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

net/publication/235994718

Parameter Estimation of the Nonlinear Muskingum Flood Routing Model Using a

Hybrid Harmony Search Algorithm

Article  in  Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · March 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000608

CITATIONS READS
78 327

3 authors:

Halil Karahan Gurhan Gurarslan

Pamukkale University Pamukkale University
42 PUBLICATIONS   675 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zong Woo Geem

Gachon University
131 PUBLICATIONS   9,949 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research on sustainability in water, food, environment, energy & infrastructure View project

Research on Music, Art & Culture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Halil Karahan on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study

Parameter Estimation of the Nonlinear Muskingum

Flood-Routing Model Using a Hybrid Harmony
Search Algorithm
Halil Karahan1; Gurhan Gurarslan, Aff.M.ASCE2; and Zong Woo Geem3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In this paper, a hybrid harmony search (HS) algorithm is proposed for the parameter estimation of the nonlinear Muskingum
model. The BFGS algorithm is used as local search algorithm with a low probability for accelerating the HS algorithm. In the proposed
technique, an indirect penalty function approach is imposed on the model to prevent negativity of outflows and storages. The proposed
algorithm finds the global or near-global minimum regardless of the initial parameter values with fast convergence. The proposed algorithm
found the best solution among 12 different methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can be applied confidently to
estimate optimal parameter values of the nonlinear Muskingum model. Moreover, this hybrid methodology may be applicable to any con-
tinuous engineering optimization problems. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000608. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Flood routing; Parameters; Hydrologic models; Optimization; Algorithms.
Author keywords: Flood routing; Parameters; Hydrologic models; Optimization.

Introduction
Flood routing is required for proper management and design
of many environmental and water resource projects (Singh and
Scarlatos 1987). Flow routing may be considered an analysis to
trace the flow through a hydrologic system, given the input. The
difference between lumped and distributed system routing is that
in a lumped system model, the flow is calculated as a function
of time alone at a particular location; whereas in a distributed sys-
tem, routing the flow is calculated as a function of space and time
throughout the system. Routing by lumped system methods is
sometimes called hydrologic routing, and routing by distributed
system methods is sometimes referred to as hydraulic routing
(Chow et al. 1988).
Hydraulic methods of routing involve the numerical solutions of
either the convective-diffusion equations or the one-dimensional
Saint-Venant equations of gradually varied unsteady flow in open
channels. A great deal of literature is available on the flood-routing
process. For instance, the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River
Analysis System (HEC-RAS) [U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
(USACE) 2002] and MIKE-11 [Danish Hydrological Institute
(DHI) 2003] are able to solve the full Saint-Venant equations that
represent the most complete approach to describe flow regimes
in natural channels. However, these models are not suitable to
serve the purpose of flood routing in places for which detailed
topographical surveys of channel cross sections and roughness
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale Univ., TR-20017,
Denizli, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: hkarahan@pau.edu.tr
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale Univ., TR-20017,
Denizli, Turkey.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Energy IT, Gachon Univ., Seongnam,
South Korea.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 12, 2011; approved on
February 13, 2012; published online on February 15, 2012. Discussion per-
iod open until August 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi-
neering, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/
3-352-360/$25.00.
at close intervals are not available. In this case, lumped hydrologic
flood-routing models may be used because they can cope with
sparse spatial data, allowing the estimation of the outflow discharge
as a function of the inflow discharge and of the geometric and
hydraulic properties of the selected river channel. In general,
two types of hydrologic models for flood routing can be used (Reed
1984). The first is based on the conservation of mass and uses a
conceptual relationship between storage and discharge in place
of the dynamic equation. The Muskingum method is an example.
The second is established on the theory of linear systems employ-
ing convolution (Keefer and McQuivey 1974; Singh 1988).
The hydraulic methods are typically more accurate than hydro-
logic methods, but hydraulic methods are more complicated
than hydrologic methods. The statement is generally true if one
reduces the hydrologic model to a linear time invariant lumped
model. Nonetheless, several hydrologic models are derived by in-
tegrating in space the original hydraulic point equations, and they
can be viewed as a finite-element approach to the integration of the
hydraulic differential equations. This is the case of the well-known
Muskingum-Cunge (MC) model (Cunge 1969), which although
based on a linear Muskingum allows the parameters to vary in time
according to the average flow characteristics in the reach, in such a
way as to mimic the behavior of a hydraulic parabolic model. More
recently, Todini (2007) corrected this model to preserve the mass
and to correctly reproduce the Muskingum equations. The new ap-
proach, the Muskingum-Cunge-Todini (MCT), was shown to reach
the same level of approximation of more sophisticated hydraulic
models over a wide range of flow regimes. In MC or MCT, the
model parameters do not require an estimation procedure (they
all depend on the friction coefficient, which is the only unknown
element), while they are updated in time as a function of the mean
state variables in the river reach (Todini 2007).
On these bases, the hydrologic models, relatively simple to im-
plement and reasonably accurate, have to be preferred in practical
applications (Haktanir and Ozmen 1997). The Muskingum method
is a simple flood-routing technique widely used for field applica-
tions (Karahan 2009).

352 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.

 The Muskingum method was first developed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for the flood control studies of the Muskingum
River basin in Ohio (McCarthy 1938). The standard procedure for
applying the Muskingum method involves two basic steps: calibra-
tion and prediction. In the calibration step, a parameter estimation
problem is solved in which the model parameter values are deter-
mined by using historical inflow-outflow hydrograph data of the
investigated river reach. In the prediction step, a routing problem
is solved in which the outflow hydrograph for a given inflow hydro-
graph is determined by using the routing equations (Das 2004).
In the original Muskingum model, the following continuity and
storage equations are used:
dSt
¼ I t − Ot ð1Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dt
St ¼ K½χI t þ ð1 − χÞOt
ð2Þ
where St [L3 ], I t [L3 =T], and Ot [L3 =T] = simultaneous amounts of
storage, inflow, and outflow, respectively, at time t; K [L3ð1−mÞ T m ] =
storage-time constant and is greater than 0; and χ = weighting fac-
tor usually varying between 0 and 0.5 (Tung 1985).
The model is easy to use, requiring the assessment of two
parameters ðK; χÞ, which can be simply obtained by observed
inflow and outflow data. Flood routing is a component of the
rainfall-runoff transformation process. In rainfall-runoff modeling,
nonlinear responses are primarily attributable to two causes. The
most important is the effect of antecedent conditions: the wetter
the catchment before a unit input of rainfall, the greater the volume
of runoff that will be generated. Thus, the relationships between
total rainfall and runoff are generally considered to be nonlinear.
The secondary cause of nonlinearity is attributable to the change
of flow velocity with discharge.
In general, average flow velocities increase with flow in a non-
linear way (Beven 2001), and the relationship between the
weighted flow and the storage is nonlinear. Thus, using the linear
form of the Muskingum model may introduce considerable error
(Yoon and Padmanabhan 1993). For this purpose, Gill (1978) sug-
gested two nonlinear Muskingum models given subsequently as
St ¼ K½χI m
t þ ð1 − χÞOt

m
ð3Þ
St ¼ K½χI t þ ð1 − χÞOt
m ð4Þ
where m = an exponent for considering the effects of nonlinearity
and is greater than 1 for nonlinear models (the original linear model
can be a special case of the nonlinear model where m ¼ 1). In the
model, K, χ, and m are unknown parameters, and St and Ot must be
handled as nonnegative variables.
Various nonheuristic techniques, such as the segmented
least-squares method (S-LSM) (Gill 1978), the hybrid of the
Hooke-Jeeves pattern search and the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell
(HJ+DFP) algorithm (Tung 1985), the nonlinear least-squares
method (NL-LSM) (Yoon and Padmanabhan 1993), the Lagrange-
multiplier method (LMM) (Das 2004) and BFGS (Geem 2006),
and the Nelder-Mead simplex (NMS) algorithm (Barati 2011), have
been applied for parameter estimation of the nonlinear Muskingum
model. However, these techniques have the drawbacks of a com-
plex derivative requirement and/or good initial vector assumption
(Geem 2011). For example, the BFGS technique (Geem 2006)
reached the best solution ever found, but its success relies heavily
on the initial solution vector. Out of 75 cases with different initial
vectors, only 20 cases successfully reached the optimal solution;
whereas 4 cases found near-optimal solutions, 12 cases were not
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 353
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.
able to compute because they were located at an infeasible solution
area, and 39 cases diverged during the computation (Geem 2011).
More recently, Barati (2011) proposed the NMS algorithm for
estimating parameters of the nonlinear Muskingum model. Out
of 125 cases, only 50 cases successfully reached the optimal
solution; whereas 56 cases found near-optimal solutions, 4 cases
found away-optimal solutions, and 15 cases diverged during the
computation. Thus, because these techniques may be inefficient
for solving the nonlinear Muskingum model, an increased interest
has been directed toward the application of heuristic algorithms.
During the past decade, several researchers have proposed different
heuristic algorithms such as genetic algorithm (GA) (Mohan 1997),
harmony search (HS) (Kim et al. 2001), particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO) (Chu and Chang 2009), immune clonal selection algo-
rithm (ICSA) (Luo and Xie 2010), parameter-setting-free harmony
search (PSF-HS) algorithm (Geem 2011), and differential evolution
(DE) algorithm (Xu et al. 2011) for parameter estimation of the
nonlinear Muskingum model.
Recently, hybrid global-local optimization algorithms have
become popular solution approaches for solving engineering
optimization problems (Fesanghary et al. 2008; Ayvaz et al. 2009;
Kayhan et al. 2010). These algorithms integrate the global explor-
ing feature of heuristic algorithms and local fine-tuning feature of
nonheuristic algorithms. Through this integration, optimization
problems can be solved more effectively than both global and local
optimization algorithms (Shannon 1998). In these algorithms, the
global optimization process searches the optimum solution with
multiple solution vectors, and then, the local optimization process
adjusts the results of global optimization by getting its results as the
initial solution (Ayvaz et al. 2009; Kayhan et al. 2010).
This paper presents a study based on the application of existing
algorithms, HS (Geem 2000) and BFGS (Geem 2006), used in
cascade to improve the Muskingum parameters profiting by cou-
pling a heuristic method for global search and a gradient-based
method for local search. To prevent negativity of outflows and
storages, an indirect penalty approach is used in the model. The
performance of the proposed algorithm is measured by comparing
the SSQ (the sum of the square of the deviations between the
observed and computed outflows) values for a synthetic data set
with the ones from the other 11 approaches including HS and
BFGS algorithms separately applied. Moreover, the proposed algo-
rithm is tested for a real-life example.
Theoretical Background
In the following, the mathematical bases of the hybrid harmony
search algorithm and of the routing model used in this study are
described.
Hybrid Harmony Search BFGS Algorithm
The aim of integrating local search techniques with heuristic
algorithms, such as the hybrid harmony search BFGS (HS-BFGS)
algorithm, is to combine their advantages and avoid their disadvan-
tages. For example, the BFGS method is a very efficient local
search procedure, but its convergence is extremely sensitive to
the selected starting point; HS belongs to the class of global search
procedures but requires much computational effort. The HS algo-
rithm (global search) searches the optimum solution with multiple
solution vectors, and then the BFGS algorithm (local search) pro-
cess adjusts the results of the HS algorithm by getting its results as
the initial solution.
 Harmony Search Algorithm
The harmony search algorithm was developed by Geem (2000) in
an analogy with the music improvisation process in which music
players improvise the pitches if their instruments obtain better
harmony (Lee and Geem 2005). Harmony search tries to find a vec-
tor X that minimizes a certain objective function. The combination
of the harmony search algorithm with the local search algorithm is
summarized in the following steps:
1. Generate random vectors (x1 : : : xHMS ) as many as harmony
memory size (HMS) and compute their fitness values (f), then
store them in harmony memory (HM). The HM has the
following structure:
2
3 3. Solve the linear system of equations HðkÞ dðkÞ ¼ −cðkÞ to
x1N

fðX1 Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
found in some numerical optimization textbooks, such as those
by Arora (1989) and Nocedal and Wright (2006).
The BFGS algorithm can be summarized in the following steps
(Arora 1989):
1. Estimate an initial design vector Xð0Þ. The Xð0Þ is defined on
the basis of the HS algorithm results. Choose a symmetric po-
sitive definite matrix Hð0Þ as an estimate for the Hessian of
the cost function. In the absence of more information, let
Hð0Þ ¼ I. Choose a convergence parameter ε. Set k ¼ 0,
and compute the gradient vector as cð0Þ ¼ ∇gðXð0Þ Þ, where
g = cost function of the design vector.
2. Calculate the norm of the gradient vector as kcðkÞ k. If
kcðkÞ k < ϵ, then stop the iterative process; otherwise continue.

x11 x12 · ·· x1N−1 obtain the search direction, where d = search direction vector.
6
7
6 x21 x22 · ·· x2N−1 x2N
fðX2 Þ 7 4. Compute optimum step size αk ¼ α to minimize
6
7
6 . .. .. .. ..

.. 7 gðXðkÞ þ αdðkÞ Þ.
HM ¼ 6 6 . . . . . .
.
7
7 5. Update the design as Xðkþ1Þ ¼ XðkÞ þ αdðkÞ .
6
7
6 xHMS−1 xHMS−1 · ·· xHMS−1 xHMS−1
fðXHMS−1 Þ 7 6. Update the Hessian approximation for the cost function as
4 1 2
5
N−1 N


HMS
Hðkþ1Þ ¼ HðkÞ þ DðkÞ þ EðkÞ
HMS
x1 x2HMS HMS
· ·· xN−1 xN fðXHMS
Þ
ð5Þ where the correction matrices DðkÞ and EðkÞ are given as

y ðkÞ y ðkÞ cðkÞ cðkÞ

T T
2. Generate a new vector (Xnew ). For each component xnew i , with
probability harmony memory considering rate (HMCR), pick DðkÞ ¼ ; EðkÞ ¼
y ðkÞ sðkÞ cðkÞ dðkÞ
int½randð0;1Þ×HMS
þ1
the stored value from HM as xnew i ¼ xi , and
with probability (1 − HMCR), pick a random value within the sðkÞ ¼ αk dðkÞ (change in design); y ðkÞ ¼ cðkþ1Þ − cðkÞ (change
feasible variation range. in gradient);
3. With the probability pitch adjusting rate (PAR), change xnew i cðkþ1Þ ¼ ∇gðXðkþ1Þ Þ
by a small amount as xnew i ¼ xnew
j þ bw × randð0; 1Þ for
the continuous variable, and with probability (1 − PAR), do 7. Set k ¼ k þ 1, and go to step 2.
nothing.
4. If Xnew is better than the worst vector Xworst in HM, replace
Xworst with Xnew .
Routing Procedure of Nonlinear Muskingum Model
5. With the probability pc (probability of calling the BFGS),
generate a new vector (XBFGS ) by using a local search algo- The previously described search algorithms are used for assessing
rithm (by selecting Xworst from HM as the initial solution). If the nonlinear Muskingum model parameters within the routing
XBFGS is better than Xworst in the HM, replace Xworst solving procedure. Rearranging Eq. (4), the rate of outflow Ot
with XBFGS . can be obtained as (Tung 1985; Geem 2006)
6. Repeat steps 2 to 5 until the termination criterion is satisfied.   1=m  
If the termination criterion is satisfied, the optimal vector is 1 St χ
Ot ¼ − I ð6Þ
selected as the best vector in the HM. 1−χ K 1−χ t
The parameters of the algorithm are HMS, the size of the
harmony memory; HMCR, the rate of choosing a value from Combining Eq. (6) and the continuity Eq. (1), the state equation
the harmony memory; PAR, the rate of choosing a neighboring can be obtained as
value; and bw, the amount of maximum change in pitch adjustment   1=m  
dSt 1 St 1
(bandwidth). ¼− þ I ð7Þ
dt 1−χ K 1−χ t

BFGS Algorithm Stþ1 ¼ St þ ΔSt ð8Þ

The most popular quasi-Newton algorithm is the BFGS method,
named for its discoverers, Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb, and Shanno
(Nocedal and Wright 2006). The BFGS method is derived from
Newton’s method in optimization, a class of hill-climbing optimi-
zation techniques that seeks the stationary point of a function,
where the gradient is zero. Newton’s method assumes that the func-
tion can be locally approximated as a quadratic Taylor expansion
in the region around the optimum and uses the first and second
derivatives to find the stationary point.
In quasi-Newton methods, the Hessian matrix of second deriva-
tives of the function to be minimized does not need to be computed at
any stage. The Hessian is updated by analyzing successive gradient
vectors instead. Detailed discussion of the BFGS method can be
The unit time step is used in the Eq. (6). If infeasible values of K,
χ, and m are selected, negative values of Ot and St can be obtained
in the numerical solution of the Muskingum model. Hence, an
indirect penalty function approach is imposed to the numerical
solution to avoid negative outflows and storages (outflows and
storages cannot be negative quantities) as follows:
Stþ1 ¼ λ1 jStþ1 j; if Stþ1 < 0 ð9aÞ
Otþ1 ¼ λ2 jOtþ1 j; if Otþ1 < 0 ð9bÞ
where λ1 and λ2 = penalty constants; Stþ1 = penalized next storage;
and Otþ1 = penalized next outflow. Stþ1 and Otþ1 are positive but

354 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.

 unrealistic values. The zero-order numerical routing procedure
given by Tung (1985) and Geem (2006) is preferred for making
a comparison and is slightly modified for preventing negativity
of outflows and storages. The primary steps of this procedure
are given as follows:
1. Assign a candidate vector (X) to the parameters of K, χ,
and m.
2. Calculate St using Eq. (4), where initial outflow is the same as
the initial inflow.
3. Calculate the time rate of change of storage volume
using Eq. (7).
4. Estimate the next accumulated storage (Stþ1 ) using Eq. (8).
If the next storage has a negative value, apply to the penalty
factor by using Eq. (9a).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
5. Calculate the next outflow (Otþ1 ) using Eq. (6). If the next
outflow has a negative value, apply to the penalty factor by
using Eq. (9b).
6. Repeat steps 2–5 for all times.
Numerical Applications
To fairly test the reliability of the proposed HS-BFGS procedure
and to compare it with other different methods available in the lit-
erature, two example are solved through the developed model with
the data given by Wilson (1974) and River Wye December 1960
Flood data [Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
1975]. The objective function to be minimized within the HS
algorithm ðfÞ is the sum of the square of the deviations between
observed and computed outflows as follows:
X Table 4.
Minimize∶ SSQ ¼ ½Ot − Ôt ðK; χ; mÞ
2 ð10Þ
t
where Ot denotes the observed outflow; Ôt denotes the computed
outflow; and K; χ; m = design variables. The ranges of the
three parameters used in the applications are selected as
K ¼ 0.01 − 1.0, χ ¼ 0.01 − 0.5, and m ¼ 1.0 − 3.0. There are a
large number of parameter vectors, P~ ¼ ðK; χ; mÞ, producing neg-
ative outflows in these ranges. These vectors are called infeasible
vectors. For example, P~ ¼ ð0.7011; 0.3332; 2.0783Þ is an infea-
sible vector and gives negative outflows for the data set given
by Wilson (1974). These infeasible vectors lead to the termination
of the optimization process. The stopping condition can be given as
(Ali and Törn 2004; Karahan 2011)
jfbest − fworstj ≤ ε ð11Þ
Iter ≤ MaxIter ð12Þ
where ε = a small number, used as 1E − 12 in both HS and BFGS
algorithms; Iter = iteration number; MaxIter = maximum iteration
number (selected as 50,000 for preventing the premature conver-
gence); fbest is the best fitness value in the harmony memory;
and fworst is the worst fitness value in the harmony memory.
To evaluate the model performance, SSQ and E, the modified
coefficient of efficiency (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970; Karahan and
Ayvaz 2005), are used:
P as 10 and 0.005 for this problem in terms of standard deviation of
jOt − Ôt ðK; χ; mÞj
E¼1− t P ð13Þ
t jOt − Ōj
where Ō = mean of the observed outflows in a given flood
data set.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 355
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.
The HS-BFGS was run 100 times to achieve average results and
to show robustness of the algorithm. For each run, the initial
population was randomly created by means of using different
seed numbers. Geem (2000) has recommended the parameter
values of HS as 0.70 ∼ 0.95 for HMCR, 0.20 ∼ 0.50 for PAR,
and 10 ∼ 50 for HMS. Recently, some dynamically updated
versions of PAR and bw have been proposed for improving the
performance of the HS algorithm. Detailed discussion on the selec-
tion of HS parameters can be found in Mahdavi et al. (2007),
Fesanghary et al. (2008), and Taherinejad (2009). In this study,
HMCR (0.80 ∼ 0.95), PAR (0.30 ∼ 0.45), and bw (value range=
500 ∼ value range=1;500) values are selected randomly between
the maximum and minimum range of the parameters.
Application to Data Set Given by Wilson
The parameter estimation technique for the nonlinear Muskingum
model using HS-BFGS is applied to the data set given by Wilson
(1974). The data reported by Wilson are known to present a non-
linear relationship between weighted discharge and storage
(Al-Humoud and Esen 2006) and are used extensively in the liter-
ature as a benchmark problem. To determine the suitable HMS and
pc values, a sensitivity analysis was carried out using a thorough
data set given by Wilson with the pc ¼ ð0; 0.005; 0.01; 0.05Þ for
each HMS value. Statistical values (best, worst, mean, and standard
deviation of the SSQ values) of the parameters, SSQs, iteration
number, and CPU times obtained by different pc values for each
HMS value are presented in Tables 1–3. The number of successful
experiments with the different HMS and pc values are given in
As is shown in Tables 1 and 4, the global optimum is not
obtained for HMS ¼ 5 when a pure HS algorithm is used
ðpc ¼ 0Þ. In this case, the best SSQ value is the near-global opti-
mum. However, the global optimum is found when HS-BFGS is
used ðpc ≠ 0Þ. The global optimum is found 93 times for
pc ¼ 0.005, 97 times for pc ¼ 0.01, and 99 times for pc ¼ 0.05.
As is shown in Table 4, the global optimum is found for HMS ¼
10 whether a classical HS algorithm or an HS-BFGS algorithm is
used. The global optimum is found once for pc ¼ 0 and 100 times
for all the other pc values.
As is shown in Table 4, the global optimum is not obtained for
HMS ¼ 20 when a pure HS algorithm is used ðpc ¼ 0Þ. In this
case, the best SSQ value is the near-global optimum. However,
the global optimum is found when HS-BFGS is used ðpc ≠ 0Þ.
Global optimum is found 100 times for all the other pc values.
From Table 3, it can be inferred that the HS-BFGS results are better
than the pure HS results. As is shown in Tables 1–3, increasing
HMS and pc values produces a decrease of the standard deviation
of SSQs and an increase of the CPU times. The best standard
deviation is obtained as 1.02E − 9 when HMS is assumed to be
20 and pc is assumed to be 0.05. In this case, the related CPU time
is 15.39 s. If HMS is assumed to be 10 and pc is assumed to be
0.005, the standard deviation is obtained as 5.85E − 8. The related
CPU time is only 0.0872 s. Standard deviations of these two cases
are similar, but the required CPU time for the second case is much
smaller than the first one. So, selection of the second case is more
reasonable than the first one. The HMS and pc values are selected
SSQ values and required CPU time. From Tables 1–4, it can be
concluded that the proposed hybrid algorithm is very fast and
robust according to the HS algorithm.
Table 5 shows the comparison of the best SSQ for Wilson’s data
obtained from various techniques. As is shown in Table 5, the SSQ
 Table 1. Statistical Values of the Parameters for 100 Runs, SSQs, Iteration Number, and CPU Times Obtained by Different pc Values for HMS ¼ 5
Iteration number
pc Statistical values K χ m SSQ HS BFGS Total CPU (s)
0.0 Best 0.088186 0.287507 1.863187 36.783254 628 0 628 0.1444
Worst 0.048659 0.125909 2.021962 541.414658 41 0 41 0.0110
Mean 0.053105 0.275045 2.007822 71.504395 1,157 0 1,157 0.2672
Standard deviation 0.025257 0.027419 0.127588 77.587073 857 0 857 0.1949
0.005 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 582 4 586 0.2445
Worst 0.074907 0.164230 1.817818 1,364.100552 39 0 39 0.0111
Mean 0.083774 0.284083 1.877249 54.844419 305 1 306 0.1517
Standard deviation 0.010740 0.015654 0.044870 135.628046 188 1 189 0.1222
0.01 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 187 3 190 0.1611
Worst 0.097097 0.187499 1.793571 558.429883 138 0 138 0.0331
Mean 0.085142 0.284518 1.872611 49.825918 228 2 230 0.1699
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Standard deviation 0.008632 0.014046 0.038983 77.111994 142 2 144 0.1214

0.05 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888 857 38 895 1.3138
Worst 0.099165 0.267879 1.873838 384.008268 14 0 14 0.0046
Mean 0.086377 0.286726 1.868147 40.240292 188 10 198 0.3833
Standard deviation 0.001292 0.001904 0.000575 34.724038 149 8 157 0.2867

Table 2. Statistical Values of the Parameters for 100 Runs, SSQs, Iteration Number, and CPU Times Obtained by Different pc Values for HMS ¼ 10
Iteration number
pc Statistical values K χ m SSQ HS BFGS Total CPU (s)
0 Best 0.086219 0.286909 1.868166 36.767892 3,407 0 3,407 0.7805
Worst 0.041298 0.281345 2.031977 49.747990 50,000 0 50,000 11.3872
Mean 0.073289 0.285700 1.908900 38.637592 26,467 0 26,467 6.0132
Standard deviation 1.46E−02 1.44E−03 4.66E−02 2.79Eþ00 21,020 0 21,020 4.7724
0.005 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 174 1 175 0.0872
Worst 0.086241 0.286916 1.868109 36.767889 491 1 492 0.1668
Mean 0.086248 0.286916 1.868089 36.767888 758 3 761 0.3324
Standard deviation 2.02E−06 5.14E−07 5.19E−06 5.85E−08 510 2 513 0.2144
0.01 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 1,699 18 1,717 1.0743
Worst 0.086246 0.286918 1.868094 36.767889 394 2 396 0.1592
Mean 0.086248 0.286916 1.868090 36.767888 757 8 764 0.4500
Standard deviation 1.88E−06 4.66E−07 4.86E−06 5.17E−08 510 6 516 0.2964
0.05 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888 1,182 59 1,241 1.9631
Worst 0.086244 0.286916 1.868099 36.767889 161 5 166 0.2177
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868089 36.767888 828 41 869 1.4199
Standard deviation 7.83E−07 1.00E−07 2.01E−06 8.39E−09 611 30 640 0.9545

Table 3. Statistical Values of the Parameters for 100 Runs, SSQs, Iteration Number, and CPU Times Obtained by Different pc Values for HMS ¼ 20
Iteration number
pc Statistical values K χ m SSQ HS BFGS Total CPU (s)
0.0 Best 0.086464 0.286927 1.867534 36.768042 21,455 0 21,455 4.8746
Worst 0.030211 0.277797 2.101898 62.746185 50,000 0 50,000 11.3585
Mean 0.073048 0.285532 1.911363 39.211602 47,992 0 47,992 10.8918
Standard deviation 1.59E−02 1.96E−03 5.65E−02 4.73Eþ00 7,374 0 7,374 1.6716
0.005 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888 4,529 22 4,551 1.7309
Worst 0.086242 0.286916 1.868104 36.767889 1,379 4 1,383 0.4369
Mean 0.086248 0.286916 1.868089 36.767888 2,144 11 2,154 0.8582
Standard deviation 1.12E−06 2.25E−07 2.88E−06 2.03E−08 1,362 7 1,369 0.4890
0.01 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888 4,209 36 4,245 2.2042
Worst 0.086246 0.286916 1.868094 36.767888 1,021 6 1,027 0.4498
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 2,715 27 2,742 1.4475
Standard deviation 6.37E−07 9.79E−08 1.64E−06 3.98E−09 2,036 22 2,057 1.0301
0.05 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888 9,884 495 10,379 15.3947
Worst 0.086248 0.286917 1.868090 36.767888 867 33 900 1.3991
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 3,170 157 3,327 5.1207
Standard deviation 4.10E−07 3.86E−08 1.05E−06 1.02E−09 2,189 111 2,299 3.4673

356 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.

 Table 4. Number of Successful Experiments with Different HMS and pc worst solution of 100 runs. The standard deviation of SSQs of
Values 100 runs is 5.85E−8. The best solution vector was obtained as
pc a result of 175 iterations. The proposed algorithm is free from infea-
HMS 0.0 0.005 0.01 0.05 sible starting vectors and computational divergence. Also, CPU
time of the proposed algorithm is obtained as 0.0872 s for the best
5 0 93 97 99
SSQ value within the 100 model runs.
10 1 100 100 100
20 0 100 100 100
Chu and Chang (2009) proposed a parameter estimation tech-
nique for the nonlinear Muskingum model on the basis of PSO. In
their model, the authors claim that the proposed scheme can im-
prove the accuracy of the Muskingum model for flood routing.
Table 5. Comparison of the Best SSQ Values Obtained by Different
Methods for Wilson Data However, Das (2009) discusses that the optimal parameters ob-
tained by PSO are infeasible and give negative outflows. Das
Method K χ m SSQ (2009) solved the hydrologic continuity equation by the numerical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NL-LSM (Yoon and 0.06 0.27 2.36 156.4399 scheme given by the authors for the parameters obtained by PSO to
Padmanabhan 1993) prove his claim. Chu and Chang (2009) found the best SSQ value as
S-LSM (Gill 1978) 0.01 0.25 2.347 145.6945 36.89 by using the PSO algorithm. The ranges of the parameters
LMM (Das 2004) 0.0753 0.2769 2.2932 130.4872
HJ+DFP (Tung 1985) 0.0764 0.2677 1.8978 45.612
given by the authors are K ¼ 0.01–0.20, χ ¼ 0.2–0.3, and
GA (Mohan 1997) 0.1033 0.2813 1.8282 38.2363 m ¼ 1.5–2.5. Their value of χ ¼ 0.3330 is greater than 0.3. Also,
ICSAa (Luo and Xie 0.0884 0.2862 1.8624 36.8026 the authors used the PSO algorithm with a different Muskingum
2010) model, which utilizes an average inflow in Eq. (4). So, their result
NMSb (Barati 2011) 0.0862 0.2869 1.8681 36.76 was not compared in Table 5.
DEc (Xu et al. 2011) 0.5175 0.2869 1.868 36.77 Computed outflows of the Wilson data that were obtained by
HS (Kim et al. 2001) 0.0883 0.2873 1.863 36.7829 different methods are given in Table 6. As is shown in Table 6,
PSF-HS (Geem 2011) 0.0864 0.2869 1.8677 36.768
computed outflows from HS-BFGS are better than the other
BFGS (Geem 2006) 0.0863 0.2869 1.8679 36.7679
HS-BFGS 0.086249 0.286917 1.868088 36.767888 methods. The comparison of the observed and computed hydro-
a
graphs of the Wilson data is presented in Fig. 1. As is shown in
Luo and Xie (2010) reported that the SSQ value was 35.64, but this value is
Fig. 1, the computed hydrograph is well suited to the observed
not correct for the parameters given by the authors. As reported by Geem
(2011), the correct SSQ value is 36.8026. Hydrograph.
b
Barati (2011) reported that the SSQ value was 36.76, but this value is not Selection of the penalty constants is a difficult task and is prob-
correct for parameters given by the authors. The correct SSQ value is lem dependent. In Table 7, the statistical values of the parameters
calculated as 36.7679. (for 100 runs) and SSQs, obtained by different λ values for
HMS ¼ 10, are presented. As is shown in Table 7, the best standard
c
Although the DE algorithm uses the numerical routing procedure given by
Geem (2006), a different K value is found than that provided by Geem deviation of SSQ values is obtained for λ ¼ 1;000. From Table 7, it
(2006) and the other algorithms given in the literature.
can be concluded that SSQ values are less sensitive to λ values. The
penalty constant can be selected as 1,000 for this problem. The se-
(36.767888) obtained by HS-BFGS is better than all techniques lected λ values for this problem may not suitable for different opti-
given in the literature. As is clearly shown in Table 2, there is mization problems. They must be determined experimentally for
an extremely small difference between the best solution and the any optimization problem.

Table 6. Comparison of the Observed and Best Computed Outflows for Wilson Data
Time (h) I t (cms) Ot (cms) NL-LSM S-LSM LMM HJ+DFP GA ICSA HS PSF-HS BFGS DE NMS HS-BFGS
0 22 22 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
6 23 21 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
12 35 21 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4
18 71 26 29.3 29.7 29.6 26.7 26.4 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6
24 103 34 37.9 39.3 38.7 34.8 34.2 34.4 34.4 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5
30 111 44 45.7 48.0 47.0 44.7 44.2 44.2 44.1 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2
36 109 55 56.0 58.4 57.8 56.9 57.0 56.9 56.8 56.9 56.9 56.9 56.9 56.9
42 100 66 65.5 67.5 67.6 67.7 68.2 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1
48 86 75 73.5 75.1 75.8 76.3 77.2 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1
54 71 82 79.8 80.7 81.9 82.2 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3
60 59 85 83.2 83.5 85.0 84.7 85.7 85.9 85.9 85.9 85.9 85.9 85.9 85.9
66 47 84 83.2 83.0 84.4 83.5 84.2 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5
72 39 80 80.9 80.1 81.4 79.8 80.2 80.5 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6
78 32 73 75.6 74.5 75.2 73.3 73.3 73.6 73.7 73.7 73.7 73.7 73.7 73.7
84 28 64 68.5 67.0 67.1 65.5 65.1 65.3 65.4 65.4 65.4 65.4 65.4 65.4
90 24 54 59.4 57.8 57.2 56.5 55.8 55.9 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
96 22 44 49.4 47.6 46.5 47.5 46.7 46.6 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.6
102 21 36 38.7 37.0 35.5 38.7 38.0 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.7 37.8 37.8 37.7
108 20 30 29.1 27.7 26.4 31.4 30.9 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.4
114 19 25 22.3 21.6 21.1 25.9 25.7 25.3 25.3 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
120 19 22 19.1 19.0 19.0 22.1 22.2 21.8 21.8 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7
126 18 19 19.0 19.0 19.0 20.2 20.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 357

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.

 120
Table 8. Comparison of the Observed and Computed Outflows for River
Input Wye December 1960 Flood
100 Observed
Computed Computed outflows (cms)
80 obtained by different methods
Flow Rate (cms)

Time (h) I t (cms) Ot (cms) O’Donnell method HS-BFGS

60
0 154 102 102 154
40 6 150 140 116 154
12 219 169 120 152
20 18 182 190 147 181
24 182 209 158 191
0 30 192 218 165 185
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (h) 36 165 210 176 187
42 150 194 178 179
Fig. 1. Comparison of the observed and computed hydrographs of the 48 128 172 176 162
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wilson data 54 168 149 164 141

60 260 136 160 154
66 471 228 167 198
72 717 303 218 264
Application to River Wye December 1960 Flood 78 1,092 366 303 344
84 1,145 456 484 416
An example of the 1960 flood in the River Wye in the United 90 600 615 690 599
Kingdom is presented in this section (NERC 1975). The 69.75-km 96 365 830 700 871
stretch of the River Wye from Erwood to Belmont has no tributaries 102 277 969 642 834
and very small lateral inflow. It is, thus, an excellent example to 108 227 665 572 689
demonstrate the use of flood-routing techniques (Bajracharya 114 187 519 505 535
and Barry 1997). 120 161 444 442 397
Computed outflows of the River Wye December 1960 Flood, 126 143 321 386 283
which were obtained by a direct three-parameter linear Muskingum 132 126 208 338 202
138 115 176 296 152
procedure (O’Donnell 1985) and HS-BFGS methods, are given
144 102 148 260 124
in Table 8. As is shown in Table 8, computed outflows from 150 93 125 228 106
HS-BFGS are better than O’Donnell’s method. The comparison 156 88 114 201 94
of the observed and computed hydrographs of these two methods 162 82 106 179 88
is presented in Fig. 2. As is shown in Fig. 2, the computed hydro- 168 76 97 160 82
graph obtained by HS-BFGS is well suited to the observed 174 73 89 144 75
hydrograph. 180 70 81 130 73
The best parameters (0.079235, 0.409238, and 1.581483) 186 67 76 118 69
and the corresponding SSQ value (37,944.14) obtained by the 192 63 71 109 66
198 59 66 100 62
HS-BFGS algorithm is better than the O’Donnell method. The

Table 7. Statistical Values of the Parameters for 100 Runs, SSQs, Obtained by Different Values for HMS ¼ 10
λ Statistical values K χ m SSQ
1 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086247 0.286916 1.868091 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 2.90E−07 9.91E−08 7.44E−07 1.35E−09
10 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086247 0.286916 1.868093 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 2.55E−07 6.31E−08 6.54E−07 1.54E−09
100 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086249 0.286916 1.868088 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 1.87E−07 1.14E−07 4.80E−07 1.35E−09
1,000 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086248 0.286917 1.868090 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 1.72E−07 8.11E−08 4.43E−07 4.95E−10
10,000 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086251 0.286917 1.868082 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 2.61E−07 6.56E−08 6.69E−07 1.22E−09
1,000,000 Best 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Worst 0.086251 0.286917 1.868082 36.767888
Mean 0.086249 0.286917 1.868087 36.767888
Standard deviation 2.61E−07 6.56E−08 6.69E−07 1.22E−09
Note: Bolded numbers indicate that the best standard deviation of SSQ values is obtained for λ ¼ 1;000.

358 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.

 1000
800
Flow Rate (cms)
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (h)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the observed and computed hydrographs of
River Wye December 1960 flood data
CPU time of the proposed algorithm with the 675 iteration is only
0.93 s. The SSQ value of the O’Donnell method is computed as
251,802 for the given parameters.
E values are obtained as 0.9980 for the Wilson data and 0.9995
for the River Wye data. Both E values are very close to 1. Thus, it
can be concluded that the computed outflows are in good agree-
ment with observed outflows.
The HS-BFGS results were also tested using the statistical
method called the t-test, which could compare the populations
of observed data and model-computed data. For Wilson’s data
shown in Fig. 1, it can be concluded that both observed and com-
puted data are properly matched because the authors failed to reject
the null hypothesis that there is no difference of mean between the
two on the basis of the t-value (−0.14) and the p-value (0.8880)
with a significance level of 0.01. For the River Wye data shown
in Fig. 2, it can also be concluded that both the observed and
computed data are properly matched because the authors failed
to reject the null hypothesis on the basis of the t-value (0.27)
and the p-value (0.7846). The result of the O’Donnell method
showed that it is also well matched on the basis of the t-value
(−0.04) and the p-value (0.9658). However, the variance of the
O’Donnell method appeared worse than that of HS-BFGS because
the former’s p-value of F-test is 0.2036, whereas the latter’s p-value
of F-test is 0.8586.
Conclusion
This study proposes a hybrid harmony search BFGS algorithm for a
nonlinear flood-routing model. The proposed algorithm overcomes
the disadvantages of BFGS (requirements for a good initial vector,
the capture of the local optima, and diverging problem) and the HS
method (difficulty in pinpointing the global optima). The main
disadvantage of the proposed algorithm over the HS algorithm
is that it requires gradient computations. In the proposed method,
nonnegativity restrictions are imposed on the model with an effec-
tive indirect penalty approach. The proposed algorithm found
the best solution among 12 different methods, for a synthetic data
set. Moreover, it was found accurate for a real-life example. The
proposed algorithm is very fast and robust according to the HS
algorithm. The results obtained demonstrate that the proposed
algorithm can confidently be applied to estimate optimal parameter
values of the nonlinear Muskingum model. Moreover, the HS-
BFGS algorithm may be applicable any continuous engineering
optimization problems.
Acknowledgments
Observed
Computed The valuable comments and corrections offered by the anonymous
O'Donnell reviewers and the editors are appreciatively acknowledged.
References
Al-Humoud, J. M., and Esen, I. I. (2006). “Approximate methods for the
estimation of Muskingum flood routing parameters.” Water Resour.
Manage., 20(6), 979–990.
Ali, M. M., and Törn, A. (2004). “Population set-based global optimization
160 180 algorithms: Some modifications and numerical studies.” Comput. Oper.
Res., 31(10), 1703–1725.
Arora, J. S. (1989). Introduction to optimum design, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Ayvaz, M. T., Kayhan, A. H., Ceylan, H., and Gurarslan, G. (2009).
“Hybridizing the harmony search algorithm with a spreadsheet ‘Solver’
for solving continuous engineering optimization problems.” Eng.
Optim., 41(12), 1119–1144.
Bajracharya, K., and Barry, D. A. (1997). “Accuracy criteria for linearised
diffusion wave flood routing.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 195(1–4),
200–217.
Barati, R. (2011). “Parameter estimation of nonlinear Muskingum models
using Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 16(11),
946–954.
Beven, K. J. (2001). Rainfall-runoff modelling: The primer, Wiley,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied hydrology,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chu, H. J., and Chang, L. C. (2009). “Applying particle swarm optimization
to parameter estimation of the nonlinear Muskingum model.” J. Hydrol.
Eng., 14(9), 1024–1027.
Cunge, J. A. (1969). “On the subject of a flood propagation computation
method (Muskingum method).” J. Hydraul. Res., 7(2), 205–230.
Danish Hydrological Institute (DHI). (2003). User’s manual and technical
references for MIKE 11 (version 2003b), Hørsholm, Denmark.
Das, A. (2004). “Parameter estimation of Muskingum models.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng., 130(2), 140–147.
Das, A. (2009). “Discussion of applying particle swarm optimization to
parameter estimation of the nonlinear Muskingum model.” J. Hydrol.
Eng., 14(9), 1024–1027.
Fesanghary, M., Mahdavi, M., Minary-Jolandan, M., and Alizadeh, Y.
(2008). “Hybridizing harmony search algorithm with sequential quad-
ratic programming for engineering optimization problems.” Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 197(33–40), 3080–3091.
Geem, Z. W. (2000). “Optimal design of water distribution networks using
harmony search.” Ph.D. thesis, Korea Univ., Seoul, Korea.
Geem, Z. W. (2006). “Parameter estimation for the nonlinear Muskingum
model using the BFGS technique.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 132(5),
474–478.
Geem, Z. W. (2011). “Parameter estimation of the nonlinear Muskingum
model using parameter-setting-free harmony search algorithm.”
J. Hydrol. Eng., 16(8), 684–688.
Gill, M. A. (1978). “Flood routing by Muskingum method.” J. Hydrol.,
36(3–4), 353–363.
Haktanir, T., and Ozmen, H. (1997). “Comparison of hydraulic and
hydrologic routing on three long reservoirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
123(2), 153–156.
Karahan, H. (2009). “Predicting Muskingum flood routing parameters us-
ing spreadsheets.” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., 20(2), 280–286.
Karahan, H. (2011). “Obtaining regional rainfall-intensity-duration-
frequency relationship curves by using differential evolution algo-
rithm.” Scientific Research Project of TUBITAK (108Y299), Final
Rep., Denizli, Turkey (in Turkish).
Karahan, H., and Ayvaz, M. T. (2005). “Groundwater parameter estimation
by optimization and dual reciprocity finite differences method.”
J. Porous Media, 8(2), 211–223.
Kayhan, A. H., Ceylan, H., Ayvaz, M. T., and Gurarslan, G. (2010).
“PSOLVER: A new hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 359
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.
 for solving continuous optimization problems.” Expert Syst. Appl.,
37(10), 6798–6808.
Keefer, T. N., and McQuivey, R. S. (1974). “Multiple linearization flow
routing model.” J. Hydraul. Div., 100(7), 1031–1046.
Kim, J. H., Geem, Z. W., and Kim, E. S. (2001). “Parameter estimation of
the nonlinear Muskingum model using harmony search.” J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc., 37(5), 1131–1138.
Lee, K. S., and Geem, Z. W. (2005). “A new meta-heuristic algorithm
for continuous engineering optimization: Harmony search theory
and practice.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 194(36–38),
3902–3933.
Luo, J., and Xie, J. (2010). “Parameter estimation for the nonlinear
Muskingum model based on immune clonal selection algorithm.”
J. Hydrol. Eng., 15(10), 844–851.
Mahdavi, M., Fesanghary, M., and Damangir, E. (2007). “An improved
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pamukkale University on 06/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
harmony search algorithm for solving optimization problems.”
Appl. Math. Comput., 188(2), 1567–1579.
McCarthy, G. T. (1938). “The unit hydrograph and flood routing.” Proc.
Conf. of North Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Mohan, S. (1997). “Parameter estimation of nonlinear Muskingum models
using genetic algorithm.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 123(2), 137–142.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). “River flow forecasting through
conceptual models part I—a discussion of principals.” J. Hydrol.
(Amsterdam), 10(3), 282–290.
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). (1975). Flood studies
report, Vol. 3, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Nocedal, J., and Wright, S. J. (2006). Numerical optimization, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
360 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
View publication stats J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:352-360.
O’Donnell, T. (1985). “A direct three-parameter Muskingum procedure
incorporating lateral inflow.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 30(4), 479–496.
Reed, D. W. (1984). “A review of British flood forecasting practise.” Tech.
Rep. No. 90, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Shannon, M. W. (1998). “Evolutionary algorithms with local search
for combinatorial optimization.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California,
San Diego, CA.
Singh, V. P. (1988). Hydrologic systems. Vol. 1, Rainfall-runoff modelling,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Singh, V. P., and Scarlatos, P. D. (1987). “Analysis of nonlinear Muskingum
flood routing.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 113(1), 61–79.
Taherinejad, N. (2009). “Highly reliable harmony search algorithm.”
Proc. European Conf. on Circuit Theory and Design, IEEE, New York,
818–822.
Todini, E. (2007). “A mass conservative and water storage consistent
variable parameter Muskingum-Cunge approach.” Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 11(5), 1645–1659.
Tung, Y. K. (1985). “River flood routing by nonlinear Muskingum
method.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 111(12), 1447–1460.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (USACE). (2002). HEC-RAS river
analysis system hydraulic reference manual, version 3.1, Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Davis, CA.
Wilson, E. M. (1974). Engineering hydrology, MacMillan Education,
Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Xu, D. M., Oiu, L., and Chen, S. Y. (2011). “Estimation of nonlinear
Muskingum model parameter using differential evolution.” J. Hydrol.
Eng., 17(2), 348–353.
Yoon, J. W., and Padmanabhan, G. (1993). “Parameter-estimation of linear
and nonlinear Muskingum models.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.,
119(5), 600–610.