MAJOR PROJECT – CV779

ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY OF

RIVER NETRAVATHI USING FUZZY
LOGIC
Supervised by, Submitted by,

Dr. Adani Azhoni Pretty Mary

Asst. Professor 192EN024
Dept. of Civil Engineering
NITK

1
CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Aim and Objective
• Literature review
• Study area
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Reference

2
INTRODUCTION

• River and its importance

• Importance of River monitoring

• Importance of this study

AIM

• To use Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) as a tool for classifying water quality status and perform a
comparison between FIS and the conventional weighted arithmetic WQI

OBJECTIVE

• FIS as a substitute for Conventional methods

• Find WQI of River Netravati using Mamdani FIS

• Find main pollution factor

3
LITERATURE REVIEW…

• Good quality water is of vital concern for humanity since it is directly linked with human welfare. The
quality of water, surface/ground, have been worsened due to some critical factors like increasing
population, industrialization, and urbanization. Therefore, it is essential to test the quality of water
(Tyagi et al., 2020)

• The water quality evaluation requires collection and analysis of large complicated data's of
compound parameters that can be difficult to evaluate (Uddin et al., 2021)

• WQI transforms the complex information of raw water quality data into a single unitless number that
reflects the overall water quality status of the selected area (Kothari et al., 2021)

• The key parameter to be selected in a particular study is very much dependent on the significance
of that particular parameter in the given environmental conditions, and this is a point that needs to
be given much consideration while making use of the WQI method (Costa et al., 2020)

4
LITERATURE REVIEW…

• Different parameter exerts a different effect on water classification. (Vandna Pathak and A.K.
Banerjee, 2006), (Abrahão et al., 2007), (Dwivedi & Pathak, 2007), (Karakaya & Evrendilek, 2010),
(Kannel et al., 2007), (Boyacioglu, 2007) and (Pesce & Wunderlin, 2000) have assigned weights to
each parameter with values ranging from 1 to 4

• After assigning the respective values ranging from 1 to 4, (Alobaidy et al., 2010) in their study
calculated relative weight using the following equation:

• As WQI involves steps like normalising the parameters and weighting of parameters, experts
frequently disagree on the relative importance of parameters and give different weightage to same
parameter (Zagatto et al., 2017)

• Also, when water quality reports are generated, they are written for specialists, showing survey data
with emphasis on individual parameters, without providing the institutional players (managers and
decision-makers), who seldom are specialists, a bird’s eye view of the quality of a hydric resource
(Lermontov et al., 2009).
5
LITERATURE REVIEW…

• Owing to these difficulties alternate methods have emerged from artificial intelligence (AI). One such
method is the fuzzy inference system which uses fuzzy logic as a language that allows translation of
sophisticated statements from natural language into a mathematical formalism (Kumaravel et al.,
2020)

• The Fuzzy logic has been used to assess water quality based on fuzzy reasoning. The linguistic
aspect of fuzzy logic could be based on two different approaches in river water quality management:
(a) expert knowledge and or (b) actual water quality data are available in a linguistic format (Ross,
2010)

• Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System is based on the collections of IF-THEN rules with both fuzzy
antecedent and consequent parameters

• In his book (Ross, 2010) says Mamdani FIS incorporates the following main four steps: (a)
Fuzzification of Inputs and Output (b) Selection of Membership functions (c) Determination of
application rule base (d) Defuzzification to crisp value
6
• A publication by (Sastry, 2017) in the newspaper “The Hindu” said, “Netravati, the lifeline of
Dakshina Kannada, the only source of drinking water for Mangalore, gets polluted along her path by
the discharge of wastewater.” The entire sewage generated in Bantwal town (located close to the
Thumbe vented dam, built across the Netravati) is let into the river at 15 locations with no
underground drainage system. Sewage and wastewater enter Netravati and its tributary, the
Kumaradhara upstream, including Dharmasthala and Kukke Subramanya

• There is enough evidence that River Netravati is polluted due to various factors. Therefore, there is
a need for systematic water quality monitoring to assess water quality for ecosystem health and
hygiene.

