Journals / Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 09 - Sayı: 02

Evaluation of Çorum Çat Stream's Monthly Flow Series via Different Stochastic Models

Çorum Çat Deresi Aylık Akım Serisinin Farklı Stokastik Modellerle incelenmesi

Pages
129–135
Publication Date
2003-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, ARMA 2,0 model in forecasting monthly flows was preferred.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was made to model monthly flows.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For monthly flows, ARMA 1,0 , ARMA 2,0 , ARMA 1,1 , ARMA 1,2 ve ARMA 3,0 models were appropriate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, ARMA 2,0 model in forecasting monthly flows was preferred.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ayl ı k akı m · otokorelasyon katsay ı s ı · ARMA p

Abstract

This study was made to model monthly flows. ARMA p,q models and Tomas-Fiering model were used in modeling monthly flows. In selecting ARMA p,q models, it was taken into account whether the residuals calculated from ARMA p,q models were independent. For monthly flows, ARMA 1,0 , ARMA 2,0 , ARMA 1,1 , ARMA 1,2 ve ARMA 3,0 models were appropriate. But, ARMA 2,0 model was fitted better to monthly flows. The monthly flows forecasted from ARMA 2,0 model and Thomas-Fiering model were compared to the observed flows considering their correlation coefficients. The correlation coefficients for ARMA 2,0 model were very high. Therefore, ARMA 2,0 model in forecasting monthly flows was preferred.

Özet

Bu çalışma, ayl ı k ak ı mları n modellenmesi amac ı yla yap ı lmışt ı r. Ayl ı k ak ı mları n modellenmesinde ARMA p,q modelleri ile Thomas-Fiering modeli kullan ı lm ıştı r. ARMA p,q modellerinin seçiminde, ARMA p,q modellerinden hesaplanan kal ı ntı ları n bağı ms ı z olup olmad ı kları göz önüne al ı nmıştı r. Ayl ı k ak ı mlar için, ARMA 1,0 , ARMA 2,0 , ARMA 1,1 , ARMA 1,2 ve ARMA 3,0 modelleri uygun olmu ştur. Ancak ayl ı k ak ı mlara ARMA 2,0 modeli daha fazla uyum göstermiştir. ARMA 2,0 modeli ve Thomas-Frieng modelinden tahmin edilen ayl ı k ak ı mlar ile gözlenen ak ı mlar, korelasyon katsay ı ları na göre karşı laştı rı lmıştı r. ARMA 2,0 modeli için bu katsay ı lar daha yüksek olmu ştur. Bu nedenle ayl ı k ak ı mları n tahmininde ARMA 2,0 modeli uygun bulunmu ştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

YÜREKLİ, K. (2003). Evaluation of Çorum Çat Stream's Monthly Flow Series via Different Stochastic Models. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 09 - Sayı: 02, 129–135. https://ajindex.com/articles/200370

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Anonim, 1970. Yeşil ı rmak Havzas ı Toprakları. Topraksu Genel Müdürlü ğü Yay ı nları. Yay ı n No: 241, Ankara, 141s. Bartlett, M. S. 1946. On the theoretical specification of sampling properties of autocorrelated time series. Royal Statistical Society J., Ser. B, 8, 27-41.
  2. Bayaz ı t, M. 1981. Hidrolojide Istatistik Yöntemler. İ stanbul Teknik Üniv. Yay. 1197, Istanbul, 223 s. Box, G. E. P. and G. M. Jenkins, 1976. Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control. Holden-Day, San Francisco, 575 s. Box, G. E. P. and D. A. Pierce, 1970. Distribution of residual autocorrelation in autoregressive- ı ntegrated moving average time series models. J. of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1509-1526.
  3. Chow, V. T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Clark, R. T. 1988.
  4. Mathematical Models in Hydrology, FAO, 275. Çevik, O. 1999. Zaman Serileri Analizinde Box-Jenkins Yöntemi ve Turizm Verileri Üzerine Bir Uygulama, Doktora Tezi (Bas ı lmamış), 193 s. Haan, C. T. 1977. Statistical Methods in Hydrology. lowa State Press, lowa, 378 Hipel, K. W., A. I. McLeod and W. C. Lennox, 1977. Advances in Box-Jenkins Modeling. 1.Model Construction. Water Resources Research, 13 (3) 567-575.
  5. Janacek, G. and L. Swift, 1993.
  6. Time Series Forecasting, Simulation, Application. Ellis Horwood, New York, 333 s. Ljung, G.M. and G.E.P.Box, 1978. On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika, 65 (2) 297-303.
  7. McKerchar, A.I. and J.W. Delleur, 1974. Application of seasonal parametric linear stochastic models to monthly flow data, Water Resources Research, 10 (2) 246-255.
  8. McLeod, A. L, K. W. Hipel and W. C. Lennox, 1977. Advances in Box-Jenkins Modeling. 2.Applications. Water Resources Research, 13 (3) 577-586.
  9. McMichael, F.C. and J.S.Hunter, 1972. Stochastic modeling of temperature and flow in rivers. Water Resources Research, 8 (1) 87-98.
  10. Okman, C. 1994. Hidroloji. Ankara Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Yay.1388, Ankara, 359 s. Tao, P. C. and J. W. Delleur, 1976. Seasonal and nonseasonal ARMA models in hydrology. J. of the Hydraulics Division, HY10, 1541-1559.
  11. Topaloğlu, F., A. Yücel, K. Tülücü ve M. Çetin, 1999. Anl ı k maksimum ak ı m miktarlar ı n ı n taşk ı n frekans analizinde kullan ı lmas ı. TUBİTAK Türk Tarı m ve Orm. Dergisi, 23, Ek1, 187-192.
  12. Yücel, A., F. Topalo ğlu ve K. Tülücü, 1999. Adana ilinin standart sürelerdeki yağış şiddetlerinin istatistiksel olarak kullanabilirliklerinin incelenmesi. TUBITAK Türk Tar ı m ve Orm. Dergisi, 23, Ek-1, 17