Journal Pre-proof

Application of Static and Dynamic Artificial Neural Networks for

Forecasting Inflow Discharges, Case Study: Sefidroud Dam Reservoir

Pedram Pishgah Hadiyan, Ramtin Moeini, Eghbal Ehsanzadeh

PII: S2210-5379(20)30128-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2020.100401
Reference: SUSCOM 100401

To appear in: Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems

Received Date: 24 February 2020

Revised Date: 15 June 2020
Accepted Date: 17 June 2020

Please cite this article as: Hadiyan PP, Moeini R, Ehsanzadeh E, Application of Static and
Dynamic Artificial Neural Networks for Forecasting Inflow Discharges, Case Study: Sefidroud
Dam Reservoir, Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems (2020),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2020.100401

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Application of Static and Dynamic Artificial Neural Networks for
Forecasting Inflow Discharges, Case Study: Sefidroud Dam Reservoir

Pedram Pishgah Hadiyan, M.Sc. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil

Engineering and Transportation, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran Tel: 0098-9111834834,
Fax: 0098-31-36699515, Email: pedram.phh@gmail.com

Ramtin Moeini, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil

Engineering and Transportation, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran, Tel: 009831-37935293,
Fax: 0098-31-36699515, Email: r.moeini@eng.ui.ac.ir (Corresponding)

Eghbal Ehsanzadeh, Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of

of
Agriculture, University of Ilam, Ilam, Iran, Tel: 0098-9135905303,

Email: eehsanzadeh@gmail.com

ro
Highlights


-p
Different models of static and dynamic ANN are used for forecasting reservoir
re
inflow.


lP

ANN models include FFNN, NAR and NARX.

 Inflow discharge and precipitation data with different time delays are input dataset.


na

The time index (T) is also employed as the input data of the proposed models.
ur

Abstract
Jo

Accurate forecasting of reservoir inflow is of great importance in water

resources planning and management and it can highly affect decisions and
policies of reservoir operation with respect to flood control, drought
management, water supply, and hydropower generation. In this study, different

1
models of static and dynamic artificial neural networks (ANN) including static
feed forward neural network (FFNN), non-linear autoregressive (NAR), and
nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous inputs (NARX) are employed in order
to forecast Sefidroud Dam reservoir inflows. The capability of studied networks
with a range of different input variables in predicting reservoir inflows are then
compared. All employed models are trained using inflow discharge and
precipitation data with different time delays and an optimum number of neurons
in the hidden layers are obtained. In addition, the time index (T) is also
employed as the input data to the proposed models in order to increase the

of
accuracy of the estimates. The obtained results indicate that NAR dynamic
neural network has a better performance in comparison with FFNN and NARX

ro
models. Furthermore, using 12 time delays for inflow discharges and
precipitation data leads to the best accessible results where adding time index
-p
(T) increases the accuracy. The results obtained from this study provide useful
information for reservoir inflow simulation. In other words, these results are
re
critical for water resources management and planning particularly in the field of
lP

dam reservoir operation which is crucial under reported water crisis in Iran.

Key words: Inflow Forecasting; Artificial Neural Network; Feedforward Neural

Network; Non-linear Autoregressive; Nonlinear Autoregressive with Exogenous
na

Inputs.

1. Introduction
ur

Efficient forecasting of reservoir inflow is a critical task in engineering

Jo

problems dealing with water resources planning and management including

flood control, drought management, water supply, and hydropower generation
[1, 2]. According to many studies, water crisis is becoming increasingly
problematic in Iran which is mainly related to mismanagement and lack of
integrated and comprehensive planning. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the
existing management policies and approaches to confront the reported crisis [3,

2
4, 5, 6]. In countries like Iran, improving the reservoir inflow modeling and
forecasting methods can be an important step when it comes to decision making
with respect to water resources management and planning.

In general, the choice of appropriate methods for inflow modeling and

forecasting depends partly on the study area and the available data. Less
dependency on intense input data, therefore, has led to the increasingly
widespread application of data-driven methods [7]. In the past decades,
development of non-linear modeling techniques like artificial neural networks
(ANNs) has made significant advances in increasing the accuracy of forecasting

of
models [8, 9]. Generally, ANN's are data-driven models capable of recognizing

ro
complex and non-linear correlation between input and output data series without
learning the intrinsic nature of the phenomenon under study [10]. Due to the
-p
complex and dynamic nature of hydrological processes, it is inevitable to take
advantage of intelligent and non-linear models like ANNs for dealing with
re
water resources problems.

The critical review of the literature confirms the capability and the importance
lP

of different ANN models in solving many engineering problems [11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. A wide range of different combinations of input variables,
na

structures, and learning algorithms of the ANNs have been applied in the field
of water resources management [20]. For example, Coulibaly et al. proposed an
efficient multi-layer feed-forward neural network for real-time daily reservoir
ur

inflow forecasting with high accuracy, appropriate generalization performance,

Jo

and low computational costs [21]. Xu and Li proposed an ANN model to

forecast short-term inflows into a hydropower reservoir in which the robustness
of ANNs in the modeling of non-linear hydrological correlations was evident
[10]. El-Shafie et al. compared the performance of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system (ANFIS) and multi-layer perceptron (MLP) for forecasting
monthly discharges of the Nile River at Aswan High Dam. Comparison of the

3
results showed that the ANFIS model outperformed static MLP model and it
could be used to improve the forecasting accuracy especially for the extreme
inflow events [22]. El-Shafie and Noureldin proposed generalized neural
network (GNN) to avoid overfitting problem for forecasting Aswan High Dam
reservoir inflows [23]. Lin and Wu used a radial basis function neural network
(RBFNN) for multi-step ahead reservoir inflow forecasting. In this research, a
two-step learning algorithm was applied to improve RBFNN performance [24].
Okkan proposed wavelet neural network (WNN) for monthly reservoir inflow
prediction in which the better performance of WNN model in comparison with

of
multiple linear regression and FFNN was evident [25]. Li et al. developed two
ANN based deep learning algorithm architectures for forecasting daily reservoir

ro
inflows and the performances of developed models were compared with basic
FFNN and auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models [26].
-p
Reviewing many studies reveals the effectiveness of different ANN models for
re
learning and forecasting sophisticated hydrological processes including
simulating reservoir inflows [21, 27, 28, 29]. Babaei et al. used ANN model for
lP

inflow prediction of Zayandehroud Dam reservoir and the obtained results were
compared with a support vector machine (SVM) model [30].The use of wavelet
transforms to forecast daily inflows of Sobradinho Reservoir (Bahia State,
na

Brazil) seven days ahead by a wavelet-artificial neural network (ANN) hybrid

system was analyzed by Freire et al. [31]. Khalique and Faisal Hossain
ur

proposed a generic and scalable scheme for forecasting reservoir inflow to

optimize reservoir operations for hydropower maximization [32].
Jo

Generally, both static and dynamic neural networks are used in simulating
different engineering processes. Many studies have been performed in order to
compare the performance of static and dynamic neural networks. These studies
indicate higher efficiency of dynamic models with respect to time-series
forecasting compared to static models [33, 34, 35]. Despite the simplicity and

4
extensive popularity, static neural networks have several practical limitations
[36]. These networks are incapable of complying with changes in hydrological
processes and therefore they cannot effectively detect short or long time
dependencies among different datasets of hydrological and climatic variables.
Low speed of convergence and falling into local minima are other
disadvantages of using static neural networks [37].

Developing new approaches such as recurrent and auto-regressive models has

led to extensive application of ANN's in different practical and research areas
including time series analysis [38, 39]. Since dynamic and recurrent neural

of
network models have memory properties, they have been successfully used for
training time-dependent patterns [40]. Coulibaly et al. proposed three different

ro
dynamic neural network models for multivariate reservoir inflow forecasting.
-p
These proposed models consisted of input delayed neural network (IDNN),
recurrent neural network (RNN) with and without input time delays, and an
re
MLP model [41]. They showed that dynamic neural networks outperform MLP
models and they are superior in forecasting multivariate time-series in the field
lP

of water resources. Sattari et al. assessed the application of time-lagged neural

networks (TLRN) for forecasting daily reservoir inflows [42] and found that
short-term memory structure and local recurrent connections made these models
na

appropriate for time series modeling. Valipour et al. assessed the performance
of dynamic auto-regressive neural networks for forecasting monthly reservoir
ur

inflows of Dez Dam reservoir and compared the obtained results with auto-
regressive moving average (ARMA), auto-regressive integrated moving average
Jo

(ARIMA), and static neural networks [34, 39]. The results demonstrated the
dominant effectiveness of dynamic neural networks for inflow forecasting.
Yang et al. applied three different ANN models including nonlinear
autoregressive model with exogenous inputs (NARX), long short-term memory
(LSTM) model, and genetic algorithm based NAXR (GA-NAXR) model to

5
simulate the operation of three multi-purpose reservoirs located in the upper
Chao Phraya River basin [43].

Although significant advances have been made in development of different

structures leading to some improvements in the efficiency of ANNs, more effort
needs to be made to improve their accuracy in dealing with water resources and
hydrological problems including reservoir inflow forecasting. In other words, an
appropriate structure should be chosen based on the essence of the given
problem in order to obtain the optimum functionality of ANNs. The purpose of
the present study is to assess the applicability and effectiveness of different

of
structures of dynamic auto-regressive ANNs for forecasting Sefidroud Dam
reservoir inflows compared to that of static neural networks. The employed

ro
models are FFNN, non-linear auto-regressive (NAR), and non-linear auto-
-p
regressive with exogenous input (NARX). All employed models are trained
using inflow discharge and precipitation data with different time delays.
re
Furthermore, the time index (T) is applied to the input data of the static and
dynamic models in order to increase the efficiency and accuracy of studied
lP

models.

2. Methodology
na

ANNs are computational systems in which the structure and processing

techniques are inspired by biological neural networks. These models consist of
ur

numerous highly connected processing units that estimate the correlation

between inputs and outputs of the model with no need to the perception of the
Jo

physical process [44]. The most important features of ANNs that make them
powerful computational tools are their ability to learn and generalize
information, parallel processing, and flexibility [1, 45, 46].
Generally, ANNs structure consists of several neurons arranged in three
different layers including the input, the hidden, and the output layers. For
improving the efficiency of training, preprocessing functions such as

6
normalization and removing constant rows are applied to the datasets. The
available data are divided into three subsets including training, validation, and
testing phases. The training phase is used for computing and upgrading network
elements such as weights and biases. The main function of validation phase is to
evaluate the performance of the training process to control over-training or
over-fitting. Finally, in the test phase, definitive performance of the network is
tested.

2.1 . Static Neural Networks

Numerous neuron-like processing units arranged in the layers and connected

of
with extensive forward connections form the static ANNs which are the
simplest type of neural networks. In these structures, the input signal moves

ro
only from the input layer through the hidden layers and to the output layer,
without any loops or time delays. Among different static neural network
-p
models, FFNN is one of the most renowned, applicable, and with simplest
re
structure. The main function of the FFNNs is to map between input and output
variables through outlining the correlation structure of the variables [47]. The
lP

layered structure of FFNNs with the nonlinear transfer functions makes them
capable of learning the complex correlation between input and output series
[48]. Due to the universal approximation theorem, if there are sufficient
na

numbers of neurons in the hidden layer(s), any real function with arbitrary
precision can be approximated [49]. Equation (1) presents the overall
ur

formulation of a FFNN [47]:

R2 R1
yk^  f 3 [Wkj . f 2 (W ji xi  W jo )  Wko ] (1)
Jo

j 1 i 1

Where, yk^is the output value of feedforward network, f3 is the activation

function of the output layer, Wkj is the weight between k-th neuron of the output
layer and j-th neuron of the hidden layer, f2 is the activation function of hidden
layer, Wji is the weight between j-th neuron of the hidden layer and i-th neuron

7
of the input layer, xi is the i-th input of the input layer, Wjo is the bias for the j-th
neuron of the hidden layer, and Wko is the bias for the k-th neuron of the output
layer. In addition, R1and R2 are the number of neurons of the input and hidden
layers, respectively. Figure 1 shows the general structure of a FFNN with three
layers [40].
Figure 1
As shown in figure 1, in the FFNNs, the input signal always moves one-sided
and forward. Every output data is trained only by its corresponding input, which
leads to a decrease in efficiency of this structure for time series modeling and

of
forecasting [40]. In order to overcome the limitations of static neural networks,
definite time delays of data such as inflow and precipitation time series are

ro
applied as auxiliary inputs. In this manner, every output data at a certain time
step is related to the input data at the same time step as well as the previous time
-p
steps.
re
2.2 . Dynamic Neural Networks
In general, dynamic neural networks are more powerful models than static
lP

neural networks and can be trained for learning and forecasting different time
series [40]. The main difference between static and dynamic neural networks is
the manner their layers are connected with one another. In dynamic neural
na

networks, all layers have feedback connections and a different number of time
delays, leading to the perception of temporal pattern of hydrological time series
ur

[35]. In these models, a certain output is not only related to the corresponding
input but to the previous inputs, previous outputs, and even the state of the
Jo

network [40]. This fact leads to the widespread application of dynamic neural
networks for time series forecasting in different fields of science and
engineering [50].

2.2.1 Non-linear Auto-Regressive Neural Network (NAR)

8
NAR neural networks are simple but powerful structures for time series
forecasting [51]. In NAR, in contrast to other neural network models, only one
single vector, which acts as both the input and target, is used for modeling. In
other words, the input (target) with a certain time delay is used for the training
process. Therefore, future values of given time series can be forecasted based on
their previous values. General formulation of NAR model is presented as
follows [40]:

y(t  1)  f { y(t ), y(t 1),..., y(t  d )} (2)

of
Where, f is a non-linear function, y is the studied time series, and d is the
number of time delays. A precise choice of structure and number of time delays

ro
enables NAR to perform accurate forecasting of nonlinear and complex time
series [51, 52]. The schematic structure of NAR networks is presented in Figure
2.
-p
re
Figure 2

2.2.2 Non-linear Auto-Regressive Neural Network with Exogenous input (NARX)

lP

Among different types of dynamic neural networks, NARX network has

received wide acceptance in various fields of study such as modeling dynamic
na

systems, non-linear filtering, and time series forecasting [40]. The main
difference of NARX with other recurrent networks is that, in these models, the
number of exogenous inputs is limited and they are selected only through the
ur

output dataset [53]. Generally, the main advantages of NARX networks are
learning long-time dependences among time series, faster convergence, and
Jo

better ability to generalize in comparison with other recurrent neural networks,

which make them powerful tools for time series forecasting [53]. The basic idea
of the NARX comes from auto-regressive exogenous models, which are widely
used for time series forecasting [54]. General formulation of NARX networks is
presented as follows [40]:

9
y(t  1)  f { y(t ), y(t 1),..., y(t  d y ), x(t ), x(t 1),..., x(t  d x )} (3)

Where, f is a non-linear function, y is the studied time series, x is the input data,
dx is the number of input time delays and dy is the number of target time delays.
The schematic structure of NARX networks is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3

3. Data and study area

In this study, the historical monthly data of Sefidroud Dam is used to assess the
performance of proposed models. Sefidroud Dam is located at the intersection

of
of Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud rivers near the city of Manjil, Gilan province, Iran.
This buttress dam was constructed between 1958 and 1962 in the north of Iran

ro
at Latitude 36°45’31.27” N and Longitude 49°23’16.03” E (Figure 4). The
primary purposes of constructing this dam were supplying urban and irrigation
-p
water for Gilan province, hydropower generation, and flood control.
re
Figure 4

As shown in Figure (4), the dam lies on the upstream of Sefidroud River and
lP

downstream of Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud rivers. The total inflow to the reservoir
is gauged at Gilevan station located 13 km upstream of the dam on Kizil-Ozan
na

River and Loshan station located 25 km upstream of the dam on Shahroud

River. For improving the efficiency of forecasting model, precipitation data of
ur

the reservoir area is also used. Precipitation is gauged at Manjil station in situ.
The total length of the studied datasets is 48 years for discharge (1966-2013)
Jo

and 52 water years for precipitation (1962-2013). In addition, for assessing the
effect of periodicity, the time index (T) is also added to the models which
indicates the number of months and ranges from 1 to 12.

