Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 413–420 | Cite as

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

  • A. Zahiri
  • H. Md. Azamathulla
Original Article


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.


Compound channels Linear genetic programming M5 tree decision model Stage-discharge curve 


  1. 1.
    Ackers P (1992) Hydraulic design of two-stage channels. J Water Marit Eng 96:247–257Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azamathulla HM, Zahiri A (2012) Flow discharge prediction in compound channels using linear genetic programming. J Hydrol 454–455C:203–207Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya B, Solomatine DP (2005) Neural networks and M5 model trees in modeling water level–discharge relationship. NeuroComputing 63:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattacharya B, Price RK, Solomatine DP (2007) Machine learning approach to modeling sediment transport. J Hydraul Eng 133(4):440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blalock ME, Sturm TW (1981) Minimum specific energy in compound channel. J Hydraul Div ASCE 107:699–717Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bousmar D, Wilkin N, Jacquemart H, Zech Y (2004) Overbank flow in symmetrically narrowing floodplains. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 130(4):305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bousmar D, Zech Y (1999) Momentum transfer for practical flow computation in compound channels. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 125(7):696–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brameier M (2004) On linear genetic programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of DortmundGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brameier M, Banzhaf W (2001) A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guven A (2009) Linear genetic programming for time-series modeling of daily flow rate. Earth Syst Sci 118(2):137Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guven A, Talu NE (2010) Gene-expression programming for estimating suspended sediment in Middle Euphrates Basin, Turkey. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 38(12):1159Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guven A, Gunal M (2008) A genetic programming approach for prediction of local scour downstream hydraulic structures. J Irrig Drain Eng 132(4):241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guven A, Aytek A (2009) A new approach for stage-discharge relationship: gene-expression programming. J Hydrol Eng 14(8):812–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, 153–160Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huthoff F, Roose PC, Augustijn DCM, Hulscher SJMH (2008) Interacting divided channel method for compound channel flow. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 134(8):1158–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice-Hall, Engelwoods CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani A (2006) Prediction of soil-water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knight DW, Demetriou JD (1983) Flood plain and main channel flow interaction. J Hydraul Div ASCE 109(8):1073–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knight DW, Sellin RHJ (1987) The SERC flood channel facility. J Inst Water Environ Manag 1(2):198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 419–428Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knight DW (1999) Flow mechanisms and sediment transport in compound channels. Int J Sediment Res 14(2):217–236Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lai SH, Bessaih N (2004) Flow in compound channels. 1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century, Malaysia, pp 275–280Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lambert MF, Sellin RHJ (1996) Discharge prediction in straight compound channels using the mixing length concept. J Hydraul Res IAHR 34:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lambert MF, Myers RC (1998) Estimating the discharge capacity in straight compound channels. Water Marit Energy 130:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu W, James CS (2000) Estimating of discharge capacity in meandering compound channels using artificial neural networks. Can J Civil Eng 27(2):297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Londhe SN, Dixit PR (2011) Stream flow forecasting using model trees. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4(6):282–285Google Scholar
  29. 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 513Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin LA, Myers RC (1991) Measurement of overbank flow in a compound river channel. J Inst Water Environ Manag 91(2):645–657Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myers RC, Lyness JF (1997) Discharge ratios in smooth and rough compound channels. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 123(3):182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oltean M, Groşan C (2003) A comparison of several linear genetic programming techniques. Complex Syst 14(1):1–29Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pal M (2006) M5 model tree for land cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 27(4):825–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quinlan JR (1992) Learning with continuous classes. In: Proceedings of fifth Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, Singapore, pp 343–348Google Scholar
  35. 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):211–227Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharifi S (2009) Application of evolutionary computation to open channel flow modeling. PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, p 330Google Scholar
  37. 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):31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shiono K, Knight DW (1991) Turbulent open-channel flows with variable depth across the channel. J Fluid Mech 222:617–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 503–510Google Scholar
  40. 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 306–309Google Scholar
  41. 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):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Solomatine DP, Dulal K (2003) Model tree as an alternative to neural network in rainfall-runoff modeling. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 1343–1355Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tominaga A, Nezu I (1991) Turbulent structure in compound open channel flows. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 117(1):21–41Google Scholar
  45. 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 41:120–129CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Witten IH, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zahiri A, Dehghani AA (2009) Flow discharge determination in straight compound channels using ANN. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 58:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water EngineeringGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran
  2. 2.River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC)Universiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations