Inflow Estimation into Chungju Reservoir Using RADAR Forecasted Precipitation Data and ANFIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
최근 국지성 집중호우, 돌발홍수와 같은 급격한 기상변화로 인한 피해가 증가함에 따라, 레이더와 위성영상 등 원격탐측 방법을 사용한 강우 예측 및 관측에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있다. 본 연구에서는 자료지향형 모형의 하나인 뉴로-퍼지기법(ANFIS : Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System)을 사용하여 유역 유출량을 산정하였고, 레이더 단기 강우예측 모형인 MAPLE(McGill Algorithm for Precipitation Nowcasting by Lagrangian Extrapolation; Germann et al., 2002, 2004) 강우예측자료를 입력변수의 하나로 사용하였다. 뉴로-퍼지기법 및 레이더 강우예측자료를 사용한 홍수량 산정의 적용성 평가를 위해 충주댐 상류유역의 2010년 및 2011년 홍수기에 발생한 6개의 강우사상을 사용하여 모형 생성 시 사용한 강우자료의 종류에 따른 결과를 비교하고, 입력변수 조합에 따른 15개 모형을 구성하여, 모형 구성과정의 군집화 방법을 변화시키며 이에 따른 결과를 비교 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 기 발생한 홍수사상 중 가장 큰 홍수사상을 사용하여 모형을 생성할 경우 홍수량 산정의 정확도가 높아지는 것으로 나타났고, 모형의 생성이 가능한 범위 안에서 비교적 clustering 반경이 클수록 홍수량 산정의 정확도가 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 충주댐 유역의 홍수량 예측에서는 t+6~t+16시간의 예측에서 MAPLE 강수예측자료를 사용한 모형의 홍수량 산정 결과의 정확도가 상대적으로 높은 것으로 나타났다. The interest in rainfall observation and forecasting using remote sensing method like RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging) and satellite image is increased according to increased damage by rapid weather change like regional torrential rain and flash flood. In this study, the basin runoff was calculated using adaptive neuro-fuzzy technique, one of the data driven model and MAPLE (McGill Algorithm for Precipitation Nowcasting by Lagrangian Extrapolation) forecasted precipitation data as one of the input variables. The flood estimation method using neuro-fuzzy technique and RADAR forecasted precipitation data was evaluated. Six rainfall events occurred at flood season in 2010 and 2011 in Chungju Reservoir basin were used for the input data. The flood estimation results according to the rainfall data used as training, checking and testing data in the model setup process were compared. The 15 models were composed of combination of the input variables and the results according to change of clustering methods were compared and analysed. From this study was that using the relatively larger clustering radius and the biggest flood ever happened for training data showed the better flood estimation. The model using MAPLE forecasted precipitation data showed relatively better result at inflow estimation Chungju Reservoir.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".