site is about 192 m

^{3}/s. Since being put into production in October 1960, the reservoir began to play comprehensive benefit in power generation, flood control, navigation, water supply, etc. The reservoir is equipped with four units and its installed capacity arrives 302 million watts. The average annual energy generation is 0.99 billion kW·h. As the largest artificial reservoir with multi-year regulating storage in south China, the reservoir has the total capacity of 13.90 billion m

^{3}, where the dead storage capacity is 4.31 billion m

^{3}. Its normal water level is 116 m at non-flood season while the corresponding storage is 10.8 billion m

^{3}. Its flood control level is 114 m during the first half of flood season from 1 April to 30 June, whilst that is 115 m during the second half of flood season from 1 July to 30 September.

#### 2.2. Division of Data

_{mean}, S

_{d}, X

_{min}, X

_{max}, and R

_{ange}respectively stand for the mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and range of various data sets. We can find that the monthly inflow data for Xinfengjiang reservoir varies over a relative wide range from 9.3 to 1506 m

^{3}/s. The scope of the training data set includes that of testing and validation sets fully. The statistical parameters of the training set are close to the testing and validation sets. Hence, the data used for various data sets are representative of the same population, so there is no need to extrapolate beyond the range of the data for training.

Datasets | Statistic | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

X_{mean} | S_{d} | X_{min} | X_{max} | R_{ange} | |

Training set | 204.1 | 14.3 | 9.3 | 1506.0 | 1496.7 |

Testing set | 192.1 | 13.9 | 24.5 | 1300.2 | 1275.7 |

Validation set | 176.3 | 13.3 | 22.3 | 1496.4 | 1474.1 |

Original data | 195.3 | 14.0 | 9.3 | 1506.0 | 1496.7 |

#### 2.3. Data Preprocessing

## 3. Forecasting Methodology

#### 3.1. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

**Y**is the output vector. f is the transfer function.

**W**is the weight vector.

**X**is the weight vector.

**B**is the bias vector.

#### 3.2. Support Vector Machine (SVM)

#### 3.3. Genetic Algorithm (GA)

_{i}is the i-th observed data;

**X**

_{i}is the i-th input data vector; $SVM\left({\mathit{X}}_{i},\text{\theta}\right)$ represents the corresponding simulated value of SVM.

#### 3.4. Hybrid Forecasting Method

**A**

_{1}and SVM

**S**

_{1}forecasting model are driven to forecast the targeted reservoir inflow data, respectively, gaining two different forecasting results. Secondly, a new ANN model

**A**

_{2}is built for the operational prediction, where the two different forecasting results of ANN and SVM are selected as the input variables and the real reservoir inflow data is used as the desired value. The two-stage forecasting process can be helpful to eliminate random errors of different models and improve the prediction ability to a certain degree. The framework of the proposed hybrid method is shown in Figure 5, and the process is described as below.

**A**

_{1}and SVM model

**S**

_{1}, and use the abovementioned data to train both models, respectively, where GA is employed for the parameter selection of the SVM model

**S**

_{1}.

**A**

_{2}structure and use the processed data of the ANN model

**A**

_{1}and SVM model

**S**

_{1}as the input variables to train the model

**A**

_{2}.

## 4. Statistical Measures

## 5. Results and Discussion

#### 5.1. Input Variables Determination

_{t}

_{+1}at the time t+1. Hence, the relationship between the output and input variables can be expressed as the following Equation:

#### 5.2. Development of Various Models

#### 5.2.1. ANN Model **A**_{1} Development

**A**

_{1}architecture is (12, 15, 1).

#### 5.2.2. SVM Model **S**_{1} Development

Trial No. | Optimal Parameters (C, ε, σ) | Training | Validation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

RMSE | MAPE | MAE | NS | R | RMSE | MAPE | MAE | NS | R | ||

1 | (10.653, 1.032, 0.078) | 151.00 | 59.19 | 87.85 | 0.49 | 0.70 | 153.90 | 70.23 | 93.03 | 0.42 | 0.64 |

2 | (9.827, 0.435, 0.064) | 144.82 | 54.29 | 85.60 | 0.53 | 0.73 | 133.07 | 61.87 | 82.54 | 0.56 | 0.75 |

3 | (2.783, 0.678, 0.125) | 152.46 | 61.54 | 88.08 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 152.51 | 66.38 | 89.44 | 0.43 | 0.65 |

4 | (9.425, 0.823, 0.081) | 118.66 | 70.48 | 82.44 | 0.68 | 0.83 | 96.60 | 75.73 | 74.36 | 0.77 | 0.89 |

5 | (11.803, 1.254, 0.708) | 147.80 | 64.17 | 88.98 | 0.51 | 0.71 | 154.22 | 74.28 | 94.58 | 0.41 | 0.65 |

