Most of the studies on labyrinth weir were carried out in the laboratory, and regression models have been developed for discharge coefficient in terms of pertinent independent parameters. It is difficult to obtain an exact analytical solution to the head discharge relationship due to the existence of 3D flow. Consequently, various forms of soft computing techniques are used as an appropriate alternative to achieve greater accuracy in developing a discharge prediction model. In the present study, support vector regression (SVR) has, therefore, been implemented to develop a discharge coefficient prediction model for a triangular labyrinth (TL) weir using a sizeable amount of laboratory data available in the literature. An attempt has also been made to obtain a simple discharge coefficient equation using the same data based on the non-linear regression (NLR) approach for field application. A comparative study has been carried out to assess the accuracy of the discharge coefficient models obtained in the present study and those reported in the literature. Sensitivity analysis has been made to study the influence of individual parameters on the discharge coefficient. The accuracy of different discharge coefficient prediction models was also tested for the data of prototype labyrinth weir and appropriate models were recommended for the field application.

  • In the present study, SVR has been implemented to develop a Cd prediction model for a TL weir using a sizeable amount of laboratory data available in the literature. An attempt has also been made to obtain a simple Cd equation using the same data based on the NLR approach for field application. A comparative study has been carried out to assess the accuracy of the Cd models obtained in the present study.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Cd

coefficient of discharge

p

weir height

W

width of the channel

h/p

head to weir height ratio

Fr

froude number

L

effective length of the weir

θ

vertex angle

N

number of cycles

H

total head

W/p

vertical aspect ratio

A labyrinth weir is a linear weir symmetrically folded in a plan to provide a longer crest length in limited channel width. These types of weirs may have repeated cycles of triangular, rectangular, or trapezoidal plan forms. This length magnification leads to discharge 3–4 times more than the discharge of a straight linear weir operating under similar hydraulic conditions. Due to the higher discharge efficiency, a labyrinth weir can be the best option for weir rehabilitation. These weirs require less freeboard in the upstream reservoir than linear weirs, making flood routing easier and increasing reservoir storage capacity. The typical layout of the labyrinth weir is shown in (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Triangular labyrinth (TL) weir plan and section.

Figure 1

Triangular labyrinth (TL) weir plan and section.

Close modal

Gentilini (Hager et al. 2015) conducted the first experiment on the sharp-crested oblique weir and triangular labyrinth weir (obtained by connecting an even number of oblique weirs) having vertex angles 60°, 90°, 120°. He changed channel width, crest length, number of oblique weirs, and orientation (normal and inverted) and plotted the graphs between the ratio of discharge coefficients (Cd/Cdn) of the labyrinth weir to the normal weir and the ratio of head over the weir to channel width (h/W), which indicate that the data points corresponding to the same side wall angle lie on the same curve irrespective of their plan shape. Hay & Taylor (1970) extensively investigated the performance of labyrinth weirs of different plan forms like triangular, rectangular, and trapezoidal. They defined the ratio of discharge over labyrinth weir Q to the discharge over normal weir Qn operating under similar hydraulic conditions as magnification ratio. They presented the results in the form of magnification ratio (Q/Qn) versus head-to-weir height ratio (h/p) and found that the discharge magnification decreases with an increase in h/p.

Darvas (1971) introduced an empirical discharge equation along with a trapezoidal labyrinth weir design chart. Hinchliff & Houston (1984) developed design guidelines based on the model study of the Ute dam and Hyrum dam. Lux (1984) proposed a different discharge coefficient equation, including vertical aspect ratio (w/p) and shaped constant k. Based on the experimental investigations, Tullis et al. (1995) proposed a procedure for designing a trapezoidal labyrinth weir. They also proposed the discharge coefficient equations as a fourth-order polynomial of h/p for different side wall angles. Willmore (2004) also developed equations for Cd similar to that of Tullis et al. (1995). Tullis et al. (2007) proposed a dimensionless submerged head relationship for the trapezoidal labyrinth weir.

Kumar et al. (2011) carried out an experimental study on a single-cycle sharp-crested triangular labyrinth (TL) weir having different vertex angles (θ = 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, and 180°) and observed that the interference of nappe is more pronounced at the least apex angle. They proposed a fourth-order polynomial fit equation for Cd as a function h/p for different vertex angles. Gupta et al. (2014) extended the work of Kumar et al. (2011), including three more vertex angles (θ = 75°, 105°, 135°), and proposed another similar equation for Cd. It is worthwhile to note that using a polynomial of degree n for labyrinth weirs having m configurations (different side wall angles) requires m*(n + 1) coefficients leading to a complex form of equation for estimation of discharge coefficient.

Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017) tested a single-cycle triangular labyrinth weir having vertex angles of (74°, 90°, 120°, and 180°). They developed a criterion to distinguish between free and submerged flow conditions experimentally. They further proposed a mathematical shape for the submerged stage-discharge formula based on the dimensional analysis and self-similarity concept. They argued that the proposed rating curve may be used for free and submerged flow conditions continuously and within the transition zone. Finally, they deduced an expression for the discharge coefficient from the stage-discharge relationship. However, so many coefficients are involved in determining the discharge coefficient.

Some of the well-known predictors are summarized in Table 1. The equations developed for Cd are applicable only in the range of data covered in a particular study. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a simple and accurate equation to compute Cd covering a wide range of data available in the literature.

Table 1

Discharge coefficient predictors reported by various investigators

AuthorProposed equationRemarksWeir typeCrest Type
Ghodsian (2009)   0.3 ≤ h/p ≤ 0.7 Triangular- 2 cycles SC-QR-HR-FT 
Kumar et al. (2011)   0 Triangular plan form SC 
Gupta et al. (2014)   0< h/p < 0.7 Triangular labyrinth weir S.C. 
Karami et al. (2017)    Triangular plan form SC 
Bonakdari et al. (2020)   
y = upstream flow depth 
Triangular plan form SC 
AuthorProposed equationRemarksWeir typeCrest Type
Ghodsian (2009)   0.3 ≤ h/p ≤ 0.7 Triangular- 2 cycles SC-QR-HR-FT 
Kumar et al. (2011)   0 Triangular plan form SC 
Gupta et al. (2014)   0< h/p < 0.7 Triangular labyrinth weir S.C. 
Karami et al. (2017)    Triangular plan form SC 
Bonakdari et al. (2020)   
y = upstream flow depth 
Triangular plan form SC 

Note: S.C. – Sharp crested, Q.R. – Quarter round, H.R. – Half round, F.T. – Flat top.

Recent advancements in soft computing (genetic programming, neural networks, fuzzy genetic programming, decision support systems, neuro-fuzzy systems, support vector machines, etc.) attracted researchers to use them in the complex flow phenomenon over a labyrinth weir and to develop discharge coefficient predictions.

Laboratory data collected by Kumar et al. (2011) for one cycle triangular labyrinth weir has been used by many researchers for the development of a discharge coefficient model based on soft computing techniques. Zaji et al. (2015) estimated the discharge coefficient employing multiple non-linear particle swarm optimization (MNLPSO), multiple linear particle swarm optimization (MLPSO), and radial basis neural network (RBNN) and found that MLPSO performs well. Zaji et al. (2016) applied a firefly optimization algorithm (FFA) to the discharge coefficient prediction model for better accuracy. Parsaie & Haghiabi (2017) reported that the SVM-based model performed better than the RBNN and MLPNN. Karami et al. (2017) showed that support vector regression (SVR)-Firefly yielded better results as compared to the classic SVR, principal component analysis (PCA), and response surface methodology (RSM). Karami et al. (2018) developed the discharge coefficient model using genetic programming (GP), artificial neural network (ANN), and extreme learning machine (ELM) and showed that the ELM model performed the best. Haghiabi et al. (2018) employed multilayer perceptron (MLP) and ANFIS to predict Cd, and they found that the structure of ANFIS model is more optimal than that of MLP model. Bonakdari et al. (2020) proposed an equation for Cd using non-linear regression (NLR) and modeled the data with gene expression programming (GEP) to predict Cd. The results of GEP were more capable than NLR. Mahmoud et al. (2021) estimated the flow rate of a sharp-crested triangular labyrinth weir as a function of head-to-weir height ratio h/p and sidewall angle (θ) through several soft computing tools such as the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), MLP, SVR and radial basis function neural network (RBFNN). Emami et al. (2022) used the walnut optimization algorithm employing five parameters (L/h, Fr, L/p, θ, h/p) and found the model containing L/p, h/p, and θ predicts the best value of Cd. Table 2 summarizes the performance of the soft computing technique for dataset 1. The performance of the SVR (Firefly algorithm) prediction model developed by Karami et al. (2017) is the best.

Table 2

Performance of soft computing technique for the dataset 1

LiteratureMethodRMSER2
Zaji et al. (2015)  MNLPSO 0.0220 0.94 
Karami et al. (2017)  SVR- FA 0.0035 0.99 
Karami et al. (2018)  ELM 0.0060 0.97 
Bonakdari et al. (2020)  GEP 0.0260 0.93 
Shafiei et al. (2020)  ORELM 0.0320 0.94 
Mahmoud et al. (2021)  ANFIS 0.2100 0.99 
Emami et al. (2022)  Walnut-SVR 0.0040 0.99 
LiteratureMethodRMSER2
Zaji et al. (2015)  MNLPSO 0.0220 0.94 
Karami et al. (2017)  SVR- FA 0.0035 0.99 
Karami et al. (2018)  ELM 0.0060 0.97 
Bonakdari et al. (2020)  GEP 0.0260 0.93 
Shafiei et al. (2020)  ORELM 0.0320 0.94 
Mahmoud et al. (2021)  ANFIS 0.2100 0.99 
Emami et al. (2022)  Walnut-SVR 0.0040 0.99 

Note: Bold values belong to the best model.

Support vector machine (SVM) has also successfully employed in various fields of hydraulic engineering such as determination of discharge coefficient of weir (Haghiabi et al. 2017; Azamathulla et al. 2019), evapotranspiration (Choubin et al. 2019), sediment transport (Choubin et al. 2018; Kisi et al. 2019) and rainfall modelling and river flow prediction (Azamathulla & Wu 2011), scour prediction on grade control structures (Goel & Pal 2009).

Nonetheless, the complex three-dimensional flow pattern over the labyrinth weir makes it challenging to obtain an accurate analytical solution to the head discharge relationship (Crookston & Tullis 2012). As a result, soft computing techniques could be considered an appropriate alternative. The performance of the SVM in the discharge prediction model has been reported as the best among the other commonly used soft computing techniques.

The main objective of the present study is, therefore, to (i) assess the accuracy of SVR in the development of a discharge coefficient prediction model for a triangular labyrinth weir using a sizeable amount of laboratory data available in the literature (ii) to obtain a simple discharge coefficient equation using the same data based on the non-linear regression (NLR) approach for field application (iii) to compare the accuracy of the discharge coefficient models obtained in the present study with those reported in the literature, and (iv) to study the influence of individual parameters on discharge coefficient using sensitivity analysis.

The discharge prediction model for the triangular labyrinth weir was developed based on the conventional approach of regression analysis and the most popular soft computing approach using the laboratory data obtained from the literature as described herein.

Dataset and range of data

Laboratory data collected under free flow conditions by Kumar et al. (2011), Gupta et al. (2014), and Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017) has been procured from the literature and grouped under four sets, as shown in Table 3. The range of the pertinent parameters is shown in Table 4.

Table 3

Details of datasets considered for the analysis in the present study

DatasetsDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
Data source Kumar et al. (2011)  Kumar et al. (2011) and Gupta et al. (2014)  Kumar et al. (2011) and Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017)  Kumar et al. (2011), Gupta et al. (2014) and Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017)  
No. of data 123 123 + 95 = 218 123 + 42 = 165 123 + 95 + 42 = 260 
DatasetsDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
Data source Kumar et al. (2011)  Kumar et al. (2011) and Gupta et al. (2014)  Kumar et al. (2011) and Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017)  Kumar et al. (2011), Gupta et al. (2014) and Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017)  
No. of data 123 123 + 95 = 218 123 + 42 = 165 123 + 95 + 42 = 260 
Table 4

Range of data used for prediction of discharge coefficient

ParameterKumar et al. (2011) Gupta et al. (2014) Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017) 
Channel dimension (m) 12 × 0.28 × 0.41 5.36 × 0.26 × 0.45 12 × 0.6 × 0.4 
Weir Type Triangular Triangular Triangular 
Discharge (m3/s) 0.54–0.80 0.38–0.61 0.73–0.81 
Head (m) 0.008–0.069 0.0267–0.0808 0.01–0.03 
Weir height (m) 0.092–0.108 0.10 0.10 
Vertex angle (o30–180 60–180 90–180 
No. of runs 123 95 42 
ParameterKumar et al. (2011) Gupta et al. (2014) Bijankhan & Kouchakzadeh (2017) 
Channel dimension (m) 12 × 0.28 × 0.41 5.36 × 0.26 × 0.45 12 × 0.6 × 0.4 
Weir Type Triangular Triangular Triangular 
Discharge (m3/s) 0.54–0.80 0.38–0.61 0.73–0.81 
Head (m) 0.008–0.069 0.0267–0.0808 0.01–0.03 
Weir height (m) 0.092–0.108 0.10 0.10 
Vertex angle (o30–180 60–180 90–180 
No. of runs 123 95 42 

Regression model

The discharge coefficient basically depends on geometric and flow parameters. Two NLR models of the following form have been adopted in the present study in Table 5.

Table 5

Details of discharge prediction models adopted in the present study

ModelsModel detailsRemarks
RM1  ai, bi, and ci are coefficients, and mi is the exponents. η = h/p; θ = vertex angle; β = W/P; W = channel width, P = weir height, h = total head 
RM2  
ModelsModel detailsRemarks
RM1  ai, bi, and ci are coefficients, and mi is the exponents. η = h/p; θ = vertex angle; β = W/P; W = channel width, P = weir height, h = total head 
RM2  

The coefficients and exponents of these models may be estimated using the observed set of data through NLR analysis.