7
STUDY AREA

Figure 1: Study area

9
METHODOLOGY...

Figure 2: Flowchart representing the methodology

  10
 Table 1: WQI Rating scale
METHODOLOGY…
WQI Value Water Quality Rating
Data collection 0-25 Excellent
• Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 26-50 Good
51-75 Poor
Baikampady, Mangalore
76-100 Very Poor
• 3 study stations – Dharmasthala, Uppinangady, ˃100 Unfit for consumption
Reference: Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., &
Thumbe Dobhal, R. (2020). Water Quality Assessment in
Terms of Water Quality Index. American Journal of
• Data of year 2020 Water Resources, 1(3), 34–38.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3
Parameters and their significance
• 30 parameters monitored by KSPCB
• pH, DO, TDS, Chloride, Sulphate, Nitrate, BOD, Total
Coliform – chosen for the study
WQI rating scale
• Rating scale developed by R.M. Brown in 1970

11
METHODOLOGY…
Fuzzy water quality index
Fuzzy logic toolbox - MATLAB R2020b package
Fuzzification: Identification of input and output and
converting it to linguistic variables
Membership Functions: Triangular Membership
Functions, Membership value in the range 0-1
Inference Rules:
• IF-THEN Conditions
• AND operator,
• If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS Figure 3: Flowchart representing the structure of a
Fuzzy Inference System
is Medium) and (Chloride is Low) and (Sulphate
is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low)
and (TC is Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent)

12
METHODOLOGY…

• If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low) and (Sulphate
is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).

• If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low) and (Sulphate
is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and (TC is High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).

• Defuzzification: Centroid Method, Z* =

13
METHODOLOGY…
Table 2: Input parameter ranges for triangular membership function

  Low Medium High

Determinant a b c a b c a b c

pH 5 6 6.5 6 6.5 7 6.5 7 7.5

DO 4 5 5.8 5.5 6.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 8.0
TDS 60 80 100 80 100 130 120 130 140
Chloride 10 20 50 45 50 55 50 55 60
Sulphate 0 2 5 4 5 6 5 6 7
Nitrate 0 1 2 1.5 2 3 2 3 4
BOD 1.2 2 2.5 2.2 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.6
Total Coliform 0 2 10 5 100 600 520 1000 1700
Table 3: Output parameter ranges for triangular membership function

Determinant Excellent Good Poor Very Poor Unfit for

consumption
a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c
WQI 0 20 27 26 30 60 51 60 80 76 80 120 101 120 125

14
METHODOLOGY…
…

Figure 4: Fuzzy Inference System Figure 5: Membership Function plot of Dissolved Oxygen
(Extracted from MATLAB R2020b)
(Extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

15
METHODOLOGY…

Figure 6: The rule editor in MATLAB R2020b Figure 7: The rule viewer in MATLAB R2020b

16
METHODOLOGY…
Weighted arithmetic water quality index
• Adopted as a reference to compare the values obtained from the Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System
Qn = × 100
Where,
Vn = Estimated value of the nth parameter
of the given sampling station.
Sn = Standard permissible value of the nth
parameter.
For pH and DO, Qn is found out using the
following equation: Qn = 100 x
Where,

Figure 8: Flowchart representing the steps involved in the Vi for pH and DO is 7 and 14, respectively
calculation of WQI
WQI =
Where Wn is factor weight

17
WEIGHTED ARITHMATIC WATER QUALITY INDEX
Factor weights: Scale 1-4.
Standard permissible limit: ICMR, BIS

Table 4: Parameters and their

Table 5: Standard permissible limits of the
respective assigned and relative
selected parameters
weights
Parameters Assigned Relative Parameters Desirable Limit Recommended
Weight weight (Sn) Agency
pH 1 0.052631579 pH 8.5 ICMR/BIS
DO 4 0.210526316
DO 5 ICMR
TDS 2 0.105263158
TDS 500 ICMR/BIS
Chloride 1 0.052631579
Chloride 250 ICMR
Sulphate 2 0.105263158
Sulphate 200 ICMR/BIS
Nitrate 2 0.105263158
Nitrate 45 ICMR/BIS
BOD 3 0.157894737
BOD 5 ICMR
Total Coliform 4 0.210526316
∑  19 1 Total Coliform 500 BIS

18
RESULTS…
Table 6: FWQI AND WAWQI results of Dharmasthala

DHARMASTHALA

Month FWQI Water Quality WAWQI Water Quality

Status Status
January 40.6 Good 31.9725 Good
February 40.1 Good 40.6722 Good
March 41.8 Good 33.5637 Good
April 40.6 Good 35.1883 Good
May 14.1 Excellent 24.9249 Excellent
June 15 Excellent 24.9695 Excellent
July 15 Excellent 24.7681 Excellent
August 14.1 Excellent 24.9431 Excellent
September 96.7 Very Poor 93.0341 Very Poor
October 96.7 Very Poor 92.1416 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor 92.4931 Very Poor
December 39.7 Good 37.0081 Good
Average 45.925 Good 46.3066 Good
19
RESULTS…

Table 7: FWQI AND WAWQI results of Uppinangady

UPPINANGADY
Month FWQI Water Quality WAWQI Water Quality
Status Status
January 40.6 Good 41.7836 Good
February 40.1 Good 47 Good
March 41.8 Good 37.2928 Good
April 40.6 Good 47.1522 Good
May 14.1 Excellent 28.3104 Good
June 15 Excellent 24.7017 Excellent
July 15 Excellent 28.1076 Good
August 14.1 Excellent 29.3534 Good
September 96.7 Very Poor 40.2304 Good
October 96.7 Very Poor 95.1595 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor 94.2159 Very Poor
December 39.7 Good 97.3602 Very Poor
Average 45.925 Good 50.8890 Good
20
RESULTS…
Table 8: FWQI AND WAWQI results of Thumbe
THUMBE
Month FWQI Water Quality Very Poor
94.5789
Status
January 40.6 Good 38.6947 Good
February 40.1 Good 40.3373 Good
March 41.8 Good 41.6898 Good
April 40.6 Good 24.8374 Excellent
May 14.1 Excellent 25.6526 Excellent
June 15 Excellent 24.9974 Excellent
July 15 Excellent 24.9205 Excellent
August 14.1 Excellent 92.7777 Very Poor
September 96.7 Very Poor 90.5507 Very Poor
October 96.7 Very Poor 92.1412 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor 94.0321 Very Poor
December 39.7 Good 57.1009 Poor
Average 45.925 Good 94.5789 Very Poor
21
RESULTS
Variation of WQI at Uppinangady
Variation of WQI at Dharmasthala 120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 ry ry ch ril ay ne Ju
ly st be
r er be
r
be
r
ry ry ch ril ay ne ly st r er r r ua ua ar Ap M Ju gu ob
ua ua ar Ap Ju gu be ob be be n
eb
r M u m t m m
n br
M Ju u m t m m J a A te Oc ve ce
J a M A pt
e c ve ce F ep No De
Fe O
No De
S
Se
FWQI WAWQI
FWQI WAWQI

Variation of WQI at Thumbe

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ry ar
y ch ril ay ne Ju
ly st be
r er be
r
be
r
ua ru ar Ap M Ju ugu m tob m m
an b M A e c e e
J F e pt O v c
Se No De

FWQI WAWQI

Figure 9: Graphs showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Dharmasthala

22
DISCUSSION…

• Total Coliform (TC) – 2, 100,500,1600 MPN/100 ml

• Uncertainty in water quality parameters in the border area

• Samples with near-identical qualities – Advantages of FIS best revealed

• Excellent water quality– Heavy Rains

• ‘Excellent’ by the FWQI and ‘Good’ with WAWQI - DO and BOD

• Selection of parameters in conventional methods - E.g. TC and its permissible limit for drinking
water (Zero) cannot be used in the equation : Qn = × 100

• ‘Good’ and ‘Very Poor’- TC, Post monsoon (rainfall runoff and agricultural runoff), Festivals,
Vacation, Soak pits and septic tanks

• TC – main source of pollution

• Surface pollution anthropogenically induced

23
DISCUSSION…

• Only a few studies have been conducted on River Netravati to assess the water quality and its

status. Ramananda, 2017 in his study has used Statistical sampling theory to study the quality of

River Netravati. Lekeshmanaswamy & Pooja, 2019 has done the evaluation of physico chemical

parameters on water quality of River Netravati. Avvannavar & Shrihari, 2008 has evaluated water

quality of Netravati using Bhargava Water Quality Index Method. Gayathri et al., 2021 analyzed

the water quality of Netravati using National sanitation foundation water quality index

• The present study - different yet competent approach, less complex and straightforward

The advantages of using FIS in determining water quality status are:

• Describe a large number of nonlinear relations

• Combine qualitative and quantitative information

• Generate results which are more consistent to the real-world issues. 24

DISCUSSION

The drawbacks of FIS include:

• More parameters, More inference rules

• No single systematic approach. The rules have to be updated with changing inputs

• It largely depends on human expertise and knowledge

• Results may vary different membership functions (e.g., Trapezoidal, Gaussian membership functions)
and defuzzification methods (e.g., Center of sums, Center of largest area)

CONCLUSION…

• Flexible tool – simple and efficient language

• Can be conveyed easily to a layman

• Amends the deficiencies of conventional WQI

• Water quality of Dharmasthala and Uppinangady is ‘Good,’ and that of Thumbe is Poor and are not
suitable for drinking 25
CONCLUSION

• Results of FWQI are almost consistent with that of the conventional WAWQI

• Analysis suggests improving the sewage treatment rate, controlling the pollution from agricultural
sources

• Proper tertiary treatment like aeration and disinfection – Drinking purpose

• Reliable and accurate results

• Does not normalize or standardize the parameters

• Equal weightage is applied for all parameters

• No disagreement arises in terms of relative importance of parameters

• Therefore, it can be used as a substitute for conventional methods for the assessment of surface
water quality

• Fuzzy logic concepts, if used rationally, could be a potent tool for some of the environmental policy
subjects 26
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

• More number of monitoring stations should be increased

• Testing of samples should be performed on the same day. When the testing is prolonged, changes
occur in the collected water and misdiagnosing can happen

• Minimum 10 years data required

• Study cannot be entirely replicated for a study with parameters of different value

• The results of this study can be used as a reference when performing water quality analysis in
similar environmental conditions.
FUTURE WORK…

• Adaptive Network based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) as it can construct an input – output
mapping

• Comparison of different membership functions and defuzzification methods

• Mean absolute error (MAE), Mean square error (MSE), and Root mean square error (RMSE)
27
FUTURE WORK

• Sensitivity analysis, Crosstab analysis and programming languages like Python

• Evaluation using different parameters

• FIS method with other methods for more clarity in its efficiency in assessing the water quality.
REFERENCE…

• Costa, D. D. A., Paulo, J., Azevedo, S. De, & Aurélio, M. (2020). Water quality assessment based on
multivariate statistics and water quality index of a strategic river in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
Scientific Reports, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78563-0

• Deka, P. C. (2020). A Primer On Machine Learning Applications In Civil Engineering. Taylor and Francis
Group

• Kothari, V., Vij, S., Sharma, S. K., & Gupta, N. (2021). Correlation of various water quality parameters
and water quality index of districts of Uttarakhand. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators,
9(December 2020), 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100093

• Ross, T. J., & Ross, T. J. (2010). Fuzzy logic with Engineering, Third edition. 28
REFERENCE

• Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., & Dobhal, R. (2020). Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water
Quality Index. American Journal of Water Resources, 1(3), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-1-
3-3
• Uddin, M. G., Nash, S., & Olbert, A. I. (2021). A review of water quality index models and their use
for assessing surface water quality. Ecological Indicators, 122, 107218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107218
• Vandna Pathak and A.K. Banerjee. (2006). Mine water pollution studies in chapha incline, Umaria
coalfield, Eastern Madhya Pradesh, India. 11(2), 27–35.

29