The average discharges of Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud rivers are 96.8 and 29.7
m3/s, respectively, with a constant decrease in recent years. It should be noted
that many development projects are being studied, implemented and operated in

10
this river basin. These projects have had negative effects on the available water
resources in downstream provinces, especially in Gilan province, and have led
to the mentioned decrease in Sefidroud Dam reservoir inflows. That is why
Sefidroud River basin has become one of the most challenging watersheds with
respect to water resources allocation in Iran [55].

4. Results and discussion

In the following subsections, obtained results of applied models as well as
comparing results are presented.

4.1 . Static artificial neural network

of
Static ANN models were the first models studied in this research. It is worth

ro
noting that the autocorrelation of reservoir inflows as well as the correlation
coefficient between inflows and precipitation time series is calculated using
Pearson correlation coefficient as follows: -p

n
( xi  x)( yi  y )
re
r i 1
(4)
 i1 ( xi  x)  i1 ( yi  y)2
n 2 n
lP

Where, xi and yi are the studied time series, containing n values and x̅, and ȳ are
na

the mean values of the time series. The calculated autocorrelations for the 1st,
2nd, 11th, and 12th lags are statistically significant. Therefore, time series with
1, 2, 11 and 12 delays of the original inflow vector and 12 delays of the
ur

precipitation vector are used for modeling. In addition, for assessing the effect
of periodicity, the time index (T) is also added as the input data of the models.
Jo

Three different settings of input data are chosen to be used in static ANN
models. In the first setting, only the inflow data is applied, while in the second
and the third models, precipitation data and time index (T) are also added as the
input data sets to improve the performance of the static ANN models. The
training process of both rivers is performed separately. The performance of

11
these models is assessed using two metrics namely the root mean squared error
(RMSE) and the coefficient of determination (R2) estimated as:

n
( xt  xo )2
RMSE  
i 1 n
(5)

 (x  x ) t o
2

R2  1  i 1
n
(6)
 (x  x
i 1
t bar ) 2

of
Where, n is the number of available data, xt, xo and xbar are the observed,
estimated, and average values of observed data, respectively. In this study, the

ro
datasets are divided into three different parts in a random way as training,
validating, and testing datasets containing 70, 15, and 15 percent of data,
-p
respectively. As the first step, the models are trained using a different number of
neurons in the hidden layer. Then, the optimum number of neurons in the
re
hidden layer of each model is selected based on the minimum values of RMSE
and R2 during training processes.
lP

Tables 1 and 2 present the results obtained for Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud rivers,
respectively, using static ANN models. The obtained results indicate that adding
na

precipitation data and time index (T) can significantly increase the accuracy of
forecasting for both rivers. Further, the effect of adding time index is more
ur

proficient compared to that of precipitation. In other words, comparison of the

results shows that the third model outperforms other proposed models with
Jo

respect to both RMSE and R2 values.

At this stage, the selected models are trained more to avoid overfitting and
obtain best possible results. To forecast Kizil-Ozan River inflows, model 3 is
trained with 17 hidden neurons. Further training of this model leads to the best
values of 134.2 m3/s for RMSE and 0.872 for R2. In the same manner, applying
model 3 with 8 hidden neurons for Shahroud River inflow leads to the best
12
values of 31.3 m3/s for RMSE and 0.908 for R2. Figures 5 and 6 present the best
inflow forecasts for Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud Rivers, respectively, using static
ANN models.

Figure 5

Figure 6

The obtained results indicate that static neural network models applied in this
study are not capable of forecasting high values of inflow discharges while they
perform better for forecasting low values of inflow. In other words, most of the

of
errors in static ANN models occur in the months with relatively high values of
discharge. In addition, the accuracy of inflow forecast for the Shahroud River is

ro
higher than that of the Kizil-Ozan River. This is, again, probably due to the fact
that the Kizil-Ozan River discharges are by an order of magnitude larger than
-p
those of Shahroud River.
re
4.2 . Dynamic artificial neural networks
Generally, NAR model differs from other neural network models in a sense that
lP

it has only one vector acting as both the input and the output (target) data. The
unique structure of NAR allows training input and target dataset as a single
integrated set. Here, three different NAR models are proposed to forecast the
na

study time series. In the first model, only inflow discharge data is used for the
training process. However, in the second and third models, precipitation data
ur

and time index (T), respectively, are also used as auxiliary inputs. In all
proposed models, 12 time delays are used due to the existence of a good
Jo

correlation between a specific month and 12 months earlier in monthly time

series.

