估计码头冲刷深度:与人工神经网络,GMDH, MARS和克里格经验公式的比较

Zarbazoo Siahkali, A. Ghaderi, Abdolhamid Bahrpeyma, M. Rashki, N. S. Hamzehkolaei
{"title":"估计码头冲刷深度:与人工神经网络,GMDH, MARS和克里格经验公式的比较","authors":"Zarbazoo Siahkali, A. Ghaderi, Abdolhamid Bahrpeyma, M. Rashki, N. S. Hamzehkolaei","doi":"10.22044/JADM.2020.10085.2147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scouring, occurring when the water flow erodes the bed materials around the bridge pier structure, is a serious safety assessment problem for which there are many equations and models in the literature to estimate the approximate scour depth. This research is aimed to study how surrogate models estimate the scour depth around circular piers and compare the results with those of the empirical formulations. To this end, the pier scour depth was estimated in non-cohesive soils based on a subcritical flow and live bed conditions using the artificial neural networks (ANN), group method of data handling (GMDH), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) and Gaussian process models (Kriging). A database containing 246 lab data gathered from various studies was formed and the data were divided into three random parts: 1) training, 2) validation and 3) testing to build the surrogate models. The statistical error criteria such as the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and absolute maximum percentage error (MPE) of the surrogate models were then found and compared with those of the popular empirical formulations. Results revealed that the surrogate models’ test data estimations were more accurate than those of the empirical equations; Kriging has had better estimations than other models. In addition, sensitivity analyses of all surrogate models showed that the pier width’s dimensionless expression (b/y) had a greater effect on estimating the normalized scour depth (Ds/y).","PeriodicalId":32592,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating Pier Scour Depth: Comparison of Empirical Formulations with ANNs, GMDH, MARS, and Kriging\",\"authors\":\"Zarbazoo Siahkali, A. Ghaderi, Abdolhamid Bahrpeyma, M. Rashki, N. S. Hamzehkolaei\",\"doi\":\"10.22044/JADM.2020.10085.2147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scouring, occurring when the water flow erodes the bed materials around the bridge pier structure, is a serious safety assessment problem for which there are many equations and models in the literature to estimate the approximate scour depth. This research is aimed to study how surrogate models estimate the scour depth around circular piers and compare the results with those of the empirical formulations. To this end, the pier scour depth was estimated in non-cohesive soils based on a subcritical flow and live bed conditions using the artificial neural networks (ANN), group method of data handling (GMDH), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) and Gaussian process models (Kriging). A database containing 246 lab data gathered from various studies was formed and the data were divided into three random parts: 1) training, 2) validation and 3) testing to build the surrogate models. The statistical error criteria such as the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and absolute maximum percentage error (MPE) of the surrogate models were then found and compared with those of the popular empirical formulations. Results revealed that the surrogate models’ test data estimations were more accurate than those of the empirical equations; Kriging has had better estimations than other models. In addition, sensitivity analyses of all surrogate models showed that the pier width’s dimensionless expression (b/y) had a greater effect on estimating the normalized scour depth (Ds/y).\",\"PeriodicalId\":32592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22044/JADM.2020.10085.2147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22044/JADM.2020.10085.2147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

冲刷是水流冲刷桥梁桥墩结构周围基材时发生的一种严重的安全评价问题,文献中已有许多方程和模型来估计冲刷的近似深度。本研究旨在研究替代模型如何估计圆形桥墩周围的冲刷深度,并将结果与经验公式进行比较。为此,利用人工神经网络(ANN)、群体数据处理方法(GMDH)、多元自适应回归样条(MARS)和高斯过程模型(Kriging),基于亚临界流动和活床条件估算了非粘性土壤中桥墩冲刷深度。建立了一个包含246个来自不同研究的实验室数据的数据库,并将数据随机分为三个部分:1)训练,2)验证和3)测试来构建代理模型。然后找到代理模型的统计误差标准,如决定系数(R2)、均方根误差(RMSE)、平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)和绝对最大百分比误差(MPE),并与流行的经验公式进行比较。结果表明,代理模型的检验数据估计比经验方程更准确;克里金的估计比其他模型更好。此外,所有替代模型的敏感性分析表明,墩宽的无因次表达式(b/y)对估计归一化冲刷深度(Ds/y)有更大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Estimating Pier Scour Depth: Comparison of Empirical Formulations with ANNs, GMDH, MARS, and Kriging
Scouring, occurring when the water flow erodes the bed materials around the bridge pier structure, is a serious safety assessment problem for which there are many equations and models in the literature to estimate the approximate scour depth. This research is aimed to study how surrogate models estimate the scour depth around circular piers and compare the results with those of the empirical formulations. To this end, the pier scour depth was estimated in non-cohesive soils based on a subcritical flow and live bed conditions using the artificial neural networks (ANN), group method of data handling (GMDH), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) and Gaussian process models (Kriging). A database containing 246 lab data gathered from various studies was formed and the data were divided into three random parts: 1) training, 2) validation and 3) testing to build the surrogate models. The statistical error criteria such as the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and absolute maximum percentage error (MPE) of the surrogate models were then found and compared with those of the popular empirical formulations. Results revealed that the surrogate models’ test data estimations were more accurate than those of the empirical equations; Kriging has had better estimations than other models. In addition, sensitivity analyses of all surrogate models showed that the pier width’s dimensionless expression (b/y) had a greater effect on estimating the normalized scour depth (Ds/y).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Nasal Breath Input: Exploring Nasal Breath Input Method for Hands-Free Input by Using a Glasses Type Device with Piezoelectric Elements Sentiment Mining and Analysis over Text Corpora via Complex Deep Learning Naural Architectures An Intelligent Model for Prediction of In-Vitro Fertilization Success using MLP Neural Network and GA Optimization Robust Vein Recognition against Rotation Using Kernel Sparse Representation Improving Speed and Efficiency of Dynamic Programming Methods through Chaos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1