Genetic Programming: A Complementary Approach for Discharge Modelling in Smooth and Rough Compound Channels

  • Alok AdhikariEmail author
  • N. Adhikari
  • K. C. Patra
Original Contribution


Use of genetic programming (GP) in the field of river engineering is rare. During flood when the water overflows beyond its main course known as floodplain encounters various obstacles through rough materials and vegetation. Again the flow behaviour becomes more complex in a compound channel section due to shear at different regions. Discharge results from the experimental channels for varying roughness surfaces, along with data from a compound river section, are used in the GP. Model equations are derived for prediction of discharge in the compound channel using five hydraulic parameters. Derived models are tested and compared with other soft computing techniques. Few performance parameters are used to evaluate all the approaches taken for analysis. From the sensitivity analysis, the effects of parameters responsible for the flow behaviour are inferred. GP is found to give the most potential results with the highest level of accuracy. This work aims to benefit the researchers studying machine learning approaches for application in stream flow analysis.





The writers acknowledge the Central Water Commission, Bhubaneswar, for providing river Brahmani data for the analysis. The paper is part of the research work carried out in the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.


  1. 1.
    K.K. Khatua, K.C. Patra, P.K. Mohanty, Stage discharge prediction for straight and smooth compound channels with wide floodplains. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 138(1), 93–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.J. Abebe, R.K. Price, Information theory and neural networks for managing model uncertainty in flood routing. J. Comput. Civil Eng. ASCE 18(4), 377–380 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.K. Kordon, Future trends in soft computing industrial applications, in Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 7854–7861 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Alok, K.C. Patra, S.K. Das, Prediction of discharge with Elman and cascade neural networks. Research Journal of Recent Sciences 2, 279–284 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Adhikari, K.C. Patra, N. Adhikari, Prediction of discharge in straight compound channels using conventional and soft computing tools. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 7(8), 42–51 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Akhil, G. Ankit, K. Tai, S. Sreedeep, An Integrated SRM-multi-gene genetic programming approach for prediction of safety of 3-D soil nailed slopes. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 30, 30–40 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H.M. Azamathulla, A.A. Ghani, Genetic programming to predict river pipeline scour. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 1(3), 127–132 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.P. Searson, D.E. Leahy, M.J. Willis, GPTIPS: an open source genetic programming toolbox for multigene symbolic regression, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Engineering and Computer Scientists, Vol. I, pp. IMECS2010, 17–19 March 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.K. Muduli, M.R. Das, P. Samui, S.K. Das, Uplift capacity of suction caisson in clay using artificial intelligence techniques. Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 31, 375–390 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.S. Pandey, I. Pan, S. Das, J.J. Leahy, W. Kwapinski, Multi-gene genetic programming based predictive models for municipal solid waste gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier. Bioresour. Technol. 179, 524–533 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Demuth, M. Beale, Neural Network Toolbox User`s Guide (The Math Works Inc., Natick, 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.W. Knight, J.D. Demetriou, Floodplain and main channel flow interaction. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 109(8), 1073–1092 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W.R.C. Myers, Velocity and discharge in compound channels. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 113(6), 753–766 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Rezaei, Overbank flow in compound channels with prismatic and non-prismatic floodplains. Diss. University of Birmingham (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S.A. Atabay, D.W. Knight, The influence of floodplain width on the stage-discharge relationship for compound channels, in River Flow 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, vol. 1, pp. 197–204 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.J.R. Jang, ANFIS: adaptive-network-based FUZZY inference system. IEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 23(3), 665–685 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.E. Keskin, D. Taylan, O. Terzi, Adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach for modelling hydrological time series. Hydrol. Sci. J. 51(4), 588–988 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.P. Searson, D.P. Leahy, M.J. Willis, GPTIPS: an open source genetic programming toolbox for multigene symbolic regression, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Engineering and Computer Scientists, vol. I, p. IMECS2010, 17–19 March 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Alfaro Cid, A.I. Esparcia-Alcázar, P. Moya, B. Femenia-Ferrer, K. Sharman, J.J. Merelo, Modelling pheromone dispensers using genetic programming. Lect. Note Comput. Sci. 5484, 635–644 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S.Y. Liong, W.H. Lim, G. Paudyal, River stage forecasting in Bangladesh: neural network approach. J. Comput. Civil Eng. ASCE 4(1), 1–8 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Srinivasulu, J. Ashu, A comparative analysis of training methods for artificial neural networks rainfall-runoff models. Appl. Soft Comput. 6, 295–306 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNIT RourkelaRourkelaIndia
  2. 2.Biju Patnaik University of TechnologyRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations