Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898

www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres

Treatment of precipitation uncertainty in rainfall-runoff

modelling: a fuzzy set approach
a,*
Shreedhar Maskey , Vincent Guinot b, Roland K. Price c

a
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands
b
Université Montpellier 2, Maison des Sciences de l’Eau, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
c
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands

Received 22 December 2003; received in revised form 9 June 2004; accepted 6 July 2004
Available online 12 September 2004

Abstract

The uncertainty in forecasted precipitation remains a major source of uncertainty in real time flood forecasting. Precipitation
uncertainty consists of uncertainty in (i) the magnitude, (ii) temporal distribution, and (iii) spatial distribution of the precipitation.
This paper presents a methodology for propagating the precipitation uncertainty through a deterministic rainfall-runoff-routing
model for flood forecasting. It uses fuzzy set theory combined with genetic algorithms. The uncertainty due to the unknown tem-
poral distribution of the precipitation is achieved by disaggregation of the precipitation into subperiods. The methodology based on
fuzzy set theory is particularly useful where a probabilistic forecast of precipitation is not available. A catchment model of the
Klodzko valley (Poland) built with HEC-1 and HEC-HMS was used for the application. The results showed that the output uncer-
tainty due to the uncertain temporal distribution of precipitation can be significantly dominant over the uncertainty due to the
uncertain quantity of precipitation.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Disaggregation; Flood forecasting; Fuzzy sets; Genetic algorithm; Precipitation; Uncertainty

1. Introduction uncertainty in a deterministic rainfall-runoff-routing

Since flooding is an inherently uncertain natural
process, the reliability and credibility of flood forecast-
ing and warning systems cannot be guaranteed without
properly incorporating the sources of uncertainty into
the forecasting and warning systems. Estimating uncer-
tainty in forecasts enables an authority to set risk-based
criteria for flood warning and offers potential for addi-
tional economic benefits of forecasts to every rational
decision maker [15]. The present discussion deals with
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 15 2151755; fax: +31 15 2122921.
E-mail addresses: s.maskey@unesco-ihe.org (S. Maskey), guinot@
msem.univ-montp2.fr (V. Guinot), r.price@unesco-ihe.org (R.K.
Price).
model. The various sources of uncertainty associated
with the model outputs can be classified as [18]:
(1) Model uncertainty (due to assumptions in the model
equations, model building, and other forms of
imprecision in conceptualising the real system)
(2) Input uncertainty (due to imperfect forecasts of
future precipitation, evaporation, etc.)
(3) Parameter uncertainty (due to imperfect assess-
ments of model parameters)
(4) Natural and operational uncertainty (due to unfore-
seen causes, e.g. glacier lake overflow, landslides
and debris flows, etc., malfunctioning of system
components (hardware and software), erroneous
and missing data, human errors and mistakes,
etc.).

0309-1708/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.07.001
890 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898
The latter category is broad and is usually not ad-
dressed by uncertainty assessment in operational flood
forecasting systems. Model uncertainty may be assessed
by comparing results from different models [22]. The
parameter uncertainty can reflect part of the uncertainty
associated with the model structure [7]. Such assess-
ments of model uncertainty however, remain largely
subjective. One of the important developments for the
treatment of uncertainty in water systems modelling is
the generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation
(GLUE) by Beven and Binley [2]. Some examples of
the application of the GLUE methodology in rainfall-
runoff modelling are [3] and [5].
The present discussion is limited to the treatment of
uncertainty in precipitation as an input uncertainty.
Real time flood forecasting using a rainfall-runoff-rout-
ing model requires the forecasted precipitation for the
forecast period [4]. The precipitation uncertainty repre-
sents the major part of the input uncertainty [14]. The
uncertainty in the forecasted precipitation results from
the uncertainty in (i) the magnitude, (ii) the temporal
distribution over the forecast period, and (iii) the spatial
distribution over the catchment.
The present paper proposes a methodology for the
propagation of the precipitation uncertainty through a
deterministic rainfall-runoff-routing model. The meth-
odology is independent of the structure of the model
and can therefore be used with any deterministic, rain-
fall-runoff-routing model. It uses the temporal disaggre-
gation of the precipitation (over a period) into
subperiods and allows the uncertainty in both the tem-
poral and spatial distributions of the rainfall to be ac-
counted for. The methodology is detailed in the
framework of fuzzy set theory for uncertainty propaga-
tion using the extension principle (see Appendix A). The
methodology however can be easily adapted for imple-
mentation in the framework of the Monte Carlo tech-
nique for a probabilistic approach. The method is
applied to a model of the Klodzko (Poland) watershed,
based on the HEC-1 [28] and HEC-HMS [29,30] model-
ling software.
2. Methodology
The methodology of uncertainty assessment in flood
forecasting due to precipitation is presented in this sec-
tion. The principle of disaggregation is presented in Sec-
tion 2.1 and the representation of the uncertainty in the
magnitude of the precipitation by a fuzzy membership
function is presented in Section 2.2. The algorithm for
the method is presented in Section 2.3, whereas the algo-
rithm used to determine the minimum and the maximum
values of the model outputs and a simplification of the
methodology are described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5
respectively.
2.1. Temporal disaggregation of precipitation for uncer-
tainty assessment
In catchment modelling, some of the forcings may be
observed with a period larger than the typical reaction
time of the catchment. A typical example is a rainfall
measured or forecasted on an hourly basis when the
catchment response time is half an hour. In this case,
using the (average) measured forcing directly as an input
to the model may lead to underestimation of the ampli-
tude of the model response (because the variations in the
signal are smoothed out into the averaged measure-
ment). This is particularly true when peak values in
the output are related to peak values in the inputs (e.g.
peak rainfall resulting in peak runoff). In order to esti-
mate better the peak values of the model output, the in-
puts must be reconstructed at a time scale smaller than
the typical reaction time of the hydrological system
under study. Failing to generate an input at smaller time
scale than the catchment response time may introduce
error/uncertainty in the model outputs. If a model with
multiple inputs is to be used (e.g. a catchment model
using records from several rainfall gauges) the spatial
distribution of the inputs is also a source of uncertainty.
In addition, the average rainfall rate over a given sub-
basin is not necessarily equal to the point value meas-
ured at the corresponding rainfall gauge. Besides the
imprecision attached to the measuring device, the point
measurement introduces uncertainty in the average in-
put over the subbasin to which the measuring device is
attached.
The idea presented here consists in dividing the tem-
poral period over which the accumulated rainfall is
known into a fixed number of subperiods and to ran-
domly disaggregate the accumulated sum over subperi-
ods. The disaggregated rainfall should aggregate up to
the (measured) accumulated sum. The disaggregated pre-
cipitation signal is then used as an input to the rainfall-
runoff-routing model. Let the accumulated sum of the
precipitation for the subbasin i (i = 1, . . ., m) during a
given time period of T be Pi. Dividing the period T into
n subperiods, Pi is disaggregated over the subperiods as
Xn
Pi ¼ pi;j i ¼ 1; . . . ; m ð1Þ
j¼1
where pi,j is the disaggregated quantity for the jth subpe-
riod (Fig. 1).
For the sake of simplicity coefficients bi,j are intro-
duced, such that
pi;j ¼ P i bi;j ð2Þ
where
)
0 6 bi;j 6 1 8ði; jÞ
Pn ð3Þ
j¼1 bi;j ¼ 1 8i
 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898 891

Pi µ (Pi)

Pi /n p i,1 p i,j p i,n Pi

t Pi,min Pi,mc Pi,max
j=1 j j=n
T Fig. 2. A triangular membership function with three values: Pi,min,
Pi,mc and Pi,max.
Fig. 1. Average and disaggregated precipitations.
the 3 values Pmc, Pmin and Pmax a triangular MF (Fig. 2)
is assumed, given as
In the present approach the coefficients bi,j are generated 8
>
> 0 if P i < P i;min
randomly and independently from each other, subject to >
> P i P i;min
the constraints (3); the method is described in Section >
< P i;mcP if P i;min 6 P i 6 P i;mc
i;min
2.3. Eqs. (2) and (3) allow the quantity pi,j to take any lðP i Þ ¼ ð4Þ
>
>
P i;max P i
if P i;mc 6 P i 6 P i;max
value from 0 to Pi. Allowing the coefficients bi,j to vary >
> P i;max P
>
:
i;mc

over the subperiods accounts for different possible tem- 0 if P i > P i;max
poral distributions over the various subbasins, whereas
The qualitative meaning of the triangular membership
varying the coefficients over subbasins accounts for the
function is the following. The ‘‘true’’ value of precipita-
spatial variations of the rainfall field.
tion, Pi, is certainly included between Pi,min and Pi,max
Note that this methodology is based on the implicit
and is likely to be close to Pi,mc. The key words are ‘‘in-
assumption that the length of a subperiod is larger than
cluded’’ and ‘‘close’’. These words constitute the only
the correlation time of the precipitation signal. If it is
information that one has about the problem [23]. By
not the case, the coefficients bi,j should not be generated
doing so the uncertainty or imprecision associated with
independently from each other. The length of the subpe-
the single value of the forecast precipitation is repre-
riod, however should not be too large, in which case the
sented using a fuzzy number on the basis of the mini-
resulting signals will be close to the average signals over
mum information available about the anticipated
the period. Note that methods exist, that allow signals to
precipitation.
be generated taking into account the signal correlation
[19,24]. In the absence of any information about the cor-
2.3. Algorithm for the propagation of uncertainty
relogram of the rainfall signal, such methods cannot be
used and the coefficients bi,j must be generated independ-
The precipitation represented by a MF and disaggre-
ently from each other. Therefore, for the present imple-
gated into subperiods is propagated using the extension
mentation of the methodology the disaggregated signals
principle of fuzzy set theory. Some definitions on fuzzy
are generated without considering their correlations.
sets are presented in Appendix A. The extension princi-
However, it is important to note that this methodology
ple [31,32] is performesd by the a-cut method [26]. An
for propagating the precipitation uncertainty can still be
example of an a-cut for a MF and corresponding lower
used with correlated signals if available. Also note that
bound (Pi,LB) and upper bound (Pi,UB) are shown in Fig.
the number of subperiods has a direct influence on the
3. The Pi,LB and Pi,UB are the minimum and the maxi-
maximum possible rainfall intensity. This is because
mum values of the precipitation, respectively for the
the maximum possible intensity is obtained when the
given a-cut.
rainfall is concentrated over one subperiod, with a rain-
Let a function f represents the rainfall-runoff-routing
fall intensity nPi/T.
model with the precipitation as input and the runoff, Q,
as output:
2.2. Precipitation uncertainty represented by a member-
ship function
µ (Pi )
The representation of uncertainty using fuzzy set the-
ory on the accumulated precipitation, Pi (i = 1, . . ., m) re- 1 (α ) (α )
quires the membership function (MF) of the Pi to be Pi , LB Pi , UB
α -cut level
known. In the absence of sufficient information about α
the MFs, it is assumed that only the range of uncertainty Pi
Pi,min Pi,mc Pi,max
given by the minimum (Pmin) and maximum (Pmax) val-
ues are available. It is also assumed that the given value Fig. 3. An a-cut level and corresponding upper and lower bounds. The
of Pi is its most credible value represented by Pi,mc. With definitions of Pi,min, Pi,mc and Pi,max are identical to those in Fig. 2.
892 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898
Q ¼ f ðpi;j ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; nÞ
¼ f ½ðp1;1 ; . . . ; p1;n Þ; . . . ; ðpm;1 ; . . . ; pm;n Þ
A general procedure for the propagation of the three
forms of precipitation uncertainty through the model
(Eq. (5)) can be decomposed into the following steps.
(1) Select a value of a 2 [0, 1] (called an a-cut level) for
the MF of the input. Use the same value of a for the
MFs of all inputs.
(2) For the given a-cut, determine for all i = 1,. . .,m the
ðaÞ ðaÞ
lower bound, P i;LB , and the upper bound, P i;UB (see
Fig. 3).
ðaÞ ðaÞ
(3) Generate randomly a value P i;ðrÞ between P i;LB and
ðaÞ
P i;UB for all i = 1, . . ., m. This value corresponds to
the accumulated sum over the period T, i.e. Pi in
Eq. (1).
(4) Generate the coefficients bi,j,(s) randomly between 0
and 1. For each i, only n  1 coefficients are gener-
ated. If the sum of the first n1 coefficients exceeds
1, reject all the coefficients and generate a new set of
n  1 coefficients. Repeat this process until the sum
is smaller than or equal to 1. The nth coefficient is
then determined as follows:
X
n1
bi;n;ðsÞ ¼ 1  bi;k;ðsÞ
k¼1
ðaÞ
(5) Use the value P i;ðrÞ generated in step (3) and the
coefficients bi,j,(s) generated in step (4) in Eq. (2) to
disaggregate the rainfall over the subperiods; i.e.
ðaÞ ðaÞ
pi;j;ðrÞ;ðsÞ ¼ P i;ðrÞ bi;j;ðsÞ
ðaÞ
(6) Use the pi;j;ðrÞ;ðsÞ ði ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; nÞ as
inputs to the model (Eq. (5)). This leads to a model
ðaÞ
output QðrÞ;ðsÞ .
(7) Repeat steps (4)–(6) s times. This means that for
every value of the accumulated precipitation
obtained from step (3), s number of disaggregated
sets of precipitation are generated. This produces s
outputs.
(8) Repeat steps (3)–(7) r times. This produces r · s out-
puts. From the r · s outputs determine the mini-
mum and maximum of the outputs. These are
assumed to be equal to the lower and upper bounds
of the output, that is
9
ðaÞ ðaÞ
QLB ¼ minðQðrÞ;ðsÞ Þ >=
r;s
ð8Þ
QUB ¼ maxðQðrÞ;ðsÞ Þ >
ðaÞ ðaÞ
; space, several checks revealed that the minimum and
r;s
The values of s and r are primarily governed by the
size of the search space for the determination of
minimum and maximum values of the outputs.
The search space in this example is the function of
m and n. Obviously, more number of subbasins
and subperiods means more possible combinations
of input sets. Different types of algorithms for the
determination of the minimum and maximum val-
ð5Þ
ues may deal differently for the values of s and r,
such as using stopping criteria. The algorithm used
in the present study for the determination of maxi-
mum and minimum values is presented in Section
2.4.
(9) Repeat steps (2)–(8) for as many a-cuts as needed to
produce a complete MF for the output.
2.4. Algorithm used for the determination of minimum and
maximum
An algorithm is needed for the determination of the
maximum and minimum values of the model outputs
(Eq. (8)). In the present study a genetic algorithm
(GA) is used. GAs are search algorithms based on the
mechanics of natural selection and natural genetics
[10]. Various applications of GAs are reported elsewhere
[12,17,20]. A simple GA consists of (i) a random selec-
tion of the initial population, (ii) a selection for mating,
(iii) crossover, and (iv) mutation. The version of the GA
used in the present study consists of tournament selec-
tion [9], uniform crossover [21], two children per pair
of parents, jump and creep mutations [6], elitism and
ð6Þ niching [11].
In the present methodology (Section 2.3) the tasks for
steps (3), (4), (7) and (8) are replaced by the GA opera-
tions. The number of parameters (N) for the GA is given
by
N ¼ m þ ðn  1Þm ¼ nm ð9Þ
ð7Þ
where m and n are the number of subbasins and subpe-
riods respectively, as defined in Section 2.1. Instead of
the parameters s and r (Section 2.3), GA uses initial pop-
ulation (Np) and maximum number of generation (Ng).
In the present study, Np = 50 and Ng = 40 were used
for the example with three subperiods (Section 4.1)
and Np = 200 and Ng = 50 were used for the example
with six subperiods (Section 4.2).
2.5. Simplification of the methodology
An obvious drawback of the above methodology is
that the search space becomes larger as the number of
subbasins and subperiods increases, which makes the
determination of the maximum and minimum values
very time consuming. In an attempt to reduce the search
maximum values of the model outputs (Qmin and Qmax)
ðaÞ
actually correspond to the lower bound ðP i;LB Þ and the
ðaÞ
upper bound ðP i;UB Þ values (for the given a-cut) respec-
tively, of the precipitation determined in step (2) of the
algorithm. Therefore, instead of looking for all possible
ðaÞ
values of precipitations between LB and UB, P i;LB is
ðaÞ
used to evaluate Qmin and P i;UB is used to evaluate Qmax.
 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898
This means that the model function is assumed mono-
tonic with respect to the quantity of the accumulated
precipitation in the forecast period. This simplification
brings the value of r in the algorithm down to 2: one
for the upper bound and one for the lower bound. In
terms of the number of parameters for the GA (Eq.
(9)), N reduces to (n  1)m. This is an important conclu-
sion as it helps to reduce the computational effort,
particularly when working on a large catchment with
many subbasins.
3. Application example
The methodology was applied to a flood forecasting
model of Klodzko valley (Poland) on the river Nysa
Klodzka. The river serves as a highland tributary of
the upper Odra and the lag time between rainfall and
runoff is very short (see [16,27]). The basin under consid-
eration consists of nine subbasins. The basin covers a
total area of 1744 km2 with the subbasin areas ranging
from 64 to 280 km2. The data observed during the flood
of July 1997 were used. The town of Klodzko located on
the river Nysa Klodzka was virtually ruined by this
flood with several casualties and the destruction of
numerous houses [16].
The model was built with HEC-1 and HEC-HMS. In
particular, HEC-HMS (its Calibration Module) was
used for model calibration and HEC-1 was used for sim-
ulation. The options used in the present application to
represent the rainfall-runoff processes are the Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) Curve Number method for run-
off volume computation, ClarkÕs unit hydrograph
method for direct runoff computation, the exponential
recession method for baseflow computation and the
Muskingum method for flow routing. Readers are re-
ferred to [29] for the details of these methods. The selec-
tion of the methods in the present model was governed
particularly by the availability of the data. The analysis
of the influence of different methods is beyond the scope
of this study.
A schematic diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 4.
Some of the parameters of the model are estimated by
calibration and some are estimated from available data
and engineering judgement. The calibration is per-
formed using the calibration module of HEC-HMS. In
particular, the SCS Curve Number, the time of concen-
tration, the storage coefficient and the Muskingum K
were determined by calibration.
Observed precipitation data (cumulative for every 3 h)
were available. Due to the lack of forecasted precipita-
tion data, the observed precipitation was assumed as a
forecasted precipitation for the application of the present
methodology. The MF representing the uncertainty in
the quantity of the forecasted precipitation for each
subbasin is obtained by taking minimum and maximum
893
SB 1 SB 2
SB 4
JN 1 SB 3
SB 7 JN 2
RH 1
RH 3
RH 5 RH 4
SB 5
SB 8
RH 2 Legend
JN 3
JN 4 RH 6 Subbasin
SB 6
RH 7
SB 9 Junction
JN 5 Subbasin outlet
Outlet River reach
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the watershed (SB=subbasin; RH=reach;
JN=junction).
values as 0.7 and 1.3 times the given precipitation.
Although the minimum and maximum bounds are taken
arbitrarily, discussion with experts suggested that the
assumption is not too far from reality. The starting date
for simulation was 4 July 1997 at 06:00 h, while the fore
cast of precipitation started on July 6 1997 at 00:00 h
(i.e. 42 h from the point of start of simulation).
Since the interval of the available precipitation data is
3 h the size of the forecast period is also taken as 3 h. The
very short lag time between the rainfall and runoff justi-
fies the use of the present methodology of uncertainty
assessment with disaggregation. Three subperiods of
1 h each and six subperiods of half an hour each are con-
sidered for disaggregation. It is to be noted that for each
forecast, only the uncertainty in the forecast precipita-
tion during the same forecast period is considered and
no uncertainty is assumed in the precipitation previous
to the current forecast period. For example, to forecast
the flow for 3 h, no uncertainty is assumed in the precip-
itation up to the time 0 h; similarly, to forecast the flow
for 6 h no uncertainty is assumed in the precipitation up
to the time 3 h, and so on. A total of 20 forecasts
(20 · 3 h=60 h) from 6 July at 00:00 to 8 July at 09:00
were carried out.
4. Results
All the results presented and discussed here are based
on the forecast downstream of junction 5 (Fig. 4).
Firstly, the simulation is carried out to compute the dis-
charge without considering any uncertainty in the pre-
cipitation. The simulated discharge together with the
corresponding observed discharge is presented in Fig.
5. The figure also shows the basin average precipitation
on the negative y-axis. It is to be noticed that the simu-
lation was carried out taking the accumulated precipita-
tion in each subbasin, and not with the basin average
precipitation.
Secondly, the methodology is applied to estimate the
uncertainty in the forecasted discharges due to the
894 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898

Time (hours)
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
0.0

Precipitation (mm)
10.0

20.0

30.0
2000
Discharge (m3/s) Simulated
1500
Observed
1000

500

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hours)

Fig. 5. Observed and simulated discharges without considering uncertainty in the forecasted precipitation for the period 4 to 11 July 1997. The hour
0 refers to 4 July 1997 at 06:00 h.

uncertainty in the forecasted precipitation. The results without disaggregation. This suggests that the uncer-
are characterised as ‘‘with disaggregation’’ and ‘‘without tainty due to the unknown temporal distribution can
disaggregation’’. Whereas ‘‘with disaggregation’’ consid- be a predominant factor over the uncertainty in the
ers uncertainty due to the unknown temporal distribu- magnitude of the precipitation.
tion of the precipitation by using disaggregated signals The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 correspond to
as inputs, ‘‘without disaggregation’’ uses a constant sig- a = 0 and 1 only. For a complete membership function
nal, equal to the mean value, over the entire subperiods. (MF) of the output to be constructed, the computation
Since each subbasin precipitation is represented using a needs to be carried out at various a-cuts. Three more
fuzzy membership function for uncertainty, the former a-cuts at a = 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 were selected. The
considers both temporal and spatial uncertainty and MFs obtained for the forecasts at 81, 84 and 87 h with
the latter considers only the spatial uncertainty. In and without disaggregation are shown in Fig. 8(a–c).
Fig. 5, the simulated discharge is the result of the precip- These figures further illustrate that the uncertainty due
itation for a = 1 without disaggregation. to the unknown temporal distribution is predominant
over the uncertainty due to the quantity of precipitation.
4.1. Results with three subperiods The support of disaggregated discharges is also greatly
increased.
Fig. 6 shows the uncertainty bounds in the forecasted For a = 1, there is no upper and lower bounds of
ða¼1Þ ða¼1Þ ða¼1Þ
discharges, i.e. QUBQLB, with disaggregation for a = 0 the input precipitation, i.e. P i;LB ¼ P i;UB ¼ P i . This
and 1 as a function of the forecast time. The comparison means that for a = 1 without disaggregation there is only
of the uncertainty bounds (QUBQLB) with and without one set of input precipitation resulting in only one out-
disaggregation is presented in Fig. 7. For a = 1 without put. Consequently, there are no upper and lower bounds
disaggregation, there is only one possible value Pi,mc for of the output. In fact, this particular case (i.e. a = 1,
the precipitation. Therefore, there is no uncertainty in without disaggregation) considers neither temporal nor
this case. It is clearly seen from Fig. 7 that in all fore- spatial uncertainty. Whereas, in the case with disaggre-
ða¼1Þ
casts the output uncertainty is much larger with than gation, the one set of input precipitation, i.e. P i , will

150
QUB - QLB (m 3/s)

100 α =1 α=0

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102
Time (hours)

Fig. 6. Uncertainty range in forecasted discharges (QUBQLB) with disaggregation.

 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898 895

150
Without disaggregation

QUB - Q LB (m /s)
With disaggregation
100

3
50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102
(a) Time (hours)

150
With disaggregation
QUB - Q LB (m /s)
3

100

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102
(b) Time (hours)

Fig. 7. Uncertainty range in forecasted discharges (QUBQLB): (a) for a-cut level 0, and (b) for a-cut level 1. There are no upper and lower bounds
for a-cut level 1 in the case of without disaggregation.

1.00 of temporal uncertainty. These conclusions are clearly

Membership

seen in Fig. 8. Also of significance are the shapes of

0.50
the MFs with and without disaggregation. The shapes
of the MFs without disaggregation are fairly triangular
showing that if the temporal uncertainty is neglected the
0.00
600 700 800 triangular MFs of the inputs (precipitation) result in a
(a) Discharge (m 3/s)
triangular MF of the output (discharge). Alternatively,
with disaggregation the shapes are rather uniform sug-
1.00 gesting that the additional uncertainty due to the un-
Membership

certainty in the temporal distributions is almost

0.50 independent from the a-cut level.

4.2. Results with three and six subperiods

0.00
800 900 1000
(b) Discharge (m 3/s) A key issue in the application of this methodology is
the selection of an appropriate number of subperiods.
1.00 Increasing the number of subperiods leads to increase
Membership

the number of parameters for the search space and con-

0.50
0.00
1150 1250
(c) Discharge (m3/s)
Fig. 8. Membership functions of forecasted discharges without disag-
gregation (grey line) and with disaggregation (dark line): (a) forecast
at 81 h, (b) forecast at 84 h, and (c) forecast at 87 h.
have a number of temporally disaggregated precipita-
tion sets resulting in a number of output discharges
which means that there exist upper and lower bounds
for the outputs even for a = 1 due to the consideration
sequently the computational requirement. On the other
hand, intuitively, increasing the number of subperiods
may widen the uncertainty bounds in the output. To ver-
1350 ify this, the results with three subperiods are compared
with the results with six subperiods. With six subperiods
and nine subbasins, the number of parameters increases
from 18 to 45. In order to reduce the number of param-
eters, the temporal pattern is assumed to be identical for
all the subbasins. This assumption significantly reduces
the number of parameters from 45 to 5 in the case of
six subperiods and 18 to 2 in the case of three subperi-
ods. It is however important to check the effect of this
assumption. Therefore, the three subperiods case is also
repeated applying this assumption. The comparison of
896 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898

150
Same temporal pattern for all
subbasins

QUB - Q LB (m /s)
100

3
Varying temporal pattern over
subbasins

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102

(a) Time (hours)

150
Same temporal pattern for all
subbasins
QUB - Q LB (m /s)
3

100 Varying temporal pattern over

subbasins

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102
(b) Time (hours)

Fig. 9. Uncertainty range in forecasted discharges (QUBQLB) with disaggregation into three subperiods for: (a) a-cut level 0, and (b) a-cut level 1.

200
3 Subperiods
QUB - Q LB (m /s)

150 6 Subperiods
3

100

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102

(a) Time (hours)

200
3 Subperiods
Q UB - Q LB (m /s)

150 6 Subperiods
3

100

50

0
42 54 66 78 90 102

(b) Time (hours)

Fig. 10. Uncertainty range in forecasted discharges (QUBQLB) with disaggregation for: (a) a-cut level 0, and (b) a-cut level 1.

this result with the previous result with varying temporal
patterns over subbasins is presented in Fig. 9. The differ-
ences are minor except for forecasts at 84 and 87 h. In
this particular example, assuming identical temporal
patterns over all the subbasins resulted in larger uncer-
tainty bounds than with the varying patterns.
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of uncertainty bounds
of cases with three and six subperiods for a = 0 and 1. It
can be observed that the increase in the uncertainty
bound is not very significant compared to the increase
in the number of subperiods. This means that the num-
ber of subperiods can be taken reasonably small without
underestimating the uncertainty in the output
unacceptably.
5. Conclusion
This paper has presented a methodology for the treat-
ment of precipitation uncertainty in rainfall-runoff-rout-
ing models in the framework of fuzzy set theory assisted
by genetic algorithms. The methodology uses the ran-
dom disaggregation of precipitation into subperiods to
take into account uncertainty due to the unknown tem-
poral distribution of the precipitation. The principle of
disaggregation presented in this paper for uncertainty
assessment can also be used in the framework of the
Monte Carlo technique if the forecast of precipitation
is probabilistic. This methodology is independent of
the structure of the forecasting model. In other words,
 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898 897

it can be used with any rainfall-runoff-routing type of A.1. Fuzzy set and fuzzy number
deterministic model. The results show the great potential
of the fuzzy extension principle combined with a genetic Let X be a universe set of x values (elements). Then A
algorithm for the propagation of uncertainty. The re- is called a fuzzy (sub)set of X, if A is a set of ordered
sults also show that the output uncertainty due to the pairs:
uncertainty in the temporal and spatial distributions A ¼ fðx; lA ðxÞÞ; x 2 X ; lA ðxÞ 2 ½0; 1g ðA:1Þ
can be significantly dominant over the uncertainty due
to the uncertain magnitude of precipitation. This sug- where lA(x) is the grade of membership (or degree of be-
gests that using space- and time-averaged precipitation lief) of x in A. The function lA(x) is called the member-
over the catchment may lead to erroneous forecasts. ship function of A. A fuzzy set is called a fuzzy number if
The estimated uncertainty in the output may seem small it is normal (i.e. the maximum of the memberships is 1)
compared to the magnitude of the flood. This is due to as well as convex.
relatively short forecast period (3 h). Obviously increas-
ing the forecast period significantly increases the uncer- A.2. Fuzzy extension principle
tainty in the forecasted precipitation and thereby
increases the output uncertainty. Moreover, it is to be Consider a function of several uncertain variables:
noted that the estimated uncertainty is only due to the y ¼ f ðx1 ; . . . ; xn Þ ðA:2Þ
uncertainty in the precipitation. It does not include the
parameter and model uncertainty. Let fuzzy sets A1, . . ., An be defined on the universes
This paper has also attempted to answer the question X1, . . ., Xn such that x1 2 X1, . . ., xn 2 Xn. The mapping
concerning an appropriate number of subperiods. While of these input sets can be defined as a fuzzy set B:
the estimated uncertainty without disaggregation and B ¼ f ðA1 ; . . . ; An Þ ðA:3Þ
disaggregated with three subperiods differed signifi-
where the membership function of the image B is given
cantly (Fig. 9a), the results with three and six subperiods
by
showed little difference (Fig. 10). Therefore, in this par- 8
ticular example three subperiods seem enough. In gen- > maxfmin½lA1 ðx1 Þ; . . . ; lAn ðxn Þ;
>
>
eral, the determination of the number of subperiods < y ¼ f ðx ; . . . ; x Þg
1 n
should be governed from the considerations that: (i) lB ðyÞ ¼ ðA:4Þ
>
> 0 if there is no x1 2 X 1 ; . . . ; xn 2 X n
the uncertainty should not be underestimated beyond >
:
a reasonable limit, (ii) the computational requirements such that f ðx1 ; . . . ; xn Þ ¼ y
should not be too large, (iii) the subperiods should be Eq. (A.4) is the mathematical expression for the exten-
large enough for the disaggregated precipitations to re- sion principle of fuzzy sets. The above equation is de-
main realistic, and (iv) the length of the subperiod fined for a discrete-valued function f. If the function f
should be of the same order of magnitude as the corre- is continuous-valued then the max operator is replaced
lation time of the precipitation signal. by the sup (supremum) operator (the supremum is the
least upper bound).

Acknowledgments A.3. Alpha-cut of a fuzzy set

This research was initiated by the EC project Opera-
tional Solutions for the Management of Inundation
Risks in the Information Society (OSIRIS), contract
IST-1999-11598. The authors highly appreciate and ex-
tend their gratitude to the IMWM, Poland for providing
the data and the model. The authors are also grateful to
Prof. Mike J. Hall, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education, The Netherlands for providing valuable
remarks on the manuscript.
An a-cut (alpha-cut) of a fuzzy set A, denoted as Aa is
the set of elements x of a universe of discourse X for
which the membership function of A is greater than or
equal to a. That is,
Aa ¼ fx 2 X ; lA ðxÞ P a; a 2 ½0; 1g ðA:5Þ
The a-cut provides a convenient way of performing
arithmetic operations on fuzzy sets and fuzzy numbers
µ X (x)

Appendix A. Definitions on fuzzy sets and operations 1

a b α-cut
-cut level
α
The mathematical definition of the extension princi-
ple and some other relevant definitions on fuzzy sets X
x1 x2
and operations are briefly presented here. More detailed
coverage of the topic can be found in [1,8,13,25,33]. Fig. 11. Illustration of an a-cut of a fuzzy set.
898 S. Maskey et al. / Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889–898
including in applying extension principle. Let us con-
sider a fuzzy number (a membership function) as shown
in Fig. 11. And let a a-cut level intersects at two points a
and b on the membership function. The values of the
variable x corresponding to points a and b are x1 and
x2 (x1, x2 2 X), respectively. Then the set Aa contains
all possible values of the variable X including and be-
tween x1 and x2. The x1 and x2 are commonly referred
as lower and upper bounds of the a-cut.
References
[1] Bardossy A, Duckstein L. Fuzzy rule-based modelling with
applications to geophysical, biological and engineering sys-
tems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.
[2] Beven K, Binley A. The future of distributed models: model
calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Processes
1992;6:279–98.
[3] Blazkova S, Beven K. Flood frequency estimation by continuous
simulation for a catchment treated as ungauged (with uncer-
tainty). Water Resour Res 2002;38(8):1139.
[4] Borga M. Accuracy of radar rainfall estimates for streamflow
simulation. J Hydrol 2002;267:26–39.
[5] Cameron DS, Beven KJ, Tawn J, Blazkova S, Naden P. Flood
frequency estimation by continuous simulation for a gauged
upland catchment (with uncertainty). J Hydrol 1999;219:169–87.
[6] Carroll DL. Chemical laser modelling with genetic algorithms.
Amer Inst Aeronaut Astronaut (AIAA) J 1996;34(2):338–46.
[7] Cullen AC, Frey HC. Probabilistic techniques in exposure
assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and uncer-
tainty in models and inputs. New York: Plenum Press; 1999.
[8] Dubois D, Prade H. Possibility theory—an approach to compu-
terized processing of uncertainty. New York: Plenum Press;
1988.
[9] Gen M, Cheng R. Genetic algorithms and engineering optimiza-
tion. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[10] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-
pany; 1989.
[11] Goldberg DE, Richardson J. Genetic algorithms with sharing for
multimodal function optimization. In: Genetic algorithms and
their applications: Proc of the second international conference
on genetic algorithms. 1987. p. 41–9.
[12] Harrouni KEl, Ouazar D, Walters GA, Cheng AH-D. Ground-
water optimisation and parameter estimation by genetic algorithm
and dual reciprocity boundary element method. Eng Anal
Boundary Elements 1996;18:287–96.
[13] Kaufmann A, Gupta MM. Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic,
theory and applications. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold;
1991.
[14] Krzysztofowicz R. Bayesian theory of probabilistic forecasting via
deterministic hydrologic model. Water Resour Res 1999;35(9):
2739–50.
[15] Krzysztofowicz R. The case for probabilistic forecasting in
hydrology. J Hydrol 2001;249:2–9.
[16] Kundzewicz ZW, Szamalek K, Kowalczak P. The great flood of
1997 in Poland. Hydrol Sci J 1999;44(6):855–70.
[17] Maskey S, Jonoski A, Solomatine DP. Groundwater remediation
strategy using global optimization algorithms. J Water Resour
Planning Manage 2002;128(6):431–40.
[18] Maskey S, Price RK. Uncertainty issues in flood forecasting. In:
Proc Workshop: Flood Events—Are We Prepared? Berlin, 2003.
p. 123–36.
[19] Mantoglou A, Wilson JL. The turning bands method for
simulation of random fields using line generation by a spectral
method. Water Resour Res 1982;18(5):1379–94.
[20] Nixon JB, Dandy GC, Simpson AR. A genetic algorithm for
optimising off-farm irrigation scheduling. J Hydroinformatics
2001;3:11–22.
[21] Pawlowsky MA. Crossover operations. In: Chambers L, editor.
Practical handbook of genetic algorithms, applications,
vol. 1. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995. p. 101–14.
[22] Radwan M, Willems P, Berlamont J. Sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis for river water quality modelling. In: Hydroinformatics
2002: Proc fifth international conference on hydroinformat-
ics. London: IWA Publishing; 2002. p. 482–7.
[23] Revelli R, Ridolfi L. Fuzzy approach for analysis of pipe network.
J Hydraulic Eng 2002;128(1):93–101.
[24] Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Eagleson PS. Mathematical models of rain-
storm events in space and time. Water Resour Res 1987;23(1):
181–90.
[25] Ross TJ. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
[26] Schulz K, Huwe B. Water flow modelling in the unsaturated zone
with imprecise parameters using a fuzzy approach. J Hydrol
1997;201:211–29.
[27] Szamalek K. The great flood of 1997 in Poland: the truth and
myth. In: Marsalek J, Watt WE, Zeman E, Sieker F, editors.
Flood issues in contemporary water management, 2 Environmen-
tal security. NATO science series. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2000. p. 67–83.
[28] USACE. HEC-1 flood hydrograph package userÕs manual. Davis,
CA: Hydrologic Engineering Centre; 1998.
[29] USACE. Hydrologic modelling system HEC-HMS technical
reference manual. Davis, CA: Hydrologic Engineering Centre;
2000.
[30] USACE. Hydrologic modelling system HEC-HMS userÕs man-
ual. Davis, CA: Hydrologic Engineering Centre; 2001.
[31] Yager RR. A characterization of the extension principle. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 1986;18:205–17.
[32] Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application
to approximate reasoning, Part I. Inform Sci 1975;8:199–249.
[33] Zimmermann H-J. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Dor-
drecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.