#### 5.2.3. ANN Model **A**_{2} Development

**A**

_{2}uses the results of both ANN model

**A**

_{1}and SVM model

**S**

_{1}as its input variables. There are two inputs and one output in the model. A typical three-layer network is used. The sigmoid transfer function is used in all neurons of the hidden layer and the output layer. To ensure the generalization, all variables are normalized, and a trial-and-error process is repeated to determine the optimal hidden layer nodes. The number of neuron in the hidden layer vary from two to nine, and all the statistical indexes of different network structures are recorded and compared during the calculation procedure. Finally, the optimal neural network adopted was (2, 5, 1), as shown in Figure 8, which was selected as the final forecasting model.

#### 5.3. Comparison and Discussion

**A**

_{1}and

**A**

_{2}for Xinfengjiang reservoir are (12, 15, 1) and (2, 5, 1), respectively. Moreover, using GA for parameter selection, the SVM model with parameters (C, ε, σ) = (9.425, 0.823, 0.081) is the forecasting model for Xinfengjiang reservoir.

Models | Training | Validation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

RMSE | MAPE | MAE | NS | R | RMSE | MAPE | MAE | NS | R | |

SVM | 118.66 | 70.48 | 82.44 | 0.68 | 0.83 | 96.60 | 75.73 | 74.36 | 0.77 | 0.89 |

ANN | 118.60 | 55.20 | 79.73 | 0.68 | 0.83 | 102.09 | 63.68 | 73.49 | 0.74 | 0.87 |

Hybrid Method | 95.86 | 48.28 | 62.44 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 85.72 | 49.78 | 58.33 | 0.82 | 0.91 |

**Figure 9.**Comparison of forecasted versus observed data by various methods during the validation period.

**Figure 11.**Scatter plots of forecasted versus observed data by various methods during the validation period. (

**a**) SVM; (

**b**) ANN and (

**c**) Hybrid method.

^{3}/s in June 2015, while the forecast value of the SVM, ANN, and hybrid method are 1355.5, 1381.3, and 1405.7 m

^{3}/s, about 9.4%, 7.7% and 6.1% underestimation, respectively. For the second maximum peak inflow in June 2008, the SVM, ANN, and the hybrid method can obtain 776.5, 792.3, and 840.5 m

^{3}/s instead of the observed 1066 m

^{3}/s, about 27.2%, 25.7% and 21.2% underestimation, respectively. Moreover, for the 16 peak flows, the absolute average relative error of the SVM, ANN, and the hybrid method are 15.2%, 15.5% and 10.6%, respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that for peak inflow prediction, the hybrid method can obtain better forecast precision than SVM and ANN, while there is no significant difference between ANN and SVM.

**Table 4.**Peak flow estimates of three models for Xinfengjiang reservoir during the validation period.

Peak No. | Date | Observed | Forecast Peak | Relative Error (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Peak | SVM | ANN | Hybrid Method | SVM | ANN | Hybrid Method | ||