Support vector machine

Support vector machine (SVM) is a classification and regression algorithm known as support vector classification (SVC) and support vector regression (SVR) (Cortes & Vapnik 1995). The basic idea of SVM is to map the original data into a feature space with high dimensionality. The transformation into multidimensional feature space is achieved through non-linear mapping: sigmoid, polynomial, and radial basis function (RBF) (usually called kernel function). SVR deals with modeling and prediction. The purpose of SVR is to find a function whose prediction errors are less than ε for all training data. The non-linear model of the SVR is given by
(1)
where f(x) = output of the model, w = weight vector, φ(x) = nonlinear function in the feature space, b = bias term, and denotes the inner product. Here, a lower value of w denotes the flatness of Equation (1), which is accomplished by reducing the Euclidean norm ‖w‖ (Smola et al. 1996). An optimization problem, like the following, can be used to determine the ideal weight vector w and non-linear function φ(x).
(2)

introducing slack variables as into Equation (2) to make the constraints feasible, the problem reduces to estimate w and b that minimise the following function:

By introducing slack variables as In Equation (2), the problem is reduced to estimating w and b that minimise the following function:
(3)
where C is a parameter that influences the value of approximation error, the weight vector norm and penalises the errors greater than ε. The values of C and ε are suitably selected by users to find the optimal solution.

Discharge coefficient prediction models for a triangular labyrinth weir using a sizeable amount of laboratory data (260) available in the literature have been developed based on non-linear regression (Minitab Software) and SVR (DTREG Software). Cd was considered as a dependent variable against the independent variables as h/p, θ, N, and W/p for the SVR model and h/p, θ, and N in the regression model. The results of the analysis are discussed in the following sections.

Regression models

NLR analysis was carried out to estimate the coefficients and exponents of Model 1 and Model 2 for the entire data (dataset 4) using Commercial software MINITAB, and the following best-fit equations for Cd were obtained as:
(4)
(5)

The performance of these regression models for the entire data has been evaluated and shown in Table 6. This table indicates that performance of RM1 is better than that of RM2.

Table 6

Performance of regression models with entire data (dataset 4)

ModelsPerformance parametersDataset 4
RM1 MAPE 3.786058 
RMSE 0.034135 
RM2 MAPE 8.890694 
RMSE 0.067149 
ModelsPerformance parametersDataset 4
RM1 MAPE 3.786058 
RMSE 0.034135 
RM2 MAPE 8.890694 
RMSE 0.067149 

Qualitative assessment of the performance of these models has also been made in the form of the box and whisker plot, as shown in Figure 2. A box-and-whisker diagram is considered to be a convenient way of representing the prediction error (that is, the predicted value minus the measured value) visually through their five-number summaries as explained in Table 7.
Table 7

Details of box and whisker plot parameters

S.N.Box plot summariesDetails of parameters of box and whisker plot
Minimum score  Lowest score, excluding outliers 
Lower quartile (Q125% of scores fall below the lower quartile value 
Median (Q2It is the midpoint of the data and divides the box into two parts 
Upper quartile (Q375% of the scores fall below the upper quartile value 
Maximum score The highest score, excluding outliers 
S.N.Box plot summariesDetails of parameters of box and whisker plot
Minimum score  Lowest score, excluding outliers 
Lower quartile (Q125% of scores fall below the lower quartile value 
Median (Q2It is the midpoint of the data and divides the box into two parts 
Upper quartile (Q375% of the scores fall below the upper quartile value 
Maximum score The highest score, excluding outliers 

(a) Interquartile range (IQR): The box plot shows the middle 50% of scores (i.e., the range between the 25th and 75th percentile). IQR = Q3-Q1.

(b) Upper and lower whiskers: The upper and lower whiskers are the scores outside the middle 50% (i.e., the lower 25% of scores and the upper 25% of scores).

(c) Outliers are those measurements not within 1.5 × IQR of the lower and upper quartiles.

Figure 2

Predicted to observed discharge coefficient ratio (POCDR) for regression models.

Figure 2

Predicted to observed discharge coefficient ratio (POCDR) for regression models.

Close modal

The predicted to observed discharge coefficients ratio (PODCR) have been compared in the box-and-whisker diagrams, as shown in Figure 2. It may be clearly observed that the scatter for the RM1 is less than that of RM2, although the mean values for both models are nearly one. This indicates that the prediction of Model 1 is more satisfactory as compared to RM2.

Support vector regression (SVR) model for prediction of discharge coefficient

Different forms of discharge coefficient predictors have been reported by various investigators (Table 1). Five possible prediction models, as provided in Table 8, were considered herein to test the best model for the present set of data.. The performance of each model is assessed through statistical performance indices. Table 9 shows the performance indices of the proposed various SVR prediction models. A perusal of this table indicates that the SVR3 model containing three geometric parameters, h/p, θ, and N, produce the most accurate results. Further, it can be observed that SVR3 gives the highest accuracy with training R2 = 0.997 and testing R2 = 0.994 with the Hyper parameters' gamma = 15.018, C = 1.408, and epsilon = 0.001. It is further observed that the performance of SVR3, SVR4, and SVR5 are also fairly comparable.