It is worth noting that the training process in dynamic neural networks is

somewhat different from static neural networks. The training in both static and
dynamic neural networks is performed using gradient-based back propagation

13
algorithms, while the implementation of the training process is significantly
different. This difference is due to the indirect effect of weights on outputs in
dynamic neural networks [40]. Furthermore, dynamic neural networks need
more training repetition than static models, since the dynamic neural networks
have more tendencies to become trapped in local minima [40]. In this study,
dynamic neural networks are trained for 50 times for every number of selected
hidden neurons ranging from 1 to 20 followed by assessment of the models with
average values of performance criteria in order to select the best structures.
Tables 3 and 4 present results for inflow forecast obtained using NAR models

of
for the Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud Rivers, respectively.

ro
Table 3

Table 4
-p
Comparison of the results shows that the best results are obtained using the third
model for both river tributaries. Results of dynamic models confirm the
re
effectiveness of time index (T) in enhancing the accuracy of the same model. It
lP

should be noted that low performance of the first model compared to other NAR
and static models is subject to high dependency of NAR models to data quality.
The best inflow forecasts obtained using NAR model for Kizil-Ozan and
na

Shahroud Rivers are shown in figures (7) and (8), respectively. It should be
noted that, for the best training practice, the least RMSE value for Kizil-Ozan
ur

River inflow forecast is 90.8 m3/s and the best R2 value is 0.86. In addition, for
the Shahroud River, the least RMSE value is 26.8 m3/s and the best R2 value is
Jo

0.85. A glance at figures (7) and (8) shows that the nonoverlapping parts of the
observed and estimated time series belong to the high flows as compared to low
flows. Further, similar to the static ANNs, the simulation of Shahroud river
inflow (smaller discharges) using NAR model leads to more accurate results
compared to that of Kizil-Ozan River inflow (larger discharges).

14
 Figure 7

Figure 8

Finally, different dynamic NARX models are used for reservoir inflow
forecasting. Similar to static neural networks, these networks have input-output
structures. In this study two different NARX models are employed. In the first
model only the precipitation data are used as the input data set and in the second
model precipitation data and time index (T) are used as the input data sets.
Further, for both proposed models inflow discharge data are used as the output

of
data set. In NARX network, time delays are defined for both input and output
data sets. Similar to NAR networks, after the sensitivity analysis of different

ro
time delays, 12 time delays are selected for both input and output data sets. The
obtained results from different NARX models for both studied rivers are
presented in tables (5) and (6).
-p
Table 5
re
Table 6
lP

It is worth noting that the difference between results obtained using NARX
models shows the incapability of applying just precipitation data and time index
na

as the input data set for forecasting inflow discharges. The best obtained results
using NARX models for Kizil-Ozan and Shahroud Rivers are shown in figures
(9) and (10), respectively. Finally, it should be noted that more training of this
ur

model leads to 111.6 m3/s for RMSE and 0.792 for R2 of Kizil-Ozan River and
Jo

41.2 m3/s for RMSE and 0.841 for R2 of Shahroud River. Comparing the RMSE
values for Kizil-Ozan River obtained using NAR (90.8 m3/s) and NARX (111.6
m3/s) models reveals the effectiveness of the NAR models for reservoir inflow
forecasts compared to the NARX models. The same conclusion can be drawn
when comparing estimated RMSE using NAR and NARX models for the
Shahroud River inflows.

15
 5. Conclusions
In this paper, the performance of different structures of static and dynamic
neural networks for forecasting reservoir inflows was assessed. Monthly inflow
data of Sefidroud Dam reservoir were used as a case study to forecast inflow
discharges and the results were presented and compared. Comparison of the
results indicated that NAR dynamic neural network outperformed other static
and dynamic models. Precipitation data and time index (T) were also used as
inputs for different models to enhance the accuracy of forecasting. It was found
that dynamic neural networks could have a better performance when it comes to

of
estimating high and peak inflows. In addition, results showed that adding time
index to the input data set could significantly improve the performance of the

ro
proposed models. In other words, the R (RMSE) value of NAR model for Kizil-
Ozan River was improved by 4.2% (45.6%) and 10% (74.2%) in comparison
-p
with static ANN and NARX models, respectively, when time index was added
to the input data sets. Similarly, the R (RMSE) value of NAR model for
re
Shahroud River was improved by 9.3% (23.05%) and 7.8% (68.4%) in
lP

comparison with static ANN and NARX models, respectively. Finally, it can be
concluded that dynamic neural networks could be applied as appropriate
alternatives to static neural networks, while they are robust and reliable for
na

forecasting river discharge inflows.

Author statement
ur

Our paper entitled “Application of Static and Dynamic Artificial Neural Networks for Forecasting

Inflow Discharges, Case Study: Sefidroud Dam Reservoir (Ref: SUSCOM_2018_401) “is now revised
Jo

based on the respected editor and reviewer comments. The revised paper and author replay are

sent as attached files.

Conflict of Interest:

Author declares that he and she have no conflict of interest.

16
Funding Source:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or

not for-profit sector.

Ethical approval:

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the

of
authors.

ro
References
-p
re
[1] Hassan, M., Shamim, M.A., Hashmi, H. N., Ashiq, S.Z., Ahmed, I., Pasha,
G.A., Naeem, U.A., Ghumman, A.R. and Han, D. (2015). Predicting stream
lP

flows to a multipurpose reservoir using artificial neural networks and regression

techniques. Earth Science Informatics, 8(2), 337-352.
na

[2] Awchi, T. A. (2014). River discharges forecasting in northern Iraq using

different ANN techniques. Water resources management, 28(3), 801-814.
ur

[3] Madani, K. (2014). Water management in Iran: what is causing the looming
crisis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4(4), 315-328.
Jo

[4] Fani, A., Ghazi, I., & Malekian, A. (2016). Challenges of Water Resource
Management in Iran. American Journal of Environmental Engineering, 6(4),
123-128.

17
[5] Zargan, J., & Waez-Mousavi, S. M. (2016). Water Crisis in Iran: Its
Intensity, Causes and Confronting Strategies. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 9(44), 1-6.

[6] Yazdanpanah, M., Hayati, D., Zamani, G. H., Karbalaee, F., & Hochrainer-
Stigler, S. (2013). Water management from tradition to second modernity: an
analysis of the water crisis in Iran. Environment, development and
sustainability, 15(6), 1605-1621.

[7] Lima, L. M., Popova, E., & Damien, P. (2014). Modeling and forecasting of

of
Brazilian reservoir inflows via dynamic linear models. International Journal of
Forecasting, 30(3), 464-476.

ro
[8] Maier, H. R., & Dandy, G. C. (2000). Neural networks for the prediction and
forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modelling issues and
-p
applications. Environmental modelling& software, 15(1), 101-124.
re
[9] Dawson, C. W., & Wilby, R. L. (2001). Hydrological modelling using
artificial neural networks. Progress in physical Geography, 25(1), 80-108.
lP

[10] Xu, Z. X., & Li, J. Y. (2002). Short‐term inflow forecasting using an
artificial neural network model. Hydrological Processes, 16(12), 2423-2439.
na

[11] Diamantopoulou, M. J. (2012) Assessing a reliable modeling approach of

features of trees through neural network models for sustainable forests,
ur

Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 2(4), 190-197

Jo

[12] Chatterjee, S., Dey, N., Sen, S. (2018). Soil moisture quantity prediction
using optimized neural supported model for sustainable agricultural
applications, Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, In press

18
[13] Maleki, B., Ghazvini, M., Ahmadi M.H., Maddah, H. & Shamshirband, S.
(2019). Moisture Estimation in Cabinet Dryers with Thin-Layer Relationships
Using a Genetic Algorithm and Neural Network, Mathematics, 7(11), 1042.

[14] Sadeghzadeh, M. Ahmadi, M. H., Kahani, M., Sakhaeinia, H., Chaji, H. &
Chen, L. (2019). Smart modeling by using artificial intelligent techniques on
thermal performance of flat‐plate solar collector using nanofluid. Energy
Science & Engineering, 7(5), 1649-1658.

[15] Zamen, M., Baghban, A., Pourkiaei, S. M. & Ahmadi, M. H. (2019)

of
Optimization methods using artificial intelligence algorithms to estimate
thermal efficiency of PV/T system. Energy Science & Engineering, 7(3), 821-

ro
834.
-p
[16] Maddah, H., Ghazvini, M. & Ahmadi, M. H. (2019). Predicting the
efficiency of CuO/water nanofluid in heat pipe heat exchanger using neural
re
network, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 104, 33-40.
lP

[17] Farzaneh-Gord, M., Mohseni-Gharyehsafa, B., Arabkoohsar, A., Ahmadi,

M. H. & Sheremet, M. A. (2020) Precise prediction of biogas thermodynamic
properties by using ANN algorithm. Renewable Energy, 147, 179-191.
na

[18] Nasirzadehroshenin, F., Sadeghzadeh, M., Khadang, A., Maddah, H.,

Ahmadi, M. H., Sakhaeinia, H. & Chen, L. (2020). Modeling of heat transfer
ur

performance of carbon nanotube nanofluid in a tube with fixed wall temperature

Jo

by using ANN–GA. The European Physical Journal Plus, 135(2), 217.

[19] Ritu, G. & Sharma, M. (2020). An artificial neural network based approach
for energy efficient task scheduling in cloud data centers, Sustainable
Computing: Informatics and Systems, In press

19
[20] Mustafa, M. R., Isa, M. H., & Rezaur, R. B. (2012). Artificial neural
networks modeling in water resources engineering: infrastructure and
applications. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
6(2), 128-136.

[21] Coulibaly, P., Anctil, F., & Bobee, B. (2000). Daily reservoir inflow
forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach.
Journal of Hydrology, 230(3), 244-257.

[22] El-Shafie, A., Taha, M. R., &Noureldin, A. (2007). A neuro-fuzzy model

of
for inflow forecasting of the Nile River at Aswan high dam. Water resources
management, 21(3), 533-556.

ro
[23] El-Shafie, A., & Noureldin, A. (2011). Generalized versus non-generalized
neural network model for multi-lead inflow forecasting at Aswan High Dam.
-p
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), 841.
re
[24] Lin, G. F., & Wu, M. C. (2011). An RBF network with a two-step learning
algorithm for developing a reservoir inflow forecasting model. Journal of
lP

hydrology, 405(3), 439-450.

[25] Okkan, U. (2012). Wavelet neural network model for reservoir inflow
na

prediction. Scientia Iranica, 19(6), 1445-1455.

[26] Li, C., Bai, Y., & Zeng, B. (2016). Deep Feature Learning Architectures
ur

for Daily Reservoir Inflow Forecasting. Water Resources Management, 30(14),

5145-5161.
Jo

[27] Shamseldin, A.Y. (1997). Application of neural network technique to

rainfall–runoffmodelling. Journal of Hydrology, 199, 272–294
[28] Chang, F.-J., and Chen, Y.C. (2001). A counter propagation fuzzy neural
network modelling approach to real time streamflow prediction. Journal of
Hydrology, 245 (1–4), 153–164.

20
[29] Abdellatif, M. E., Osman, Y. Z., & Elkhidir, A. M. (2015). Comparison of
artificial neural networks and autoregressive model for inflows forecasting of
Roseires Reservoir for better prediction of irrigation water supply in Sudan.
International Journal of River Basin Management, 13(2), 203-214.
[30] Babaei, M., Moeini, R. & Ehsanzadeh, E. (2019). Artificial Neural
Network and Support Vector Machine Models for Inflow Prediction of Dam
Reservoir (Case Study: Zayandehroud Dam Reservoir), Water Resources
Management, 33: 2203–2218
[31] Freire, P. K. de M. M., Santos, C. A. G. & da Silva, G. B. L. (2019).

of
Analysis of the use of discrete wavelet transforms coupled with ANN for short-
term streamflow forecasting, Applied Soft Computing, 80: 494-505

ro
[32] Khalique, S. & Faisal Hossain A. (2019). A generic data-driven technique
for forecasting of reservoir inflow: Application for hydropower maximization,
-p
Environmental Modelling & Software, 119: 147-165
[33] Kiani, K. M., & Kastens, T. L. (2008). Testing forecast accuracy of foreign
re
exchange rates: Predictions from feed forward and various recurrent neural
lP

network architectures. Computational Economics, 32(4), 383-406.

[34] Valipour, M., Banihabib, M., & Behbahani, S. (2012). Monthly inflow
forecasting using autoregressive artificial neural network. Journal of Applied
na

Sciences, 12(20), 2139-2147.

[35] El-Shafie, A., Noureldin, A., Taha, M., Hussain, A., &Mukhlisin, M.
ur

(2012). Dynamic versus static neural network model for rainfall forecasting at
Klang River Basin, Malaysia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(4),
Jo

1151-1169.
[36] Chaturvedi, D. K. (2008). Soft computing: techniques and its applications
in electrical engineering (Vol. 103). Springer.
[37] Chao, G., Jing-chun, Z., Yan-bin, S., & Li-ying, S. (2010). Application of
Dynamic Recurrent Neural Network in Power System Short-Term Load

21
Forecasting. In Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering (CCIE), 2010
International Conference on IEEE.Chicago, 1, 378-381.
[38] Connor, J. T., Martin, R. D., & Atlas, L. E. (1994). Recurrent neural
networks and robust time series prediction. IEEE transactions on neural
networks, 5(2), 240-254.
[39] Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., & Behbahani, S. M. R. (2013).
Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA, and the autoregressive artificial neural
network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of Dez dam reservoir.
Journal of hydrology, 476, 433-441.

of
[40] Beale, M. H., Hagan, M. T., & Demuth, H. B. (2014). Neural Network
Toolbox™ User's Guide. The Mathworks Inc.

ro
[41] Coulibaly, P., Anctil, F., & Bobee, B. (2001). Multivariate reservoir inflow
forecasting using temporal neural networks. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
-p
6(5), 367-376.
[42] Sattari, M. T., Yurekli, K., & Pal, M. (2012). Performance evaluation of
re
artificial neural network approaches in forecasting reservoir inflow. Applied
lP

Mathematical Modelling, 36(6), 2649-2657.

[43] Yang, S., Yang, D., Chen, J. & Zhao, B. (2019). Real-time reservoir
operation using recurrent neural networks and inflow forecast from a distributed
na

hydrological model, Journal of Hydrology, 579: 124229

[44] ASCE Task Committee (2000). Artificial neural networks in hydrology. II:
ur

Hydrological applications. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, 5(2),

124-137.
Jo

[45] Zhang, G., Patuwo, B. E., & Hu, M. Y. (1998). Forecasting with artificial
neural networks: The state of the art. International journal of forecasting, 14(1),
35-62.
[46] Basheer, I. A., & Hajmeer, M. (2000). Artificial neural networks:
fundamentals, computing, design, and application. Journal of microbiological
methods, 43(1), 3-31.

22
[47] Nourani, V., Komasi, M., & Mano, A. (2009). A multivariate ANN-
wavelet approach for rainfall–runoff modeling. Water resources management,
23(14), 2877-2894.
[48] Bebis, G., & Georgiopoulos, M. (1994). Feed-forward neural networks.
IEEE Potentials, 13(4), 27-31.

[49] Csáji, B. C. (2001). Approximation with artificial neural networks. Faculty

of Sciences, Etvs Lornd University, Hungary, 24, 48.

[50] Gershenfeld, N. A., & Weigend, A. S. (1993). The future of time series:

of
Learning and understanding (No. 93-08-053).

[51] Benmouiza, K., & Cheknane, A. (2013). Forecasting hourly global solar

ro
radiation using hybrid k-means and nonlinear autoregressive neural network
models. Energy Conversion and Management, 75, 561-569.
-p
[52] Pawlus, W., Karimi, H. R., & Robbersmyr, K. G. (2013). Data-based
re
modeling of vehicle collisions by nonlinear autoregressive model and
feedforward neural network. Information Sciences, 235, 65-79.
lP

[53] Siegelmann, H. T., Horne, B. G., & Giles, C. L. (1997). Computational

capabilities of recurrent NARX neural networks. IEEE Transactions on
na

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 27(2), 208-215.

[54] Bierkens, M. F., Knotters, M., & Hoogland, T. (2001). Space‐time

ur

modeling of water table depth using a regionalized time series model and the
Kalman Filter.Water Resources Research, 37(5), 1277-1290.
Jo

[55] Zarezadeh, M., Madani, K., & Morid, S. (2012). Resolving transboundary
water conflicts: lessons learned from the Qezelozan-Sefidrood river bankruptcy
problem. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012:
Crossing Boundaries, pp. 2406-2412.

23
 [56] Jamali, B. & Ebrahimi, k. (2011). Allocating water based on EC in existing
and middle term development conditions case study: Sefidroud irrigation
network, Iran. ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage,
Tehran, Iran.

n11 a11 n12 a12 n13 a13

  
1 2 3
P1 f f f

a 12 a 22 a 23
n12 n 22 n 23
  
2
P2 f 1
f f3

of
n31 a 31 n32 a 32 n33 a 33
  
2
f1 f f3

ro
P3

n1R1 a 1R1 n R2 2 a R2 2 n R3 3 a R3 3
  
1 2 3
P4 f -p f f
….

PR
re
Input Layer1 Layer2 Layer3
lP

Figure 1. The schematic structure of a three-layer static FFNN [40].

na

y(t-d)

n
 fn
Z
……….
ur

y(t-1)
 fn

y(t+1)
Jo

 fn  fo

 fn
Z 1 Z 1

y(t)
 fn

24
 Figure 2 . NAR network schematic structure [39].

x(t)
 fn
Z 1

x(t-1)
 fn
………
. Z d
x(t-d)  fn

of
y(t+1)


y(t-d) fn

ro
d
Z
………
Z 1

. y(t-1)
fn
Z 1
-p
y(t)
 fn
re
lP

Figure 3. NARX network structure schematic [40].

na
ur
Jo

25
 of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Kizil-Ozan River

Shahroud River
Jo

Figure 4. Location of Sefidroud Dam and Basin [56].

26
 3500
Observed

3000 Forecast

2500
Inflow (m3/s)

2000

1500

1000

of
500

ro
0
0 100 200 300 400 500

Time (Month)
-p
re
Figure 5. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for Kizil-Ozan
River using static ANN models.
lP
na
ur
Jo

27
 1400
Observed

1200
Forecast

1000
Inflow (m3/s)

800

600

400

of
200

ro
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
-p
Time (Month)
re
Figure 6. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for Shahroud River
using static ANN models.
lP
na
ur
Jo

28
 3500
Observed
Forecast
3000

2500

2000
Inflow (m3/s)

1500

of
1000

ro
500

0
0 100 200
Time (Month)
300
-p400 500
re
Figure 7. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for Kizil-Ozan
River using NAR model.
lP
na
ur
Jo

29
 1400 Observed

Forecast
1200

1000
Inflow (m3/s)

800

600

of
400

ro
200

0
0 100 200 300
Time (Month)
-p400 500
re
Figure 8. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for Shahroud River
using NAR model.
lP
na
ur
Jo

30
 3500 Observed
Forecast
3000

2500
Inflow (m3/s)

2000

1500

of
1000

ro
500

0
0 100 200
-p300
Time (Month)
400 500
re
Figure 9. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for Kizil-Ozan
River using NARX model.
lP
na
ur
Jo

31
 1400
Observed
Forecast
1200

1000

800
Inflow (m3/s)

600

of
400

ro
200

0
0 100 200 300
-p 400 500
re
Time (Month)

Figure 10. Comparison between observed and forecast inflow for

lP

Shahroud River using NARX model.

na

Table 1. Average results of different static ANN models for inflow forecasting
ur

of Kizil-Ozan River.

Optimum
Jo

Output number of
Models Input variables RMSE R2
variables hidden
neurons

1 Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12) Q(t) 11 201.6 0.723

32
 Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12), P(t), P(t-
2 Q(t) 15 200.2 0.725
12)

Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12), P(t), P(t-

3 Q(t) 17 180.6 0.78
12), T

Table 2. Average results of different static ANN models for inflow forecasting
of Shahroud River.

Optimum

of
Output number of
Models Input variables RMSE R2
variables hidden

ro
neurons

1 Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12) Q(t) 14 52.88 0.765

2
Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12), P(t), P(t-
12)
-p Q(t) 13 49.82 0.782
re
Q(t-1), Q(t-2), Q(t-11), Q(t-12), P(t), P(t-
3 Q(t) 8 41.22 0.843
12), T
lP
na

Table 3. Average results of different NAR models proposed for forecasting

ur

inflow dischargse of Kizil-Ozan River.

Optimum number of
Models Inputs RMSE R2
Jo

hidden neurons

1 Q(t) 7 226.8 0.66

2 Q(t), P(t) 6 168.9 0.667

3 Q(t), P(t), T 5 124.0 0.747

33
 Table 4. Average results of different NAR models proposed for forecasting
inflow discharges of Shahroud River.

Optimum number of
Models Inputs RMSE R2
hidden neurons

1 Q(t) 9 59.7 0.698

2 Q(t), P(t) 3 40.7 0.744

3 Q(t), P(t), T 7 33.5 0.765

of
Table 5. Average results of different NARX models proposed for forecasting

ro
inflow discharges of Kizil-Ozan River.

-p Optimum number of
Models Inputs Outputs RMSE R2
hidden neurons
re
1 P(t) Q(t) 10 221.5 0.651

2 P(t), T Q(t) 3 216.0 0.672

lP

Table 6. Average results of different NARX models proposed for forecasting

na

inflow discharges of Shahroud River.

Optimum number of
ur

Models Inputs Outputs RMSE R2

hidden neurons
Jo

1 P(t) Q(t) 9 55.7 0.727

2 P(t), T Q(t) 6 56.4 0.705

34