Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between linear genetic programming and M5 tree models to predict flow discharge in compound channels

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are many studies on the hydraulic analysis of steady uniform flows in compound open channels. Based on these studies, various methods have been developed with different assumptions. In general, these methods either have long computations or need numerical solution of differential equations. Furthermore, their accuracy for all compound channels with different geometric and hydraulic conditions may not be guaranteed. In this paper, to overcome theses limitations, two new and efficient algorithms known as linear genetic programming (LGP) and M5 tree decision model have been used. In these algorithms, only three parameters (e.g., depth ratio, coherence, and ratio of computed total flow discharge to bankfull discharge) have been used to simplify its applications by hydraulic engineers. By compiling 394 stage-discharge data from laboratories and fields of 30 compound channels, the derived equations have been applied to estimate the flow conveyance capacity. Comparison of measured and computed flow discharges from LGP and M5 revealed that although both proposed algorithms have considerable accuracy, LGP model with R 2 = 0.98 and RMSE = 0.32 has very good performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackers P (1992) Hydraulic design of two-stage channels. J Water Marit Eng 96:247–257

    Google Scholar 

  2. Azamathulla HM, Zahiri A (2012) Flow discharge prediction in compound channels using linear genetic programming. J Hydrol 454–455C:203–207

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhattacharya B, Solomatine DP (2005) Neural networks and M5 model trees in modeling water level–discharge relationship. NeuroComputing 63:381–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhattacharya B, Price RK, Solomatine DP (2007) Machine learning approach to modeling sediment transport. J Hydraul Eng 133(4):440–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blalock ME, Sturm TW (1981) Minimum specific energy in compound channel. J Hydraul Div ASCE 107:699–717

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bousmar D, Wilkin N, Jacquemart H, Zech Y (2004) Overbank flow in symmetrically narrowing floodplains. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 130(4):305–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bousmar D, Zech Y (1999) Momentum transfer for practical flow computation in compound channels. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 125(7):696–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brameier M (2004) On linear genetic programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of Dortmund

  9. Brameier M, Banzhaf W (2001) A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Etemad Shahidi A, Mahjoobi J (2009) Comparison between M5 model tree and neural networks for prediction of significant wave height in Lake Superior. Ocean Eng 36(15):1175–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guven A (2009) Linear genetic programming for time-series modeling of daily flow rate. Earth Syst Sci 118(2):137

    Google Scholar 

  13. Guven A, Talu NE (2010) Gene-expression programming for estimating suspended sediment in Middle Euphrates Basin, Turkey. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 38(12):1159

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guven A, Gunal M (2008) A genetic programming approach for prediction of local scour downstream hydraulic structures. J Irrig Drain Eng 132(4):241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guven A, Aytek A (2009) A new approach for stage-discharge relationship: gene-expression programming. J Hydrol Eng 14(8):812–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haidera MA, Valentine EM (2002) A practical method for predicting the total discharge in mobile and rigid boundary compound channels. International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Belgium, 153–160

  17. Huthoff F, Roose PC, Augustijn DCM, Hulscher SJMH (2008) Interacting divided channel method for compound channel flow. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 134(8):1158–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice-Hall, Engelwoods Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani A (2006) Prediction of soil-water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Knight DW, Demetriou JD (1983) Flood plain and main channel flow interaction. J Hydraul Div ASCE 109(8):1073–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Knight DW, Sellin RHJ (1987) The SERC flood channel facility. J Inst Water Environ Manag 1(2):198–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Knight DW, Shiono K, Pirt J (1989) Prediction of depth mean velocity and discharge in natural rivers with overbank flow. International Conference on Hydraulics and Environmental Modeling of Coastal, Estuarine and River Waters. England, pp 419–428

  23. Knight DW (1999) Flow mechanisms and sediment transport in compound channels. Int J Sediment Res 14(2):217–236

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lai SH, Bessaih N (2004) Flow in compound channels. 1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century, Malaysia, pp 275–280

  25. Lambert MF, Sellin RHJ (1996) Discharge prediction in straight compound channels using the mixing length concept. J Hydraul Res IAHR 34:381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambert MF, Myers RC (1998) Estimating the discharge capacity in straight compound channels. Water Marit Energy 130:84–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu W, James CS (2000) Estimating of discharge capacity in meandering compound channels using artificial neural networks. Can J Civil Eng 27(2):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Londhe SN, Dixit PR (2011) Stream flow forecasting using model trees. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4(6):282–285

    Google Scholar 

  29. MacLeod AB (1997) Development of methods to predict the discharge capacity in model and prototype meandering compound channels, PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Glasgow, p 513

  30. Martin LA, Myers RC (1991) Measurement of overbank flow in a compound river channel. J Inst Water Environ Manag 91(2):645–657

    Google Scholar 

  31. Myers RC, Lyness JF (1997) Discharge ratios in smooth and rough compound channels. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 123(3):182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Oltean M, Groşan C (2003) A comparison of several linear genetic programming techniques. Complex Syst 14(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pal M (2006) M5 model tree for land cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 27(4):825–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Quinlan JR (1992) Learning with continuous classes. In: Proceedings of fifth Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, Singapore, pp 343–348

  35. Reddy MJ, Ghimire BNS (2009) Use of model tree and gene expression programming to predict the suspended sediment load in rivers. J Intell Syst 18(3):211–227

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sharifi S (2009) Application of evolutionary computation to open channel flow modeling. PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, p 330

  37. Sharifi S, Sterling M, Knight DW (2009) A novel application of a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm in open channel flow modeling. J Hydroinf 11(1):31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shiono K, Knight DW (1991) Turbulent open-channel flows with variable depth across the channel. J Fluid Mech 222:617–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shiono K, Knight DW (1988) Two-dimensional analytical solution for a compound channel. 3rd international symposium on refined flow modeling and turbulence measurements, Japan, pp 503–510

  40. Singh KK (2007) M5 model tree for regional mean annual flood estimation. 5th WSEAS international conference on environment, ecosystems and development, Tenerife, Spain, pp 306–309

  41. Solomatine DP, Xue Y (2004) M5 model trees and neural networks: application to flood forecasting in the upper reach of the Huai River in China. J Hydrol Eng 9(6):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Solomatine DP, Dulal K (2003) Model tree as an alternative to neural network in rainfall-runoff modeling. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tarrab L, Weber JF (2004) Predicción del coeficiente de mezcla transversal en cauces aturales. Mecánica Computacional, XXIII, Asociación Argentina de Mecanica Computacional, San Carlos de Bariloche, pp 1343–1355

  44. Tominaga A, Nezu I (1991) Turbulent structure in compound open channel flows. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 117(1):21–41

    Google Scholar 

  45. Unal B, Mamak M, Seckin G, Cobaner M (2010) Comparison of an ANN approach with 1-D and 2-D methods for estimating discharge capacity of straight compound channels. Adv Eng Softw 41:120–129

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Witten IH, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zahiri A, Dehghani AA (2009) Flow discharge determination in straight compound channels using ANN. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 58:1–8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Water Engineering, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

    A. Zahiri

  2. River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

    H. Md. Azamathulla

Authors
  1. A. Zahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Md. Azamathulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Zahiri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zahiri, A., Azamathulla, H.M. Comparison between linear genetic programming and M5 tree models to predict flow discharge in compound channels. Neural Comput & Applic 24, 413–420 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1247-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1247-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation