Abstract

Abstract Rainfall–runoff models are valuable tools for flood forecasting, management of water resources, and drought warning. With the advancement in space technology, a plethora of satellite precipitation products (SPPs) are available publicly. However, the application of the satellite data for the data-driven rainfall–runoff model is emerging and requires careful investigation. In this work, two satellite rainfall data sets, namely Global Precipitation Measurement-Integrated Multi-Satellite Retrieval Product V6 (GPM-IMERG) and Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS), are evaluated for the development of rainfall–runoff models and the prediction of 1-day ahead streamflow. The accuracy of the data from the SPPs is compared to the India Meteorological Department (IMD)-gridded precipitation data set. Detection metrics showed that for light rainfall (1–10 mm), the probability of detection (POD) value ranges between 0.67 and 0.75 and with an increasing rainfall range, i.e., medium and heavy rainfall (10–50 mm and >50 mm), the POD values ranged from 0.24 to 0.45. These results indicate that the satellite precipitation performs satisfactorily with reference to the IMD-gridded data set. Using the daily precipitation data of nearly two decades (2000–2018) over two river basins in India's eastern part, artificial neural network, extreme learning machine (ELM), and long short-time memory (LSTM) models are developed for rainfall–runoff modelling. One-day ahead runoff prediction using the developed rainfall–runoff modelling confirmed that both the SPPs are sufficient to drive the rainfall–runoff models with a reasonable accuracy estimated using the Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency coefficient, correlation coefficient, and the root-mean-squared error. In particular, the 1-day streamflow forecasts for the Vamsadhara river basin (VRB) using LSTM with GPM-IMERG inputs resulted in Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Coefficient (NSC) values of 0.68 and 0.67, while ELM models for Mahanadhi river basin (MRB) with the same input resulted in NSC values of 0.86 and 0.87, respectively, during training and validation stages. At the same time, the LSTM model with CHIRPS inputs for the VRB resulted in NSC values of 0.68 and 0.65, and the ELM model with CHIRPS inputs for the MRB resulted in NSC values of 0.89 and 0.88, respectively, in training and validation stages. These results indicated that both the SPPs could reliably be used with LSTM and ELM models for rainfall–runoff modelling and streamflow prediction. This paper highlights that deep learning models, such as ELM and LSTM, with the GPM-IMERG products can lead to a new horizon to provide flood forecasting in flood-prone catchments.

Highlights

  • Rainfall–runoff modelling is vital in reservoir management, hydropower, environmental flow, water management, flood assessment, and so on

  • The first section shows the statistical analysis of satellite precipitation products (SPPs) compared with the India Meteorological Department (IMD) data using metrics such as probability of detection (POD), false alarm ratio (FAR), and critical success index (CSI)

  • Of the two best models, long short-time memory (LSTM) was more accurate for the Vamsadhara river basin (VRB) and extreme learning machine (ELM) to be the best model for the Mahanadhi river basin (MRB)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rainfall–runoff modelling is vital in reservoir management, hydropower, environmental flow, water management, flood assessment, and so on. Rainfall–runoff models can be classified into the following: (i) data-driven-based methods (Khac-Tien Nguyen & Hock-Chye Chua 2012; Elsafi 2014; Nguyen et al 2014; Yaghoubi et al 2019; Hadid et al 2020; Xiang et al 2020), (ii) conceptual model-based approaches (Nash & Sutcliffe 1970; Brath & Rosso 1993; Kan et al 2017; Unduche et al 2018), and (iii) physical model-based methods (Vieux et al 2003; Chen et al 2016; Setti et al 2020) Of these methods, data-driven-based models were found to be of a great value due to their accuracy and simplicity (Teegavarapu & Chandramouli 2005; Wu et al 2009; Wu & Chau 2010; Orouji et al 2013; Nguyen et al 2014; Steyn et al 2017; Ahani et al 2018; Mazrooei & Sankarasubramanian 2019). Ground-based data sets were used to develop forecasting models, but it is well-known that ground-based gauged data are scarce and are limited to few locations

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call