1 | 1999/9 | 362.0 | 327.9 | 346.9 | 369.5 | −9.4 | −4.2 | 2.1 |

2 | 2000/4 | 497.9 | 516.0 | 507.5 | 434.9 | 3.6 | 1.9 | −12.7 |

3 | 2001/6 | 618.1 | 530.3 | 488.4 | 492.9 | −14.2 | −21.0 | −20.3 |

4 | 2002/8 | 352.6 | 349.1 | 376.7 | 386.2 | −1.0 | 6.8 | 9.5 |

5 | 2003/6 | 336.2 | 272.0 | 285.6 | 334.4 | −19.1 | −15.1 | −0.5 |

6 | 2004/5 | 202.8 | 237.3 | 236.8 | 225.8 | 17.0 | 16.8 | 11.3 |

7 | 2005/6 | 1496.4 | 1355.5 | 1381.3 | 1405.7 | −9.4 | −7.7 | −6.1 |

8 | 2006/6 | 783.8 | 583.2 | 598.1 | 679.5 | −25.6 | −23.7 | −13.3 |

9 | 2007/6 | 687.5 | 555.7 | 581.4 | 592.1 | −19.2 | −15.4 | −13.9 |

10 | 2008/6 | 1066.0 | 776.5 | 792.3 | 840.5 | −27.2 | −25.7 | −21.2 |

11 | 2009/6 | 228.2 | 211.5 | 252.4 | 236.1 | −7.3 | 10.6 | 3.5 |

12 | 2010/6 | 867.5 | 701.4 | 626.7 | 677.5 | −19.2 | −27.8 | −21.9 |

13 | 2011/5 | 369.6 | 293.5 | 244.1 | 319.3 | −20.6 | −34.0 | −13.6 |

14 | 2012/6 | 442.3 | 315.6 | 348.7 | 419.6 | −28.6 | −21.2 | −5.1 |

15 | 2013/5 | 860.9 | 766.5 | 794.2 | 778.3 | −11.0 | −7.7 | −9.6 |

16 | 2014/5 | 616.2 | 544.8 | 567.0 | 584.9 | −11.6 | −8.0 | −5.1 |

Average (absolute) | 15.2 | 15.5 | 10.6 |

## 6. Conclusions

## Acknowledgments

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Zhao, T.; Zhao, J. Joint and respective effects of long and short-term forecast uncertainties on reservoir operations. J. Hydrol.
**2014**, 517, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chiu, Y.C.; Chang, L.C.; Chang, F.J. Using a hybrid genetic algorithm-simulated annealing algorithm for fuzzy programming of reservoir operation. Hydrol. Process.
**2007**, 21, 3162–3172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Karamouz, M.; Ahmadi, A.; Moridi, A. Probabilistic reservoir operation using bayesian stochastic model and support vector machine. Adv. Water Resour.
**2009**, 32, 1588–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lian, J.; Yao, Y.; Ma, C.; Guo, Q. Reservoir operation rules for controlling algal blooms in a tributary to the impoundment of three gorges dam. Water
**2014**, 6, 3200–3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chau, K.W.; Wu, C.L.; Li, Y.S. Comparison of several flood forecasting models in Yangtz River. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2005**, 10, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, P.; Lin, K.; Wei, X. A two-stage method of quantitative flood risk analysis for reservoir real-time operation using ensemble-based hydrologic forecasts. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A
**2014**, 29, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chau, K.W.; Wu, C.A. Hybrid model coupled with singular spectrum analysis for daily rainfall prediction. J. Hydroinform.
**2010**, 12, 458–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheng, C.T.; Lin, J.Y.; Sun, Y.G.; Chau, K.W. Long-term prediction of discharges in Manwan hydropower using adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems models. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
**2005**, 3612, 1152–1161. [Google Scholar] - Fleming, S.W.; Weber, F.A. Detection of long-term change in hydroelectric reservoir inflows: Bridging theory and practice. J. Hydrol.
**2012**, 470, 36–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.L.; Chau, K.W.; Li, Y.S. Methods to improve neural network performance in daily flows prediction. J. Hydrol.
**2009**, 372, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lund, J.R. Flood Management in California. Water
**2012**, 4, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Muttil, N.; Chau, K.W. Machine learning paradigms for selecting ecologically significant input variables. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
**2007**, 20, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Coulibaly, P.; Haché, M.; Fortin, V.; Bobée, B. Improving daily reservoir inflow forecasts with model combination. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2005**, 10, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhu, T.; Lund, J.R.; Jenkins, M.W.; Marques, G.F.; Ritzema, R.S. Climate change, urbanization, and optimal long-term floodplain protection. Water Resour. Res.
**2007**, 43, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.L.; Chau, K.W. Data-driven models for monthly streamflow time series prediction. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
**2010**, 23, 1350–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valipour, M.; Banihabib, M.E.; Behbahani, S.M.R. Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA and the autoregressive artificial neural network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of Dez dam reservoir. J. Hydrol.
**2013**, 476, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, W.C.; Chau, K.W.; Cheng, C.T.; Qiu, L. A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series. J. Hydrol.
**2009**, 374, 294–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taormina, R.; Chau, K.W. Neural network river forecasting with multi-objective fully informed particle swarm optimization. J. Hydroinform.
**2015**, 17, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, G.F.; Chen, G.R.; Huang, P.Y. Effective typhoon characteristics and their effects on hourly reservoir inflow forecasting. Adv. Water Resour.
**2010**, 33, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Demirel, M.C.; Venancio, A.; Kahya, E. Flow forecast by SWAT model and ANN in Pracana basin, Portugal. Adv. Eng. Softw.
**2009**, 40, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saeidifarzad, B.; Nourani, V.; Aalami, M.; Chau, K.W. Multi-site calibration of linear reservoir based geomorphologic rainfall-runoff models. Water
**2014**, 6, 2690–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W.; Chau, K.W. Intelligent manipulation and calibration of parameters for hydrological models. Int. J. Environ. Pollut.
**2006**, 28, 432–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheng, C.T.; Ou, C.P.; Chau, K.W. Combining a fuzzy optimal model with a genetic algorithm to solve multi-objective rainfall-runoff model calibration. J. Hydrol.