Table 8

Some of the possible prediction models for the discharge coefficients

ModelsModel detail
SVR 1 Cd=f (h/p) 
SVR 2 Cd=f (h/p, θ) 
SVR 3 Cd=f (h/p, θ, N) 
SVR 4 Cd=f (h/p, θ, N, W/p) 
SVR 5 Cd=f (h/p, θ, W/p) 
ModelsModel detail
SVR 1 Cd=f (h/p) 
SVR 2 Cd=f (h/p, θ) 
SVR 3 Cd=f (h/p, θ, N) 
SVR 4 Cd=f (h/p, θ, N, W/p) 
SVR 5 Cd=f (h/p, θ, W/p) 
Table 9

Performance of SVR with different features model with dataset 4

ModelsTraining dataset
Testing dataset
R2RMSEMAPER2RMSEMAPE
SVR 1 0.599 0.774 10.319 0.0.592 0.078 10.397 
SVR 2 0.744 0.062 8.503 0.734 0.063 8.667 
SVR 3 0.997 0.0069 0.649 0.994 0.0098 1.133 
SVR 4 0.997 0.0069 0.796 0.994 0.0095 1.154 
SVR 5 0.997 0.00667 0.763 0.992 0.0106 1.220 
ModelsTraining dataset
Testing dataset
R2RMSEMAPER2RMSEMAPE
SVR 1 0.599 0.774 10.319 0.0.592 0.078 10.397 
SVR 2 0.744 0.062 8.503 0.734 0.063 8.667 
SVR 3 0.997 0.0069 0.649 0.994 0.0098 1.133 
SVR 4 0.997 0.0069 0.796 0.994 0.0095 1.154 
SVR 5 0.997 0.00667 0.763 0.992 0.0106 1.220 

Note: Bold values belong to the best model.

The qualitative performance assessment of these models has also been made through the box-and-whisker plots, as shown in Figure 3. This figure also indicates that the performance of SVR1 and SVR2 is not good compared to that of SVR3 to SVR5. The performance of the last three models appears to be fairly comparable.
Figure 3

Predicted to observed discharge coefficient ratio (POCDR) for SVR in (a) training and (b) Testing.

Figure 3

Predicted to observed discharge coefficient ratio (POCDR) for SVR in (a) training and (b) Testing.

Close modal

A comparative study of various discharge coefficient predictors

A comparison of existing discharge coefficient predictors for dataset 1 has been made to validate the present approach. Dataset 2, containing the entire data (260), has been used for the development of a discharge coefficient prediction model based on regression and the SVR approach.

A comparative study of regression models (RM) and SVR models for dataset 1

A comparative study of regression models (RM) and SVR models for Dataset 1 has been made in the present study through performance indices as shown in Table 10. It may be observed that the performance of the regression model in the present study is superior to Karami et al. (2017) and Bonakdari et al. (2020) but inferior to Kumar et al. (2011). However, the equation proposed by Kumar et al. (2011) is complicated as it involves a fourth-order polynomial in θ and is not easy for application. The equation proposed in the present study is simple and easy to use. As per the criteria for the scale of the judgment of predicted accuracy (Lewis scale 1982) in Table 11, all predictors lie in a highly accurate range. Table 12 indicates the performance indices for the SVR model developed in the present study and that is available in the literature for Dataset 1. It may be observed that the present model performs equally well with Karami et al. (2017). A visual comparison of the prediction model has been made through a visual plot, as shown in Figure 4. A similar conclusion may also been drawn from this plot.
Table 10

A comparison of regression models available in the literature (dataset 1)

Performance parametersPresent study
Predictors available in the literature
RM1RM2Karami et al. (2017) Bonakdari et al. (2020) Kumar et al. (2011) 
MAPE 3.92 3.945 5.36 4.66 2.11 
RMSE 0.041 0.038 0.046 0.044 0.011 
Performance parametersPresent study
Predictors available in the literature
RM1RM2Karami et al. (2017) Bonakdari et al. (2020) Kumar et al. (2011) 
MAPE 3.92 3.945 5.36 4.66 2.11 
RMSE 0.041 0.038 0.046 0.044 0.011 
Table 11

Scale of judgment of predicted accuracy (Lewis scale 1982)

MAPEJudgment of predicted accuracy
Less than 10% Highly accurate 
10% to 20% Good predicted 
21% to 50% Reasonable 
51% and above Inaccurate 
MAPEJudgment of predicted accuracy
Less than 10% Highly accurate 
10% to 20% Good predicted 
21% to 50% Reasonable 
51% and above Inaccurate 
Table 12

A comparison of SVR models available in the literature (dataset 1)

Performance parametersPresent studyKarami et al. (2017) 
MAPE 0.88 0.90 
RMSE 0.009 0.006 
Performance parametersPresent studyKarami et al. (2017) 
MAPE 0.88 0.90 
RMSE 0.009 0.006 

Note: Bold value indicates the best model.

