English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 56552/90363 (63%)
Visitors : 11822114      Online Users : 119
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/67818

    Title: Comparison of static-feedforward and dynamic-feedback neural networks for rainfall–runoff modeling
    Authors: 張麗秋;Chang, Li-chiu;Chiang, Yen-ming;Chang, Fi-john
    Contributors: 淡江大學水資源及環境工程學系
    Keywords: Rainfall–runoff processes;Streamflow forecasting;Neural networks;Static systems;Dynamic systems
    Date: 2004-05-01
    Issue Date: 2011-10-23 02:05:31 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: Elsevier B.V
    Abstract: A systematic comparison of two basic types of neural network, static and dynamic, is presented in this study. Two back-propagation (BP) learning optimization algorithms, the standard BP and conjugate gradient (CG) method, are used for the static network, and the real-time recurrent learning (RTRL) algorithm is used for the dynamic-feedback network. Twenty-three storm-events, about 1632 rainfall and runoff data sets, of the Lan-Yang River in Taiwan are used to demonstrate the efficiency and practicability of the neural networks for one hour ahead streamflow forecasting. In a comparison of searching algorithms for a static network, the results show that the CG method is superior to the standard BP method in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the constructed network's performance. For a comparison of the static neural network using the CG algorithm with the dynamic neural network using RTRL, the results show that (1) the static-feedforward neural network could produce satisfactory results only when there is a sufficient and adequate training data set, (2) the dynamic neural network generally could produce better and more stable flow forecasting than the static network, and (3) the RTRL algorithm helps to continually update the dynamic network for learning—this feature is especially important for the extraordinary time-varying characteristics of rainfall–runoff processes.
    Relation: Journal of Hydrology 290(3-4), pp.297-311
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.033
    Appears in Collections:[水資源及環境工程學系暨研究所] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback