AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (5.1 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Article | Open Access

Flood Velocity Prediction Using Deep Learning Approach

Shaohua LUOLinfang DINGGebretsadik Mulubirhan TEKLEOddbjørn BRULANDHongchao FAN
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim 7034, Norway
Show Author Information

Abstract

Floods are one of the most serious natural disasters that can cause huge societal and economic losses. Extensive research has been conducted on topics like flood monitoring, prediction, and loss estimation. In these research fields, flood velocity plays a crucial role and is an important factor that influences the reliability of the outcomes. Traditional methods rely on physical models for flood simulation and prediction and could generate accurate results but often take a long time. Deep learning technology has recently shown significant potential in the same field, especially in terms of efficiency, helping to overcome the time-consuming associated with traditional methods. This study explores the potential of deep learning models in predicting flood velocity. More specifically, we use a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) model, a specific type of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), to predict the velocity in the test area of the Lundesokna River in Norway with diverse terrain conditions. Geographic data and flood velocity simulated based on the physical hydraulic model are used in the study for the pre-training, optimization, and testing of the MLP model. Our experiment indicates that the MLP model has the potential to predict flood velocity in diverse terrain conditions of the river with acceptable accuracy against simulated velocity results but with a significant decrease in training time and testing time. Meanwhile, we discuss the limitations for the improvement in future work.

References

[1]

MOSAVI A, OZTURK P, CHAU K W. Flood prediction using machine learning models: literature review[J]. Water, 2018, 10(11): 1536.

[2]

OPOLOT E. Application of remote sensing and geographical information systems in flood management: a review[J]. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 2013, 6(10): 1884-1894.

[3]

WEDAJO G K. LiDAR DEM Data for flood mapping and assessment; opportunities and challenges: a review[J]. Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, 2017, 6(4): 1000211.

[4]

SAKSENA S, MERWADE V. Incorporating the effect of DEM resolution and accuracy for improved flood inundation mapping[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2015, 530: 180-194.

[5]

AVAND M, KURIQI A, KHAZAEI M, et al. DEM resolution effects on machine learning performance for flood probability mapping[J]. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 2022, 40: 1-16.

[6]

CHU Haibo, WU Wenyan, WANG Q J, et al. An ANN-based emulation modelling framework for flood inundation modelling: application, challenges and future directions[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2020, 124: 104587.

[7]

GUO Zifeng, MOOSAVI V, LEITÃO J P. Data-driven rapid flood prediction mapping with catchment generalizability[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2022, 609: 127726.

[8]

AHMED N, HOQUE M A A, ARABAMERI A, et al. Flood susceptibility mapping in Brahmaputra floodplain of Bangladesh using deep boost, deep learning neural network, and artificial neural network[J]. Geocarto International, 2022, 37(25): 8770-8791.

[9]

LI Yuting, HONG Haoyuan. Modelling flood susceptibility based on deep learning coupling with ensemble learning models[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 325: 116450.

[10]

PHAM B T, LUU C, VAN PHONG T, et al. Can deep learning algorithms outperform benchmark machine learning algorithms in flood susceptibility modeling?[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 592: 125615.

[11]

RAMAYANTI S, NUR A S, SYIFA M, et al. Performance comparison of two deep learning models for flood susceptibility map in Beira area, Mozambique[J]. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 2022, 25(4): 1025-1036.

[12]

FANG Zhice, WANG Yi, PENG Ling, et al. Predicting flood susceptibility using LSTM neural networks[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 594: 125734.

[13]
PEREIRA J, MONTEIRO J, ESTIMA J, et al. Assessing flood severity from georeferenced photos[C]//Proceedings of the13th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval. Lyon: ACM, 2019: 5.
[14]

KANTH A K, CHITRA P, SOWMYA G G. Deep learning-based assessment of flood severity using social media streams[J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2022, 36(2): 473-493.

[15]
LOHUMI K, ROY S. Automatic detection of flood severity level from flood videos using deep learning models[C]//Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management. Sendai: IEEE, 2018: 1-7.
[16]
Wikipedia. Melhus [EB/OL]. (2023-10-18). https://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melhus&oldid=23902207.
[17]
BRUNNER G W, CEIWR-HEC H. River analysis system, 2D modeling user's manual version 5.0[M]. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016.
[18]
WEINMANN M, JUTZI B, MALLET C, et al. Geometric features and their relevance for 3D point cloud classification[C]//Proceedings of ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Hannover: ISPRS, 2017: 157-164.
[19]
THOMAS H, GOULETTE F, DESCHAUD J E, et al. Semantic classification of 3D point clouds with multiscale spherical neighborhoods[C]//Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on 3D Vision. Verona: IEEE, 2018: 390-398.
[20]

ATIK M E, DURAN Z, SEKER D Z. Machine learning-based supervised classification of point clouds using multiscale geometric features[J]. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2021, 10(3): 187.

[21]
Ion Zävoianu Chapter Ⅶ river length[J]. Developments in Water Science, 1985, 20: 114-134.
[22]

ZHU Xiaoxiang, TUIA D, MOU Lichao, et al. Deep learning in remote sensing: a comprehensive review and list of resources[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2017, 5(4): 8-36.

[23]

GUO Yanming, LIU Yu, OERLEMANS A, et al. Deep learning for visual understanding: a review[J]. Neurocomputing, 2016, 187: 27-48.

[24]

WU Yuchen, FENG Junwen. Development and application of artificial neural network[J]. Wireless Personal Communications, 2018, 102(2): 1645-1656.

[25]

ZHANG Huaguang, WANG Zhanshan, LIU Derong. A comprehensive review of stability analysis of continuous-time recurrent neural networks[J]. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2014, 25(7): 1229-1262.

[26]
TAUD H, MAS J F. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)[M]//OLMEDO M T C, PAEGELOW M, MAS J F, et al. Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios. Cham: Springer, 2018: 451-455.
[27]

SHARMA S, SHARMA S, ATHAIYA A. Activation functions in neural networks[J]. International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology, 2020, 4(12): 310-316.

[28]

WANG Qi, MA Yue, ZHAO Kun, et al. A comprehensive survey of loss functions in machine learning[J]. Annals of Data Science, 2022, 9(2): 187-212.

[29]
SUN Ruoyu. Optimization for deep learning: theory and algorithms[EB/OL].[2024-01-24]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08957.
[30]

CHICCO D, WARRENS M J, JURMAN G. The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation[J]. PeerJ Computer Science, 2021, 7: e623.

Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation Science
Pages 59-73
Cite this article:
LUO S, DING L, TEKLE GM, et al. Flood Velocity Prediction Using Deep Learning Approach. Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation Science, 2024, 7(1): 59-73. https://doi.org/10.11947/j.JGGS.2024.0105

51

Views

2

Downloads

0

Crossref

1

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics

Published: 20 March 2024
© 2024 Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation Science
Return