Figure 4

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with various investigators.

Figure 4

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with various investigators.

Close modal

A comparative study of RM and SVR models for all sets of data in the present study

The best model for the regression model (RM1) and SVR model (SVR3) has already been obtained separately, as described above, for the entire dataset. A comparison of these best models has been tested for all the datasets, and the results are provided in Table 13. This Table indicates that the performance of the SVR model (SVR3) is better than that of the regression model (RM1) in all datasets. A similar conclusion may also be drawn from box-and-whisker plot in Figure 5.
Table 13

Performance of RM1 and SVR3 models for all four datasets with RM1

ModelPerformance parametersDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
RM1 MAPE 3.945 4.420815 3.19367 3.786058 
RMSE 0.0378 0.037219 0.032977 0.034135 
SVR3 MAPE 0.883 1.002 0.8175 0.649 
RMSE 0.0089 0.0083 0.0789 0.0069 
ModelPerformance parametersDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
RM1 MAPE 3.945 4.420815 3.19367 3.786058 
RMSE 0.0378 0.037219 0.032977 0.034135 
SVR3 MAPE 0.883 1.002 0.8175 0.649 
RMSE 0.0089 0.0083 0.0789 0.0069 
Figure 5

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with regression model (RM1) and support vector regression (SVR3). Note: RM1D1→ regression model1 for dataset 1 and SVR3D1→ SVR model3 for dataset 1.

Figure 5

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with regression model (RM1) and support vector regression (SVR3). Note: RM1D1→ regression model1 for dataset 1 and SVR3D1→ SVR model3 for dataset 1.

Close modal
Other models, RM2 and SVR5, that have performance nearly close to the best models have also been tested herein for all the datasets. The results are provided in Table 14 and shown in Figure 6. It may be observed that the performance of RM2 is almost same as that of RM1 for Dataset 1, less for Datasets 2 and 4 but better than that of RM1 for Dataset 3. It may be attributed that the LW cycles (N) in the various datasets considered in the present study are not uniform.
Table 14

Performance of RM2 and SVR5 models for all the four datasets with RM2

ModelPerformance parametersDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
RM2 MAPE 3.945 5.360559 3.161388 8.890694 
RMSE 0.0378 0.046624 0.032904 0.067149 
SVR5 MAPE 0.897 1.218 0.7337 0.763 
RMSE 0.00896 0.009 0.0078 0.00677 
ModelPerformance parametersDataset 1Dataset 2Dataset 3Dataset 4
RM2 MAPE 3.945 5.360559 3.161388 8.890694 
RMSE 0.0378 0.046624 0.032904 0.067149 
SVR5 MAPE 0.897 1.218 0.7337 0.763 
RMSE 0.00896 0.009 0.0078 0.00677 
Figure 6

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with regression model (RM1) and support vector regression (SVR3). Note: RM2D1 → regression model2 for dataset 1 and SVR5D1→ SVR model5 and dataset 1.

Figure 6

Comparison of the ratio of predicted to observed discharge coefficients with regression model (RM1) and support vector regression (SVR3). Note: RM2D1 → regression model2 for dataset 1 and SVR5D1→ SVR model5 and dataset 1.

Close modal

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis is often used to determine the relative importance of each independent parameter on the dependent parameters. The MAPE values have been computed for all four parameters together and then dropped one by one parameter in sequence, as shown in Table 15. This table reveals that the parameters h/p have the most, θ moderate, and W/p the least influence on the discharge coefficient. However, the influence of N is also almost in the range of W/p. h/p, θ, N and W/p influence the discharge coefficient in descending order. This can also be observed qualitatively in Figure 7.
Table 15

Sensitivity analysis of the parameters

Independent variablesMAPERelative MAPE
All independent variables except W/p 0.65 0.82 
All independent variables except N 0.76 0.95 
All independent variables except θ 4.67 5.87 
All independent variables except h/p 5.71 7.17 
All independent variables 0.80 1.00 
Independent variablesMAPERelative MAPE
All independent variables except W/p 0.65 0.82 
All independent variables except N 0.76 0.95 
All independent variables except θ 4.67 5.87 
All independent variables except h/p 5.71 7.17 
All independent variables 0.80 1.00 
Table 16

Data of prototype triangular labyrinth weir

NameQHtPWLNαCdo
Bartletts Ferry 5,920.00 2.19 3.43 18.30 70.30 20.50 14.00 0.43 
Boardman 387.00 1.77 2.76 18.30 53.50 2.00 19.40 0.50 
Ritchard 1,555.00 2.74 3.05 83.80 411.00 9.00 11.50 0.28 
Worona 1,020.00 1.36 2.13 13.41 31.23 11.00 25.00 0.63 
UTE 15,570.00 5.79 9.14 18.30 73.70 14.00 15.20 0.37 
NameQHtPWLNαCdo
Bartletts Ferry 5,920.00 2.19 3.43 18.30 70.30 20.50 14.00 0.43 
Boardman 387.00 1.77 2.76 18.30 53.50 2.00 19.40 0.50 
Ritchard 1,555.00 2.74 3.05 83.80 411.00 9.00 11.50 0.28 
Worona 1,020.00 1.36 2.13 13.41 31.23 11.00 25.00 0.63 
UTE 15,570.00 5.79 9.14 18.30 73.70 14.00 15.20 0.37 
Table 17

Performance of different discharge coefficient prediction models for prototype labyrinth weir

Performance parametersPresent Study
Ghodsian (2009) Kumar et al. (2011) Karami et al. (2017) 
RM1RM2
MAPE 415.81 17.00 36.19 20.59 82.84 
RMSE 1.93 0.09 0.162 0.098 0.381 
Performance parametersPresent Study
Ghodsian (2009) Kumar et al. (2011) Karami et al. (2017) 
RM1RM2
MAPE 415.81 17.00 36.19 20.59 82.84 
RMSE 1.93 0.09 0.162 0.098 0.381 
Figure 7

Influence of individual independent parameters on discharge coefficient.

Figure 7

Influence of individual independent parameters on discharge coefficient.

Close modal

Accuracy assessment of various discharge coefficients prediction models for the prototype data

The data of five prototype dams (Table 16) having triangular labyrinth (TL) shape with sidewall angle 14° ≤ α ≤ 25° have been selected for accuracy assessment of various discharge coefficients prediction models. The performance of different discharge coefficient prediction models for prototype LW has been evaluated, and results are provided in Table 17 and box-and-whisker plot (Figure 8). These results indicate that the performance of RM1 and models proposed by Karami et al. (2017) are inaccurate; that of RM2 in the present study and Kumar et al. (2011) are well predicted, and the performance of Ghodsian (2009) prediction models is reasonable on the basis of scale of the judgment of predicted accuracy (Lewis scale 1982). The inaccuracy of the present RM1 may be attributed to the involvement of insufficient size of cycle (N) of the LW in the proposed equation. A detailed investigation of the effect of N on the discharge coefficient is recommended for future research.
Figure 8

A comparison of the coefficient of discharge of the prototype dam with the coefficient of discharge predicted by Empirical Equations.

Figure 8

A comparison of the coefficient of discharge of the prototype dam with the coefficient of discharge predicted by Empirical Equations.

Close modal

SVR and NLR models for the discharge coefficient of a TL weir have been developed in the present study using a sizeable amount of laboratory data available in the literature. The performance of these models has been assessed based on statistical performance indices such as mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and mean square error (MSE). It was found that the SVR model performs better than the NLR model. However, a simple discharge coefficient equation obtained from the NLR approach may be used for field application. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the parameters h/p have the most, θ moderate, and W/p the least influence on the discharge coefficient. However, the influence of N is also almost in the range of W/p. The results of the accuracy assessment of various discharge coefficients prediction models for the prototype data indicate that the performance of RM1 and models proposed by Karami et al. (2017) are inaccurate; that of RM2 in the present study and Kumar et al. (2011) are well predicted, and performance of Ghodsian (2009) prediction models is reasonable on the basis of scale of the judgment of predicted accuracy (Lewis scale 1982). The inaccuracy of the present RM1 may be attributed to the involvement of insufficient size of cycle (N) of the LW in the proposed equation. A detailed investigation of the effect of N on the discharge coefficient is recommended for future research.

