Predicting Discharge Capacity in Semi-Cylindrical Side-Contracted Flumes Using MLPNN and GMDH
صفحه 1-18
https://doi.org/10.22034/nawee.2026.574888.1194
عباس پارسائی، محمد بهرامی یاراحمدی، فرید احمدی
چکیده Objective: The primary objective of this study is to develop and evaluate two soft‑computing models (MLPNN and GMDH) for accurately predicting the discharge capacity of Semi‑Cylindrical Side-Contracted Flumes (SMBF) under both free‑flow and submerged regimes. The research aims to identify the optimal model structure, determine the most influential dimensionless parameters via dimensional analysis, and perform a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. A systematic comparison between the black‑box MLPNN and the interpretable GMDH model is conducted to recommend the most reliable and accurate predictive tool. Methods: The study employed two data‑driven soft‑computing models: a Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLPNN) and the Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH). First, dimensional analysis using the Buckingham Π theorem was applied to derive the key dimensionless parameters (e.g., h/w, w/B, ht/hs) as model inputs. Experimental data (450 free‑flow and 170 submerged records) were collected from published sources and randomly split into training and testing sets (70‑30 ratio). Model performance was evaluated using statistical indices (R², RMSE), and sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the most influential input parameters on discharge prediction. Results: The MLPNN model achieved outstanding accuracy with R² = 0.987 (free‑flow) and R² = 0.992 (submerged), and RMSE ≈ 0.001 for both regimes, significantly outperforming the GMDH model (R² ≈ 0.88–0.96). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the depth‑to‑throat ratio (h/w) is the most influential parameter under free‑flow conditions, while the contraction ratio (w/B) dominates under submerged flow. The GMDH model, though less accurate, provided superior interpretability due to its transparent, self‑organizing polynomial structure. Overall, MLPNN is recommended for high‑precision applications, whereas GMDH serves as a robust alternative when model transparency is prioritized. Conclusions: Both MLPNN and GMDH models demonstrated high capability in predicting SMBF flume discharge, with MLPNN showing superior accuracy (R² > 0.98) for both free and submerged flows, while GMDH offered better interpretability. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that h/w governs free‑flow discharge, whereas w/B dominates under submerged conditions due to backwater effects. The study concludes that MLPNN is recommended for high‑precision field applications, while GMDH serves as a transparent alternative when understanding parameter relationships is essential.