**2002**, 268, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, H.V.; Kling, H.; Yilmaz, K.K.; Martinez, G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol.
**2009**, 377, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sattari, M.T.; Yurekli, K.; Pal, M. Performance evaluation of artificial neural network approaches in forecasting reservoir inflow. Appl. Math. Model.
**2012**, 36, 2649–2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maier, H.R.; Dandy, G.C. Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: A review of modeling issues and applications. Environ. Modell. Softw.
**2000**, 15, 101–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taormina, R.; Chau, K.W.; Sethi, R. Artificial neural network simulation of hourly groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer system of the venice lagoon. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
**2012**, 25, 1670–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kisi, O.; Cimen, M. A wavelet-support vector machine conjunction model for monthly streamflow forecasting. J. Hydrol.
**2011**, 399, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, J.S.; Yu, S.P.; Liu, G.M. Multi-step-ahead predictor design for effective long-term forecast of hydrological signals using a novel wavelet neural network hybrid model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2013**, 17, 4981–4993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Noori, R.; Karbassi, A.R.; Moghaddamnia, A.; Han, D.; Zokaei-Ashtiani, M.H.; Farokhnia, A.; Gousheh, M.G. Assessment of input variables determination on the SVM model performance using PCA, Gamma test, and forward selection techniques for monthly stream flow prediction. J. Hydrol.
**2011**, 40, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, G.F.; Chen, G.R.; Wu, M.C.; Chou, Y.C. Effective forecasting of hourly typhoon rainfall using support vector machines. Water Resour. Res.
**2009**, 45, 560–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bazartseren, B.; Hildebrandt, G.; Holz, K.P. Short-term water level prediction using neural networks and neuro-fuzzy approach. Neurocomputing
**2003**, 55, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coulibaly, P.; Anctil, F.; Bobee, B. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach. J. Hydrol.
**2000**, 230, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Su, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, S.; Chen, B.; Li, C.; Yang, Z. A structurally simplified hybrid model of genetic algorithm and support vector machine for prediction of chlorophyll a in reservoirs. Water
**2015**, 7, 1610–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuo, J.T.; Wang, Y.Y.; Lung, W.S. A hybrid neural-genetic algorithm for reservoir water quality management. Water Res.
**2006**, 40, 1367–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Guo, Z.H.; Wu, J.; Lu, H.Y.; Wang, J.Z. A case study on a hybrid wind speed forecasting method using bp neural network. Knowl. Based Syst.
**2011**, 24, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thirumalaiah, K.; Deo, M.C. River stage forecasting using artificial neural networks. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**1998**, 3, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alvisi, S.; Mascellani, G.; Franchini, M.; Bardossy, A. Water level forecasting through fuzzy logic and artificial neural network approaches. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2006**, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seo, Y.; Kim, S.; Kisi, O.; Singh, V.P. Daily water level forecasting using wavelet decomposition and artificial intelligence techniques. J. Hydrol.
**2015**, 520, 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, J.; Cheng, C.T.; Liao, S.L.; Wu, X.Y.; Shen, J.J. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting combining QPF into ANNs model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2009**, 6, 121–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, J.Y.; Cheng, C.T.; Chau, K.W. Using support vector machines for long-term discharge prediction. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2006**, 51, 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.S.; Yang, S.L.; Lei, Y.P. Quantifying the anthropogenic and climatic impacts on water discharge and sediment load in the Pearl River (Zhujiang), China (1954–2009). J. Hydrol.
**2012**, 452, 190–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, P.S.; Chen, S.T.; Chang, I.F. Support vector regression for real-time flood stage forecasting. J. Hydrol.
**2006**, 328, 704–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, G.F.; Chen, G.R.; Huang, P.Y.; Chou, Y.C. Support vector machine-based models for hourly reservoir inflow forecasting during typhoon-warning periods. J. Hydrol.
**2009**, 372, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.L.; Chau, K.W.; Li, Y.S. River stage prediction based on a distributed support vector regression. J. Hydrol.
**2008**, 358, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Cheng, C.-T.; Feng, Z.-K.; Niu, W.-J.; Liao, S.-L. Heuristic Methods for Reservoir Monthly Inflow Forecasting: A Case Study of Xinfengjiang Reservoir in Pearl River, China. *Water* **2015**, *7*, 4477-4495.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7084477

**AMA Style**

Cheng C-T, Feng Z-K, Niu W-J, Liao S-L. Heuristic Methods for Reservoir Monthly Inflow Forecasting: A Case Study of Xinfengjiang Reservoir in Pearl River, China. *Water*. 2015; 7(8):4477-4495.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7084477

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Cheng, Chun-Tian, Zhong-Kai Feng, Wen-Jing Niu, and Sheng-Li Liao. 2015. "Heuristic Methods for Reservoir Monthly Inflow Forecasting: A Case Study of Xinfengjiang Reservoir in Pearl River, China" *Water* 7, no. 8: 4477-4495.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7084477