The most important problem threatening dams are the sediment inputs to the dam reservoir. Due to various problems, estimating the amount of sediments is a complicated process. So some methods have been created by researchers to overcome these problems. Among these methods, three methods, namely artificial neural network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and genetic algorithm (GA), are used and evaluated in this study. They are used to predict the sediment load in the Maku dam reservoir, Maku City, Iran. Mazra_e station on Gizlarchay River is selected for this study. The data of temperature, discharge, and CM (three-section method of sediment sampling) are utilized as input parameters, which have been harvested from 12 consecutive years (2002–2013). Sediment data are used as output parameter. Input parameters in ANN and ANFIS have been normalized with two methods: first between − 1 and + 1 range and second between − 2 and + 2 range. Input parameters for GA were without normalization. Output was natural data for all three approaches. Internal percentage error (PE) is applied to evaluate the error of performances between approaches. Results revealed that “logsig” membership function (MF) with five neurons has the best performance in ANN approach. Second normalization method had better performance for ANN, while the first one had better results in ANFIS. Results for ANFIS indicated that “gaussmf” MF had the best performance. The number of 100 and 1200, respectively, for individual populations and generations produced better performance in GA approach. Finally, it is concluded that ANFIS with the average 0.968% PE had the least error and ANN with the average 5.63% PE was in the second position. Although GA with an average 10% PE had the third place, considering that it did not need any normalization at input stage, it can be said that it had superior advantage in comparison with the other two approaches.
Sediment load Artificial neural networks Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system Genetic algorithm Maku dam
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the Regional Water Organization of West Azerbaijan for the data support of this study. In addition, the effort and valuable comments from the reviewers for improving the quality of this manuscript are also highly appreciated.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Asnaashari E, Asnaashari M, Ehtiati A, Farahmandfar R (2015) Comparison of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and artificial neural networks (MLP and RBF) for estimation of oxidation parameters of soybean oil added with curcumin. J Food Meas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-015-9226-7Google Scholar
Azamathulla HMd, Chang CK, Ab. Ghani A, Ariffin J, Nor Azazi Z, Abu Hasan Z (2008) An ANFIS-based approach for predicting the bed load for moderately sized rivers. J Hydro-Environ Res 3:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azamathulla HMd, Ab. Ghani A (2010) Genetic programming to predict river pipeline scour. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 1(3):127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai X, McKinney DC, Lasdon LS (2001) Solving nonlinear water management models using a combined genetic algorithm and linear programming approach. Adv Water Resour 24(6):667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cha D, Blumenstein M, Zhang H, Jeng DSh (2008) A neual-genetic technique for coastal engineering: determining wave-induced seabed liquefaction depth. Stud Comput Intell (SCI) 82:337–351Google Scholar
Chang CK, Azamathulla HMd, Zakaria NA, Ab. Ghani A (2012) Appraisal of soft computing techniques in prediction of total bed material load in tropical rivers. J Earth Syst Sci 121(1):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cigizoglu HK (2002) Suspended sediment estimation and forecasting using artificial neural networks. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 26:15–25Google Scholar
Ebtehaj I, Bonakdari H (2014) Verification of equation for nondeposition sediment transport in flood water canals. In: 7th international conference on fluvial hydraulic river flow 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland, 3–5 Sept, p 1527–1533. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17133-203
Leopold LB, Wolman MG, Miller JP (1992) Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco, p 522Google Scholar
Melesse AM, Ahmad S, McClain ME, Wang X, Lim YH (2011) Suspended sediment load prediction of river systems: an artificial neural network approach. Agric Water Manag 98(2011):855–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamad Rezapour O, Shui LT, Dehghani AA (2010) Review of genetic algorithm model for suspended sediment estimation. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 4(8):3354–3359. ISSN 1991-8178Google Scholar
Mohamad Rezapour O, Shui LT, Dehghani AA (2012) Comparison of ant colony optimization and genetic algorithm models for identifying the relation between flow discharge and suspended sediment load (Gorgan River-Iran). Sci Res Essays 7(42):3584–3604. https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE11.264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nourani V (2009) Using artificial neural networks (ANNs) for sediment load forecasting of Talkherood river mouth. J Urban Environ Eng 3(1):1–6MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valizadeh H, Pourmahmood M, Shahbazi Mojarrad J, Nemati M, Zakeri-Milani P (2009) Application of artificial intelligent tools to modeling of glucosamine preparation from exoskeleton of shrimp. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 35:396–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernieuwe H, Georgieva O, De Baets B, Pauwels VRN, Verhoest NEC, De Troch FP (2005) Comparison of data-driven Takagi–Sugeno models of rainfall–discharge dynamics. J Hydrol 302(1–4):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang YM, Traore S, Kerh T (2008) Monitoring event-based suspended sediment concentration by artificial neural network models. WSEAS Trans Comput 7(5):359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang YM, Kerh T, Traore S (2009) Neural networks approaches for modelling river suspended sediment concentration due to tropical storms. Glob NEST J 11(4):457–466Google Scholar