Optimal Dimensions of Small Hydraulic Structure Cutoffs Using Coupled Genetic Algorithm and ANN Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A genetic algorithm model coupled with artificial neural network model was developed to find the optimal values of upstream, downstream cutoff lengths, length of floor and length of downstream protection required for a hydraulic structure. These were obtained for a given maximum difference head, depth of impervious layer and degree of anisotropy. The objective function to be minimized was the cost function with relative cost coefficients for the different dimensions obtained. Constraints used were those that satisfy a factor of safety of 2 against uplift pressure failure and 3 against piping failure.Different cases reaching 1200 were modeled and analyzed using geo-studio modeling, with different values of input variables. The soil was considered homogeneous anisotropic. For each case, the length of protection (L) and the volume of the superstructure (V) required to satisfy the factors of safety mentioned above were calculated. These data were used to obtain an artificial neural network model for estimating (L) and (V) for a given length of upstream cutoff (S1), length of downstream cutoff (S2), head difference (H), length of floor (B), depth of impervious layer (D) and degree of anisotropy (kx/ky).A MatLAB code was written to perform a genetic algorithm optimization modeling using the obtained ANN model .The obtained optimum solution for some selected cases were compared with the Geo-studio modeling to find the length of protection required in the downstream side and volume required for superstructure. Values estimated were found comparable to the obtained values from the Genetic Algorithm model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".