All relevant data are available from an online repository or repositories.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Azamathulla
H. M.
&
Wu
F. C.
2011
Support vector machine approach for longitudinal dispersion coefficients in natural streams
.
Applied Soft Computing Journal
9 (4), 412.
Azamathulla
H. M.
,
Emamgholizadeh
S.
,
Parsaie
A.
&
Haghiabi
A. H.
2019
Prediction of discharge coefficient of combined weir-gate using ANN, ANFIS and SVM
.
International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology
9
(
4
),
412
.
Bijankhan
M.
&
Kouchakzadeh
S.
2017
Unified discharge coefficient formula for free and submerged triangular labyrinth weirs
.
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
57
,
46
56
.
Bonakdari
H.
,
Ebtehaj
I.
,
Gharabaghi
B.
,
Sharifi
A.
&
Mosavi
A.
2020
Prediction of Discharge Capacity of Labyrinth Weir with Gene Expression Programming
. Preprints, 2020010313.
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0313.v1
.
Choubin
B.
,
Darabi
H.
,
Rahmati
O.
,
Hosseini
F. S.
&
Klove
B.
2018
River suspended sediment modelling using the CART model: a comparative study of machine learning techniques
.
Science of the Total Environment
615
,
272
281
.
Choubin
B.
,
Moradi
M.
,
Golshan
M.
,
Adamowski
J.
,
Hosseini
F. H.
&
Mosav
A.
2019
An ensemble prediction of flood susceptibility using multivariate discriminant analysis, classification and regression trees, and support vector machines
.
Science of the Total Environment
651
,
2087
2096
.
Cortes
C.
&
Vapnik
V.
1995
Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning 20, 273–297.
Crookston
B. M.
&
Tullis
B. P.
2012
Arced labyrinth weirs
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
138
(
6
),
555
562
.
Darvas
L.
1971
Discussion of performance and design of labyrinth weirs
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
97
,
80
.
Emami
H.
,
Emami
S.
&
Parsa
J.
2022
A walnut optimization algorithm applied to discharge coefficient prediction on labyrinth weirs
.
Soft Computing
26, 12197–12215.
Ghodsian
M.
2009
Stage–discharge relationship for a triangular labyrinth spillway
.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water Management
162
(
3
),
173
178
.
Goel
A.
&
Pal
M.
2009
Application of support vector machines in scour prediction on grade-control structures
.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
22
(
2
),
216
223
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2008.05.008
.
Gupta
K. K.
,
Kumar
S.
&
Ahmad
Z.
2014
Flow characteristics of sharp-crested W-planform weirs
.
International Journal of Advanced Technology & Engineering Research, IJATER, (IOCRSEM - 14)
176
180
. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/72575
Hager
W. H.
,
Pfister
M.
&
Tullis
B. P.
2015
‘Labyrinth Weirs: Developments Until 1985.’ (1913): 1–9
.
Haghiabi
A. H.
,
Azamathulla
H. M.
&
Parsaie
A.
2017
Prediction of head loss on cascade weir using ANN and SVM
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
23
(
1
),
102
110
.
Haghiabi
A. H.
,
Parsaie
A.
&
Ememgholizadeh
S.
2018
Prediction of discharge coefficient of triangular labyrinth weirs using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
.
Alexandria Engineering Journal
57
(
3
),
1773
1782
.
Hay
N.
&
Taylor
G.
1970
Performance and design of labyrinth weirs
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
96
(
11
),
2337
2357
.
Hinchliff
D.
&
Houston
K.
1984
Hydraulic design and application of labyrinth spillways
. In:
Proc., 4th Annual USCOLD Lecture, Dam Safety and Rehabilitation, Bureau of Reclamation
.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
,
Washington, DC, USA
.
Kumar
S.
,
Ahmad
Z.
&
Mansoor
T.
2011
A New approach to improve the discharging capacity of sharp-crested triangular plan form weirs
.
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
22
,
175
180
.
Lux
F
III
.
1984
Discharge Characteristics of Labyrinth Weirs
. In:
Proc., Conf. on Water for Resources Development
.
ASCE
,
Reston, VA, USA
.
Parsaie
A.
&
Haghiabi
A. H.
2017
AUT journal of civil engineering support vector machine to predict the discharge coefficient of sharp crested W-Planform weirs
.
Civil Engineering
1
(
2
),
195
204
.
Shafiei
S.
,
Najarchi
M.
&
Shabanlou
S.
2020
A novel approach using CFD and neuro – fuzzy – firefly algorithm in predicting labyrinth weir discharge coefficient
.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
9
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-2109-9
.
Smola
A.
,
Burges
C.
,
Drucker
H.
,
Golowich
S.
,
Hemmen
L.
,
Muller
K. R.
,
Scholkopf
B.
&
Vapnik
V.
1996
Regression Estimation with Support Vector Learning Machines
.
Tullis
J. P.
,
Amanian
N.
&
Waldron
D.
1995
By J . Paul Tullis, I Member, ASCE, Nosratollah Amanian, 2 And
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
121
(
3
),
247
255
.
Tullis
B. P.
,
Young
J. C.
&
Chandler
M. A.
2007
Head-Discharge Relationships for Submerged
. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 133 (3), pp.
248
254
.
Willmore
C.
2004
Hydraulic Characteristics of Labyrinth Weirs
.
M.S. Rep.
,
Utah State Univ.
,
Logan, UT, USA
.
Zaji
A. H.
,
Bonakdari
H.
,
Khodashenas
S. R.
&
Shamshirband
S.
2016
Firefly optimization algorithm effect on support vector regression prediction improvement of a modified labyrinth side weir's discharge coefficient
.
Applied Mathematics and Computation
274
,
14
19
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).