多种机器学习模型对不同洪水类型特征指标模拟效果评估

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2022.07.008

地理科学进展 ›› 2022, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (7): 1239-1250.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2022.07.008

多种机器学习模型对不同洪水类型特征指标模拟效果评估

张帆¹(), 张永勇²^,^*(), 陈俊旭¹, 翟晓燕³, 胡庆芳⁴

1.云南大学地球科学学院,昆明 650504
2.中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所,中国科学院陆地水循环及地表过程重点实验室,北京 100101
3.中国水利水电科学研究院,北京 100038
4.南京水利科学研究院水文水资源与水利工程科学国家重点实验室,南京 210029

收稿日期:2021-12-06 修回日期:2022-03-14 出版日期:2022-07-28 发布日期:2022-09-28
通讯作者: *张永勇(1981— ),男,湖北京山人,博士,研究员,主要从事流域水循环与环境水文学研究。E-mail: zhangyy003@igsnrr.ac.cn
作者简介:张帆(1998— ),女,汉族,四川仪陇人,硕士生,主要从事水文模拟方面的研究。E-mail: ZhangF_YN@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(42071041);国家重点研发计划项目(2016YFC0400902)

Performance of multiple machine learning model simulation of process characteristic indicators of different flood types

ZHANG Fan¹(), ZHANG Yongyong²^,^*(), CHEN Junxu¹, ZHAI Xiaoyan³, HU Qingfang⁴

1. School of Earth Sciences, Yunnan University, Kunming 650504, China
2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Process, CAS, Beijing 100101, China
3. China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
4. Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing 210029, China

Received:2021-12-06 Revised:2022-03-14 Online:2022-07-28 Published:2022-09-28
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China(42071041);National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFC0400902)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

洪水过程的特征指标不仅包括洪水量级,还包括时间、形态、动力学等指标。现有模型和方法重点关注洪水量级指标的模拟,对其他指标的模拟仍有待深入。如何实现对洪水过程所有特征指标的模拟已成为目前洪水预报的技术瓶颈。论文采用4种机器学习模型(多元线性回归、多层感知器、随机森林和支持向量机)对淮河上游长台关流域59场降雨—洪水场次7个特征指标(洪水总量、洪峰流量、洪水历时、洪峰时间偏度、高流量历时占比、涨洪和落洪速率)进行模拟,评估不同模型对不同洪水类型和特征指标的模拟效果。结果显示：① 长台关流域洪水过程可分为3类,第1类洪量中等、历时长且洪峰出现时间偏前(16场);第2类洪量低、形态矮胖且洪峰出现时间靠后(34场);第3类洪量大、涨落水迅速、形态尖瘦(9场)。② 时间指标模拟效果最优,动力学指标模拟效果最差。多元线性回归和随机森林模拟效果随所有特征指标数值的增加而增强;支持向量机的模拟效果随着洪水历时指标数值的增加而降低,随着其余特征指标数值的增加而增强;多层感知器模拟效果随着洪水总量、洪峰流量、高流量历时占比和涨洪速率等指标值的增加而增强。③ 从各类型洪水特征模拟精度来看,4种模型对第3类洪水特征模拟均为最佳,第2类最差;随机森林在第1类和第3类洪水特征模拟中效果最优,支持向量机对第2类洪水特征模拟效果最优。④ 从综合模拟精度来看,支持向量机效果最优,然后依次为随机森林、多层感知器和多元线性回归。上述4种模型率定和验证期相对误差分别为23%和98%、21%和109%、37%和75%、41%和102%。研究可为流域洪水过程深度挖掘和防洪措施制定提供参考和借鉴。

关键词: 洪水过程, 特征指标, 机器学习, 模型比较, 淮河流域

Abstract:

The characteristic indicators of flood process include not only flood magnitude, but also flood duration, dynamics, and so on. The existing models and methods focus on the simulation of flood magnitude indicators, but the simulation of other indicators remains insufficient. In this study, four machine learning models — multiple linear regression, multi-layer perceptron, random forest, and support vector machine — were used to simulate seven characteristic indicators — total flood volume, peak flow, flood duration, time deviation of flood peak, proportion of high flow duration, flood rise and fall rates — of 59 rainfall-flood events in the Changtaiguan Basin in the upper reaches of the Huaihe River. The simulation performance of the models for different flood types and characteristic indicators were evaluated. The results show that: 1) The flood process in the Changtaiguan Basin can be divided into three categories. The first category is characterized by moderate flood volume, long duration, and earlier peak time (16 fields); the second type has low flood volume, short and fat shape, and the flood peak appears later (34 fields); the third type has large flood volume, sharp and thin shape, and flood rises and falls rapidly (9 fields). 2) Time indicator simulation performed the best and dynamic indicator simulation performed the worst; the performance of multiple linear regression and random forest simulation increased with the increase of all characteristic indicator values. The simulation performance of support vector machine decreased with the increase of flood duration, and increased with the increase of value of the remaining characteristic indicators. The simulation performance of multi-layer perceptron increased with the increase of value of four indicators, namely, total flood volume, peak flow, proportion of high flow duration, and flood rise rate. 3) With regard to the simulation accuracy of characteristic indicators of various types of floods, the four models performed the best for the simulation of the third type of floods, but the worst for the second type; random forest showed the best simulation performance for the first and third types of floods, and support vector machine showed better simulation performance for the second type of floods. 4) According to the comprehensive simulation accuracy, the support vector machine model performed the best, followed by random forest, multi-layer perceptron, and multiple linear regression. Relative errors for the calibration and validation periods were 23% and 98%, 21% and 109%, 37% and 75%, and 41% and 102%, respectively. The study results may provide some references for flood type simulation and countermeasures in the Huaihe River Basin.

Key words: flood process, characteristic indicators, machine learning, model comparison, Huaihe River Basin

张帆, 张永勇, 陈俊旭, 翟晓燕, 胡庆芳. 多种机器学习模型对不同洪水类型特征指标模拟效果评估[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41(7): 1239-1250.

ZHANG Fan, ZHANG Yongyong, CHEN Junxu, ZHAI Xiaoyan, HU Qingfang. Performance of multiple machine learning model simulation of process characteristic indicators of different flood types[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2022, 41(7): 1239-1250.

图/表 10

图1

表1

洪水过程特征指标

类别	指标	简写	单位	计算公式	备注
量级	洪水总量	Flow	mm	$F l o w = ∑ t b e g i n t e n d Q t / A$	反映洪水总量级。 $Q t$ 为某时刻洪水流量,A为流域面积, $t b e g i n$ 、 $t e n d$ 分别表示洪水开始和结束的时刻
量级	洪峰流量	Qpk		$Q p k = m a x Q t / s u m Q t$	反映洪峰量级。除以总流量以消除量纲的影响
时间	洪水历时	Dur	d	$D u r = t e n d - t b e g i n$	反映总时间特征。指标含义同上
时间	洪峰时间偏度	FT		$F T = Q t p k - t b e g i n / D u r$	反映洪峰出现时间。 $Q t p k$ 为洪峰出现时刻
形态	高流量历时占比	HT		$H T = t 75 % / D u r$	反映洪峰形态。 $t 75 %$ 表示大于洪峰流量75%的流量持续时间
动力学	涨洪速率	Inr	m³∙s^-1∙h^-1	$I n r = m a x Q t - Q t b e g i n Q t p k - t b e g i n × 24$	反映洪水过程的变化率。 $Q t b e g i n$ 为洪水开始时刻的流量
动力学	落洪速率	Der	m³∙s^-1∙h^-1	$D e r = m a x Q t - Q t e n d t e n d - Q t p k × 24$	反映洪水过程的变化率。 $Q t e n d$ 为洪水结束时刻的流量

表1

表2

影响洪水过程的关键降水指标

类别	指标	计算方式	说明
量级	平均雨量	$P a v e = 1 T ∑ i = 1 n α i P i$	反映流域降雨强度。T为降水总历时, $α i$ 为泰森多边形面积权重因子, $P i$ 为第i个雨量站的累积降雨量,n为雨量站的个数
	最大雨强	$P m a x = m a x P m, t$	反映流域降雨强度。 $P m, t$ 为t个时间点的面降雨量
	面降雨量	$P m = ∑ i = 1 n α i P i$	反映流域降雨量级情况。指标含义同上
	峰前雨量	$P r = ∑ t = 1 T m a x P m, t$	反映降水中前期状况。 $T m a x$ 为面降雨量中最大值出现的时间, $P m, t$ 为t个时间点的面降雨量
时间	雨峰系数	$R c = T m a x T$	反映流域降水峰值出现时间。T为降水总历时
	时间变差系数	$T c = 1 n - 1 ∑ i = 1 n K i - 1 2$	反映流域降水在时间上的均匀度。 $K i$ 表示降雨过程中第i个时刻降雨量与该场次暴雨雨强的比值。 $T c$ 越大表示时间上分布越不均匀,反之亦然
	降水集中度	$D c = R x t 2 + R y t 2 P m$ $R x t = ∑ i = 1 n r t, i × s i n θ i$ , $R y t = ∑ i = 1 n r t, i × c o s θ i$	反映流域降水在时间上的集中度。 $P m$ 为研究时间段内的降雨总量; $r t, i$ 为研究时间段内某小时降水量; $θ i$ 表示第i个时间段的方向,即将研究时间段视为一个圆周,按小时时段进行平均分配
空间	雨量极大值比	$σ = P m H m a x$	反映流域降雨空间均匀度。 $P m$ 为面降雨量, $H m a x$ 为点最大雨量。该值越接近于1表示流域降雨越均匀
空间	暴雨相对中心	$C p = ∑ i = 1 n P i d i ∑ i = 1 n P i$	反映流域降雨中心到流域出口的距离。 $d i$ 表示第i个雨量站到流域出口的直线距离
	起始流量		反映流域降雨前期含水情况

表2

图2

图3

表3

表4

图4

图5

图6

参考文献 27

[1]	Jia S F, Li Y Y, Lü A F, et al. City storm-flood events in China, 1984-2015 [J]. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2019, 35(4): 605-618.
[2]	Li Y, Gong S Y, Zhang Z R, et al. Vulnerability evaluation of rainstorm disaster based on ESA conceptual framework: A case study of Liaoning Province, China[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 64: 102540. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102540 doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102540
[3]	Shi J, Cui L L, Tian Z. Spatial and temporal distribution and trend in flood and drought disasters in East China[J]. Environmental Research, 2020, 185: 109406. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109406. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109406
[4]	Li L P, Zhang K M, Luo T, et al. An analysis of the drought and flood hazard characteristics and risks during the pre-rainy season in South China[J]. Natural Hazards, 2014, 71(2): 1195-1213.
[5]	Bhaskar N R, French M N, Kyiamah G K. Characterization of flash floods in eastern Kentucky[J]. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2000, 5(3): 327-331.
[6]	Saharia M, Kirstetter P E, Vergara H, et al. Characterization of floods in the United States[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2017, 548: 524-535.
[7]	张永勇, 陈秋潭. 淮河中上游流域洪水主要类型及其时空分布特征[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(4): 627-635. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.009
	[ Zhang Yongyong, Chen Qiutan. Characteristics of main flood event types and their temporal-spatial variations in the upper and middle reaches of the Huai River Basin. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(4): 627-635. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.009
[8]	Ma H, Yang D W. Hydrological model comparison and combination for flood forecast in the Three Gorges Region, China[J]. Advances in Geosciences, 2010, 17: 203-216.
[9]	Petheram C, Rustomji P, Chiew F, et al. Rainfall-runoff modelling in northern Australia: A guide to modelling strategies in the tropics[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2012, 462/463: 28-41.
[10]	Zhang Y Q, Chiew F H S, Li M, et al. Predicting runoff signatures using regression and hydrological modeling approaches[J]. Water Resources Research, 2018, 54(10): 7859-7878.
[11]	孙娜. 机器学习理论在径流智能预报中的应用研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2019.
	[ Sun Na. The theory of machine learning and its applications in the hydrological forecasting. Wuhan, China: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2019. ]
[12]	李伶杰, 王银堂, 胡庆芳, 等. 基于时变权重组合与贝叶斯修正的中长期径流预报[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(4): 643-650. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.011
	[ Li Lingjie, Wang Yintang, Hu Qingfang, et al. Mid-and long-term runoff prediction based on time-varying weight combination and Bayesian correction. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(4): 643-650. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.011
[13]	Adnan R M, Petroselli A, Heddam S, et al. Comparison of different methodologies for rainfall-runoff modeling: Machine learning vs conceptual approach[J]. Natural Hazards, 2021, 105(3): 2987-3011.
[14]	Deng T A, Chau K W, Duan H F. Machine learning based marine water quality prediction for coastal hydro-environment management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 284: 112051. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021112051. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021112051
[15]	Chen J L, Huang G R, Chen W J. Towards better flood risk management: Assessing flood risk and investigating the potential mechanism based on machine learning models[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 293: 112810. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112810. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112810
[16]	McIntyre N, Al-Qurashi A, Wheater H. Regression analysis of rainfall-runoff data from an arid catchment in Oman[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2007, 52(6): 1103-1118.
[17]	Al-Rawas G A, Valeo C. Relationship between wadi drainage characteristics and peak-flood flows in arid northern Oman[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2010, 55(3): 377-393.
[18]	林木生, 陈兴伟, 陈莹. 晋江西溪流域洪水与暴雨时空分布特征的相关分析[J]. 资源科学, 2011, 33(12): 2226-2231.
	[ Lin Musheng, Chen Xingwei, Chen Ying. Regression analysis of flood response to the spatial and temporal variability of storm in the Jinjiangxixi Watershed. Resources Science, 2011, 33(12): 2226-2231. ]
[19]	Boukharouba K, Roussel P, Dreyfus G, et al. Flash flood forecasting using support vector regression: An event clustering based approach[C]// 2013 IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP). Southampton, UK: IEEE, 2013: 1-6.
[20]	Li X, Sha J, Wang Z L. Comparison of daily streamflow forecasts using extreme learning machines and the random forest method[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2019, 64(15): 1857-1866.
[21]	牟凤云, 杨猛, 林孝松, 等. 基于机器学习算法模型的巫山县洪水灾害研究[J]. 中山大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 59(1): 105-113.
	[ Mu Fengyun, Yang Meng, Lin Xiaosong, et al. The flood disasters in Wushan County based on machine learning algorithm model. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni, 2020, 59(1): 105-113. ]
[22]	Tayebiyan A, Mohammad T A, Ghazali A H. Artificial neural network for modelling rainfall-runoff[J]. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology, 2016, 24(2): 319-330.
[23]	Shortridge J E, Guikema S D, Zaitchik B F. Machine learning methods for empirical streamflow simulation: A comparison of model accuracy, interpretability, and uncertainty in seasonal watersheds[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2016, 20(7): 2611-2628.
[24]	左岗岗. 基于机器学习的渭河流域径流预测系统研究[D]. 西安: 西安理工大学, 2017.
	[ Zuo Ganggang. The research of Wei River runoff prediction system based on machine learning. Xi'an, China: Xi'an University of Technology, 2017. ]
[25]	冯志刚, 梁树献, 徐胜, 等. 近60年淮河流域夏季降水的变化特征[J]. 水文, 2019, 39(6): 85-89.
	[ Feng Zhigang, Liang Shuxian, Xu Sheng, et al. Variation characteristics of summer precipitation in Huaihe River Basin in recent 60years. Journal of China Hydrology, 2019, 39(6): 85-89. ]
[26]	Akaike H. A Bayesian analysis of the minimum AIC procedure[J]. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 1978, 30(1): 9-14.
[27]	杨柳, 王钰. 泛化误差的各种交叉验证估计方法综述[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2015, 32(5): 1287-1290, 1297.
	[ Yang Liu, Wang Yu. Survey for various cross-validation estimators of generalization error. Application Research of Computers, 2015, 32(5): 1287-1290, 1297. ]

模型	相对误差/%			相关系数			均方根对数误差
模型	率定集	验证集	综合	率定集	验证集	综合	率定集	验证集	综合
多元线性回归	41	102	60	0.90	0.68	0.82	0.14	0.18	0.16
多层感知器	37	75	49	0.91	0.77	0.88	0.11	0.14	0.12
随机森林	21	109	48	0.98	0.75	0.93	0.06	0.17	0.11
支持向量机	23	98	45	0.92	0.67	0.87	0.04	0.16	0.10

多种机器学习模型对不同洪水类型特征指标模拟效果评估

Performance of multiple machine learning model simulation of process characteristic indicators of different flood types

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 27

相关文章 9

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

评价指标	模型	洪水类型
评价指标	模型	1类	2类	3类
相对误差/%	多元线性回归	37	81	24
	多层感知器	30	64	24
	随机森林	23	69	12
	支持向量机	33	57	18
相关系数	多元线性回归	0.80	0.60	0.87
	多层感知器	0.83	0.74	0.84
	随机森林	0.90	0.74	0.97
	支持向量机	0.76	0.77	0.92
均方根对数误差	多元线性回归	0.10	0.18	0.07
	多层感知器	0.11	0.13	0.10
	随机森林	0.07	0.14	0.03
	支持向量机	0.07	0.12	0.04

[1]	刘吉祥, 肖龙珠, 周江评, 郭源园, 杨林川. 建成环境与青少年步行通学的非线性关系——基于极限梯度提升模型的研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41(2): 251-263.
[2]	张鹏, 胡守庚, 杨剩富, 成佩昆. 基于多源数据和集成学习的城市住宅地价分布模拟——以武汉市为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(10): 1664-1677.
[3]	邬柯杰, 吴吉东, 叶梦琪. 社交媒体数据在自然灾害应急管理中的应用研究综述[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(8): 1412-1422.
[4]	李智轩, 何仲禹, 张一鸣, 金霜霜, 王雪梅, 朱捷, 刘师岑. 绿色环境暴露对居民心理健康的影响研究——以南京为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(5): 779-791.
[5]	张永勇, 陈秋潭. 淮河中上游流域洪水主要类型及其时空分布特征[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(4): 627-635.
[6]	周亮, 徐建刚, 蒋金亮, 袁艳华, 孙东琪. 淮河流域水环境污染防治能力空间差异[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(4): 560-569.
[7]	王情, 刘雪华, 吕宝磊. 基于SPOT-VGT数据的流域植被覆盖动态变化及空间格局特征——以淮河流域为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(2): 270-277.
[8]	张永勇, 夏军, 翟晓燕. 闸坝的水文水环境效应及其量化方法探讨[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(1): 105-113.
[9]	王随继,范小黎. 黄河内蒙古不同河型段对洪水过程的响应特征[J]. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(4): 501-506.